I'm bringing this over from the last thread because I'm interested in all of your opinions on this!
I've noticed throughout her testimony that she always makes reference to Travis's dog as if he were a person. "Was Travis alone? No, Napolean was there". Even my very good friends who love their furry children don't refer to their pets as "being there" in the sense of "Are you home alone? No, Fuzzy and Cuddly are here with me."
I know that he was very dear to Travis, maybe he was dear to her, too. Or maybe it's a strategy to humanize her. It's baffling to me and I only mention it because I feel like it's overdone; even as far as her "accidentally" calling the dog by it's "nickname" 'Naps' and then correcting herself and calling him by his legal name.
Any thoughts?