IMO, the jury hasn't been allowed by JSS to hear some important facts about JA's behaviour because she deemed it too prejudicial to the defendant.
If only there was similar protection for Travis Alexander's reputation.
I understand why the DT has lied about Travis being a womanizer, lied about Travis being the perpetrator of domestic violence, lied about Travis being a *advertiser censored* addict, lied about Travis being a pedophile. They lie, IMO, because their client has only two true mitigating factors: her age at the time she butchered Travis, and her lack of a criminal record. They are, IMO, trying to discredit JM and Dr D, because their client planned for a considerable time to kill Travis, photographed her killing of Travis, butchered Travis, tried to cover her tracks, invented stories that extended the investigation of her trial, lied about her "good works" while in jail, attempted to influence witnesses while in jail, was involved sexually with men before and during and after her affair with Travis, behaved inappropriately in many social situations, engaged in breaking and entering, assault, illegally taped phone conversations with Travis, threatened women who were involved with men of whom she was possessive, presumably slashed tires, admitted to having injured small animals, apparently ran up items on her parents credit cards without their permission, lied about being abused by her parents, did not complete her education, and has no one willing to testify that she was a good friend to them in person during the retrial. The DT, IMO, is using the good old razzle dazzle distraction method of defence because their client is not legally insane and has no substantial mitigating factors.
I also understand that the DT may never even have to apologize for their lies. There is a saying that you can't defame the dead.
Slander is an untrue oral statement made about someone that damages his reputation. Under general legal principles, only a living person can bring a suit for slander because a dead person suffers no harm if his reputation is sullied.
http://info.legalzoom.com/can-estate-dead-man-sue-slander-26809.html
The dead have no cause of action for defamation under the common law, and neither do their survivors, unless the words independently reflect upon and defame the survivors.
Robert D. Sack: Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander & Related Problems (4th Edition) Supplemented: Apr 2014
It is my hope that out of the debacle that this trial has become, a lawyer will see a way to take on the cause of the Alexander family who have been in the court room every day of the proceedings. I hope that a lawyer will be able to demonstrate the surgical cruelties perpetrated on the family by the DT. That the words and actions of the DT have independently reflected upon and defamed all of Travis Alexander's survivors. I hope a lawyer could clearly show how the DT has implied that people around Travis lied about him being a pedophile, or a sexual pervert, or a . How being known as the nephew or niece of a *advertiser censored* addict or a pedophile could impact the life of a child. How being someone who should have seen his (falsely) alleged sexual perversion, yet did not report it to the appropriate authorities could lead to a family member being seen as an enabler or accomplice to a horrendous crime. I'd like to see the money spent of JA's unnecessarily expensive, drawn-out defence reclaimed and redirected to the Alexander family to pay for their pain and suffering, their ongoing medical treatment, their travel costs, and the years of therapy which lie ahead.
Ultimately, this trial should provide the spark for a critical reassessment of legitimacy of Robert Sack's commentary and, perhaps, the installation of a recourse for survivors to rehabilitate a reputation, or a legacy, or a memory after lies have been admitted into a court of law as evidence that a victim had it coming. As always, JMO.
