Maybe its just me and my lack of understanding of criminal law, but by golly I sure would have thought the defense could not throw up a picture of someone's "member" and totally imply that it was Travis' member like he sent that photo to her.
Why oh why was that allowed?
Absolutely no proof that it was Travis. It could have been any one of her other male boyfriends or just a random picture she downloaded from the internet.
This is 1 good example where I think the judge could have and should have legally disallowed this based on absolutely no basis or evidence to imply it was Travis 'member'.
There were plenty more examples like this that I felt could have legally been disallowed.
Like when JA claimed she saw a picture that Travis had of a young boy that she caught a glimpse of this picture as it fell off the bed or something like that. The one where she claimed she was disgusted when she saw it.
Why was that allowed because there was ZERO proof that it even existed?
I understand JA herself testified about this photo, so its really in the 1st trial it should have been disallowed due to no corroborating evidence it existed.
If this sort of thing is legally allowed by a defendent when testifying, then I suppose a defendent can get on the stand and say any number of lies about other people with ZERO basis for it and we have to allow that.
Its one thing to allow it and its another to believe what she is saying. I think it is very important for Juan to point out who actually is making claims and to point out how the claims may not even be true if they are coming from someone who is a murderer and maybe just trying to say things to make others look bad.
Let us all be glad we were not in her circle. There is no telling what she is going to claim about any one of her circle of people she knew.
