I am getting this. It is obvious that she doesn't want to talk directly about Travis and JA because she is ethical enough to not make claims that can't be substantiated. So she is going about it in a general way, applying whatever story she has heard from JA and telling it in a way that can't be accusatory towards Travis. But it seems she doesn't have the details about JA's treatment of Travis so she is just confirming how a psychopath will twist things around to make themselves the victim, even reversing the story so that the things they did to the victim were actually things that they themselves did, because they really do view themselves as victims. If you just met a psychopath and had no history you would think they were really abused because you only have their side of the story. Kind of like a woman who meets a man who is divorced and he goes on and on about how bad his wife was and how she cheated on him and stole from him and when the truth comes out it turns out that they were the cheaters and thieves. I have heard this many times and it sounds like this is what the witness heard, too. I get the feeling that if she knew the whole story she wouldn't be testifying right now. At least I hope so.