And like most, I would dearly love to know what the final "issue" was that finally got to Travis. I DO NOT think if it was something like "stealing" from his PPL account or bank account, that would have come out after he died.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
^^
BBM^^^
Respectfully disagreeing w. above. I zig and zag about the basis of TA's threat to expose JA, BUT...
If JA had hacked into his PPL business accounts, client lists, etc., and
had somehow transferred/finagled commission credits from him to her (so she got paid /tried to get paid) by PPL for policies
he sold, or if she wrote some bogus policies or sold coverage to non-existent people or non-existent businesses, etc.
IMO, possible if TAs threat was to expose JA for some PPL business shenanigans, that would
not have come out by now. Come out where?
First, MSM, Social Media ?
As a gen principal, businesses do not like word of this kind of activity by their agents or employees to be spread, because of 1. bad public image, and 2. exposing weakness or chinks in the armor of their systems to their agents and employees.
Many times
cos respond quietly, IME as a home office employee for many yrs, in a financial services co., where I saw many of these types of Jodi-like above actions addressed. A MultiLevelMkting co like PPL/Legal Shield may handle even more easily and quietly, as many/most of their sales force = independent contractors working this as a second part-time job. In some instances, the infrequent exception in my experience, the co. provides documentation to law enf and/or to regulators. But if the co still needs to pay $ to make a client whole, it still going to have to do that, so why add bad publicity if not necessary? Fix the problem, terminate the employee, and move on.
Second, Evd at Trial.
Its possible Juan subpoenaed PPL business books and records re Jodi, and
its possible PPL provided a boxcar of docs, corroborating Jodis (above speculated) actions of bogus policy-writing or non-existent customers, etc.
Does that mean all the docs would have come out as evd at trial?
Not necessarily.
Could the state have used them to show
motive? Possibly.
Also possible defs pre-trial motions would have had PPL docs excluded from evd.
Prosecutor does not have to show motive.
Juan showed Jodi had plenty of motive, jealousy, rage, anger, hatred, etc., re TA.
If def. had not been able to prevent docs from being introduced in evd?
Then IMO just like w. her journals, texts & emails w. TA, etc.,
Jodi would dispute every piece of paper, every email, every computer commission report, every client application for PPL coverage (whatever docs would be introed to prove her bogus activities).
She would be on the stand
disputing each and every document, one page, one sentence, one phrase,
one word at a time, IMO
She would insist on saying that the words, numbers, dollar amounts, dates, and even the semi-colons in the 100, 500, or 1000 docs do not mean what they say.
IMO, showing Jodi to have been engaging in some business shenanigans would be largely cumulative about her
pattern of lying. We and the jury already knew that.
Admittedly, proving the shenanigans could show that TAs exposure would have made her radioactive to the pool of PPL and/or Mormon potential marriage/official bf candidates. That could add a another layer to the motive cake.
The time and effort and difficulty of proving TAs threat to expose her shenanigans as a
motive which is not needed might have distracted the jury from the
other elements in the case, which
must be proven for a conviction.
That said, further info about TAs threat to expose JA and the basis for the threat may very well
come out later, perhaps in a book.
^^^IMO^^^
Play those! :floorlaugh:
