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?
The Napolean portion of her testimony bothered me, all of it.
First, she is standing there watching Travis and Napolean didn't even know she was there? Then, Napolean "barks, and runs up to me for hugs" (paraphrased). Huh? I've been around dogs my entire life (40 yrs) and I cannot think of any dog barking once and running for hugs. My dogs either barked or whined and it wasn't ever just a "ruff". Strange.
Second, Napolean "always left the room when Travis was angry". Really? My dogs either didn't care or would actively and aggressively get between the two people arguing. If one was a family member and the other was not, the dog(s) would defend the owner/family member (no matter how friendly the dog was in the past with the other person). She mentioned Napolean leaving the room, like a child does when the parents argue.
Third, and the biggest (as my reason for the reply) issue is JA's answer to if TA was alone. She didn't answer immediately, or with looooong drawn out words, like she normally does. She said, "No" (pause) "Napolean was there". That was JA catching herself. She was going to say the name of one of his roommates, but stopped herself and inserted "Napolean".
I believe she caught herself and didn't answer with the roommate's name because she may be asked how does she know (the roommate that was home rides the bus) and her answer would show her 'stalkerish' ways of snooping. Plus, had she admitted to knowing the roommate was there, it would screw up Nurmi's statement about, "She could have killed him when she got there or when he slept or..."(paraphrased).
In fact, it was Nurmi's reaction to her "no" answer that solidified it for me.
fftobed:
