For the sake of playing devil's advocate, let me point out that I can make a converse argument. We have to remember how the jury might view things, especially after the defense witnesses testify.
Regarding TA: If I was the defense, I could spin this to infer he was a hypocrite and a marketeer, and that this "Be Better Blog" was just a marketing tool to enhance his following, motivational speaker career and finances. It could be argued the fact that he had "a secret life" having a relationship under the radar with JA means no one really knew him at all.
Regarding JA: an expert on abuse could (and probably will) say that victims become isolated and forfeit friends and family due to their allegiance to the abuser, thus "no friends" (although what does that really matter?). In addition, there is shame associated with abuse, so withdrawal to protect one's secrets might be a telltale sign. But also, who said she was disliked by people at work?
I'm not saying any of this is in fact the case b/c I just don't have info... just pointing out how these things can be spun both ways.