Camille is not too far off. The trial judge allowed irrelevant testimony of alleged similar unproven actions into evidence.It was character evidence when in fact the accursed’s character had not been placed in issue by the defendant.This is completely contrary to the rules of evidence.
Its unlikely that the conviction will withstand an appeal.
Actually evidence of similar bad acts is completely proper and admissible to prove motive, intent or modus operandi. It was not introduced to prove bad character.