It's related to the defence
They say she let them spend what they wanted because she was a drug addict. So the point of her being there is to testify whether or not that was true.
(, Thu 5 Dec 2013, 17:57, Reply)
Well, a simple denial should be enough. But also she's been asked really odd stuff like whether she moved in with Saatchi before they married, like 'living in sin' is a crime, and also the fact that she got together with him so soon after her former husband's death was raised. What relevance can these things have?
(, Thu 5 Dec 2013, 18:00, Reply)
She took drugs around the time her husband died.
So they want to know when that was in relation to her and Saatchi.
It's rooting around the story to determine how solid it is. To see if they can get her to crack (arf) under pressure. If she does that, it's basic character assassination for defence.
(, Thu 5 Dec 2013, 18:03, Reply)
Ok, good point well argued, but so what if you are a coke addled fuckwit, that shouldn't allow people to rip you off with impunity.
(, Thu 5 Dec 2013, 18:07, Reply)
Correct
However if she said 'yes I am an addict' it gives weight to the defence. Jury would consider that a point in favour of the defence. And remember, this jury is made up of joe public. She says she's an addict, they will probably side with defence, thinking she's just another celeb drug diva. It's probably more important for her to be witness than Saatchi.
(, Thu 5 Dec 2013, 18:13, Reply)
