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)
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)
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)