Chapter 20 - Sophie does not testify live
Prosecutors did not need Sophie for the financial charges.
Her discovery of the phone explained the investigation, but chain of evidence came through:
My testimony.
Police seizure.
Device forensics.
Venue timeline.
For the misdemeanor assault, already resolved.
So Sophie never sat in front of Amanda in court.
That was a relief.
I testified.
Defense asked:
“Did you tell Amanda, ‘What’s mine is yours,’ during your engagement?”
Probably.
“Yes.”
“Did you allow her to redesign your residence?”
“Yes.”
“Did you give her vendor authority?”
“Routine authority.”
“Did you discuss selling art?”
“General discussions about rotating pieces.”
“Could she believe you approved?”
“Not selling listed items during our honeymoon without telling me.”
Then:
“Did you ever say she could handle post-wedding reset?”
“Furniture placement, yes.”
“Then the phrase ‘interior reset’ was not invented?”
“No.”
That helped defense.
Truth does that.
Then prosecutor:
“Did ‘interior reset’ mean sell your grandmother’s silver service?”
May you like
“No.”
The jury had the distinction.
