[Sticks]

Mi Lord, as this is the end of this particular televison game show, I have been requested to come out of retirement to operate as an ad hoc Cyber Devil's Advocate.



Mi Lord, the charge today against this particular housemate is that she is a fake.

Now what does that mean

Let's see what flimsy arguments the prosecution has put forward

Going out on dates with others after a messy divorce...

could that be on the advisement of so called "friends" telling her to go out and meet other guys? How many times Mi Lord have we followed the advice of well meaning friends, only to end up regretting it?

And even if she were not following the advice of these hypothetical friends, is this not the advice on how to conduct oneself we read in low end advice columns of tabloid magazines of the worst sort. Do they not continually advice to go out and meet new people in order as they say "To move on"?

The fact that none of these other dates turned into something more permenant should be telling you something here, that none of them came up to a certain mark or were meaningful, otherwise it would be Chantelle and her latest squeeze to put it into the venacular that the press would be reporting on.

Mi Lord, does it not say that none of these "dates" were enough to fill a gaping void left by this painful divorce.

As Mi Lord for photos of a dog, that could have been just to show to the camera if not in the main house, possibly in the diary room. Suppose Mi Lord this Preston person had not gone in, woud it not be reasonable for her to suppose that he, or his enterage might be watching this tawdry show, and would it not be reasonable to suppose that an appeal to Preston via the diary room might be expected to be shown as it would make good headlines in the gutter press.

If nothing else, it would be something she would show to camera at her eviction interview with Davina.

Mi Lord, this argument is flimsey, because this accusation, with regards to the photo of the dog ignores the look of surprise Chantelle had when Preston walked in.

As for crying to the camera Mi Lord. With the number of cameras in that house it would be hard not to. And may I point out members of the jury it is well established that some contestants tend to forget from time to time they are on camera as they say 24/7. It would therefore require consious cognisance to ensure you hid from the camera, hardly a charge levelled at the defendant.

Now Mi Lord, as for accusations of fakery in general. There seems to be some psychological need to accuse people of being fake, is this so the accuser can say, look at me and how clever I am to see through person X's act? Is this so that they can bolster themselves amongst their peers?

Mi Lord is this not related some how to the need in some to find explanations for seemingly random events that we find among conspiracy theorists?

Mi Lord I put it to the court, that the defendant's behaviour outside the house in her circumstances was perfectly understandable and that accusations of fakery are without foundation and say more about those who would bring the accusations than the defendant.

Members of the jury, the prosecution has appealed to gossip and innuendo to bring this case. The evidence is clear that the defendant did not know the composition of the other housemates. I ask you not to fall for the prosecutions appeal to this gossip and innuendo and bring in the only verdict you can.

Not Guilty