The Grillo case (AKA Nigella & Saatchi)(462 Posts)
So the last thread on the Grillo case is full.
I have taken the liberty of starting a new one here for people's thoughts as the case unfolds.
I was wondering if someone would start one.
Yes, the whole case is odd, in that it somehow ends up looking like Nigella is the one on trial.
It does look like that, even though no case has been brought against her.
Actually, I think it is a bit unfair to say Nigella should have used the back door, even supposing there was one that she could use.
The media will have wanted their photos of her on the day she gives evidence. They are determined get it one way or the other. If she dodged them at court, they would hound her at home. If she dodged them there, it would just continue over subsequent days until someone, somewhere, got that 'How Nigella is looking these days' pic, to accompany the 'Shamed Nigella in hiding' articles.
So she went in the front door with her brother to get the whole thing over with. I can understand that.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
The more I think about this the more ridiculous it is that 2 employees who have been accused of stealing, can say no they didn't steal .. that their employer was taking so many drugs that she did not know what she was paying them .. and that basically she did not have mental capacity! How can you get away with saying that?
And if so why didn't they rope the man of the house in as well and say he chain smoked that much that there was a constant cloud around him whereby he could not literally see his cheque book and pen ..
Anybody remember the film "Gaslight"?
Animation, that is it, isn't it? Blacken her name somehow or other. If it were not that NL will have seen far more of the inside of Court room, when this is over then she could probably go for defamation, libel and heaven knows what.
I hope NL's career soars.
Jux - I think the whole point of it (if you are of the opinion that Saatchi has been instrumental in the way this case has played out) is that Nigella can't use defamation laws as court evidence is excluded from them. She has had her reputation well and truly blackened and, even though the court of public sympathy seems to back her, the allegations are going to be brought up for years every time she has a book to promote. OR she will have to bite the bullet and do some cheesy confessional interview where she tslks about how hellish it's all been, the desth throes of her marriage, rakes up the John Diamond stuff again. It is desperately unfair.
I recall reading in the accountant's evidence that when negotiations were breaking down about repayment, she said in an e-mail, 'well in that case I will just go to the court'. That would suggest to me that court proceedings were being threatened by the Grillos as the hand grenade option which would inflict maximum damage.
And here we go again. Lisa Grillo said that Saatchi, the other PAs and Nigella lied in court - and on Twitter we have "#nigella lied!"
It's the unconscious collusion by the media and people on social media - male and female - so determined to blacken the reputation of a well-known, intelligent woman that is so bloody depressing.
But it started with CS/people connected to CS throwing allegations about, that were picked up by the Grillos as a defence, that then were allowed by the judge to be thrown around in public. If the allegations had been about CS I wonder if they would have been allowed to be aired?
Also - genuine question - how does the defence square the fact that Nigella was not too out of it to approve spending by the other PAs, just the Grillos?
Hah, good point teej. We shall have to wait for the closing speeches to the jury to find out.
The grillo's evidence is just a rehash of all the things the defendant's lawyers were trying to 'accuse' nigella of.
Again, I'm not sure it helps them. If the only evidence of nigella's drug use is what the grillo's say (and they aren't impartial witnesses), does it mean much?
Yes it doesn't mean much. Are there going to get psychiatrists in next? How are they going to proove that she is not of sound mind .. that she does not have full mental capacity? Things are looking sillier and sillier.
If you get spending signed off by someone who you believe to not be of sound mind, that sounds very much like fraud or theft...
Lala, I didn't know that, interesting, thanks. So basically they can just make things up if it's in a Court? Hmmmmmm, not that that would ever happen, of course.
Animation: "The more I think about this the more ridiculous it is that 2 employees who have been accused of stealing, can say no they didn't steal .. that their employer was taking so many drugs that she did not know what she was paying them .. and that basically she did not have mental capacity!"
Is that what they're saying? I haven't read all the reports, but my original understanding was that they claimed to have an agreement with Nigella that she let them spend as much as they wanted in exchange for not telling Saatchi about her supposed cocaine habit. Which isn't quite the same thing.
they claimed to have an agreement with Nigella that she let them spend as much as they wanted in exchange for not telling Saatchi about her supposed cocaine habit.
This seems odd to me too. Isn't it a bit like saying "No judge we weren't stealing the money, we were blackmailing her".
With regard to the Grillo's evidence, I'm reminded of the Mandy Rice-Davies quote, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
Two people are accused of stealing over 600K. That's a lot of money. If they're guilty, then they're going to be looking for any way out, anyone else they can blame. And if they're guilty, then by definition, they're not honest, or pleasant, so they're highly likely to make up things that are both untrue and defamatory in the hope of saving their own skin.
I don't think there's anyone out there who's heard the evidence who actually genuinely believes Nigella has a terrible drug problem or is an addict, is there?
But there must be many people who think Nigella was married to a shit and had two ungrateful, shitty people working for her.
Hardly surprising the public is sympathetic.
hackmum the CS email to NL said that the Grillos would get off the charges because they could claim that NL was so out of it she didn't know what she was doing/ approving.
In court, the defence is arguing that the Grillos were able to spend what they wished as there was a tacit agreement they could do so as long as they never revealed NL's drug use to CS.
So a bit of both, really.
- if she was so out of it how come she remembers approving the expenditure of other PA's - some of whom actually spent more than the Grillos, so money is not the issue here?
- the other PAs all have testified that NL would agree expenditure with them - they did not have carte blanche to do what they wished. The Grillos are saying they are all lying.
- E Grillo is saying that NL did drugs every 3 days - but never saw her partake in all her many years of service, in spite of being in the house with NL and her kids sometimes for 12 hours a day or more. And how did they know it was every 3 days - were they checking supposed hiding places that frequently and saw the "supplies" disappear and then new supplies appear?
- E Grillo is saying that the tacit agreement of spending in exchange for silence on drug use was never discussed, never mentioned - it was just "known" between the parties. Oh right, so NL must be a mind-reader on top of everything else, or did they mime this agreement?
You could drive a whole fleet of Chelsea tractors through their story, which is why I am so surprised the Judge allowed this testimony to be allowed/reported - particularly when it is so prejudicial to a witness.
From the Daily Mirror's live reporting of the trial today :
The court has also heard this morning that an original defence case statement for Elisabetta Grillo in August did not include allegations of Ms Lawson's drug use because she did not want them raised in a court of law out of a "remnant of sympathy" for her former boss.
But an extra statement added in November did include the claims.
The additional statement, read to the court by Grillo's barrister Anthony Metzer QC, said: "The defendant will assert that the prosecution witness Nigella Lawson habitually indulged in the use of Class A and Class B drugs in addition to the abuse of prescription drugs throughout the time that the defendant was employed in the household.
"This evidence is of substantial importance as it explains why Ms Lawson initially consented, or appeared to consent, to the expenditure as the defendants were intimately connected to her private life and were aware of the drug use which she wanted to keep from her then-husband Charles Saatchi.
"The defendant's case is that Ms Lawson's drug use and the defendant's knowledge of it materially affected her attitude to the defendant's spending and in turn her attitude to this prosecution.
"Whilst it is not the defendant's case that there was an explicit agreement for silence in return for acquiescence in expenditure, the intimate atmosphere created by such knowledge informed their relationship and what the defendant considered was permitted by Ms Lawson."
Which doesn't really make sense, because quite apart from sounding like blackmail, Elisabetta Grillo today said that not only had she never witnessed NL taking cocaine, she had never discussed it with her either because it was embarrassing.
freezing but arguably the long drip drip of snide comments/ made up pictures and clips on social media will have a negative impact on her profile and perception for some time to come...
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.