The Grillo case (AKA Nigella & Saatchi)

[BerylStreep]

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.

An excellent piece Eastpoint. Very thought provoking. This was in the last paragraph:

English law is in blatant breach of the European convention on human rights by providing no effective way for witnesses to protect their reputations. The attempted courtroom crucifixion of the domestic goddess will have the result of discouraging potential witnesses from testifying.

Another good article, on intimate terrorism.

Golddigger,

Cs may have said "it's only money" but he would, wouldn't he? It sounds relaxed and cool and not money obsessed, the last thing a rich person wants to sound given current public perceptions.

This case is very reminiscent of the secretary who ripped the Goldman Sachs partners off to the tune of a few million. The problem is that working closely with the very rich unmoors some people's values and sensibilities. They start to think that proximity gives them a right to the same lifestyle and 'he wouldn't even notice a few hundred k missing'.

Theft is theft. Clearly the jury cleared them but they must be very exceptional. I know plenty of rich people ( maybe not quite in that league) and most would tip the household staff 1-3 months money, not 10-20 years worth.

Agree fully with Deborah Orr piece. The sisters are now in talks to sell their story which will be the real disaster for NL and CS.

Good article Eastpoint.

Well the sisters will have to be a lot more careful about what they say to a newspaper - I doubt they will reveal much really.

Nigella needs to learn to keep staff as staff and not her friends. But then now here children are older, its not as though she needs a nanny.

Many rich people have no idea about their finances. Hence the problem here.
They are often creative types who pay scant regard to them.
And it has to be said that most people generally cannot read a set of accounts.

There are exceptions, like Kyloe Minogue, who are financially shrewd.

I expect any newspaper article will concentrate on how sad they feel at the family relationship souring.

NL and CS's lawyers will pounce, and I don't blame them. For instance, they will not repeat their story that NL took drugs 'every 3 days', because they won't get away with telling lies in a newspaper, without consequences.

In fact this case will seriously undermine anyone in the public eye wanting to bring a prosecution. They will be petrified that they would have to go thigh what NL went through in he witness stand.

It makes me so angry that 2 people can state something(about drug taking) not produce a single witness to support it and it can be quoted as the truth from now on. I

But she did say that she did, 7 times.
Which I thought was a strange thing to say.
And she did say she did it with her first husband as well.

I have been thinking. That if she had never taken them, maybe egged on by her first husband who seems to have thought it was cool, that she wouldnt now be in this sorry mess.

This isn't understanding a set of accounts though, it's reading a credit card statement. It's not so much like forgetting to lock your car door. It's more leaving your car door open every Monday with your laptop on the seat, a thief nicking the computer and leaving a receipt and you then leaving the door open the next Monday and the next and the next...

You could almost think that a controlling type might like the idea of people becoming financially beholden to them under questionable circumstances.

On the other hand I agree that the sums are so large and the disparity of expenditure between the sisters is so great that it is difficult to believe that anybody intended this amount of money to be spent.

Cannot believe anyone thinks she really only took drugs seven times. I like nigella and her shows but this princess di style adoration is just daft. I think the newspaper editors will go over any stories with a fine tooth comb and make sure of the facts. I really thought they would just go home never to be seen again

Gold,

Not knowing and not caring are completely different. I might well not notice if someone ripped me off by a few k if they did it little bit by little bit. If I found out, though, I would be furious. I think rich people prefer to choose their own charities, not make charitable donations to con artists,

It's not a case of believe or not believe. I don't know how often she took drugs and I'm not that interested.

I thought the Geoffrey Robertson piece was excellent. And it's interesting that the three other assistants, witnesses for the prosecution, were not asked either by the defence or the prosecution whether they saw Nigella taking drugs.

I also, to my surprise, agree with the thrust of the Deborah Orr piece. In fact, I wonder if they might still have got off without the whole drug-taking accusations. It seemed to be a financially chaotic household where money was being spent like water, in which case, who was to say that the spending wasn't authorised? If Saatchi wasn't checking it on a monthly basis, then it seems a bit much to suddenly decide they were defrauding him. They did a good job of portraying Saatchi as vengeful and tyrannical - a representation that seems to be supported by the evidence.

larry.I dont think that cs noticed or cared in the slightest.

Gold,

Would you care if someone ripped you off? If not, you are fairly unique.

Yes I would , but cs is unique.
Those that are worth £130 million, to them, as I worked out on another thread, £700,000 is the equivalent of about £300 to the rest of us.

Given the apparently chaotic financial management of the Saatchi household, if I were financially liked to him I would be tempted to do an audit pronto.

Gold,

Well worked out. So, if your cleaning lady stole £300 from you, you'd just let it go?

The whole thing is making me puke. Ordinary people have their reputations put through the wringer in court day after day. Nigella did have a right to reply and gave a good account of herself during her evidence. It's the old chestnut of normal rules don't apply to celebrities? Geoffrey Robertson is obviously lost in showbiz.

financially 'linked'.

Can't imagine being like him financially.

The argument of the article is not that NL should have been given special treatment, but that the case illustrates the way in which the law does not give enough protection to any witness and that this hampers the justice system.

There are better examples out there though, if anybody could ever have been arsed to look.

I agree with that merrynouse, but I cannot see how that can be fixed. But I dont know enough about that.

No larry. But you probably wouldnt report it to the police. And would probably shrug your shoulders and put it down to experience.
[have forgotten my point in all this btw!]