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.

Joni, Robertson's argument was specific to the "bad character" defence that the Grillo sisters used, which is quite an unusual defence. It meant that they could say almost anything they liked about Nigella without redress on her part. The allegations that she took drugs with her children, for example, were made after she had given her evidence.

hackmum it isn't particularly unusual. It's used a lot. The Chairman of the bar was talking about this very point on the radio today. She's a criminal silk.

They were cleared.

Exactly noddy not only were their reputations at stake, but so was their liberty. Nobody remembers or gives a shit about them though because they aren't rich and famous.

I don't think Nigel's could bring a case as she admitted drug use and this woud be just digging up more trouble for her. The sisters otoh have been cleared and if they see sites like this talking about thieves and stealing etc well it wouldn't be hard for them to sue

I am not just posting to get reactions actually. I am genuinely very pissed off that people are experiencing far worse than anything NL went through, and nobody seems to care yet as soon as a celebrity complains, people are up in arms. What about witnesses in rape case or gang violence? I care more about them than whether NL smoked two or twenty joints. Remember as well, the point I've already made about the Grillos having to defend their liberty. One of the sisters was so distressed she collapsed. They have now been cleared yet all the sympathy is aimed at NL. I'm sorry that people think that not herd like agreeing to sympathise with NL makes me an agitator

No that is not what I mean.

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

I think I was trying to clarify this point for larry.

What about witnesses in rape case or gang violence?

That is the point. The article outlines why the law doesn't protect any witness. Nowhere does the article suggest that Nigella Lawson should have more protection than any other witness.

I don't disagree with you merrymouse as clearly we agree witnesses need more protection. What pisses me off is the sympathy for NL as what she went through is minuscule compared to what many ordinary people go though in far more harrowing circumstances. She will have had some advice (I'd be amazed if she hadn't sought some form of first-rate legal advice for example) as a result of this case, which ordinary folk wouldn't have access to. If you listen to some commentators, the NL case was unusual, exceptional etc. I don't actually agree with that.

From the reporting, it appeared that Nigella was the one on trial. Seemed very bizarre.

Buckswannabe On the point you make about NL being famous so all the mud thrown at her being widely reported, what are you suggesting? That famous people should have more privacy protection than non-famous witnesses? Surely not? I'm not saying I don't have any sympathy for NL, but I don't like the outpouring of anger because of this trial. It is small fry compared to a lot of stuff that goes on, and I don't also like how the innocent Grillo sisters are being rewritten as the Panto villains who put poor NL through the wringer.

I think NL has sympathy because she seems to be a victim of domestic abuse and my impression is that this case is part of that.

She gets more coverage in the newspapers than somebody who isn't famous because famous people sell newspapers.

Yes it is a bit unfair that this lack of protection for witnesses has been highlighted by a celeb case and was never big news before, but it is going to help a lot of ordinary people if it does lead to a change in the law. Ordinary people can have their reputations dragged through the mud in the same way. It can affect their future careers and things just as it could for Nigella, perhaps even more so.

Of course famous people will sell newspapers. I guess this is the trade off for fame and fortune. Makes me glad I have neither!

They put her through the wringer because the case went to court and they wanted to stay out of prison.

However, in the process they trailed the entire family including the children through the mud. The 'honest guv, it was blackmail, not theft' argument is particularly odd.

That is why people lack sympathy towards them.

I also don't know how witnesses can be protected to be honest. Our adversarial system means that putting it crudely mud is slung in the course of trials. In practice this means that rape victims are called liars for example. Unless we adopt a system more in line with the French system, things will be difficult to change. I for one cannot every see that happening.

It was unusual in the scale of reporting though Joni.

I don't think NL needs witness protection. She has been living a very dysfunctional and exploitative life and now she has been found out. I have no sympathy.

The 'honest guv, it was blackmail, not theft' argument is particularly odd.

Very true

merrymouse hang on a second. They were accused of stealing a lot of money from CS and NL. Had they been found guilty a custodial sentence would've been inevitable. they successfully defended those allegations. Being accused of a crime they didn't commit must have been horrendous. One of them was physically incapable of turning up for the verdict. Their lives will never be the same again, despite being blameless. I just don't want people to actually forget that.

Were the Grillos actually found to be telling the truth and thus innocent or was there simply not enough evidence to decide either way for sure? They are very different things, although both have the same outcome.

I would also add people should be careful about what they say about these two innocent women. This is a public forum and if I were them I'd have my lawyers crawling all over it.