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.

some of them freeezing, but many people do not pay attention to the news or look beyond a headline - they form opinions based upon catching a snippit of a headline on the radio/TV/social media or in the trashy magazines/newspapers they walk past in the supermarket. sad but true.

which is why the way NL is being treated in the media is so dangerous - a lot of things are being presented as fact in splashy headlines and people will see and believe that. just look at how rumours and claims are presented as fact on these threads, nevermind anywhere else...

The dishonesty and lack of loyalty from the Grillos is shocking. Especially Lisa.

There has been no evidence from the other PAs that they could spend as they wished. The Grillos sisters are throwing mud as fast as they can to try to hide the fact they are liars and thieves. Sadly the press is lapping it up.

The other PAs all say spending on the cards must be approved which is exactly what you would expect. We had a similar issue when my father was ill with dementia and it was reported to us there was a new joint credit card with person X and that that person was charging personal spending to his account. So hard to prove on way or the other. We had his accountants look into it. It looked like excessive spending but no large sums such as £100k taken, so we just had to leave it and then he died. I would certainly advise people who have a nanny with rights to charge things to a card or someone looking after their elderly parents in a similar situation to keep a very close check.

Like many people the details I find the details of the NL/CS marriage fascinating. It is making me pleased I did not subject my teenagers to a new step father given what they had to tolerate once NL's children's father died. I don't think having CS in their lives has helped their lives at all. It seems to have led to their smoking, possibly taking weed, CS not wanting to take part in family life, being in his bed room/study upstairs a lot, CS keeping NL away from her children as CS wanted more of her time. Although I expect he's clever and amusing man at times albeit a disgusting chain smoker I don't think he will have suffused that family with love and given the 3 teenagers involved a happy life. I think NL and her children will be better off without him IF IF IF what we read is in any sense correct. It might all be rubbish.

"I hope NL's career soars."

I'm sure it will Jux.

It's like pantomime time ..with Maleficent and the ugly sisters. It's behind you Cinders!

Not forgetting judge Widow Twanky ..

Animation

Chelsea tractor is right. Nothing the Grillo sisters claim makes sense, and following their insinuations to their logical conclusion they were blackmailing, and conspiring to blackmail.

I'm sure this has been asked before anyway, but how/why is Nigella responsible for approving spending on SAATCHI'S COMPANY's CREDIT CARDS?? When Saatchi himself and his accountant didn't give a damn!

All the Grillo's have to do is create "reasonable doubt" - so their tactic seems to be to use all this mud raking/lies/innsuniation etc is to create reasonable doubt, get off, write book/sell story for lots of money.

I dont know the answer BeCool, but lots of people, myself included, can for instance sign my husband's business cheques.

I don't think it's so much about authorising expenditure as checking the statementsline by line. I think most people do this as a matter of course to guard against fraud. However, it doesn't seem that she was shown the statements.

I think you will find that very busy "successful" people do not do much more than glance at "trivialities" such as statements.

Merrymouse the accountant they employ to review the statements line by line (among other things) testified he didn't think the expenditure warranted mentioning to Saatchi & Nigella.

The big issue seems do be did CS say charge what you like without limit even personal stuff on the cards or did he say only charge work stuff (and if personal only with prior permission).

You can't pay an accountant to check your own expenses. Accounts departments process payment and analyse costs but approval for expenditure comes from business managers. Checking expenses might be boring but employers do it every day.

As we can see, successful business people who find certain tasks beneath them are easy targets for fraud.

Making yourself an easy target doesn't mean the crime hasn't been commited though. If I was drunk and drew out a large amount of cash and walked down the road with in plain view I might be stupid but if somebody mugged me it would still be a crime.

Anyone else enjoying the texts from CS asking the Grillos to buy loads of copies of his books ?

I'm not saying they aren't guilty, just that not checking your statements is the equivalent of leaving your car door unlocked.

So it's about £53K per month that's been spent.

£80 x 2 x 5 = £800 per week on kids pocket money
(so that takes out £3.5K per month)

£400 x 2 = £800 per month on cleaning the silver
£600 for the windows
(so that's another grand, we're up to £4.8K per month)

Two authorised personal purchases totally £15 000 adds another £1.25K per month.

That's 6K a month on fripperies before any real spending is taken into account.

The wealthy certainly have a different perspective on life, don't they? £800 a month to clean the silver, £600 to clean the windows.

I wonder what they'd consider profligate...

I'd like my next job to be for Saatchi.

I could be their counter-corruption expert!

Anyone else leaning towards the Grillo sisters may be not guilty of theft?

But why then would Mr and Mrs Saatchi have taken the case to court?

No, Golddigger, I think you're on your own with that one .

Maybe.
It just seems to me that they are telling an awful lot of detail that can be easily verified I would have thought.

I am going to stick my neck out, and say that they will be found not guilty [I realise that that doesnt mean for sure that they are not guilty, but I also appreciate that juries are seeing and hearing more than we are.].

I've only read the Guardian report of the day's proceedings and all of Francesca's evidence seemed the sort that couldn't really be corroborated: CS told her to buy "anything to [her] liking" on the company credit card on the day they met , she was told to use the company cab account as and when, etc.

It's all going to come down to whether the jury believe her or believe the Lawson-Saatchis as, apart from the eye-watering bills that went unnoticed for so long, there is no actual evidence, it all rests on what was or, more confusingly, wasn't said/hinted/implied.

Once again - after the incident was reported to the police, it wasn't Mr Saatchi or Ms Lawson taking them to court, it was the police gathering evidence and the CPS deciding to prosecute, as it is a criminal not a civil trial.