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.

Oh piffle. Nigella has said many many times that she keeps mustard in her handbag.

Incidentally, my bezzie mate keeps tabasco.

And the rolled up bank notes!!! Really!!! All self respecting regular users of coke use tubes .

I think it would be very safe to surmise that Elisabetta Grillo knows far more about Nigella's life than any mere fan!!!

My daughter is a live in nanny. How much do you think she knows about all the members of the family? I will let you guess that one!

I didn't mean that. What I meant was that having knowledge of the mustard in her bag is not insider knowledge seeing as most Nigella readers know this.

it is everyday trivia.

That may be true Gold but she's using very odd facts to try to porve her insider knowledge.

Much of it is common knowledge. And some of the drugs stuff, even if there were some truth in it, is so overplayed as to be ridiculous.

The prosecutors are now making a lot of how F Grillo offered several times to pay the money back. And why would she make such an offer if it was authorised expenditure? Indeed why would you? Even I know (from watching Judge Judy) if someone owes you money, for example, and they offer to pay back by installments it can be proof that they knew it was a loan rather than a gift.

Defense seems to be throw everything including the mustard tube at the situation and pray SOMETHING sticks (or at least causes reasonable doubt).

I think the most telling thing in all this is that the Grillos failed to bring up this defence when they were questioned by the accountant, CS or the police, who interviewed them several times.

They didn't in fact mention it until CS and NL split up. Hmmmm...

Elisabetta's QC has said that the trial was a way of Saatchi attacking Nigella after the divorce report here. I'm not sure this helps his client but fair play to him for saying it.

Well I suppose it shows that CS had no interest in what the Grillos were spending and certainly didn't feel he was being stolen from.

Indeed, when he finally realised the extent he suggested they carry on working for Nigella, albeit on a smaller salary and no longer living in the household.

Have they explained why one sister was given/stole so much moreton thd other?

"More than the other?"

The extravagant way Miss Lawson kept her extended family on his money was now for him the legitimate place to assert his feelings

Claim the defence.

Why would she spend so much more on francesca given that she is supposed to have been much closer to elisabetta?

Anyone else irritated at the continued referring of Saatchi & Nigella as being the Grillo's 'family'?

They weren't their family - they were their employers ffs.

And another thing, what is the deal with the hair, clothes & makeup (or lack of)?

For 2 individuals who are obsessed with designer clothes & handbags, and who have themselves claimed in court that it is their Italian blood which gives them innate style, I find it incredible that they really look so awful. It was reported that Francesca was wearing the same black and white polka dot dress today that she has been wearing for the last 3 days. A deliberate defence ploy?

I read CS has impounded all their clothes/handbags etc - proceeds of crime!

Even their make-up

"My client has been caught in the collateral crossfire like a child in an acrimonious divorce"

yes, beryl, portraying them as victims of a broken home is very annoying.

"Mr Gajjar had asked the sisters to sign a letter admitting dishonesty and promising to continue working for the celebrity couple for a reduced salary for an unlimited period of time.

When they chose not to, Mr Saatchi said he would "destroy" the sisters, Ms Grillo said.

She said he told her: "Hide anywhere in Italy but I will find you and destroy you. You don't cross Charles Saatchi, everyone knows that." "

Wow - if that's was true - Saatchi DOES have it in him to control, destroy and punish! Scary man

Golddigger, you're right. Luckily it was deleted before I got back to the thread (presumably you reported it?)

You may want to report yours too, as it quotes the bit of mine which was likely to cause trouble. Never ending cycle.

And, it is what I think of them, anyway.

No I didnt report yours. You were gone a while, so thought you may have yourself.

I will report mine and ask. Thanks. I had been wondering about mine, but because it appears out of context, and I wasnt absolutely sure if yours would be deleted, I thought that I would wait and see.

Like you say, what joy.

The bits about being family just don't seem right to me. We have had people who have worked for us for 10 years etc and in my case they are not "family". |Of course you can like them very much but it remains an employer/employee relationship; usually both sides are aware of that and indeed the sisters said they did not mention drugs to NL presumably because of the fact they were just employees (or because there were rarely drugs about depending on whose side you believe).

I think the sisters look fine, better than I do but everyone else posting might spend ages with things like make up and hair I suppose. I certainly have better things to do. They look reasonably smart.

There I was thinking that by 'extended family' they must have meant her dsd, or children's friends virtually living there . Yes, very strange way to refer to employees - even live in ones.

(Golddigger, I see yours has gone too. MN must be on this thread like a rash with eyes like hawk's!)

The main problem I see with the claims of authorised spending is that Francesca spent so much more than elisabetta. (5 times or so?). Yet elisabetta was meant to be closer to nigella, or certainly had worked for her for longer. If as the defendants claim Nigella allowed them to spend wouldn't she have favoured Elisabetta.
It doesn't make sense.