Nigella's Assistant's Found Not Guilty

[sp1814]

This is just breaking on BBC News - can't find it online.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10526973/Do-you-believe-Nigella-Lawson-approved-spending-when-off-her-head-jury-asked.html

I'm still on Team Nigella, and feel that this trial has all been about her, rather that the actual accused.

[ludwig]

// the PAs come out of it looking not guilty //

No they don't. They come out of it with a 'not guilty' verdict. Not the same thing.

[jno]

the jury who saw and heard them (and Nigella) thought they weren't guilty.

You, who didn't, may think otherwise; but trial by jury is better than trial by an AB poll.

[Gromit]

If we had closed our borders to Eastern European immigrants a century ago, none of this would have happened....

[jno]

indeed. Do you get this sort of thing in Downton Abbey?

[ludwig]

// but trial by jury is better than trial by an AB poll. //

Sorry I offered an opinion. SP1814 entrapped me into it by posting a question. As I said though, I think the defence turned it around and made it about the accusers rather than the accused.

[jno]

I'm not sure what the question was.

However, the character of the accuser, and the reasons for the accusation, are always open to challenge. Obviously, I have no idea why the jury reached the verdict they did. One possibility was that they thought the PAs were just pawns caught up in an acrimonious marital breakdown. Another is that they found both Saatchis untrustworthy, which is the sort of call jurors are supposed to make.

Personally, though I am not Team Anyone, I thought Nigella's evidence sounded perfectly plausible. But by "sounded", of course, I mean "read". The jury saw and heard her give evidence, I didn't.

[jomifl]

I think the crux of the trial was that the Grillo sisters were given a free hand and they took it, no checks. no limits. The Saatchi/Lawsons hived off responsibilty for their domestic affairs and paid rather more for it than they expected. The moral being don't lend your credit card to anybody.

[sp1814]

It seems to me that the whole case centred around what what The Lovely Nigella did or didn't do with regards to illegal substances. There have been some nasty allegations made (other than the drugs stuff) which she can do nothing about now.

I feel sorry for her.

And yes, jno...you're 100% right - I didn't actually post a question.

Think it must've been my outrage at the treatment of 'My Nige' that sparked this.

[FredPuli43]

So you should, when defending, make the prosecution witness the subject of the trial, attack their credibility, make them look bad. And if you can't do it directly and relevantly, you have to do what the most famous defence counsel of ancient Rome, Cicero, advised, in his book on advocacy: "You kick up dust", that is you make such a cloud of other matters that the jury can't even see the key point anymore

[ludwig]

// I'm not sure what the question was. //

The OP said..

// I'm still on Team Nigella, and feel that this trial has all been about her, rather that the actual accused. //

I took the question to be 'What is your opinion?', which was implied rather than specifically stated.

[ludwig]

..personally I always make sure to specifically state a 'what is your opinion?' type ending on all of my questions. It stops pedants pointing out that you haven't actually asked a question.

[jno]

well, quite so, ludwig, the OP posted an opinion, which trapped you into agreeing with it.

sp1814, you'll find some pretty horrific revelations in the video here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10527465/Nigella-Lawson-aides-trial-five-facts-you-may-have-missed.html

[sandyRoe]

Nigella was guilty, no doubt of that. Guilty of being too good looking, too rich, and too posh. They lawyers for the sisters who turned the trial around so that she was in the dock did a remarkable job.

[Gromit]

// @Gromit . Wrong thread? Nobody from Eastern Europe involved here. //

A century ago, Gustav Leibson arrived in London, a immigrant from Latvia in Eastern Europe. A bit of a name tweak from Leibson to Lawson and his great granddaughter was named Nigella. We should keep 'em out they are nothing but trouble.

[emmie]

they did a job on her alright, i also think its something of a smear campaign.

[Gromit]

Not sure what legs their civil action will have. A jury has decided they did not get the money fraudulently. So how can a civil action compel them to repay it?

[CokeTulip]

Mr Saatchi got what he wanted. He will not be bothered about the costs of this. I think Nigella seems to be pretty decent to people and its a terrible shame she ended up looking like a liar here - maybe she did lie abit. I do believe Nigella that he was out for her blood - he managed to get what he wanted and she must feel rubbish. I dont think Mr S could lose whichever way it went and I wouldn't like to be up against him- I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the result he was after but I am very cynical!.

Nigella did say she was puritanical around money matters (not apparent) and someone should have intervened sooner in their "giddy" spending and this is their own fault to an extent . Its like the sisters had been given all the rope in the world to hang themselves too though which I find strange and wrong. Only my opinion. I bet she's glad 2013 is over.

[joggerjayne]

!!! Team Nigella !!!