Charles Saatchi wants us to think he choked Nigella Lawson over her drug use

Nigella Lawson

The already acrimonious divorce between Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi has taken an even nastier turn. To recap, it was only June when the world first witnessed photos of Charles choking Nigella at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair. Before long, Saatchi announced he was divorcing Nigella because she didn’t defend him to the press. He threatened suicide and wouldn’t leave Nigella alone but quickly lost interest and paraded around with a new girlfriend, Trinny Woodall (a UK television presenter with questionable judgment in men).

All sorts of theories for the divorce were floated. Among them, Saatchi claimed he was actually picking Nigella’s nose at Scott’s, which was ridiculous. When Nigella moved out of the shared family home, I hoped she had conquered the worst of this mess. Not quite. We then heard from Saatchi’s camp about how the couple fought over Nigella’s 17-year-old son moving out. Another possibility involved the couple’s joint assistants, two sisters named Francesca and Elisabetta Grillo, who allegedly misappropriated funds on luxury goods including Virgin Atlantic flights and Prada, Miu Miu, and Chanel items.

Nigella has also been fending off Vanity Fair for a hard-hitting article about the divorce. Any woman, let alone a public figure, doesn’t deserve that harassment. Now the focus has come back to the two assistants thanks to a lawsuit (for credit card fraud) that Saatchi has filed against the two women. They’re coming out swinging. The Telegraph maintains how Nigella didn’t want Saatchi to sue, but he did it anyway.

I am very suspicious of the testimony revealed thus far. The Grillo sisters have mounted a defense that revolves around alleged drug use by Nigella. They say Nigella was snorting coke daily, and she let them spend Saatchi’s money in return for their silence. The suit refers to an angry email from Saatchi to Nigella prior to the choking incident. The implication is that alleged cokehead Nigella brought the choking upon herself. Of course. I’ve edited down the story because it’s super long:

The restaurant row between Nigella Lawson and her husband Charles Saatchi which ended in her apparently being choked by him may have been sparked by her alleged drug-taking, a court heard.

The 53-year-old domestic goddess “habitually took cocaine” on a daily basis for a decade but kept it secret from her millionaire art dealer husband, it was claimed. She also allegedly abused prescription drugs and took cannabis during their marriage.

Mr Saatchi accused Miss Lawson of being “so off your heads on drugs” that she allowed their personal assistants to spend whatever they liked on credit cards in an email, a judge was told. He branded her ‘Higella” in the message – and accused her of “poisoning” her daughter Cosmina, 19, with drugs before adding: “Classy!”

The claims emerged as Italian sisters Francesca and Elisabetta Grillo prepare to stand trial charged with spending £300,000 on luxuries including designer clothes and first-class air travel on their credit cards.

Mr Saatchi and Nigella split up after their ten-year marriage collapsed when pictures were published in June showing the art dealer holding his wife by the throat.

Anthony Metzer QC, defending Elisabetta, told Isleworth Crown Court the row may have been about Miss Lawson’s alleged drug use and the credit card fraud claims.

He said: “We are submitting the row that happened resulting in Mr Saatchi assaulting Nigella may have had something to do with Nigella taking drugs and may have something to do with the issue before this court of whether she gave them (the defendants) authority to use the cards.”

Referring to the Grillo sisters, he added: “Our clients have been the innocent pawns in a rather unpleasant battle going on between Mr Saatchi, Miss Lawson and their lawyers. We come within the parameters of manipulation of the court.”

During a “bad character” application, lawyers for the sisters said they had a “tacit understanding” that they could keep spending, as long as they didn’t reveal Miss Lawson’s “guilty secret” to Mr Saatchi.

The judge said the drug-taking claims could be reported even though the trial against Francesca, 34, and Elisabetta, 41, is yet to begin. The pair are both charged with fraud against Charles Saatchi’s company Conraco Partnership and deny the offence.

Asked by the police to explain what he meant in his mail, Saatchi told lawyers he said: “At the time of sending that email I was completely astounded by the alleged scale of drug use set out in the statement. Nevertheless, I did believe the allegations and that’s what I’m referring to in the email.

“I have been asked whether it referred to a belief that Nigella or the children permitted the sisters to spend whatever they liked. I can’t remember precisely what I had in mind. On reflection I was simply speculating that the sisters would use this information to defend themselves.”

Mr Metzer QC said Saatchi told his lawyers: “During our marriage I was unaware Nigella took drugs.” The explosive allegations were made as Judge Johnson allowed bad character evidence against Nigella to be heard at the upcoming trial.

In a hearing on November 15, the judge said: “The defence asserts that Miss Lawson habitually took cocaine and did so on a daily basis – in addition to her abuse of prescription drugs – throughout the defendants’ time in the household.”

Elisabetta and Francesca allegedly bought designer goods from Miu Miu, Chanel and Prada and booked a £3,616 Virgin Atlantic flight to New York using the credit cards.

During the November 15 hearing, Mr Metzer said that his client was alleging that Miss Lawson had a “guilty secret” she was hiding from her husband. He said: “The bad character application relates to Miss Lawson’s alleged taking of Class A and Class B drugs and her unauthorised use of prescription drugs.

“This is a matter highly relative to the defence because, in a nutshell, we respectfully submit she had a guilty secret from her husband. She did not want him to know about her use particularly of cocaine.

“Because the defendants were fully aware of her illicit drug use she consented to their expenditure on the understanding there would be no disclosure to her husband of her drug usage. It would not have been verbalised, but it would be along the lines of ‘you do this for me I do that for you.’

“There would be an understanding. She would be fully aware of the substantial expenditure, but in return expected a tacit understanding that it would remain behind closed doors. They had a tacit understanding that they would not shop her to her husband or the authorities.”

[From Daily Mail]

God, poor Nigella. She’s still reeling from her recent divorce from this monster, and Saatchi is pretending to be all worried about his wallet when he really just wants to stick it to Nigella. The Grillo sisters don’t seem like the most trustworthy gals out there, so it’s easy to believe that they’d turn over on Nigella to take Saatchi’s side. Plus there’s the side of this story that makes it seem like Saatchi just wants an excuse for choking his wife. Dude, there is no excuse.

In an amusing detail, these two former assistants/grifters have revealed that Saatchi did give them free reign over his credit cards to purchase copies of his books and boost his sales numbers. So what is the truth of the matter — did Nigella give the credit card accounts over for the girls to do whatever they desire, or did Saatchi give over the numbers to make it look like his books sold?

For what it’s worth, the prosecution in this case has already taken Nigella’s side: “This is a totally scurrilous account which has been raised by the defense, and the timing is no coincidence at all.” A Nigella source confirms, “These allegations are totally untrue.

By the way, Saatchi is still with Trinny Woodall. They regularly visit Scott’s restaurant together, which seems really disgusting.

Charles Saatchi

Trinny Woodall

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

150 Responses to “Charles Saatchi wants us to think he choked Nigella Lawson over her drug use”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sisi says:

    ugh at this whole situation :/

    • Tiffany :) says:

      This sounds absurd and so unrealistic. The VAST majority of assistants are given credit cards to buy things for their employers. No doubt they have financial managers, who would ask the assistants for receipts and would document whether the charges are ok to pay, but only after they receive statements showing the charges.

      It sounds like the assistants were caught and are making excuses to fend off their own imprisonment.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        And if the card is from his business as someone mentioned below, Nigella would have no authority over giving the cards out or approving charges on it.

      • Diana says:

        Also, “girls”? These are two grown ass women who simply got caught stealing. And even if their story was true woldn’t that be blackmail? How is that any better? Poor nigella getting thrashed all over.

      • littlestar says:

        I read yesterday that these two women were first charged with theft in August 2012, long before the choking incident….. Just so disgusting that these women and Saatchi would do this to Nigella.

    • MrsB says:

      Seriously. I don’t buy the assistants story at all. But even if it is true and Nigella does have a coke problem that in no way changes my opinion of him. Does he really think that her having a drug problem would excuse him for choking her?!? What an ass. And typical abuser, always blaming the victim.

      • ThunderGoddess says:

        Yes, typical victim-blaming attitude coming from an abuser. This man utterly disgusts me!

      • Sisi says:

        yeah I agree with everything you say.

        Clearly the two who claim that there are drugs involved work for him too, which seems sketchy.

        Also: first the article states that he didn’t know about the drugs, and then there’s an entire paragraph in which he does know…

        Also no. 2: they got married 10 years ago . She allegedly started using drugs 10 years ago. If (and that is one big if) the drugs claim is true, that’s quite telling…

      • Loulou says:

        He’s so clearly manipulating the sisters. “Hey girls, I’ll drop the charges if you ruin my wife’s reputation and lie about drugs to really bury her. “

    • Sandra says:

      My best friend was a cocaine addict. Took a long time untill we all discovered, since we’re not into drugs. What also happened trying to “save” him from addiction: starting to control after he said, he is not using anymore and we all thought that he was lying directly into our faces……and then it Happened in several moments and cases that we suddenly grabbed his head, like the pictures we’ve seen of Saatchi with Nigela, especially the one her head is more “up”: controlling, if the nose inside is white and if drugs were taken. The only way seeing this is: you grab the persons head quickly and do that is like Saatchi did at the restaurant: lifting the head up to look “deeper” inside…..
      Since the roumors in UK are since some years around that she is a major cokehead: it would make sense for me……. Look at the pictures again: choking would be more down, not right underneath the chin, lifting it up…..choking would mean , and just psychologically and by instinct putting your hand around the neck and the adams apple…..just saying: thinking it over from this perspective and my own experiences…….

      • Sandra says:

        Another aspect: WHY was she not reacting…and keeping quiet….not getting up immediately….and leaving right away???? Look at the pictures: couldn’t it also look like she was defending herself????

      • Sandra says:

        And please: look at THIS picture, not shown that often…..Number 6….he grabbing her nose…..

      • Missykittens says:

        Are you kidding me? He is not looking up her nose, he is pinching it. If I wanted to look inside my partner’s nose at a restaurant, I would not be putting my hand around his neck, don’t be ridiculous. If somebody is using drugs, or exhibiting any other behaviour that you do not want them to exhibit, that still does not give you the right to put your hand on their body.

        This is an abuser trying to further abuse his victim.

      • jecca says:

        As someone who’s been around a number of drug users– bullsh*t. First of all, that’s far from “the only way” to see if she was on drugs. Second of all, it would be inaccurate to the point of uselessness even if it was (unless you’re really going to bust out a light, a scope, and a test kit in the middle of a freaking restaurant).

        She’s probably not defending herself because her husband just grabbed her in public– how long would it take to get over the initial shock and figure out how to react?

        And, even if what he did was what you’re describing, that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is completely in the wrong. You do not grab another person like that, period.

  2. Eve says:

    “Charles Saatchi wants us to think he choked Nigella Lawson over her coke”

    Oh, honey…this sh*t ain’t gonna fly here.

    • Frida_K says:

      Ain’t that the truth?

      Classic, and I do mean classic, case of (in a pitch-perfect Texas drawl) “that dog don’t hunt.”

    • QQ says:


      Irrespective of if this Bullshit claim about drug use it’s true Not NOBODY not named Trinny is here for this hogwash “blame the victim for getting beat up by my ugly ass” shit

      • bluhare says:

        And now the DM has an article where St. Trinny is telling everyone what being a coke fiend and alcoholic turned her into. Are these people stupid enough to really think we’re buying what they’re selling? Rhetorical question.

  3. AlmondJoy says:

    Because choking your wife is a great way to help her with her cocaine addiction.. yeah, right. This jerk is full of it. I know nothing about Nigella’s personal life and I PRAY she’s not on drugs, but there is absolutely NO reason and no excuse for him to do what he did. Period.

  4. Tulip Garden says:

    I didn’t even read the whole story and it still ticks me off!!
    I got too much to do today to comment further but, boy, if I had the time believe me I would rant about the absurdity of using a person’s drug use as a justifiable reason to choke them (WTF)! And, also, get over it, you @sshole, everyone knows the kind of man that your are because we saw it first-hand and, lastly, leave your soon to be ex-wife alone, you b*tch!

  5. Hannah says:

    I (obviously) have no idea whether those allegations are true. BUT to suggest that that would make the choking incident alright is really disgusting.

    • deehunny says:

      No one is saying choking a woman is right. It’s just apparent to me he wasn’t hurting her. Did he assault her? Yes. Legally, tortious assault is any unwanted contact and appears from the pictures that’s taking place. But I don’t think he was choking her.

      I could see myself doing that to my husband if I thought he came back to the table high from the bathroom. If that’s what is happening here I feel bad it all went down like this through those pics from the paps

  6. mari says:

    Was he supposed to be a advertising genius? Is he trying to be the wronged party here?

    Getting physical in a fight with you spouse is never ok. As for the story told now, by mr Saatchi, I find it really hard to believe all together.

  7. bsh says:

    I am not willing to defend Saatchi’s inadmissible behavior at the restaurant, but I do think there is something going on with Nigella. First of all, why do a woman who has just been humiliated and attacked by her husband (and evidently had all the support from women and public opinion in general) would wait for HIM to sign for divorce? I mean, I would be the one running to the lawyer’s office. Secondly, I don’t understand her silence. During the first weeks, sure, she had the right to be left alone dealing with the pain and the scandal, but why is she still not saying anything? If her husband really is a cruel and manipulative jerk, shout it out for the world to hear. I don’t know..

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I think she’s smart to let him continue to rant and rave and expose himself for the abusive jerk he really is while she maintains a dignified silence. His excuses scream louder than she ever could if she got down on his level, IMO.

      • the original bellaluna says:

        True. Sometimes silence is golden, and hers is allowing him to hang himself with his own hateful rope.

    • Seapharris7 says:

      If he was willing to act like that in public, lord knows how long or how much abuse she’s been putting up with in private. She may have hoped to get back together or feared for her life. Can’t speak for her personally, but any substance abuse wouldn’t be hard to believe, mainly bc people usually use when they want to numb pain. Not that that would excuse his behavior in anyway, I’m sure he’s been a manipulating bully for a long time.

    • Esti says:

      A LOT of women stay with abusive partners for all kinds of reasons. It really, really doesn’t mean that they weren’t actually being abused or that they in any way deserved it.

    • ShiOllie says:

      If I were her, there are two reasons I would remain silent that have nothing to do with having something to hide.

      First, from a legal standpoint, it makes sense to hold off, and to no defend oneself in the press during a divorce. For one thing, it makes it seem as though it’s a ‘he said, she said’ kind of thing, as though both of them have equal claim to the moral high ground. He very clearly does not, and defending spurious allegations weakens her position. The time for image damage control is after the legalities have been settled.

      Second, if my husband chokes me in public, I’m not saying shit about it. I’m taking the high road, not because I’m a good person, but because for some people, and I’m making the assumption that Saatchi is one of them, there is absolutely nothing more infuriating then trying to pick a fight with someone who won’t engage. I would say nothing to the press purely out of spite.

      • Seapharris7 says:

        I actually just now saw the pictures… She genuinely looks scared & humiliated. And as mentioned, while this was happening, in a public place & at least long enough for people to get photos – NO ONE stepped in. Stopped it or reported it. She must have felt so alone.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I agree, and would add that especially with estates this size, a divorce is really complicated. For all we know she put her lawyers on it and the filing of papers is being done at certain times for strategic reasons.

    • Jackson says:

      Sometimes poking the nasty bear is not a good idea. She was out, she was divorcing him. I think doing more than that is expecting too much, especially for a woman coming out of an abusive marriage (and I believe it was abusive.)

      • John Wayne Lives says:

        You are so right on.. besides, not everyone feels the need to shout their personal buisness to the world, regardless of “being inthe right”.. I mean this has got to be so Iincredibly painful and humiliating and maybe she feels like she doesn’t own an explanation to a damn soul. Besides, how do you even begin to talk about something like this, let alone to “the public” ? If she ever chooses to, she clearly isn’t ready now.

    • Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

      Her eyes have a frightened look to them, it comes across that he wasn’t nice to her for a long time, which can wear away at a person. He comes across as controlling so she had to let him think he has all the control by letting him take the divorce and not saying anything about what happened between them, otherwise he would not likely let her have peace.

    • Bex says:

      I did the publicly visible breakup (not in the fame sense) with an abusive ex. I’d say I had things to hide… Like how at the time I was down and really low and my ex had the money and power to spin all kinds of nasty things. Explaining my side of the humiliating public breakup wasn’t something I felt like I owed anyone. I owed it to myself to make it through as intact as possible. Maybe it is selfish to people who think they need details but I wanted to be in a cocoon and keep things to myself. Maybe she needs a lot of space and time to come to terms with all the horrible things she put up with that others are quick to judge. It’s hard when you know people are going to ask why you put up with things or didn’t leave sooner, etc.
      Anyway, I wish her luck and strength!

      • PerfectDate says:

        You are very brave. I hope the worst is behind you. Best wishes to you as well.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        I wish you the best as well, Bex. I love your comment; it’s coming from a pure heart. You sound like you’re in a good place and have found your way to hard fought wisdom and perspective. May all good thing come to you and yours!

      • John Wayne Lives says:

        Bravo!! Well said, well done! Just Yes.

  8. AmandaPanda says:

    This whole situation is so weird.

    And the thing that’s most weird is that no one has really picked up on the fact that all this expenditure came from his company funds, not their personal ac – why wouldn’t nigella give them access to a personal ac if she wanted to buy their silence? If I was saatchi i’d be feeling a bit nervous about hmrc coming a-knocking….

    • betteboo says:

      I completely agree, the claims against her are not in the least credible.

      Even if she did have a raging coke habit why would she use joint funds to score cocaine especially with an obviously controlling husband around? She is a very wealthy woman in her own right, from her previous husband and her super successful business. I would have thought that if she had a coke habit (big ‘if’ how would she have time?), she would tap into her own funds in any way she wanted without having to justify or notify anyone. Jus’ sayin’

    • Montréalise says:

      Exactly! And what the two assistants don’t seem to realize is that they are admitting to blackmailing her: “We know you have a guilty secret you want to keep from your husband, and we promise not to tell him – as long as you let us spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on trips and designer clothes using his credit card.”

    • EscapedConvent says:

      All very very good points, & they make his claims sound ridiculous. If I were a wife who wanted employees to keep quiet about over-use of my husband’s credit cards, why the hell would I give them access to his business accounts? Business accounts are always scrutinized, usually by more than one set of eyes. That’s exactly the account I wouldn’t give them access to.

      The personal accounts—that’s different. I would figure I could keep those under wraps. This doesn’t make any sense—I think Saatchi is grasping at any straws he can think of.

      • K says:

        Yeah, she has 50 million sterling. They’d worked for her for well over a decade. If she wanted to pay them hush money, she had so many discreet options.

        I’m also not sure why the email is stated as being sent before the fight in the restaurant – I’d read it was right after? Meh. Still suspect as to how the women’s defence obtained it. He’s the one buying them, on this evidence – buying them an aquittal and letting them off hundreds of thousands of pounds in exchange for destroying his ex-wife, and her teenage daughter while he’s at it. No other way they could have got that email except straight from him. What an utter asshole.

  9. OriginallyBlue says:

    Ugh, he is the worst. He’s only suing so this story would come out. I don’t believe it, but I do believe he paid those chicks to say this crap or they are saying it to cover their asses. So shameless.

  10. Jessibes says:

    This man is obsessed by his ex wife. Nigella’s silence is driving him crazy!

  11. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    So, according to these women, it’s okay to steal money from someone via credit card as long as you are blackmailing their spouse?
    Just another ploy by Saatchi to justify the unjustifiable. He’ll never get it.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Good point!

    • The Original G says:

      Exactly! Their defence it that they’re not thieves, they’re blackmailers? And excuse me, but then wouldn’t she use her OWN money to pay off the blackmailers, not the money of the husband she was trying to hide this from?

  12. Seapharris7 says:

    All I can really say is, if he was willing to do that to her IN PUBLIC, I can only imagine what a nightmare he was in private.

  13. handsome man saved me from the monsters says:

    Yeah I wonder why she was self medicating. If I believed this psycopath’s claims – which I don’t. I wonder how smug his new piece will be looking in a few months time.

  14. Buckwild says:

    Agree with all sentiments above. Just wanted to add: what is WRONG with this new girlfriend? How can she continue to go with him to the same restaurant, the SAME TABLE, that he choked his previous wife at? She needs to really sit down and take a look at herself because I don’t know any woman with self esteem and grace who would do that.

    • Seapharris7 says:

      Kind of like Chris Brown, eh?

    • Lindy79 says:

      Was discussing this with friends in the UK who have worked in the journo industry, it’s ironic and hypocritical that he’s exposing Nigella for her alleged coke use, and dating Trinny…Jussayin’

      *MAJOR side eye*

      • LAK says:

        IKR! re:Trinny……. ;)

      • Seapharris7 says:

        I’m not familiar with any of these players, N is a chef, correct? Husband is an art dealer, & who is Trini? And what about drug abuse? (I’m stateside)

      • Lindy79 says:

        Correct on Nigella and her soon to be ex. Trinny is a TV presenter/stylist. She’s probably best known for the UK What not to Wear series.

      • littlestar says:

        Wow. But then again… I guess I’m not too surprised. Trinny always seemed pretty spinny on her show, when it was still airing here in North America.

      • Mairead says:

        I know, getting all het up over coke use and then taking up with Trinny Woodall!?! (Who seems a nice lady but I don’t think she has an ounce of sense).

        Well if that isn’t the demented ould soak calling the ligger tipsy!

    • K says:

      I wonder what could possibly attract former socialite Trinny, 49, to multi-millionaire Charles Saatchi, rated one of the 50th richest men in the country?

      (She’s comfortable, but not super rich herself.)

  15. Aussie girl says:

    I can not for the life of me understand why Trinny is with him?? Is her taste in men that poor?? Really…?

  16. Han says:

    Even if this was true its no excuse for choking her.

  17. Gine says:

    You know you’re an asshole when your “defense” makes you look almost as bad as you did in the first place. Poor Nigella.

  18. james c says:

    This is pretty straightforward.

    Either the allegation of drug use is true or Charles Saatchi has perjured himself. As outsiders we cannot know which, but I would expect the truth to emerge in court.

    Nigella Lawson would be able to quash the allegations by providing a hair sample (for drug testing) and witness statement from her doctor.

  19. Hautie says:

    The more this assh*le talks… the more Saatchi verifies what kind of life she must have lived in their home. A place where he is never ever ever wrong. He is the one and only voice of reason. That she needs his harsh grasp on her neck, to get her to pay attention to his demands.

    And I never believed for one second that the neck choking was an isolated event.

    Nigella sat there and took it. She did not try to break away from it. He sat there and choke her in front of patio filled with people. And he had not one fug to give. For me, that proves she had learned not to fight him off. Knowing it would lead to more violent behavior if she did. She sat there and took that choking. Most likely praying he would not take her home and beat the hell out of her later.

    And Saatchi is not going to let Nigella get free of him. That will not happen. He will drag her around belittling her in the media as long as he can.

    • Diana says:

      God, that is so scary and sad if that’s how the thing goes. Poor woman, no one should have to endure this kind of treatment.

    • Ok says:

      Hautie– you are 10000% correct.

      Anticipate a very long, dragged out legal mess where he hurls accusations and she responds consistently with silence.

      This is going to keep playing out for several years.

      Poor Nigella.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree, Hautie and everyone else. This man’s out to get her because she dared to DISOBEY him. She didn’t leap to his defense when asked!

      BTW, I thought their divorce was finalized months ago and this is about their employees, and his obsessive need for revenge.

      Hope Trinny knows what she’s doing, but this just shows what some people will put up with for money and publicity.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Hautie, I had a great Uncle–we called him Big James. He was mean as a damn snake. He beat his wife all the time, beat his kids–he was a big guy. He had a stroke and was confined to a wheelchair–his wife was so scared of him, that he would yell at her to come over to him, so he could hit/beat her, and she would do it.

      I can just imagine what life is like with this a-hole.

  20. LAK says:

    urgh! also, team Nigella.

  21. truthful says:

    He is a pathetic, mean old dude..
    She’s already stated she did not want a dime of his money, be happy old man and go sit down somewhere.

  22. moptop says:

    I feel like there are some mental health or dementia issues with him. He is clearly not all there.

  23. Jacqueline says:

    Regardless of the motive, how is there even a case against the sisters if they had Nigella’s permission? £300,000?!?! He sure waited a while to sue. I also find it rather odd that the girls, who have worked for her for so, so long would just throw her under the bus.

    • Montréalise says:

      Not so odd – they are trying to save their own skin, any way they can.

    • K says:

      They were charged August 2012. They made these new allegations in September this year according to the prosecutor, who is pointing out how odd it is, if true, that this defence was only raised so very recently. The choking incident was June and she divorced him in September – and lo, these emails from him to her suddenly appear in the possession of the defence team.

      Interesting sequence of events, really.

  24. Theresa says:

    Nigella has always exemplified class and dignity to me. I am going to politely assume that she has nothing to say publicly and has nothing but the best advisers, lawyers and people around her right now, including her children, whom no doubt she needs to protect as well.

    She will do what is necessary to extricate herself from this man. All I hope for her is that she can rise from this absolute nightmare with her mental and emotional health in tact,

  25. LucyS says:

    If she was as much a cokehead as her ex claims, wouldn’t someone have noticed it by now? She films the Taste in the UK and the US, she does personal appearances, etc. Wouldn’t we have heard that she’s a mess on set or late or anything that indicated less than professional behavior?

    Plus, I follow her on twitter and she’s always posting meals she’s cooked or been served. I think she travels quite a bit because she references room service. If she was an addict, someone would have sold her out to the tabloids ages ago.

    I just have a hard time believing that she’d also do drugs with her daughter (according to the Daily Beast she gets high with her 19 year old constantly). I just don’t buy it – not that we haven’t seen it before (hello, Dina Lohan and Demi Moore – allegedly) – I just don’t see it.

    • LAK says:

      The other thing that puzzles me is that she her physical appearance has not deteriorated from long term drug abuse as alleged by him. Surely someone who was a raging cokehead and abuser of prescription drugs and weed on top of that for 10yrs would look less radiant than she does?!

      • telesma says:

        Especially the prescription drugs. My husband had a prescription pill abuse problem for a few years and it played havoc with his health. He looked like death when he was in the worst of it, 4 years of this behavior aged him at least 10.

        So this was my first thought when he accused her of this – how does she look that good? At her age? I’m an esthetician, I’ve seen lots of people who’ve had anti-aging treatments (lasers, RF, peels, etc), and had some myself. Those things would not do much good for someone who was abusing her body that way, the results would not be as good or they wouldn’t last, simply due to wear and tear on the body and its ability to heal. A 10 year addiction to coke and pills would not leave her looking like that, even with help from a plastic surgeon (and she doesn’t look like she’s had a whole lot done anyway – a little maybe, but drastic procedures would be evident).

  26. Kate says:

    Is it his money, or is Trinny after some publicity? This is such a mess, and she’s a complete idiot to see this POS socially.

  27. Feebee says:

    He obviously doesn’t know it’s not okay to choke a drug addict either. (Not buying this allegation either)

  28. Lola says:

    Imagine being married to a nasty controlling and jerk like Saatchi, that would be more than enough reason to take anything just to ease the pain of being with this monster for 10 years.

    • Sloane Wyatt says:

      This is an obvious diversionary tactic on Saatchi’s part. Nigella’s alleged drug use is totally irrelevant to her husband being a controlling, slimy, vile, woman abuser.

  29. Zara says:

    well how do we know for a fact that he was abusing her? those photos, they are open to interpretation. Suppose, they were talking about her drug abuse. She said she was clean, and he looked at her nose…I don’t know it was all too convenient what happened there at the restaurant. If there is a video where you actually see him choke her, then maybe I would believe it. All I am saying is that the photos are just open to interpretation. He might or might not have been choking her.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      That doesn’t explain hands on her throat.

      • Zara says:

        I don’t know. I just find it too easy. Maybe it’s the lawyer in me. I feel skeptical and feel that those photos aren’t evidence enough. The photographer, who happened to be waiting there, should have also recorded a video.
        Maybe I am just a skeptical person :)

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Zara, I think being skeptical is a healthy instinct. I don’t blame you for that! :) From my perspective, the lack of video isn’t suspicious to me. Paparazzi still take a lot of still photos to sell to tabloids. I don’t think the photog knew that he was about to witness a crime, they were just creeping on a couple having dinner. Then the dinner turned dark.

    • ThunderGoddess says:

      The photos were absolutely clear. In many British papers we could see lots of them and he was clearly trying to choke her. He’s an abuser who doesn’t like to be called out on his B-S. That simple.

    • Sloane Wyatt says:

      Give it up, Saatchi! No one’s buying what you’re selling.

    • bluhare says:

      Problem is, Zara, he claims to have not known about the drug abuse until they were splitting. Which makes allegations about him picking coke boogers out of her nose ludicrous. He can’t keep his lies straight.

    • Emily C. says:

      No, those photos are not open to interpretation.

    • telesma says:

      I think his PR campaign against her is enough. He’s very obviously out to destroy her in the press. If he were not guilty or bent on hurting her, none of this would be released. It would all be kept quiet, as it SHOULD be. And notice, he’s the one putting all of these horrible things about her out there. All we really have against him is those photographs. She hasn’t said much, if anything.

  30. yeahright says:

    Did I misread the article? Charles never said she snorted coke or had a drug problem the entire marriage, the former employees that he is suing said she did.

    Nigella’s got some amazing genes to be a drug addict for that long and still look at least 15 years younger than she really is.

    • telesma says:

      People think he’s paying them to say these things, since the allegations against her only came out after the divorce was filed, not when they were originally charged for using the cards.

  31. Jaded says:

    This dude has had a number of weird issues for a longgggg time – he’s refused to eat her food practically since they got married. I remember watching one of her original shows years ago and she made the odd joke about her husband not eating anything she cooked. For a long time he was subsisting on cereal and eggs, and whenever they dined out he’d eat only steamed fish, no oil, and not from the menu.

    He’s a brutal, conceited misogynist and has made some comments to the press about women and the “lower classes” that make him sound like he’s from the dark ages. What he seems to have forgotten is that he actually came from a lower-class background, failed his O Levels and worked at a number of menial jobs before starting his ad agency.

    As for Trinny Woodall, she was a notorious coke-head and even though she says she’s clean, it wouldn’t surprise me if she and Saatchi are sniffing up a storm, not Nigella, because his behaviour clearly shows he’s not playing with a full deck.

    • bluhare says:

      The not eating her food . . . if that isn’t a power trip designed to demean her I don’t know what is.

    • Switchoff says:

      Maybe he doesn’t like her food!! Is that a crime? She does have some particularly unhealthy recipes. He has a lot more will-power then she does, that’s for certain.

  32. Mel says:

    Well, this is going to be a hugely unpopular post, but I believe in expressing one’s opinion, especially if it’s not demonising anyone. And that’s precisely the point of my post.

    I like Nigella – I don’t know why, I just do – and I think there seems to be a potentially dangerous edge to her ex-husband. I suspect he may not be very easy to live with (then again, the same may be true of her). Also, needless to say, I do not condone any sort of violence – physical OR mental.

    That said – and having lived a considerable length of time, all around the world (it is relevant to my point, just too lengthy a point to explain it here :-) ) – I think far too much has been made of the “choking” incident (and that MAY be one of the reasons why Nigella is keeping so silent – the worse he is made to look, the better she comes across).

    As ridiculous as it may sound, it MAY be true that he was “picking her nose” in recrimination (or something else) for her coke habit, IF she has one. I have seen – and done – far more unlikely actions myself.

    I may have missed the part where he said it was “all right” to be violent towards her because of her alleged coke habit. But the truth is an addiction, especially a drug addiction (again, IF she she has one), can be exasperating for those around the addict, and people CAN lose their heads in anger. It may not be “all right”, but, by God, it is HUMAN.
    And that’s the part that has been bothering me ever since this whole thing broke: people seem inordinately fond of *demonising* Saatchi (which is not the same as disliking his actions).
    Well, I happento think that many people seem to be averse to Saatchi for reasons that have nothing to do with Nigella – and may not even realise this themselves – so they are judging him more harshly than they would someone else.

    They are both human – BOTH of them.
    And none of this is anyone’s business but theirs.

    • DawnOfDagon says:

      I think it is refreshing when somebody is willing to take judgement out of the equation and just rationalise / try to be objective, and I absolutely agree with what you have written. Assumptions are not evidence.

      Well said.

    • LAK says:

      I initially took your view, but the more statements he makes, the more i am pushed nto Nigella’s corner.

      At stake is his reputation as he keeps reminding everyone. He is incandenscent with rage that his reputation has been tarnished. He wants Nigella to give a different, more palatable explanation for those pictures.

      The longer she remains silent, the more he feels his reputation is blackened. Though how it could be made blacker after the choking incident is a puzzle. He is a reknown ad man. He knows pictures speak a thousand words even if what they are saying isn’t the truth.

      I think this has moved from trying to save his own reputation to blackening hers.

      If she won’t defend him and save his reputation as he sees it, then by gum he will ruin her and destroy hers. And so he allows the assistants to be prosecuted as publicly as possible in open court such that all Nigella’s private habits are laid bare.

      There was a note sent to all the media and to Nigella’s lawyers a few weeks back in which he said he was going to do this ie make her bad habits public unless she made a public statement exonerating him. Her lawyers dismissed those allegations, but the story made it’s way into the papers.

      This is what we are seeing now. He has made good on his threat.

      • bluhare says:

        I totally agree, LAK.

        And if she does have a drug issue, he’s not doing it out of concern, is he? He’s not doing it because he wants her to get clean and sober, is he? He’s doing it to make himself look better and to get revenge.

      • LAK says:

        Indeed, Bluhare.

      • Jaded says:

        ITA LAK, he’s grasping for the credibility lifeline right now. His image is in tatters, not because Nigella is out there demeaning him in the press or running to every media outlet for a photo op, but because he has ruined it all on his own while she remains diplomatically quiet.

        He’s a vicious horrible human being – here’s a taste of Charles Saatchi’s thoughts on life from his book “Be The Worst You Can Be”:

        “Unlock yourself from the neurotic need to please. It erodes the soul”

        “Life is more pleasant without asking too many questions of yourself, or seeking a higher purpose”

        “Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted”

        “Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm”

        “Tenacity and staying resolute are simply being obstinate in a way we approve of”

        “War doesn’t determine who’s right, war determines who’s left”

        Interviewer Q: You seem to represent all I find unpleasant about the modern world. People like me, who don’t court personal validation, believe in putting other people first. Today everything is about gratification of the self, and choosing our own happiness over anyone else’s. Whatever happened to the values I adhere to, like duty, morality, righteousness, and the belief that goodness is its own reward?

        Saatchi A: You may sound like a very good person, but in fact you just suffer from the disease to please. And what’s more you seem to want to be congratulated for it. Apparently, goodness is not its own reward.

      • Evi says:

        In danger of losing his reputation? The last time I checked, the ethics in advertising are pretty much non-existent. He doesn’t need to work for twenty lifetimes with all the money he has. He is in no danger professionally as he has one of the largest advertising agencies in the world.
        I’m not sure which publications your’e reading, but this situation with the personal assistants was stewing for quite some time. A man who is so frugal, so as to keep wearing the same style of suit each day [he may have four of the same], keeps an eye on his money and wouldn’t be too happy about being taken advantage of.
        I’m not saying he is wonderful, but logically, the fault cannot be laid entirely on his doorstep.
        Nigella didn’t think twice about having a relationship with him while she was married to her dying husband, did she?
        And yes, he is doing it for revenge [agreeing with the assistants that she had a drug problem], because when the images came out, she didn’t say anything and made it look as though he erupted randomly. But now I’m thinking the restaurant photographs, particularly the images of him checking her nostrils, make some type of sense now that cocaine has been mentioned.

      • LAK says:

        Evi –

        I am not disputing the past or who Saatchi is. i am saying this incident is revenge and pay back for what he sees as his reputation being blackened and continues to be so by her deafening silence.

        A reputation in the industry is different from a public reputation. To the general public, he is a much admired establishment figure who has a taste for art. In the industry, his rages were legendary, but most of the public don’t know. Now everyone thinks he is an abuser based upon these pictures and her silence gives credence to that thought. Result = ruined reputation.

        in the aftermath of this incident, prior to his sending out this letter,it was known that he was furious that she wasn’t publicly defending him.

        This report first appeared in the Telegraph, but has now been pulled down.


        he became furious after being publicly reviled for the incident and threatened to sue Miss Lawson, 53, for £500,000 and reveal the ‘truth’ about their relationship.

        He is said to have been ‘disappointed’ when the ‘Domestic Goddess’ would not state publicly that he did not physically abuse her – and this is when he instructed his lawyers.”

    • Switchoff says:

      Totally agree with you Mel. But I will go further and say that I have always found Nigella’s “love affair” with food (and eating) odd and a sign of some quite serious psychological issues. It doesn’t surprise me at all that she is a regular drug user. In my opinion, she lives with pain going back to her childhood. The comfort she finds in food is not quite normal…
      I think Saatchi is harmless although he feels wronged by Nigella’s silence. He is originally from Iraq and I think this has a lot to do with why Brits were so quick to demonise him. He’s not really “one of them”.

      • LAK says:


        There is no explanation that can be given for choking your wife. Trying to shift the blame not just to Nigella, but to entire British nation is very, very ignorant.

        Don’t insult our intelligence.

        There are enough Brits on this board to debunk this myth that Charles and his minions are using to rescue his reputation.

      • Switchoff says:

        I wouldn’t dare try to deconstruct those images of Saatchi and Nigella at Scots. Who knows what goes on in people’s marriages and I’m far from condoning it. I do say, as Mel says, far too much has been made of those pictures. And yes Brits have demonised Saatchi and there seems to be more behind their hatred than the fact that he had his hands around her neck.
        If you have heard this from others then I wonder if it’s not because there is some truth to it. This comment is not about your compatriots on this board, it is about what is going on in British society.

      • K says:

        I don’t think most Brits know he was from Iraq – he’s famous for having been head of a huge advertising agency (they got a lot of the credit for Thatcher’s election win in 1979) and for being the biggest art patron of modern times. He’s a pillar of the Establishment, to most people.

        Images showing him throttling his wife are going to go down badly – would do, no matter who the bloke was or the woman. The fact she’s a nationally liked character just compounded that.

      • Tara says:

        Just so I get this right… You’re saying that a chef’s love of food means that there’s something wrong with her… and that she probably has a coke habit… And that people objecting to a man choking his wife means they’re too quick to judge and probably racist. Sorry, but that’s idiotic.

  33. Kate says:

    Saatchi’s a piece of work, but these rumours about Nigella have been around for years, including the stuff about her kids. If Saatchi’s behind that, then he’s been paying insiders to spread gossip about her in some very obscure, invitation only places populated almost solely by people in the food industry, and that doesn’t make much sense to me. And for the past 5-6 years there’s always been speculation on discussion boards where people talk about her cooking shows, about how she seems a bit out of it and how roughly the shows are edited compared to her earlier shows (the thought being that maybe Nigella rarely managed a perfect take so 3-4 have to be spliced together constantly).

    It’s not even the first time this has made it into the mainstream press. Occasionally the UK papers have hinted at it ever so subtly, and when she came over here to film The Taste there were a few little remarks about how Nigella couldn’t work without a ‘taste’.

    It may all be lies, but it’s not fresh lies.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Most cooking shows do 3-4 takes of a recipe and splice them together.

      • Kate says:

        No, I meant more like 3-4 takes of 5 second shot of Nigella taking a pot off the stove and moving it to the sink to drain it, spliced together to look like one shot. Of course it’s normal to have multiple takes of a 10 minute bit, but in some of her later shows it was rare to have even 30 seconds of her onscreen without any really obvious editing. That was a big change from her earlier shows and it’s not the norm for cooking shows.

  34. Mon says:

    That guy is a monster. I am not surprised she has been taking things – I’m sure it must have been so hard to cope with him. Anyway, I fail to see what this has do do with him being aggressive which is the reason for that divorce. although come to think of it he’s doing it cos he’s just a t**t and wants to hurt her to get his revenge for something that’s entairly his fault… Or he’s after her money. Or both. Hope she’s going to be able to ignore him, move on and bounce back. She should consider herself lucky she has finally gotten rid of him.

  35. EscapedConvent says:

    I doubt very much that I will be trusting the word of someone who lived for almost one year on hardboiled eggs, & only eggs! Someone who was married to a cook who would have made him probably anything he wanted. Guess he only wanted eggs. That says so much about him—Nigella’s a cook, & he rejected what she did for a living & what she was good at—cooking.

    Also, *what* the hell is with Trinny Woodall? Not only is she dating that creepy maniac, she’s going to the same place with him where he choked Nigella!

  36. Loulou says:

    Team Nigella. Go marry Tony Bourdain. (Is he free?)

  37. RdyfrmycloseupmrDvlle says:

    Nigella suffers from severe depression so I can totally believe she is addicted to an “upper” like coke and other things in an attempt to feel better. She being a depressive its also easy to believe she tolerated this mans abrasive and harsh personality. None of this explains, however, these two girls blackmailing of her.

  38. Willowbel says:

    I know that many celebs over the years have been caught out with drug abuse, we will never forget the kate moss saga. But this is what baffels me. If nigella really is a drug addict as bad as what her ex claims to be, surely we would be seeing the tell tale signs of a excisseve user, I mean srnorting cokaine EVERDAY for 10 years should show for something. But Nigella is a picture of health, hair, skin and teeth are remarkable for a woman of her age. She has never known to falter. You never hear any stories about her being some sort of diva having tantrums, nor is she bad to her staff. She is a wonderful bussiness woman and seems to be a very hard worker. So when I weigh all this up I truely find it hard to believe that she has been doing drugs on that level for such a long time. I personally think that Her husband is a nasty piece of work. And if her sisters claim this to be true (about her drug addiction) what sort of sisters are they?

  39. Lark says:

    Screw Saatchi. Also, people who have a serious coke habit…it would be physically noticeable if she had a hardcore ten year coke habit. So no. Even if she did do coke once in a while, or was on pills, that is still NO excuse for his abusive behavior. And I bet she isn’t doing hard drugs and this is a smear campaign by him. Also, screw Vanity Fair. While I’m kind of interested in the Gwyneth expose, there’s no excuse for harassing Nigella and really…what’s the point in digging up some old affair Gwyneth may have had (at least her shady business dealings would make more sense)? In a world where there are numerous high-profile actors and athletes who have beaten up women in addition to being serious philanders, I can’t be down with VF’s thing for Gwyneth Paltrow or them harassing an abused women to give her side for some shitty story.

  40. Evi says:

    Now we know why he was inspecting her nostrils…

  41. Em says:

    No man should need to humiliate his beloved in public and as for the coke addition ?!?
    Hair strand . Very simple

    • Evi says:

      This may be a likelihood considering the way the trial is going. The dirt just keeps on coming out, with the latest being that Nigella was already separated from Saatchi when the photographs were taken.

  42. mary simon says:

    He is an abusive creep and those two sisters are throat cutters. I don’t particularly care if Nigella does coke or not. I wish her the best and I hope she survives this public misery in tact.

  43. Pumpkin Pie says:

    I absolutely love Nigella and wish her the best. And I find cs simply despicable.

  44. BeckyR says:

    I guess the truth will come out gradually but the amount of money the “help” pilfered is really astronomical. I have to ask, where is the accountant in all this? I mean who checks the bills? Most of us go over our own accounts but MY GOD something stinks here.

    • Montréalise says:

      Apparently the assistants used the credit card to buy all kinds of purchases for this very wealthy family, including clothing. So the accountant would have no reason to suspect that, say, a $ 5,000 designer handbag wasn’t bought for Nigella.

  45. bluhare says:

    The guy can’t keep his lies straight. Now he’s in court saying he didn’t know about drug use and he “adores her now”.

  46. Kathi says:

    It just goes to show that however rich you are, you cannot escape being all too human.
    I doubt, however, that Nigella took huge amounts of drugs on a regular basis for years on end. Even with plastic surgery, her face and body would be falling apart by now. She does seem to have put on a lot of weight recently, though perhaps this is my imagination. Don’t blame Saatchi for not eating her food though – her recipes are far too unhealthy and I’ve always thought this cooking thing overrated.
    Saatchi strikes me as a shifty wheeler dealer and not a very nice man (understatement of the year ). I believe he is paying these two ex employees to do whatever dirty work he wants them to do, as much as he is paying Trinny Woodall to go out with him simply because she happened to be there. The Saatchi / Nigella marriage always struck me as one of convenience and honestly I do not know why alarm bells did not start ringing for her early on. Someone like Saatchi would make me run a mile, I suppose there are those that will put up with it and those that won’t.
    A not very fine mess and not a lot of fun. :(

    • Sloane Wyatt says:

      “I believe he is paying these two ex employees to do whatever dirty work he wants them to do, as much as he is paying Trinny Woodall to go out with him simply because she happened to be there.” – Kathi

      ITA! It’s soooo obvious! Saatchi is a hideous, gnarled old gnome who needs to leave Nigella alone, and go crawl back under the rock he came from.

  47. Vilodemeanus says:

    Poor Nigella, many people don’t know what a horrible life she’s had. Her mother was a mentally ill alcoholic and Nigella was severely abused as a child. She found a husband who loved her and was friends with Saatchi, and her husband ended up getting terminal cancer so Charles Saatchi decided when his friend died he’d marry Nigella and I think at the time she was so traumatized that she went along with it, and thought his money would benefit her children. He competed with her children, was never very nice to them and they didn’t like him either. For years she suffered from Saatchi’s abuse both physical and verbal all the while making a career and brand for herself, which Saatchi constantly belittled, he’d often say he couldn’t stand her cooking or she couldn’t cook and he didn’t know why she made any money and that the public was stupid for buying her or any of her products.
    I hope Nigella isn’t hurt to badly by the lies but she’s really had a life filled with real abuse and monsters.
    Nigella needs to write a book, and the book shouldn’t have any recipe’s but her life story, she’s a really interesting woman, and she’s a survivor. I don’t think Saatchi will let her go unmolested to live her life in peace and she’ll only get that when he dies, which frankly can’t be soon enough for anyone who knows the story about him. Run Nigella Run, no one believes the vicious brut who has to buy his own books to stroke his ego.
    Only a lowly gold digger would spend 5 minutes with this horrible man after seeing what he was capable of in public, at Scotts or anywhere else.

  48. Steve says:

    Why is it assumed he was ‘choking’ her.. Nobody but for a few in the restaurant saw this happen. Looks to me from the photos that he could be lifting her face to look up her nose, she’s looking scared because she’s been caught. Maybe she’s promised countless times to give it up and he’s noticed powder on her nose as she returned from the loo. So he is a bit angry. But I don’t think it’s as clear a case of ‘choking’ as everyone seems to think.

    • bluhare says:

      He now says he didn’t know, so your arguments hold no water.

      • Steve says:

        Perhaps you’re right and my arguments do indeed hold no water, but one point I’m sure about is that it is impossible to say from viewing those photographs that he was choking her.

        It seems to me that Saatchi has been trying to protect Nigella’s reputation all along, including by now saying he didn’t know of her drug habit during the marriage (which seems unlikely to say the least.) A friend of mine made the observation on the very day that the Scott’s photos were published that he seemed to be lifting her face looking for signs of cocaine around her nose but I dismissed it at the time…. But now I think she was highly perceptive!

        I’ve got no axe to grind either way, but it doesn’t seem far fetched to me that he was lifting her face (yes, possibly angrily and not in a gentle manner) to make his point about her drug use. Her reaction (or lack of one) always seemed odd if he had indeed been choking her- looking again at the photos I now think her demeanour fits with the explanation that he was berating her after she was caught.

        Then the photos came out

        He took the police caution to kill the story so the truth about her habit wouldn’t come out.
        Then, rather than repay the favour by downplaying the incident, she remained tight-lipped, effectively making him the villain and she the saint (in the black/white tabloid world.)

        His previous wife and other women close to him have said that he never once was violent towards them.

        I I think he’s been harshly judged after trying his best to protect his wife’s reputation. I’m not surprised he furiously split from her (and didn’t subsequently behave particularly graciously) after the way she betrayed him.

      • telesma says:

        I’m no fan of Saatchi’s, but I can tell you it is entirely possible to have no idea about a spouse’s drug abuse. I didn’t know for the first year and a half or so that my husband was abusing prescription pain medication – he hid it very well. Even after I was aware of what was going on, he was still very good at hiding it and I still didn’t know just how bad it was.

        I’m not sure I believe that she was using, but if she was? Given my own experience, I could certainly believe he didn’t know, or didn’t really know the extent of it. Especially if she had her own money or the money was handled by an accountant, and if she was busy with her career and they weren’t together every minute of the day.

    • Montréalise says:

      Steve – Saatchi testified in court, under oath, that the argument which was caught in photographs was not about her drug use. He also testified that he never saw any evidence of her using drugs during their marriage, and that he first learned of her alleged drug use when the two sisters made their claims. He admitted that the e-mail he sent her – when he called her Higella and accused her of being “off her head” with drugs was a nasty, untrue message he sent out of anger and bitterness. He said that he doesn’t believe she was a drug user, because she couldn’t have kept up her busy schedule of television shows and book writing if she were. So are you claiming that he lied and perjured himself under oath?

  49. Kate says:

    It doesn’t seem possible about grabbing Nigellas neck to make her focus. In a very weird circumstance that someone may need to do that – maybe a paramedic? You would hold their chin . Where Saatchi is holding Nigella, she can easily still turn her head away from him still
    If you wanted to destroy Nigella wouldn’t her career be first port of ca? Her career is her reputation.. So make her out to be a drug addict?
    Google: Simon Gittany – all the excuses in the world

  50. Steve says:

    Maybe nobody is trying to destroy anyone’s career. Maybe it’s the truth. I just don’t see how people can make statements such as “that man is a monster” based on a pap shot of a moment when his hand was under her chin. Maybe he is a monster and this expert in public image was indeed choking her in public. Or maybe he put his hand loosely round her neck to lift her chin, in the same way we’re told to when winding babies. We can’t tell from the pictures, that’s my point. But a lot of hysterical opinion seems desperate to paint him as the monster. I just think we need more balance rather than jumping to one conclusion or other without knowing any facts.

    • Montréalise says:

      His hand wasn’t under her chin – it was around her throat. And it wasn’t just one pap shot – there was an entire series of photographs, all showing her looking frightened.

    • telesma says:

      Even if it were the truth, there is no need for it to be in the papers. He could have chosen to take the high road and keep it all quiet. Instead, he is airing dirty laundry and waging a PR campaign against her, while she hasn’t said a word. That tells me it is most definitely about destroying her reputation.

  51. Denise says:

    I don’t buy it for a second. But if it were true I really couldn’t give a crap. She wouldn’t deserve to be demonized for having an addiction and it wouldn’t excuse his behaviour. What a pathetic loser this man is. Good thing she’s out now.

    Oh, Trinny…….

  52. Trashaddict says:

    Wow, I think of this blog as anti-domestic violence but more than half the posts have been about trying not to see what’s in front of your very eyes. Maybe because it’s just too awful to believe a man would choke his wife in full public view. It’s pretty sociopathic behavior to do this and then deny it. Being British, shouldn’t he at least have been conscious of the appearance of what he was doing? No, because he believes he’s so powerful he can get away with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he told her that, too.