Iñaki, Cristina and the NOOS Corruption Investigation Part 1 (2011-2014)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Duke, you have not understood me, I do not think Letizia would fight for something that was not fair to her, just look at how little has been achieved after 10 years. That's what have tried to sell people close to the infantas at Zarzuela.

The salaries that have been released this year do not correspond to the tax data of Infanta Cristina a few years ago. The money of the ladies has not changed, therefore means that in the early years Letizia received much less and Infantas much more (three times what now receives Elena).

I do not think it was so much a matter of money, such as role in the family and the public. Infanta Cristina was the "perfectl" of the family, and that was the role she did not want to lose. Infanta Elena and her family, snobs, not handsome, with Jaime's disease ... was no competition. But Letizia is a magnet for the press, and stole the spotlight that her and her family enjoyed, Cristina never had problems overexpose her children to the press. I think, at the beginning, that is why she always marked distances in family photos. Is there any picture where Cristina shows to have some connection with her nieces?
 
wyevale said:
Thankyou, dear people, for your indications of support.
Lately i have hesitated to visit this thread, as the 'lynch-mob' mentality is so depressing..
If i was called to serve on a jury with most of you, it would be a nightmare !

It is reassuring to know that not everyone has jettisoned the most basic tenet of Justice !
Click to expand...

Wyevale: I have stopped reading a couple of threads where some of the remarks were unkind and adamant as to point of view. That kind of response tends to stifle conversation. One of the things I have liked about The Royal Forums (in addition to the subject matter) is the politeness of most.
So, I will just say that I would like to see Inaki and Cristina have a fair hearing in these matters. Whether they are likable people or not is irrelevant.
And, I would like it if we could be tolerant of opposing points of view. :flowers:
 
wyevale said:
Plenty {and i mean PLENTY} of posters here are 'Judge & Jury', and have already pronounced judgement... [despite having no access to the documentation, or other detailed knowledge of the case}.

I REPEAT .. the whole bedrock of justice is 'innocent until proven guilty'..
Click to expand...

El Pais (the biggest newspaper in Spain) said that the prosecutor wanted to charge Inaki 19 years in prison. How likely is from 19 years in prison to be innocent ? Almost zero chance. No matter what the final verdict is, Inaki and Cristina had used the name of an profit organization to 'steal' millions of public money, they are guilty morally for the general public.
 
donnaK said:
El Pais (the biggest newspaper in Spain) said that the prosecutor wanted to charge Inaki 19 years in prison. How likely is from 19 years in prison to be innocent ? Almost zero chance. No matter what the final verdict is, Inaki and Cristina had used the name of an profit organization to 'steal' millions of public money, they are guilty morally for the general public.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I still have difficulties to believe that. As I said before, Cristina is not stupid and she knew well that any wife of Felipe would eventually outrank her, yet she showed support in the early stages of the F&L relationship, most likely against her parents' wishes.

Then, when Letizia came into the family, I pretty much doubt that her attitude was 'I want this, I want that', the Queen would not have allowed that anyway, and Letizia would have understood the strategy to learn alongside Felipe instead of demanding a solo agenda straight and take away from Cristina, even more so after the press bashing her for 'let me finish'. She was still struggling to get along in the royal household at the time.

Then she was busy with her pregnancy, got pregant again, then had to deal with her sisters' death ... yet the first photos of a very bad relation between Cristina and Letizia date back to 2006/2007 when Letizia had other things to deal with than encreasment of her own engagements, so I doubt that the reason for the fallout was a power struggle with Cristina over royal engagements.
Click to expand...

The four women in the SRF shared the same pool, one was getting more, the others would get less. So it's not hard to image that Cristina's attitude was like 'I want to keep this, I want to keep that'. Even these days, Sofia has the same attitude.

It's also possible Letizia wanted her solo agenda from the very beginning, why not ? The other princess consorts who married at the similar time had their own agenda, their own money, why not her ? Cristina had 3 small children when Felipe married Letizia and a job at the Caixa foundation, the fourth one Irene is only a few months older than Leonor, so pregnancy or children was not relevant to their royal roles IMO.

I think there were definitely two factors that affect the family relation. One was the role division, the other was Inaki's business, possible the two factors interleaved time wise. Cristina had supported Felipe on his marriage to Letizia, Inaki bought the engagement ring, C&I probably expected Felipe to return the favor to support Inaki's business when things got tough inside Zarzuela, but Felipe didn't, he was actually against Inaki's business. Likely Cristina blamed Felipe's attitude on Letizia's influence since she and Felipe used to be very close, she had her younger brother wrapped around her finger.
 
El Pais (the biggest newspaper in Spain) said...
Click to expand...

Oh well then, it MUST be true !!!

I prefer for the legal process to take its course rather than believe journalists whose sole aim is to sell more copies !
 
Please note that I would ask members to leave the deliberation in this case to Judge Castro & his team,thanking you all in advance
 
I have read what Hola said about this and mucht of the conversation between Cristina and the juez ended up "I don't know , "I didn't knew, I cannot remember"
 
Such convenient amnesia :rolleyes:
Even if there's enough evidence to convict her, I really doubt any judge in Spain would do that, Iñaki might end up taking all the blame but not her.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
How an ideal couple
How an ideal couple’s life went to hell

Officially, the marriage of Princess Cristina and Iñaki Urdangarin was an idyllic union

But the Nóos inquiry court papers paint a very different picture




Interesting article on the Inaki/Cristina history and the relationship with Letizia.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this link. I had read all of the comments and whatever news about this case written in the newspapers in America (not much) but this article was the most informative. Now I understand what the case is about.

I do hope things turn out well for all involved but if Inaki did obtain funds illegally, he should be punished. I hope Christina is spared any jail time, for the sake of the children.

That's all I have to say on this. Again, thank you Duke for the link to that article.
 
GracieGiraffe said:
Oh, gawd.... if I had a dime for every time I heard a witness under oath say "I don't know" I could pay the Spanish people back myself. What's even more funny is the sudden detail they remember when a point is favorable. :whistling:
Click to expand...

nicely highlighted, even though i didn't read the whole document... where did she give lots of detail exactly?
 
carlota said:
nicely highlighted, even though i didn't read the whole document... where did she give lots of detail exactly?
Click to expand...

I'm speaking in general based upon my experience questioning witnesses. When they don't want to give the answer and don't want to lie about it, it's "I don't recall," etc. But then they usually make fools of themselves by giving a lot of detail about things that benefit them. I would not be surprised at all if Cristina follows this pattern.
 
GracieGiraffe said:
I'm speaking in general based upon my experience questioning witnesses. When they don't want to give the answer and don't want to lie about it, it's "I don't recall," etc. But then they usually make fools of themselves by giving a lot of detail about things that benefit them. I would not be surprised at all if Cristina follows this pattern.
Click to expand...

Gracie,
In you experience how do most jurors react to these types of "I don't recall" responses from witnesses?
 
This might be off base but what occurred to me is that it is very possible that Cristina actually doesn't really know much about the financial affairs of her husband. Consider how she was raised. An Infanta of Spain who most likely had "people" that did things for her all her life. Did she really ever have to balance a checkbook, budget the income that she did have and worry about where her money was going and how much things cost? I would seriously doubt that she ever had to look at price tags in her life.

There are millions of women that leave all the financial matters to their husbands (in days gone by it was quite normal for a wife to have a "household allowance") and many well to do couples have financial advisers and managers that take care of the financial aspects and portfolios for them.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
 
Osipi said:
This might be off base but what occurred to me is that it is very possible that Cristina actually doesn't really know much about the financial affairs of her husband. Consider how she was raised. An Infanta of Spain who most likely had "people" that did things for her all her life. Did she really ever have to balance a checkbook, budget the income that she did have and worry about where her money was going and how much things cost? I would seriously doubt that she ever had to look at price tags in her life.

There are millions of women that leave all the financial matters to their husbands (in days gone by it was quite normal for a wife to have a "household allowance") and many well to do couples have financial advisers and managers that take care of the financial aspects and portfolios for them.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought a few weeks ago. For a number of years, we had our own business. I was out and about with the customers and my husband managed the finances including tax etc. Apart from asking how much was in the bank (regularly), I didn't look at any of the detail

BUT....... once a year, we had to file the VAT Return and Income Tax Returns and I had to sign them off as well and THEN I read every single line as I knew I was as liable as my husband if those returns were wrong. False accounting is a criminal offence.

So I get that she might not have known during a period of time, but she should have known at least once a year. I'm not an accountant but I always knew my responsibilities as a director of a company.
 
TLLK said:
Gracie,
In you experience how do most jurors react to these types of "I don't recall" responses from witnesses?
Click to expand...

Much the same way we are....:whistling:

In closing arguments, you can have a lot of fun pointing to all the things someone just can't recall, gosh darn, and wouldn't you know, it's all inculpatory, while the excultpatory stuff, suddenly they have a photographic memory (or whatever the particular the facts of the case indicate).
 
Osipi said:
This might be off base but what occurred to me is that it is very possible that Cristina actually doesn't really know much about the financial affairs of her husband. Consider how she was raised. An Infanta of Spain who most likely had "people" that did things for her all her life. Did she really ever have to balance a checkbook, budget the income that she did have and worry about where her money was going and how much things cost? I would seriously doubt that she ever had to look at price tags in her life.

There are millions of women that leave all the financial matters to their husbands (in days gone by it was quite normal for a wife to have a "household allowance") and many well to do couples have financial advisers and managers that take care of the financial aspects and portfolios for them.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

If all they have on her is her statements then the "I don't know" routine goes a long way (but methinks there's a reason an Infanta was called to testify beyond let's just do some probing). If they have evidence, then the "I don't know schtick" perhaps is the only answer without making it worse. The best outcome for her if what they have on her is legally insufficient to go forward, and the "I don't knows" was the best strategy - nobody believes it, but it's foolproof.

At least here in the U.S. criminal defendants NEVER have to answer to questioning, and I've seen very few take the stand in their own defense. It's only civil cases that nobody escapes questioning. So I'm curious to see how this plays out in a civil law country, as I'm a lot more familiar with common law countries, which are essentially the English speaking ones.

I'd love to go through a few stacks of documents - in particular some of these emails everyone seems to be talking about.
 
Interesting, I didn't know they didn't do things "our" way, civil vs criminal.
good point that osipi made about her possibly really not knowing, with her background, knowing older US women with whom that pretense would be perfectly plausible and also younger very spoiled women, a very good point.
However, I do think she is the "brains" of the couple and don't personally belive it for a minute. I have been following the srf since 1982 and almost knocked over the Queen in Nyc a few years later by accident. BTW she is MUCH more beautiful in person.
 
Osipi said:
This might be off base but what occurred to me is that it is very possible that Cristina actually doesn't really know much about the financial affairs of her husband. Consider how she was raised. An Infanta of Spain who most likely had "people" that did things for her all her life. Did she really ever have to balance a checkbook, budget the income that she did have and worry about where her money was going and how much things cost? I would seriously doubt that she ever had to look at price tags in her life.

There are millions of women that leave all the financial matters to their husbands (in days gone by it was quite normal for a wife to have a "household allowance") and many well to do couples have financial advisers and managers that take care of the financial aspects and portfolios for them.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

The tax fraud and money laundering of Aizoon had been going on for years, way past Inaki's official tenure in Noos. If Cristina didn't know the financial affairs of her husband before 2006, after the King forced Inaki to leave Noos, she should have known the irregularities of Noos since everyone in the family knew after 2006. It's a fact that she continued supporting her husband against the opposing voice (her father and brother) in the family, continued using the credit card with Noos money (even after they moved to DC), signing documents without looking the contents (according to herself), it speaks volumes, thus most people believe they were business partners, at least she was complicit in her husband's business rather than an innocent housewife who blindly trusted her husband.
 
Osipi said:
This might be off base but what occurred to me is that it is very possible that Cristina actually doesn't really know much about the financial affairs of her husband. Consider how she was raised. An Infanta of Spain who most likely had "people" that did things for her all her life. Did she really ever have to balance a checkbook, budget the income that she did have and worry about where her money was going and how much things cost? I would seriously doubt that she ever had to look at price tags in her life.

There are millions of women that leave all the financial matters to their husbands (in days gone by it was quite normal for a wife to have a "household allowance") and many well to do couples have financial advisers and managers that take care of the financial aspects and portfolios for them.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

I think the potential for a combination of naiveté and entitlement in royal children, especially children who aren't the heirs, is a real problem. Christina grew up seeing her family get special privileges and favours that they didn't work for. None of them likely spent too much time questioning why they got these perks or where they came from. And for a long time it seems that by and large the Spanish public and press were very accepting and uncritical of the lifestyle their royal family was leading. Additionally, the Spanish royals seem quite traditional to me and it's possible Christina, as a woman, wasn't given any sort of education in business or finances, the expectation being that the royal financial advisors and/or her husband and his people would take care of all that.

I agree with cepe's comment that when you enter into a position of responsibility, (such as being a member of a board), you need have a good idea of where things stand with the organization, both ethically and financially. And ideally, every member of a family would have a good idea of their personal finances. But that's often not the way things work.

I think Christina was naive, overly trusting of the people surrounding her, including Inaki, and way too accustomed to having life fall nicely into place around her without having to expend any effort. But that doesn't necessarily mean she purposely acted unethically or criminally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

An Ard Ri
Iñaki, Cristina & the NOOS Corruption Investigation and Imprisonment
3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
28K
iceflower
iceflower
An Ard Ri
  • Locked
Iñaki, Cristina and the NOOS Corruption Investigation Part 2 (2015 - 2018)
17 18 19
Replies
550
Views
90K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom