Chapter 18 - MARCELLA’S TESTIMONY
“I worked for free for years.”
That was Marcella’s beginning.
Her attorney asked why she accepted vendor payments.
“Because I brought them business. Because I was tired of being told family service should be unpaid while everyone else drew salaries.”
“Did Nico know?”
“He knew I was paid by vendors.”
“Did he know details?”
“No.”
Good.
“Did you believe you had to disclose?”
Marcella paused.
“I believed I did not own the vendors and therefore the conflict form did not apply.”
Was that credible?
Maybe.
Then why hide from Helen?
“I didn’t think she’d understand family relationships.”
There.
Then North Harbor.
“Did you inflate invoices?”
“I suggested budgets. Lacey priced.”
“Did you receive a percentage?”
“Sometimes referral compensation.”
“Did you intend the foundation to lose money?”
“No.”
“Did you believe services were real?”
“Mostly.”
Mostly.
Then canceled retreat.
“Why no full refund?”
“We rolled work forward.”
“Was there documentation?”
“Not enough.”
Then designer payment.
“Did North Harbor owe you money?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ask them to pay atelier?”
“Yes.”
“Did you think foundation was paying for your dress?”
“No.”
Then conflict certification.
“Why sign no conflicts?”
“I did not see consulting as ownership.”
Then audio.
“What did you mean ‘no one sees commissions unless somebody traces vendors backward’?”
“That commissions were paid by vendor, not foundation.”
Then:
“Nico signed authority.”
“I meant he approved the event structure.”
Then Elena.
Marcella’s face changed.
“My sister-in-law thought every family shortcut was corruption.”
“Did you hate her?”
“Yes.”
Honest.
“Why?”
“She looked at me like I was a thief before I was one.”
Silence.
Her attorney stopped.
“Before you were one?”
Marcella realized.
Then:
“I mean before she decided I was.”
Damage.
Prosecutor later returned.
But first defense asked about wedding slap.
Limited relevance? Maybe to bias of Nico, not guilt. Marcella described.
Then Vivia’s dress.
Judge restricted child details.
Still:
“Why did you want dress destroyed?”
Marcella looked down.
“Because Elena told me she made copies.”
“When?”
“Before she died.”
“Did you know where?”
“No.”
“Did you search?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“I wanted to know what she had.”
“Why not tell Nico?”
“I knew what he’d do.”
“What?”
Marcella looked at me.
“Exactly what he did.”
That answer had some truth.
I had exposed her.
Then prosecutor cross.
“You said you worked for free.”
“Yes.”
“Were you free to ask the board for compensation?”
“Yes.”
“Did Nico once tell you to create proper structure?”
“Yes.”
“Did you?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I didn’t want to take foundation salary.”
“Because?”
“Optics.”
There.
“You preferred vendor payments no one had to disclose publicly?”
“I believed they were private business.”
Then:
“You signed a form asking for indirect financial interests.”
“Yes.”
“You were paid by a foundation vendor.”
“Yes.”
“You did not disclose.”
“Yes.”
Then:
“You told Elena no one would see commissions unless they traced backward.”
“Yes.”
“You searched her office for copies.”
“Yes.”
“You tried to destroy the USB at your wedding.”
Marcella looked toward defense.
Objection.
Prior conduct admissible? The attempted destruction of evidence relevant consciousness of guilt if properly established. Wedding witnesses. Judge allowed limited.
Marcella answered:
“I panicked.”
“Why?”
“Because I knew how it looked.”
“Not because it was false?”
Silence.
Then:
“You told Nico to burn it.”
“Yes.”
“Why would you ask him to burn false accusations?”
Marcella’s eyes filled.
“Because Elena’s version always won with him.”
The prosecutor paused.
Then:
“You also slapped his six-year-old daughter for wearing the dress.”
Marcella’s lawyer objected as prejudicial.
Judge allowed limited due evidence discovery context but warned jury not to use assault as proof of financial crimes.
Marcella whispered:
“Yes.”
Then:
“Did Vivia understand the USB?”
“No.”
“Was she responsible for Elena’s records?”
“No.”
“Then why hit her?”
Marcella started crying.
“Because she looked like Elena.”
The courtroom went silent.
There.
Not financial motive.
Not legal defense.
Grief, jealousy, rage.
A child carrying a dead woman’s face.
Then prosecutor:
“You wanted the dress gone because it contained evidence.”
“Yes.”
That was the closest thing to direct admission.
Then final question:
“Ms. Bellandi, did you believe being family entitled you to handle compensation without the same disclosure rules as everyone else?”
Marcella took a long time.
“Yes.”
There.
The whole case.
Not:
I stole.
Not:
I forged Nico.
Entitlement.
The jury would still need elements.
But my sister had finally said aloud what Bellandis rarely admitted.
May you like
We thought rules were written for people who lacked our relationships.
The verdict would come two days later.
