Chapter 19 — This House Stole From Her
The draft apology contained no subject.
Kit read it in his solicitor’s office the night before the press conference.
Recent events have revealed serious failures in Harcourt beginning on time with inaccessible proof would repeat the demand that people trust his summary.
His solicitor made one last attempt to remove the acquisition emails. “They are already in court, but placing them on your site republishes potential admissions worldwide.”
“The original accusation was worldwide.”
“That is rhetoric.”
“It is distribution.”
The emails remained.
He stepped to the lectern at eleven ten.
Camera lights came on. From the side of the room, the entrance to the old runway remained visible behind black curtains.
Kit read the statement once, without the vague draft beside it.
“Ottilie Vane didn’t steal from this house. This house used her work without permission. I knew the ownership was unresolved, and I authorised the statement that blamed her.”
The room changed around the words. Keyboard sounds increased. Somebody at the back swore quietly after a live-feed delay failed to connect.
Kit continued.
He identified Ottilie as the creator of the original textile artworks and explained that Harcourt & Bell held only limited sampling permission.
He confirmed she never signed the assignment.
He said Saskia’s internal registration was not evidence that Saskia created the sources and that the attribution was false.
He displayed the six-year-old scan beside the three-day registration.
Then he displayed his own emails.
Do not execute the assignment until after valuation.
Allow full creative access. We will regularise ownership later.
He read each sentence aloud and explained the decision it represented. He had delayed the transfer to prevent a separate rights price affecting valuation. He had opened the archive to keep development moving. He had signed the buyer warranty while knowing the legal transfer had not occurred.
Finally, the fashion-week statement appeared on screen.
Kit didn’t replay the video. Ottilie had been required to hear it once. The text was enough.
“I approved this statement after receiving confirmation that her source records predated the registration,” he said.
“I made that decision to keep the acquisition alive. The factory, the board and the buyer created pressure. None of them made the decision for me. I decided the company’s immediate survival mattered more than the damage to my wife. ”
He saw pens stop at wife.
“I also allowed Harcourt & Bell to market Saskia Reed and me in ways that encouraged speculation about a personal relationship. There was no physical or romantic relationship. The implication was commercially useful, and I permitted it while my wife’s contribution remained less visible.
That was another choice, not a misunderstanding. ”
He finished by confirming that he would not seek reinstatement as chief executive and would cooperate with claims, investigations and permanent corrections.
Questions began before he stepped away from the lectern.
Mina received the first.
“Why should anyone believe this statement when your first one was false?”
“They should verify it against the documents released today.”
“Did Ottilie ask you to do this?”
“No.”
“Have you spoken to her?”
“Only through authorised legal channels since separation.”
A financial reporter asked whether the admission was intended to reduce damages.
“My lawyers advised against it because it may increase them.”
“Then is this an attempt to win your wife back?”
Kit looked towards the camera above the questioner. “She has not offered reconciliation. This statement doesn’t purchase it.”
The factory representative asked who would cover stopped wages and workshop losses. Kit said he would propose selling personal shares and surrendering distributions, subject to independent administration. He didn’t promise the amount until the shares were valued.
Another reporter asked whether Saskia had acted alone when she changed the registration.
“No. I created her access. Tom Arlen’s office approved the credit process. Ms Reed made her own filing and deletion decisions. The investigation should attribute each act to the person who made it.”
“Do you call Saskia Reed a thief?”
“I am not replacing one unsupported public verdict with another. The records show she didn’t create Ottilie’s source work and that she deleted files after the challenge.”
The questions lasted fifty-three minutes. Kit answered until the venue manager warned that the booking period had ended. He left through the same production corridor Ottilie had used under security escort.
No photographers waited in the rain this time. They had their image inside.
At four, the board convened without Kit. The company secretary sent the resolution to his solicitor after the vote.
Christopher Harcourt’s resignation as chief executive was accepted with permanent effect. He would hold no executive office during restructuring and no right to automatic reinstatement after litigation.
Kit read the resolution at the kitchen table in Holland Park. The archive room stood open and empty at the end of the hall.
His confession had corrected the public sentence. It had not restored the silk, the show, the factory hours, the buyer or the woman whose name he had finally said first.
The next morning, three newspapers called the speech courageous.
Kit instructed his publicist—retained only for legal scheduling—to decline every profile.
Courage described a risk taken before harm.
His admission had arrived after evidence made continued concealment impossible and after Ottilie had paid for the delay.
He sent no copy of the coverage to her. The permanent recording and transcript belonged to the correction programme, not to their private channel.