| Author | Message | ||
     lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 754 Registered: 3-2002  |
I was surprised by the verdict but the jury was pretty convinced. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6538 Registered: 4-1998  |
Guilty of covering up a crime she wasn't convicted of. Kind of wacky. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2328 Registered: 1-2003  |
Maybe she was really guilty of the insider trading even though she was acquitted for that. That's one explanation for her obstruction. What are some others? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1315 Registered: 6-2001 |
It's not a good thing. | ||
| LibraryLady (ncjanow) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1270 Registered: 5-2001  |
Tom, she wasn't acquitted of insider trading, she was never charged with that. Weird, weird world. Nancy Chiller Janow On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 395 Registered: 7-2002 |
She was charged with insider trading, but the judge threw out the charges. She's convicted of lying in a Federal investigation. I am not aat all surprised. Her personal assistant, in teary showing on the stand, testified against Martha. | ||
| Habanero2 Citizen Username: Habanero2 Post Number: 35 Registered: 12-2003 |
She was guilty of being rich and famous in a world where all DA's want to run for office. "You kids today have it easy. When I was a kid everything was HUGE. My dad was nearly four times bigger than me. You couldn't even see the tops of counters.... Then gradually everything became smaller until it was the manageable size it is today." | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 756 Registered: 3-2002 |
Did the DA make up enough evidence to convince a jury of her peers (HA)? | ||
| Habanero2 Citizen Username: Habanero2 Post Number: 36 Registered: 12-2003 |
She was obviously guilty of lying but was only prosecuted because she was famous. She should have never been prosecuted. I am sure there were many others on the dump list the day before the news went public, but we never heard of those people and the cases probably were settled out of court. "You kids today have it easy. When I was a kid everything was HUGE. My dad was nearly four times bigger than me. You couldn't even see the tops of counters.... Then gradually everything became smaller until it was the manageable size it is today." | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 759 Registered: 3-2002 |
What about the people who didn't know Sam Waxsal and bought the stock after she dumped it based on inside information? The ones without friends in high places? This is an example of how the rich keep getting richer on information you and I don't have. Martha is being used as an example that this behavior will not be tolerated. If she told the truth and wasn't such a bitch, she wouldn't be going to jail. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 1023 Registered: 5-2001 |
Being rich and famous may be part of it but lying to the feds (who are US Attorneys, not DAs by the way) and being a jerk, which apparently she was when they first talked to her, will often get you prosecuted even if you are not famous. The feds hate it when you lie to them. Also, she was never charged with insider trading. She was charged with defrauding her own investors by lying about her involvment with Imclone, thus inflating the stock price. That's the count that was thrown out. The false statement charge they got her on is one of the Feds favorites because its easy to prove if you are stupid enought to lie to them. They have incredible resources and almost always catch you. I think its more important to get these Enron guys, but its not a bad thing. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 399 Registered: 7-2002 |
Ashear, you're right. The charge thrown out was the charge of securities fraud, which was the most serious charge. What I don't understand was: couldn't she have made a deal? I have colleagues who were charged with similar misdeeds -- they made a deal, there was a two-paragraph item in the Times and the Journal, and then the whole thing went away. | ||
| Rebecca Raines Citizen Username: Robin_realist Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2003 |
She still doesn't seem to think she did anything wrong. Even today she's saying that she believes in the system and that her name will be cleared. I don't think she has gotten the 'message' everyone is saying this whole thing was trying to send: You can't do what you like despite who you are. Everyone has to play by the same rules. R | ||
| Cato Nova Citizen Username: Cato_nova Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2003 |
The prosecution of Martha and her conviction was astonishing and disheartening. She was convicted because the jurors, poor pathetic average people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty (or who could serve for several weeks since they were so unimportant to their jobs) wanted an opportunity to to reap revenge for their average, ordinary lives. They were dismayed that Martha had celebrities for friends, while they didn't. And these are the same people who vote for morons like our (s)elected Resident, because they would rather have a beer with someone like Georgie, a life-time mediocrity like themselves, than with Al Gore, who was too "smart" to be President. Yet another argument against universal suffrage. Meanwhile, 10,000 rapist priests, and the bishops who covered up for them, go largely unpunished, because prosecutors are too scared to go after the criminal enterprise that the Church has become. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 954 Registered: 3-2003 |
You know, Cato, when at first I thought it was a goof, your elitism schtick seemed funny. Now it grows tedious. Not that I think justice was served in the conviction of Martha Stewart. | ||
| Redsox Citizen Username: Redsox Post Number: 431 Registered: 6-2002 |
oh cato my polo mallet seems a bit worn, could you recommend a worthy and suitable replacement? give my regards to everyone at the club. ttfn | ||
| Hank Zona Citizen Username: Hankzona Post Number: 983 Registered: 3-2002 |
Cato's attitude is what sank Martha. | ||
| Rebecca Raines Citizen Username: Robin_realist Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2003 |
Have you ever served on a jury Cato? It is much more difficult to 'get out of' jury duty than you might expect. Last time I served they wouldn't release anyone for ANY job related reason. I don't appreciate the criticism of them. They were just doing their job. In my experience as a juror it has gone like this: After all that testimony and comments by the lawyers, the judge gives the jury very specific instructions as to what the charges are, what the law is and then lets them 'deliberate'. It usually isn't that difficult to decide whether to convict or not, it usually takes a lot of time because they have to go back through all the evidence and every juror has to have their say. But, there isn't a big mystery, either the evidence & testimony say she's guilty or not. I agree that if she had been some little person, they wouldn't have pursued her as aggressivly. But it seems to me that she wasn't cooperative in the investigation and then they decided to use her as an example. I doubt she'll end up much worse off than before. If she had handled it differently, she could have cut a deal. Seems to me she was the one with choices, not the jury. R | ||
| howardf Citizen Username: Howardf Post Number: 210 Registered: 6-2001 |
Cato: Martha was destroyed by the same kind of arrogant disdain that you display. She could have come clean at the beginning, but she felt she didn't have to. She could have curtailed the flow of celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell into the courtroom. And she could have put on a defense. But she felt that it would be beneath her to do so. As a result, she is now facing jail time. She has only herself to blame. | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 762 Registered: 3-2002 |
Cato- You have won a free one-way ticket to France. |
