>>She Refused to Plead Guilty to a Felony<<
yes -- it makes no sense at all ... UNLESS, she did nothing wrong!!
Do you think that she could have paid a 200,000 fine and been done with it?? Or would leverage have been applied for her to testify (perhaps, falsely) against her broker??
From the same article:
1) Leverage was clearly applied to Faneuil to get him to testify the way he did.
2) Second witness only said that she changed a phone log -- which Martha did not dispute -- as far as I know.
3) The third "witness" apparently only testified to the "lavish" lifestyle of Martha.
4) Apparently NO testimony was given that indicates that Martha knew WHY Waskal was selling his shares or that she tried to obtain inside information on which to sell. If she had contacted Waskal, they certainly could have produced him as a witness, but they didn't. Hence, she could not be charged with insider trading.
Did she lie? I don't think there is any compelling proof that she did ... However, we do know this for a fact -- the man who sent her to jail DID LIE -- unfortunately we cannot tell WHEN.
What do you figure this trial cost? Supposedly, she saved herself 50k by selling when she did? Who did this harm -- if she knew that Waskal was selling?? The size of her trade was de-minimis --
If ALL she knew was that Sam Waskal was selling and she sold -- she didn't do anything wrong -- did her position affect her getting to know that information -- probably -- but were others told?? Are more charges going to be forthcoming?? I doubt it. This is ALL politics and nothing about justice or law, IMO.
I for one, don't think she did anything criminal ....
For those who don't think it is POSSIBLE that she didn't lie or that she isn't guilty -- I think it would be worthwhile for you to think about WHY you think this.
that last witness was clearly put into the case for nothing other than to incite envy. She may be an annoying person. She may be a rich person who doesn't care for others. She may think she's the greatest woman on the earth -- but none of these are crimes.
>>In the end, the government's case really came down to three key witnesses—Faneuil, Martha's assistant Ann Armstrong and her friend Mariana Pasternak (make that former friend). Faneuil was riveting. With the earnestness of a schoolboy and the dramatic flourishes of a one-man show, the 28-year-old channeled the voices of his boss and his No. 1 client. Faneuil was the only one in the office when the Waksals lit up his phone with orders to sell that day. (Bacanovic brokered for both Martha and the Waksals.) Faneuil explained how his boss reacted when he reached him on vacation in Florida. " 'Oh my God'," Faneuil said in Bacanovic's voice, " 'you've got to get Martha on the phone!' " When Stewart's private jet touched down in San Antonio, Texas, to refuel, she called in. " 'Hi, this is Martha'," Faneuil testified in Stewart's clipped tones, " 'what's going on with Sam?' " Once Faneuil explained that Waksal was trying to cash out, Martha asked ImClone's price and ordered: " 'I want to sell all my shares'."
advertisement
As compelling as he was, though, jurors were not entirely convinced, because Faneuil had cut a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for initially backing Bacanovic's and Stewart's alibis. "This was the most stressful experience of his life," says Faneuil's attorney Marc Powers. But Armstrong's and Pasternak's testimonies supported Faneuil's story. "Hearing those two others testify made me believe [Faneuil] was telling the truth," says Hartridge.
<< |
