Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ChrisJP who wrote (109)	3/8/2004 5:52:05 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) of 165

but what did she testify to -- except that Martha changed the phone log? Do innocent people do things like that?? Of course, they do -- if they feel guilty or think that someone might think they are guilty of something -- by the way -- that was something that Martha didn't dispute. It is really quite silly. >>Jurors said they also relied on the testimony of longtime Stewart friend Mariana Pasternak, who said that Stewart had told her she knew ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was selling his stock. [I think most folks don't know it, but that is no crime -- she didn't know why he was selling. Martha was convicted of covering up a non-crime, if she did indeed lie.] Pasternak testified she remembered Stewart saying, "Isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you those things?" "We were like, `Wow,'" juror Dana D'Allessandro said. "That blew me away." Pasternak later acknowledged on cross-examination that the remark may have been something she herself thought, not something Stewart said. << Only Faneuil actually testified to the effect that she lied. None of the other witnesses got to that issue -- they were for emotive effect -- I don't doubt what you say -- that this witness -- because she thought she caught Martha in something that was criminal -- swayed the jury. I still say she did nothing criminal. The prosecution didn't prove that she lied to investigators. The only one who we KNOW without a doubt lied was Faneuil -- the question is when he lied and how often he lied. He clearly cut a deal. They couldn't charge her with insider trading because she didn't do it. So many are so friggin' gleeful over her getting prosecuted and convicted -- I guess most think it is funny because someone rich "got caught with their hands in the cookie jar" so to speak. It's alright when anyone we don't like gets their rights trampled on -- esp if they are richer, more good looking, or more popular. What most don't understand is that when protections are violated without due process or justice is perverted -- utlimately, we all suffer. You can laugh all day at MSO shareholders, but I think justice f'd them for no good reason. Simply because they could.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next