Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Whodunit? Two Stockbrokers Murdered in Jersey; No Clues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tech Master who wrote (796)	11/10/1999 9:55:00 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 1156

Multiple gunmen? Possibly, but then two guns gives you coverage if the first clip runs out. But the statement was at least two guns were used. If more than two guns then that would be overkill for a single shooter. (Excuse the pun.) Multiple shooters is multiple voices that can sing one against the other and even against the the party or parties that may have arranged their deaths. That is a much greater risk of prosecution. Unless, the multiple shooters are in an organization whose by-laws don't permit testifying against each other. The scene described seems to suggest Chalem as the focus. In this case the AS Goldmen situation can not be dismissed at all. Note the SEC had set aside their action against the Goldmen people, while local authorities in Florida were pursuing criminal convictions first. (See #reply-11867124 and #reply-11867241 ) The SEC would only have cost them part of what they made in all likelihood. The criminal charges mean hard time. That could be plenty of motive if you were sitting on millions in buried profits and looking forward to enjoying your riches.

To: Tech Master who wrote (796)	11/10/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1156

I think who was killed first is still inconclusive, at least by the information we have from the papers. Yes, assuming Chalem was shot "once in each eye, once in each ear and once in the mouth" it was certainly sending a message... but to whom? If Lehmann were already dead it obviously wasn't to him. So, if we assume Chalem was killed last then either the killer(s) did it to make themselves or their boss happy, or they did it to send a message to others on the assumption such information would be made public at some point. It is important to note the source of the information: Chalem's autopsy report. I would assume people that write such reports obviously are able to distinguish between an entry and exit hole. Therefore, I will assume the grisly comments were scientific and not said with a touch of the theatric. Then there's the part that said "wounds were not dead center, but were near Chalem's eyes and ears... As recounted by the source, Chalem was seated and had reached for a cell phone when the first shot was fired, smashing through the phone and knocking him to the floor. As he tried to crawl out of the room, the killer or killers apparently came around the table and fired again and again." If Lehmann were indeed alive, it would be kind of hard to send a message to him by shooting his partner trying to crawl away. More than likely you'd pick the guy up and put him back in a chair or in a location he could be more visible to the guy you were trying to intimidate. This makes me lean towards the idea Chalem was indeed the target. Lastly, on the "send a message" speculation... Well, if the message were for the public, I'd assume the bodies would have been arranged in a more "showy" position, perhaps side by side, perhaps posed in a certain way, etc. Apparently they were left where they were shot. So, all I can deduce is that Chalem was the victim and the people that murdered him did it in a way that satisfied their bosses and/or associates, not anyone else. Yet the remainder of the article does make a good case about why Lehmann apparently feared for his life. I guess that's why this case is a classic whodunit (g). - Jeff