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.

Non-Tech : Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (137)	3/9/2004 2:43:17 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 165

good post. thanks -- I see where you are coming from.

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (137)	3/9/2004 9:04:15 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 165

She's the one that was arrogant enough to think that she could go toe-to-toe with the Feds without a lawyer present. Kerry, that's an interesting perception. What makes you conclude this as opposed to the idea that perhaps Martha didn't think she had anything to hide? If a Fed said they'd like to talk to you in connection with a murder next door that you didn't even know about until you saw flashing police lights, would you have a lawyer sitting at your side (assuming cost was not an issue)? I don't think I would because that might make me look suspicious when in fact I had nothing to hide (not to mention just the principle of having to spend money on a lawyer in this situation bothers me). However, I'm fully aware that unless you have an airtight alibi, it's really easy to figure out a plausible scenario how just about anyone could have done something. Let's not forget that Martha only altered an incriminating message for a moment before having her secretary change it back. A truly arrogant person would probably have ordered their secretary to change it and keep their mouth shut or else, and assume they'd get away with it. That's not saying Martha isn't an arrogant person in other respects... just that I'm not sure it applies in these instances. - Jeff