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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (140)	3/9/2004 9:44:06 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Respond to of 165

Hi Jeff, 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). Let's address the cost factor first. Martha had then, and has now, enough money to buy and sell, many times over, the best lawyers the world has to offer. I doubt that the cost of an attorney even entered her mind. Lawyers and their fees are simply a fact of life for the extremely wealthy in our society. However, you may have a point on the cost thing. Perhaps Martha suffers from the same quirk that afflicted Leona Helmsley, being super umm... frugal... Now for the rest of it, in your example, you were unaware of a crime. The police likely want to talk with you as a potential witness. Perhaps you saw something or heard something. Perhaps you can provide background information on the victims, things like habits, mannerisms, work location, identity of friends and relatives, stuff like that. There's no indication to you that you might be a potential suspect other than the fact that your status as a next-door neighbor puts you as the closest known person to the victim before the murder. Constrast that with Martha's situation. The newspapers, tabloids, television, and radio programs had been seething with news regarding the sale of her Imclone stocks. The stories went on for weeks on end. She knew that the SEC suspected her transaction might have insider trading implications. So when Martha went in to talk with the Feds, she knew full well what they wanted to talk about and why. Couple that with the fact that she likely received a summons from the Feds, a summons that clearly spells out what documents and data that the Feds want to review (in this case, her trading records, and any information, data relating to the purchase and subsequent sale of Imclone stock). These things are usually pretty clearly spelled out. There's no mistaking the intentions of the summons. So, even knowing what she knew (and in my mind, she was uncertain in her own mind whether or not she had committed insider trading violations) she agreed to meet with the Feds, very likely bringing the requested records to the meeting. Simply going there, without legal representation present, is in my opinion the height of arrogance. In all likelihood, at some time during her interview, she was asked about legal representation. I don't know. But to meet with these guys and think you can bluff your way through the interview is just, well, arrogant. Her disdain for the process and the Feds is quite "visible", in my opinion. 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. A smarter person, without arrogance, would not have had witnesses around when attempting the change... KJC