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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2094)	1/17/2005 5:50:38 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

What I see as a problem for the prosecution is that the relationship between Royer and Cleveland seems to have been much closer than the relationship between Royer and Elgindy. Most of the "information" in question seems to have gone through Cleveland, and it's been shown that he made up some of it. If I were a juror, I think I'd be asking myself why Cleveland was allowed to plea bargain. I also think that references to the investigation of Elgindy's supposed terrorist ties is a wild card. The jurors will no doubt be instructed by the judge not to take that into their consideration, but it's bound to be at the back of their collective mind. Will they conclude that he was being unfairly persecuted simply because he was born in Egypt, or will they believe that where there's smoke, there's fire, and that he should be punished? In any case, I think the introduction of the terrorist stuff has set the stage for an appeal. The prosecution could merely have said that Royer told him he was under investigation, but not explained what kind of investigation. And in a sense there were two investigations: as I understand it, they started with terrorism, and when that turned up nothing, moved on to his association with Royer. And speaking of investigations.... My understanding has always been that if you asked, say, the FBI if you were under investigation, they had to tell you the truth. But perhaps that's changed thanks to the Patriot Act.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2094)	1/17/2005 5:58:12 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

I think the jury may put these hand-in-hand, not either/or. "if the government was successful in getting the jury to view Elgindy as a greedy, power-hungry, manipulative con artist, then they'll find fault is just about everything he did. If, instead, they view him as a greedy, power-hungry, manipulative egotist," A recent example (admittedly a far-removed example) is the Scott Peterson murder trial. The physical evidence was that Scott was a real creep. Physical evidence of the murder itself was lacking. Emotion and "gut feeling" can't be 100% removed from the jury. It may come down to the jury viewing him as a greedy, power-hungry, manipulative egotist, therefore,... con artist.