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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (90242)	1/27/2005 11:14:20 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

But an attorney working for a company is quite different from an FBI agent. I think anyone would work on the assumption that the agent knows the law, and knews what he's allowed to tell you. How can you say that? The FBI agent is not an expert on insider trading. Besides those of you who dealt with him know what insider trading is. If someone hands you something from an FBI data base, celebration and trading is not the way to handle it. LOL.. Not necessarily. Royer and Elgindy were co-defendants. That alone may have made a negative impression on the jury from Day One. And then there's the terrorism stuff. The jury was told to ignore it, but did they really? Did it affect their judgment, even though they probably didn't discuss it? A judge would have been able to ignore it. Disagree with you. Every criminal trial has this type of issue. From what I read, this was an issue which both sides knew would come up and both sides argued about it extensively. The judge didn't just give a flip ruling. It's highly unlikely that an appeal would be successful, at least from what the summaries said. As I posted before, extortion is extortion, irrespective of whether someone was involved in terror or short selling. It's really "reaching" to use that argument. And here's a point we haven't yet discussed: as we all know, many people on the message boards think shortselling is somehow "wrong", "bad", and even "un-American". How did the jurors feel about it. Did it influence them in any way? That's way off. Probably most of the jurors had no idea what shorting involves before they started learning through the presentation. Peter described the jurors and they didn't sound like they were sophisticated traders. As is typical, jurors ideally come in with a blank slate and are taught what is important by the lawyers and, of course, by the judge, who tells them what the law of the case is.