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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : 10-Bagger MINIMUM Rise from July 1, 2005 until December 31, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (392)	9/23/2005 3:38:46 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Respond to of 1694

rrufff, you're preachin' to the choir. I couldn't agree more. <<I think bringing his defense to a message board is not a smart move, legally or otherwise,>> Worse than "not smart".... it is misleading and pathetic, and shows a lack of remorse that's not likely to favorably influence any judge. <<We don't have the resources or the will to stop all manipulation so the government makes a showcase of big names and those who put themselves out.>> I am not at all convinced we don't have the resources. The major problem is there is little or no motivation. <<Many have posted about how stupid the jury was or rather how they lacked knowledge of the inner workings of the markets.>> Maybe. But they knew an arrogant, manipulative, arguably sociopathic criminal when they saw one. And IMHO, that's why he was convicted. They knew the subtle but complex details of market workings were not particularly relevant. Besides, if unsophistication on the part of the jury was the problem, then it is a simple matter for any defense attorney to educate them, and I am sure that's precisely what they would have done if they had thought it was relevant and/or productive to do so. Elgindy's long, long post about each of the counts and how the prosecutor selectively took bits and pieces to slant things begs a huge question: why didn't the defense point that out, and slant things to their advantage? Where was the defense attorney when all this was going on, eating lunch somewhere? Obviously, we are, unsurprisingly, getting a very narrow, skewed view of the proceedings. Nothing is said about cross examination or what the defense did to counter the prosecutor, who after all, was doing the job he was paid to do----convict the accused. And he did. So Elgindy is guilty, and must face the consequences. Personally, I think he probably could have gotten away with the whole thing and still be running his operations if he learned from the professionals: they keep a very low profile and hold their cards close to their vest. Make a spectacle of yourself, and you just liable to attract attention from sources that will prove your undoing, such as the Feds. <<Extortion and taking from government sources does not make one a great trader.>> Right. Also, it is hardly necessary or even helpful for the jury to understand the difference between the inside bid and the inside ask and to know what the "axe" means and crossed markets and gunning the stops and a ton of other market esoterica. All they really had to do was understand what extortion and racketeering are, the particular context is much less relevant. The guy's a walking clinic on how NOT to conduct oneself in the marketplace. Or in the courtroom. Or on SI, for that matter. We're on the same page here, dude. T