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: Green Receipt who wrote (93643)	11/29/2005 1:40:51 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

There was never a formal charge against him for that. In fact, I don't believe anyone has been charged with pre-911 knowledge, at least not in connection with trading. In my opinion, it seems like a no-brainer that the jury was prejudiced by those those unsubstantiated (and uncharged) allegations. Nobody, particularly someone of middle eastern heritage, could get a fair trial with that being constantly alleged in front of the jury. Not to mention that the trial was held in NYC. If he had foreknowledge, it should be charged and tried. If then found guilty the maximum penalty should follow. However; to use unsubstantiated allegations of pre-911 knowledge in what seems to be an overt attempt to prejudice a jury in an unrelated matter, that's just wrong. It's the functional equivalent of falsely accusing someone of child molestation in a custody case; the accusation in itself carries a stain that can never be removed even if the accuser recants. It's a shame that the case was tainted by the unsubstantiated 911 allegations. A lot of people, myself included, didn't like the way Elgindy operated or conducted himself, but the charges brought in this case should have been adjudicated on their own merits without the unrelated inflammatory noise. It seems likely the taxpayer money spent trying the case will turn out to have been wasted when the convictions are appealed. Meanwhile, at least two of the lead government prosecutors have used the case to springboard their way into the private sector (as defense counsel). Go figure.

To: Green Receipt who wrote (93643)	11/29/2005 1:42:58 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 122087

I suspect it was just a freak coincidence The 9-11 stuff was the entire reason the trial was held in New York. The fact that once the trial was moved to NY that nothing more was said about 9-11 proves that the government knew very quickly they were barking up the wrong tree. Yet the fact they persisted in keeping the trial in New York despite a very compelling counter-argument by Tony's attorneys shows this was not a coincidence. That's bothersome regardless of how you feel about Tony personally. - Jeff