Reply
Thu 8 Apr, 2004 06:50 pm
If anything, the Martha Stewart case should illustrate how an overzealous prosecution combined with a media circus and ignorant jurors can incarcirate an innocent person.
Those familiar with the case know that Martha Stewart didn't commit any crime. The judge declared this quite clearly. So the prosecution tried her for lying about a crime that she didn't commit, and thanks to the media circus, won.
I totally disagree
respectfully of course
Martha was guilty of being an uppity woooman in a male dominated society. She was guilty of making about$5,000 on her brokers tip to dump Imclone.
She was guilty of having too many honest assistants and friends who killed her in their testimony.
She was guilty of greed in trying to erase her daily diary to cover up her misdeeds
She was guilty of hiring a REALLY inept legal team. If I were her, I'd read law in her cell and file a lawsuit for their incompetence.
She was guilty of being tried at the wrong time.
i.e. while Enron and other much more culpabale firms were in the news.
The jurors did their job. And issued a statement that the little guy on Wall Street will be afforded protection. I don't see any incongruity in that.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace