Tom: I think you may have misunderstood. John suggests that people from afar feel sorry for Martha because they are being led by the media. I asked if it was similar to the way the "media" led folks in the OJ trial. I'm not quarreling with the verdict -- Martha lied under oath. Like you, I believe she should have fessed-up early to the insider trading thing -- neither a particularly huge thing when compared to the "cover-up" charges.
That said, she's hardly a big fish. She's a celebrity fish, something the prosectors can hang their hats on. The big fish still are free. I do not judge her professional success as harshly as you. I think it's amusing that a poor girl from Joisy could shape herself into a Super WASP. Sort of a latter-day Eliza Doolittle without her Henry Higgins. It's a wonderful poke in the ribs. RBS >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 10:36 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: RB Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 4:46 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:42 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: [ZION] Trial by Media >> >> >>RB Scott wrote: >> >>> >>>You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? >>> >>>Ron >>> >>> >> >>Which trial? >> >>Tom > >The criminal trial > >Can't compare that with Martha's trial. Most of us saw >almost every >minute of it, sometimes several times. True we had >endless "spin" >commentaries trying to sort it out for us, but we saw >the evidence. I >also believe that the jury practiced "jury >nullification". In effect, >they knew full well that OJ was guilty, but they chose >to nullify the >prosecution for other reasons. Either they accepted the >"race card" as a >trump to the actual evidence, or they nullified because >they believed >the LAPD was unworthy of the conviction. Probably a >combination of those >two reasons. How do you compare the OJ trial with >Martha's trial? It >seems to me that Martha had no defense and therefore >put up no defense. >She relied on her reputation and a parade of celebrity >supporters >sitting behind her in the courtroom to influence the >jury. The jury >didn't buy it. It is also my understanding that had >she admitted doing >what she obviously did - dumping shares on an inside >tip - she could >have taken the high road by admitting her hasty ill >advised action and >been fined and gone on with her life. Instead she falsified her >records, lied to the investigators, and asked others to >lie for her, the >latter being the most despicable of things. Of course, >I have to state >my prejudice here. I feel like her whole "branding" >thing is big lie. >She comes off as this great expert that knows >everything and about >everything and that can manipulate anything into >anything. She came to >believe her own fabrication and it rose up and bit her >- in the end - so >to speak. > >Tom > >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >////////////////////// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >///////////////////// ----------- > > > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
