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.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 10:36 AM
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
>-----Original Message-----
>From: RB Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 4:46 AM
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:42 PM
>>Subject: Re: [ZION] Trial by Media
>>RB Scott wrote:
>>>You mean, sort of like the OJ trial?
>>Which trial?
>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
>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.
>///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>///      ///

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to