Story here.

Singled out and railroaded because she's a successful woman? Finally arrogant rich bitch gets what she deserves?

And, of course, what does one wear to prison?

This post brought to you by Chase. The right relationship is everything.

I confess, my inner Nelson (kid from The Simpsons) is going "Ha-ha!"

My take: If this had been a trial for Mark Stewart, corporate fat cat, white male CEO who held a seat on the board of the New York Stock Exchange, he'd be warming up a cell for the next guy from Enron to be convicted.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

only one Enron exec has gone to court or been convicted, though I think I remember a newstory last week about the second getting ready to go to court.

I sincerely hope the jury has found the true verdict for Martha Stewart. Though I might convict someone just on that defense attorney's choice of last stomach-turning sentence. How stupid can you get, quoting a slogan like that? Not smart.

quote:

---

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
And, of course, what _does_ one wear to prison?

---

Orange is the *big* color for spring!

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigerstripes:
How stupid can you get, quoting a slogan like that? Not smart.

---

What was the slogan?

www.savemartha.com

Just desserts, eh?

Ok, I'm just kidding but who do you think she was kidding? She used to be a former trader herself.
It wasn't like she tripped and blindly fallen onto the idea of selling.

Cheaters never prosper.

Besides, jails do have kitchens...

Oh yeah, as if she's going to get the max. penalty. Riiiiight. Oh gezz, they've taken her show off the air..boohoo.

Celebrities are the exception to the rules, always.

She'll get minimum security 'Ritz' style hotel jail room. 10-16 months is what the media is speculating at sentencing. Plenty of time for Martha to work out, negotiate a new deal for show, plan revenge cookie reciepes.

~cyn004
www.transference.org

[This message was edited by cyn004 on March 08, 2004 at 12:41 PM.]

but I believe the final defense summation was close to:
'If you review all the evidence, you will find it insufficient and find Martha Stewart not guilty and that will be a "Good Thing".'

Using her corporate slogan as the final words in her defense - I thought that was imbecilic.

Also, looking over what the jurors told the morning yak shows, it sounds like SatNiteLive wasn't far off the mark - they showed a 'juror' telling a 'news anchor', 'Well, after deliberating for three days, the jury all came to the same conclusion that we wanted the trial over by Saturday.'

Here's an actual quote from a Stewart juror --
"We tried five ways to Friday to take it from different angles," juror Meg Crane said. "To work it through. And -- and that was it. We were ... we just could not have done anything else."

--shouldn't that be seven different ways from Sunday? I mean, isn't that how that expression goes?

And the statement the jury claims impressed them from a 'friend' of Martha --

'Jurors said they also relied on the testimony of longtime Stewart friend Mariana Pasternak, who said that Stewart had told her she knew ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was selling his stock. Pasternak testified she remembered Stewart saying, "Isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you those things?"

"We were like, `Wow,"' juror Dana D'Allessandro said. "That blew me away."

Pasternak later acknowledged on cross-examination that the remark may have been something she herself thought, not something Stewart said.'

So *that's* terrific -- you get put away for something someone else might have been only *thinking*.

It sure sounds like Martha's defense was pretty poor. One hour defense vs. four weeks prosecution? That level of incompetency is probably making her crazier than the verdict.

[This message was edited by tigerstripes on March 08, 2004 at 02:56 PM.]