Re: [ZION] Trial by Media
RB Scott wrote: I doubt her company will tank, although it will go through some rough times. == Grampa Bill comments: Best guess I've heard is that once the value drops low enough, she'll buy it back and take it private. With a privately owned company, she will be able to serve as Chairman and CEO, which she can not do as a convicted felon in a publicly owned company. Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// 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] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
I doubt her company will tank, although it will go through some rough times. >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:10 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media > > >The sad thing is, she was offered a deal wherein she >wouldn't have to do >jail time, but her lawyer talked her out of it. I'm >hearing she'll get >about 18 months. And, of course her company will tank. >Gary > >Tom Matkin wrote: >> >> >> >> -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 >> >> > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith >geraldsmith@ juno.com >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > >// >/// 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 --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
The sad thing is, she was offered a deal wherein she wouldn't have to do jail time, but her lawyer talked her out of it. I'm hearing she'll get about 18 months. And, of course her company will tank. Gary Tom Matkin wrote: > > > > -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 > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// 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 --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
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 --^
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 /// / --^ 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 --^
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 // /// 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 --^
Re: [ZION] Trial by Media
RB Scott wrote: You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? Ron Which trial? Tom // /// 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 --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:22 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [ZION] Trial by Media > > >What cracks me up, and would make me laugh if it >weren't so pathetic, is >the way people suppose they know whether someone is >guilty or innocent >because of the media coverage of a high profile trial. >Consider the Martha >Stewart trial, for instance. >She was found guilty of all four counts given to the >jury. The jury saw >all the evidence in court and unanimously found her >guilty even though each >juror had passed the veto of the defense during jury >selection. Yet a CNN >poll on the website showed that only about 60 percent >of the website >visitors thought she should have been convicted. >Another 40 percent >thought she should have been acquitted. > >On what basis? They weren't on the jury. They didn't >see the evidence or >hear the witnesses. All they have to go on is media >coverage. What is the >point of having a trial if guilt or innocence can be >determined without >one, without hearing the evidence or both sides of the story? > >The mob mentality, driven by the media, would be >laughable if it weren't so >sad. You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? Ron // /// 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 --^
