Martha's GUILTY of all counts!

[Livia]

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Now, where are all those prison jpg's that were floating around. You know, w/ the frilly cot bedspreads, etc.?

She's gonna appeal anyway...

:laugh:

[DeeGeMe]

So Martha's gonna have to go to the big house. I like her, I really do. I find her to be highly entertaining. But sometimes, when I watch her show, I realize that a little prison time might be good for her! This is why I try never to do anything illegal--I'm a redhead and just wouldn't look good in prison orange.

Seriously, I just don't understand why someone that rich would have done something so stupid just to save what amounted to less than $50-60K. She lost millions in the value of her own stock, Martha Stewart OmniMedia. Sales of Martha Stewart Living and of her bridal magazine have both tanked.

I did hear that one of the federal prison farms she might be sent to has a really good horticulture program. I'm sure she'd be good at that. I just don't know why they don't sentence her to having to redecorate houses---they could start at mine!

[dissention]

Those jurors must've been on crack. This entire affair is abhorrable and sickening; this was a shakedown to end all shakedowns.

My sympathies are with Stewart and Bacanovic. Those prosecutors were out for blood and they got it. I sincerely hope that evidence of prosecutorial misconduct surfaces, because I know they're guilty of it.

What a joke. :rolleyes:

[GardenStateGirlie]

I still don't believe she did anything wrong...I think it's all bull**** and a sad and pathetic attempt to make an example out of her. What's the world coming to?

[Sarah]

Originally posted by dissention
Those jurors must've been on crack. This entire affair is abhorrable and sickening; this was a shakedown to end all shakedowns.

My sympathies are with Stewart and Bacanovic. Those prosecutors were out for blood and they got it. I sincerely hope that evidence of prosecutorial misconduct surfaces, because I know they're guilty of it.

I hope this is the only time I EVER agree with you. But I do, fully.

She's been punished enough over a measly 51,000. She was totally persecuted. I'm sure she probably isn't Jesus Christ reincarnated, but the fact that some people are jealous of her and think she's a "bitch" shouldn't have had a factor in this, and it did. (Probably mixed with animosity/jealous that lots of people have for her because they realize she's something they can strive to but never be.) Other people, I'm sure, have done much.. much worse and gotten off easy. Besides.. aren't we supposed to be promoting business? How is a decline in her stocks going to help the government any? Somebody wake these dumbfks up, please.

When her stock plummets further than it has.. the company is forced to close some of its productions.. and some people lose their jobs.. just.. tsk tsk.

They should have just given her a slap on the wrist (harder than the one O.J. got :laugh: ) and let her get on her way.



What a joke. :rolleyes:

A very unfunny joke. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Those jurors must've been on crack. This entire affair is abhorrable and sickening; this was a shakedown to end all shakedowns.

My sympathies are with Stewart and Bacanovic. Those prosecutors were out for blood and they got it. I sincerely hope that evidence of prosecutorial misconduct surfaces, because I know they're guilty of it.

What a joke. :rolleyes:

Misconduct - no - not in the slightest. Two eyewitnesses, one of which was a govt. official, emphatically stated MS falsified evidence and/or lied to the authorities. Conversely, MS put on essentially no defense to rebut this. Her defense essentially was, a la La Ryder, "Don't convict because I am Martha Stewart and although I may have behaved badly they are picking on me because I am famous." While they may have been picking on her, that loathsome act does not obviate the fact that she repeatedly commited more than one crime and it was appropriate for them to prosecute her for it. If we as a society let her get away with lying to authorities and changing evidence to cover her own a$$, then why should anyone be compelled when asked to tell the truth or not to expoliate evidence to obstruct justice :shrug: She has no one to thank but her own stupid self IMO.

Note: I do think this was a waste and they should have pleaded her out to save the $$$ this trial cost. But, she shares some responsibility for that because she probably said any plea involves no jail time, etc.

"Pride goeth before the fall" :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Her defense essentially was, a la La Ryder, "Don't convict because I am Martha Stewart and although I may have behaved badly they are picking on me because I am famous."

No, the defense was that she shouldn't be convicted because there was reasonable doubt to her being guilty. The prosecution never proved their case and their witnesses were shaky at best. Fanueil was totally unbelievable and he was the star witness.

As for prosecutorial misconduct, you can bet your ass that some evidence of it surfaces. Now it's Martha who's out for blood and she sure as hell will get it. And rightfully so.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Sarah
I hope this is the only time I EVER agree with you. But I do, fully.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm glad to see we finally agree on something. Amen to everything you said. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
No, the defense was that she shouldn't be convicted because there was reasonable doubt to her being guilty. The prosecution never proved their case and their witnesses were shaky at best. Fanueil was totally unbelievable and he was the star witness.

As for prosecutorial misconduct, you can bet your ass that some evidence of it surfaces. Now it's Martha who's out for blood and she sure as hell will get it. And rightfully so.

I am unsure what you mean by misconduct? If you mean that the prosecutor had it out for her and/or was using her to make a name for himself - well, while that may be repugnant, it is not misconduct. In this case, the state had a very good case against MS on these three charges and the jury did not hesitate to find her guilty on the direct testimony of two eyewitnesses *the sevretary and the criminal investigator). Also, MS presented no rebuttal witness against the testimony of the state investigator, who I believe (I could be wrong) had recorded conversations of MS lying in an attempt to exculpate herself. How is that not obstruction of justice and why is the state wrong or misconducting itself by prosecuting her for it :shrug: Again, I agree the state should have pleaded this out, but MS would have had to agree to a plea, which she did not do if one was offered :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am unsure what you mean by misconduct? If you mean that the prosecutor had it out for her and/or was using her to make a name for himself - well, while that may be repugnant, it is not misconduct. In this case, the state had a very good case against MS on these three charges and the jury did not hesitate to find her guilty on the direct testimony of two eyewitnesses *the sevretary and the criminal investigator). Also, MS presented no rebuttal witness against the testimony of the state investigator, who I believe (I could be wrong) had recorded conversations of MS lying in an attempt to exculpate herself. How is that not obstruction of justice and why is the state wrong or misconducting itself by prosecuting her for it :shrug: Again, I agree the state should have pleaded this out, but MS would have had to agree to a plea, which she did not do if one was offered :shrug:

By misconduct I mean putting witnesses on the stand that they knew were lying and making false claims. Fanueil being the first a prime example. I fail to understand how they found him to be credible.

I believe that not only did they have it out for Martha, they did anything to convict her, including having witnesses make false statements and putting through phoney evidence.

But their day will come soon.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
By misconduct I mean putting witnesses on the stand that they knew were lying and making false claims. Fanueil being the first a prime example. I fail to understand how they found him to be credible.

I believe that not only did they have it out for Martha, they did anything to convict her, including having witnesses make false statements and putting through phoney evidence.

But their day will come soon.

Where is the proof DF was lying? If it is because a deal was made to get this testimony, prosecutors make many deals daily with one of the co-conspirators to nail the rest. Prosecutors know that the law allows this and the jury is informed of the deal made. The jury specifically takes this into account when determining the credibility of the the testimony of the co-conspirator, here DF. In this case, the jury believed DF despite the deal her made.

I think they believed DF because even without DF's testimony, two other eyewitnesses had MS lying and altering and/or expoliating evidence to cover up her malfeasance (do you really think she just "happened" to sell her Imclone shares then? :laugh: ).

Again, if MS had just told the truth instead of thinking she could be above the law or that the law did not apply to her, she would not be in this situation now.

Interestingly, weren't you crying out about W's alleged obstruction of justice on the issue of the DUI so many yeas ago. Yet, its okay for MS to obstruct justice, which is clearly what she did.

Again, I think this matter should have been settled with a fine and perhaps a suspended sentence. But, the prosecutor's willingness to go to trial is not misconduct and MS is in the end 100% responsible for her actions as we all should be.

:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Where is the proof DF was lying? If it is because a deal was made to get this testimony, prosecutors make many deals daily with one of the co-conspirators to nail the rest. Prosecutors know that the law allows this and the jury is informed of the deal made. The jury specifically takes this into account when determining the credibility of the the testimony of the co-conspirator, here DF. In this case, the jury believed DF despite the deal her made.

Interestingly, weren't you crying out about W's alleged obstruction of justice on the issue of the DUI so many yeas ago. Yet, its okay for MS to obstruct justice, which is clearly what she did.

Proof? He changed his story three goddamned times and, by all accounts, sounded like a rehearsed robot on the stand. Then we come to find out that he was granted immunity for his testimony? That doesn't pass the smell test, buddy. Those prosecutors knew he was full of ****, but they wanted someone who had close contact with Stewart and Bacanovic to make their case.

And I never cried about W's "obstruction of justice." I cried about his continued denial and lying of things that actually went down. He said he never had to go to court. Lie #1. He said it was taken care of that night. Lie #2. He said that jail was never an issue. Lie #3. He said his license wasn't suspended. Lie #4. The list goes on and on and on and on. But not once did I say he obstructed justice; I said he continues to lie to the American people about his past and that says a lot about his character. But if you want to get into this Dubya business, by all means, do so. The lies only support my argument.

[strandinthewind]

Oops, I thought in another thread awhile back you said W obstructed justice with the DUI stuff. So :sorry: for misremembering.

As for DF's testimony, even if it was excluded by some strange twist fo fate (again - this type of testimony is used alll of the time), why didn't Martha present any evidence to counter the other two eyewitnesses to the conspiracy to obstruct justce charges :shug: Almost any lawyer who has ever prosecuted will tell you this case was fairly as open and shut as any case can be. This does not mean the prosecution was not "out to get her." I think they were and that taking this to trial was a huge waste of $$$$ and time when far larger fish are out there, etc. But, MS sure made it easy for them :cool:

[strandinthewind]

a look at what the jurors thought

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040308_402.html

_______________________________________

NEW YORK March 8 — Jurors in the Martha Stewart trial said they felt pity for the fallen celebrity homemaker as her verdict was read, but that ultimately they were sure they had made the right decision.
"I choked up and I felt my eyes tearing and I was very relieved that the judge read the verdict, because I wasn't sure if I would have to do that," jury forewoman Rosemary McMahon said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Foreman said she looked at Stewart briefly after the verdict was read, and "that's when I just realized I was very upset about it and I turned back and looked at the judge."

"It was a terrible thing to happen to any person," juror Amos Mellinger said, also speaking on "Good Morning America."

Despite their sympathy for Stewart, the jury's decision to convict her of lying about a stock sale was made "after careful consideration of everything that we had," McMahon said. "We did what we had to do."

Stewart, who could face up to 20 years in prison, was expected to report Monday to a probation office for processing related to her June 17 sentence.

Other jurors said Stewart's assistant Ann Armstrong, who reluctantly testified that Stewart tried to alter a phone record of a message from her stockbroker, was the key witness leading them to the domestic diva's conviction.

Armstrong testified that Stewart sat down at Armstrong's desk to change a message from her broker, Peter Bacanovic, that informed her that he thought the ImClone stock price would start falling.

"She ultimately gave the testimony that was going to bring Martha down. That was a very important piece," said juror Chappell Hartridge, one of six jurors who spoke to "Dateline NBC" in interviews that aired Sunday night.

"We all believed her 100 percent," juror Adam Sachs said of Armstrong.

The jurors also said they believed other key prosecution witnesses in the case against Stewart, including Bacanovic assistant Douglas Faneuil, and were puzzled that the defense spent less than an hour presenting its case after weeks of prosecution testimony.

The defense team told jurors, "don't believe it. It didn't happen, so don't believe it," McMahon said. "But we ... were sitting there going, but we saw this and we heard that. And, you know, we have evidence of this. And, you know, testimony of that. So it was like, we need more. You know? We were waiting. We were hoping."

The eight women and four men deliberated 12 hours over three days before convicting Stewart Friday on all four counts against her conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of making false statements.

Both she and Bacanovic, who was convicted of obstruction, making false statements, conspiracy and perjury, have vowed to appeal.

Stewart was convicted of lying to cover up the reason she sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001 avoiding a hefty loss when the company announced bad news the next day.

Prosecutors had offered Stewart a chance last April to plead guilty to just one of the four charges against her making a false statement in exchange for a probation sentence, Newsweek reported Sunday, citing unidentified sources close to the case. But a defense source told the magazine that prosecutors could not guarantee that Stewart would avoid jail time completely and Stewart refused the offer, Newsweek reported.

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.

Despite defense efforts to discredit Faneuil, jurors said they believed the testimony of the former Merrill Lynch assistant.

"We all agreed that he was very rehearsed, and we did take a long look at that," juror Laskin said. But, he added, "we ultimately felt that it (his testimony) was essentially credible."

The jurors also said Stewart's reputation as a stickler for detail made it hard to believe that she did not remember receiving a message from Bacanovic warning her about ImClone.

"That wasn't really believable. 'Cause this is a woman who pays attention to details," McMahon said.

Jurors said while they spent days exhaustively going over the evidence, they always came to the same conclusion.

"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."

[strandinthewind]

Another article (this one from Time) explaining why MS has no one to blame but herself.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040315-598505,00.html?cnn=yes

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops, I thought in another thread awhile back you said W obstructed justice with the DUI stuff. So :sorry: for misremembering.

There's nothing to be sorry about, darling. :p

[sparky]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I agree the state should have pleaded this out, but MS would have had to agree to a plea, which she did not do if one was offered :shrug:

They should have done a plea. I bet she did something wrong, but I think she has to not only take some of the responsibility for that, but also for her persona. She really comes off as arrogant and unlikable. That is no reason to CONVICT her, but people are human, and if someone seems like a bitch, they don't get much sympathy. And I really do feel badly for her. I think she is paying for the collective crimes of Ken Lay and all those scumbags who committed stock crimes of far greater gravity.

I heard she has great grounds for appeal - because one juror stated that they held her choice to not testify against her. They thought it implied that she disrespected the jury. Don't know if that holds legal water or not.

[strandinthewind]

I am unsure if that is adequate grounds for an appeal; it really just depends on the context, etc.

I, too, feel sorry for her because although she committed several crimes, she is paying a price most people in the same boat are never required to pay. They take the plea that invariably is offered as one was in this case.