Do you think she had inside information? - Conviction of Martha Stewart

Do you think she had inside information?

Conviction of Martha Stewart Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Kookaburra

Did she have inside information?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

I say "yes"

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

I say yes too. She has advisors that could have told her it was illegal. I think she knew what she was doing, and I think her advisors gave her inside information. You can't be in business that long and not know the ropes.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Agreed... she's been "playing" the stock market for years. She's no dummy.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

An absolute, without a doubt, YES!

She knew what was going on!


Can you say BUSTED???

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Won't her cell and cell mate just love what she does with to the 'joint!'
She will have it decorated up, and maybe she can whip up something yummie to eat with whatever she can!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

Because she hasn't had her day in court, I'm very skittish about saying yes ... but ... skittishly ... YES !

IF she gets jail time her confinement will be at one of those white collar resort type of places and I hope they have her working in the gardens ... pitching the manure

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

Gee, obaf.... you wouldn't dislike her now would you?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

I know one thing... I don't like her!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: fuscia

I think she knew.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Marlene Newell

Why do we bother to have trials nowadays? Why don't we just take a national poll and majority wins. Why waste all that taxpayer money? No one is going to change their minds anyway -- no such thing as "acquitted" in this day and age, nope it's "got off." Guess that's why the guy who spent 22 years on death row for a rape/murder he did not commit was on Greta Van Susteren tonite to tell his story.

Maybe Martha is guilty, but like every other accused, she deserves her day in court. Hopefully, she won't be convicted unless she truly is guilty.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

My goodness... just because we're saying that we feel that she's done this, Marlene... we still feel that she deserves a fair trial. We never said that she didn't... or that we would want her to go to jail if she was found innocent.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Unfortunatley... it's human nature to feel one way, or another, over any given thing.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
KJ said this in post #12 :
My goodness... just because we're saying that we feel that she's done this, Marlene... we still feel that she deserves a fair trial. We never said that she didn't... or that we would want her to go to jail if she was found innocent.


In total agreement KJ!!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

Marlene! There you are! I haven't seen you post lately and I thought you were on vacation or something.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

Marlene, she isn't being tried for insider information. She's being tried for obstruction of the investigation. When you lie, there should be consequences to pay for it.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

Quite frankly, I'm glad there is a crack down on corporate crime. I'm sick of all of it.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Kooka, I was thinking the same thing... that she hadn't been around.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Marlene Newell

quote:
Kookaburra said this in post #15 :
Marlene! There you are! I haven't seen you post lately and I thought you were on vacation or something.


. . . or something.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

quote:
Marlene Newell said this in post

#11 :

Why do we bother to have trials nowadays? Why don't we just take a national poll and majority wins. Why waste all that taxpayer money? No one is going to change their minds anyway -- no such thing as "acquitted" in this day and age, nope it's "got off." Guess that's why the guy who spent 22 years on death row for a rape/murder he did not commit was on Greta Van Susteren tonite to tell his story.

Maybe Martha is guilty, but like every other accused, she deserves her day in court. Hopefully, she won't be convicted unless she truly is guilty.

Hi Marlene ...

You've got a point and maybe we can let Gallup or some other pollsters decide elections too ... hmmmm ... maybe in a way they do ?

Just want to say again that I'm skittish about stating an opinion before all the facts are in, but I did, and really that's all it is.

Martha Stewart definitely deserves a fair trial but if she did not do anything illegal, she deserves to have her "good name" back ... and if she is found guilty, deserves to be punished for it ... fairly.

But how "fair" is it that she possibly gained financially from an alledged crime, and can use it to buy top notch legal and jury consultants and legal representation and if convicted will likely do the time in a "white collar" setting. I would venture a guess that Greta's guy who spent 22 years on death row for a rape/murder he did not commit ... didn't get the same level of "fair".

This may now be leaning dangerously towards off-topic as re Martha Stewart so if there's a thread somewhere on fair and equal justice point me at it, please.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

I'll tell you what justice would be if she is guilty. That would be having the stocks she sold boost so high that it produces more profit than Martha anticipated when she first bought them. The buyer of the stocks would have the last laugh.

I don't know that Martha is guilty. I just believe she's smart enough to know better, and has enough advisors to know better. I don't believe she bypassed information from her advisors, and I bet she asked before she sold.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Marlene Newell

quote:
oldbutafan said this in post #20 :

Hi Marlene ...

You've got a point and maybe we can let Gallup or some other pollsters decide elections too ... hmmmm ... maybe in a way they do ?

Just want to say again that I'm skittish about stating an opinion before all the facts are in, but I did, and really that's all it is.

Martha Stewart definitely deserves a fair trial but if she did not do anything illegal, she deserves to have her "good name" back ... and if she is found guilty, deserves to be punished for it ... fairly.

But how "fair" is it that she possibly gained financially from an alledged crime, and can use it to buy top notch legal and jury consultants and legal representation and if convicted will likely do the time in a "white collar" setting. I would venture a guess that Greta's guy who spent 22 years on death row for a rape/murder he did not commit ... didn't get the same level of "fair".

This may now be leaning dangerously towards off-topic as re Martha Stewart so if there's a thread somewhere on fair and equal justice point me at it, please.


Nope, he sure didn't. And his story is only one of hundreds. I used to be very pro-prosecution and pretty much assumed they must have the goods on the guy/gal, or they wouldn't make an arrest. Some is simple human error -- none of us bats a thousand. But much of it is a combination of incompetency and a rush to judgment on the part of the public. If it wasn't so easy to convince us that someone is guilty, maybe we would be a better deterrent to the innocent being convicted.

quote:
The influence that lurks in an opinion once formed is so persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes of the average man.


I'm just saying, be a little harder to convince that someone is guilty.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

quote:
Marlene Newell said this in post #22 :
Nope, he sure didn't. And his story is only one of hundreds. I used to be very pro-prosecution and pretty much assumed they must have the goods on the guy/gal, or they wouldn't make an arrest.
Some is simple human error -- none of us bats a thousand. But much of it is a combination of incompetency and a rush to judgment on the part of the public. If it wasn't so easy to convince us that someone is guilty, maybe we would be a better deterrent to the innocent being convicted.

Here, here ! Can you say Death Row now vacant in Illiniois !

I'm just saying, be a little harder to convince that someone is guilty.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty really is my credo and truly ... only FAIR. In this case some say she is being railroaded because of her celebrity, but honestly, it's hard to believe that she was ignorant of what was happening.

If I change my bet from Horse A (the favorite) to Horse B ( the long shot ) a few minutes before they are out of the gate and then win big on Horse B ... we all celebrate.

But, If I play the horses regularly and am savvy, and if the jockey on Horse A is my good friend and business associate, and he called me 10 minutes before the race and then Horse A lost because he "fell" off the horse ... you just have to say Hmmmmmm ? That's all I'm saying.

be well


Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

The public sees the same old, same old...... suspicion makes one guilty.

Yep, Martha is guilty of something...... U.S. Prosecutors KNOW they don't have inside trading violations, so they charge her with guilty of something....

Gotta find something but forgot about the original legal charge. The Prosecutors weren't doing Martha a favor by not filing "insider trading" violations, but simply lying. Oh, okay......pretty soon the Constitution will be eroded when the cops accuse you of some violations and you say..... "NO, I didn't." Then they can't proof you didn't but along the way they say.....you're guilty of lying.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: KM179

quote:
KJ said this in post #4 :
Agreed... she's been "playing" the stock market for years. She's no dummy.


Not only did she play the stock market she use to be a stock broker. These people that are so high up lose conception between right and wrong. They go into self denial whenever someone points out what they did was wrong. Unfortunately denial is not a river in Egypt.

The lower class people are finally starting to speak out and what they are saying is that we had enough of this corporate crap that has been happening. We had enough of being manipulated by the products we buy and by the services we get. We are not going to take this **** anymore.

Look at Eisner and company for instance...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Kookaburra

Well, apparently people haven't had enough of Martha because they ran out to K-mart and bought her stuff. Our news reported on it, and people said they're going to support her and her products.

Personally, I hope people send a message to K-mart and tell them we aren't going to tolerate this corporate corruption, and either drop the line or we all go to Wal-mart

Oh wait.. I think we already go to Wal-mart don't we?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Cazcat

quote:
Kookaburra said this in post #3 :
I say yes too. She has advisors that could have told her it was illegal. I think she knew what she was doing, and I think her advisors gave her inside information. You can't be in business that long and not know the ropes.


Of course she knew it was illegal....she used to work on Wall Street
Reply To this Message

Posted by: KM179

quote:
Kookaburra said this in post #26 :
Well, apparently people haven't had enough of Martha because they ran out to K-mart and bought her stuff. Our news reported on it, and people said they're going to support her and her products.

Personally, I hope people send a message to K-mart and tell them we aren't going to tolerate this corporate corruption, and either drop the line or we all go to Wal-mart

Oh wait.. I think we already go to Wal-mart don't we?


That is because these people who are supporting her did not get hurt by what she did and or do not understand the underlying right from wrong.

I do not care who she is. She did wrong and then did a terrible job in trying t o cover it up.

anyone who deals in securities knows that there always is a log of what took place. All market orders are wriiten up, entered in the computer, and an acknowledgement is mailed out to the client detailing what took place. Taking a sheet of paper and inking in at $60 does not prove anything. Where is the computer log.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: chelktty

I agree KM179, those supporters buying her items at Kmart probably never bought stocks in the market and haven't got a clue about how it works. Martha was greedy, plain and simple. She's worth millions and saved herself a mere 50k with selling her stocks because of insider information. Now I hope she pays more than that for it because the little guys who had stock in that company lost much more, and probably didn't have the luxury of her financial portfolio to stand such a loss.

Kooka, I'm a Walmart customer too. In fact, they've closed all the Kmarts around here. I think there's maybe one left in Tampa and it's in North Tampa...pretty far for anyone in my area to make the trek for Martha's overpriced linens.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Benyamin

She should get the book thrown at her. 20 years I say
I mean really if they let her out on the street anything
could happen. She is a threat to everones safety.
who knows who she will murder, rape or mug next.

the whole thing is stupid...if your broker called you up and
said trump is dumping his stock and asked you what you
want him to do with your trump stock, what would you do?

I would say dump trump.

ok so she wasn't charged with that. she was charged with
covering it up....still it's nonsense

Reply To this Message

Posted by: jrkiv

Ben,
I don't think the millions of stockholders in this country who constantly lose money in these sort of cases think its nonsense. Coporations make bogus projections, trick normal citizens into buying stock that isn't as firm as they believe it is, and then the CEOs bail out at the right time leaving the little people to lose the money. I don't think the martha stewart prosecution is bogus, i'm glad we caught an exec breaking the rules and trying to cover it up ... it's you and i who normally pay the price.
I'm also behind this conviction because Martha had the chance to plea it down to a fine and some other minor penalties. The only reason she is going to jail is because she thought she could get away with the whole thing. I have no sympathy for people who believe they are above the law.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: chelktty

Ditto jrkiv!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: KM179

quote:
jrkiv said this in post #31 :
Ben,
I don't think the millions of stockholders in this country who constantly lose money in these sort of cases think its nonsense. Coporations make bogus projections, trick normal citizens into buying stock that isn't as firm as they believe it is, and then the CEOs bail out at the right time leaving the little people to lose the money. I don't think the martha stewart prosecution is bogus, i'm glad we caught an exec breaking the rules and trying to cover it up ... it's you and i who normally pay the price.
I'm also behind this conviction because Martha had the chance to plea it down to a fine and some other minor penalties. The only reason she is going to jail is because she thought she could get away with the whole thing. I have no sympathy for people who believe they are above the law.


I will take it one step further. Our legal system needs to
abandon the lets make a deal by plea bargaining. You do the crime you do the time based on the findings of the U.S.A jurors.
In this case I am kind of glad that Martha's stubbornness prevailed resulting in her refusal to admit guilt of any kind.

It is amazing how intelligent Martha Stewart is suppose to be but yet she cannot comprehend the slightest error in judgment that resulted in her taking the wrong action in regard to the financial transaction she had done. Companies are helping her to understand what she did was wrong big time
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Conviction of Martha Stewart Forum: Do you think she had inside information?

Forum Forum Forum