Is a 62 year old crafing and decorating guru really such a menance to society that she needs to be locked up?
I'm not acquainted with the intimate details of the case, but I believe they couldn't even find her guilty of the more heinous conspiracy charges initially brought. She simply wasn't guilty of anything. Wait, I retract that... The only thing she was guilty of was panicking after she was being accused, and thereby lying under oath. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they tried her not on lying under oath, but that she intended to lie under oath... that is, even though her testimony under oath ended up being truthful, they found a way to prove that she *thought* she was lying... that's what I gleaned from all the CNBC coverage a few months ago, anyhow.either way, she only benefited by what? 30k? she didn't do anything. this was a bunk case, and should've been thrown out if you ask me. I mean, *&^%, the jurors didn't even know what they were convicting her of... I also remember that interviews with jurors after the case indicated that they didn't have a firm grasp of the relevant facts in the case...Quote from: daynee on July 16, 2004, 09:10:53 AMIs a 62 year old crafing and decorating guru really such a menance to society that she needs to be locked up?
At least she gets an appeal. Just hope her lawyer(s) are worth their snuff. What kills me is that I would be surprised if that DMX guy (or whatever his name is) gets less time for stealing and crashing cars, having a bunch of crack, and impersonating federal officers, and Martha loses her image, a big chunk of her business, and has to go to jail for lying to an investigator. Not that it's right to lie or anything, the irony just kills me.
it's because we've allowed public opinion to dominate celebrity trials... It's not about a judge or jury deciding the case anymore, it's about public opinion deciding the case... The whole country is the Jury and the Media is the arbitrator.