You have the right to remain silent--beware if you don't.
Frances Morey
austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
Wed Mar 10 09:30:19 2004
--0-34168698-1078768133=:33330
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mike,
I enjoyed your recap of the interview which I did watch with rapt attention. You and I, though friends, have diametrically divergent tastes, but I agree with much of what you wrote. A district judge friend of mine wrote back to me when sent him a post complaining about her defense that the strategy of not having the defendant testify is to keep possibly detrimental "facts" from emerging and to facilitate the appeal, if necessary. Yes, there is a visceral reaction against anything that promulgates good taste in America. This could have happened to Emily Post in the olden days if the media had been so ubiquitous back then and she might have gotten a call from her broker and then sold a block of stock. Instead of a "Hail Mary" they should have thrown a "Mea culpa" play.
BTW it is fun to put a whole post in the Subject line. Also, I don't seem to get through when I post a reply to the list from this excite account, even though I get List mail on it.
Frances
Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com> wrote:
Frances,
Did you see the interview with 6 of the Martha Stewart jurors
last night on Channel 4?
I learnt something from the MS case which I will try to never
forget: when interviewed by any Federal agent, FBI or
whatever: DO NOT LIE.
In addition to her jail time, Martha also faces a civil suit from
the SEC for inside trading.
The jurors on the TV show expressed what seemed like genuine
compassion for her. They were quite surprised when the defense
concluded (in one hour -- after the prosecution spent 4 weeks
laying out the evidence) with the sole argument that Martha and
Beconovich were too smart to have been so foolish as to lie
about the stock sale.
The jurors also opined that they didn't think it was so swift
to have Martha's celebrity friends in attendance, specifically
Bill Cosby who wore a baseball players jacket and cap and
Rosie O'Donnell who wore a lime green cape over a pants-suit
to court. What were they thinking? Being a celebrity must tend
to adle the brain.
Although the jurors denied it, I wonder if they didn't find her
persona quite distasteful: the penny pinching billionaire blond
Ice Princess control freak doling out advice on how to aspire
to a tacky life style of pretentious bourgeois taste: chintz
curtains and overdecorated pasteries set to candles and a
fire in the fireplace.
In other words, her taste is terrible, a caricature of hoity-toity
affectation and fussiness. Mies van der Rohe had it right: Less is more.
Mike
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.
--0-34168698-1078768133=:33330
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Mike,</DIV>
<DIV>I enjoyed your recap of the interview which I did watch with rapt attention. You and I, though friends, have diametrically divergent tastes, but I agree with much of what you wrote. A district judge friend of mine wrote back to me when sent him a post complaining about her defense that the strategy of not having the defendant testify is to keep possibly detrimental "facts" from emerging and to facilitate the appeal, if necessary. Yes, there is a visceral reaction against anything that promulgates good taste in America. This could have happened to Emily Post in the olden days if the media had been so ubiquitous back then and she might have gotten a call from her broker and then sold a block of stock. Instead of a "Hail Mary" they should have thrown a "Mea culpa" play.</DIV>
<DIV>BTW it is fun to put a whole post in the Subject line. Also, I don't seem to get through when I post a reply to the list from this excite account, even though I get List mail on it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Frances<BR><BR><B><I>Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Frances,<BR><BR>Did you see the interview with 6 of the Martha Stewart jurors<BR>last night on Channel 4?<BR><BR>I learnt something from the MS case which I will try to never <BR>forget: when interviewed by any Federal agent, FBI or <BR>whatever: DO NOT LIE. <BR><BR>In addition to her jail time, Martha also faces a civil suit from<BR>the SEC for inside trading. <BR><BR>The jurors on the TV show expressed what seemed like genuine<BR>compassion for her. They were quite surprised when the defense<BR>concluded (in one hour -- after the prosecution spent 4 weeks <BR>laying out the evidence) with the sole argument that Martha and <BR>Beconovich were too smart to have been so foolish as to lie <BR>about the stock sale. <BR><BR>The jurors also opined that they didn't think it was so swift<BR>to have Martha's celebrity friends in attendance, specifically<BR>Bill Cosby who wore a baseball
players jacket and cap and <BR>Rosie O'Donnell who wore a lime green cape over a pants-suit<BR>to court. What were they thinking? Being a celebrity must tend<BR>to adle the brain.<BR><BR>Although the jurors denied it, I wonder if they didn't find her<BR>persona quite distasteful: the penny pinching billionaire blond<BR>Ice Princess control freak doling out advice on how to aspire<BR>to a tacky life style of pretentious bourgeois taste: chintz<BR>curtains and overdecorated pasteries set to candles and a<BR>fire in the fireplace.<BR><BR>In other words, her taste is terrible, a caricature of hoity-toity<BR>affectation and fussiness. Mies van der Rohe had it right: Less is more.<BR><BR>Mike <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P> </P>
<P> </P><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Search - <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/?fr=ad-mailsig-home">Find what you’re looking for faster.</a>
--0-34168698-1078768133=:33330--