Replies

"Let me guess, he saw it coming right around September 21st."

Don't know anything about that, but recall reading a piece some years ago about how, when she divorced him, she tried to scre* him out of his share of the business, which he had helped her start. Did not paint a flattering picture of her, and have not thought much of her since.

Martha should have talked to Leona Helmsley before she decided to go 'the full monte' in the trial.

Regarding her lawyer, whose performance violated several (based on my experience) cardinal rules of succesful defense, i.e.:

a. If the Gov't offers a deal, and the evidence looks decidedly one-sided, take it, and

b. If your client really wants to be acquitted in a case where the evidence is decidely one-sided, he/she must take the stand, engender sympathy, and lie well err..... testify credibly....

OTOH, it is quite possible that Martha was the one who drove the "zero-sum" game strategy....in which case the dude defending her should have punched...I would have...it didn't take a brain surgeon to figure what was going to happen given the way the defense handled this case....remember Mike Tyson and Leona Helmsley, both of whom were convicted of more serious crimes based on (arguably) less evidence than the Gov't had against Ms. Stewart.