The facts showed that Lay was arranging for the company to repurchase his own stock so it wouldn't show up on SEC insider forms, even as he was encouraging employees to buy the stock for their retirement plans. And as his own son was shorting it. Lay, who claimed he was kept in the dark about the scam, took steps to fire the whistle blower who came to him with news of irregularities. Skilling was intimately involved in the company's various deals. How could Fastow set up the infamous off books partnerships without Skilling being in on it? These guys were not picked by the prosecutors at random or to be scapegoats. They were the pivot men in this circle jerk.
Good point. The jury are not asked just to reach a verdict. The task of a jury is to reach a verdict on the evidence. If you think a party or person is guilty a juror should not convict unless he has been shown the evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Now of course juries do reach guilty verdicts sometimes without sufficient evidence. At the Enron trial the cases against Lay and Skilling are almost all the opinion and bias of the prosecution. Its hard to know whether this jury is able to distinguish. They may just want to punish both of them because Enron failed.
The prosecution presented testimony from virtually every person in the company other than Lay adn Skilling who had been in a position to know what was going on. They all pointed the finger at these defendants. Lay and Skilling's actions do not seem to me to be consistent with being innocent dupes. Other than signed confessions, I'm not sure what kind of evidence people are looking for. It will always be the nature of these types of cases that there will not be directly incriminating memoranda, etc. The defendats are clever and will cover their tracks and set up fall guys if possible. Apparently that was Fastow's role. That said, the prosecution had at least as good a case against ex-Healthsouth CEO Scrushy and lost. Personally, I think the CEO and Chairman of these large bankrupt companies where fraud is involved should have to serve serious jail time whether they were aware or not. Since they're so big on being "incentivized" through obscene options grants, how about we incentivize them to uncover fraud?
I agree with AAA. There appears to be enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to connect the dots and sketch a rather unflattering picture. Regardless of the standard of evidence, be it "the balance of probability" or "beyond reasonable doubt," my money is on the prosecution. Two thumbs way down.
Those that have never been in serious or elevated executive positions or have not achieved big commercial ambitions or have not been involved in large legal matters have no idea whatsoever how much, all of such questions of responsibility in the commercial arena lean on interpretation and bias. The human condition is such that those in high positions, when things turn sour, learn, if they don't already know (and they should), that innocence and best intentions may well not be enough to save you. Mr Small Guy, seizes his day, gives his Thumbs Down, and expects the downfall of the alleged culprits; he does so because it befits his station in life and his humdrum place in the world.
Thus spoke Cheese, our resident Mr. Big Guy, from his lofty perch atop the world of commerce. Just curious. Are you so daft that you do not recognize blatant criminal conduct, or does it just make you feel important to side with the robber barons? Does siding with notoriety transport and elevate you from your own "humdrum place in the world?"
Ah yes Robber Barons robbing from Thunderdog and his downtrodden kith and kin. Wake up, pal. Commercial enterprise including its Big Shots is the capitalism that made the US the richest country on the face of this Earth.