Facts have very little to do with the charges against Ken Lay. It is a question of prejudice and punishment. He is a big prize in the current Roman circus and he is going to be fed to the lions. Every now and then a few Mr Bigs, randomly selected, get to be punished and sent to prison. This is to make all the 'small guys' of the great US, the majority that is, believe they live in a fair and just system. Moral: don't get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time because if so your arse will be in deep deep sh*t.
Nice OJ reference! LOL..... All I can say is that I had two interviews there in early 1999 and am so thankful I did not go to work there. I knew alot of people who did get screwed. .
You see the thing is a jury is never asked to find a defendant guilty. A jury is asked to find a defendant guilty ON THE EVIDENCE. If you did a crime you don't get to do the time, if there is insufficient evidence and you are found not guilty. That in my view is still a correct verdict. But Ken Lay is a scapegoat. He has to be punished for all the dumb arsewipes who blew away their money on idiot share prices that had to fall to the Earth at some point once the bubble burst.
You're mincing words here Cheese. Have you EVER served on a jury? Most people on the jury know how full of sh%# lawyers are, and you can be sure that is taken into account when the individuals on a jury panel make their decision of guilt or innocence; WHICH THEY MAKE based on the evidence AND other factors. Ken Lay JUST a "scapegoat"? Laughable.
BSAM, I wasn't meaning to mince words. Studies have shown that if you look like a bad guy with a bad guy face you get convicted. It can be a 'tough sh*t' world .. not that I'm complaining so far as I am concerned. Exactly my point. You've made up your mind. The power of prejudice is often overwhelming.
I will not be on the jury and I haven't heard the evidence which will be presented at his trial. As I stated, a jury makes its decision based on the evidence AND other factors.
Yeah I kinda figured that it is the CEO's job to take care of such fraud & scams and that the CEO is responsible for the company PERIOD. Even if I was hypothetically convinced that Ken Lay did not know anything, it is still his fault. It's part of his job description and he is liable for what went on in the company. Agree with a previous poster, this is a freaking circus vying for the attention of the disgruntled investor.
Martha .. made 2 volunteered statements she shouldn't have about a completely minor pissant trade and as a result the poor bitch ends up convicted on trumped up charges. She may be a very successful business woman but IMO it was her female brain that misled her into trusting some regulatory agency men with volunteered statements. Jeez .. they only thing they wanted was to nail her hands to the cross. They wanted her so badly .. as the lead act in this great Roman circus. Period.