Ah, apparently it hasn't occurred to those who love to bash Martha, that the woman isn't guilty of insider trading, because in the US legal system, a defendant is presumed innocent, while the State bears the burden of proof of guilt.

In this case, the State not only did not prove guilt on the insider trading charge, the charge itself was dismissed by the judge due to lack of any proof whatsoever, prior to the case going to the jury.

I'm not certain what conclusion to draw regarding the male contributors to this thread who are so contemptuous of Martha Stewart that it makes them write condescendingly in a phony 'folksy' pidgin English to make their snide remarks about Martha Stewart. One need not like Martha Stewart or her products, to understand that this has been a biased, bogus prosecution along the lines of the Monica Lewinsky type of thing.

I mean c'mon, Martha's stock deal doesn't come close to rising to the level of the Queen of Mean's "only the little people pay taxes" fraud and tax evasion. As someone else in the thread has pointed out, compared to the debacles in the securities and accounting firms, or the Enrons, this case is more akin to stealing pens from your employer.