Okay, and agreed.

ed

I only commented because the case always amused me (it’s not about the crime, it’s the cover-up). While your comment may have been technically incorrect, it is certainly not of great relevance to the core of the story–Waksal. My reading of KO’s comment is that he is not terribly concerned one way or the other about the Waksal story, but was, for some reason, sensitive to the constant link to Stewart.

Atlex

All this was hashed over endlessly back then. The prosecutors successfully established how the information flowed among the various individuals. So I understand the point, although there was the association between them all. I’m always happy to correct or tweak wording when necessary, but I asked my question of the keen observer, because I’m curious to know why this person is so steamed.

Beyond that, Waksal remains of interest thanks to this episode and because he founded ImClone, which is again in the news, of course. So it’s not time to ‘move on,’ as the keen observer put it. It’s time to keep watch.

Cheers
ed

Keen Observer is not altogether wrong. I double checked and found that prosecutors argued that Stewart sold her stock after her broker told his assistant to tip her off that Waksal was trying to sell; the broker was also the broker for Waksal. This, in itself may or may not have been illegal on Stewart’s part. However, she and the broker lied about the course of events saying that they had previously arranged a set price for selling the stock. I think she was convicted for obstructing justice.

Atlex

How do you know this?

Regards
ed