Martha Stewart

I am talking as a poker player here without knowing all the details. But it sure seems to me from that viewpoint, that the chances she's innocent is greater than most think. My main reason is that it seems hard to believe she could be that stupid. Selling the day before the drug gets rejected? (I assume that if her broker did it on her behalf knowing everything but not telling her, she is not guilty). Common sense says that if she was told, she would have ordered her broker NOT to sell, we are talking about a pittance to her right? Compared to the incredibly obvious downside.


Besides the above, I saw her on TV yesterday and her short comment and demeanor was somebody who wasn't "bluffing" in my experience.


Perhaps the details of this case renders my above comments meaningless and her guilt is a slam dunk. If so please let me know. Because if that is not the case I'm buying her stock. And please don't reply with simplicities like "rich people are sometimes greedy" or "smart people sometimes do stupid things". All true but not enough to talk me out of a good bet. If the particulars of this case are at the moment such that her innocence is plausible, I want to bet on it. If not, please tell me now.