...Jurors appeared to have accepted the defence argument that the fraud was committed in HealthSouth's finance department without Mr Scrushy's knowledge - even though five chief financial officers, who had all admitted fraud, testified that Mr Scrushy was involved.
...Legal experts had considered the case against Mr Scrushy to be stronger than the one against Bernie Ebbers, the founder of WorldCom, who was found guilty of fraud in New York in March.
...Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Scrushy ordered at least $2.7bn (£1.5bn) of fake profits and assets to be added to HealthSouth's accounts from 1996 to 2002 to help the company meet Wall Street earnings targets.
They said he collected more than $200m from the sale of HealthSouth shares at artificially inflated prices, funding his extravagant lifestyle of mansions, yachts and classic cars.
...Conversations secretly recorded by the FBI in which Mr Scrushy sounded aware of the fraud proved inconclusive and defence lawyers repeatedly chided the prosecution for failing to present a single document that proved his guilt...
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] HealthSouth
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
>Not bloody likely on either count. The US Attorney's
>Office is staffed with top-flight lawyers, Supreme
>Court clerks, emigres from the big law firms. And they
>fight to kill, they don't prosecute unless they think
>they can get a conviction, which they actually do
>about 98% of the time. They like bringing down big
>birds, nothing pleases them more than jailing a
>corrupt politician or big time capitalist crook.
>
>I knows this from intimate first hand experience with
>the USA's Office in Chicago, and similar reports from
>NY and DC. (I wasn't an ASUA but I saw a zillion cases
>tried by them, know lots of AUSAs, and now that I'm a
>defense lawyer I see how they operate.)
>
>Therefore, it was a case of bad luck or insufficient
>evidence. OJ wsa obviously guilty too, but the
>evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt. (That was
>a state case, but the point is that "obviously guilty"
>isn't the standard for conviction. It's "beyond a
>reasonable doubt." I don't knwo the evidence in this
>case, but that is supposed to be a high standard. If
>you can afford good lawyers, you can make ita high
>standard,
>
>jks
>
>--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Since the guy was pretty obviously guilty, that
>> suggests
>> incompetence -- or a lack of will -- in the federal
>> prosecutor's office?
>>
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: andie nachgeborenen
>> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>> >Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] HealthSouth
>> >To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>> >
>> >Probably the jury didn't find the evidence
>> sufficient.
>> >That's why they hire people like me, you know. Or,
>> in
>> >his case, former US Attorneys with people like me
>> >working for them.
>> >
>> >--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> How did Scrushy get off?
>> >> ___________________________________