4 ms·

> Under the circumstances, SBF’s wisest course would have been to just say yes—or yep—to her questions. Why did he take the stand at all?

by rsaxvc 3y ago

stuartjohnson12 3y ago
Worst case: the situation doesn't get much worse than it already is Best case: the situation gets substantially better If you like to take risks, the answer is obvious.
- closewith 3y ago
  I don't think that's true for the worst case. His time on the stand could significantly increase his sentence within the guidelines and I think that will be the case now.
- javier123454321 3y ago
  Actually, in this situation, there are only negatives to take the stand. As was the case when he kept giving interviews right after the fiasco came to light. There was no possitive that would come of it. Remember, in the US everything you say can be used against you, and only against you. That is why you lawyer up on any interrogation and the first thing the lawyers will tell you is to SAY NOTHING.
  - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
    That's true if you're talking to police but not if you're on the stand. If you're on the stand you have the opportunity to convince the jury that you're a trustworthy person. In fact, even talking to police has the possibility to make you better off for example if you can wrongly lead them to not think you're the suspect.
    - gitgud 3y ago
      The sad reality is that you can easily incriminate yourself by talking to the police. Especially if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lawyers are there to make sure the police do their job
vkou 3y ago
Because his only defense, against a damning amount of evidence was spinning a beautiful, four-day story about how "I was an idiot and I didn't mean to do any of this fraud."
olalonde 3y ago
Narcissism, he chose to. He probably thought he could fool the jury.
kuhewa 3y ago
Apparently he gave some better than expected testimony on direct
- kosievdmerwe 3y ago
  Mostly because expectations were so low. Especially after the disaster that was the evidentiary hearing where he offered some testimony without the jury present. (The judge wanted to see if what he wanted to testify was allowable) During that testimony (where he was under oath), he rambled, misinterpreted questions, gave evasive answers and generally acted like he did in some interviews. On the Friday, with the jury present he actually told his life story (to humanize himself) and answered mostly softball questions, before ending his direct with reframing deflections of the evidence and other people's testimony.
Tangurena2 3y ago
I've worked for people like that. They truly believe that they can talk their way out of everything. If all you have is casual contact (contacts where they are in control of the time, place and agenda), they are very believable, very charismatic, very in-control; you will leave thinking that they are totally correct. If you are stuck meeting them every single day, rain or shine, good or bad, in sickness or in health, then you see behind the curtain. The lies build up until you feel that you have to wash the filth off your skin several times per day. Back then, the word "gaslighting" was not in common use. It would have made things far more understandable to me. It took me years to get over the feeling that I was the wrongness in the room. It was like being back in a cult again. It might be easier for you to work from the viewpoint that SBF ran a cult. What sort of person starts and runs one? How do they treat possible recruits? How do they treat unbelievers? How do they treat neutral outsiders? Who is in the "inner circle"? It is my belief that SBF felt he could negotiate his way out of trouble. That he just had to talk to the outsiders like he talked to his believers and then everything would be fine. The prosecutors kept showing to the jury what he actually said to his inner circle - and that sank SBF's case.

> Under the circumstances, SBF’s wisest course would have been to just say yes—or yep—to her questions. Why did he take the stand at all?

by rsaxvc 3y ago

> Under the circumstances, SBF’s wisest course would have been to just say yes—or yep—to her questions. Why did he take the stand at all?

stuartjohnson12 3y ago

Worst case: the situation doesn't get much worse than it already is Best case: the situation gets substantially better If you like to take risks, the answer is obvious.

closewith 3y ago
I don't think that's true for the worst case. His time on the stand could significantly increase his sentence within the guidelines and I think that will be the case now.
javier123454321 3y ago
Actually, in this situation, there are only negatives to take the stand. As was the case when he kept giving interviews right after the fiasco came to light. There was no possitive that would come of it. Remember, in the US everything you say can be used against you, and only against you. That is why you lawyer up on any interrogation and the first thing the lawyers will tell you is to SAY NOTHING.
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  That's true if you're talking to police but not if you're on the stand. If you're on the stand you have the opportunity to convince the jury that you're a trustworthy person. In fact, even talking to police has the possibility to make you better off for example if you can wrongly lead them to not think you're the suspect.
  - gitgud 3y ago
    The sad reality is that you can easily incriminate yourself by talking to the police. Especially if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lawyers are there to make sure the police do their job

vkou 3y ago

Because his only defense, against a damning amount of evidence was spinning a beautiful, four-day story about how "I was an idiot and I didn't mean to do any of this fraud."

olalonde 3y ago

Narcissism, he chose to. He probably thought he could fool the jury.

kuhewa 3y ago

Apparently he gave some better than expected testimony on direct

kosievdmerwe 3y ago
Mostly because expectations were so low. Especially after the disaster that was the evidentiary hearing where he offered some testimony without the jury present. (The judge wanted to see if what he wanted to testify was allowable) During that testimony (where he was under oath), he rambled, misinterpreted questions, gave evasive answers and generally acted like he did in some interviews. On the Friday, with the jury present he actually told his life story (to humanize himself) and answered mostly softball questions, before ending his direct with reframing deflections of the evidence and other people's testimony.

Tangurena2 3y ago

I've worked for people like that. They truly believe that they can talk their way out of everything. If all you have is casual contact (contacts where they are in control of the time, place and agenda), they are very believable, very charismatic, very in-control; you will leave thinking that they are totally correct. If you are stuck meeting them every single day, rain or shine, good or bad, in sickness or in health, then you see behind the curtain. The lies build up until you feel that you have to wash the filth off your skin several times per day. Back then, the word "gaslighting" was not in common use. It would have made things far more understandable to me. It took me years to get over the feeling that I was the wrongness in the room. It was like being back in a cult again. It might be easier for you to work from the viewpoint that SBF ran a cult. What sort of person starts and runs one? How do they treat possible recruits? How do they treat unbelievers? How do they treat neutral outsiders? Who is in the "inner circle"? It is my belief that SBF felt he could negotiate his way out of trouble. That he just had to talk to the outsiders like he talked to his believers and then everything would be fine. The prosecutors kept showing to the jury what he actually said to his inner circle - and that sank SBF's case.