I don't really feel I did this topic justice.

When Ms. Stewart purchased her stock, WHY DID Ms. Stewart buy the stock? Surely she was influenced by an insider who she knew, AND Ms. Stewart's stock purchase most probably elevated the value of the company in the public's eyes. This benefited ALL who owned stock at that time as the price of the stock probably rose after Ms. Stewart bought in.

When Ms. Stewart was influenced by her friend to buy in, nobody cried foul, but when the same person who influenced Ms. Stewart to buy in, told her to sell, for that she gets penalized!

I think those who punished Ms. Stewart were being a bit self-serving.

As long as Ms. Stewart did not demand or request that she be notified if her investment was ever going to drop in value, the most Ms. Stewart should have been penalized for would be to have her sold sock revalued at the lowest price the stock sold for up to 30 days after she sold her stock.

Now, having said that, if Martha was let off the hook, how could they arrest her friend? As it stands, I assume her friend was arrested an charged anyways, and I further assume it was done without Martha's input?