It sounds like you think he might be trying to be honest and forthright, but his intentions are lost in translation.
Whereas the other commenters think it's more likely that he was being obstructionist?
I'm not thinking it's all one way or the other.
A person who is lying/willing to lie will still take every opportunity to tell the truth if it makes him look good.
Separately, an autistic person has trouble understanding and being understood, and then emotions flare and the autistic person is more disconnected.
His autistic answers to questions can look evasive, but they are not necessarily, especially if the truth is actually on his side. There will be many questions he is trying to answer honestly because the truth is on his side, but his awkwardness looks evasive.
He may simultaneously have a motive and willingness to also be evasive and lie.
And then a layer of he-said-she-said, there are always two sides to a story and how to remember and tell it, and the truth lies in the middle (with the lies? hahaha)
If the defendent is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, I am pointing out that much of what people are making great sport of here can be interpreted as reasonable doubt. But at the same time, I don't doubt that there was a strong case against him overall, and he was guilty.
To use a blunt analogy, to me I'm hearing people saying "look at that lying cheating wop eat spaghetti on his private plane and as his last meal!" (I chose Italian because I am) Well, that lying cheating Italian might be named Ponzi (the other reason I chose Italian) and he deserves to go to jail, but it's this bystander jeering that sounds bad to me, that type of attitude can be turned against any one of us.
When I read the 2nd hand accounts of it, all I see are people making fun of a person who I see as autistic. That has made me not even read up on all the 2nd hand accounts, so I can't draw the more sweeping generalizations that you feel comfortable making. mea culpa
and any person is going to be more uncomfortable when questioned about the illegal parts. I'm simply saying that will exaggerate the autism experience and make him look extra guilty compared to a smooth talking guilty huckster.
I do believe he's guilty.
I'm not a medical professional, but he actually doesn't seem autistic to me. For one, he is rather socially and emotionally manipulative.
One needs to also remember that he is a drug addict. I'm sure it hasn't been easy being in jail becuase of that.
(FWIW, I agree with pretty much the rest of your points.)
This is precisely why you shut up, and plead the fifth. You'll be eviscerated on cross-examination when you don't.
Although in his case, he probably should have pled guilty, and begged for mercy, instead.
Splitting hairs over definitions and genie-like interpretations of what sentences mean isn't smart, it's annoying most of the time.
This is why you never should talk about being "the smartest person in the room". Because if you're that kind of person, you will inevitably try to show your genius work, and it will always be severely lacking.
I'm sorry, but you were not the smartest person in the room. You fail to understand what a prosecutor does and why, and you fail to understand what makes good testimony.
Maybe you had the highest amount of raw brain power in the court room, but with no intellectual curiosity or humility, that's like running the fastest CPU with no cooling on an unstable power supply.
I have no intellectual curiosity? omg you are pathetic. I'm the only person in that situation (including the attorneys) who had read all the of the voluminous bylaws and researched every aspect of the parts that I did not understand because IANAL. And I did all that way before any of this dispute came up, simply because I am intellectually curious. I was the previous President, I knew all the players, I know what they read and did not read.
When the disputes came up, I knew how the rules dictated they be handled. Other shareholders came to me and asked for my help because they knew I knew. Smarter people than you will always outfox you by knowing the rules better than you. It's more gentlemanly for you to take your L than to look for some tiny thing to crow about that is essentially off topic.
- Is the system rigged? Yes. - Are laws written by mediocre people hence full of loopholes? Yes. - Are most people in the Justice system mediocre? Yes, to the best of my knowledge your honor. - Is Justice != Law application? Yes, greatest marketing scam calling it Justice Department. - Is SBF a scammer that had a chip on his shoulder and got rich off other peoples money? All signs point to yes. - Does he deserved to be in jail? In SBF words, “Yep”.
Mate, I don’t question your intellect or memory, surely you are God - even in a forum where there is no lack of bright people - but your emotional intelligence is severely handicapped, so much that the “functional” part of your self description falls into doubt. You come across as the Simpsons comic store guy. Chill.
Guy once told me his job was to write some law in Spain, or for the EU, or somewhere in between. He submits his writings to his bosses, who tell him (paraphrased): "it's too clear, too watertight. Go back and make it more ambiguous." So he did.
It’s like hiring a web design firm and then showing up with a complete mockup - give them room to work.
smart autistic people have trouble communicating with people who are not precise in a venue which pretends to insist on precision, and here's a vivid example showing how innocent things can go wrong
and you think afterward you need to reiterate the attitude people have that triggered me to write in the first place. Yes, I know. Now read my story, it's a response to what you said, with details that can be discussed which you've ignored, details you should quote as a response rather than just telling me what I already know.
I didn't say I was the smartest person in the room to imply that "everybody should listen to me". I said it to ensure the reader that the troubles that ensued in the story were not due to me being unable to follow what was going on. I followed it, it made no sense without context that they were denying me. It would make no sense to anybody paying attention, but clarification was not possible.
But nowhere in your vast and vaunted store of EQ-that-I-am-lacking do you find any empathy for me and my experience. You just have the urge to tell me I'm wrong, it's my fault, etc. I'm submitting your response as further evidence of my point.
-----------------------------
>whether he had taken a private plane to the Super Bowl—to which Sassoon responded by presenting a photograph of SBF fast asleep in the embrace of a comfy chair on a private jet
Look, if I, an out of shape nerd with no interest in sports, were travelling to a Super Bowl city, to meet various financial big shots who are all there, to also promote my finance-oriented crypto scheme, when a fair percentage of sports venues are called BITCONNECT STADIUM and a fair percentage of athletes are endorsing crypto schemes, AND, I'm running a multi-billion dollar company in Bermuda and I routinely fly private absolutely everywhere....
did I fly a private plane to the superbowl? literally? no, no I didn't. I went in an Escalade.
But I know you wouldn't like that answer, and I don't want to be accused of lying, so let me figure out the spirit of your question. Any analysis tells me that the spirit of your question is to paint me as a bad person. Why is a public servant (prosecutor) conspiring to make me look bad? How about we focus on the facts and not try to paint ugly pictures. You bet I'd roll my eyes and look helpless at that moment.
Then to have everybody here, supposedly a bastion of analytical people, simply take pleasure in making fun of somebody caught in an unfair process, which is a process they would melt in if they were exposed to it, is discouraging.
SBF was guilty, he should be punished, but all you rabble wanting to throw tomatoes at him as they lead him away? Nah, you're just rabbling bullies.