Friday Trial Journal Open Thread — Prosecution Witness Caroline Stewart Eviscerating Mr. Shkreli’s “No Intent” Defense…

From the keyboard of the ever-cogent (and long term deputized “second in command”) here, at the blog — Pathophilia, then — in overnight witness testimony commentary:

…“Stewart testified that ‘the implosion of MSMB Capital was the catalyst, the genesis, that gave birth to Retrophin, the biotech company.’”

It was always my impression, my suspicion, that Shkreli founded Retrophin precisely for the purpose of raising substantial venture capital so that he could make MSMB whole and ultimately pay off his hedge-fund investors (and so they wouldn’t go to the SEC, tarnish his reputation, and make general trouble). Shkreli’s surprising new-found concern for children with muscular dystrophy was a faux-altruistic cover, IMO. The report that Shkreli was concerned that Merrill Lynch would “come after Retrophin” speaks to his concern about maintaining an all-important asset pipeline from Retrophin to MSMB and his burned investors….

…According to Caroline Stewart’s LinkedIn page, she has a JD (Rutgers, 2016), an MS in molecular and cell biology and an MS chemistry (Brandeis, 1993 and 1997), and a BA in chemistry (Columbia, 1992)….

Thanks so much Dr. Martin! And in this criminal felony trial, Count Seven is proved — by the use of any Retrophin assets — to “pay off” rich former hedge fund investors. If an arms’-length, negotiated to be fair market value benefit was not received BY Retrophin, for these payoffs (and it wasn’t, as according to some testimony — the shares just… “showed up,” years later, unbidden — testimony Mr. Brafman did not repair in any way)… then, each of Mr. Brafman’s narrative lines helps the prosecution PROVE Count Seven. That’s Condor’s take on the testimony, thus far this week. [As a final side note (with much more on this in the coming weeks) where was the disclosure in the Retrophin IPO documents filed with the SEC — that the company and Mr. Shkreli would be giving away its valuable assets, to former hedge fund investors? Right. There was no such disclosure? That’s proof of Counts Three through Six.]

In the land of witness credibility, we should all keep in mind that Ms. Stewart was clearly Mr. Shkreli’s “better” — in every way: more emotionally intelligent, smarter, better education, higher purposed, greater (verifiable record of) achievements, etc….

The jury is sure to believe her — and be offended, if Mr. Brafman starts some form of bullying “jilted love interest” line of cross-examination/ attack. She is far too good for Marty, in any event. And she clearly figured that out after just a few dinners, around town.

We are in your debt — as we are running on other matters, this Friday.

Do use this thread for remaining trial testimony updates, today.

नमस्ते