[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

Your reasoning, interestingly, parallels that of the US Supreme Court in a recent securities fraud case: you must consider the competing plausible non-fraudulent inference as well as the fraudulent inference.

I REALLY doubt anyone tried to commit fraud here. Doug surely understands the issues with memorabilia and obviously is aware of the scrutiny to which Mastro is subject in the media, on chatboards, and so forth. Absent anything more compelling I would go with the inference there was some sloppiness here and miscommunication but not attempted fraud.