Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#91

Post by mvdtnz »

fxd123 wrote: post #88
mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

> but I wish > I do not care Stop trying to make the author's article about yourself

Unlike the author I am not reporting on a matter of fact. I am giving my opinion in a web forum.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#92

Post by beardyw »

steveBK123 wrote: post #7
fasthands9 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely - but it's still notable that he's doing this after voluntarily taking the stand.

Yes, not a lawyer so maybe theres some nuance here but.. I don't get taking the stand voluntarily to just say "I don't recall" endlessly? At some point does the judge tell you to GTFO and strike all your testimony? Can they instruct the jury in some manner harmful to you as a result of your obvious malign intent? Etc..

That would be perfect ammunition for an appeal.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#93

Post by beardyw »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #74
garciasn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that agreeing to be questioned and then saying you don't recall endlessly is mostly absurd. However, you know he has gone through hours of very recent prep with his defense lawyers about the specific questions he'll be asked by the team. So, it's not exactly fair to accuse him of having perfect recall for his defense lawyer's questions and not as much for the prosecution.

Surely the defense team would game theory the case and prepare for likely prosecution questions. Those are the hardest ones for which you need to prepare.

In that case you would remember.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#94

Post by Animats »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #86
closewith wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that's true. Right up until today, I think he thought he could walk on many or all of the charges through his guile.

He thought he could walk away. I suspect his legal team knew that was not happening and the best outcome was damage control and a relative slap on the wrist. The case is too big and public for him to walk.

It's worse than that. He probably could have pled guilty and cut a deal for 10 years of prison time or so. Maybe less, if he cooperated with prosecutors in getting some of the money back. But denying everything, going to trial, trying to evade all responsibility although he was in charge, and blaming everybody else does not go over well with juries.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#95

Post by duped »

omarfarooq wrote: post #73
duped wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all. I would actually like to know what SBF said on the stand that caused the reactions in the gallery/jury and not the author's personal reaction. ChatGPT can't do that because the author left out information.

That information is literally the headline of the piece and the meat of the article. Perhaps you want the full transcript.

It's really not, did we read the same article? There wasn't much "meat" to the article at all and only a sprinkling of quotes

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#97

Post by nextaccountic »

efitz wrote: post #8
dheera wrote: post #2

"don't recall" I'm guessing this is largely just an ass-covering strategy to avoid giving the opposing side an upper hand. If you say "yes" to anything you might give them verbal grounds to convict you of more than they can directly find and show external evidence for.

“I don’t remember” is still perjury if you can be reasonably expected to remember or if evidence can be provided that you remembered very recently.

But memory is unreliable, specially if you're under pressure. This is seen for example when taking exams, some people might just completely forget what they were just studying

Is this really a crime?

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#98

Post by cratermoon »

mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

> nowadays

New Journalism has been around since the 1960s at least, with Norman Mailer's work. The term originates from Tom Wolfe, around 1972/1973 https://nymag.com/article/tom-wolfe-birth-of-new-journalism-..., but Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jimmy Breslin said there was nothing "new" about the style, that story-telling had been around as long as language.

I get it: it's not to everyone's taste. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate and respected form of journalism. There are plenty of sources out there that stick to the "just the facts" form of writing. Whether or not that's more "real story" is debatable.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#99

Post by iaabtpbtpnn »

Animats wrote: post #94
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He thought he could walk away. I suspect his legal team knew that was not happening and the best outcome was damage control and a relative slap on the wrist. The case is too big and public for him to walk.

It's worse than that. He probably could have pled guilty and cut a deal for 10 years of prison time or so. Maybe less, if he cooperated with prosecutors in getting some of the money back. But denying everything, going to trial, trying to evade all responsibility although he was in charge, and blaming everybody else does not go over well with juries.

SBF was never offered a deal. Why would the prosecution help him? They cut deals with his co-conspirators so that they could pin all the blame on SBF. The money is long gone.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#100

Post by closewith »

Animats wrote: post #94
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He thought he could walk away. I suspect his legal team knew that was not happening and the best outcome was damage control and a relative slap on the wrist. The case is too big and public for him to walk.

It's worse than that. He probably could have pled guilty and cut a deal for 10 years of prison time or so. Maybe less, if he cooperated with prosecutors in getting some of the money back. But denying everything, going to trial, trying to evade all responsibility although he was in charge, and blaming everybody else does not go over well with juries.

All indications are that the DA offered no plea agreement, so the options were to plead guilty and hope to get the lower end of the sentencing range, or take it to trial.
Post reply on HN