Inside the Current Issue:

Comments or questions about the site?:
advocate webmaster

This site last updated on:
May 14, 2004

The current issue will be available online within 7 days of printed publication.

Martha and the Mephistopheles Syndrome

Elizabeth Primamore

When the great fall, the small rejoice—just like little Mephistopheles who relishes every moment of the magnificent Faustus’ fall. And if ever there were folks suffering from a bad case of the Mephistopheles syndrome, it was Martha Stewart’s jury, which on March 5 convicted her of lying to the government investigators about her sale of nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone Systems in 2001:

“This is one for the little people.”

“Maybe she thought she was above everything and didn’t have to do things other people have to do.”

“It might give the average guy a little more confidence that people can invest money in the market and everything’s going to be on the up and up.”

These are the words—as reported in the New York Times—of Chappell Hartridge, a 47 year old Medicare claims administrator from the Bronx, and the first juror to leap in front of the cameras, eager to talk about the verdict. His logic fuzzy, he doesn’t realize that Martha’s situation has nothing to do with the corporate arena—it has to do with a relationship between a wealthy lady and her broker.

Then there’s the young assistant stock broker and failed model Doug Fanueil, a man who calls himself “baby.” Remember those photos the NY Post ran of Fanueil making a fist while showing off his ill-fitting red jeans, bare midriff, and fake tattoo? Perturbed by Martha’s iciness to him on the phone one day at work, Fanueil snapped back. In an email he bragged to a friend, “Baby (meaning himself), put Miss Martha in her place.”

And how about anchor Jane Clayson of “The Early Show” who insisted on questioning Martha about her upcoming trial while Martha was busy chopping a head of lettuce. “I want to focus on my salad,” Martha insisted. And hack away she did.
And the worst offender—Martha’s friend Mariana Pasternack who testified against her at the trial, and felt compelled to add this little tidbit to her testimony: While vacationing together, Martha had once told her after speaking with her broker that it was good to have brokers who “tell you these things.” Did Pasternack have to say that? Remember, it came as an afterthought, not core testimony.

But most desperate of all are the prosecutors, the hungry animals who thrive on prosecuting celebrities because they crave celebrity themselves. “The case would ‘send an important message that we will not, and frankly, cannot tolerate dishonesty and corruption,’” said David. N. Kelley, the United States Attorney. Kelley’s logic sounds just as fuzzy as Hartridge’s but the difference is that Kelley is cunning, Hartridge is not. Kelley knows that the best way to hide his ulterior motives for fame, money, and promotion is to cloak those motives in the discourses of justice, righteousness, and good. And don’t forget that when Martha was indicted her lawyers tried to cut a deal with prosecutors, but could not agree when they insisted she serve jail time. Jail time!

Those plagued by the Mephistopheles syndrome did their damnedest to bring a great woman down. But maybe she won’t fall after all. Her lawyers have started a campaign to discredit Hartridge, who forgot to mention on his jury questionnaire that he was arrested for assault and had allegedly embezzled money from a little league team. This, of course, would have ousted him from the jury pool.

Let’s hope Martha gets the new trial she deserves before she’s whisked away to prison by the devils of punishment, whose real fight is on the side of self-aggrandizement, not justice.

Elizabeth Primamore is a student in the PhD program in Comparative Literature.