<p>Audiophile, in the immediate weeks following the disclosure of the crimes, it was revealed that a credible auditor had sent numerous warnings to the SEC. The Auditor later claimed (on 60 Minutes, I think) that to any trained eye it was clear that Madoff’s profits were a fantasy, a phantom, etc. Yep, the SEC “investigated” the upstanding Bernard Madoff and found no basis for further review.</p>
<p>I think that no real objective person can give an opinion on what the sons and Mrs. Madoff the elder knew. It’s clear that Bernard is amoral and likely kept the details (but not the fruits, i.e. the cash) from his sons and the wife. It’s also clear to me that Bernard lacks the sincerity of the deceased Mark Madoff. Well, I guess I just violated my own point my making that judgement without any real facts. Anyway, I agree that Morley Safer has slipped because all his questions were of the softball and ‘reality television’ variety; not hard, cold, true journalism. Oh how the mighty have fallen. By the way, is the book’s publisher a division of CBS?</p>
<p>Didn’t see the interview with Mark Madoff’s widow. I’d earnestly recommend to her that she change her and the boys’ last names.</p>
<p>I saw Ruth, Andrew, and the fiance on the Today show this morning. I haven’t been following this story, so coming into it without any preconceived notions, it seemed as though Andrew and Ruth were telling the truth. But on the other hand, something didn’t seem right to me, and I don’t know what it is. DH said they had to have known. If that’s the case, they sure are good actors.</p>
<p>Any interviewee who appears to be genuine or credible…you know these folks have access to top notch media consultants, coaches, spin doctors, etc. They do not go into these interviews cold.<br>
Not unlike political candidates.</p>
<p>And, Safer’s producers may have been offered a sweetheart deal of their own by an agent, public relations person, publisher or organization- you take this, go easy on him/her and we’ll produce more famous person “x” for you.
Call me skeptical.</p>
<p>Is it possible that the children and their wives knew nothing. Yeah. But the widow of one son took one child to Disneyworld to escape the media scrutiny. She left an infant home with her husband who had just tried to commit suicide. So…I think that seeing reality and taking ownership of the facts isn’t in their world.</p>
<p>And, as a mother who’s son was granted into the Madoff investment group because he knew someone…As a mother who’s son almost lost everything and hasn’t been able to recoup any part of his investment…I am not giving those SOBs another penny.</p>
I believe she did change her name back to her maiden name, but not sure about the children.</p>
<p>She is no longer speaking to Mrs M or her BIL and isnt allowing her children to have contact with the Madoffs. She claims her late husband didn’t know until right before everything became public.</p>
<p>I watched the 60 Minutes piece and thought both the mom and son credible and worthy of sympathy. </p>
<p>I would absolve them both of criminal behavior, while spanking them (and the dead brother’s estate) to the maximum in a civil action. What I got from watching is that they are all terrified of financial ruin. And that all of them deserve it greatly.</p>
<p>two things I don’t get…if Ruth didn’t know why wasn’t she ever actually angry at Bernie? even a devoted wife upon learning her husband has duper her and the world, would be incensed at the betrayal. she never was and stood by him. to me that reeks of being in on it and accepting his lies, fraud and being a sociopath. they both acted like victims early on when confronted by media on the streets of NY. </p>
<p>watched the daughter in law, one thing she said was curious, that Bernie tried to give $ and jewelry to Mark and her, following his arrest. just made me think if he openly flaunted trying to give them illegal assets, wouldn’t he have possibly let them in on his illegal business dealings, if not the entire Ponzi scheme. Based on what she said, it seemed Bernie expected the son to accept the assets, which apparently they didn’t. truth is they probably all got PR people to tell them exactly how to handle, what to say to appear to be innocent. Ruth seems as rotten through and through as Bernie. Mark’s wife seemed somewhat credible to me.</p>
<p>Myturnnow, your first point resonated with me. I believe that might be what has been bothering me all day since I watched her on the Today show. That makes sense. Thanks for making that point.</p>
<p>Madoff was outed years before the final scandal. People who really looked into his finances knew already it wasn’t legit.
As to his family…I watched the interviews and I’d have to say I believed them. Did Mom know? Probably not. Did sons know?..wondered but magical thinking got in the way.</p>
<p>The free Kindle download was pretty interesting, as well as phony and pretentious. It mostly focuses on Catherine, Andrew’s fiance who is getting the money from the book.</p>
<p>Yes Parent 1986, I too got a sort of creepy first impression of the fiancee from the 60 Minutes interview. Hate to make superficial judgments, but doesn’t Andrew Madoff realize that some of us in the general public will see the fiancee’s part of the book deal as a rather flimsy veil? Sure, he and mother Madoff get no proceeds from publication, but Missy keeps all of the $$ returns from her “contribution” to the book…and quite incidentally she’ll be married to Andrew (IF HIS PLANS TURN OUT THE WAY HE INTENDS, LOL).</p>
<p>Fiancee was on Piers Morgan last night. Fiancee and her ghost writer were not live in studio. Piers kept trying to pin them down as to how much money Andrew might have and when Piers “suggested” that proceeds of the book should go to charity…both answers were firmly in the negative.</p>
<p>Perhaps because Fiancee and author weren’t in studio they came across as remote and/or snarky. Bad publicist. Or bad character. I suspect both.</p>
<p>I found the fiancee strikingly attractive on 60 Mins. Last night I googled her photos and discovered that she appears to have had an enormous amount of plastic surgery - including her breasts, nose, hair at a minimum. The first photos of them as a couple I found were in 2008. </p>
<p>She also claims to have a business that could be heavily financed by government contracts.</p>
<p>Ellebud, the author isn’t a ghost writer - she is a previous author of her own personal story of her corrupt father - why she was supposedly chosen as the author.</p>
<p>My bad…her co author. But both of their evasive answers leads me to conclude (and yes, I am biased against them for very personal reasons) that they learned their lessons well. A stream of non answers/answers.</p>
<p>And plastic surgery doesn’t bother me. The content of the character does bother me.</p>
<p>New play by Deb Margolin entitled “Imagining Madoff” explores his psychology very effectively. That was worth my $35 at a local repertory theater last weekend.</p>
<p>Watched 60 Minutes and the interview with the daughter in law. Just got her book from Amazon. I guess that’s the “unauthorised” one but she seemed more genuine that that fiancee who annoyed me for some reason…pushy or something. The Madoffs have fascinated me from the start…not sure why.</p>