Noreen Harrington informed Saul Katz, David Katz, and Peter Stamos that her research- which, according to a New York Times article on the same subject, was based not on evidence, but her hunch and expert opinion (one that ultimately was correct on this issue, but isn’t perfectly correct, mind you)- led her to believe that there was funny business going on in Ezra Merkin’s funds, because he was cashing in at the end of every month and whatever other ‘problematic practices’, and that she believed he was funneling money that was invested with him back into Bernie Madoff’s overall, larger Ponzi scheme. In what is written in that story alone, there is nothing about them (the Katzs, Peter Stamos, or the Wilpons) knowing full well that Bernie Madoff was engaged in a Ponzi scheme, and going along with it. The article says that Noreen Harrington informed them (Saul Katz, David Katz, and Peter Stamos) that she believed Ezra Merkin was engaging in funny business. It didn’t say that she informed them that Bernie Madoff was involved in doing the same thing. That might just be me reading into a lack of outright statements in that article, though. Let’s assume she did, even though it didn’t say specifically she did.

Playing devil’s advocate more, the standard of willful blindness is not particularly strengthened In good theoretical faith, they might found her findings to be somehow flawed, whatever, for reasonable, believable reasons. The SEC concluded in 1999, 2000, and 2005 that, after investigating, Madoff and his subsidiaries did not violate any fraud laws (Oh, Brett, in retrospect!). If the SEC concluded there was no fraudulent wrongdoing in their investigations, why should the Wilpons, even if the CEO of Sterling Stamos seemed to believe so? Or, that they would believe that Madoff was perpetuating a massive illegal scheme based on the belief of a ‘mercenary’ (jumps from place to place) financial analyst who they only knew through business dealings, as opposed to Madoff, who the Wilpons and Katz knew for years and theoretically believed to be of good moral standing? And on.

It hardly presents a slam dunk that the Wilpons had foreknowledge about Madoff’s illegal financial dealings. It presents a chink in their armor, but it’s hardly conclusive- and, at the end of the day, the preponderance of the evidence doesn’t seem to be met.