This week's cross-examination of Ken Lay gives some fascinating insights into what happens when an old bull accustomed to power and control discovers that he is no longer in charge.
Check out the exchanges with prosecutor John Hueston, as detailed in the Houston Chronicle.
Hueston took aim at the defence's claims that short sellers, financial journalists and a handful of crooked Enron execs were responsible for the 2001 panic that resulted in the company's collapse. He also had a go at the way Lay lawyer Michael Ramsey described the short-sellers as "vultures" when he pointed out that Lay's own son, Michael Lay, had been short-selling the stock since March 2001, picking up a cool $166,000 in the process.
"I didn't know that," Lay said.
"He wasn't a vulture was he?" Hueston asked Lay of his son.
"I don't think he's a vulture," Lay responded.
"He wasn't trying to kill Enron in 2001, was he?" Hueston asked.
"I would think not," Lay said.
For an idea of how Lay must be struggling with the realisation that he is no longer in control, check the disdain the former executive shows the prosecution when he suggests Hueston wouldn't understand the stuff investors would take as a given ("I think the investment community would understand it, maybe you don't, but they would").
Ann Woolner from Bloomberg makes the point that Kenneth Lay Is Looking Less Like Good Old Granddad, particularly after Hueston had thrown him the curve ball question of whether he had contacted witnesses to get his story straight.
This is hot stuff. As Woolner says, all eyes will be on Lay and his team next week to see whether they'll be able to repair the damage.
I can barely believe the gall of this guy (and his buddy Skilling, too). To suggest that they did nothing wrong and there was nothing bad going on at Enron?
As the lawyers say in Latin, “Res Ipsa Loquitor.” The thing speaks for itself.