Bernie Madoff was a cheater in more ways than one

Woman Tells of Affair With Madoff in New Book:

Hadassah, the Jewish volunteer organization, knew it had invested $40 million with Bernard L. Madoff by the late 1990s. It also knew it had taken more than $130 million from its Madoff accounts and still had millions on the books when the vast Ponzi scheme was revealed in December.

What the charity says it did not know, however, was that Sheryl Weinstein, its chief financial officer when it made those investments, was having an affair with Mr. Madoff.

Ms. Weinstein, who has been married for 37 years, discloses that relationship in "Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me," a memoir scheduled for publication by St. Martin's Press at the end of August, a spokesman for the publisher confirmed.

H/T Sigma

More like this

'... She and her husband were forced to sell their home âbecause four years ago we refinanced our mortgage and gave the excess cash to Bernie Madoff,â she continued.'

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

By bioIgnoramus (not verified) on 14 Aug 2009 #permalink

McCulloch accuses Steig et al. of appropriating his âfindingâ that Steig et al. did not account for autocorrelation when calculating the significance of trends. While the published version of the paper didnât include such a correction, it is obvious that the authors were aware of the need to do so, since in the text of the paper it is stated that this correction was made. The corrected calculations were done using well-known methods, the details of which are available in myriad statistics textbooks and journal articles. There can therefore be no claim on Dr. McCullochâs part of any originality either for the idea of making such a correction, nor for the methods for doing so, all of which were discussed in the original paper. Had Dr. McCulloch been the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper, or had he written directly to Nature at any time prior to the submission of the Corrigendum, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge him and the authors would have been happy to do so. Lest there be any confusion about this, we note that, as discussed in the Corrigendum, the error has no impact on the main conclusions in the paper.