>>>The returns were statistically impossible, and against all human nature.
>AND it was a known money laundering technique at the time.
>AND her broker got into big trouble for laundering money
>AND she quit after making an even $100k
>(nobody who has that kind of success would quit)
>
>According to her, she was down $100K at one point as well as up $100K when she quit- which she says was when she learned she was pregnant.
>
>Is it true? Did she make losses as well as wins? Does the timing of her quitting match Chelsea?
>
>If so, then all I see is an amateur trader (gambler) who managed to quit while she was ahead.

If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe what you want to.
The facts are don't support it.

The odds are about the same as her:
Buying a metal detector
Finding a pot of gold in her backyard
Never using the metal detector again

The facts do support a laundered payoff.
Remember, this was a common technique at the time - and her broker was caught laundering money in this exact way.

The chaotic trading is irrelevant.
Actually, no, the losses on the account WITHOUT A MARGIN CALL proves the point:
Somebody guaranteed the account, and guaranteed she would make $100k

The brokers I know are personally liable for customer losses if they fail to make margin calls.
I know a broker who had to make up a huge customer loss - I remember thinking he could have bought a nice Mercedes with the money.

USA Today April 7, 1994:
"On July 12, 1979, Hillary’s relationship with Refco remained intact even though she owed more than $100,000;
but poor Stanley Greenwood, a fellow Refco investor, had his investments terminated when he failed
to post $50,000 to cover his losses."

The New York Post April1, 1994:
“There is no way that the commodity exchange or a broker would permit a novice speculator
to control $280,000 worth of cattle with a skimpy investment of $1,000.
Not, that is, unless a friend, guardian or partner guaranteed her investment.”