Paul Waldie, of the Globe and Mail, has an update on the testimony of Thomas Henson. Mr. Henson testified that he had refused to wire the funds to Conrad Black and the three other defendants, but later went along with it, as he later testified under cross-examination to Mark Kipnis' lawyer Michael Swartz. "During re-direct questioning by prosecutor Edward Siskel, Mr. Henson said he felt uncomfortable wiring the money." There are more details in Mr. Waldie's report itself.
There's a brief AP report from the Website of a Moline, Illinois TV station here. A more detailed write-up, with more details on Mr. Henson's testimony, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown, a Sun-Times Media Group paper. It's by AP's Mike Robinson, and it has more details on the testimony elicited from Mr. Henson under direct examination.
The report sent out by the Canadian Press, and webbed by the CBC, discloses that Mr. Henson admitted, under cross-examination, that he did sign off on it; however, "the transaction's 'closing book,' or formal record of the deal, would have been reviewed by auditors.
"'The transactions have to be booked," he said, 'and the auditors have to agree with the way they're booked.'" He also testified that he never met Conrad Black, according to this latest report, credited to Romina Maurino by the Toronto Star. Edward Genson stuck with the defense theory for Mr. Black, reminding the jury once again, during his turn at cross-examination, that it was Mr. Radler, not Mr. Black, who had negotiated the deals.
A memorable snippet from Ms. Maurino's latest: "Radler, he said, responded by shouting: '[You're] wasting my — fill in the blank — time and you have wasted your — fill in the blank — time,' Henson said, to avoid repeating the profanities he said were uttered by Radler.... Henson testified he was shocked by the confrontation with Radler, and later drew laughter in the courtroom by referring to him as a gentleman." The latest report from the Telegraph, by David Litterick, adds that Mr. Radler uttered that blank-word-laced ultimatum while standing "'nose-to-nose' with Mr Henson..."
BNN reported, in its 3 PM headlines, that Mr. Henson also testified that the entire legal team at Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. had also signed off on the deal with the non-compete agreement, alleged to be part of the swindle, in it. There's a longer clip from the 1:50 PM broadcast, now webbed at BNN.ca, in which Mr. Waldie reported that Mr. Henson wanted to cover himself by seeking others' approval before signing off on the deal; the fact that he never raised any formal objections to the suspicious non-compete, tied in with the second and smaller CHNI purchase, was brought up by the defense.
Reuters has its report out now, written by Andrew Stern, which begins with "U.S. newspaper executives who bought community newspapers from Hollinger International Inc. testified on Tuesday they unwittingly agreed to divert some of the proceeds to a Canadian holding company that enriched media magnate Conrad Black, who is on trial for fraud." It also has a brief description of the testimony of Bill Paxton, along with a question by Csr. Genson, "about a separate newspaper holding company partly owned by Radler and Black" that was successfully objected to by the prosecution.
----------
The Chicagoist has webbed an interview with columnist Neil Steinberg, the one who compared Conrad Black to Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Mr. Steinberg turns out to be quite a character.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
FDR was Conrad Black's childhood hero. He drove his father nuts by listening to a recording of one of Roosevelt's Madison Square Garden speech.
Here's a defense of Lord Black that might cause Lord Black's lawyers to say "thanks, but no thanks."
Woops - here it is:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/paint_him_black/
No, it wouldn't! Nor would what could be called the "Coriolanus" defense: http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070308.shtml
Thanks for the posting that link. Interesting to see that, if those comments on it are representative, the paleo part of the American conservative movement is in cast-'im-out mode.
Well Taki is supposed to be a pal - as is Rees-Moog. With friends like these .
Basically Taki summarizes the charges better than the prosecutors seem to do - then he basically says so what.
But Steyn's defense of Lord Black is no good either - because he occludes basic facts and many of his readers are confused as to who was the minority shareholder and who was the controlling shareholder, etc
Can you think of any good literary examples?
No; none. Both of you weren't very impressed with Lord Rees-Mogg's defense; in a way, that's saddening, as he won repute for defending the Rolling Stones in print back in 1967. Back then, his defense clicked.
Post a Comment