Friday testimony: revisiting the audit committee

From the Globe and Mail, a brief write-up from Paul Waldie describing Marie-Josée Kravis' initial testimony. She testified that Conrad Black and David Radler "worked closely together at the company....

"'They complemented each other,” Ms. Kravis said in response to questioning by prosecutor Julie Ruder. 'They were very conversant on the company's operations.'”

Mrs Kravis also backed up Richard Burt's testimony under direct examination, with regard to dearth of audit committee members' knowledge of the non-compete payments at the heart of most of the charges against the defendants.

[This report has been updated by adding that Mr. Radler is scheduled to be the third witness after Mrs. Kravis.]

680 News has webbed Romina Maurino's latest piece, which reports that Mrs. Kravis testified flatly that she never approved the individual non-compete agreements, nor did she vote for any non-compete fee to be directed to Hollinger Int'l to be transferred to Hollinger Inc.: "'That was money that belonged to the shareholders of (Hollinger) International,' she said." She also testified that she had suggested that, if the individual non-compete agreements were necessary, then the individuals could sign non-compete agreements with Hollinger Int'l itself after the company received the non-compete fees. "Radler refused, saying he 'would not sign a non-compete with the company (because) it was restrictive.'"

Mr. Waldie supplied additional information on Mrs. Kravis' testimony during a BNN interview, aired at 2:25 PM ET. The prosecutors have confirmed to Judge St. Eve that Mr. Radler is in the next batch of witnesses, so he will appear in one to two weeks (unless there's more delays due to extended questioning.) The trial itself is now finished for the week. Mrs. Kravis' answer, when she was shown documents she had signed with the individual non-compete payments itemized in them, was a lot like Richard Burt's: she didn't read them in their entirety. She insisted that the board did not approve the individual non-competes, all through the cross-examination she's faced so far. When asked by co-host Lisa Oake about the success Conrad Black's defense team has had with respect to the distancing theory, Mr. Waldie replied that [his defense team] hasn't has much success in making that point while questioning the last two witnesses. They both insisted that Mr. Black and Mr. Radler worked closely together.

Bloomberg's report, by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, begins with: "Conrad Black and two other Hollinger International Inc. board members never told other directors about three deals that routed more than $5 million to him and a company he controlled, a witness at Black's fraud trial said." Those three transactions were sales of newspaper properties to Forum Communications, The Paxton Group and Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. She also testified, "'If I had known this was a common practice, I would have looked at the roles of these individuals differently'''.

The updated version of the same report has some detail on the cross examination by Jack Boultbee's counsel, Patrick Tuite. After being asked why she had signed financial statement which she insisted were mistaken during previous testimony, she answered "'I must have missed it'... [Csr.] Tuite...noted the entries outlining the approvals were in two sections of the financial statements.

"'Did Conrad Black ask you to be his rubber stamp on the board,'' Tuite asked. 'No,'' Kravis answered."

Another report has been updated - Romina Maurino's. It's been webbed by 680 News, and it recounts, in some detail, Mrs. Kravis' testimony under direct examination - including Mrs. Kravis' telephones response to the notorious "hose down" E-mail by Mr. Black: "'I suggested he take a more quiet tone,' she told prosecutor Julie Ruder. 'I thought it was in the best interest of the company.'" The same tack is taken in tonight's Reuters report.

----------

Mark Steyn, in his latest trial blog entry, described Marie-Josée Kravis, when testifying for the prosecution, as sounding "like a terrified 11-year old schoolgirl... [or] like the kidnap victim who tells you down the phone they’re treating her very well."


A general note about the Toronto Life trial blog: its daily poll, asking "Based on today's evidence, I think Conrad Black is Guilty/Not Guilty", has swung around. It used to regularly show a "Guilty" majority, until about a week ago, when "Not Guilty" became the norm.