Monday's trial events

Mark Steyn has another blog entry on today's testimony, which notes that the non-compete agreements, in and of themselves, aren't that controversial. In typical testimony, the buyer is glad to have Hollinger Inc. added, but also says that its addition was "no big deal."

More specific details on today's testimony are in the Globe and Mail's report from Paul Waldie. It starts with reporting on Craig Holick's testimony on Todd Vogt's instructions to move some of the funds from the non-compete agreement, attached to the first Hollinger International sale to Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., to Hollinger Inc. instead of Hollinger Int'l. From it: "'Todd was quite agitated that morning to have the funds moved,'... Mr. Holick said Mr. Vogt told him that there had been a mistake in the newspaper sale and that the non-compete payment should have gone to Hollinger Inc., not Hollinger International. Mr. Holick said he found the request unusual and said he wanted something on paper directing him to make the transfer." It also details Judge St. Eve's rejection of a defense motion to widen the latitude of cross-examination, to include a what-if line of questioning that's intended by the defense to put a reasonable-person standard into the record.

Another report has hit the Web, from CBS2 Chicago, which contains a precis of David Paxton's testimony. It reports that Mr. Paxton "insisted that a non-competition agreement he received from former press lord Conrad Black's holding company was all but valueless." The same report has also been webbed by WQAD of Moline, Illinois.

A third report, webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat, has some details of the cross-examination of Mr. Paxton by Mark Kipnis' lawyer, Ron Safer. The report, by Mike Robinson of Associated Press, details that Mr. Paxton tried to square off his present testimony with the testimony he gave to the grand jury. In the latter, he testified that he was glad of the addition of Hollinger Inc. to the relevant non-compete agreement. This latest report has also been webbed by the Daily Southtown, and it is propagating to other media Websites. As it does, the headline tends to change into an acknowledgement that the addition of Hollinger Inc. did add some level of protection for the Paxton Media Group. The Canadian copy-posts (like this one) do add a mention Craig Holick testifying; none mention Mr. Holick's testimony. Mr. Waldie's report is the only that I've seen to do so.

A more recent CBC News item on the Conrad Black trial doesn't bring up Mr. Holick at all, but does have an updated section, entitled "Labyrinthine intricacies," and notes that the trial will not be conducted tomorrow. None of the above, as of the time of this entry, have mentioned whether or not Dominick Dunne has shown up.

There has been, however, posted reports on the testimony of Angela Way. The latest update to Mike Robinson's AP report, has been posted by the JournalGazette Times-Courier of Mattoon and Charleston, Illinois. It discloses, at the beginning, that Ms. Way testified to sending checks in the amount of $2.6 million to Conrad Black, and two checks for $137,500 each to Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. Mr. Black got the money "for signing a contract promising not to compete with a company Black himself controlled." This updated report has also been posted by Business Week.

There's a brief "Summary Box" of this latest bit of information, with the note that Ms. Way will be on the stand again Wednesday.

----------

In addition, I include a 2004 Vanity Fair biographical feature on Conrad Black, "The Man Who Wanted More," which contains criticism of Mr. Black by old friend, but no longer ally, Hal Jackman. Also for your perusal: a column by George Jonas, in the National Post, which speculates that Eric Sussman's stumble over the word "calumny" was an act for the jury. (I saw it at the Free Republic.) Mr. Jonas was the author whose book-launch party the Blacks attended last Saturday.