Mr. Creasey and "Csr. Rollback"

The Globe and Mail has an item, by Paul Waldie, reporting that Fred Creasey was flummoxed by the defense presenting a document, one that he admitted to signing after being shown it, which mentioned the non-compete agreements, long before 2002: "under cross examination Thursday morning by Patrick Tuite, a lawyer for John Boultbee who is on trial with Lord Black, Mr. Creasey was shown a regulatory filing signed by him in November, 2000, that mentioned the non-compete payments."

[A BNN interview with Mr. Waldie mentions the compound confoundment. Look for the 1:40 PM ET clip near the bottom of BNN's home page. According to Mr. Waldie, there's more cross-examination in the afternoon shift. He also anticipates redirect, with this forecast: the prosecution will clarify that the documents signed did not specify any of the defendants as payees.]

Other reports are beginning to hit the Internet. From WQAD in Moline, Illinois, a short AP report which implies that Mr. Creasey was confounded over several points: "Creasey often had to confess that he had no memory of meetings and memos that were at least five years old." A more detailed report, by AP's Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It mentions that Mr. Creasey used the phrase "vague recollection" when cross-examined, and ends with a coup-de-grace. "[H]e said that Boultbee never asked him to change, erase, shred or hide documents either" is part of it. This longer report has also been webbed by the Toronto Star.

[Today's cross-examination was also mentioned on BNN, on its program "Squeeze Play;" the discussion aired at about 5:10 PM ET today. The co-host Kevin O'Leary, predicted that "every one" of the documents relating to the non-competes will be shown to have been passed by the board of directors, and that "every single" non-compete payment was disclosed in a timely manner. This thoroughness, he added, will emerge over the next several weeks. FYI: Mr. O'Leary is rather forthright.]

A Reuters write-up, by Andrew Stern, has also been webbed, by EarthTimes.org. It starts off by disclosing that some of the payments under allegation "were reported to U.S. government regulators in a timely fashion and not hidden as prosecutors have suggested". It also mentions that Csr. "Tuite suggested that Creasey was trying to 'mislead the jury,' but he was cut off after objections from prosecutors." The CBC has webbed a slightly different version of this report, with a few background facts snipped out, and a quote from a 2002 Hollinger Int'l document, prepared for the February meeting of the audit committee, added in. A much smaller write-up, with little detail about Fred Creasey's grey day, has been webbed by LawFuel, and AP has its "Summary Box" out now, with the note that the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey will continue on Monday, when the trial resumes.

Csr. Tuite wasn't the only defense counselor whose cross-examination knocked down Mr. Creasey's testimony, though. Peter Brieger of the National Post has details on Edward Greenspan's questioning, which got Mr. Creasey's lack of knowledge of how much business was conducted during the flight to Bora Bora as well as the fact that Hollinger Int'l. was obliged to pay for the fixed costs for the planes anyway, on the record.


The latest from 680 News has CP's Romina Maurino back on the beat: her latest piece makes the point that Conrad Black's attempt at image management, through writing articles for the press, may very well "galvanize" the prosecution "to seek a harsher sentence if he is convicted..." [She also mentions Mr. Black pouring himself into an unrelated activity when under stress: two of these activities during the trial itself were his attendance at George Jonas' book launch party, and his penning an article on Mario Dumont's unexpected success in the recent Quebec election. You can judge for yourself if Conrad Black has an unrepentant attitude in his March 10th column, published and webbed by the National Post.]


Mark Steyn has heard of Mr. Creasey's witness-stand troubles...and he did revise his earlier assessment of Mr. Creasey's value to the prosecution. [His second post for today speculates on why the prosecution seems to have miscalculated in their handling of the case.]

-----------

This seems the best time to call attention to the webbed Globe article, which anointed Conrad Black as Report on Business' "Man of the Year 1978." In this congratulatory mini-biography of Black '78, it mentions Massey-Ferguson, the company that Mr. Black later pulled Argus out of by giving Argus' shareholdings in it to the Massey employees' pension fund. He did so on October 1, 1980, after an intial turnaround under Victor Rice, its then CEO, went sour. (Richard Siklos, Shades of Black , p. 66.) As of the time of Mr. Black's anointing, Victor Rice was 37 years old, the same age then as Eric Sussman is now (Admittedly, I'm that age too.) I am happy to relate, though, that Mr. Rice grew into the job: "$1 invested in Massey [later Varity Corp and Lucas Varity plc.] stock when Argus walked away from it would have been worth nearly $75 by 1999." (Ibid , p. 68.)

So, there's hope, in their long-term futures, for thirty-seven year old wunderkinds who, somewhat later, end up hapless during unexpected times.