Thursday's trial has marred the mo'

According to Reuters' James B. Kelleher, another prosecution witness has hit the mar point for his credibility. The counsel for Mark Kipnis, Ron Safer, jumped on prosecution witness Darren Sukonick with a transcript of a voicemail message Csr. Sukonick had left on Mr. Kipnis' phone, and made him admit that there was "nothing unlawful or improper from keeping those payments from CanWest, correct?"

Bloomberg also has a report on Csr. Safer's cross-examination, written by Thom Weidlich and Andrew Harris. It starts off with: "Former Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black and his codefendants acted on legal advice when they routed through a holding company noncompete payments prosecutors claim they sought to hide, a lawyer testified." Near its end, the report mentions Csr. Sukonick pulling a technical demur about the flow of CanWest non-compete funds after being asked by Csr. Safer if his 2001 voicemail message describing it was accurate. So, it is arguable that Darren Sukonick's credibility as a prosecution witness, though marred during cross-examination, wasn't excoriated like Fred Creasey's was.

The latest Bloomberg update mentions the redirect, in which he stated that he had not intended to counsel tax evasion, and the latest Reuters update mentions that another law firm's concerns about board approval of those non-compete payments were allayed by James Thompson, chair of the audit committee.

The CBC has a complete wrap-up of Csr. Sukonick's testimony, courtesy of Romina Maurino. So does the Associated Press, as webbed by ABC7 Chicago, which ends with the note that Sukonick advised to send the individual payments directly to the individuals; it was Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson who decided to run the money through Hollinger Int'l.

An updated version of Ms. Maurino's write-up has been webbed by 680 News. It mentions that the only sparks that flew between Edward Genson and Darren Sukonick was their disagreement over what paper could be considered "the" national newspaper of Canada. It ends with a preview of what is expected to be revealed from the testimony, under direct examination, of Barry Tyner, an accountant from Vancouver who was asked by David Radler to check on the tax status of noncompete payments. (Mr. Tyner was profiled earlier today in this article.)

As of yet, there has been no word about whether or not Gulliaume Hecketsweiler testified today.


----------

Mark Steyn mentioned the false alarm, previously blogged about by Peter Brieger, as an opener to wondering if the right guy is on trial.

Also: George Tombs, over at the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" subdomain, has a go at comparing the trial to an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He ends his piece with his own wondering, about why Conrad Black would criticize the then-new Sarbanes-Oxley Act so bluntly to him back in 2003.