First Defense Witnesses

The Globe and Mail has a report from Paul Waldie that starts off with the name of the first defense witness: Jennifer Owens. She "testified about the contents in 13 boxes that Lord Black took from his office in Toronto in May, 2005.... Ms. Owens testified that many of the documents in the boxes had already been turned over to the SEC. She also said that the commission had not formally served its request for documents when Lord Black removed the boxes." Under cross-examination, she "acknowledged that she examined the boxes after Lord Black returned them for verification. She said she made copies of some of the documents because they may not have been turned over to the commission before." Mr. Waldie's report also notes that Joan Maida and Kenneth Whyte are expected to testify today.

Mr. Waldie was also interviewed by BNN, aired at 2:05 PM ET. He reported that the defense started its case this morning, and Conrad Black's counsels hit hard on the charge relating to the boxes (the obstruction of justice charge.) Mr. Black's personal assistant Joan Maida has now testified, that she packed 5 boxes into the car and took them out because she planned to set up a home office; she also said that the contents of the boxes were personal. Under cross-examination, though, her memory seemed to vanish, she seemed to "play games" with cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer, and she did admit that she knew she shouldn’t have removed anything covered by the court order.

The prosecution had dropped the money-laundering charge because it was directly linked to the CanWest non-compete payment to Mr. Black, which the prosecution has conceded was legitimate. The others are related to Mr. Black getting non-compete payments for others. The next witness for the defense is Kenneth Whyte. It's not certain what he’ll testify about, but it probably will be about the separation of responsibilities between Conrad Black and David Radler.

A report by Bloomberg's Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris starts off with: "Two Conrad Black lawyers testified testified that they didn't tell the former newspaper publisher about a pending U.S. government request for documents before he removed the papers from his Toronto office two years ago." One of them was Ms. Owens; the other was Alex Bourelly. Both were examined by Marc Martin, one of Conrad Black's counsels. Ms. Owens also testified that she received an advisory letter from the SEC on May 20 1995, and a formal request letter on May 23. The report also notes that, under cross-examination, Joan Maida admitted that she hoped Conrad Black would be acquitted.

[The same report has been extensively updated. The update includes excerpts from the cross-examination of Ms. Maida by Jeffrey Cramer. "Under [that] cross-examination, Maida said she couldn't remember if she then called Black or if he called her. She described his tone upon hearing the boxes could not be removed as 'irritated.''... 'Where did you think the boxes were going,' Cramer asked.

"'I didn't think about it.'' Maida replied.

"'Reminding Maida of her earlier testimony that she was going to set up a home office, Cramer asked the secretary if she ever asked Black to deliver the cartons there.

"'No,'' Maida said."

[A second update (same report) has some testimony from Kenneth Whyte, who was the editor of the National Post at its inception. He testified that Conrad Black was in control of the paper, and that he had hardly seen David Radler. "Whyte said Black was his boss and he saw him as the owner of the National Post, an assertion challenged by prosecutor Julie Ruder who presented documents that showed the newspaper was owned by Hollinger International.

"'I am an editor. I was not a businessman,' Whyte responded. 'I worked for Conrad Black, not Hollinger International.'"]

Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, is entitled "Conrad Black's secretary comes to his defense." It discloses that her I-don't-know answers, reported on by Mr. Waldie, were elicited under direct examination. She also "described how she was packing up their offices at Hollinger Inc.,... Maida said she was packing up boxes that day, putting in 'personal pictures, kids' stuff,' as well as files involving Black's personal properties in Manhattan, Florida and London." The only question under cross-examination mentioned in this report was the one noted in the above paragraph.

A shorter report, webbed by the The Irish Times, recaps the prosecution's obstruction-of-justice case before summarizing Ms. Maida's testimony. An even briefer Associated Press report has been webbed by WQAD.com; it's entitled "Testimony gets testy as Conrad Black defense is launched."

The longer AP report carries the same title; it's been webbed by 940 News. Here's the kernel, appearing early on in the article: "Under cross examination, the 59-year-old Canadian secretary's stint on the witness stand swiftly turned into a testy cat-and-mouse game with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Cramer, who was openly skeptical about her story.... She repeatedly could not remember what Black said on May 20, 2005, when security cameras captured him carrying the boxes to a waiting car." There are more exchanges of this sort in the article itself, which not-very-surprisingly notes that "Maida, who still is employed by Black, refused to meet with prosecutors, even after the RCMP called her Toronto home and asked for her co-operation."

A less explicit report has been written by David Litterick, and webbed by the Telegraph. It starts off with: "Conrad Black’s personal assistant knew the boxes the peer removed from Hollinger’s office in Toronto should not have been taken out of the building, the jury in his fraud trial heard today." It also discloses that "Ms Maida also admitted she knew there was a criminal investigation going on and said that investigators from Ernst & Young were in the office copying documents at around the time she tried to remove the boxes." [An earlier report by Mr. Litterick has a picture of Mr. Black, his chauffeur looking up at the security camera, and Ms. Maida herself, with back to cam. The later report has the same shot, zoomed in.]

BBC News has provided a brief sumary of Ms. Maida's testimony, with the more fireworky moments politely excised.

They're not to the same degree in a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the Montreal Gazette. It describes Ms. Maida as appearing "agitated and defensive" while on the witness stand. It also says that she "appeared flustered" during her cross-examination. It also recounts the earlier testimony of the two lawyer witnesses, and has an in-depth wrap-up of Mr. Whyte's testimony. "He gave the jury a detailed account of his journalistic career and described the launch of the National Post, speaking of telephone calls from Black that came as late as 1 a.m." While being cross-examined, he was asked by Julie Ruder, "'Who was paying you, Whyte?'" He answered, "'For all intents and purposes, Black,... I considered myself to work for him and his companies.' Whyte went on to say that since Lord Black was the CEO of the companies, it was to Black that he ultimately reported.... 'We were part of the Hollinger empire, but when we needed approval for a project we went to Hollinger Inc.,' Whyte said." He also testified that he had never signed a non-compete agreement with any Hollinger company while employed there, even though he had been editor-in-chief of both Saturday Night [now defunct] and the National Post.

----------

With regard to Ms. Owens' testimony, Mark Steyn has gone a little stronger. He writes: "Ms Owens went through every document and testified that, at the time Black allegedly 'obstructed justice' by removing the boxes, all the bank statements, contracts and 'musing' memos were already in the possession of the SEC." (He doesn't rise to the temptation of joking about the SEC needing the documents organized for them - but he did beat Bloomberg at the reporting of this item.)

His more recent posts today, with this entry being the most recent as of the evening of May 31, casts Csr. Cramer as less than a gentleman, and Ms. Maida as a feisty counterattacker.

Also, Douglas Bell adds a disffected tone for his latest entry in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. Excerpt: "First, though, we’ll get a string of his Lordship’s flunkies, including... Black’s flack-in-chief Ken Whyte, and somebody who claims to be an expert in non-compete agreements. Each will do his or her rendition of 'I’m shocked and appalled at even the suggestion of impropriety,'..." There's more in the entry itself.