The lying...the lying...the lying...

According to the latest report by CBC correspondent Havard Gould, aired right after 11 AM on CBC Newsworld, Eddie Greenspan's cross-examination is still reinforcing the same theme begun yesterday afternoon, portraying David Radler as an untrustworthy, not repentant, serial liar. Csr. Greenspan is still rubbing the word “liar” in. According to Greenspan, Mr. Radler had many chances to tell the truth, such as times during meetings with the Hollinger board of directors, but continued to lie, essentially to save his own skin. This is the emerging vaiation on the defense's theme: David Radler is consistent as a liar who lies to save his own skin. And that, the defense claims, is what he did while under direct examination. David Akin, of CTV News, added in his 11:30 AM report aired on CTV NewsNet, that Csr. Greenspan is currently itemizing Mr. Radler's lies. A Canadian Press report, webbed by the Toronto Star, reports on essentially the same items contained in this paragraph.

A report by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has some quotes from the cross-examination so far, including the question that set the theme: "'To you, Mr. Radler is No. 1, correct?' Mr. Greenspan told him. 'Aren't you lying to save yourself?'

"Mr. Radler shot back: 'No sir.'" The end of Mr. Waldie's article contains similar responses from Mr. Radler.

Havard Gould's noon report, also aired on CBC Newsworld, relayed the information that Mr. Radler still appears credible to most observers in the courtroom. He's consistently sticking to his own story.

David Akin's 12:35 ET NewsNet report mentions the Special Committee (Breeden) Report, which has been ruled inadmissible in evidence, but has been drawn upon recently...by the defense. Some of the investigations the Special Committee had undertook has been introduced by Eddie Greenspan today; he's pointing out inconsistencies, if not contradictions, between what Mr. Radler said to them and what he has testified to earlier this week. Mr. Radler is answering deliberately, and is self-controlled. Conrad Black has returned to his usual expressionlessness. Mr. Akin's report concludes with the mention that the trial session will wrap up for the week at lunch, Chicago time.

According to Havard Gould's latest, aired at aboot 1:15 PM ET, it's been an "astonishing" day, because Csr. Greenspan is itemizing, in great detail, how much of a liar Radler was. Recurrently, Greenspan asks, "are you lying now?" The cross is heated at times; once, the judge intervened to calm both down. A former prosecutor opined to Mr. Gould that Greenspan is going too far, to the point where he'll awaken the underdog effect to Mr. Radler's favour. As far as Mr. Radler cracking, Csr. Greenspan seems to be hitting at the old brick wall. Court will stop for the week at about 2 PM ET.

The Reuters reports about today's cross-examination have been webbed by the National Post. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, illustrating Csr. Greenspan's strategy. Regarding the earlier Globe report, David Akin filled in the question that just preceded the quote from it above: after bring asked by Csr. Greenspan why he lied, Mr. Radler answered, "'I was trying to avoid the consequences of my actions.'" It was at this point that Csr. Greenspan pounced with the '#1' question. In his 1:30 PM report, Mr. Akin shifted to describing the questioning as "low-key" and "plodding."

Romina Maurino's report on this morning's cross has been webbed by 680 News. Amongst other details, it specifies that "Greenspan said that during 13 hours of discussions with the special committee, Radler never once said Black was behind the alleged non-compete scheme, never admitted any wrongdoing and never said he payment to executives were improper.... 'You never said you did anything wrong and you never said anybody else did anything wrong,' Greenspan said in court. 'But now you're telling this jury that those 13 hours have lies in them.'..."

Paul Waldie also offered an end-of-day assessment on a BNN interview, aired at 2:25 PM ET. Mr. Waldie noted that Mr. Radler isn't getting tired; he's more "feisty" than ever. He's even challenging the questions, to the point where Judge St. Eve had to tell him twice today to just answer them. Neither Mr. Radler nor Csr. Greenspan are giving an inch. Lots of time was spent with repeated admissions by Mr. Radler about lying to the Special Committee back in '03. Nevertheless, he insists that he's telling the truth now, and claims he's been doing so since the plea bargain in 2005.

(Hence, I venture, his scrupulosity in admitting that he lied. At least, Mr. Radler can claim that he was utterly truthful when admitting to his past lies. The same strategy may have made Andrew Fastow so credible despite his sleazy past.)

Up until now, all four defense counsels were acting as if they were in a unified team, but today, two (unspecified) defense lawyers objected to Csr. Greenspan's questions. This crack in their unity hints at upcoming differences in strategy. Mr. Waldie thinks that Csr. Greenspan will also be more single-defendant-oriented, come Monday.

Havard Gould, on the CBC Newsworld 3 PM update, made the significant point that David Radler has not broken down on the stand.

EarthTimes.org has webbed a short UPI report, entitled "Radler admits lying in Black case." Also webbed, by the Ottawa Citizen, is a newer report by Romina Maurino which expands upon the many ways Csr. Greenspan has shown that David Radler has been a liar. All of the examples in her article are from before the plea bargain agreement.

A little after 3:30 PM, Mr. Akin delivered another report, also broadcast on CTV NewsNet, in which he said that there was no "knock-out punch" today. He supplied two tid-bits from the end of the day's cross-examination. The first came right at session's end. Csr. Greenspan said to Mr. Radler, "you're not Conrad Black's right-hand hand man after all." The latter asked for clarification, and then wondered aloud if Csr. Greenspan meant "flunkie." The second tidbit disclosed was Csr. Greenspan's mention that, after Eric Sussman had said "you're killing me here" during the redirect, Mr. Radler had changed his answer to please the prosecutor. Mr. Akin also reported that Csr. Greenspan promised to be finished his cross-examination by the end of Monday morning.

Effective cross-examination was the subject of a BNN interview with defense attorney Stephen Komie, aired at 5:28 PM. According to Csr. Komie, effective cross depends crucially upon the type of person you're cross-examining. Mr. Radler is a boardroom fellow; thus, he's less easy to rile than a street person. In any cross-examination, you have to get under the witness' skin. The more sarcastic and belligerent the witness is, the more bullying can be gotten away with. Government witnesses are typically very well-rehearsed. The term 'script,' though, is metaphorical; the coaching involves lots of practice to get rid of "nervous habits." The effective cross-examiner has to wear the witness down to sponteneity. He suggested wearing away what he called the politness of a "butler" or "valet" in Mr. Radler's case. It's true that some people can grow on a jury if they're up on the stand for a long time, Csr. Komie stipulated, but David Radler doesn't seem to be one of them. The jury probably won't see him as an underdog.

A report by Joy Malbon was aired by CTV NewsNet at 6 PM ET. After recounting today's trial highlights, she passed along this assessment of Eddie Greenspan's performance, derived in large part from Steve Skurka's observations: his cross scored "a few good body blows," but Mr. Radler is learning to adapt, quickly. The clock ran out while Csr. Greenspan tried to get Radler to admit that he wasn't Conrad Black's right-hand man.

The entire day's cross-examination has been covered by Ms. Maurino's latest report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette. Two of its quotes reveal how Csr. Greenspan is trying to impugn the consistency barrier in two ways: first of all, "'[t]here's nothing that you can tell this jury so they would know when you're lying,' he told Radler"; and secondly, "'[t]he fact is you made a lot of decisions on your own - you're not Conrad's right-hand man,' Greenspan said, reading from a 1996 newspaper article in which Radler clearly stated: 'I am nobody's right-hand man.'"

The article also contains an assessment of Radler as a witness from Hugh Totten, who said that, despite the fact that Csr. Greenspan has yet to make Mr. Radler unbelievable, the latter has been less than completely helpful: "'It's almost a conspiracy by telepathy based on his testimony so far, [said Csr. Totten,] and he is not doing the job of selling this to the jury.'" (It would be ironic indeed if the coaching of Mr. Radler has gotten to the point where it had given him a "Midas' shield," whose impregnability came at the cost of jury-swaying testimony.)

Another webbed report, by the Times of London's James Bone, begins its summarization with a tantalizing speculation, one that only a Fleet Streeter could muster under present circumstances: "Black may testify in own defence."

The Age has got one too, a webing of a Reuters report. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, almost all of which deal with the subject of Mr. Radler's lying. It also mentions Mr. Radler's response to Csr. Greenspan bringing up the nobody's-right-hand-man remark he had made in 1996: "'I don't remember telling anybody that," Radler said."

A briefer report, by The Independent's Stephen Foley, fills in a few gaps in the items mentioned above. It quotes the remark made by David Radler that set off the argument which Judge St. Eve stopped with a rebuke for them both: "Radler accused the lawyer of 'manoeuvring all over the place' and being selective in his quotes. 'You want to take things out of context, I guess that's your right,. Radler said." Also, it notes that "defence lawyers began objecting that he was asking the same question again and again." So, the breakdown in unity mentioned by Mr. Waldie may only have been ad hoc.

----------

Mark Steyn's latest comment on the trial works in a theme that's a hardy perennial among Canadian pundits who write on America: how little the typical American knows about Canada. The implication he draws from it, though, is new: this ignorance at times can result in more harmful consequences than a mere snub - and it isn't just Canadians who may be affected, either. That's the point that peeks through his usual mockery.


Speaking of mockery, the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" section has an opinion piece by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that seeks to give the neo-conservative movement a straight burial. Amongst others, he has this remark about Richard Perle: "While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion."