Media Roundup: Logic and Apportion

The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial are concentrating on Mr. Radler's next-to-last day of cross-examination, with the exception of three reports that focus upon two of the next witnesses:

1. An abridged version of the Reuters report on yesterday's trial events has been webbed by the Brisbane Times. It relays the highlights from both Benito Romano's cross-examination and Ron Safer's: the former elicited a statement from Mr. Radler that he didn't know that the stock price of Hollinger International had leapt when the sale to CanWest was announced; the latter got Mr. Radler stipulating that Mark Kipnis had earned his bonuses, including that $100,000 payment, for saving Hollinger Inc. "considerable amounts of money." [The New York Post has webbed a similar abridgement.]

2. From "David Frum's Diary" at National Review Online, excerpts from two recent Peter Worthington columns, both of which discuss Mr. Radler's accuracy of memory, as well as veracity, on the stand.

3. CBC News has webbed a brief Canadian Press forecast that Mr. Radler's testimony will end today.

4. The Chicago Tribune's report on the cross-examination of Mr. Radler, written by Ameet Sachdev with some help by James P. Miller, points out that this case has no "smoking gun" document, which makes it different from other recent corporate-fraud cases.

5. From the Washington Post, a Bloomberg report written by Andrew Harris and Thom Weidlich that begins with, "Conrad Black and other Hollinger International Inc. executives took $5.5 million from a corporate subsidiary believing the money was part of management fees they were owed, ex-Hollinger president F. David Radler testified." It notes that the testified-to legitimacy of this supposedly suspicious withdrawal will be compared to the payments covered by the charges.

6. The National Post has webbed an article by Theresa Tedesco and Mary Vallis, which reports on motions by two lawyers for the defense to bar two witnesses, Paul Healy and Jonathan Rosenberg, from repeating statements that they remember Peter Atkinson saying to them. (Yes, these statements are "admissible hearsay.") A lawyer for Mr. Black pre-objected to them on two grounds: one, "they could be construed as an accusation"; two, counsels for Mr. Black will be denied cross-examination rights unless Mr. Atkinson himself takes the stand, a decision that is not up to Mr. Black. [Italicization mine.] A lawyer for Mr. Atkinson, Michael Schachter, petitioned for a restriction based upon this line of reasoning: "it didn't matter that his client thought there were inaccuracies in Lord Black's address to Hollinger shareholders. 'Are they trying to suggest he did something wrong by not doing something about it when Conrad Black made his statements?,' Mr. Schacter asked. 'This is an admission by Peter Atkinson but it doesn't go to whether Conrad Black knew what he was saying was false.'" The article further reports that Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on these motions this morning, before the trial begins. [An abridged version of this report has been webbed by the Vancouver Province.]

7. From the Chicago Sun-Times, a report by Mary Wisniewski that recounts Mr. Radler's testimony about the bonuses to Mr. Kipnis, and an inconsistency between Mr. Radler's earlier testimony and "a letter Radler sent to the audit committee chairman, former Gov. James R. Thompson, [in which] Radler said the audit committee had approved the payments." (Mr. Radler explained this discrepancy away.) It ends with Csr. Safer asking if "he was 'panicked' knowing that the audit committee would find out about the non-compete payments through 2001 and 2002 financial disclosures." Mr. Radler responded that "he wasn't."

8. Peter Worthington's latest column, webbed by the Edmonton Sun, begins with "The prosecution's star witness dug his grave deeper at the Conrad Black trial yesterday... Rarely has a key witness self-destructed the way David Radler has. Black's former partner in Hollinger (33 years) is embarrassing prosecution lawyers who depend on him for a conviction that could put Conrad on ice for 101 years." Mr. Worthington details the evisceration of Mr. Radler (who evidently is obliged to himself to testify that he was innocent of all wrongdoing except for that he pleaded guilty to - italics mine) and reveals a self-justification on the part of Mr. Radler that sounds a lot like the arguments that defense counsels have been making.

9. The Daily Mail also has a report on the motions filed by the defense to restrict testimony by Mr. Healy and Mr. Rosenberg, which mentions that "Paul Healy, a former banker, will introduce to the jury a video of Lord Black speaking at the shareholders’ meeting. The judge has however ordered that one shareholder’s shout at Lord Black, 'you’re a thief', should be removed from the video as prejudicial." It describes Mr. Radler as "obviously exhausted," and ends with this observation: "Confusing the jury is as much a defence tactic as seeking the truth."

10. BBC News has a report that recounts the events mentioned above, after introducing a bit of context to yesterday's testimony by Mr. Radler under cross-examination.

11. From the Globe and Mail, a report by Paul Waldie which also reports that Mr. Radler's testimony is almost over. It mentions that "[h]e provided some of the most damning evidence in the trial, telling jurors that Lord Black came up with the plan to skim off some of the payments related to non competition agreements Hollinger signed when it sold dozens of newspapers." It also notes that Mr. Radler has not fared very well during cross-examination, though. The bulk of Mr. Waldie's report deals with the two upcoming witnesses: "During a brief hearing Wednesday without the jury, prosecutors outlined some of what Mr. Rosenberg is expected to say. He will discuss how Peter Atkinson, one of the co-accused, told the committee that during the 2002 Hollinger annual meeting Lord Black misled investors about the non-compete payments, prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer told the court." It also mentions that Mr. Rosenberg will not be allowed to testify that Mr. Black had refused to meet with the Special Committee unless "strict conditions" were met by them, on the grounds that Mr. Black "had a right not to appear before the committee."

12. Another report by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, recaps yesterday's highlights of the cross-examination of Mr. Radler, as well as a brief discussion of the above-mentioned motions made by the defense team. It begins with: "Conrad Black was smiling yesterday as David Radler endured his toughest day yet on the witness stand, but Lord Black also found out a witness could make some damning statements about him next week."

13. Rick Westead of the Toronto Star opens up his latest article by reporting on the forthcoming testimony of Mr. Healy and Mr. Rosenberg, and the defense motions aiming to restrict what they can say on the stand. While recounting the highlights of yesterday's cross, Mr. Westhead implies that the best cross-examiner of Mr. Radler wasn't Eddie Greenspan, but Ron Safer: "Earlier yesterday, lawyer Ronald Safer worked methodically and effectively on behalf of his client, one-time Hollinger counsel Mark Kipnis, in cross-examining star government witness David Radler.... While other defence lawyers at times have seemed to be meandering with their line of questioning, Safer's grilling of Radler was direct and efficient and appeared to captivate the jury."

----------

Both Chicago dailies have reports about the current fate of the Sun-Times Media Group, which is what remains of Hollinger Int'l. The Chicago Tribune passes on an admission from current CEO, Cyrus Friedheim, Jr.: "'Our industry, frankly, is in terrible shape,' Freidheim said, noting the ongoing erosion in newspaper circulation nationwide and the accelerating migration of newspaper readers and advertisers to Internet platforms." The report in the Chicago Sun-Times itself focuses on Mr. Friedheim's turnaround plans before getting to the doleful details. (Mr. Feldheim was the replacement for Gordon Paris; he's been the CEO since last November.)

A feature report in the New York Times profiles Marie-Josée Kravis' life before and after her spell as a Hollinger Int'l director, with a recounting of her time on the stand a few weeks ago.

Also, Patricia Best starts off her "Nobody's Business" column with a brief report on Conrad Black getting some good publicity - for his biography of Richard Nixon.


Mark Steyn has had some unkind things to say about prosecutors Eric Sussman and Julie Ruder, and has taken the occasional swipe at Jeffrey Cramer, but when he gets down to brass tacks, he does not point the finger at any of the assistant U.S. attorneys for the difficulties they've encountered in the case. (I actually agree with him on this point.) Mr. Steyn puts the blame squarely on U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who has accumulated a short track record of not fingering the obvious culprit and of meeting his Maker when his charge-filled indictments face a jury.