Radler's Testimony Boxed Early

BNN and CTV NewsNet have aired noon reports, saying that the trial will adjourn early today, because those boxes have arrived. The defense team wants a chance to examine the contents, so the trial will adjourn two hours early. According to CTV reporter David Akin, the boxes are believed to contain cheque stubs and E-mails.

Havard Gould of CBC News also filed a report, which had snippets from Mr. Radler's testimony today. He was supposed to detail the scheme, and he did testify that Conrad Black “directed” him to divert a payment to the holding company: “certainly, I didn’t say no.” About one sale, he said he “didn’t know whether it was legal or not” but now he “regrets” it. Mr. Gould also mentioned the boxes.

CBC Newsworld also had an interview with lawyer Andrew Stoltmann, aired at about 12:20 PM ET. He saw the decision to adjourn early and the defense filing a motion to disallow the oft-played security-cam videotape showing Mr. Black taking the boxes out of 10 Toronto Street in 2005. He said that the controversy is over the question of its reliability as evidence. If the tape is included, and the prosecution argues that he shouldn’t have removed them at all, it would be persuasive to the jury. Discussing Mr. Radler’s truncated testimony so far, Csr. Stoltmann reported that it was credible, but it “hasn’t tied Conrad Black to the fraud” yet. We don't know if he'll effective in doing so, or if his testimony will be impeached. The prosecution team think that they have a paper trail, but it's not very thick. The testimony, and credibility, of David Radler is the key to their case.

Csr. Stoltmann also noted that the defense will spend “a huge amount of time” on the plea agreement during the cross-examination. When anchor Nancy Wilson asked about the defense's motions disturbing the prosecution's momentum, he answered that the prosecution often thinks that momentum is crucial, but it may not be at this stage: thanks to the early adjourment, the defense will not have the chance to cross-examine Mr. Radler, so the jury will have time overnight to mull over the direct testimony without it being challenged.

The webbed reports are coming in as well. The Chicago Daily Southtown has webbed an Associated Press report, by Mike Robinson, that starts with: "The government's star witness at media mogul Conrad Black's fraud trial testified today Black himself ordered millions of dollars paid to a smaller Toronto-based company he owned." When questioned about the 75/25 split of non-compete payments between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc., called the "template" according to the indictment, Mr. Black "'confirmed that was the plan,' Radler testified. 'He said yes, and that was it.'"

An updated report from David Akin mentioned that the boxes, which have been finally tabled today by the government, got there after a long legal wrangle. CTV NewsNet anchor Kate Wheeler pointed out that they might merely contain personal items, as Mr. Black has claimed.
Mr. Akin also held up an example, as one of the alleged crimes with repect to the defendants, Mr. Radler's sketching out in testimony how Horizon Publishing, which he and Mr. Black own large chunks of, asked for a non-compete agreement from Hollinger Int'l in exchange for a payment from Horizon. Mr. Akin described this transaction as “strange.” He held it up as an example of the prosecution being "much more effective" today.

Another webbed report, in the Turkish Press, fills in some detail about the so-called template. "Radler told the jury that the buyers had requested that Hollinger International sign a non-compete agreement but that there was no reason for the holding company to be considered a competitor." He also testified that "Black told him in a telephone conversation that the holding company, as a parent, "deserved" a portion of the payment... 'I was aware that there was absolutely no reason to move (the money)," he said in testimony that was struck from the record." It also mentions a non-disclosure on Mr. Radler's part that ties in with non-knowledge of the law mentioned above.

A much briefer AP report has been webbed by WQAD.com. It pegs Mr. Radler's testimony "in Chicago today [as] the first to tie Black directly to the transfer of tens of millions of dollars that the government maintains belonged to the Hollinger International media empire."

The beginning of Bloomberg's latest report, by Andrew Harris and Thom Weidlich, is more explicit: "Conrad Black oversaw the transfer of $15.2 million from Hollinger International Inc. to a Canadian holding company he controlled, his former business partner David Radler testified at Black's criminal fraud trial. As the rest of the report relates, the bulk of the $15.2 million came from 25% of the non-compete payment made with the 1999 sale of newspaper properties to Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.

[The updated version of the same report contains additional information, including this snippet: "Twice Radler told the court it would have been 'impossible' to tell Hollinger's audit committee or its chairman, former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson, about payments made to the holding company or to the defendants under the noncompete agreements...'I believed it was impossible because if the buyer didn't want the noncompetes, why offer noncompetes?'...'']

Just as the trial day was over, BNN broadcasted an interview with Amanda Lang. She reported that it has been a “surprising day,” including the early adjournment. Those boxes contain many cheque stubs, but there are also e-mails filed under various “Musings” categories that the prosecution wants to look over. The “meat” of Mr. Radler's testimony was heard today: he testified that it was Conrad Black’s idea to transfer part of the non-compete money to Hollinger Inc.

Reuters' report, by Andrew Stern and James Kelleher, is entitled "Star witness Radler details deals at Black trial." On page 2, it relates that Mr. Radler "continued to be somewhat of a difficult witness for the prosecution, often forcing Sussman to ask his question several times and sometimes responding with rambling answers.

"'I need you to pay more attention to my questions,'" Sussman instructed him at one point."

Romina Maurino's report on today's testimony, webbed by Canada.com, also discloses that "Conrad Black was behind a decision to funnel millions of dollars away from Hollinger International shareholders and into the pockets of executives," according to Mr. Radler. An updated report by her, webbed by 570 News, has more detail about both Mr. Black's behaviour and Mr. Radler's: "During much of Tuesday's testimony, Black scribbled notes and whispered to his lawyer while Radler remained calm and smiled at the jury often... [a]t times, [though,] he appeared startled by the defence's constant objections and unsure of what to do, sometimes searching for words." Near its end, it relates that Mr. Radler thought "they were allowed to [divert some non-compete fee funds to Hollinger Inc.] so as long as they got approvals from the audit committee..."

Theresa Tedesco and Mary Vallis have written an article, webbed by the Edmonton Journal, that starts off by summarizing Mr. Radler's testimony and then reports on what the story behind those 13 boxes was. The defense got photocopies of its contents this morning, and "complained about the prosecution springing the documents on them at the last minute. Edward Genson, one of Lord Black’s lawyers, accused the prosecution of setting up a 'straw horse' and taking it down." The motion and the consequent early end to today's part of the trial, mentioned above, resulted from this surprise. [The anecdote weaved into the end of this report was one also passed along by Mark Steyn.] A version webbed by Canada.com has a different opening summary.

BNN broadcast another interview with Amanda Lang, aired at about 5:55 PM ET, which not only added a few details from today's testimony but ended with a forecast on what to expect from tomorrow's cross-examination. Despite today's revelations from Mr. Radler, Ms. Lang reported, Conrad Black remained “stone-faced.” It was a good day for the prosecution in terms of believable testimony. Mr. Radler testified that Mr. Black was the first one who came up with the idea to transfer some non-compete money to Hollinger Inc., back in 1998. Once done, “the genie was out of the bottle.” She also noted that a lot of his testimony “just begs” for Mr. Black to testify, as it was about conversations between the two men with no outside witnesses present. (The first part of the evidentiary proffer for this case cited relevant precedents that legitimized this kind of testimony.) The cross-examination is likely to go after inconsistencies, and hunt for any kind of falsehood. She passed along the opinion that the defense is telegraphing their cross-examination through the objections they've made. Csr. Greenspan's strategy is hard to guess, but Ms. Lang expects him to go on a direct attack on Mr. Radler's credibility. She suggested watching closely for the questions asked about the $2 million non-compete fee from the American Trucker transaction: who was it that transferred the money to Hollinger Inc.? (Presumably, if Csr. Greenspan sways the jury regarding who it was, the genie will point right at Mr. Radler.)

----------

Mark Steyn, anticipating the cross-examination, makes the point in an entry in his Maclean's trial blog that Mr. Radler himself got the most money from the non-compete agreements, and that there's a suspicious lack of phone records between he and the defendants. A more recent one begins by noting, "[a]fter two months, the United States Government has got the glimmering of an argument."

And, from Toronto Life's Conrad Black trial blog, Douglas Bell's discussion of yesterday's coverage offers the jaundiced, or perhaps jaded, observation that "reports on Radler’s first day on the stand made a lot out of not a lot." He did seem to like the colour analyses of the tie, though.

Also: the "Black Board" has a JPEGged copy of the invoice for Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party from La Gernouille, and has a link to a PDF copy of the menu and the guest list, as well as the invoice for it.