Thursday's Trial Action: Going To The Motions

BNN just had its regular trial interview with Paul Waldie, aired 2:35 PM ET, which he started off by reporting on the final testimony of Mr. Thompson. He faced more tough questions as to why he had signed but not had read the disclosure documents. The prosecution did ask questions under redirect examination, and Mr. Thompson stuck to the same story he stated under the initial direct examination. While under redirect, he flatly denied Eddie's Greenspan's suggestion that he had lied about never approving anything currently under suspicion. When asked by host Amanda Lang how he looked after he was through, Mr. Waldie answered that Mr. Thompson didn't walk off the stand looking very good - he looked like somewhat of a "rubber stamp" director despite his denials that he was one. He still is a respected politician, though, so it's not clear how the jury will weigh his testimony. All four cross-examinations of him took the same tack, even though each had different flavors. As far as David Radler's upcoming testimony is concerned, motions are already flying with regard to what Mr. Radler can say on the stand. His testimony might very well start Monday afternoon. Mr. Waldie's latest written report for the Globe and Mail is here.

The Reuters report is out, once again written by Andrew Stern. It starts off with a point made under redirect: Mr. Thompson, when still on the board, had not anticipated having to testify in a criminal court. The bulk of the report, though, was devoted to Ron Safer's cross examination, which focused upon Mr. Thompson's memory lapses. "Safer tried to show Thompson's memory was selective -- he could remember when prosecutors asked him specifics, but often could not recall events when questions were posed by the defense." Mr. Stern concurs with Mr. Waldie by noting that Mr. Thompson stuck to his guns, such as they were, all the way through.

Crain's Chicago Business has a summation of the cross-examination with an unusual item in it: one of the spectators during the grilling of former Gov. Thompson was none other than the adopted son of a former Illinois governor who got convicted thanks to Mr. Thompson's prosecutorial work. Anton Cermak Kerner had this to say: when "[a]sked if he took satisfaction from seeing Mr. Thompson grilled on the witness stand, Mr. Kerner said: 'No, not satisfaction — a sense of irony.'"

The Associated Press report, webbed by ABC7 Chicago, has a more straightforward take on today's testimony. It begins with, "Former Gov. James R. Thompson wrapped up three grueling days on the witness stand Thursday with an emotional denial that he approved millions of dollars in payments now at the heart of the racketeering and fraud case against media mogul Conrad Black." Later, it notes that Mr. Thompson explained his sketchy recall by saying "'[the event he was being cross-examined about took place] seven years ago'" while on the stand, but it also brings up the point that the defense hammered away at: his (in retrospect, an) admission that he had only skimmed the documents he was responsible for. It ends by mentioning that testimony is over for the week. [The same report, credited to Mike Robinson, has been webbed by 680 News.]

An updated AP report repeats Mr. Thompson's claim, found in the earlier one and brought up by Mr. Waldie, that Csr. Greenspan "'was saying to me that I had lied to this jury about not approving those payments,'... in response to a question from lead prosecutor Eric H. Sussman." It adds that Mr. Thompson was reached by telephone this afternoon, but declined to comment; the reason given by him was, the trial was still in progress. Forbes.com has webbed it, as has Canadian Business, which credits Mike Robinson for it.

Finally, Mary Vallis has written another report, webbed by Canada.com, which starts off with a note that Mr. Thompson was made by defense counsels to look like he got paid a lot for doing little: "Former Illinois governor James R. Thompson admitted Thursday he collected more than $18,000 US in a single day for attending meetings during which he 'skimmed' key documents that are now the basis of criminal fraud charges against Conrad Black and three former business associates.... [L]awyer Ron Safer walked the witness through a list of key meetings he participated in on Feb. 25, 2002, and pointed out that, despite his pay, Thompson appeared to have done very little work." Just below, it mentions a 17-page draft financial statement, presented to the audit committee members on February 25 2002, in which the non-compete payments were mentioned, previous to recounting Ron Safer's part of the cross-examination. Just before noting that David Radler is expected to testify on Monday, it ends with: "When Thompson was finally excused, he walked to the prosecutors’ table and shook their hands, giving them a thumbs-up."

----------

Mark Steyn's trial blog has three entries so far today: the most recent one contrasts the board-member fees received by former Gov. Thompson to the pay of the jurors who are expected not to "skim" through the testimony.

Also, Douglas Bell of Toronto Life's Conrad Black Trial Blog has highlighted a new entry in the Wall Street Journal law blog. We haven't seen one from them for a long time. (The entry itself is here.)

And finally, Steve Skurka's latest entry in "The Crime Sheet" begins with the assessment that the prosecution is flying blind with respect to their now-punctured case. About half-way down, he states flatly: "I will provide you with my objective and legally literate opinion about the Conrad Black trial. The defence is winning this trial. Mark that down. The prosecution is still struggling to develop a coherent theory of their case seven weeks into the trial. The prosecution case is the Titanic searching for an iceberg."