Wednesday's cross

According to CTV's David Akin, as aired on CTV NewsNet, the cross-examination has just begun, and cross-examiner Eddie Greenspan pulled out quite a trick for the start of it: he pointed out contradictions between David Radler's testimony in this trial and testimony, earlier but on the same subjects, that Mr. Radler gave in a British Columbia case. He then said, Mr. Radler had either lied there or lied in the current trial. Only after this line of questioning was done with did he introduce the motive for Mr. Radler to bend the truth: the plea agreement. The CBC's Havard Gould described it as the quickest confrontation he's ever seen in a cross examination: within "seconds," Csr. Greenspan asked, “You mean a partial truth?” According to Mr. Gould, Csr. Greespan compared Mr. Radler's testimony in the current trial to that he had made (still sworn) in a B.C. tribunal.

A report covering the cross-examination has been webbed by CBC News, which includes the full question that started it off: "'You swore to tell the truth,' Eddie Greenspan confronted Radler. 'Do you mean the partial truth?'" He then accused Mr. Radler of sticking to a script, with the government threatening behind closed doors to tell the judge that he voided the plea agreement if he departs from it. Mr Radler denied testifying to order, and accused Csr. Greenspan of putting words in his mouth. The rest of the report sums up Mr. Radler's testimony earlier today, made under direct examination. A more recent and slightly expanded version of this report, credited to Romina Maurino, described the cross-examination so far as "gruelling and aggressive" and Mr. Radler as "evasive."

BNN also aired a report, from Amanda Lang, at 5:50 PM ET. She said that Csr. Greenspan really went after Mr. Radler, and put him on the defensive at the beginning; he had even made a lengthy to-do over whether Mr. Radler had sworn on the Bible. That case in B.C. took place in 2002; something he had testified to then had contradicted what he had said on the stand under direct examination this week. She also disclosed that Radler had answered, after denying he was testifying to order, that he was there to "tell the truth. That’s what I’m here for,” Ms. Lang then said that she couldn't speculate on what the jury is thinking, but she did note (as have others) that Conrad Black had smiled during the cross-examination. Radler, on the other hand, looked defensive and agitated.

During the cross-examination, Mr. Greenspan showed that Mr. Radler himself had paid non-compete fees, some to individuals - Csr. Greenspan documented six of them - for newspaper properties bought for Horizon or Bradford, by Mr. Radler himself.

After Ms. Lang's report had finished, co-hosts Kevin O’Leary and Jacquie McNish bantered about the case. He accused her of secretly loving Conrad Black. She replied that she admired his intellect, but is otherwise “impartial.” (She's the senior co-author of Wrong Way.)

When the banter had finished, a legal expert was on, that expert being former prosecutor Robert Kent. After being asked about what the defense needed to do, he replied that the cross-examination needs to be loud, as the jury needs to be convinced that Radler “is a liar.” He also noted that the plea bargain agreement also has to be approved by the judge, so there will be redirect examination; the prosecution will clarify regarding this needed approval to show that Mr. Radler isn't their sockpuppet. Csr. Kent refused to speculate as to whether or not Mr. Black will walk. After hearing Ms. McNish compare the case to WorldCom and ask how far does the defense have to go to impeach Mr. Radler's testimony, Csr Kent replied: David Radler is already an admitted liar, on more than one occasion (actually, a few of them) and is also an admitted thief. (The interview broke off here, as the end of the show, "Squeeze Play," was reached. It should be broadbanded on BNN's Website until tomorrow morning.)

The 6:00 PM NewsNet headline loop had additional details from David Akin, after CTV reporter Joy Malbon reported that, during the cross, Csr. Greenspan had pounded on Mr. Radler’s contradictions, with this example supplied: if the two were such close friends, then why had they only taken two vacations together in the last 40 years (both in the 1970s)?

Mr. Akin also mentioned the Bible to-do. He asked a legal expert about it, and was told that Csr. Greenspan was dragging out the clock, so that the last thing the jury heard today was Mr. Radler admitting that he had lied. That last question, after Csr. Greenspan had documented the several ways that someone can lie, was Greenspan asking Mr. Radler how many ways did he do so? Mr. Radler answered that he had lied in all those ways. The cross was a seeming draw right until the end, in Mr. Akin's opinion, and Mr. Radler did try to make the best of it. (It sounds like Csr. Greenspan was ostensibly asking Mr. Radler to confirm his earlier testimony about his lies to the FBI and to the Special Committee of the Hollinger International board.)

Aanother webbed report on the cross-examination, webbed by The Raw Story, mentions what's been detailed above, as well as this exchange: "Greenspan... asked Radler to explain why he changed his testimony earlier this week after prosecutors became 'annoyed' when his vague answers continued to [elicit] objections.

"'Do you remember saying "it was ... it was ... I'll change it then"?' Greenspan asked, reading from an unofficial transcript. 'You changed your story right then and there.'

"'No,' Radler replied in an increasingly acrimonious exchange. 'I was trying to think. It was just my thought process. I was just trying to go through it.'" After this snippet, one other exchange is mentioned in the report itself.

Ms. Maurino has written another report, with much more detail on the cross-examination. She reports that the cross got so heated "that Judge Amy St. Eve had to instruct Radler not to argue with Greenspan." Also mentioned, just below the snippet just quoted, is the penultimate questioning before the day ended. Right after, this morning's testimony under direct is summarized.