Friday Extension

An updated report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, contains the name of the first character witness that has testified for Mark Kipnis: a paralegal, Margaret Bajzek, who used to work with him. She said under direct examination, "'I would trust him with my life,... Mark is totally law abiding.'" She did stipulate, though, that she did not know the facts of the case while being cross-examined.

Mr. Waldie was interviewed on BNN; it was aired at about 2:40 PM ET. During it, he reported that the Friday session is now over. The defense's last witness of the day was Chris Paci, a lawyer who represented a financier during a planned 2002 Hollinger financing. He had needed more disclosure, so he had gone to the audit committee. He had asked them if they had approved the individual non-compete payments; he testified, under direct examination, that he had come off with the impression that they had.

The defense is likely to call witnesses on Monday and Tuesday. The first, Alan Funk, will take most of the day. He’s a forensic accountant, formerly with the FBI. He’ll testify to lack of intent to mislead. After he’s done, the defense will call a couple of others.

To move back to written sources, the Chicago Tribune has webbed a Bloomberg report, written by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider. In addition to having excerpts from Ms. Bajzek's testimony, it also has one from the testimony of the second character witness, Kenneth Sirota; he was Mark Kipnis' precedessor in the job of Hollinger Int'l's general counsel. He testified that "[t]hey [had] worked together at Holleb & Coff, and he considered Kipnis a good lawyer with the skills for the job." There was no mention of any cross-examination of either of the two. The report also quotes Hugh Totten as saying that Mr. Kipnis "has 'a great shot at acquittal' based on the testimony," and mentions that Judge St. Eve has not ruled on any of the acquittal motions as of yet.

The Financial Post has webbed a report that has more detail on the testimony of Mr. Paci. Under direct, he testified: "'I recall that he said that yes the related party transactions had been approved by the audit committee and the disclosure was correct,' Mr. Paci said, speaking slowly and deliberately on the witness stand." He also testified that the reason that his questions were limited was because Hollinger Int'l wanted to keep the focus on the then-present, but not to veer into the more distant past "because it could be interpreted as second-guessing, he testified." He was asked, under cross-examination, if he had seen Mr. Kipnis "had expressed a concern about him badgering the audit committee about the previous transactions." He answered that Mr. Kipnis had largely stayed out of it, letting Hollinger Inc's outside counsel Darren Sukonick answer the questions. [The same report, credited to Mary Vallis, has been webbed by Canada.com.]

----------

The First Amendment Center has posted an opinion piece which argues that, with respect to releasing jurors' names, the judges basically call it as they see it. The Conrad Black trial is contrasted with another case to make this point.

Also including a wider perspective is Steve Skurka's latest entry in his blog "The Crime Sheet." The argument he makes casts a darker light on the 95-98% conviction rate for the typical American prosecutor.

Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has decided to focus upon the old peerage-block scandal, which has been given new life as blurbage for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. His memoirs are being released soon.

More focused on the trial is Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, complaining about the supposed free pass granted to James Thompson. The cast that recent testimony has given Mr. Thompson's earlier testimony is, of course, brought in too.