The media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, on the Conrad Black trial focused on the end of the closing argument for Mr. Black's defense, with some adding details about the one for Jack Boultbee:
1. Romina Maurino has written a report, webbed by the Hamilton Spectator, which summarizes the final part of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense as given by Edward Genson.
2. A CP forecast report, webbed by the Brandon Sun, says that the closing argument for Mr. Boultbee's defense will wind up today, and will be followed by the closing argument for Peter Atkinson. [Ms. Maurino is credited for it in the version webbed by the Montreal Gazette.]
3. The report from Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune covers the parts of both closing arguments that were made yesterday. Edward Genson "blasted the government for making a contract dispute into a crime" with regard to the Manhattan apartment. "'The allegation suggesting that there was criminal intent is absurd,' Genson said." It also contains three points made by Gus Newman for Jack Boultbee: first of all, he stated that the documents don't change the story they convey; secondly, he "showed the jurors a 2002 memo sent to Hollinger's audit committee outlining non-compete payments to the executives that contradicted the testimony of the three audit committee members who said they were unaware of the transfer;" thirdly, he showed a memo sent to David Radler in 2000 that outlined "the tax-free status of non-compete payments in Canada..." which was inconsistent with Mr. Radler's claim on the stand that he had no knowledge of that status. Mr. Newman also noted that Mr. Boultbee, the alleged defrauder of Hollinger Int'l, was asked to testify on its behalf "in a civil lawsuit just a month before the fraud trial started."
4. The last hour of Csr. Genson's closing argument is mentioned in item #7, "Perks," in the Boston Globe's "Business Notebook."
5. The Ottawa Sun has webbed a Peter Worthington column "From The Trial," which starts off with: " As defence summations continue, the prosecution's case in the Conrad Black trial seems to get increasingly frail and, judging from its outline of evidence on the very first day, it was never very robust." He includes a couple of anecdotes about prosecutors complaining about the press coverage they got, concluding: "Clearly the prosecutors are touchy these days."
6. Toronto Star columnist "Slinger" has devoted part of his colmn to a faux-lament about the closure that the verdict in the trial will bring.
7. Also from the Star, Rosie DiManno has penned a polite piece about Barbara Black's ex-husband, George Jonas, showing up to watch the trial.
8. Thirdly, a report from the Star's Rick Westhead notes that Csr. Genson's last hour actually lasted about 75 minutes. His report also includes one of Csr. Newman's gags, as well as the introduction of a letter asking Mr. Radler to account for all of the non-compete payments except for the CanWest ones. Not asking for "any details regarding the CanWest deal... indicates there was nothing wrong with the transaction, Newman said."
9. Another Sun columnist, Lorrie Goldstein, has written about the trial. This latest column, as webbed by the Edmonton Sun, muses about the divergence in coverage, between Peter Worthington and Rosie DiManno, of Eddie Greenspan's part of the closing argument. [They're both linked to here: items #7 and #19, respectively.]
10. BNN aired an interview with Amanda Lang, at 8:24 AM. She began by reviewing Csr. Genson’s finish, and then mentioned the closing argument for Jack Boultbee. The other defendants are more focused on the credibility of David Radler because his testimony’s more central to the charges they face.
The prosecution depends in part on the jury lumping the four defendants together. There is a possibility that one defendant will be convicted while another, or others, will walk. (The former may not be Conrad Black either; Peter Atkinson's chances may not be that good.) There are no proceedings tomorrow. The defense will probably finish with all four closing arguments on Monday, followed by the prosecutorial rebuttal on Tuesday.
11. Mary Wisniewski of the Chicago Sun-Times has focused on both closing arguments in her latest report. It contains a one-liner from Csr. Newman about the documents in the case: "'Just because you don't like the contents doesn't mean you can suddenly erase them.'"
12. The Elgin Courier News' "News Tracker" has an item, distilled from Associated Press reports, on the end of Csr. Genson's closing argument.
13. The Montreal Gazette has webbed Mary Vallis' report, entitled "Not Black's fault that he is rich: defence." It sums up the entire closing argument for Conrad Black.
14. The latest report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, goes into two other legal disputes that Conrad Black is facing. The first part details the Sotheby Realty lawsuit against Mr. Black. The second part details another lawsuit that was launched by Hollinger Inc. against Sun-Times Media Group, which has been in progress for some time but was stayed for the length of the criminal trial. The latter suit is "over a decision Lord Black made 10 years ago to transfer newspapers from the Canadian parent to the Chicago-based company. Hollinger Inc. alleges the move deprived it of valuable assets, but Sun-Times recently filed motions to dismiss the claim."
(Evidently, Hollinger Inc. has already decided that it has good reason to sue STMG for actions done when the latter was still Hollinger Int'l. The new CEO of Hollinger Inc., Wesley Voorheis, has been the 'chief litigating officer' for the company.)
15. A mention of both the trial and Conrad Black's latest book, Invincible Quest, appears in the "Strewth" column in the Australian.
----------
Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, has passed along Patrick Tuite's attempted impugnment of Jonathan Rosenberg's testimony at the trial, after displaying his own suspicions about pecuniary (careerist) motives for Csr. Rosenberg to shade the truth a little.
680 News has webbed a broadly related news item: a Supreme Court decision (8-1) that imposes a rigorous standard for the courts to hold plaintiffs to for securities lawsuits. Judges that are presented with such suits "must weigh possible innocent explanations for defendants' conduct at the very start of a securities fraud case. Doing so can lead to early dismissal of investors' lawsuits."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment