This first installment is a distillation from the first few chapters of the third volume of Peter C. Newman's Canadian Establishment series: Titans. The next fact sheet will be more Conrad-Black-specific.
The subtext of the first part of the book, before the new Canadian Establishment is profiled in detail, is that the old Establishment culture, which Conrad Black was raised in, is all but faded. Most of the old Establishment firms that he portrays in Chapter 2, "Epitaph for the Family Dynasties," either have been folded up or have been embroiled in serious financial difficulties. The old, feared, exclusive clubs that used to be the hang-outs of the old Establishment figures are shadows of their former selves, as detailed in Chapter 3. The Establishmentarians that used to be in charge of Corporate Canada have been eased out by a new breed of meritocratic workaholics, so work-driven that at least one of them has placed phone calls during his "most intimate moments." (p. 11)
(I wonder how many people would find such a custom all-but regal if they knew that the businessperson who first acquired a reputation for doing something close to it was Jesse L. Livermore.)
Mr. Newman supplies the reason why the old Establishment went down on p. 10: the old Establishment was too egalitarian-minded, and thus not class-conscious enough. This lack of barrier - other than exclusion, snubbery and grown-up cheek - proved to be little blockage to the new Establishment from earning their way in. At times, what he writes in chapter 2 conveys the impression that the old Establishmentarians were, instead of being too arrogant, not arrogant enough; they feared Nemesis to the degree that they clamped down on healthy as well as excessive hubris in their hearts.
If they had any business strength, it would have to be in a characteristic style that could be labeled "efficiency," but is better described as spontaneity. It was a recurrent style of wheeler-dealing in Canada's old Establishment to make even multi-million-dollar deals over the course of a single meeting or even a phone call. If they had any business weakness, it would have to be inner parochiality. The new Canadian business Establishment is not only multicultural, but also is global-minded.
Another impression that can be gleaned from Chapter 2 is the old Establishment's ambivalent attitude towards the stock market. The family firm was at the heart of the older guard, and going public was often treated, if only in the spirit of wist, as a needed but ultimately temporary detour, to be ended when the founding family took the company private again. This attiitude, to the extent to which he shares it, is not unique with Conrad Black.
Nor is the Conrad Black discount, either. When Steve Roman of Denison and Roman Corp. died, Denison stock jumped up a "full point." (p. 39)
(Disclosure: Roman Corp. was the first stock I ever owned. Since the relevant statute of limitations has long past, I can reveal a little about the circumstances that made me a shareholder. I started to deliver the Globe and Mail in 1978; I still remember how I felt when I got to keep a twenty-dollar-bill for a week's work. It was a helluva step up from a dollar-a-week allowance. Back then, I was parsimonious by nature, so I had about a thousand bucks in my bank account by 1981. My dad, a now-retired stockbroker, opened an account in my own name. Since the compliance department was relatively meek at that time, the fact that I was still prepubescent didn't cause them to block the set-up of the account. My younger brother wasn't that lucky; he got a trust account, later. I bought ten shares of Roman, and still remember my dad's way of calling attention to a 4-for-1 stock split. He told me to look up the price, and explained what a share split was to me after I showed visible distress at its price dropping so much.)
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Media Roundup: Weekend Dwindle
Believe it or not, half of the overnight webbed media reports that relate to the Conrad Black trial have been put on the Internet by the Globe and Mail:
GM1. Paul Waldie's report on yet another legal action Conrad Black is involved in: Sotheby's International Realty is suing him for the commission on the sale of that New York apartment he had bought from Hollinger International in December 2000 for $3 million plus sunk-cost improvements. Mr. Black's defense claims that Sotheby's should be suing the government instead, because the government impouded the proceeds; Sotheby's representative, naturally, scoffs at the idea. A not-that-flattering picture of Lord Black emerges from Mr. Waldie'a latest article.
GM2. Paula Todd, host of The Verdict, has reviewed two books for the Globe. The first recounts the rise of white-collar crime, and the prosecutions of it; the second recounts a year's worth of trials in a Chicago courtroom, in which Edward Genson appears. Her discussion of the former evinces a bit of background research into the phenomenon.
GM3. Amy Verner dicusses what could be called David Radler's fashion horse-sense in "The sartorial jury is out on Radler's pink tie."
GM4. Both Conrad Black and David Radler are mentioned in passing during a review of the 2007 production of Saint Joan at, appropriately enough, the Shaw Festival.
Other reports:
1. The Calgary Sun has webbed an abbreviated version of Romina Maurino's latest report, "Black may be forced to take the stand." [An even more truncated version has been webbed by the Orillia Packet and Times.]
2. Theresa Tedesco's latest, webbed by the National Post, attributes the objections from other defense counsels, one of which is cited in her report, to Eddie Greenspan's ignorance of Illinois cross-examination procedure, particularly the right of a witness to ask for documents to refresh his/her memory.
3. Mary Vallis', also webbed by the National Post, carries the portentous headline "Black's fate may already be set." Contrary to the consensus interpretation of recent events, its theme is that reasonable doubt in the jury may very well be evidenced by the boredom of at least one of the jurors. Like the previous article, this one cites Hugh Totten as an expert, but the prime expert cited is Dr. James Ogloff, the Canadian director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Melbourne's Monash University. "The jurors' behaviour may be exactly what the defence needs to be successful: Their confusion may lead to reasonable doubt, he said."
4. Richard Siklos has written a feature article for the New York Times, in which the destroyed relationship between Conrad Black and David Radler is used as a springboard for discussing the tensions and difficulties that exist nowadays between the number-1 in a corporation and the number-2 - particularly when the number-1 is also the founder, the revitalizer, and/or the controlling shareholder. He draws a parallel between business relationship and relationships period, and pegs the association between Mr. Black and Mr. Radler as going from the business analog of a 'marriage' to the business analog of a 'co-dependency relationship', before the fallout.
----------
The National Post's blog "Posted" has called attention to Ms. Vallis's story, linked to above. Douglas Bell, over at Toronto Life's Conrad Black trial blog, has a more detailed entry, posted late yesterday, featuring an overflow-room vignette from the "Courtstalker" which ends with the relaying of a wisecrack by a reporter at Conrad Black's expense.
And, significantly, Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish" has a three-paragraph excerpt from Geoffrey Wheatcroft's burial piece on the neo-conservative movement. Conrad Black is mentioned in the second paragraph.
Finally, Mark Steyn has gone analytical over the weekend - largely about how the jury is taking it all in, now that a prosecution witness is holding his own during the cross-examination. (Mr. Steyn seems to be the only journalist on the trial beat who has an inner sympathy for the blond juror with the feathered pen and the perhaps-new habit of popping her gum.) He concludes that the simpler defense would be better - that legitimate business activity has been retroactively criminalized - provided that the case is made clearly and repeatedly. He also mentions the same wisecrack that Mr. Bell did.
GM1. Paul Waldie's report on yet another legal action Conrad Black is involved in: Sotheby's International Realty is suing him for the commission on the sale of that New York apartment he had bought from Hollinger International in December 2000 for $3 million plus sunk-cost improvements. Mr. Black's defense claims that Sotheby's should be suing the government instead, because the government impouded the proceeds; Sotheby's representative, naturally, scoffs at the idea. A not-that-flattering picture of Lord Black emerges from Mr. Waldie'a latest article.
GM2. Paula Todd, host of The Verdict, has reviewed two books for the Globe. The first recounts the rise of white-collar crime, and the prosecutions of it; the second recounts a year's worth of trials in a Chicago courtroom, in which Edward Genson appears. Her discussion of the former evinces a bit of background research into the phenomenon.
GM3. Amy Verner dicusses what could be called David Radler's fashion horse-sense in "The sartorial jury is out on Radler's pink tie."
GM4. Both Conrad Black and David Radler are mentioned in passing during a review of the 2007 production of Saint Joan at, appropriately enough, the Shaw Festival.
Other reports:
1. The Calgary Sun has webbed an abbreviated version of Romina Maurino's latest report, "Black may be forced to take the stand." [An even more truncated version has been webbed by the Orillia Packet and Times.]
2. Theresa Tedesco's latest, webbed by the National Post, attributes the objections from other defense counsels, one of which is cited in her report, to Eddie Greenspan's ignorance of Illinois cross-examination procedure, particularly the right of a witness to ask for documents to refresh his/her memory.
3. Mary Vallis', also webbed by the National Post, carries the portentous headline "Black's fate may already be set." Contrary to the consensus interpretation of recent events, its theme is that reasonable doubt in the jury may very well be evidenced by the boredom of at least one of the jurors. Like the previous article, this one cites Hugh Totten as an expert, but the prime expert cited is Dr. James Ogloff, the Canadian director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Melbourne's Monash University. "The jurors' behaviour may be exactly what the defence needs to be successful: Their confusion may lead to reasonable doubt, he said."
4. Richard Siklos has written a feature article for the New York Times, in which the destroyed relationship between Conrad Black and David Radler is used as a springboard for discussing the tensions and difficulties that exist nowadays between the number-1 in a corporation and the number-2 - particularly when the number-1 is also the founder, the revitalizer, and/or the controlling shareholder. He draws a parallel between business relationship and relationships period, and pegs the association between Mr. Black and Mr. Radler as going from the business analog of a 'marriage' to the business analog of a 'co-dependency relationship', before the fallout.
----------
The National Post's blog "Posted" has called attention to Ms. Vallis's story, linked to above. Douglas Bell, over at Toronto Life's Conrad Black trial blog, has a more detailed entry, posted late yesterday, featuring an overflow-room vignette from the "Courtstalker" which ends with the relaying of a wisecrack by a reporter at Conrad Black's expense.
And, significantly, Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish" has a three-paragraph excerpt from Geoffrey Wheatcroft's burial piece on the neo-conservative movement. Conrad Black is mentioned in the second paragraph.
Finally, Mark Steyn has gone analytical over the weekend - largely about how the jury is taking it all in, now that a prosecution witness is holding his own during the cross-examination. (Mr. Steyn seems to be the only journalist on the trial beat who has an inner sympathy for the blond juror with the feathered pen and the perhaps-new habit of popping her gum.) He concludes that the simpler defense would be better - that legitimate business activity has been retroactively criminalized - provided that the case is made clearly and repeatedly. He also mentions the same wisecrack that Mr. Bell did.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Notice about the Intrade watch
The Conrad Black contracts, in the "Legal" section, is actually one of the least-traded contract groups on Intrade; even the recent burst of publicity accompanying David Radler's testimony hasn't done much to get it trading. I myself got so habituated to seeing them not trade that, several days ago, I missed a trade of 10 contracts in the black.guilty.fraud one. That trade was one of only three trades for all five of the contracts in the two-month history of the contract.
So, I'm going to stop reporting on it, unless there are any requests for me to continue to do so. If there is, I'll get back to it.
So, I'm going to stop reporting on it, unless there are any requests for me to continue to do so. If there is, I'll get back to it.
Media Roundup: Fade from Radler
The media reports on the Conrad Black trial are beginning to diminish now that the trial has gone into weekend break:
1. From the Chicago Tribune, a report on yesterday's cross-examination, with some of Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination added for perspective. The bulk of it deals with Eddie Greenspan pounding away at David Radler's previous lies.
2. The New York Times has a briefer report than yesterday's. It mentions that the "haggling" over the exact meaning of the term "right hand-man," at the end of yesterday's session, drew "muffling laughs" from the jury. The article left Csr. Greenspan the last word on the subject: "'It probably looks like you’ll have until at least next Monday' to think up an adequate definition, Mr. Greenspan remarked."
3. Peter Worthington's latest column, webbed by the Toronto Sun, is another analysis of the testimony. He concurs with the consensus evaluation that Mr. Radler has yet to be hung by Csr. Greenspan, even though the latter succeeded in getting a laugh out of the jury at the former's expense. One of the tid-bits in it is the name and date of the media outlet that Mr. Radler told, in an interview, that he was nobody's right-hand man: the Toronto Star, Aug. 31, 1996 issue.
4. From Bloomberg's Ann Wollner, a piece that recaps the entire week of Mr. Radler's testimony, with this assessment of the cross so far: "Radler is so far holding up in cross-examination. One of Black's pugnacious lawyers, Canadian Eddie Greenspan, keeps taking swings at him, but mostly they miss."
5. The Daily Herald has a brief Associated Press summary report, entitled "Black trial done for the week."
6. The latest from Andrew Clark of the Guardian begins with, "Conrad Black's lawyers have accused the former Telegraph owner's longstanding second-in-command of being a disloyal lieutenant who routinely took major business decisions behind his boss's back." It also mentions Conrad Black "occasionally raising his eyes to the courtroom ceiling in apparent disbelief."
7. The fate of Mr. Black if found guilty is mentioned in a Bloomberg report on a guilty verdict for Richard Scrushy, who got convicted for bribery long after escaping more more serious corporate-fraud charges.
8. The Edmonton Journal has webbed a brief Canadian Press summary, entitled "David Radler wraps up week of testimony without knock-out punches."
9. From the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie, details a split in the unified approach the defense team has been following so far: "when Mr. Greenspan questioned Mr. Radler on behalf of Lord Black, he faced objections from two defence tables. Ronald Safer, who represents Mr. Kipnis, objected to a question Mr. Greenspan posed and blocked his attempt to introduce a document as evidence. Gus Newman, a lawyer for Mr. Boultbee took issue with another document. In each case, Mr. Greenspan had to change his questioning." (Perhaps there was a little more to the split than Csr. Greenspan's repetitiveness after all.)
10. Janet Whitman's latest report, in the New York Post, also concludes that Mr. Radler's credibility is "largely intact" so far. It contains the note that "[t]he testy exchanges also seemed to throw off Greenspan."
11. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead has drawn an inference from Mr. Radler's withstanding of Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination as of now: "Will Radler force Black to testify?" It quotes Steve Skurka, who concluded that "'Radler's breaking Eddie's rhythm and cadence,... If Black's team feels like Radler has satisfied the jury that he is credible, then Black is going to have to rebut what he has said.'" Also quoted in the article is Hugh Totten, who noted the split in the defense team's ranks.
12. The latest report from Mary Vallis, webbed by the Vancouver Sun, is entitled "Not lying now, Radler says." It mentions that the jurors aren't competely impressed with the way the cross-examination is going: "Some members of the jury seemed bored as the men sparred. One female juror appeared to fall asleep, as she had earlier in the week during assistant U.S. attorney Eric Sussman's direct examination of Radler. Another blew bubbles with a pink wad of gum and at times seemed more intrigued by the people in the public gallery than the witness."
13. The report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski also centres on Radler's past lying.
14. Phil Rosenthal's latest column in the Chicago Tribune approaches yesterday's testimony with the theme of seeing a former boss squirm on the stand, a discomfit that took the form of frequent memory lapses. "Not only did Radler say he didn't recall testimony he gave this week, which had to be read back to him, Radler testified he couldn't remember what he had read from a sales agreement moments earlier."
15. Joining the rest of the above media outlets is the Daily Mail, which has webbed a report that starts off with: "Bad tempers, tricks and treachery resounded across the courtroom deciding Conrad Black’s fate.... Using a blunderbuss rather than a rapier, Greenspan had unintentionally conjured sympathy for the self-confessed fraudster testifying for the prosecution of Lord Black." It also mentions that Csr. Greenspan has yet to impeach Mr. Radler's testimony, under direct examination, that Mr. Black had signed phony documents.
16. The Welland Tribune has webbed an opinion piece by Canada's éminence grise of punditry, Allan Fotheringham, who ventures that the most pitable people in the courtroom are the jurors, because they can't tune anything out (except by nodding off.)
17. A second piece from the Daily Mail comes out and describes Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination as "[f]loundering and repetitive", and Greenspan himself as close to hapless yesterday.
18. In the Chicago Reader blog "News Bites," Michael Miner tries his hand at getting both Mr. Black's and Mr. Radler's number, as based in what was revealed in the courtroom yesterday. Mr. Miner concludes that Conrad Black "clearly a piece of work", and Mr. Radler is pegged as "a guy so preoccupied with local revenues that he’s oblivious to what his papers actually publish." He balances the latter, though, by fingering Eddie Greenspan as someone who "sounded out of touch with his audience," specifically, with reference to Mr. Radler's opinion that having Mr. Black's article read in the Congressional Record meant nothing for the Sherbrooke Record, as "maybe the only guy in the courtroom who thinks having something read into the Congressional Record is a life-altering event."
19. From Romina Maurino, and webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, a report that picks up on the speculation that Conrad Black may have to testify in his own defense. It starts off by noting that Mr. Radler has been sufficiently credible a witness, so far, for that option to be taken seriously, and cites a few legal experts as backing for this conclusion, including one who believes that Mr. Black wouldn't do that badly on the witness stand when cross-examined. (Mr. Sussman or Mr. Cramer are the two most likely cross-examiners, by my seat-of-the-pants guess.)
20. Stephen Foley of The Independent has a different wrap-up, one that calls Mr. Radler's week on the stand "a week of electrifying legal theatre." His report is one of the few today which claim that Eddie Greenspan has done rather well with his cross-examination, and quotes Steve Skurka at the end to back up this assessment: "Steven Skurka, a Canadian attorney who has been following the trial for his blog, said the jury may not have warmed to Radler. 'He personified the difficult and evasive witness. He repeatedly answered Mr Greenspan's questions with accusations that he was "manoeuvering all over the place" and "taking things out of context". His course of ranting rather than responding should have been curtailed by the judge but it rarely was.'"
21. Finally, an item for hardcore Conrad Black watchers, from Crain's Chicago Business: Cardinal Capital, one of the institutional investors behind the Hollinger International shareholder revolt and eventual deposement of Conrad Black from its CEOship, has sold most of its stake in the company. Cardinal dumped 2.5 million shares, leaving it with 1.1 million shares. At the time the trial started, Cardinal had owned 4.4 million shares, acording to the report. (They sold on the recent spate of good news, folks.)
----------
Mark Steyn also got the name of the paper in which that right-hand-man quote appeared, in his Conrad Black trial blog entry yesterday afternoon. He also notes that "Radler appears to have been sent one of those uplifting Hallmark cards saying 'This is the first day of the post-Hollinger phase of your life.' He seems, in a sense, to have psycholically gone through prison and come out the other side. It's not that he's performing well but that he doesn't care if he performs badly,..."
Alan D. Gold, the legal analyst for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, makes the point that slapping a narrative on top of a real case obscures the relevant points of law. He notes, in the middle of making the point that embarrassing a prosecution witness is not the same as impeaching that witness' testimony, that the defendants haven't managed to win clear yet, even if a narrative-rooted assessment would imply that they have.
1. From the Chicago Tribune, a report on yesterday's cross-examination, with some of Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination added for perspective. The bulk of it deals with Eddie Greenspan pounding away at David Radler's previous lies.
2. The New York Times has a briefer report than yesterday's. It mentions that the "haggling" over the exact meaning of the term "right hand-man," at the end of yesterday's session, drew "muffling laughs" from the jury. The article left Csr. Greenspan the last word on the subject: "'It probably looks like you’ll have until at least next Monday' to think up an adequate definition, Mr. Greenspan remarked."
3. Peter Worthington's latest column, webbed by the Toronto Sun, is another analysis of the testimony. He concurs with the consensus evaluation that Mr. Radler has yet to be hung by Csr. Greenspan, even though the latter succeeded in getting a laugh out of the jury at the former's expense. One of the tid-bits in it is the name and date of the media outlet that Mr. Radler told, in an interview, that he was nobody's right-hand man: the Toronto Star, Aug. 31, 1996 issue.
4. From Bloomberg's Ann Wollner, a piece that recaps the entire week of Mr. Radler's testimony, with this assessment of the cross so far: "Radler is so far holding up in cross-examination. One of Black's pugnacious lawyers, Canadian Eddie Greenspan, keeps taking swings at him, but mostly they miss."
5. The Daily Herald has a brief Associated Press summary report, entitled "Black trial done for the week."
6. The latest from Andrew Clark of the Guardian begins with, "Conrad Black's lawyers have accused the former Telegraph owner's longstanding second-in-command of being a disloyal lieutenant who routinely took major business decisions behind his boss's back." It also mentions Conrad Black "occasionally raising his eyes to the courtroom ceiling in apparent disbelief."
7. The fate of Mr. Black if found guilty is mentioned in a Bloomberg report on a guilty verdict for Richard Scrushy, who got convicted for bribery long after escaping more more serious corporate-fraud charges.
8. The Edmonton Journal has webbed a brief Canadian Press summary, entitled "David Radler wraps up week of testimony without knock-out punches."
9. From the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie, details a split in the unified approach the defense team has been following so far: "when Mr. Greenspan questioned Mr. Radler on behalf of Lord Black, he faced objections from two defence tables. Ronald Safer, who represents Mr. Kipnis, objected to a question Mr. Greenspan posed and blocked his attempt to introduce a document as evidence. Gus Newman, a lawyer for Mr. Boultbee took issue with another document. In each case, Mr. Greenspan had to change his questioning." (Perhaps there was a little more to the split than Csr. Greenspan's repetitiveness after all.)
10. Janet Whitman's latest report, in the New York Post, also concludes that Mr. Radler's credibility is "largely intact" so far. It contains the note that "[t]he testy exchanges also seemed to throw off Greenspan."
11. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead has drawn an inference from Mr. Radler's withstanding of Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination as of now: "Will Radler force Black to testify?" It quotes Steve Skurka, who concluded that "'Radler's breaking Eddie's rhythm and cadence,... If Black's team feels like Radler has satisfied the jury that he is credible, then Black is going to have to rebut what he has said.'" Also quoted in the article is Hugh Totten, who noted the split in the defense team's ranks.
12. The latest report from Mary Vallis, webbed by the Vancouver Sun, is entitled "Not lying now, Radler says." It mentions that the jurors aren't competely impressed with the way the cross-examination is going: "Some members of the jury seemed bored as the men sparred. One female juror appeared to fall asleep, as she had earlier in the week during assistant U.S. attorney Eric Sussman's direct examination of Radler. Another blew bubbles with a pink wad of gum and at times seemed more intrigued by the people in the public gallery than the witness."
13. The report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski also centres on Radler's past lying.
14. Phil Rosenthal's latest column in the Chicago Tribune approaches yesterday's testimony with the theme of seeing a former boss squirm on the stand, a discomfit that took the form of frequent memory lapses. "Not only did Radler say he didn't recall testimony he gave this week, which had to be read back to him, Radler testified he couldn't remember what he had read from a sales agreement moments earlier."
15. Joining the rest of the above media outlets is the Daily Mail, which has webbed a report that starts off with: "Bad tempers, tricks and treachery resounded across the courtroom deciding Conrad Black’s fate.... Using a blunderbuss rather than a rapier, Greenspan had unintentionally conjured sympathy for the self-confessed fraudster testifying for the prosecution of Lord Black." It also mentions that Csr. Greenspan has yet to impeach Mr. Radler's testimony, under direct examination, that Mr. Black had signed phony documents.
16. The Welland Tribune has webbed an opinion piece by Canada's éminence grise of punditry, Allan Fotheringham, who ventures that the most pitable people in the courtroom are the jurors, because they can't tune anything out (except by nodding off.)
17. A second piece from the Daily Mail comes out and describes Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination as "[f]loundering and repetitive", and Greenspan himself as close to hapless yesterday.
18. In the Chicago Reader blog "News Bites," Michael Miner tries his hand at getting both Mr. Black's and Mr. Radler's number, as based in what was revealed in the courtroom yesterday. Mr. Miner concludes that Conrad Black "clearly a piece of work", and Mr. Radler is pegged as "a guy so preoccupied with local revenues that he’s oblivious to what his papers actually publish." He balances the latter, though, by fingering Eddie Greenspan as someone who "sounded out of touch with his audience," specifically, with reference to Mr. Radler's opinion that having Mr. Black's article read in the Congressional Record meant nothing for the Sherbrooke Record, as "maybe the only guy in the courtroom who thinks having something read into the Congressional Record is a life-altering event."
19. From Romina Maurino, and webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, a report that picks up on the speculation that Conrad Black may have to testify in his own defense. It starts off by noting that Mr. Radler has been sufficiently credible a witness, so far, for that option to be taken seriously, and cites a few legal experts as backing for this conclusion, including one who believes that Mr. Black wouldn't do that badly on the witness stand when cross-examined. (Mr. Sussman or Mr. Cramer are the two most likely cross-examiners, by my seat-of-the-pants guess.)
20. Stephen Foley of The Independent has a different wrap-up, one that calls Mr. Radler's week on the stand "a week of electrifying legal theatre." His report is one of the few today which claim that Eddie Greenspan has done rather well with his cross-examination, and quotes Steve Skurka at the end to back up this assessment: "Steven Skurka, a Canadian attorney who has been following the trial for his blog, said the jury may not have warmed to Radler. 'He personified the difficult and evasive witness. He repeatedly answered Mr Greenspan's questions with accusations that he was "manoeuvering all over the place" and "taking things out of context". His course of ranting rather than responding should have been curtailed by the judge but it rarely was.'"
21. Finally, an item for hardcore Conrad Black watchers, from Crain's Chicago Business: Cardinal Capital, one of the institutional investors behind the Hollinger International shareholder revolt and eventual deposement of Conrad Black from its CEOship, has sold most of its stake in the company. Cardinal dumped 2.5 million shares, leaving it with 1.1 million shares. At the time the trial started, Cardinal had owned 4.4 million shares, acording to the report. (They sold on the recent spate of good news, folks.)
----------
Mark Steyn also got the name of the paper in which that right-hand-man quote appeared, in his Conrad Black trial blog entry yesterday afternoon. He also notes that "Radler appears to have been sent one of those uplifting Hallmark cards saying 'This is the first day of the post-Hollinger phase of your life.' He seems, in a sense, to have psycholically gone through prison and come out the other side. It's not that he's performing well but that he doesn't care if he performs badly,..."
Alan D. Gold, the legal analyst for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, makes the point that slapping a narrative on top of a real case obscures the relevant points of law. He notes, in the middle of making the point that embarrassing a prosecution witness is not the same as impeaching that witness' testimony, that the defendants haven't managed to win clear yet, even if a narrative-rooted assessment would imply that they have.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Verdict: Too Much?
There was one segment of tonight's episode of The Verdict that dealt with the Conrad Black trial, which started off with Ms. Todd noting that David Radler looked “serious” when he left the courtroom. Then the two guests, law professor Leonard Cavise and former prosecutor Ted Chung, were introduced. They both were asked about Eddie Greenspan’s cross-examination of Mr. Radler.
Prof. Cavise ventured that the strategy is fine; Mr. Radler was shown to be at least a “weasel.” Csr. Greenspan’s tactics, though, are not very good with respect to the jury. He’s dragging it out too long, especially with regard to two lines of questioning. Csr. Chung agreed with Prof. Cavise regarding the strategy, and added that Csr. Greenspan may be going overboard with the cross – he’s too repetitive, to the point of “diminishing returns.” Prof. Cavise had a blunt assessment of the dragging out of Radler’s lying: he called it “junk.” He wondered why the government isn’t objecting to the drag-out. Csr. Chung said that the prosecution may rather like the way the cross-examination is going so far.
When Ms. Todd (in her careful manner) brought up the subject of Csr. Greenspan’s aggressive cross-examination of former Gov. Thompson backfiring because of his repute, Prof. Cavise replied that it’s hard to say whether or not going after Mr. Thompson so aggressively was a plus. He did stipulate that Csr. Greenspan was successful in terms of defense, although his “street fighter” style doesn’t seem to be working now. Csr. Chung noted that the jurors may not remember Thompson as a hero. He is well-known, but not necessarily by the juror pool.
Before the segment ended, Ms. Todd asked, what about Edward Genson? Why is he just sitting on his hands? Prof. Cavise replied that Csr. Genson is doing so very reluctantly. He also supplied an example of how a “good Chicago cross” cuts to the chase.
Csr. Chung, when asked if Eddie Greenspan would let Edward Genson take over the cross-examination, responded with a flat “no”. Not only is it highly unconventional, but also it would require permission from the judge.
Prof. Cavise ventured that the strategy is fine; Mr. Radler was shown to be at least a “weasel.” Csr. Greenspan’s tactics, though, are not very good with respect to the jury. He’s dragging it out too long, especially with regard to two lines of questioning. Csr. Chung agreed with Prof. Cavise regarding the strategy, and added that Csr. Greenspan may be going overboard with the cross – he’s too repetitive, to the point of “diminishing returns.” Prof. Cavise had a blunt assessment of the dragging out of Radler’s lying: he called it “junk.” He wondered why the government isn’t objecting to the drag-out. Csr. Chung said that the prosecution may rather like the way the cross-examination is going so far.
When Ms. Todd (in her careful manner) brought up the subject of Csr. Greenspan’s aggressive cross-examination of former Gov. Thompson backfiring because of his repute, Prof. Cavise replied that it’s hard to say whether or not going after Mr. Thompson so aggressively was a plus. He did stipulate that Csr. Greenspan was successful in terms of defense, although his “street fighter” style doesn’t seem to be working now. Csr. Chung noted that the jurors may not remember Thompson as a hero. He is well-known, but not necessarily by the juror pool.
Before the segment ended, Ms. Todd asked, what about Edward Genson? Why is he just sitting on his hands? Prof. Cavise replied that Csr. Genson is doing so very reluctantly. He also supplied an example of how a “good Chicago cross” cuts to the chase.
Csr. Chung, when asked if Eddie Greenspan would let Edward Genson take over the cross-examination, responded with a flat “no”. Not only is it highly unconventional, but also it would require permission from the judge.
The lying...the lying...the lying...
According to the latest report by CBC correspondent Havard Gould, aired right after 11 AM on CBC Newsworld, Eddie Greenspan's cross-examination is still reinforcing the same theme begun yesterday afternoon, portraying David Radler as an untrustworthy, not repentant, serial liar. Csr. Greenspan is still rubbing the word “liar” in. According to Greenspan, Mr. Radler had many chances to tell the truth, such as times during meetings with the Hollinger board of directors, but continued to lie, essentially to save his own skin. This is the emerging vaiation on the defense's theme: David Radler is consistent as a liar who lies to save his own skin. And that, the defense claims, is what he did while under direct examination. David Akin, of CTV News, added in his 11:30 AM report aired on CTV NewsNet, that Csr. Greenspan is currently itemizing Mr. Radler's lies. A Canadian Press report, webbed by the Toronto Star, reports on essentially the same items contained in this paragraph.
A report by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has some quotes from the cross-examination so far, including the question that set the theme: "'To you, Mr. Radler is No. 1, correct?' Mr. Greenspan told him. 'Aren't you lying to save yourself?'
"Mr. Radler shot back: 'No sir.'" The end of Mr. Waldie's article contains similar responses from Mr. Radler.
Havard Gould's noon report, also aired on CBC Newsworld, relayed the information that Mr. Radler still appears credible to most observers in the courtroom. He's consistently sticking to his own story.
David Akin's 12:35 ET NewsNet report mentions the Special Committee (Breeden) Report, which has been ruled inadmissible in evidence, but has been drawn upon recently...by the defense. Some of the investigations the Special Committee had undertook has been introduced by Eddie Greenspan today; he's pointing out inconsistencies, if not contradictions, between what Mr. Radler said to them and what he has testified to earlier this week. Mr. Radler is answering deliberately, and is self-controlled. Conrad Black has returned to his usual expressionlessness. Mr. Akin's report concludes with the mention that the trial session will wrap up for the week at lunch, Chicago time.
According to Havard Gould's latest, aired at aboot 1:15 PM ET, it's been an "astonishing" day, because Csr. Greenspan is itemizing, in great detail, how much of a liar Radler was. Recurrently, Greenspan asks, "are you lying now?" The cross is heated at times; once, the judge intervened to calm both down. A former prosecutor opined to Mr. Gould that Greenspan is going too far, to the point where he'll awaken the underdog effect to Mr. Radler's favour. As far as Mr. Radler cracking, Csr. Greenspan seems to be hitting at the old brick wall. Court will stop for the week at about 2 PM ET.
The Reuters reports about today's cross-examination have been webbed by the National Post. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, illustrating Csr. Greenspan's strategy. Regarding the earlier Globe report, David Akin filled in the question that just preceded the quote from it above: after bring asked by Csr. Greenspan why he lied, Mr. Radler answered, "'I was trying to avoid the consequences of my actions.'" It was at this point that Csr. Greenspan pounced with the '#1' question. In his 1:30 PM report, Mr. Akin shifted to describing the questioning as "low-key" and "plodding."
Romina Maurino's report on this morning's cross has been webbed by 680 News. Amongst other details, it specifies that "Greenspan said that during 13 hours of discussions with the special committee, Radler never once said Black was behind the alleged non-compete scheme, never admitted any wrongdoing and never said he payment to executives were improper.... 'You never said you did anything wrong and you never said anybody else did anything wrong,' Greenspan said in court. 'But now you're telling this jury that those 13 hours have lies in them.'..."
Paul Waldie also offered an end-of-day assessment on a BNN interview, aired at 2:25 PM ET. Mr. Waldie noted that Mr. Radler isn't getting tired; he's more "feisty" than ever. He's even challenging the questions, to the point where Judge St. Eve had to tell him twice today to just answer them. Neither Mr. Radler nor Csr. Greenspan are giving an inch. Lots of time was spent with repeated admissions by Mr. Radler about lying to the Special Committee back in '03. Nevertheless, he insists that he's telling the truth now, and claims he's been doing so since the plea bargain in 2005.
(Hence, I venture, his scrupulosity in admitting that he lied. At least, Mr. Radler can claim that he was utterly truthful when admitting to his past lies. The same strategy may have made Andrew Fastow so credible despite his sleazy past.)
Up until now, all four defense counsels were acting as if they were in a unified team, but today, two (unspecified) defense lawyers objected to Csr. Greenspan's questions. This crack in their unity hints at upcoming differences in strategy. Mr. Waldie thinks that Csr. Greenspan will also be more single-defendant-oriented, come Monday.
Havard Gould, on the CBC Newsworld 3 PM update, made the significant point that David Radler has not broken down on the stand.
EarthTimes.org has webbed a short UPI report, entitled "Radler admits lying in Black case." Also webbed, by the Ottawa Citizen, is a newer report by Romina Maurino which expands upon the many ways Csr. Greenspan has shown that David Radler has been a liar. All of the examples in her article are from before the plea bargain agreement.
A little after 3:30 PM, Mr. Akin delivered another report, also broadcast on CTV NewsNet, in which he said that there was no "knock-out punch" today. He supplied two tid-bits from the end of the day's cross-examination. The first came right at session's end. Csr. Greenspan said to Mr. Radler, "you're not Conrad Black's right-hand hand man after all." The latter asked for clarification, and then wondered aloud if Csr. Greenspan meant "flunkie." The second tidbit disclosed was Csr. Greenspan's mention that, after Eric Sussman had said "you're killing me here" during the redirect, Mr. Radler had changed his answer to please the prosecutor. Mr. Akin also reported that Csr. Greenspan promised to be finished his cross-examination by the end of Monday morning.
Effective cross-examination was the subject of a BNN interview with defense attorney Stephen Komie, aired at 5:28 PM. According to Csr. Komie, effective cross depends crucially upon the type of person you're cross-examining. Mr. Radler is a boardroom fellow; thus, he's less easy to rile than a street person. In any cross-examination, you have to get under the witness' skin. The more sarcastic and belligerent the witness is, the more bullying can be gotten away with. Government witnesses are typically very well-rehearsed. The term 'script,' though, is metaphorical; the coaching involves lots of practice to get rid of "nervous habits." The effective cross-examiner has to wear the witness down to sponteneity. He suggested wearing away what he called the politness of a "butler" or "valet" in Mr. Radler's case. It's true that some people can grow on a jury if they're up on the stand for a long time, Csr. Komie stipulated, but David Radler doesn't seem to be one of them. The jury probably won't see him as an underdog.
A report by Joy Malbon was aired by CTV NewsNet at 6 PM ET. After recounting today's trial highlights, she passed along this assessment of Eddie Greenspan's performance, derived in large part from Steve Skurka's observations: his cross scored "a few good body blows," but Mr. Radler is learning to adapt, quickly. The clock ran out while Csr. Greenspan tried to get Radler to admit that he wasn't Conrad Black's right-hand man.
The entire day's cross-examination has been covered by Ms. Maurino's latest report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette. Two of its quotes reveal how Csr. Greenspan is trying to impugn the consistency barrier in two ways: first of all, "'[t]here's nothing that you can tell this jury so they would know when you're lying,' he told Radler"; and secondly, "'[t]he fact is you made a lot of decisions on your own - you're not Conrad's right-hand man,' Greenspan said, reading from a 1996 newspaper article in which Radler clearly stated: 'I am nobody's right-hand man.'"
The article also contains an assessment of Radler as a witness from Hugh Totten, who said that, despite the fact that Csr. Greenspan has yet to make Mr. Radler unbelievable, the latter has been less than completely helpful: "'It's almost a conspiracy by telepathy based on his testimony so far, [said Csr. Totten,] and he is not doing the job of selling this to the jury.'" (It would be ironic indeed if the coaching of Mr. Radler has gotten to the point where it had given him a "Midas' shield," whose impregnability came at the cost of jury-swaying testimony.)
Another webbed report, by the Times of London's James Bone, begins its summarization with a tantalizing speculation, one that only a Fleet Streeter could muster under present circumstances: "Black may testify in own defence."
The Age has got one too, a webing of a Reuters report. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, almost all of which deal with the subject of Mr. Radler's lying. It also mentions Mr. Radler's response to Csr. Greenspan bringing up the nobody's-right-hand-man remark he had made in 1996: "'I don't remember telling anybody that," Radler said."
A briefer report, by The Independent's Stephen Foley, fills in a few gaps in the items mentioned above. It quotes the remark made by David Radler that set off the argument which Judge St. Eve stopped with a rebuke for them both: "Radler accused the lawyer of 'manoeuvring all over the place' and being selective in his quotes. 'You want to take things out of context, I guess that's your right,. Radler said." Also, it notes that "defence lawyers began objecting that he was asking the same question again and again." So, the breakdown in unity mentioned by Mr. Waldie may only have been ad hoc.
----------
Mark Steyn's latest comment on the trial works in a theme that's a hardy perennial among Canadian pundits who write on America: how little the typical American knows about Canada. The implication he draws from it, though, is new: this ignorance at times can result in more harmful consequences than a mere snub - and it isn't just Canadians who may be affected, either. That's the point that peeks through his usual mockery.
Speaking of mockery, the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" section has an opinion piece by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that seeks to give the neo-conservative movement a straight burial. Amongst others, he has this remark about Richard Perle: "While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion."
A report by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has some quotes from the cross-examination so far, including the question that set the theme: "'To you, Mr. Radler is No. 1, correct?' Mr. Greenspan told him. 'Aren't you lying to save yourself?'
"Mr. Radler shot back: 'No sir.'" The end of Mr. Waldie's article contains similar responses from Mr. Radler.
Havard Gould's noon report, also aired on CBC Newsworld, relayed the information that Mr. Radler still appears credible to most observers in the courtroom. He's consistently sticking to his own story.
David Akin's 12:35 ET NewsNet report mentions the Special Committee (Breeden) Report, which has been ruled inadmissible in evidence, but has been drawn upon recently...by the defense. Some of the investigations the Special Committee had undertook has been introduced by Eddie Greenspan today; he's pointing out inconsistencies, if not contradictions, between what Mr. Radler said to them and what he has testified to earlier this week. Mr. Radler is answering deliberately, and is self-controlled. Conrad Black has returned to his usual expressionlessness. Mr. Akin's report concludes with the mention that the trial session will wrap up for the week at lunch, Chicago time.
According to Havard Gould's latest, aired at aboot 1:15 PM ET, it's been an "astonishing" day, because Csr. Greenspan is itemizing, in great detail, how much of a liar Radler was. Recurrently, Greenspan asks, "are you lying now?" The cross is heated at times; once, the judge intervened to calm both down. A former prosecutor opined to Mr. Gould that Greenspan is going too far, to the point where he'll awaken the underdog effect to Mr. Radler's favour. As far as Mr. Radler cracking, Csr. Greenspan seems to be hitting at the old brick wall. Court will stop for the week at about 2 PM ET.
The Reuters reports about today's cross-examination have been webbed by the National Post. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, illustrating Csr. Greenspan's strategy. Regarding the earlier Globe report, David Akin filled in the question that just preceded the quote from it above: after bring asked by Csr. Greenspan why he lied, Mr. Radler answered, "'I was trying to avoid the consequences of my actions.'" It was at this point that Csr. Greenspan pounced with the '#1' question. In his 1:30 PM report, Mr. Akin shifted to describing the questioning as "low-key" and "plodding."
Romina Maurino's report on this morning's cross has been webbed by 680 News. Amongst other details, it specifies that "Greenspan said that during 13 hours of discussions with the special committee, Radler never once said Black was behind the alleged non-compete scheme, never admitted any wrongdoing and never said he payment to executives were improper.... 'You never said you did anything wrong and you never said anybody else did anything wrong,' Greenspan said in court. 'But now you're telling this jury that those 13 hours have lies in them.'..."
Paul Waldie also offered an end-of-day assessment on a BNN interview, aired at 2:25 PM ET. Mr. Waldie noted that Mr. Radler isn't getting tired; he's more "feisty" than ever. He's even challenging the questions, to the point where Judge St. Eve had to tell him twice today to just answer them. Neither Mr. Radler nor Csr. Greenspan are giving an inch. Lots of time was spent with repeated admissions by Mr. Radler about lying to the Special Committee back in '03. Nevertheless, he insists that he's telling the truth now, and claims he's been doing so since the plea bargain in 2005.
(Hence, I venture, his scrupulosity in admitting that he lied. At least, Mr. Radler can claim that he was utterly truthful when admitting to his past lies. The same strategy may have made Andrew Fastow so credible despite his sleazy past.)
Up until now, all four defense counsels were acting as if they were in a unified team, but today, two (unspecified) defense lawyers objected to Csr. Greenspan's questions. This crack in their unity hints at upcoming differences in strategy. Mr. Waldie thinks that Csr. Greenspan will also be more single-defendant-oriented, come Monday.
Havard Gould, on the CBC Newsworld 3 PM update, made the significant point that David Radler has not broken down on the stand.
EarthTimes.org has webbed a short UPI report, entitled "Radler admits lying in Black case." Also webbed, by the Ottawa Citizen, is a newer report by Romina Maurino which expands upon the many ways Csr. Greenspan has shown that David Radler has been a liar. All of the examples in her article are from before the plea bargain agreement.
A little after 3:30 PM, Mr. Akin delivered another report, also broadcast on CTV NewsNet, in which he said that there was no "knock-out punch" today. He supplied two tid-bits from the end of the day's cross-examination. The first came right at session's end. Csr. Greenspan said to Mr. Radler, "you're not Conrad Black's right-hand hand man after all." The latter asked for clarification, and then wondered aloud if Csr. Greenspan meant "flunkie." The second tidbit disclosed was Csr. Greenspan's mention that, after Eric Sussman had said "you're killing me here" during the redirect, Mr. Radler had changed his answer to please the prosecutor. Mr. Akin also reported that Csr. Greenspan promised to be finished his cross-examination by the end of Monday morning.
Effective cross-examination was the subject of a BNN interview with defense attorney Stephen Komie, aired at 5:28 PM. According to Csr. Komie, effective cross depends crucially upon the type of person you're cross-examining. Mr. Radler is a boardroom fellow; thus, he's less easy to rile than a street person. In any cross-examination, you have to get under the witness' skin. The more sarcastic and belligerent the witness is, the more bullying can be gotten away with. Government witnesses are typically very well-rehearsed. The term 'script,' though, is metaphorical; the coaching involves lots of practice to get rid of "nervous habits." The effective cross-examiner has to wear the witness down to sponteneity. He suggested wearing away what he called the politness of a "butler" or "valet" in Mr. Radler's case. It's true that some people can grow on a jury if they're up on the stand for a long time, Csr. Komie stipulated, but David Radler doesn't seem to be one of them. The jury probably won't see him as an underdog.
A report by Joy Malbon was aired by CTV NewsNet at 6 PM ET. After recounting today's trial highlights, she passed along this assessment of Eddie Greenspan's performance, derived in large part from Steve Skurka's observations: his cross scored "a few good body blows," but Mr. Radler is learning to adapt, quickly. The clock ran out while Csr. Greenspan tried to get Radler to admit that he wasn't Conrad Black's right-hand man.
The entire day's cross-examination has been covered by Ms. Maurino's latest report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette. Two of its quotes reveal how Csr. Greenspan is trying to impugn the consistency barrier in two ways: first of all, "'[t]here's nothing that you can tell this jury so they would know when you're lying,' he told Radler"; and secondly, "'[t]he fact is you made a lot of decisions on your own - you're not Conrad's right-hand man,' Greenspan said, reading from a 1996 newspaper article in which Radler clearly stated: 'I am nobody's right-hand man.'"
The article also contains an assessment of Radler as a witness from Hugh Totten, who said that, despite the fact that Csr. Greenspan has yet to make Mr. Radler unbelievable, the latter has been less than completely helpful: "'It's almost a conspiracy by telepathy based on his testimony so far, [said Csr. Totten,] and he is not doing the job of selling this to the jury.'" (It would be ironic indeed if the coaching of Mr. Radler has gotten to the point where it had given him a "Midas' shield," whose impregnability came at the cost of jury-swaying testimony.)
Another webbed report, by the Times of London's James Bone, begins its summarization with a tantalizing speculation, one that only a Fleet Streeter could muster under present circumstances: "Black may testify in own defence."
The Age has got one too, a webing of a Reuters report. It's full of quotes from the cross-examination, almost all of which deal with the subject of Mr. Radler's lying. It also mentions Mr. Radler's response to Csr. Greenspan bringing up the nobody's-right-hand-man remark he had made in 1996: "'I don't remember telling anybody that," Radler said."
A briefer report, by The Independent's Stephen Foley, fills in a few gaps in the items mentioned above. It quotes the remark made by David Radler that set off the argument which Judge St. Eve stopped with a rebuke for them both: "Radler accused the lawyer of 'manoeuvring all over the place' and being selective in his quotes. 'You want to take things out of context, I guess that's your right,. Radler said." Also, it notes that "defence lawyers began objecting that he was asking the same question again and again." So, the breakdown in unity mentioned by Mr. Waldie may only have been ad hoc.
----------
Mark Steyn's latest comment on the trial works in a theme that's a hardy perennial among Canadian pundits who write on America: how little the typical American knows about Canada. The implication he draws from it, though, is new: this ignorance at times can result in more harmful consequences than a mere snub - and it isn't just Canadians who may be affected, either. That's the point that peeks through his usual mockery.
Speaking of mockery, the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" section has an opinion piece by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that seeks to give the neo-conservative movement a straight burial. Amongst others, he has this remark about Richard Perle: "While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion."
Media Roundup: Calm Then Storm
The overnight media reports on the Conrad Black Trial are still plentiful. Below is a list, including broadcast reports:
1. From the Guardian, Andrew Clark's report starts off with the most combative moment of the cross-examination of Mr. Radler; a summary of the direct testimony that was given yesterday morning is interlaced with details from the cross-examination.
2. The Independent's report begins with the testimony, given under direct examination, about a $5.5 million non-compete fee attached to the sale of the Mammoth Times of California, one presented as egregious by the prosecution while Mr. Radler was under direct examination. It quickly moves to the "eviscerating cross-examination," in which Eddie Greenspan called Mr. "Radler a liar more than 100 times." Also, it contains a quote from a 2002 E-mail from Conrad Black that described calling those non-compete payments bonuses as a "'conciliatory'" genture
3. A long article by Romina Maurino, webbed by CBC News, focuses on the cross-examination so far.
4. From CBC News: Morning, a report from Havard Gould, who reported that the cross-examination was “fierce.” Csr. Greenspan said that it was the cross-examination of his career. The most memorable part of it was Csr. Greenspan's repeated insistence that Mr. Radler is a liar, at the end of yesterday's session. But, Csr. Greenspan didn’t appear to have scored any decisive blows, as Radler was never “rattled,” only "discomfited." Conrad Black, though, visibly enjoyed Mr. Radler's discomfort. Testimony will be cut short today, ending in the early afternoon, and the trial will not be conducted tomorrow.
5. On his latest report, aired on CTV NewsNet just after 7:30 AM, David Akin concurred with Mr. Gould regarding the standoff at the end of the day. He also reported that the 15-minute-or-so line of questioning about the Bible was set off by Mr. Radler saying that he didn’t know whether or not he had sworn on a Bible. (He couldn’t remember.) Mr. Akin also said that the prosecution “asked” that defense make no more motions, and the judge agreed.
6. From the Scotsman, a report on yesterday's mistrial motion, and what set it off.
7. The National Post's blog "Posted" has a mention of the cross-examination, with a link to the relevant National Post article in it.
8. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail's article on the cross-examination part of yesterday's trial is entitled "Greenspan and Radler spar for hours." It reports that "Mr. Radler refused to give an inch. He denied giving misleading testimony and frequently challenged Mr. Greenspan's questions, calling one simplistic and saying at another point: 'You are putting words in my mouth.' During oneexchange over the wording in a document, Mr. Radler suggested that Mr. Greenspan was playing word games.... Mr. Radler's aggressiveness appeared to catch Mr. Greenspan off guard and the witness appeared to get the best of the Toronto lawyer a couple of times, prompting laughter from the audience."
9. BNN had an interview with Mr. Waldie, aired at about 8:25 AM ET. He reported that yesterday was "by far the best day of the trial" since its beginning. There should be more combativeness today. Mr. Greenspan should pounce on Mr. Radler's memory lapses and confront him with the defense's theory that Mr. Radler had lots of independence during the days that Mr. Black and he were running Hollinger International. Court will sit only for a half-day today. Csr. Greenspan will also pounce on Mr. Radler's memory lapses about the events covered by the indictment.
10. A report from CTV News is a three-parter. The first part recounts the cross-examination; the second part recounts the highlights of Mr. Radler’s testimony yesterday morning under direct examination; and the third describes "Black's musings" in a September 2002 E-mail.
11. An updated interview with Mr. Akin, aired on CTV NewsNet at about 8:35 AM, had him recounting the early days of Mr. Black's and Mr. Radler's partnership from the defense's point of view. Mr. Akin mentioned that famous 1969 article, by the "'young Conrad Black'," praising Lyndon Johnson which was read into the Congressional Record. It was hinted by Csr. Greenspan that the luxuries enjoyed by Mr. Black were largely business expenses that grew out of the growth path of Hollinger.
12. The New York Times has the latest article from Richard Siklos, entitled "Defense Attacks Credibility of Black’s Former Associate," which recaps all of Mr. Radler's testimony yesterday. On page 2, it mentions the fact that Mr. Black's membership in the Bilderberg Group was instrumental in his succesful (and quite profitable) acquisition of the Daily Telegraph. It ends with new quotes from Mr. Black's E-mails.
13. An article by David Litterick of that same Daily Telegraph has been webbed by the New York Sun. The bulk of it quotes copiously from the "golden goose" E-mail introduced in court yesterday, and it ends with a summary of Mr. Radler's testimony, under direct examination, about the Mammoth Times and the non-compete payments being disguised bonuses.
14. The rejection of the midtrial motion rated a one-paragraph mention in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution "Daily Briefing"
15. An excerpt from Ms. Maurino's latest report, focusing on the "script" part of the cross-examination, has been webbed by the Hamilton Spectator. CBC News's version start off with, "Conrad Black's former deputy David Radler is in for a second day of gruelling cross-examination by defence lawyers,..."
16. The Washington Post mentions the denied motion in its business-briefs report.
17. The latest update from CBC News reporter Havard Gould, as aired on CBC Newsworld as of approx. 9:10 AM ET, started off with the "question of the day": what will Csr. Greenspan try next? Yesterday’s cross-examination wasn’t that effective. David Radler’s endure-it-out strategy was compared to Muhammad Ali’s "rope-a-dope" technique, that wears out his opponent, through taking blows on the forearms (used to shield the head) without being reeled or seriously hurt. It's expected that the same document-driven discrediting maneuver that worked for several other prosecution witnesses will be tried on Mr. Radler.
18. Peter Worthington's latest trial column, webbed by the Calgary Sun, has specifics on the inconsistency between this week's testimony by Mr. Radler under direct and his earlier testimony, in a 2002 B.C. tribunal: "Greenspan reminded him of his testimony under oath at a trial in B.C. where he swore he and Conrad owned equal shares in the Horizon company... In sworn testimony in Chicago, he gave different figures."
19. Theresa Tedesco's latest, webbed by the National Post and entitled "Radler parries lawyer's thrusts," begins with: "'You're killing me here," blurted the assistant U.S. attorney in jest as his star witness gave a rambling answer to an obvious question.... At the time, Mr. Sussman's exasperated outburst elicited laughs from the jury and those packed into Judge Amy St. Eve's courtroom. But by the end of the day, those words would take on a more cynical resonance in the hands of Edward Greenspan, and all Mr. Sussman could do was sit there with his head in his hands...." On Page 2, it mentions the introduction of "[t]he intended trap," a map that Csr. Greenspan is using to illustrate the defense's co-chief theory, intended to implicate Mr. Radler alone for any illegal transactions.
20. A more recent report from Mr. Akin disclosed that a lot of lawyers are filing into the courtroom this morning. Today’s questions will draw upon the accumulated paper trial, but will probably not continue with the fact that Mr. Radler was a liar. The latter was quite thoroughly covered yesterday. Mr. Radler will definitely be on the stand next week. Csr. Greenspan will continue his cross-examination Monday, and the three other counselors for the other three defendants are yet to hav their crack at Mr. Radler yet.
21. Janet Whitman of the New York Post begins her report with "Conrad Black and his turncoat deputy David Radler both had their turns to squirm yesterday at the dethroned press baron's fraud trial." She further reports that Mr. Black's embarrassment resulted from the introduction of his golden-goose E-mail, from which she quotes, into court.
22. The Toronto Star's Jennifer Wells is back, with a report that describes Mr. Radler as "consistently combative and equivocating" while being cross-examined. She notes that "Eddie Greenspan's star turn in what he has described as a 'witches of Salem environment,' by which he meant the lustful pursuit of American white-collar miscreants, and yesterday, he had his chance to perform before the dragon slayer himself, U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald." Later, though, she observes that Csr. Greenspan's exposure of Mr. Radler as a liar fizzled.
23. Havard Gould, on CBC News: Morning, had a morning quote from Mr. Black, given at about 10 AM ET, that there were “some entertaining moments” yesterday. He delivered the line after reporters insisted that he comment, prior to he refusing twice to do so in the same words he had used while walking out of the court yesterday afternoon.
24. The Denver Post has webbed a brief summary by Mike Robinson, entitled "Fraud prosecutors cite media mogul's rationale for billing."
25. Mary Vallis' report, webbed by the Edmonton Journal, focuses on Csr. Greenspan rubbing in the fact that Mr. Radler had lied.
26. The Daily Herald's report, entitled "Black’s attorney peppers former publisher," begins with the same focus, before recapping Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination.
27. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's latest report is entitled "Radler admits lying to his own lawyers."
28. Mr. Akin's 10:30 AM update, also broadcast on CTV NewsNet, reports that court has started, and Csr. Greenspan has restarted his questioning. He's continuing with the same theme he ended with yesterday, that Radler is a liar. Evidently, he wants to reinforce the point, as it's already been quite established. He asked questions about how Mr. Radler acts when he lies. Csr. Greenspan is less tense this morning, and Mr. Radler is answering evenly. There were no quotable comments from defense counsels this morning, unlike yesterday morning. The entire cross-examination, from counselors for all four defendants, might last to Wednesday.
29. And finally, a webbed report from CTV News, entitled "Radler to face 2nd day of grilling in Black trial," which has excerpts from Mr. Akin's morning reports. It has a broadband link a report by Mr. Akin, and another one to an interview with Tom Bower, author of Conrad & Lady Black: Dancing On The Edge.
----------
From the Website "Watching The Watchers," a comment on that same 2002 E-mail, which concludes that Mr. Black is very much a creature of privilege, and not an entrepreneur-hero in the mold of Ayn Rand's protagonists.
There's also a "Who's Afraid Of?..." column, webbed yesterday in Spiked Online, which starts with a recounting of Andrew Clark's article about Barbara Black's 60th birthday party, then repeats all the criticism of her lifestyle, character and points of view, and ends with a note that the criticism may have gone a little too far in her case.
1. From the Guardian, Andrew Clark's report starts off with the most combative moment of the cross-examination of Mr. Radler; a summary of the direct testimony that was given yesterday morning is interlaced with details from the cross-examination.
2. The Independent's report begins with the testimony, given under direct examination, about a $5.5 million non-compete fee attached to the sale of the Mammoth Times of California, one presented as egregious by the prosecution while Mr. Radler was under direct examination. It quickly moves to the "eviscerating cross-examination," in which Eddie Greenspan called Mr. "Radler a liar more than 100 times." Also, it contains a quote from a 2002 E-mail from Conrad Black that described calling those non-compete payments bonuses as a "'conciliatory'" genture
3. A long article by Romina Maurino, webbed by CBC News, focuses on the cross-examination so far.
4. From CBC News: Morning, a report from Havard Gould, who reported that the cross-examination was “fierce.” Csr. Greenspan said that it was the cross-examination of his career. The most memorable part of it was Csr. Greenspan's repeated insistence that Mr. Radler is a liar, at the end of yesterday's session. But, Csr. Greenspan didn’t appear to have scored any decisive blows, as Radler was never “rattled,” only "discomfited." Conrad Black, though, visibly enjoyed Mr. Radler's discomfort. Testimony will be cut short today, ending in the early afternoon, and the trial will not be conducted tomorrow.
5. On his latest report, aired on CTV NewsNet just after 7:30 AM, David Akin concurred with Mr. Gould regarding the standoff at the end of the day. He also reported that the 15-minute-or-so line of questioning about the Bible was set off by Mr. Radler saying that he didn’t know whether or not he had sworn on a Bible. (He couldn’t remember.) Mr. Akin also said that the prosecution “asked” that defense make no more motions, and the judge agreed.
6. From the Scotsman, a report on yesterday's mistrial motion, and what set it off.
7. The National Post's blog "Posted" has a mention of the cross-examination, with a link to the relevant National Post article in it.
8. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail's article on the cross-examination part of yesterday's trial is entitled "Greenspan and Radler spar for hours." It reports that "Mr. Radler refused to give an inch. He denied giving misleading testimony and frequently challenged Mr. Greenspan's questions, calling one simplistic and saying at another point: 'You are putting words in my mouth.' During oneexchange over the wording in a document, Mr. Radler suggested that Mr. Greenspan was playing word games.... Mr. Radler's aggressiveness appeared to catch Mr. Greenspan off guard and the witness appeared to get the best of the Toronto lawyer a couple of times, prompting laughter from the audience."
9. BNN had an interview with Mr. Waldie, aired at about 8:25 AM ET. He reported that yesterday was "by far the best day of the trial" since its beginning. There should be more combativeness today. Mr. Greenspan should pounce on Mr. Radler's memory lapses and confront him with the defense's theory that Mr. Radler had lots of independence during the days that Mr. Black and he were running Hollinger International. Court will sit only for a half-day today. Csr. Greenspan will also pounce on Mr. Radler's memory lapses about the events covered by the indictment.
10. A report from CTV News is a three-parter. The first part recounts the cross-examination; the second part recounts the highlights of Mr. Radler’s testimony yesterday morning under direct examination; and the third describes "Black's musings" in a September 2002 E-mail.
11. An updated interview with Mr. Akin, aired on CTV NewsNet at about 8:35 AM, had him recounting the early days of Mr. Black's and Mr. Radler's partnership from the defense's point of view. Mr. Akin mentioned that famous 1969 article, by the "'young Conrad Black'," praising Lyndon Johnson which was read into the Congressional Record. It was hinted by Csr. Greenspan that the luxuries enjoyed by Mr. Black were largely business expenses that grew out of the growth path of Hollinger.
12. The New York Times has the latest article from Richard Siklos, entitled "Defense Attacks Credibility of Black’s Former Associate," which recaps all of Mr. Radler's testimony yesterday. On page 2, it mentions the fact that Mr. Black's membership in the Bilderberg Group was instrumental in his succesful (and quite profitable) acquisition of the Daily Telegraph. It ends with new quotes from Mr. Black's E-mails.
13. An article by David Litterick of that same Daily Telegraph has been webbed by the New York Sun. The bulk of it quotes copiously from the "golden goose" E-mail introduced in court yesterday, and it ends with a summary of Mr. Radler's testimony, under direct examination, about the Mammoth Times and the non-compete payments being disguised bonuses.
14. The rejection of the midtrial motion rated a one-paragraph mention in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution "Daily Briefing"
15. An excerpt from Ms. Maurino's latest report, focusing on the "script" part of the cross-examination, has been webbed by the Hamilton Spectator. CBC News's version start off with, "Conrad Black's former deputy David Radler is in for a second day of gruelling cross-examination by defence lawyers,..."
16. The Washington Post mentions the denied motion in its business-briefs report.
17. The latest update from CBC News reporter Havard Gould, as aired on CBC Newsworld as of approx. 9:10 AM ET, started off with the "question of the day": what will Csr. Greenspan try next? Yesterday’s cross-examination wasn’t that effective. David Radler’s endure-it-out strategy was compared to Muhammad Ali’s "rope-a-dope" technique, that wears out his opponent, through taking blows on the forearms (used to shield the head) without being reeled or seriously hurt. It's expected that the same document-driven discrediting maneuver that worked for several other prosecution witnesses will be tried on Mr. Radler.
18. Peter Worthington's latest trial column, webbed by the Calgary Sun, has specifics on the inconsistency between this week's testimony by Mr. Radler under direct and his earlier testimony, in a 2002 B.C. tribunal: "Greenspan reminded him of his testimony under oath at a trial in B.C. where he swore he and Conrad owned equal shares in the Horizon company... In sworn testimony in Chicago, he gave different figures."
19. Theresa Tedesco's latest, webbed by the National Post and entitled "Radler parries lawyer's thrusts," begins with: "'You're killing me here," blurted the assistant U.S. attorney in jest as his star witness gave a rambling answer to an obvious question.... At the time, Mr. Sussman's exasperated outburst elicited laughs from the jury and those packed into Judge Amy St. Eve's courtroom. But by the end of the day, those words would take on a more cynical resonance in the hands of Edward Greenspan, and all Mr. Sussman could do was sit there with his head in his hands...." On Page 2, it mentions the introduction of "[t]he intended trap," a map that Csr. Greenspan is using to illustrate the defense's co-chief theory, intended to implicate Mr. Radler alone for any illegal transactions.
20. A more recent report from Mr. Akin disclosed that a lot of lawyers are filing into the courtroom this morning. Today’s questions will draw upon the accumulated paper trial, but will probably not continue with the fact that Mr. Radler was a liar. The latter was quite thoroughly covered yesterday. Mr. Radler will definitely be on the stand next week. Csr. Greenspan will continue his cross-examination Monday, and the three other counselors for the other three defendants are yet to hav their crack at Mr. Radler yet.
21. Janet Whitman of the New York Post begins her report with "Conrad Black and his turncoat deputy David Radler both had their turns to squirm yesterday at the dethroned press baron's fraud trial." She further reports that Mr. Black's embarrassment resulted from the introduction of his golden-goose E-mail, from which she quotes, into court.
22. The Toronto Star's Jennifer Wells is back, with a report that describes Mr. Radler as "consistently combative and equivocating" while being cross-examined. She notes that "Eddie Greenspan's star turn in what he has described as a 'witches of Salem environment,' by which he meant the lustful pursuit of American white-collar miscreants, and yesterday, he had his chance to perform before the dragon slayer himself, U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald." Later, though, she observes that Csr. Greenspan's exposure of Mr. Radler as a liar fizzled.
23. Havard Gould, on CBC News: Morning, had a morning quote from Mr. Black, given at about 10 AM ET, that there were “some entertaining moments” yesterday. He delivered the line after reporters insisted that he comment, prior to he refusing twice to do so in the same words he had used while walking out of the court yesterday afternoon.
24. The Denver Post has webbed a brief summary by Mike Robinson, entitled "Fraud prosecutors cite media mogul's rationale for billing."
25. Mary Vallis' report, webbed by the Edmonton Journal, focuses on Csr. Greenspan rubbing in the fact that Mr. Radler had lied.
26. The Daily Herald's report, entitled "Black’s attorney peppers former publisher," begins with the same focus, before recapping Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination.
27. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's latest report is entitled "Radler admits lying to his own lawyers."
28. Mr. Akin's 10:30 AM update, also broadcast on CTV NewsNet, reports that court has started, and Csr. Greenspan has restarted his questioning. He's continuing with the same theme he ended with yesterday, that Radler is a liar. Evidently, he wants to reinforce the point, as it's already been quite established. He asked questions about how Mr. Radler acts when he lies. Csr. Greenspan is less tense this morning, and Mr. Radler is answering evenly. There were no quotable comments from defense counsels this morning, unlike yesterday morning. The entire cross-examination, from counselors for all four defendants, might last to Wednesday.
29. And finally, a webbed report from CTV News, entitled "Radler to face 2nd day of grilling in Black trial," which has excerpts from Mr. Akin's morning reports. It has a broadband link a report by Mr. Akin, and another one to an interview with Tom Bower, author of Conrad & Lady Black: Dancing On The Edge.
----------
From the Website "Watching The Watchers," a comment on that same 2002 E-mail, which concludes that Mr. Black is very much a creature of privilege, and not an entrepreneur-hero in the mold of Ayn Rand's protagonists.
There's also a "Who's Afraid Of?..." column, webbed yesterday in Spiked Online, which starts with a recounting of Andrew Clark's article about Barbara Black's 60th birthday party, then repeats all the criticism of her lifestyle, character and points of view, and ends with a note that the criticism may have gone a little too far in her case.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Richard Siklos' Take, From The CBC Nightly News
The report on the cross-examination of David Radler that was aired in CBC News' The National wasn't the lead tonight, but it was the second report of the newscast. The report itself was filed by Neil Macdonald, who began by mentioning that the cross-examination started at 2 PM Central time. He noted that Mr. Radler refused to “take the bait,” regarding the scriptedness of his testimony under direct examination. Later in the cross-examination, Eddie Greenspan attacked Mr. Radler’s version of how the newspaper empire got off the ground. He pointed to the LBJ article and Conrad Black's attendance at the Bilderberg conferences. Mr. Radler, though, didn’t crack. (Actually, Csr. Greenspan tried several ploys today, none of which shattered Mr. Radler's composure.) Mr. Macdonald also said that Csr. Greenspan was “sarcastic” & “very angry” in court.
Right after that report, the interview with Richard Siklos, the author of Shades of Black, began:
According to Mr. Siklos, it was hard to tell how successful the cross-examination was. Csr. Greenspan was “over the top,” and Mr. Radler got “frazzled” as a result, but he didn’t crack. It was an in-the-face cross-examination, which included Csr. Greenspan (probably deliberately) coughing and sniffing at Mr. Radler while hovering over him. (Mr. Radler is a germophobe.)
Mr. Siklos also mentioned that Conrad Black dropped his expressionless demeanor and “quietly chuckled to himself” once the cross-examination started.
As far as the first part of the cross-examination itself is concerned, it basically was a draw. The prosecution had earlier used Mr. Radler very skillfully as a witness, but in some respects his testimony was disappointing: he came close regarding the scheme, but garnered no cigar with regard to directions from Mr. Black to he. Mr. Radler never came out and said it explicitly.
[An updated report, webbed at CBC News, has a link to a broadbanded copy of Mr. Macdonald's televised report.]
Right after that report, the interview with Richard Siklos, the author of Shades of Black, began:
According to Mr. Siklos, it was hard to tell how successful the cross-examination was. Csr. Greenspan was “over the top,” and Mr. Radler got “frazzled” as a result, but he didn’t crack. It was an in-the-face cross-examination, which included Csr. Greenspan (probably deliberately) coughing and sniffing at Mr. Radler while hovering over him. (Mr. Radler is a germophobe.)
Mr. Siklos also mentioned that Conrad Black dropped his expressionless demeanor and “quietly chuckled to himself” once the cross-examination started.
As far as the first part of the cross-examination itself is concerned, it basically was a draw. The prosecution had earlier used Mr. Radler very skillfully as a witness, but in some respects his testimony was disappointing: he came close regarding the scheme, but garnered no cigar with regard to directions from Mr. Black to he. Mr. Radler never came out and said it explicitly.
[An updated report, webbed at CBC News, has a link to a broadbanded copy of Mr. Macdonald's televised report.]
The Verdict: Slicing and Splicing
There was one segment on The Verdict dealing with the Conrad Black trial tonight, on a discussion of the cross-examination of David Radler. Ms. Todd, the host, started off by noting that Mr. Radler was tight-lipped as he left the court today. Eddie Greenspan, though, was light-hearted. Conrad Black himself offered no comment, after apologizing for the unoriginality of the phrase, but got somewhat miffed when pressed by a reporter for one.
The guests on the segment were two lawyers, Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka. Both were in the courtroom today. Csr. Skurka started off by noting that there had been an anticipation for the cross-examination since 7 AM, when the lineup started. Csr. Greenspan had gotten off to a strong start.
Csr. Totten noted, though, that Csr. Greenspan had started off in an “odd fashion.” He referred to the Bible business. Using the Bible to swear on isn’t used that much anymore. He interpreted the repeated references to the Bible as Csr. Greenspan making a turf statement. Ms. Todd asked him what effect it would have on on the jury – would they be confused by the Bible stuff – and Csr. Totten answered that it may be explained by cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. Then, he said that the cross-examination proceeded in “slices and dices.”
After Ms. Todd read out an excerpt of the transcript about the “script,” and asked Csr. Skurka what Mr. Radler had looked like, he answered that Mr. Radler looked “silly.” It seems that Csr. Greenspan was trying to tease the real Radler out of his persona.
Csr. Totten observed that Mr. Radler has not been eviscerated, as of yet. Csr. Greenspan did establish that there was a kind of script, but Mr. Radler did testify earlier that he met with the prosecution only a few times, which did show in Eric Sussman's direct examination of him. He may not have been coached enough - or was coached by the wrong team. Csr. Skurka noted that David Radler had spent a lot of time with his own lawyers.
Ms. Todd later brought up the golden-goose E-mail, and asked about its effect on the jury. Csr. Totten ventured that the sentence she quoted was too rococo to have much of a direct impact. He added that there was little evidentiary value except for an attempted “prejudical effect.” Csr. Skurka commented that the mistrial motion relating to it, which Ms. Todd had mentioned before quoting from the E-mail, was a serious mistrial motion; he agreed with Csr. Totten regarding the E-mail's prejudicial effect. Ms. Todd brought up the possibility that the E-mail could substantiate the theory that that Mr. Black doesn’t care that much about the shareholders, but Csr. Skurka scoffed at her theory. Hugh Totten had the last word of the segment, when he noted that, in the end, the E-mails “won’t matter a hill of beans.”
(The possibility that Judge St. Eve is going out of her way to be fair to the prosecution wasn’t brought up.)
In her “closing argument,” Ms. Todd said that Greenspan has a lot on the line – not only Conrad Black’s future, but also his reputation as a “witness slayer.” She opined that Csr. Greenspan will have to hit harder to impugn Mr. Radler’s testimony. The Bible bit probably confused the jurors. It may have had a desired timing effect, but it also made Csr. Greenspan look “ogrish.” The jurors already know that Radler is a liar; she ended by noting that, as of yet, “his pants weren’t on fire.”
[This episode of The Verdict will be broadbanded as of 10:30 pm tonight, and will stay up until about 10:30 PM or so tomorrow.]
The guests on the segment were two lawyers, Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka. Both were in the courtroom today. Csr. Skurka started off by noting that there had been an anticipation for the cross-examination since 7 AM, when the lineup started. Csr. Greenspan had gotten off to a strong start.
Csr. Totten noted, though, that Csr. Greenspan had started off in an “odd fashion.” He referred to the Bible business. Using the Bible to swear on isn’t used that much anymore. He interpreted the repeated references to the Bible as Csr. Greenspan making a turf statement. Ms. Todd asked him what effect it would have on on the jury – would they be confused by the Bible stuff – and Csr. Totten answered that it may be explained by cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. Then, he said that the cross-examination proceeded in “slices and dices.”
After Ms. Todd read out an excerpt of the transcript about the “script,” and asked Csr. Skurka what Mr. Radler had looked like, he answered that Mr. Radler looked “silly.” It seems that Csr. Greenspan was trying to tease the real Radler out of his persona.
Csr. Totten observed that Mr. Radler has not been eviscerated, as of yet. Csr. Greenspan did establish that there was a kind of script, but Mr. Radler did testify earlier that he met with the prosecution only a few times, which did show in Eric Sussman's direct examination of him. He may not have been coached enough - or was coached by the wrong team. Csr. Skurka noted that David Radler had spent a lot of time with his own lawyers.
Ms. Todd later brought up the golden-goose E-mail, and asked about its effect on the jury. Csr. Totten ventured that the sentence she quoted was too rococo to have much of a direct impact. He added that there was little evidentiary value except for an attempted “prejudical effect.” Csr. Skurka commented that the mistrial motion relating to it, which Ms. Todd had mentioned before quoting from the E-mail, was a serious mistrial motion; he agreed with Csr. Totten regarding the E-mail's prejudicial effect. Ms. Todd brought up the possibility that the E-mail could substantiate the theory that that Mr. Black doesn’t care that much about the shareholders, but Csr. Skurka scoffed at her theory. Hugh Totten had the last word of the segment, when he noted that, in the end, the E-mails “won’t matter a hill of beans.”
(The possibility that Judge St. Eve is going out of her way to be fair to the prosecution wasn’t brought up.)
In her “closing argument,” Ms. Todd said that Greenspan has a lot on the line – not only Conrad Black’s future, but also his reputation as a “witness slayer.” She opined that Csr. Greenspan will have to hit harder to impugn Mr. Radler’s testimony. The Bible bit probably confused the jurors. It may have had a desired timing effect, but it also made Csr. Greenspan look “ogrish.” The jurors already know that Radler is a liar; she ended by noting that, as of yet, “his pants weren’t on fire.”
[This episode of The Verdict will be broadbanded as of 10:30 pm tonight, and will stay up until about 10:30 PM or so tomorrow.]
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.
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.
Wednesday crossing
CTV NewsNet has just aired a report from David Akin about the start of today's part of the trial. He disclosed that the defense is already "trash talking" Mr. Radler, and the combative words are coming from Edward Genson. He said, before the trial started today, that Eddie Greenspan "will 'destroy' Radler"; they will prove that Mr. Radler was a liar. As the trial began, there was meeting over admissibility of some of his testimony. Mr. Genson claimed that Radler lied to the FBI. He also said to the media, "'We'll get to it; we'll get to the truth.'" He also noted that the press gallery/spectator area is packed. A report webbed by CTV.ca News carries both quotes.
CBC Newsworld just broadcast an update, starting at 11:10 AM, in which Havard Gould reported that so far, Mr. Radler is still under direct examination, detailing the “scheme” and the “pattern.” He’s now testifying about another transaction. When he was asked this morning why he didn’t bring the non-compete payments up to the audit committee, he answered “'I knew it was wrong.'”
When anchor Nancy Wilson asked Mr. Gould about the upcoming cross-examination, he first showed clips containing quotes from Edward Genson and Eddie Greenspan: Csr. Genson’s quote about "destroying Radler," and Csr. Greenspan saying “I hope Mr. Genson is right.” The defense team wants to prove that Mr. Radler is lying, for the sake of the sweetheart deal in exchange for his testimony. It is hoped that the cross-examination will begin later today.
The 13 boxes have also played a part in the trial this morning. The Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has a report, webbed early this morning, out on them. From it: "Prosecutors have asked to introduce several memos Lord Black wrote to his colleagues at Hollinger International Inc.... One is called 'Christmas musing' and another 'Spring time contemplations.' At the end of the report, there's a "peek" at the contents of the boxes.
In an interview on CTV NewsNet aired right after 11:30 AM, Mr. Akin reported that Judge St. Eve has ruled that content of them is inadmissible, but the prosecution can “describe” them as evidence of relationship between Mr. Radler and Conrad Black, painting a picture that coheres with Mr. Radler's testimony. Mr. Radler also testified about a “bonus that Mr. Black authorized:” a small paper in [Mammoth], California. paid $2.6 million as a non-compete fee...a paper he and Mr. Black would later buy for a dollar. [Some additional details on this item can be found in this webbed report.]
BNN's noon news update had an item from the trial, after relaying that quote from Csr. Genson about Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination. (BNN concurred with a clip aired by the CBC showing Csr. Genson referring to Csr. Greenspan alone.) During the trial this morning, Csr. Genson asked for a mistrial, because Mr. Radler had read from an E-mail with material which was not covered by the indictment. Judge St. Eve declined the motion, saying that the defense can deal with it during cross-examination. The cross-examination itself will start after lunch.
The CBC has webbed a report on Mr. Radler's testimony so far, by Romina Maurino, which has lots more details than in the report linked to in braces above. (She also supplies the correct name of the town in California that I mistakenly transcribed earlier: it was Mammoth in California. Apologies for that.) The gist of her report is Mr. Radler's testimony that they both knew the non-compete payments were disguised bonuses. Weaved in the report is a linkage of this testimony to the case: that any non-compete money should have gone to Hollinger International instead of to other parties.
There's an Associated Press report out also, webbed by WQAD.com, which adds detail to that motion made by Csr. Genson that was struck down by Judge St. Eve: an E-mail read out by Eric Sussman referred to "his client's chef and chauffeur. Genson calls those comments 'inappropriate' and says they appeal 'to class prejudice.'" She not only struck down the motion, but also allowed Csr. Sussman to keep reading from them. A more recent report, with an extended quote from the E-mail itself, has been webbed by CBS2Chicago.com.
A report on the 1 PM broadcast (Eastern Time, as are times above) on CTV NewsNet has another update from David Akin, which started off by he disclosing that, as of the lunch break, the direct examination of Mr. Radler is all-but-through. The cross-examination will begin soon. Mr. Radler was asked about the regulatory filings where his and other top executives' compensation were declared. His testimony implied that the individual non-compete payments should have been disclosed as salary and/or bonus compensation. When asked by Kate Wheeler about the jury's interest level, Mr. Akin answered that it is a complex case, in part because of the four defendants, and in part because of its arcane financial details. At one point, Csr. Greenspan joked that he was going to cross-examine Eric Sussman, which lightened the mood somewhat. Mr. Akin also reported that it wasn’t just the hair-shirt E-mail that triggered the mistrail motion; others did, too. Judge St. Eve, though, chided Csr. Genson for making mistrial motions too freely as she rejected it.
Reuters has a report on the morning direct examination out as well, under the byline of Andrew Stern and James Kelleher, which starts with: "Conrad Black's business partner of 30 years testified on Wednesday that he knew the scheme he and the former media mogul devised to pay themselves bonuses was wrong." It also describes the relevant E-mails: "In those documents, some of which were presented in court, Black railed against Hollinger International shareholders who had challenged the non-competes and various other spending. He said executives should make 'conciliatory gestures' but insisted such moves were not 'a confession of excess' and that would cut into the 'comfortable enjoyment' of the money the company was making." The report also discloses, before offering more quotes from the E-mails read in court, that Mr. Radler also testified that, in his opinion, Mr. Black intended to run Hollinger Int'l as if it was a private, not a public, company.
Another update has been aired by CBC Newsworld, which also featured correspondent Havard Gould reporting that David Radler is still under direct examination. In his opinion, given on the stand, the non-compete cash not left with Hollinger Int'l was “siphoned off.” Mr. Gould noted that the E-mail read in court is familiar to trial watchers but is new to the jury. (It's quoted in the same Reuters report excerpted in the above paragraph.) The host, David Gray, commented that it “sounds like the golden goose is cooked now.”
The cross will be “brutal” according to Mr. Gould. It'll be the first chance this week to openly challenge Mr. Radler’s testimony, which Csr. Greenspan will be diligent at. Mr. Gould wasn't sure how much time the cross-examination will take, but he opined that Greenspan would like at least a week. (He won’t get it.) He’s been researching documents, and will probably use the same document-wielding stratagem that brought down earlier prosecution witnesses.
The latest update from CTV Newsnet (3 PM ET) reported that the cross-examination is imminent. David Radler has less than an hour, perhaps minutes, of direct examination left; the cross-examination should start as of 3:30 - 4:00 PM ET. The prosecution has prepared Mr. Radler for the cross; he has already admitted on the stand that he lied to the FBI while under direct. Csr. Sussman then asked why, but the question was objected to.
Romina Maurino has a report that covers all of Mr. Radler's testimony made under direct examination today, including: E-mails from the boxes; the birthday party; and, an admission that he "lied to a Hollinger special committee set up to investigate shareholder concerns in 2003 as well as to the federal government a year later... because he 'was trying to rationalize some of the transactions - I was fighting back.'"
----------
Mark Steyn's been liveblogging the trial today; as of 2:45 PM ET, there are five report-based entries in his trial blog. The first (earliest) one describes Judge St. Eve granting a motion made by Csr. Sussman barring Csr. Genson from making any more motions for a mistrial; the second is one sentence long; the third discloses that Csr. Greenspan's I-should-cross-examine-Sussman joke came from Csr. Sussman mixing up table arangements when questioning Mr. Radler about the birthday party, which the latter did not correct; the fourth is entiled "Snippypalooza" and reports on "attorney snippiness;" and the fifth is also sentence long. That sentence starts with "David Radler's performance was a little better than I expected," and ends with...
CBC Newsworld just broadcast an update, starting at 11:10 AM, in which Havard Gould reported that so far, Mr. Radler is still under direct examination, detailing the “scheme” and the “pattern.” He’s now testifying about another transaction. When he was asked this morning why he didn’t bring the non-compete payments up to the audit committee, he answered “'I knew it was wrong.'”
When anchor Nancy Wilson asked Mr. Gould about the upcoming cross-examination, he first showed clips containing quotes from Edward Genson and Eddie Greenspan: Csr. Genson’s quote about "destroying Radler," and Csr. Greenspan saying “I hope Mr. Genson is right.” The defense team wants to prove that Mr. Radler is lying, for the sake of the sweetheart deal in exchange for his testimony. It is hoped that the cross-examination will begin later today.
The 13 boxes have also played a part in the trial this morning. The Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has a report, webbed early this morning, out on them. From it: "Prosecutors have asked to introduce several memos Lord Black wrote to his colleagues at Hollinger International Inc.... One is called 'Christmas musing' and another 'Spring time contemplations.' At the end of the report, there's a "peek" at the contents of the boxes.
In an interview on CTV NewsNet aired right after 11:30 AM, Mr. Akin reported that Judge St. Eve has ruled that content of them is inadmissible, but the prosecution can “describe” them as evidence of relationship between Mr. Radler and Conrad Black, painting a picture that coheres with Mr. Radler's testimony. Mr. Radler also testified about a “bonus that Mr. Black authorized:” a small paper in [Mammoth], California. paid $2.6 million as a non-compete fee...a paper he and Mr. Black would later buy for a dollar. [Some additional details on this item can be found in this webbed report.]
BNN's noon news update had an item from the trial, after relaying that quote from Csr. Genson about Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination. (BNN concurred with a clip aired by the CBC showing Csr. Genson referring to Csr. Greenspan alone.) During the trial this morning, Csr. Genson asked for a mistrial, because Mr. Radler had read from an E-mail with material which was not covered by the indictment. Judge St. Eve declined the motion, saying that the defense can deal with it during cross-examination. The cross-examination itself will start after lunch.
The CBC has webbed a report on Mr. Radler's testimony so far, by Romina Maurino, which has lots more details than in the report linked to in braces above. (She also supplies the correct name of the town in California that I mistakenly transcribed earlier: it was Mammoth in California. Apologies for that.) The gist of her report is Mr. Radler's testimony that they both knew the non-compete payments were disguised bonuses. Weaved in the report is a linkage of this testimony to the case: that any non-compete money should have gone to Hollinger International instead of to other parties.
There's an Associated Press report out also, webbed by WQAD.com, which adds detail to that motion made by Csr. Genson that was struck down by Judge St. Eve: an E-mail read out by Eric Sussman referred to "his client's chef and chauffeur. Genson calls those comments 'inappropriate' and says they appeal 'to class prejudice.'" She not only struck down the motion, but also allowed Csr. Sussman to keep reading from them. A more recent report, with an extended quote from the E-mail itself, has been webbed by CBS2Chicago.com.
A report on the 1 PM broadcast (Eastern Time, as are times above) on CTV NewsNet has another update from David Akin, which started off by he disclosing that, as of the lunch break, the direct examination of Mr. Radler is all-but-through. The cross-examination will begin soon. Mr. Radler was asked about the regulatory filings where his and other top executives' compensation were declared. His testimony implied that the individual non-compete payments should have been disclosed as salary and/or bonus compensation. When asked by Kate Wheeler about the jury's interest level, Mr. Akin answered that it is a complex case, in part because of the four defendants, and in part because of its arcane financial details. At one point, Csr. Greenspan joked that he was going to cross-examine Eric Sussman, which lightened the mood somewhat. Mr. Akin also reported that it wasn’t just the hair-shirt E-mail that triggered the mistrail motion; others did, too. Judge St. Eve, though, chided Csr. Genson for making mistrial motions too freely as she rejected it.
Reuters has a report on the morning direct examination out as well, under the byline of Andrew Stern and James Kelleher, which starts with: "Conrad Black's business partner of 30 years testified on Wednesday that he knew the scheme he and the former media mogul devised to pay themselves bonuses was wrong." It also describes the relevant E-mails: "In those documents, some of which were presented in court, Black railed against Hollinger International shareholders who had challenged the non-competes and various other spending. He said executives should make 'conciliatory gestures' but insisted such moves were not 'a confession of excess' and that would cut into the 'comfortable enjoyment' of the money the company was making." The report also discloses, before offering more quotes from the E-mails read in court, that Mr. Radler also testified that, in his opinion, Mr. Black intended to run Hollinger Int'l as if it was a private, not a public, company.
Another update has been aired by CBC Newsworld, which also featured correspondent Havard Gould reporting that David Radler is still under direct examination. In his opinion, given on the stand, the non-compete cash not left with Hollinger Int'l was “siphoned off.” Mr. Gould noted that the E-mail read in court is familiar to trial watchers but is new to the jury. (It's quoted in the same Reuters report excerpted in the above paragraph.) The host, David Gray, commented that it “sounds like the golden goose is cooked now.”
The cross will be “brutal” according to Mr. Gould. It'll be the first chance this week to openly challenge Mr. Radler’s testimony, which Csr. Greenspan will be diligent at. Mr. Gould wasn't sure how much time the cross-examination will take, but he opined that Greenspan would like at least a week. (He won’t get it.) He’s been researching documents, and will probably use the same document-wielding stratagem that brought down earlier prosecution witnesses.
The latest update from CTV Newsnet (3 PM ET) reported that the cross-examination is imminent. David Radler has less than an hour, perhaps minutes, of direct examination left; the cross-examination should start as of 3:30 - 4:00 PM ET. The prosecution has prepared Mr. Radler for the cross; he has already admitted on the stand that he lied to the FBI while under direct. Csr. Sussman then asked why, but the question was objected to.
Romina Maurino has a report that covers all of Mr. Radler's testimony made under direct examination today, including: E-mails from the boxes; the birthday party; and, an admission that he "lied to a Hollinger special committee set up to investigate shareholder concerns in 2003 as well as to the federal government a year later... because he 'was trying to rationalize some of the transactions - I was fighting back.'"
----------
Mark Steyn's been liveblogging the trial today; as of 2:45 PM ET, there are five report-based entries in his trial blog. The first (earliest) one describes Judge St. Eve granting a motion made by Csr. Sussman barring Csr. Genson from making any more motions for a mistrial; the second is one sentence long; the third discloses that Csr. Greenspan's I-should-cross-examine-Sussman joke came from Csr. Sussman mixing up table arangements when questioning Mr. Radler about the birthday party, which the latter did not correct; the fourth is entiled "Snippypalooza" and reports on "attorney snippiness;" and the fifth is also sentence long. That sentence starts with "David Radler's performance was a little better than I expected," and ends with...
Media Roundup: Radler Redux
The media reports on the Conrad Black trial from last night and this morning have dwindled a little from yesterday's unusually high number, but are still plentiful:
1. From The Independent, an article that reports, "In a detailed and assured performance on the witness stand, Radler explained how the pair plucked nine and ten-figure numbers out of the air during a series of telephone conversations in 2000, which would be their cut of bogus 'non-compete' clauses written into deals to sell Hollinger International newspapers." He also testified that CanWest did request a non-compete agreement with the sale of newspapers properties to them.
2. An updated Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Thom Weidlich, relates that Mr. Radler testified that CanWest did not specify a dollar amount for a non-compete fee, let alone "'[insist] that Messrs. Black and Radler receive Cdn $26 million in order to justify their exclusion from Canadian newspapers.''' When asked if that statement from the audit committee minutes was true, Mr. Radler replied, "'No, it isn't... I never knew that they requested us to receive any amount of money.''' It ends with an explanation of why the arrival of the 13 boxes brought an early end to the trial.
3. From NBC5.com of Chicago, a report on yesterday's testimony, which ends with this assessment from attorney and trial-watcher Hugh Totten: he "said it is difficult for the jury to see if Radler, Black or any of the other defendants had any intent to break the law, or even knew if they did..."
4. Reuters' report, by Andrew Stern and James Kelleher, is entitled "Star witness Radler details deals at Black trial." [An abridged version has been webbed by The Irish Times.]
5. Diantha Parker also has a report, from Chicago Public Radio.
6. From the Charlottetown Guardian's blog, "Scalloped Potatoes," excerpts from three media reports on Mr. Radler's Monday testimony.
7. The Victoria Times-Colonist has webbed Mary Vallis' latest report, which relates that Mr. Radler testified that he himself had insisted that he would not sign an individual non-compete agreement for the CanWest sale unless he got compensation, and that he settled for a tax-free $19 million because it was equal to his original figure of $25 million, before tax. It also reports that Judge St. Eve instructed the jury to disregard his remark that "'I should have said something,'... referring to the board. 'I regret today that I didn't.'"
8. From the Sydney Morning-Herald, a report also entitled "Star witness details deals at Black trial."
9. CBC News: Morning has aired a report by Havard Gould, which relates that David Radler's direct examination has not ended yet. His testimony yesterday was quite "damning," according to Mr. Gould, who cited as an example, Mr. Radler testifying that Mr. Black instructed him by telephone to divert some of the proceeds from a non-compete fee to Hollinger Inc. There's no word as to how long the direct examination will continue. Eddie Greenspan will lead the cross-examination for Conrad Black. Before the trial shut down, Csr. Greenspan opined that he would be starting this afternoon; now, it's not known.
10. The New York Times has the latest report from Andrew Siklos, author of Shades of Black, who notes, at the end of his article, an inconsistency between Mr. Radler's testimony about hiding the non-compete payments and the audit committee members' earlier admissions that they were disclosed.
11. From CTV News, a report that quotes, as has been customary for Ctv.ca News recently, Robert Kent, the former assistant U.S. attorney who wrote the initial indictment. "He said Radler is the whistleblower who can prove the prosecution's case against Black and the others." It also contains a revised forecast for the start of the cross-examination: "Lead prosecutor Eric Sussman had been expected to wrap up questioning Radler on Tuesday. But..." because of the introduction of the 13 boxes, "[t]he defence might not start its cross-examination until late Wednesday or Thursday, which means Radler might not be done until early next week, [CTV reporter David Akin] said." Near its end, it also contains a quote from Conrad Black himself, which could be seen as a forecast. "Black, when asked about Radler's testimony, said: 'You gotta wait for the cross-examination. I won't comment until the defence has finished.' He then added, 'You may not recognize him.'"
12. BNN's Amanda Lang, as of 8:25 AM ET, also reported that the phone call from Conrad Black was the most "damning" part of the testimony. The remark struck from the record, mentioned above, was the closest that Mr. Radler came to remorse and to a confession, but he hasn't done so explicitly. Today's testimony will probably recap some of yesterday's, and also will discuss Horizon's non-compete agreement in detail. The trial may hear something from those 13 boxes, if there are any E-mails in them that can show collusion.
13. CTV NewsNet also aired a report, which also highlighted that now-notorious telephone call that, according to Mr. Radler, was the hatching of the 'template'. According to David Akin, today's testimony will contain a lot more direct testimony, which may very well include, as Ms. Lang noted, questions about the 13 boxes. He reported that the boxes also contain Mr. Black's tax returns, and one contains items relating to "Barbara Black." He reminded people of the defense's theory that Mr. Black and Mr. Radler acted separately. He also brought up Horizon, and the prosecution's allegation centering on inadequate disclosure of related-party transactions.
14. MSN Money has webbed an FT.com report that starts off with: "Conrad Black's business partner of more than 30 years struck at the heart of the former media baron's defence against fraud charges Tuesday." Like several other reports, it mentions that Mr. Radler also testified that the money was diverted at a time when Hollinger Inc. "was 'in a difficult position financially'." It also reports that "[a]lthough Lord Black sat through the proceedings with a relatively straight face, he could do little to hide his disdain for Mr Radler. As the tanned and relaxed-looking former executive stepped down from the witness stand, Lord Black snarled his lips and shot him an icy glare."
15. Mr. Radler's testimony made the top of the New Jersey Star-Ledger's list of "Business Briefs."
16. From the Northwest Herald, a brief summary of Mr. Radler's testimony so far, entitled "Aide says he consulted the boss on everything."
17. The Boston Globe has a webbing of the latest (abridged) Associated Press report.
18. CBC News has a webbed forecast about the ending of the direct examination of Mr. Radler from the Canadian Press, which ends with this quote from Csr. Greenspan: "Greenspan has said he will undermine Radler's credibility and expose him as a liar who agreed to testify against Black to save his own skin."
19. The latest report from the Guardian's Andrew Clark reconstructs the events at Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. It ends with this recent comment from attendee Taki Theodoracopulos: "In his Spectator column, Taki recently made it clear that he was unimpressed by the evening: 'The party, as far as I was concerned, was a flop. No loose women around. It was full of businessmen, people Conrad did business with, like Leonard Lauder, who was a big advertiser in the Black papers, Donald Trump, the ghastly Richard Perle and others prominent in Wall Street and D.C. If that party wasn't a legitimate business expense, I am Monica Lewinsky.'" Just prior to this quote, it lets slip an item about Mr. Theodoracopulos himself.
20. The latest from Theresa Tedesco, entitled "But will the jurors buy his story?", contains a comment that Mr. Radler's phone-call-from-Black disclosure wasn't as riveting as expected. "In fact, Mr. Radler's fidgeting with government exhibits in the witness box seem to create more scandal than his testimony, as defence lawyers demanded to see if he had crib notes with him. Clearly nervous, Mr. Radler sought to display the huge black binder the prosecutors gave him, and proceeded to smack the microphone, prompting assistant U.S. attorney Eric Sussman to take the binder away from him."
21. The Calgary Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's latest column devoted to the trial, in which he pegs Mr. Radler as a "credible witness" whose testimony may break the pattern so far established by the previous witnesses: "Every prosecution witness so far has tended to be shredded in cross-examination, and failed wretchedly to show anything overtly criminal in the affairs of the Chicago and Toronto Hollinger companies, and their holding company Ravelston, owned by Black and Radler." He does note, however, that Csr. Greenspan is likely to jump on a seeming inconsistency between Mr. Radler's disclosure that the split of the non-compete payments between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. was Conrad Black's idea, and "his earlier testimony that he was virtually the originator, negotiator and brains behind lucrative sales and operations of Hollinger newspapers."
22. Jennifer Wells of the Toronto Star is as lively as ever in her latest report, "Grilling has no sting for Radler."
23. The New York Post's Janet Whitman's report notes that Mr. Radler appears so credible because his appearance plays off against the "dismal performances by New York socialite Marie-Josee Kravis and former Illinois Gov. James 'Big Jim' Thompson."
24. The latest from Rick Westhead, also of the Toronto Star, notes that Mr. Radler's testimony yesterday also implicated Mark Kipnis, and ends with a quote from a "'tongue in cheek' update memo" written by Mr. Radler and sent to Conrad Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson.
25. Chicago Sun-Times' columnist Michael Sneed mentions that the current burst of coverage won't continue for very long: "The trial is expected to last 'til the end of the month."
26. Two commentaries from the Chicago Tribune: The first, by Michael Rosenthal, notes that Mr. Radler's done a fine job so far for the prosecution, but he has some ways to go before winning a conviction for them as his testimony may redound solely upon himself. The second, by Barbara Brotman, exults in the revealed fact that people such as James Thompson and Marie-Josee Kravis also "scan" financial documents too, for this obvious reason: "Financial documents are boring.... [and are] written in that 'don't-read-this' language."
----------
Mark Steyn's early-morning entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog concludes that David Radler not only didn't implicate the defendants, but also didn't even implicate himself: "Radler is supposed to be a criminal, a member of the conspiracy and central to it. But so far he's presented himself as merely a slightly more extreme version of Governor Jim (The Skim) Thompson and the other celeb directors - a pliant boob who was a little more passive and inattentive than perhaps he should have been."
1. From The Independent, an article that reports, "In a detailed and assured performance on the witness stand, Radler explained how the pair plucked nine and ten-figure numbers out of the air during a series of telephone conversations in 2000, which would be their cut of bogus 'non-compete' clauses written into deals to sell Hollinger International newspapers." He also testified that CanWest did request a non-compete agreement with the sale of newspapers properties to them.
2. An updated Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Thom Weidlich, relates that Mr. Radler testified that CanWest did not specify a dollar amount for a non-compete fee, let alone "'[insist] that Messrs. Black and Radler receive Cdn $26 million in order to justify their exclusion from Canadian newspapers.''' When asked if that statement from the audit committee minutes was true, Mr. Radler replied, "'No, it isn't... I never knew that they requested us to receive any amount of money.''' It ends with an explanation of why the arrival of the 13 boxes brought an early end to the trial.
3. From NBC5.com of Chicago, a report on yesterday's testimony, which ends with this assessment from attorney and trial-watcher Hugh Totten: he "said it is difficult for the jury to see if Radler, Black or any of the other defendants had any intent to break the law, or even knew if they did..."
4. Reuters' report, by Andrew Stern and James Kelleher, is entitled "Star witness Radler details deals at Black trial." [An abridged version has been webbed by The Irish Times.]
5. Diantha Parker also has a report, from Chicago Public Radio.
6. From the Charlottetown Guardian's blog, "Scalloped Potatoes," excerpts from three media reports on Mr. Radler's Monday testimony.
7. The Victoria Times-Colonist has webbed Mary Vallis' latest report, which relates that Mr. Radler testified that he himself had insisted that he would not sign an individual non-compete agreement for the CanWest sale unless he got compensation, and that he settled for a tax-free $19 million because it was equal to his original figure of $25 million, before tax. It also reports that Judge St. Eve instructed the jury to disregard his remark that "'I should have said something,'... referring to the board. 'I regret today that I didn't.'"
8. From the Sydney Morning-Herald, a report also entitled "Star witness details deals at Black trial."
9. CBC News: Morning has aired a report by Havard Gould, which relates that David Radler's direct examination has not ended yet. His testimony yesterday was quite "damning," according to Mr. Gould, who cited as an example, Mr. Radler testifying that Mr. Black instructed him by telephone to divert some of the proceeds from a non-compete fee to Hollinger Inc. There's no word as to how long the direct examination will continue. Eddie Greenspan will lead the cross-examination for Conrad Black. Before the trial shut down, Csr. Greenspan opined that he would be starting this afternoon; now, it's not known.
10. The New York Times has the latest report from Andrew Siklos, author of Shades of Black, who notes, at the end of his article, an inconsistency between Mr. Radler's testimony about hiding the non-compete payments and the audit committee members' earlier admissions that they were disclosed.
11. From CTV News, a report that quotes, as has been customary for Ctv.ca News recently, Robert Kent, the former assistant U.S. attorney who wrote the initial indictment. "He said Radler is the whistleblower who can prove the prosecution's case against Black and the others." It also contains a revised forecast for the start of the cross-examination: "Lead prosecutor Eric Sussman had been expected to wrap up questioning Radler on Tuesday. But..." because of the introduction of the 13 boxes, "[t]he defence might not start its cross-examination until late Wednesday or Thursday, which means Radler might not be done until early next week, [CTV reporter David Akin] said." Near its end, it also contains a quote from Conrad Black himself, which could be seen as a forecast. "Black, when asked about Radler's testimony, said: 'You gotta wait for the cross-examination. I won't comment until the defence has finished.' He then added, 'You may not recognize him.'"
12. BNN's Amanda Lang, as of 8:25 AM ET, also reported that the phone call from Conrad Black was the most "damning" part of the testimony. The remark struck from the record, mentioned above, was the closest that Mr. Radler came to remorse and to a confession, but he hasn't done so explicitly. Today's testimony will probably recap some of yesterday's, and also will discuss Horizon's non-compete agreement in detail. The trial may hear something from those 13 boxes, if there are any E-mails in them that can show collusion.
13. CTV NewsNet also aired a report, which also highlighted that now-notorious telephone call that, according to Mr. Radler, was the hatching of the 'template'. According to David Akin, today's testimony will contain a lot more direct testimony, which may very well include, as Ms. Lang noted, questions about the 13 boxes. He reported that the boxes also contain Mr. Black's tax returns, and one contains items relating to "Barbara Black." He reminded people of the defense's theory that Mr. Black and Mr. Radler acted separately. He also brought up Horizon, and the prosecution's allegation centering on inadequate disclosure of related-party transactions.
14. MSN Money has webbed an FT.com report that starts off with: "Conrad Black's business partner of more than 30 years struck at the heart of the former media baron's defence against fraud charges Tuesday." Like several other reports, it mentions that Mr. Radler also testified that the money was diverted at a time when Hollinger Inc. "was 'in a difficult position financially'." It also reports that "[a]lthough Lord Black sat through the proceedings with a relatively straight face, he could do little to hide his disdain for Mr Radler. As the tanned and relaxed-looking former executive stepped down from the witness stand, Lord Black snarled his lips and shot him an icy glare."
15. Mr. Radler's testimony made the top of the New Jersey Star-Ledger's list of "Business Briefs."
16. From the Northwest Herald, a brief summary of Mr. Radler's testimony so far, entitled "Aide says he consulted the boss on everything."
17. The Boston Globe has a webbing of the latest (abridged) Associated Press report.
18. CBC News has a webbed forecast about the ending of the direct examination of Mr. Radler from the Canadian Press, which ends with this quote from Csr. Greenspan: "Greenspan has said he will undermine Radler's credibility and expose him as a liar who agreed to testify against Black to save his own skin."
19. The latest report from the Guardian's Andrew Clark reconstructs the events at Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. It ends with this recent comment from attendee Taki Theodoracopulos: "In his Spectator column, Taki recently made it clear that he was unimpressed by the evening: 'The party, as far as I was concerned, was a flop. No loose women around. It was full of businessmen, people Conrad did business with, like Leonard Lauder, who was a big advertiser in the Black papers, Donald Trump, the ghastly Richard Perle and others prominent in Wall Street and D.C. If that party wasn't a legitimate business expense, I am Monica Lewinsky.'" Just prior to this quote, it lets slip an item about Mr. Theodoracopulos himself.
20. The latest from Theresa Tedesco, entitled "But will the jurors buy his story?", contains a comment that Mr. Radler's phone-call-from-Black disclosure wasn't as riveting as expected. "In fact, Mr. Radler's fidgeting with government exhibits in the witness box seem to create more scandal than his testimony, as defence lawyers demanded to see if he had crib notes with him. Clearly nervous, Mr. Radler sought to display the huge black binder the prosecutors gave him, and proceeded to smack the microphone, prompting assistant U.S. attorney Eric Sussman to take the binder away from him."
21. The Calgary Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's latest column devoted to the trial, in which he pegs Mr. Radler as a "credible witness" whose testimony may break the pattern so far established by the previous witnesses: "Every prosecution witness so far has tended to be shredded in cross-examination, and failed wretchedly to show anything overtly criminal in the affairs of the Chicago and Toronto Hollinger companies, and their holding company Ravelston, owned by Black and Radler." He does note, however, that Csr. Greenspan is likely to jump on a seeming inconsistency between Mr. Radler's disclosure that the split of the non-compete payments between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. was Conrad Black's idea, and "his earlier testimony that he was virtually the originator, negotiator and brains behind lucrative sales and operations of Hollinger newspapers."
22. Jennifer Wells of the Toronto Star is as lively as ever in her latest report, "Grilling has no sting for Radler."
23. The New York Post's Janet Whitman's report notes that Mr. Radler appears so credible because his appearance plays off against the "dismal performances by New York socialite Marie-Josee Kravis and former Illinois Gov. James 'Big Jim' Thompson."
24. The latest from Rick Westhead, also of the Toronto Star, notes that Mr. Radler's testimony yesterday also implicated Mark Kipnis, and ends with a quote from a "'tongue in cheek' update memo" written by Mr. Radler and sent to Conrad Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson.
25. Chicago Sun-Times' columnist Michael Sneed mentions that the current burst of coverage won't continue for very long: "The trial is expected to last 'til the end of the month."
26. Two commentaries from the Chicago Tribune: The first, by Michael Rosenthal, notes that Mr. Radler's done a fine job so far for the prosecution, but he has some ways to go before winning a conviction for them as his testimony may redound solely upon himself. The second, by Barbara Brotman, exults in the revealed fact that people such as James Thompson and Marie-Josee Kravis also "scan" financial documents too, for this obvious reason: "Financial documents are boring.... [and are] written in that 'don't-read-this' language."
----------
Mark Steyn's early-morning entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog concludes that David Radler not only didn't implicate the defendants, but also didn't even implicate himself: "Radler is supposed to be a criminal, a member of the conspiracy and central to it. But so far he's presented himself as merely a slightly more extreme version of Governor Jim (The Skim) Thompson and the other celeb directors - a pliant boob who was a little more passive and inattentive than perhaps he should have been."
CBC night news, featuring David Radler's second day
For the second day in a row, Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination was the top story in the CBC's The National newscast. Once again, correspondent Neil Macdonald reported on it. He started off with part of a quote from Conrad Black regarding greed. (The full quote is, "Greed has been severely underestimated and denigrated – unfairly so, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with avarice as a motive, as long as it doesn't lead to dishonest or anti-social conduct." Found in this collection of quotes from him.) The retrospective irony in that quote is that Mr. Black spent the day listening to David Radler describing his greed. Mr. Radler testified that Mr. Black had called and said that parent company deserved some of the proceeds from the non-compete agreement, and that Mr. Radler had acceded to it; he had followed orders, he testified today. Later, he also testified that, in Mr. Macdonald's words, the “money grabs got bolder”, even taking place when buyers didn’t request a non-compete agreement. There were non-compete payments, also partially diverted, even for Horizon Publishing and Bradford, which both men partially owned. Mr. Radler also testified that he hasn't brought these payments, and the 'template' partial-divertment plan, to the attention of the Hollinger International audit committee because the committee wouldn’t have agreed perfunctorily to them; instead, they would have, in Mr. Radler's words, been “’very questioning.’”
There is also a webbed CBC report, by CBC News staff, that have been posted this evening. Although it doesn't quote Mr. Macdonald, it covers many of the day's events that he himself covered. It also has a link to Mr. Macdonald's report, broadbanded.
----------
This night, the last word goes to Douglas Bell, whose entry today in the Toronto Life Conrad Black Trial blog is called "Dazed and Confused." It's already drawn four comments, thanks in large part to a quote from Barbara Amiel Black's latest Maclean's column at its end.
Speaking of the TL blog: despite a journalists' consensus that this past day was the best day yet for the prosecution, the poll on its entry-roll page, as of about 10:40-or-so PM, had a result that was almost evenly divided between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty." It asks for votes "[b]ased on today's evidence." Evidently, that consensus isn't universal.
There is also a webbed CBC report, by CBC News staff, that have been posted this evening. Although it doesn't quote Mr. Macdonald, it covers many of the day's events that he himself covered. It also has a link to Mr. Macdonald's report, broadbanded.
----------
This night, the last word goes to Douglas Bell, whose entry today in the Toronto Life Conrad Black Trial blog is called "Dazed and Confused." It's already drawn four comments, thanks in large part to a quote from Barbara Amiel Black's latest Maclean's column at its end.
Speaking of the TL blog: despite a journalists' consensus that this past day was the best day yet for the prosecution, the poll on its entry-roll page, as of about 10:40-or-so PM, had a result that was almost evenly divided between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty." It asks for votes "[b]ased on today's evidence." Evidently, that consensus isn't universal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)