Media Roundup: Fractured

The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial have dwindled in number, but what's been posted shows a lot more variety than the usual coverage exhibits:

1. CBC News has webbed the latest installment of Susan Berger's "From The Inside" column, a wrapup of the weekly events at the trial.

2. The Globe and Mail has webbed an article, without byline, entitled "Trump could testify Monday." It notes that closing arguments have been scheduled for June 18, as a result of a meeting between Judge St. Eve and the lawyers yesterday afternoon. The witness list for the Conrad Black defense team was submitted, but it hasn't been released to the media.

3. An article by Theresa Tedesco of the National Post reveals that Canadian tax authorities are considering laying charges against Mr. Black, David Radler and "and two former Hollinger International Inc. executives [Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee] for possible tax evasion." The reason for this charge being contemplated at this late date is: "Canada" was originally listed as a "victim" in the indictment, based upon what David Radler said as part of his plea-bargain agreement, but "the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois... dropped the allegation last October because there could be 'double jeopardy concerns should Canadian authorities pursue criminal charges.'" It also notes that the "RCMP had begun a preliminary probe but decided not to pursue a formal investigation."

4. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed a special by Terry Cooke, entitled "My conversation with Conrad." Mr. Cooke went down to Chicago to watch the Tuesday installment of the trial, and had a brief talk with Mr. Black, during which he got his copy of The Invincible Quest: the Life of Richard Milhous Nixon signed. Mr. Cooke's impression of the course of the trial itself: "Back in the courtroom, the day's evidence by the prosecution was equal parts contrived drama and a stoking of the fires of upper class envy.... the defence team's cross examination demolished the prosecution's presentation of events, leaving court watchers wondering how the case ever made it to trial in the first place." The article ends, though, with an admonishment from an old Chicago lawyer about snap judgements of the outcome of Chicago criminal trials.

5. The Chicago Tribune's "Midwest Briefs" contains a one-paragraph item entitled "Ex-Hollinger exec requests mistrial."It reviews the attempt by Mark Kipnis to have one declared "because prosecutors misled jurors about the existence of evidence against him."

6. From the Calgary Sun, a brief CP item, also about Mr. Kipnis' motion.

7. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star has written a report that details one of the prosecution's motions: to add a so-called "'ostrich motion'" to Judge St. Eve's instructions to the jury. This motion is a 'shoulda-known' one; it was originally used for drug cases, but has metastatized into an acceptable instruction for corporate-fraud cases at the criminal level. (Like the 'admissible-hearsay' provision for RICO cases, it's one of the peculiarities of American criminal law nowadays.)

8. An analysis piece by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, argues, with supporting conclusions from legal experts Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka, that the prosecution's case hinges solely upon the credibility of David Radler. It mentions only one other prosecution witness whose testimony corroborated Mr. Radler's: Michael Reed, former CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. The article ends with a note that Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the defense motions, for dismissals, acquittals, and a mistrial, sometime next week.

----------

A two-fer about the dark side of American justice, both written by Americans and both unrelated to the Conrad Black trial itself:

1. From Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, an exposure of the dark side of Rudy Giuliani, done in typical Rolling Stone style. (Bad language, bad side, badassing, etc.) According to the article, Mr. Giuliani has the typical signs of a 'Man on Horseback': a public image as a secular saint/public hero combined with a normal, if not somewhat checkered, record of conduct; a conscience with a not-unusual accumulation of sins; and, when combined with said image, a resultant streak of latent fanaticism. There are a few sympathetic words for Ron Paul, solely because of his underdog status in the '08 Republican primary.

2. "Slouching Toward a Police State" by Matthew Hart, an article containing two vignettes about two nobodies' brushes with aggressive law enforcement. Despite the riff-raffish character of the two alleged victims, both of whom the author knows personally, Mr. Hart manages to be both clean-worded and more graphic than Mr. Tabbai.

(Disclosure/disguised plug: Both of these articles were linked to from LewRockwell.com, which I've written more than a few articles for. The latter is an LRC original.)


To get back to the trial, as well as to a less exotic worldview, Mark Steyn's latest post in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog has a sketch, as well as a sympathetic critique, of the defense strategy so far. An interesting subtext of it is Mr. Steyn's juxtaposing of the seriousness which Conrad Black's defense team is treating the obstruction-of-justice charge, and the relative flimsiness of the evidence for it. (At the time when Mr. Black removed the boxes, the SEC had only sent an advisory letter. According to the testimony under direct examination given by Joan Maida, all relevant documents in those boxes had been copied for the SEC before being packed up. I note parenthetically that the prosecution has resorted to a gremlin-in-the-closed-fridge argument to justify that particular charge.) For Canadians, of which I am one, the climactic paragraph is this one:

[Mr. Black had] already given 100,000 pages of documents to the SEC, including all the ones he removed in the heist. And he didn’t know of their latest demand, as it only arrived three days after he took the boxes. So any suggestion of criminal behaviour rests mainly on an Ontario court order on a matter entirely unrelated to the SEC. As far as I know, Ontario is not yet under the jurisdiction of the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, so even if Black breached a Canadian court order that’s not a matter for the US government to enforce.

Media Roundup: Assistance of the Assistant

Another week of testimony in the Conrad Black trial is over; this week ended with a bit of fireworks, when Mr. Black's personal assistant testified about her role in moving the 13 boxes that form the heart of the obstruction-of-justice charge. The media reports, webbed overnight and today, show it:

1. CBC News has a report that sums up the testimony of Joan Maida, Mr. Black's Toronto assistant, and mentions the testimony of two earlier witnesses. She testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes; that she knew she had needed permission to remove them, but not from whom; and, that she knew nothing about any SEC probe at the time she tried to take the boxes away for Mr. Black.

2. Also from CBC News, a brief summary of her testimony. It also notes that the trial will resume Monday with Kenneth Whyte still on the stand.

3. The Vancouver Province has an abridged Bloomberg report on her testimony. It ends with her reply, after being asked by Jeffrey Cramer where she thought the boxes were going: "'I didn't think about it.'"

4. Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, concentrates on Ms. Maida's testimony, but summarizes that of the witness after her, Kenneth Whyte. It relates that "Ms. Maida said [under direct examination that] Lord Black never asked about the boxes' contents or looked inside them."

5. The Daily Herald has an abridged version of the Bloomberg report on Ms. Maida's testimony.

6. Janet Whitman has written a New York Post exclusive, entitled "Trump Set To Take The Stand On Black's Behalf." From its start, right after the opener: "The Post has learned that New York real estate mogul Donald Trump is jetting into Chicago on Monday to take the witness stand on behalf of Conrad Black, who's on trial for allegedly looting millions from investors in his company Hollinger International." It notes that Mr. Tump's agreement to do so is "a bit of a surprise" because "his name came up and embarrassed Black in testimony from a government witness." (I puckishly suggest that this spin on Mr. Healy's testimony would all-but-guarantee that The Donald would show up, after being re-asked to.)

7. The Chicago Sun-Times has a report that focuses on one moment of Ms. Maida's testimony: the pointed finger. When shown a picture of Conrad Black pointing at the camera, she at first suggested that he was pointing at her. (She was with him at the time.) It also relates, "At one point, she said she did not know that a security camera had been recently installed at the back door of Hollinger Inc. in Toronto, which captured Black actually hauling out the documents. Then she said she knew the camera was there."

8. Michael Sneed, columnist for the Sun-Times, discloses in the "Top Tip" part of her latest column that Conrad Black has gotten an invite to a party, whose theme is a "75th Anniversary Salute to FDR." He's one of 6,000 on the invite list.

9. The Guardian report on Ms. Maida's testimony is entitled "'Black did not know what was in boxes.'"

10. A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the First Post, assesses the performance of the defense witnesses so far as "decidedly mixed." When discussing Ms. Maida's testimony, it says "under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer, Ms Maida contradicted herself several times and became confused about details." She is the same witness who, the report states earlier, "may have done him more harm than good."

11. The same Mr. Waldie has put the same theme in a report webbed by the Globe and Mail. It described the questioning of her by cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer as "tough."

12. A third from Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, reports on a motion filed by all four defendants to get the entire case dismissed. They're based on the "'federal rule of criminal procedure 29 (a),' are common and they generally come after prosecutors have rested their case. Defendants can argue before the judge overseeing the trial that the government's case is so weak the charges should be dropped without the jury even deliberating." (It's the same motion mentioned by Mr. McClern, linked to below.) The motions for Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee have already been filed as of last night.

13. Another report from CBC News has a check-up on Ms. Whitman's scoop about Donald Trump testifying on Monday - specifically, with regard to whether or not Mr. Trump was served with a subpoena: "A lawyer for one of the defendants in the case refused to confirm the Post story but suggested journalists would find Monday's events in court interesting. 'I would be there early,' the lawyer told CBC News." [A brief NewsMax report carries the item straight.]

14. Mr. Waldie appeared on a BNN interview with host Amanda Lang, aired at about 2:45 PM ET. He reported that there was a brief hearing this morning regarding jury instructions and “other motions.” Also, the witness list for the defense was handed over and discussed. Donald Trump wasn’t on it, but he was on the earlier list of potential witnesses. His name has also entered into the trial thanks to the prosecution's case - specifically the annual meeting held in 2003, and Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. The defense case, for all four defendants, will be relatively short. This disparity in case length is not atypical, since the onus is on the prosecution. Experts in relevant fields are likely to appear. It's not likely that any famous people (with the possible exception of Mr. Trump) will be called. There will also be a couple of (unnamed) character witnesses. Ms. Lang asked if either or both of Izzy Aspers's CanWest-ensconced sons will show up, and Mr. Waldie replied that it was “not likely.”

15. Some of those other motions were brought up in a Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris. Ron Safer has filed a written request for a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutors misleading the jurors "about the existence of evidence against him." The fact zeroed in on was the $150,000 bonus, which David Radler himself had testified, while under cross-examination, was unrelated to any alleged illegal activity. "'The government emphatically declared that Mr. Kipnis committed these crimes in order to receive $150,000 in bonus payments. Unfortunately these are statements the government knew couldn't be proven at trial,' defense lawyer Ronald Safer wrote." Counsel for Jack Boultbee is seeking dismissal of two of the charges against him. Also, "[a]ttorneys for Black and Atkinson told St. Eve they too will seek dismissal of charges[, which are unspecified in the report,] against them." Also disclosed is a no-comment from Randall Samborn, a spokesperson for Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about Csr. Safer's motion. (Unlike the several other mistrial motions, Judge St. Eve did not render a swift decision on Mr. Kipnis'.)

16. Romina Maurino has picked up on the contents of the above Bloomberg report in one of her own, webbed by 680 News, that quotes more extensively from Csr. Safer's motion to dismiss. An excerpt: "In a lengthy motion filed Friday, Kipnis' lawyers argued that he is 'entitled to a judgement of acquittal because no reasonable juror could conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Mark acted with the intent to commit mail and wire fraud or that he wilfully assisted in the filing of false tax forms.'" [An update, webbed by the Toronto Star, includes some analysis from Hugh Totten, who noted that such motions are hardly ever granted, and are done mainly to prepare for a possible appeal. He did, though, note that Csr. Safer's motion is "far more extensive than ones typically filed".]

----------

From the "In-House Counsel" section of Law.com, an article describes Mark Kipnis' defense strategy as passing the buck: "How does a general counsel stay out of jail if he's been accused of helping company executives line their pockets with millions of shareholder dollars? If he's Mark Kipnis, the former legal chief at Hollinger International Inc., he pleads lack of experience and shifts the blame to the company's outside counsel. In a few weeks Kipnis will find out whether this defense strategy worked."

Matthew McClern has posted his assessment of the prosecution's case in his latest entry for the Canadian Business Black trial blog: "The prosecution ended its case against former Hollinger International executives Conrad Black, John Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis on Wednesday afternoon with both a bang and a whimper." The "bang" was the 13 boxes; the "whimper" was the dropping of the money-laundering charge. He also reports: "The prosecution’s case will now undergo something of an acid test.... [According to a later report, not all of the defendants are asking for all charges against them to be dropped. Mr. McClern write this entry yesterday.] The court must now consider whether the government has shown sufficient cause for the remaining counts (17 in total) to be put before the jury for consideration."

Also, Mark Steyn concedes that the defense didn't get off to the best start in an early-morning entry for his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. He also mentions that "[t]he day climaxed with some reference to a memo by The National Post’s marketing hottie Alex Panousis, at which point the lawyers went into a huddle and the judge recessed for the week." (Yes, Alex is a she.)

And finally, Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has penned an interesting think-piece about disclosure, one well worth spending some time thinking over. His own report on reports discusses a recent Wall Street Journal Law Blog entry, which I missed.

CBC "National" Report on the Start of the Defense

On the CBC's nightly news show The National, correspondent Neil Macdonald relayed highlights of the defense's opening, and also supplied some perspective. Joan Maida testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes up, and that Conrad Black had given her no direction to do so. She also testified that she showed him where the boxes were when he arrived, and that she and he had never discussed them since. Mr. Macdonald noted that Mr. Black’s former journalist employees are quite loyal to him still, including later defense witness Kenneth Whyte. Maclean’s has even (in Mr. Macdonald’s estimation, unprecedentedly) allowed Barbara Black to write about her husband's trial in her column.

First Defense Witnesses

The Globe and Mail has a report from Paul Waldie that starts off with the name of the first defense witness: Jennifer Owens. She "testified about the contents in 13 boxes that Lord Black took from his office in Toronto in May, 2005.... Ms. Owens testified that many of the documents in the boxes had already been turned over to the SEC. She also said that the commission had not formally served its request for documents when Lord Black removed the boxes." Under cross-examination, she "acknowledged that she examined the boxes after Lord Black returned them for verification. She said she made copies of some of the documents because they may not have been turned over to the commission before." Mr. Waldie's report also notes that Joan Maida and Kenneth Whyte are expected to testify today.

Mr. Waldie was also interviewed by BNN, aired at 2:05 PM ET. He reported that the defense started its case this morning, and Conrad Black's counsels hit hard on the charge relating to the boxes (the obstruction of justice charge.) Mr. Black's personal assistant Joan Maida has now testified, that she packed 5 boxes into the car and took them out because she planned to set up a home office; she also said that the contents of the boxes were personal. Under cross-examination, though, her memory seemed to vanish, she seemed to "play games" with cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer, and she did admit that she knew she shouldn’t have removed anything covered by the court order.

The prosecution had dropped the money-laundering charge because it was directly linked to the CanWest non-compete payment to Mr. Black, which the prosecution has conceded was legitimate. The others are related to Mr. Black getting non-compete payments for others. The next witness for the defense is Kenneth Whyte. It's not certain what he’ll testify about, but it probably will be about the separation of responsibilities between Conrad Black and David Radler.

A report by Bloomberg's Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris starts off with: "Two Conrad Black lawyers testified testified that they didn't tell the former newspaper publisher about a pending U.S. government request for documents before he removed the papers from his Toronto office two years ago." One of them was Ms. Owens; the other was Alex Bourelly. Both were examined by Marc Martin, one of Conrad Black's counsels. Ms. Owens also testified that she received an advisory letter from the SEC on May 20 1995, and a formal request letter on May 23. The report also notes that, under cross-examination, Joan Maida admitted that she hoped Conrad Black would be acquitted.

[The same report has been extensively updated. The update includes excerpts from the cross-examination of Ms. Maida by Jeffrey Cramer. "Under [that] cross-examination, Maida said she couldn't remember if she then called Black or if he called her. She described his tone upon hearing the boxes could not be removed as 'irritated.''... 'Where did you think the boxes were going,' Cramer asked.

"'I didn't think about it.'' Maida replied.

"'Reminding Maida of her earlier testimony that she was going to set up a home office, Cramer asked the secretary if she ever asked Black to deliver the cartons there.

"'No,'' Maida said."

[A second update (same report) has some testimony from Kenneth Whyte, who was the editor of the National Post at its inception. He testified that Conrad Black was in control of the paper, and that he had hardly seen David Radler. "Whyte said Black was his boss and he saw him as the owner of the National Post, an assertion challenged by prosecutor Julie Ruder who presented documents that showed the newspaper was owned by Hollinger International.

"'I am an editor. I was not a businessman,' Whyte responded. 'I worked for Conrad Black, not Hollinger International.'"]

Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, is entitled "Conrad Black's secretary comes to his defense." It discloses that her I-don't-know answers, reported on by Mr. Waldie, were elicited under direct examination. She also "described how she was packing up their offices at Hollinger Inc.,... Maida said she was packing up boxes that day, putting in 'personal pictures, kids' stuff,' as well as files involving Black's personal properties in Manhattan, Florida and London." The only question under cross-examination mentioned in this report was the one noted in the above paragraph.

A shorter report, webbed by the The Irish Times, recaps the prosecution's obstruction-of-justice case before summarizing Ms. Maida's testimony. An even briefer Associated Press report has been webbed by WQAD.com; it's entitled "Testimony gets testy as Conrad Black defense is launched."

The longer AP report carries the same title; it's been webbed by 940 News. Here's the kernel, appearing early on in the article: "Under cross examination, the 59-year-old Canadian secretary's stint on the witness stand swiftly turned into a testy cat-and-mouse game with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Cramer, who was openly skeptical about her story.... She repeatedly could not remember what Black said on May 20, 2005, when security cameras captured him carrying the boxes to a waiting car." There are more exchanges of this sort in the article itself, which not-very-surprisingly notes that "Maida, who still is employed by Black, refused to meet with prosecutors, even after the RCMP called her Toronto home and asked for her co-operation."

A less explicit report has been written by David Litterick, and webbed by the Telegraph. It starts off with: "Conrad Black’s personal assistant knew the boxes the peer removed from Hollinger’s office in Toronto should not have been taken out of the building, the jury in his fraud trial heard today." It also discloses that "Ms Maida also admitted she knew there was a criminal investigation going on and said that investigators from Ernst & Young were in the office copying documents at around the time she tried to remove the boxes." [An earlier report by Mr. Litterick has a picture of Mr. Black, his chauffeur looking up at the security camera, and Ms. Maida herself, with back to cam. The later report has the same shot, zoomed in.]

BBC News has provided a brief sumary of Ms. Maida's testimony, with the more fireworky moments politely excised.

They're not to the same degree in a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the Montreal Gazette. It describes Ms. Maida as appearing "agitated and defensive" while on the witness stand. It also says that she "appeared flustered" during her cross-examination. It also recounts the earlier testimony of the two lawyer witnesses, and has an in-depth wrap-up of Mr. Whyte's testimony. "He gave the jury a detailed account of his journalistic career and described the launch of the National Post, speaking of telephone calls from Black that came as late as 1 a.m." While being cross-examined, he was asked by Julie Ruder, "'Who was paying you, Whyte?'" He answered, "'For all intents and purposes, Black,... I considered myself to work for him and his companies.' Whyte went on to say that since Lord Black was the CEO of the companies, it was to Black that he ultimately reported.... 'We were part of the Hollinger empire, but when we needed approval for a project we went to Hollinger Inc.,' Whyte said." He also testified that he had never signed a non-compete agreement with any Hollinger company while employed there, even though he had been editor-in-chief of both Saturday Night [now defunct] and the National Post.

----------

With regard to Ms. Owens' testimony, Mark Steyn has gone a little stronger. He writes: "Ms Owens went through every document and testified that, at the time Black allegedly 'obstructed justice' by removing the boxes, all the bank statements, contracts and 'musing' memos were already in the possession of the SEC." (He doesn't rise to the temptation of joking about the SEC needing the documents organized for them - but he did beat Bloomberg at the reporting of this item.)

His more recent posts today, with this entry being the most recent as of the evening of May 31, casts Csr. Cramer as less than a gentleman, and Ms. Maida as a feisty counterattacker.

Also, Douglas Bell adds a disffected tone for his latest entry in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. Excerpt: "First, though, we’ll get a string of his Lordship’s flunkies, including... Black’s flack-in-chief Ken Whyte, and somebody who claims to be an expert in non-compete agreements. Each will do his or her rendition of 'I’m shocked and appalled at even the suggestion of impropriety,'..." There's more in the entry itself.

Media Roundup: Wrapping It Up (Prosecution Exit With Charge Dropped)

The media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, on the Conrad Black trial are unusually plentiful - unusually but unsurprisingly, given the dropped charge:

1. From the New York Times, an abridged AP report on yesterday's news, which not only includes the dropped money-laundering charge, but also a recap of yesterday's testimony. An briefer abridgement of the same report is available from the Winnipeg Sun.

2. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune has a one-paragraph summary, entitled "Prosecution rests in Black's fraud trial," as item #4 in its business-briefs wrapup.

3. The Dublin Independent has webbed the report on yesterday's trial events by James Bone of the Times. It starts off by noting that the chances of Conrad Black testifying are close to zero.

4. From Angus Reid, the results of a poll, of Canadians, on the trial. Four questions and the answers are highlighted on the summary page: "Conrad Black is being unfairly targeted by U.S. prosecutors because he is not American - 10% [agree]"; "Conrad Black will get a fair trial in the United States - 42% [agree]"; "The U.S. justice system has reasonably punished the corporate executives who have broken the law in recent years - 37% [agree]"; "I would feel sorry for Conrad Black if he is convicted - 9% [agree]." The other responses, and an interpretation, are on the summary page itself.

5. A report by the Chicago Tribune's Ameet Sachdev and Susan Chandler is entitled: "Did prosecutors do enough?" It has the assessments of two trial experts, Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka, on these pivotal parts of the prosecution's case: David Radler's testimony, Paul Healy's, and James Thompson's. According to the "Observers' Take," former Gov. Thompson was actually the worst witness, for the prosecution, of the three.

6. The Vancouver Sun has webbed a CP summary that also includes the names of the two witnesses expected to be called by Conrad Black's defense team, Joan Maida and Kenneth Whyte.

7. Peter Worthington interprets the above-mentioned Angus Reid poll in his latest column, webbed by the Toronto Sun, which begins with the acknowledgement that "Angus Reid pollsters have discovered that the media are more interested than the public in the Conrad Black trial in Chicago." He points to an ostensible oddity in the poll's findings: "while people in the 18-34 age group pay the least attention to the trial (82%), this group is also the least sure, or is uncertain, about whether he can get a fair trial (60%). " He ends his latest by acknowledging that he was too critical of the jury right after the trial started.

8. The Vancouver Sun has also webbed a report by Mary Vallis, which begins with the "abruptly" dropped charge. "Edward Genson, a defence attorney representing Black, quipped, 'Okay, I guess I can go,' as the charge was dropped. The 16-member jury was not present and attorneys in the case were discussing issues related to the trial, including upcoming evidence." Also in her report is the mention that the prosecution ended its case with copies of Mr. Black's spending receipts, and a copy of an Jan. 17, 2003 E-mail to Peter Atkinson in which he referred "to a public company as a 'vehicle for extracting money, as in the non-competes.'" It ends with a note that a B.C. lawyer, who Eddie Greenspan had intended to call as an expert witness, "could... end up testifying about his relationship with Radler at the criminal trial."

9. The Vancouver Province has a report that focuses in on that expert witness, B.C. lawyer Kevin Woodall, because "Conrad Black's defence team wants [him] to testify at Black's fraud trial in Chicago on the issue of whether David Radler is a truthful witness." One of Mr. Black's counsels has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to declare solicitor-client privilege between Mr. Radler and Csr. Woodall to be waived, on the grounds that Mr. Radler has admitted, in the present trial, to lying on the stand in a 2002 wrongful-dismissal case heard in B.C., and has testified that Csr. Woodall had advised him to say what he said on the stand back in '02. The motion has been challenged by Hollinger International counsel Dan Burnett, on the grounds that Hollinger International has the right to waive privilege, not Mr. Radler himself, as the company represented by Mr. Radler, the "now-defunct Lower Mainland Publishing," was owned by Hollinger Int'l. Csr. Burnett "also said Woodall will sign an affidavit to say Radler wasn't his client in the 2002 trial." The report ends by noting that the hearing will resume Monday.

10. Also from the Province, a mixture of both the Reuters and Bloomberg reports on yesterday's part of the trial. Csr. Skurka is quoted therein as saying, "'The case is going very well for the defence before they've even called the first witness,' Steven Skurka, a criminal-defence lawyer who is attending the trial to write for his blog, www.thecrimesheet.com... [He also] said Radler was the only witness 'who draws Conrad Black into this fraudulent non-compete scheme.'"

11. The Globe and Mail has webbed a report by Paul Waldie, which notes that the now-dropped money-laundering charge "was among the most serious Lord Black faced and it had been added to the indictment with great fanfare by prosecutors, along with racketeering, in December of 2005... When Lord Black and the others were charged, prosecutors alleged all of the non-competition payments should have gone to Hollinger. Shortly after the trial began, prosecutors conceded that the payments to Lord Black and Mr. Radler were legal but they said Lord Black still faced charges for arranging non-competes for defendants Peter Atkinson and John Boultbee.

"The money-laundering charge, which relates to the wiring of Lord Black's non-compete funds, only applied to Lord Black and it related directly to the CanWest deal." It also notes, near the end, that the pivotal prosecution witnesses have had their credibility battered during cross-examination.

12. Another report by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, starts off with the same item webbed by the Province: "During a hearing yesterday without the jury, Edward Greenspan, one of Lord Black's lawyers, said he wanted to introduce information from a Canadian lawyer to challenge statements Mr. Radler made while testifying." It discloses, though, that Judge St. Eve agreed with lead prosecutor Eric Sussman's objection that attorney-client privilege would make such testimony inadmissible. She also "added that Mr. Greenspan would have to find evidence that Mr. Radler knew about the Canadian sentencing rules before he signed his plea agreement or before he testified. She said she would revisit the issue if Mr. Greenspan uncovered more information."

13. Channel 4 News in the U.K. has a brief summary of the dropped charge.

14. Janet Whitman of the New York Post also focuses on the dropped money-laundering charge in her latest report. It notes that Judge St. Eve agreed "immediately" to the dropping of the charge, but it also contains this quote about the rest of them: "Prosecutors have 'more than enough [other] charges to accomplish their goal if the jury buys [their] basic story that the defendants, with Black in the lead, conspired to divert . . . non-compete payments that properly belonged to Hollinger International,' said Mark Zauderer, a trial lawyer in New York specializing in white-collar crime cases."

15. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead's report recaps the entire case so far, after noting that, "[i]n a somewhat surprising twist after 11 weeks of prosecution witnesses, defence lawyers said yesterday that they would take just a week or two to present their evidence before the jury could begin deliberations."

16. A much longer and more detailed report by Ms. Vallis has been webbed by the National Post. It notes on the top of page 2 that, even if he's acquitted of all charges that remain, Mr. Black's legal troubles are not yet over: the obstruction-of-justice "charge is also directly relevant to investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and a grand jury, as well as the federal court proceedings in Chicago." The entire case so far is summed up from the second half of page 2 to the final (fourth) page.

17. The Daily Mail's report notes that Conrad Black will definitely not testify in his own defense. Nor will Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee.

18. The Guardian's latest report was not written by the regular reporter on the beat, Andrew Clark, but by Mark Sweney. It's entitled "Black prosecutors drop a charge."

19. BBC News is back on the beat, with a report entitled "Lord Black prosecutors rest case." It touches upon all the major developments in yesterday's part of the trial.

----------

In the opening of the Mar. 31st entry in "The Crime Sheet," Csr. Skurka describes the dropped charge as "a hollow victory... [It] was withdrawn without a whisper of a reason today from the attorneys for the US government. The silence was out of character with the robust nature of the prosecution. Their case was ending with a whimper rather than a bang...." He sees far greater significance in the eight days allotted to the entire slate of defense witnesses.

The Prosecution Is Finished Its Case

According to a BNN news flash, the prosecution has just rested its case. It didn't have the news about the prosecution dropping the money-laundering charge against Conrad Black, found here. (Paul Waldie, who wasn't interviewed on the network early this afternoon, got the scoop.)

An updated Reuters report, by Andrew Stern, fills in some details in its opening: "Prosecutors wrapped up their case in Conrad Black's criminal fraud trial on Wednesday after 11 weeks of testimony... Black did get a bit of good news as the government rested its case when prosecutors, without explanation, dropped a single count of money laundering against him." It doesn't say whether or not an FBI agent, which the prosecution said they planned to call to the stand, was actually called.

Two summary reports have been issued with both of the above items included: a Bloomberg report webbed by the Chicago Tribune, and an Associated Press report webbed by WQAD.com. Neither of them carry an explanation for the dropped charge. The former notes that the prosecution introduced documents from the 13 boxes today; Mr. Black temprarily taking those boxes away from Hollinger Inc.'s head office at 10 Toronto St. is the basis for the obstruction-of-justice charge. The Toronto Star's webbing of the AP report mentions also that "Randall Samborn, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office, said he would have no comment" about the dropping of the charge. So does the Forbes webbing, which has an earlier AP trial report appended below the new item. Those two reports have been blended into a single one in the Canadian Business webbing.

Another blended report, by Mary Vallis and webbed by the Vancouver Sun, starts off with an identification of what the dropped charge was about: "The charge had alleged the $2.15 million US cash payment for an apartment was raised from frauds alleged in other charges." It doesn't mention the prosecution has rested, only that the resting was imminent.

Stephen Foley's, webbed by The Independent, is more comprehensive. It begins with a mention of the dropped charge, and notes that the chances of Conrad Black testifying on the stand are now slim. The bulk of it reviews the prosecution's case and ends with a summary of the remaining allegations. Mr. Foley also reports that opinion on the trial outcome is far from unanimous, with some observers believing that the evidence of Mr. Black's lavish lifestyle will convince the jury to convict on at least some of the charges remaining.

An updated report by Mike Robinson, webbed by 680 News, contains in its beginning and end some information on the trial's progress while the jury was absent. At its end, it discusses a coming defense motion to dismiss other charges. Mr. Black's lawyer for the obstruction-of-justice matter, Marc Martin, had argued that the obstruction-of-justice charge should be dropped, as "there was no proof of wrongdoing," no knowledge of intent, and "no harm...done because Black eventually returned the boxes intact." Eric Sussman, on the other hand, "argued that the obstruction of justice was blatant and that Black had defied not only a Canadian court order but an American court and a federal grand jury before finally returning the boxes." He also argued that there's no way of knowing if Mr. Black had squirreled away something from those boxes. "St. Eve gave both sides until June 5 to file briefs expanding on their arguments. Martin said he would ask her to drop other counts, as well."

As far as the planned defense is concerned, James Bone of the Times of London has a sketch of it. According to his report, Edward Genson plans to call only two defense witnesses, Joan Maida and Kenneth Whyte. Later in the report, expense receipts that were introduced into evidence are itemized; according to the report, the Fendi bill got introduced into evidence ($101,550 spent.)

----------

Mark Steyn's latest entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog passes on evidence that David Radler may have lied on the stand when he professed to have no knowledge of lenient parole arrangements in Canada: "This afternoon, in a subordinate clause in a parenthetical aside relating to one of his motions, Black’s QC revealed that he’d called up Vancouver’s top parole lawyer to get him to testify as an expert witness on the BC country club Radler would be serving his sentence in. The parole lawyer replied that, alas, he’d love to testify but he had a conflict of interest: David Radler was a client of his." (The day that Mr. Radler secured the parole lawyer's services was not mentioned.) Mr. Steyn futher discloses that Eric Sussman claimed that he didn't know about this side representation - and preferred not to find out about it.

Wrapping It Up (Overture)

A report by Paul Waldie, webbed in the Globe and Mail, quotes from an E-mail written by Peter Atkinson introduced into court this morning: "Lord Black has insisted that CanWest demanded the non-competes be included as part of the deal. But in the email, dated June 2, 2003, Mr. Atkinson indicated that CanWest did not put a price on the non-competes and didn't 'stipulate that money would be paid to individuals and Ravelston.' ... The e-mail appears to back up prosecutor's allegation that most of the non-compete payment should have gone to Hollinger and not the individuals. Lawyers for Lord Black and Mr. Atkinson have argued the payments were legal." It also notes that the defense for Mr. Black will probably not take very long to present.

[A new development has been just reported by Paul Waldie: the prosecution is dropping the money-laundering charge against Conrad Black. Eric Sussman asked for it, and Judge St. Eve acceeded. Details in that same report.]

A brief AP report, webbed by WQAD.com, has a summary of the testimony of IRS agent Shari Schindler. According to it, she testified that "when Black was its chairman... Hollinger International under-reported its 1999 income by more than $$13 million and its 2000 income by more than ten million."

The Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern, spells out the above in its opening paragraph: "A U.S. government agent who analyzed the tax returns of Conrad Black's former company testified on Wednesday that the firm would have had nearly $24 million more in income over two years if money had not been diverted by the former media baron and his associates." It further discloses that it is Ms. Schindler's opinion that this is the case, subject to an assumption: "Schindler said the 'taxable income was underreported,'... assumes the money should have gone to the company and not to Black, his co-defendants and Hollinger Inc., a Canadian company he closely controlled. Under that assumption, Hollinger International would have taken in $13 million more in 1999 and $10.8 million more in 2000, she said."

A more detailed AP report, webbed by PR-inside.com, contains an excerpt from the cross-examination of Ms. Schindler: "'If the monies were not illegally diverted from Hollinger International, it shouldn't have been on the income tax return, should it?' Black defense attorney Edward M. Genson asked [her].... 'That's right,' the agent said." It also passes along an order from Judge St. Eve to the jury, to take a long lunch on the grounds of the prosecution is seemingly at its last witness.

Mark Steyn has some excerpts from the cross-examination too, in two entries for his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. The first one reports that "Agent Schindler does not always provide expert testimony on such a constrained basis.... [A]s Edward Genson, defence counsel asked her: 'It’s not always assumptions you’re testifying to, is it, Ms Schindler?'

"'No. Just in this case it is,' said the witness.

"Counsellor Genson then observed that, if the payments weren’t illegal, then they shouldn’t have been on Hollinger International’s tax return. 'That’s correct,' said Agent Schindler.... That’s a different assumption than I was asked to make...'" [More here.]

In a more recent entry, Mr. Steyn relays this question from Ron Safer, and Ms. Schindler's answer: "[Csr.] Safer, counsel for Mark Kipnis, elicited the admission from IRS Agent Schindler that, although she would have been willing and qualified to examine whether the disputed payments were illegal, the prosecution chose not to ask her to."

Mary Vallis' report, webbed by the National Post, begins with a report on the direct examination and Csr. Genson's cross-examination of Ms. Schindler. It also mentions that there is going to be an FBI agent up on the stand this afternoon; that Csr. Genson wants to wait for at least two defense witnesses to fly in to Chicago, so the other defendants will call witnesses until they get there; and, that the reciepts for certain purchases have not been entered into evidence as of yet because the defense has challenged the admissibility of some of them, including a receipt from Fendi.

CBC News has webbed a report by Mike Robinson (of AP) which has this excerpt from the cross-examination of Ms. Schindler by Csr. Newman at its end: "Boultbee lawyer Gus Newman stressed that big accounting firm KPMG had signed off on the company's tax returns after reading the working papers on which they were based and had certified that all of the money 'appears properly accounted for,' a phrase he had Schindler read aloud to the jury."

----------

Mr. Steyn pulled back somewhat from trial watching in his latest blog entry to write a polemic against the costs of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. (In fact the costs are so high, that 'only the rich' can afford the resultant lodestone. Fans of cost-no-object commercial laws, please take note, if only to scry your political successors out in advance.)

Media Roundup: Flashbacks

The media reports on the Conrtad Black trial, webbed overnight and today, have zeroed in on one or both of two highlights: either the testimony about the 13 boxes, or the appraisal of the Manhattan apartment by the prosecution's real-estate expert:

1. WQAD.com has webbed a brief Associated Press summary, highlighting the testimony of that expert, Jonathan Miller. From it: "Miller says regardless whether the apartment was renovated or not, there's no way the three million dollars Black paid for the Park Avenue apartment could be considered fair." A paraphrase of it has been webbed by Channel 4 News in the U.K.

2. The Edmonton Journal has webbed a Canadian Press report which says that the prosecution expected to finish yesterday, but the testimony of Mr. Miller went on for longer than anticipated. (This wasn't just because of the cross-examination.)

3. The report by Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune begins with: "A New York real estate appraiser testified Tuesday in the federal fraud trial of Conrad Black that the Manhattan apartment bought by the former media baron in 2000 had a market value nearly three times the $3 million he paid the newspaper company for it." It further relates that Mr. Miller refused to back down under cross-examination, especially regarding credit for the $4.3 million Mr. Black had spent on the apartment, but he "conceded... that since Black was the only person in the market shopping for the apartment, that detail would have influenced his appraisal." It ends with a brief wrap-up of the testimony of Mr. Mahmood relating to the 13 boxes.

4. Andrew Clark of the Guardian has focused in on yesterday's testimony about the removal of the 13 boxes.

5. Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, also focuses upon the testimony of Shahab Mahmood and Monique Delorme about the removal of the 13 boxes. It's entitled "Jurors watch video of Black putting Hollinger boxes in car."

6. Another Canadian Press report that was webbed by the Edmonton Journal has a summary of Mr. Miller's testimony yesterday.

7. The Vancouver Province has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report about what Mr. Miller had to say to the court. "Jonathan Miller, a Manhattan appraiser certified as an expert by Judge Amy St. Eve, told a jury yesterday Black should have paid Hollinger at least $5.2 million in 2000 for the three-bedroom Park Avenue apartment, which took up an entire floor. Black paid $3 million... Apartments of that size for that price 'simply don't exist,' said Miller." It also ends with a brief recap of the testimony of Mr. Mahmood.

8. The New York Post gave Reuters the same treatment. Its excerpt focuses in on Mr. Mahmood's testimony as well.

9. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star begins his report by noting that Judge St. Eve has allowed for two more witnesses - "one is an Internal Revenue Service agent, the other works for the FBI – before the defence opens its case." Both witnesses are expected to be finished today. The rest of it highlights the entirety of yesterday's testimony.

10. Mary Wisniewski's report, webbed by the Chicago Sun-Times, starts off with this memorable opener: " Conrad Black, known for his luxurious lifestyle, was shown on a security video at his fraud trial Tuesday engaged in a working-class activity -- hauling boxes." The rest of it deals with the testimony about those boxes.

11. A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, begins with the note that Maclean's editor Ken Whyte is slated to testify for the defense. Mr. Whyte was the founding editor of the National Post. According to Mr. Waldie, Mr. Whyte "will likely testify about Lord Black's involvement in the Post. That could help back up a key defence theory that Lord Black and his former partner, David Radler, had different roles at Hollinger. " The rest of his report excerpts the contents of some E-mails introduced into evidence yesterday. (Presumably, they came from those boxes.)

12. A second report by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, begins by noting that the defense should start presenting their case tomorrow. Today, the prosecution will introduce "a stack of documents, including expenses from high-end retailers, such as Fendi, for items allegedly bought by Lord Black's wife, Barbara Amiel Black, but paid for by Hollinger." The rest of the report recaps yesterday's testimony, and it ends with: "Edward Genson, Lord Black's lawyer, pointed out during cross-examination that Lord Black covered the cost of renovations and spent more than $4-million in total on the place. He also said that under an agreement Hollinger had with Lord Black, he was the only potential buyer of the apartment. Mr. Genson said Mr. Miller did not factor that into his calculations, which were done for prosecutors."

----------

In his continuing watch for appeals to class bias by the prosecution, Mark Steyn implies that showing a sense of humour in the executive suite nowadays may cost you dearly later.

The Verdict: Assessing The Prosecution

The first segment of tonight's episode of The Verdict dealt with the Conrad Black trial - specifically, how the prosecution has fared now that they're about to rest. The three guests were jury expert Paul Lisnek, former prosecutor Ted Chung, and trial-watching regular Steve Skurka.

Csr. Skurka assigned a “C- to D+” grade to the prosecution, because: no victims were presented; the weakness of the audit committee testimony; the general lack of credibility of their witnesses. The only credible one was Richard Burt.

Csr. Chung went easier on the prosecutors. He said that the prosecution made their case “intelligible” but the witnesses were disappointing, especially David Radler. His assessment was that they did an “adequate” or “decent” job. When asked by Ms. Todd about the assumption that the non-compete payments would have ended up in Hollinger International’s treasury being not proven, he conceded that they may have made a mistake by not providing any victims.

Csr. Lisnek stepped in by noting that a victim is not needed. All the prosecution has to establish is that the defendants violated the law. Ms. Todd asked, though, how will it be determined what specific interpretation of the law did they violate, if any? Csr. Skurka noted, at that point, that the prosecution pulled back in the middle of the trial, and conceded that the CanWest non-compete payments were legitimate. Her question got the answer that the judge will determine what the relevant law is, and reveal it in her instructions to the jury.

When further asked by Ms. Todd about Conrad Black going on the stand, Csr. Lisnek replied that there wasn't a chance of it. Csr. Skurka added that Mr. Black is an “undisciplined witness.” He's too loose a cannon to give reliable testimony in his own defense.

Csr. Chung ventured that the jurors would like to see Mr. Black on the stand, but it’s not necessary for the defense's case. Csr. Skurka observed that they have already heard Mr. Black under a kind of “cross-examination” by the Hollinger Int'l shareholders at the 2001 and '02 annual meetings. Csr. Lisnek noted that jurors will forgive mistakes, but they're not likely to forgive arrogance.

After quoting from Leo J. Strine's 2004 decision, Ms. Todd asked Csr. Chung what the prosecution would cross-examine Mr. Black about. He replied that they can ask about almost anything, and can batter away as much as they like. They can ask questions based on any document that’s been introduced in the trial. Csr. Skurka added that the prosecution can also ask about any of Mr. Black’s comments to the media.

Ms. Todd then mentioned that Joan Maida's testimony is coming up. Csr. Skurka said that she’ll provide an “innocent explanation” of the removal of the boxes. Donald Trump may be the next witness.

Csr. Lisnek himself said that celebrities have an initial aura, but they tend to relax into regular witnessing and are seen by the jury as only that. There is a problem, though, with a celebrity being brought in as a character witness. Parading celebrities is “dangerous.” Look at what happened to Jim Thompson….

The Box Show

Paul Waldie has reported, in the Globe and Mail, that the jury has now seen the security-camera video. It was presented with accompanying testimony from the night guard at 10 Toronto, Shahab Mahmood. He testified that "he had been told that no boxes were to leave the building without approval of a court-appointed inspector.... Mr. Mahmood [further testified] that security staff had also been told not to confront executives who removed documents but to make a note of it. Mr. Mahmood said that, on a video monitor, he saw Lord Black take out the boxes but he did not move to stop him."

Mr. Waldie added to his article in a BNN Interview, aired at 1:55 PM ET. According to Mr. Waldie, Conrad Black's explanation for the removal of the boxes is comprised of these three items: he had been evicted from the Hollinger Inc. head office just before he took them; the boxes contained personal items; and, there was nothing in the boxes that's relevant to the case. The jurors have already heard from the two security guards who were on duty during the day (and night) of Mr. Black's removal of the boxes. The prosecution only got the boxes a few weeks ago, but they did have an inventory of their contents before the trial began. That inventory was entered into the record. They have a couple of more witnesses to go: a tax expert and a real-estate agent. The defense may begin tomorrow, but more probably Thursday. It isn't certain as to who the first defense witness will be, nor is the order of witnesses certain. Each defendant can call them one by one, so one defendant doesn't have to run through his entire list before the other one calls his first.

Andrew Stern of Reuters has a report that gets to the nub of the obstruction-of-justice charge and Conrad Black's defense against it: "Prosecutors say the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alerted Black's attorney on May 19 that Black would be served with a written request to surrender certain records for the investigation that was under way at the time. Prosecutors said the notice was served on Black's lawyer on May 20. The defence has said it did not receive it or was unaware of the SEC request." The report also has excerpts from the direct examination itself, and notes that the lawyer for Mr. Black asking the questions is Marc Martin.

An updated version of the same report has, on its second page, an excerpt from the testimony of Monique Delorme, a former comptroller at Hollinger Inc., who testified that "it was her understanding that 'a Hollinger Inc. employee could not alone authorize the removal of documents' without the inspectors giving their approval." A Bloomberg report, by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, has more from her testimony, including: Ernst and Young's insistence that the boxes remain in the office; and, Hollinger Inc's president, Donald Vale, okaying their removal because, he believed, there were only personal items in them.

An article from Medill Reports has details not only on defense objections to the prosecution's obstruction-of-justice charge, it also excerpts the testimony of the prosecution witness after Mr. Mahmood and Ms. Delorme, the "real estate appraisal expert John Miller, of consulting firm Miller Samuel Inc., to give detail Healy was not qualified to give." His figure for the apartment, minus renovations, was $5.2 million. He refused to bend under cross-examination, according to the report. It also notes that "Judge Amy St. Eve reminded the jury that Black is not charged with violating any Canadian court order or Hollinger policy, relating to any removal of items by Black from the company’s Toronto office. "

A report that covers similar ground, by Mary Vallis and webbed by Canada.com, notes that the cross-examination of Mr. Miller included asking him how much the prosecution was paying for his consulting services, and the cross-examination of Ms. Delorme had her admitting that she didn't know what the contents of the boxes were. It also notes that "[t]he prosecution admitted into evidence some of the contents of the controversial boxes late Tuesday, including invoices for expensive purchases Black allegedly made with money from non-compete payments at the heart of the case."

The report from Associated Press, webbed by the International Herald-Tribune, relates that Mr. Miller testified that the renovated apartment had a fair market value of $8.5 million. It also notes that Csr. Genson, while cross-examining Mr. Miller, asked if it was true that the $3 million plus the $4.3 million meant that Mr. Black would "'have $7.3 million... in the apartment,'" a figure close to Mr. Miller's appraisal. He answered, "'From a mathematical standpoint'"

And finally, a much briefer report from the Times Online, focuses upon the 13 boxes and the testimony of Mr. Mahmood.

----------

A post by Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, points to the vagaries inherent in the difference betwen the civil law and the criminal law, revealed by a story about convicted inside trader Joseph Nacchio suing for Qwest to pay his legal bills. Mr. Bell's entry also reveals that Conrad Black had a better outcome when in Delaware court last year, benefitting from a ruling that obliged Hollinger International to pay his legal bills.

(I vaguely remember reading stories that revealed things going a little weird in this area, such as the possily urban-legendary story of a burglar suing his victim for a tort resulting from said burgler being injured in the course of his burgling on the victim's property. I can think of a way that things in this nexus could get a little weirder, such as an accused criminal suing a prosecutor for "defamatory" press conferences - or vice-versa, for that matter.)

Media Roundup: Wrapping It Up (Prelude)

The few media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, on the Conrad Black trial are centred on the looming end of the prosecution's case - with one exception:

1. From CBC News, a Canadian Press item noting that the prosecution should rest tomorrow, after calling two more witnesses, and that the defense should call its first witness tomorrow.

2. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail also has an article on the same wrap-up, but it starts off with an announcement by the prosecution that a full day will be needed by them for the closing argument, expected to be given in late June. It also summarizes the gist of the obstruction-of-justice charge.

3. Also from the Globe, an item in the blog "Nobody's Business" about the Canadian version of spelling "centre" being entered into the trial, along with evidence of an arithmetical mistake.

----------

There's an article posted in Harper's Online which points to the fact that David Frum had received, for four months' consulting work, the equivalent of $50,000/quarter, or $16,666.67 per month from Hollinger Int'l bak in late 2000. Mr. Frum, in his reply to the charge of resultant bias, said that he only got market rate for services performed, and that he and his wife have both known the Blacks for decades.

(Actually, I've read Mr. Frum's pro-Black posts in his blog; if any bias is evident, it's in plugging Peter Worthington's column. He did disclose that Mr. Worthington did previously give Mr. Frum his stepdaugher; she's now Mr. Frum's wife.)

Media Roundup: Forward Looking

As it is Memorial Day in the United States, attention has drifted away from the Conrad Black trial. The media reports on it, webbed overnight and today, focus on the upcoming turn of the defense:

1. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed an abridged version of Romina Maurino's latest report, which sketches out the most likely defense strategy.

2. From the Toronto Star's David Olive, a column that contains a discussion of the defense strategy in the third item of three, entitled "Perry Mason 101." Mr. Olive takes the prosecution to task for "inexpert witness preparation that has marked this trial's first seven weeks." In its last paragraph, Mr. Olive notes that Conrad Black's defense is taking shape already.

----------

The blog "Blamblog," by Brett Lamb, has an interesting photo-essay about a long Toronto walk he and his wife took: westward from Sheppard and Don Mills to Sheppard and Yonge; south to Yonge and Lawrence Ave; east to Bayview; and then up to Conrad Black's estate, to give him flowers. Mr. Lamb says that he saw the couple drive out of their home while he was there (but he didn't get let in.)

You can try following along by using Yahoo! Canada Maps. (Don Mills is the next major street west - to the left - of the centre star in the linked-to map.) This second Yahoo! map has the street in which the estate itself is located.

[I got the Bamblog link from this post in the blog "Small Dead Animals."]


Also, Mark Steyn discusses the possibility of calling one of the representatives of the major institutional shareholders of Hollinger Int'l during the time period covered by the indictment...and the risk of those institutions' own legal actions implying to the jury that the U.S. attorney's office picked on the wrong men.

Media Roundup: Columnist Views

The media reports, webbed overnight and today, about the Conrad Black trial are still few in number. Most are columnist's pieces:

1. From the London Free Press, columnist Michelle Mandel discusses the portrayal by the prosecution of Conrad Black as the "Lord of Bling."

2. In her latest report, Janet Whitman of the New York Post has picked up on a point that a more partial journalist [guess who] is known for: "After 10 weeks of testimony and five key witnesses, prosecutors have yet to put one victim on the stand who would tell of being defrauded by this one-time press baron." After reviewing the inadequacies of the prosecution's case, she concludes: "While no one can accurately read how a jury is leaning, there's a palpable feeling in the courtroom that few are ready to convict Black. And the defense won't begin its case until later this week."

3. Another Sun Media columnist, Mark Bonokowski, discusses the connection between Conrad Black and recently murdered philanthropist Glen Davis: the latter's father, Nelson Davis. After a profile of the older Mr. Davis, which includes the note that his son was adopted by him, Mr. Bonokowski adds the life-changing event that turned the younger Mr. Davis into a philanthropist: a brush with death in a 1983 plane crash.

4. The latest from Romina Maurino, as webbed by Canoe Money, starts off with a forecast of the defense's strategy: arguing that the prosecution is attempting to criminalize normal business practice in the newspaper industry, or "that the embattled media mogul behaved like any other media executive when he took disputed payments and is in no way the criminal prosecutors have depicted." Her report quotes several experts, including one who notes that Mr. Black may come off better on the stand than expected because of how he's been anchored in the minds of the jury. Conrad Black's already been portrayed by the prosecution as something close to the Devil incarnate, so merely acting like a normal witness would make him look quite credible by comparison.

----------

The Chicago Sun-Times has a profile of another well-known figure in trouble with the law in Chicago: R. Kelly, who has also secured Edward Genson as defense counsel. It centres on Mr. Kelly's lyrics.

If...er, "exotic" opinion pieces are your cup of Sunday tea, then the Lebanese paper Dar Al-Hayat has a piece of writing you might be interested in poking through. It appears under the byline of a fellow by the name of Jihad el-Khazen, and it's about the recent decline and fall of the neoconservative movement. Both Conrad and Barbara Black have a mention in it, to wit: "And let's not forget the trial and humiliation of Conrad Black, former owner of the Telegraph group and the fourth husband of the Likudnik witch Barbara Amiel. May he rot in jail and may she lose all her ill-gotten jewellery along with her teeth."

To get back to something approximating normalcy, Mark Steyn watchers will be interested to know that he's placed a column in the Sun-Times. No, it has nothing to do with either Conrad Black or any criminal trial (although he does linger on an unusual paternity suit.)