From Macleans.ca website:
No laughing matter, part two
Mark Steyn June 18, 2007 13:51:06
Ms Ruder has yet to essay a second joke. Instead, she's reading a joke from David Radler and explaining why it isn't funny. I'm with her there.
The ostrich has landed!
Mark Steyn June 18, 2007 13:20:33
Ms Ruder just moments ago:
"That's what we sometimes call around here the Ostrich Instruction..."
Lord Black takes the stand, sort of
Mark Steyn June 18, 2007 14:56:04
Ms Ruder is making some effective use of the audio recording of the Hollinger annual meeting to play Conrad Black's words, pause the tape, and point out the "lies" in each answer. If the initial playing of the tape a month back served as a kind of direct testimony, this was a de facto cross-examination, but with the prosecutor allowed to pass judgment on the answers rather than test them through questions.
The defence better have some graphics and audio-visual delights. They suffered from that in the opening and I hope they've learned. The jurors follow the Black audio and other visual aids with great interest - and not just because anything's a welcome relief from Ms Ruder's speaking style.
As of 3:00 PM, there are thirteen entries today. One of them reports that the start of Csr. Ruder's argument was delayed by procedural issues; another mentions an objection by defense counsel Edward Genson. A third mentions how Csr. Ruder is accounting for the punctured testimony of the audit committee: they were lax, but trusting. A fourth says that part of her closing argument approached a mock cross-examination of Conrad Black.
Ruder health
Mark Steyn June 18, 2007 19:11:03
"The defendants' story is the cover story. The defendants' story is Paragraph B," sneered Julie Ruder, referring to the relevant section in multiple contracts by which the non-competes were approved. "Don't fall for the cover story, ladies and gentlemen."It's an artful line, and difficult to rebut - for Ms Ruder is suggesting that almost by definition any rebuttal is just part of the "cover story". By 5pm, she had done a better job than Mr Cramer in his opening statement or the prosecution team in its three-month case of knitting together the sequence of events and the various players into one coherent "scheme". Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Attorney himself, was in court for most of the day, and one had the vague feeling he might have had more than a bit part in constructing the script. Ms Ruder read it well enough and laid down a challenge to the defence: Don't take refuge in technicalities and "a lot of lawyer talk" - which is an odd argument for a government lawyer to make but one sees her point. Her line was a simple one: Forget the contracts, the disclosures, the minutes and the rest of the "lawyer talk". Demand of these high-priced defence lawyers the "why"? Why were Black and Radler, never mind Boultbee and Atkinson, getting this money? They can't give you an honest answer to that, and the "cover story" was designed to stop anybody asking.Tomorrow Conrad Black's team take the floor and they better have a response to Ms Ruder's challenge. Plus some demonstrative graphics. The other side needs a big-picture defence, and some small pictures to break up the monotony of lawyers talking.
More from Ms. Ruder's closing arguments:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we are not here because somebody made a mistake."
"We are here because five men ... systematically stole US$60-million from the shareholders of Hollinger International and because these five men checked the fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the company at the doorstep," Ms. Ruder said, referring to the four co-defendants and David Radler, a Hollinger executive who had already pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and testified against his former colleagues.
"The point is, Mr. Black knew this money was coming," Ms. Ruder told the jury, explaining that he had made purchases he knew he would have the money to pay.
"He knew, ladies and gentlemen, he knew."
Update: Lord Black's lawyers will present the jury with their side of the story tomorrow, when Edward Genson and Edward Greenspan will make their closing argument.
Attorneys for the other co-defendants will follow later in the week.
The jury is expected to begin deliberations early next week after receiving their instructions from Judge Amy St. Eve.
No comments:
Post a Comment