Those watching the trial of Conrad Black et al are reporting interesting things from the courtroom. First, it seems that prosecutor Julie Ruder's closing statement yesterday was a smash hit; it is almost universally being acknowledged that he has a special "connection" with the female jurors. Today, the sense I get is that the defense team is not performing as well as hoped. (Admittedly it is very tough to get an accurate read on these things from pundits and observers; only God knows what the jurors are actually thinking.)
I have been religiously following this trial since Day One. It has been pretty tiresome at some points, but I wanted to get all the information I could. From all the media reports I've read and watched -- from Steven Skurka to Mark Steyn to the CBC (Neil MacDonald!) and CTV, even the horrendous stuff on Toronto Life's website and Tom Bower's bloviating in the Sunday Times -- I have seen nothing that should lead a fair-minded jury to convict these men of any crime. How can anyone claim the Patrick Fitzgerald gang discharged itself of its duty to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by relying on the oral testimony of David Radler? No incriminating documents have been put into evidence, only papers that show that veritable armies of accountants, lawyers and boards of directors approved everything.
As has been noted by Steyn and others, it seems the prosecutors in their closing arguments tried to focus on the moral issues surrounding the non-compete payments and not the legal question of how they were done. (They were done legally.) This prosecution team appears to have figured out that emotion -- not cold facts -- is usually what matters most.
I really wish I had seen the trial in person, but from what I know I have to confess that I'm concerned. Let's hope the Conrad team closes with a bang tomorrow. They may need it.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 7:13 PM
