Frequent Liar Points

Frequent Liar Points

For the second week, I was left disappointed as star prosecution witness David Radler came and went with nothing interesting to show for the days on the stand. All we had was one senior executive saying that his partner was a bad man who was intimately involved with bad behaviours. However, the accuser admitted freely to self-described bad behaviours, including lying about such behaviours, so it was really hard to figure out what to make of his testimony. It was the kind of a “yup I was bad, but he was worse” stance one expects of a plea bargain witness.

Radler indicated remorse, but it’s quite difficult to unravel whether it was remorse for committing the deeds or remorse over getting caught doing it. Perhaps even he doesn’t know. He had lots of time to be remorseful about the deeds before he got caught, and there is certainly little evidence of any pre-apprehension remorse.

So the Radler testimony painted a pretty bleak picture: executives behaving badly, pointing fingers, expressing unconvincing remorse and, all the while, taking up a lot of time of the court and the hired guns.

There was really only one saving grace in the whole extended Radler testimony: the fact that he took such offence at being called a liar and, in particular, being characterized as an inveterate, serial, lie-whenever-useful liar. This was the only time it appeared to me that Radler got livid. If you think about it, that comes as a bit of a surprise. He did admit to lying repeatedly. He showed no concern for the welfare of shareholders as he salted away personal non-compete payments and sold their papers to related companies for personal benefit. He showed no concern for the legal welfare of his closest colleagues. So why cavil at being called a liar?

To me it indicates that there is actually a soul hidden somewhere deep inside this otherwise scheming man. He doesn’t want to be seen or characterized as entirely without moral fibre. That tells me that he isn’t completely beyond rehabilitation, completely incapable of existing in a world that works on the basis of trust, mutuality and concern for the greater good.