What a difference a year makes for Eddie Greenspan
While Garth Drabinsky struggles mightily to remain among the unconvicted and non-felonious, the man making his case is in something of a battle of his own. Through the course of the Conrad Black trial, Edward Greenspan’s reputation as Canada’s defence attorney nonpareil took a ferocious beating. Leaving aside his client’s conviction, the much-publicized antipathy between himself and the jury, and his often rancorous relations with lawyers for Black’s co-accused, there still remains outstanding, as a matter of public record (courtesy Mark Steyn and Maclean’s), the accusation that he and Ed Genson (Black’s co-counsel) each demanded a substantial extra payment on the eve of closing arguments. So, in seeking to afford Drabinsky the best defence possible, Eddie, like a relief pitcher coming off a particularly severe shelling, is looking to impress on this, his next trip to the mound.
Gordon Eckstein is Eddie’s first major cross of the trial, and so far so good. One courtroom observer noted that:
Eddie’s approach of confronting Eckstein with all the allegations from other Livent witnesses is a brilliant strategy. Eckstein was clearly an abusive and kind of scummy guy. By throwing all this stuff at him, Eddie’s clearly hoping to destroy his credibility on the stand by making the judge think that this guy is such a vile human being that you can’t trust what he says.
That approach has a bonus effect as well. It’s human nature for him to want to minimize his abusive conduct. By doing that he is casting doubt on the other witnesses to come.
What a vast improvement on the reviews he got for his performance at the Black trial in Chicago. Back then, if Eddie got through a day without somebody calling him a buffoon, he’d likely count it in the win column.
• Livent exec denies using ‘Nuremberg defence’ [Toronto Star]• Defence casts Livent manager as tyrant who bullied staff [Globe and Mail]