Black Watch: Today’s Top Stories

Black Watch: Today’s Top Stories

Monday was Ruder’s day, and yesterday and today belonged to the two Eddies—though you wouldn’t know it from Rosie DiManno in the Star, who’s less than impressed with Eddie G.:

“Greenspan owns a slick reputation in Canada—although, in truth, his career batting average for big cases is somewhere down around the Mendoza Line. Of course, many of those cases might have been unwinnable, no matter how crafty the lawyer. At least he usually brings panache and a formidable legal mind to the no-hope cause. One might have expected Greenspan to swing from the heels here. On this occasion, though, he was pedantic and tedious.”

Also in the Star, Jennifer Wells has a thoughtful piece examining the crux of the argument before the jury:

“[They] must decide whether the negligence of a trio of toadies exonerates Black. Or, as Black’s lawyers would have it, that the payments were disclosed and legit. Or, as the prosecution insists, that Conrad Black ran Hollinger contrary to his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. That he saw Hollinger as his personal domain. That he self-dealt as he saw fit. That the active rubber-stamping by the audit committee does not absolve the main man of the main act.”

Black’s Lawyers Hammer Former Partner’s Testimony [NY Times]Score one for Conrad [Toronto Sun]Greenspan finally finds his footing [National Post]Case coming down to what Black knew [Toronto Star]’You cannot convict him for being rich’ [Toronto Star]Sending jurors’ hearts and minds to Snoresville [Toronto Star]‘You can’t convict Lord Black for being rich’ [Times of London]No grounds to convict Black, Greenspan says [Globe and Mail]Black case built on ‘serial liar’, claims defence [Financial Times]Black trial based on envy and prejudice, says defence lawyer [Guardian]Key witness in Black trial ‘is devoid of morals’ [Telegraph] A liar is a liar — and Black didn’t know? [Chicago Sun-Times]The big picture [Maclean’s]