Questions about the Black trial

As the trial of Lord Conrad Black continues in Chicago with Eddie Greenspan's brutual cross-examination of David Radler, a few questions come to my mind.

• Why did Radler wait until the last possible moment to cop a plea?
• Why didn't he realize that the "non-compete" payments at issue here were grossly unethical -- set aside the issue of whether they were legal or not?
• When a company goes private or tries to, or some of the lead executives of that company try to buy out the outstanding shares, doesn't that usually indicate they're trying to cover up financial improprieties? (After all, the SEC no longer would have scrutiny on an unlisted company.)
• Running a supermarket and a newspaper are two different things (Black once ran Dominion). For that matter, running a small town newspaper and a major market sheet are also two different matters. What made Black think one size fitted all?
• What were in those documents that Black "borrowed" over a weekend when he was told not to touch them?
• What exactly does Barbara Amiel mean when she says that her "extravagence knows no bounds?" Isn't that just as preposterous as the principle that necessity knows no law?
• And lastly, if Hollinger was incorporated in Delaware why is the case being tried in Illinois?

I really don't know the answers but those questions are out there. I'm beginning to wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is getting over his head like he did in the Valerie Plame scandal. What I do know is this: Southam News which was once a very proud newspaper chain became a complete joke under Black; the National Post despite some serious reportage is mostly a tabloid in broadsheet form; and Black is as hated in Canada as ... fill in your country's corporate raider.

Oh yeah ... Black wants his Canadian citizenship back. Get in line Conrad, just like all the other immigrants.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.