Letters

23 May 2009

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

Black as he is painted

Sir: Taki is a wonderful man but his lament about Conrad Black (High Life, 16 May) cannot pass uncorrected. Conrad Black’s defence did not suffer because he was forced to rely on ‘friendly Canadian lawyers’. One lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, is Toronto’s top fraud defendant, while the second lawyer, Ed Genson, ranks among Chicago’s very best criminal defenders and would be offended to be called Canadian. In the event, both performed remarkably well, demolishing several key prosecution witnesses. Black pleads that he did not have sufficient money to hire better lawyers, but his filings with a Canadian court show that he still possesses a fortune, not least to sustain the $50 million mortgages on his mansions in Florida and Toronto.

Taki and others may lament that the two lawyers failed to win Black’s acquittal, but the reason is simple. Black’s defence was non-existent because he failed to produce a single witness, except his unpersuasive secretary, to disprove the prosecution’s case about his major frauds and obstruction of justice. Critically, despite all his bombast before the trial, he refused to testify in his own defence. Why? Because he had undergone two mock cross-examinations in Chicago and on both occasions exposed his vulnerability as a witness in his own case. He knew that if he had testified he would have got 60 years in prison rather than six and a half.

Tom Bower
London NW3

1 | 2 | 3 Next page