A Lord is Sentenced

[alanalt]

We're coming at it from different viewpoints, obviously.

 

Your position seems to assume his guilt as a matter of course and that he should have copped to a plea in hopes of leniency rather than fight it out (though that's not always the best course either - look at OJ who fought and 'won').

 

My position is I don't know enough about the areas of law in question to know whether he's guilty or not. If he was, in fact, guilty, then you're right in that Conrad Black's biggest liability was probably Conrad Black. But from what I caught of the trial, the fact that he was acquitted on so many charges and that it was his successors, not Black, who drove Hollinger into virtual bankruptcy, makes it seem to me that this was less about finding 'justice' in this particular affair and more about providing an example in the way Voltaire noted that the British used to shoot an admiral occasionally 'pour encourager les autres', whether they were really guilty or not.

 

But if one accepts the possibility that Black may be innocent, then the steps he's taken in fighting the charges, standing up to a prosecution trying to portray him as a new Al Capone, maintaining his innocence (including the "lack of remorse), and appealing his case are all the steps that an innocent man would take, whether or not he's a snob with a taste for high living and an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

 

And while there are lots of people who seem to think that Black somehow brought this all upon himself, I'm also considering that there were three men sentenced with Black today. By your logic, any/all of them could, and should, have followed Radler's lead and testified against Black in return for lesser sentences. The fact they didn't is an argument (if not proof) that they also believed that they (and by extension Black) were innocent too.

 

Which brings up what's been probably my biggest concern, what if Black is innocent (note that I say if) and is found so after a lengthy appeal? And what does that mean for all the other people charged by the Cook County DA's office goes after who may not have Black's money, connections, and high-powered defense team to save himself and were intimidated into pleading guilty to 'lesser' offences?

[alanalt]

We're coming at it from different viewpoints, obviously.

 

Your position seems to assume his guilt as a matter of course and that he should have copped to a plea in hopes of leniency rather than fight it out (though that's not always the best course either - look at OJ who fought and 'won').

 

My position is I don't know enough about the areas of law in question to know whether he's guilty or not. If he was, in fact, guilty, then you're right in that Conrad Black's biggest liability was probably Conrad Black. But from what I caught of the trial, the fact that he was acquitted on so many charges and that it was his successors, not Black, who drove Hollinger into virtual bankruptcy, makes it seem to me that this was less about finding 'justice' in this particular affair and more about providing an example in the way Voltaire noted that the British used to shoot an admiral occasionally 'pour encourager les autres', whether they were really guilty or not.

 

But if one accepts the possibility that Black may be innocent, then the steps he's taken in fighting the charges, standing up to a prosecution trying to portray him as a new Al Capone, maintaining his innocence (including the "lack of remorse), and appealing his case are all the steps that an innocent man would take, whether or not he's a snob with a taste for high living and an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

 

And while there are lots of people who seem to think that Black somehow brought this all upon himself, I'm also considering that there were three men sentenced with Black today. By your logic, any/all of them could, and should, have followed Radler's lead and testified against Black in return for lesser sentences. The fact they didn't is an argument (if not proof) that they also believed that they (and by extension Black) were innocent too.

 

Which brings up what's been probably my biggest concern, what if Black is innocent (note that I say if) and is found so after a lengthy appeal? And what does that mean for all the other people charged by the Cook County DA's office goes after who may not have Black's money, connections, and high-powered defense team to save himself and were intimidated into pleading guilty to 'lesser' offences?

[alanalt]

My understanding is that there is almost never such a delay, but it was granted by the Judge in this particular case because Black's appeal is still pending.

 

To me, it's another piece of evidence that the Judge was registering her own 'verdict' though being as lenient to Black as possible under the circumstances. In almost every case where she had the authority to opt for the least harsh consideration in today's sentencing, she took it.

[alanalt]

My understanding is that there is almost never such a delay, but it was granted by the Judge in this particular case because Black's appeal is still pending.

 

To me, it's another piece of evidence that the Judge was registering her own 'verdict' though being as lenient to Black as possible under the circumstances. In almost every case where she had the authority to opt for the least harsh consideration in today's sentencing, she took it.

[alanalt]

>I dodn't understand why it takes so long between the verdict &

>sentencing in cases like these. Presumably to give the lawyers

>enough time to drum up reasons why the sentence should be

>lienient.

>

And harsher. I noted that a shareholder was allowed to make a victim impact statement, even though the prosecution refused to put any of the shareholder "victims" on the stand during the trial, where they could be cross-examined.

 

The other BIG oddity of the case that struck me was that the prosecution was allowed a closing argument, followed by the closing arguments from the defense, but then the prosecution is given another chance to rebut the defense's closing arguments. Getting to speak before and after your opponent in closing follows no debating principle that I'm aware of, let alone the principle of giving the accused the last word...

 

Any day, I'm waiting for the US to revise their system altogether to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[alanalt]

>I dodn't understand why it takes so long between the verdict &

>sentencing in cases like these. Presumably to give the lawyers

>enough time to drum up reasons why the sentence should be

>lienient.

>

And harsher. I noted that a shareholder was allowed to make a victim impact statement, even though the prosecution refused to put any of the shareholder "victims" on the stand during the trial, where they could be cross-examined.

 

The other BIG oddity of the case that struck me was that the prosecution was allowed a closing argument, followed by the closing arguments from the defense, but then the prosecution is given another chance to rebut the defense's closing arguments. Getting to speak before and after your opponent in closing follows no debating principle that I'm aware of, let alone the principle of giving the accused the last word...

 

Any day, I'm waiting for the US to revise their system altogether to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[Louis]

He's like every one else, he still has to use a toilet.

[Louis]

He's like every one else, he still has to use a toilet.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The other BIG oddity of the case that struck me was that the

>prosecution was allowed a closing argument, followed by the

>closing arguments from the defense, but then the prosecution

>is given another chance to rebut the defense's closing

>arguments. Getting to speak before and after your

>opponent in closing follows no debating principle that I'm

>aware of, let alone the principle of giving the accused the

>last word...

 

I was under the impression that was standard proceedure in US courts, although it hardly seems fair.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The other BIG oddity of the case that struck me was that the

>prosecution was allowed a closing argument, followed by the

>closing arguments from the defense, but then the prosecution

>is given another chance to rebut the defense's closing

>arguments. Getting to speak before and after your

>opponent in closing follows no debating principle that I'm

>aware of, let alone the principle of giving the accused the

>last word...

 

I was under the impression that was standard proceedure in US courts, although it hardly seems fair.

[Luv2play]

If Black were to win his appeal, which according to most legal observers is unlikely, it would be because the judge erred in law. The jury's findings of facts are very rarely overturned unless the result is perverse. The judge in this case conducted a very tight trial and there is no obvious error she made that at least is apparent to disinterested legal observers. The fact that Black's lawyers are citing all sorts of possible grounds for appeal is, as Fitzgerald said yesterday in Chicago,"just lawyers talking". And we all know that lawyers get paid for talking. :7

[Luv2play]

If Black were to win his appeal, which according to most legal observers is unlikely, it would be because the judge erred in law. The jury's findings of facts are very rarely overturned unless the result is perverse. The judge in this case conducted a very tight trial and there is no obvious error she made that at least is apparent to disinterested legal observers. The fact that Black's lawyers are citing all sorts of possible grounds for appeal is, as Fitzgerald said yesterday in Chicago,"just lawyers talking". And we all know that lawyers get paid for talking. :7

[alanalt]

'According to most legal observers' it was highly unlikely that Black was to be allowed to remain out on bail after sentencing, and yet he did. As for Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, what are you expecting him to say? That he hopes Black's appeal will succeed? Of course he's going to say 'it's just talk'. And while he's now expressing satisfaction on the outcome, it's hard to square that with earlier statements where he was looking for much heavier punishments than were handed down...

[Guest zipperzone]

Is this the same Fitzgerald that was the prosecutor in the Skooter Libby trial?

 

And on a slightly different note, I noticed there have been 20 posts in this thread, and all of them from Canadians.

 

Kinda speaks volumes doesn't it?

[raulgmanzo]

>Is this the same Fitzgerald that was the prosecutor in the

>Skooter Libby trial?

 

Yes, Patrick Fitzgerald is the US attorney for northern illinois. Fitzgerald has brought indictments, and prosecuted a rather large number of state and city politicians both Democrats and Republicans as high up as state governor and city clerk.

 

>And on a slightly different note, I noticed there have been 20

>posts in this thread, and all of them from Canadians.

 

Well I'm not surprised that Canadians are more interested in Lord Black he was after all Canadian. But the story has been fairly big here in Chicago and is often on the front page. His ownership of the Chicago Suntimes and manipulation of circulation numbers and other crap has gained him infamy in Chicago. About the only good thing I can say about his and Radlers tenure at the Suntimes is that he might not have been as bad as Murdoch editorially (maybe) but probably worse as far as bleeding the paper to death.

[+ deej]

>His ownership of the Chicago Suntimes and manipulation of circulation

>numbers and other crap has gained him infamy in Chicago.

 

Heck, fudging the numbers should have fit right in in Chicago. }(

[Guest zipperzone]

>About the only good thing I can say about his and

>Radlers tenure at the Suntimes is that he might not have been

>as bad as Murdoch editorially (maybe) but probably worse as

>far as bleeding the paper to death.

 

In a somewhat different way, his wife is also a real piece of work.

 

I've read that it was her bragging about her several million dollars worth of jewels in a Vanity Fair article that brought the matter to the attention of the authorities and started the shit hitting the fan. If true, I love it. She is one arrogant bitch - guess they are well matched.

[Louis]

"She is one arrogant bitch - guess they are well matched."

It sounds like they deserve each other...:-)