Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
How Radler fared depends on who you read. If that’s Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun, you’re reading that “such self-immolation of a star witness” had never before been seen by veteran court observers. You’re reading it’s unlikely there’s anyone following the trial “who thinks Radler is capable of not lying.” (You’re also reading that “no one gives a damn about the other [three] co-defendants,” and there’s no disputing that.) But if syndicated columnist Allan Fotheringham is your choice, you’re being told it’s Worthington not to trust. “The Canadian journalism treatment of this trial has been a disgrace,” says Fotheringham. “Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun, Mark Steyn for Maclean’s, Christy Blatchford for the Globe and Mail–all of whom have worked for Black at one stage or are friends–have been so vicious of Radler and fawning of their hero as to be embarrassing to their trade.”
Early in the trial, Steyn had an exchange with blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt. Steyn said, “The people who ran Hollinger had a strange board. In other words, it had mainly Canadian executives, and then its independent directors were all these big-shot Americans like Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle and Jim Thompson. . . . And basically, the government’s case in this trial is that these–this sinister cabal of Canadians came down from north of the board, the badlands north of the 49th Parallel, and cunningly pulled the wool over the eyes of these– “
Fotheringham doesn’t see eye to eye with Steyn and Blatchford on much, but like them he informs his readers the jurors are the wrong sort. “The jury, one must understand,” he writes, “for their sins is composed, out of the 12 jurors, eight–not to put too fine a point on it–middle-aged, rather plump women, rather plump–and rather uninterested in the whole mess.” As the lawyers argue, Fotheringham reports, the jurors “chew gum and nod off.” The Toronto Star‘s Rick Westhead, composing an article on the pros and cons of Black taking the stand in his own defense, allows for the possibility “that the blue-collar Chicago jury–two male jurors appeared in court yesterday wearing Hawaiian-print shirts while one female juror has scribbled notes in recent days with a pen topped with a marabou feather–might not warm to the British lord.” I had to ask someone at the office what the hell a marabou feather is and what it signifies. “Cheap luxury . . . delusions of grandeur . . . Blanche DuBois . . . little girls’ beauty pageants,” a cultural maven replied. Before the trial, the court gave prospective jurors a 45-page questionaire to fill out. Feather preferences were neglected. Grounds for appeal?
