Edward Greenspan to Witness David Radler: "Was it easy for you to lie?"; "Did you stutter when you were lying?"; "Did you avert your eyes?"; "When you lie, do you appear to look the same way as when you are telling the truth?"; "Right now, you may be lying and we don't know it. True?"; "Was there a pause when you lied?" "Tell me, Mr. Radler, at what point prior to this interview did you decide that you would lie, or not be forthcoming, as you put it?"
We get it Edward, you're are trying to convey to the jury that Radler could just as well be lying now. Reporters present said even some of the jurors were starting to look irritated. Greenspan attempted to plant a foundation which may be part of an overall attack strategy, but he may not have scored any points Thursday. The "liar, liar, pants on fire" approach will be a running theme in the trial. The trial resumes on Monday and it will be interesting to see what other tricks Black's main lawyer has up his William Fioravanti sleeve. Greenspan could resume questioning like "Do you sit and cross your legs and with a suit and tie on, when you're lying?" or "Are you always bald when you lie?"
I am not aware of any lie detection tests having been done on Black or Radler, not that it is a case clincher, but it has been used in cases for evidence. Too bad this is not a case where DNA could give a clear verdict, that will rest with the jury. So which side can be most convincing is what will tip the balance of their decision. Many may like to see Black the giant fall, but it would be a sadder case if he was found guilty and years later, evidence appeared which cleared him. At the end of the day, it is what it is. It's sad to see any human being of any background have their weaknesses exhibited like this. But at least Black, if he were found guilty, did not have a tragic and abused childhood, as often many criminals have had. These cases are more tragic in that often there were never any good times in the criminals' past.
I hope that in Black's case it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is one or the other, guilty or innocent. He did seem like a nice guy, at least that's the impression I got from an email response to a letter to him regarding a National Post article he wrote in Jan., 2007. Well ok I would like to think it was actually from him, but it was probably an automated reply to his many readers. In any case, we don't correspond so often these days.
The drama continues this week. Hopefully in the end clear convincing justice will be served. In any case, good luck Conrad, and keep in touch from now on.