Lord Snotty, his titanic ego and the strange case of a missing title

Lord Black's long winded and bombastic emails are coming back to haunt him in a court case where the prosecution are hoping to portray him as snooty and aloof:

Smirking at the jury in Conrad Black's racketeering trial, Eric Sussman, the youthful American prosecutor, stumbled and stuttered on his words.

"Ca... col... cal... I don't know how to say that. Can anyone pronounce it for us?" he asked, gesturing theatrically to a word in one of the former Telegraph owner's typically verbose emails.

Lord Black's defence counsel, Ed Genson, had a stab at it in his gruff midwestern drawl before turning to his client with a weary sigh and asking: "Conrad?" The peer, showing no sign of appreciating the mirth around him, sourly replied: "Calumnies."

Ah, yes, a calumny. The act of slandering another person's reputation. I can well imagine the context in which this pompous man used the word, especially with the accusations that were swirling around him at the time, but such vocabulary is not going to prove helpful in a case where the defence are seeking to play down his status and his arrogance.

But Black's need to show off his intellect through the use of obscure vocabulary is legendary. Before the case began he wrote an article for Tatler magazine in which he complained of, "the braying, hideous tricoteuses among my accusers, especially in the British press". A "tricoteuse" translates directly from the French as a female knitter, meaning the old ladies who sat around the guillotine. In the same article he also accuses former friends of indulging in "pompous self-levitations", an accusation that, in itself, reeks of pomposity.

So playing down this man's arrogance is not going to be an easy job for the defence, although I see that they are trying.

For example, it is noticeable that during this court case Lord Black has been reduced to plain Mr Black in case his title may work against him with a jury. During jury selection one person said that people with titles "may see themselves as superior, untouchable".

And his defence team have already warned the jury of just how unpleasant some of his emails can be and conceded that, "I wish you didn't have to hear them" whilst stressing that a titanic ego is not a criminal offence.

This ego has already been displayed in Black's attitude to the entire trial, which he has portrayed as a common miscarriage of justice that happens when, "Constitutionally questionable American legislation directed against organised crime and terrorism is frequently misapplied against completely improbable people." So you see, he shouldn't be on trial at all as he's not a gangster or a terrorist!

However, during the opening of this case it is generally thought that Black's team have, so far, had the upper hand, although that may all be about to change.

Still to come is discussion over Lord Black's $500,000 holiday in Bora Bora and his wife's $60,000 birthday party, all partly funded by Hollinger shareholders without their knowledge. Add to this heady mix possible witnesses that include Henry Kissinger and Donald Trump, and a good time is guaranteed for all.

He will also have to explain his wife's £600,000 salary for "providing editorial insights", "critiquing works", and "helping maintain a flow of communications between the diverse editorial management cultures" within Hollinger International.

Charles Moore stated:

"I was aware that she had been given this title by Hollinger, but it was perfectly clear that she didn’t perform any, what you could call duties."

Richard Breeden, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, produced a report which described Amiel as a "ghost employee" whose duties amounted to "nothing more than euphemisms for ordinary activities such as reading the newspaper, having lunch and chatting with her husband about current events".

Lord Black did give us one further taster of what's to come this week when he wrote to the Times to complain about William Rees-Mogg comparing him to the Great Gatsby. His main complaint?

Sir, Thanks to William Rees-Mogg for his generous remarks (comment, March 19), but his friend misinformed him. I was not interviewed by Vanity Fair; the reference was in Tatler, where I expressed my gratitude for the very large number of people in the UK (and in other countries), who have been entirely supportive through this challenging period. Among British journalists and editors, I singled him out, along with Dominic Lawson and William Oddie.

I understand he meant well by his reference to The Great Gatsby, but Gatsby was an amiable charlatan who ended up being murdered in his own swimming pool. I accept the sentiment but not the analogy. Lord Rees-Mogg seems to imagine that while I may well be acquitted, my world has somewhat imploded, like Gatsby’s. I don’t think so.

I was departing the conventional newspaper industry anyway, although I had not foreseen such a tumultuous exit, but when justice is done in Chicago, I will be back, and look forward to seeing him.

CONRAD BLACK, Chicago

At a time when the defence are trying to play down his pompousness, it might be a good idea to ask him to stop writing to newspapers, especially if your only complaint to being compared with the Great Gatsby is that he is "an amiable charlatan" who ends up drowned.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Lord Black, Hollinger, court case, fraud