Toronto Life: The Trial of Conrad Black: Sock It to ’Em

Sock It to ’Em

Posted on August 22, 2007 by Douglas Bell

It was the day of the infamous jury note. Conrad arrived at the courthouse on a half-hour’s notice in something of a rumpled state, wearing tan slacks, a tan jacket of a slightly different hue, a mismatched blue shirt and loafers with—Oh. My. God.—no socks. It was a cause célèbre. Writing in the Globe and Mail, fashionista Russell Smith offered a defence of the seeming faux pas:

“Black was disadvantaged, in that photograph, by the awkwardness of his position: getting out of a taxi is always a dangerous moment for clothing (as female celebrities discover rather more often). One doesn’t normally have one’s trousers ride up so high. I’m sure Black didn’t intend to demonstrate so proudly just how pale his ankles were. So actually it wasn’t as bad an outfit as it looked.”

Um. Sure. Anyway, all sorts of journalists from every corner remarked on his Lordship’s ankles, including yours truly. So finally this week, Barbara Amiel, tending, as always, to the temper of the times, revealed la verité:

“On day nine of the jury deliberations we were in bed when a telephone call announced that the jury had a question and Conrad would have to be in court within 20 minutes. Our hotel is a 15-minute taxi ride and then there’s press and security. ‘I don’t have any socks,’ said Conrad, which is male-speak for find-me-some. We were moving out of the suite the next day with attendant muddle. He had dressed and shaved in five minutes and stood sockless, shoes in hand. ‘It’s summer, for heaven’s sake, don’t wear any. Just get there,’ I said unthinkingly as I searched through laundry bags. I forgot about the press, which, having not much else to write about, seized on socklessness as an existential statement.

‘Astounding,’ said the Globe and Mail. ‘Cracks in the self-mythology of Conrad Black,’ wrote Maclean’s mysteriously. Well, no. Cracks in the organization of his wife who packed the clean ones under the ‘To File in Toronto’ envelope in the ‘Toronto’ box and didn’t get his laundered ones back till next day.”

All of which still leaves, you know, questions. Like, what are they doing in bed in the middle of the after…oh dear, yes, well, best leave that alone. And, er, exactly why would you pick day nine of a jury deliberation to launder all the guy’s socks anyway?

We're waiting.

Categories: Media, Barbara Amiel
Permalink

Comments

Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy

dr August 22, 2007 at 4:31 p.m.

re: Amiel column, I sent this letter to editor of Macleans?

"Does the editor of Macleans having received $100,000 from Conrad Black for "good works" have any relationship to this drivel being published by this magazine?

Donna August 22, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.

I am willing to bet that Black and Amiel were not in bed when the call came - no way in life........lmao. Amiel seems bent upon bragging to the world how great their sex life is - remember the column that mentioned something like " give him a few more months and fewer nights of love....and he will have had completed 2 more books "....yadda, yadda, yadda.....? Amiel is so transparent that it's nauseating......no one gives a damn about her and " beloved husband's " sexual antics, life or whatever....she seems to want to prove that life begins as a geriatric.......LOL. They are both stomach turning.....imagining Black having sex is akin to conjuring up images of the Queen on the loo......ewwwwwwwww

JD Cash August 22, 2007 at 5:08 p.m.

"no one gives a damn about her and " beloved husband's " sexual antics, life or whatever" - Donna

Excpet you, you are obsessed.

Donna August 22, 2007 at 7:49 p.m.

To JD Cash

Excpet? What language is that? Obsessed with good values, ethics, decent sense of morality, honesty, legality and with those, like Amiel, who try to convince the public that they are something they are not - I despise phonies and fakes and those who possess a low opinion of the average layman.

ROGER August 22, 2007 at 8:01 p.m.

FORTUNATELY THEY BOTH HAD UNDERWEAR ON!

Donna will twist every blog to get a line in about sex and bathroom humour!

When Fintan shows up he will post some crude sexual comment to play off the set up made by Donna.

What is wrong with geriatric people having sex? Donna probably views sexually active seniors as perverts who ought to be "normal" and celibate. Black and Amiel are sexually unappetizing, not because they are old, but because they are obnoxious, vile people who are too self-centred to be any good as sexual partners. The bigger the diamonds and clothing and shoe collection, the less likely is the performance.

On another note, how do celibate priests provide marriage counseling? I was just wondering. How did we get from a blog about socks or the lack of socks to posts about Black and Amiel's sex life? Didn't Donna admonish us for posting off point a while back? Maybe it is Freudian?

ROGER August 22, 2007 at 8:02 p.m.

fakes.... layman .... more Freudian terms?

Except for JD August 22, 2007 at 9:09 p.m.

Excpet for Mr Cash's admirable observation, this has been a lamentable thread.

gary e August 22, 2007 at 11:24 p.m.

The Prima Donna Girls Ex's idea of foreplay?

15 minutes of begging.

gary e August 23, 2007 at 12:35 a.m.

Donna August 21, 2007 at 1:14 p.m.

To Barbara in BC -

"You appear to either be well read and knowledgeable vis a vis just about anything that someone throws at you ( probably because you spend those boring hours at work surfing sites like wikipedia ( perfect for non readers of books, etc. are you ) or your personal library consists of such trash as Readers' Digest....lol....anyway, my point is, if you are so smart, how come you are just a receptionist? Sarcasm intended......"

Donna August 22, 2007 at 7:49 p.m.

"I despise phonies and fakes and those who possess a low opinion of the average layman."

Well now, Prima Donna Donna, which statement was a lie? Was the statement denigrating Barbara for just being a receptionist correct, or was "I despise phonies and fakes and those who possess a low opinion of the average layman" the truth?

30 hours and 45 minutes apart.

Have you no shame?

Do you know who you are?

Barbara in BC August 23, 2007 at 1:16 a.m.

gary e: It's possible that Donna has reconsidered yesterday's opinion and her attitude towards the average layman/laywoman has evolved. Yes, that must be it.

ROGER August 23, 2007 at 2:18 a.m.

I doubt that anyone mourned Leona Helmsley's passing. She terrorized her poor employees. How come she (a millionaire in her own right) and her husband (billionaire with a net worth over 5 billion), both cheated on their income taxes to save a measely $1 million or so? Well, the hired help reported them. See, they not only terrorized their employees, they also often refused to pay contractors after the job was done. So, they were reported for claiming personal expenses on their personal home as commercial expenses and writing it off as taxes and they were also accused to engaging in kickbacks with the contractors--billing for more than the cost of the job to save on taxes and splitting the difference with the contractors, whom they never paid!

Leona is reported to have said, "Only the little people pay taxes" to her housekeeper. Poor Leona went to jail, probably because she had stepped on too many people. She was one of Barbara Amiel's martyr heroes!

The "little people" had the last say. Or was that the last laugh?