Like a bull that has been prodded and starved to make it angry, Susman charged right out of the gate, asking rapid-fire questions one on top of the other.
Jamie parried well, sticking to her story and not allowing herself to get tripped up. She'll be back on the stand after lunch.
At this point, it's clear that either Frank or Jamie is lying, and maybe both are.
That makes each one's credibility a fundamental issue in deciding who gets the Dodgers.
In the first week of trial, Frank seemed to remember certain things favorable to his position with crystal clarity. But he claimed he had forgotten many other things, some of which might have been damaging.
That could give Jamie an opening to come off as the more credible witness of the two. But to do that, she'll have to explain a few things.
First, she says she didn't understand that in 2004 she was signing away her rights to the Dodgers upon divorce. She didn't read the agreement, and she didn't understand the law.
That might make sense for an ordinary person, but Jamie had practiced divorce law in Massachusetts. Does her claim hold water, or is she just playing dumb?
“All I know is I trusted my personal lawyer,” she testified.
The issue of trust came up again and again. At least nine times this morning, she said she trusted her attorney, Larry Silverstein, and she trusted Frank,
With all that's happened since, you'd think she'd be less credulous now. But when Susman read a quote from her deposition transcript, and asked her if she'd said the quote, she offered this:
“I trust you,” she said. “I trust you. I do. I trust you.”
That was the biggest punchline of an otherwise grim morning.
Full McCourt coverage:
Week 1 Wrap-Up:
Even more McCourt:
L.A. Weekly cover story, Dodger Dog, from August