Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Why does evidence have to be tangible in order to have probative value?
Imagine this scenario: three reporters, one from Gawker.com, and two from the Toronto Star (both very familiar with Mr. Ford), are invited to a party where they observe, from about ten feet away, for about thirty minutes, Mr. Ford smoking something in a crack pipe. They report these observations in their respective newspapers. Obviously, in these circumstances, there would be no "tangible evidence" such as a video recording. Would that evidence have any value?
|
Entirely different set of circumstances does not equate to the same thing.
"I was there and saw" is a mile from "saw a video, had a chance to secure it but didnt".
Quote:
|
True, it is not evidence given under oath at trial, subject to cross-examination and all of the other safeguards that have developed in our law of evidence and criminal law to test the reliability/credibility of evidence. However, testing evidence in such a way takes weeks and weeks of work by police officers, lawyers and judges. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to establish the guilt of a shoplifter beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are left to make up our minds on most matters without the benefit of a trial. We rely on common sense indicators of reliability and credibility. We make reasonable inferences from the evidence that we do have. It is not foolproof, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.
|
There is no evidence....that is the point. There is nothing but claims of a video supposedly containing a person who looks like Ford seen by 2 reporters and some anonymous internet sensationalist. The proof would be "i was there and saw it", or "i HAVE this video that shows" (still confused as to why the Star didnt buy this thig outright).....or even "i have a person who was there and here he is and his story"....but none of those things exist to this point. Period.
Quote:
|
That said, am I 99.99% certain that Rob Ford has recently smoked crack-cocaine? No, of course not. I am however, based on the evidence so far, about 90% certain of it.
|
Doesnt matter what you or I are certain of or not at this point and what % of certainty you or I attach to it. Right now all we have are accusations and innuendo.
Put it this way...I am 100% sure that Justin Trudeau has no ability to run this country based on his well documented attitude towards the West, but does that mean he should resign his position as leader?
I
Quote:
|
sn't this forum a "court of public opinion"? Why do you keep holding this forum to an unreasonably high standard of proof?
|
What? Im not holding anyone on this forum to any standard....you can believe whatever the hell you like. I am holding the Star a to a reasonable standard however as it hasn't been able to substantiate what they put in print....yet again.