Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
I don't find the idea that the women spoke to each other in advance at all credible. Why would they? One person being that vindictive I can see, two, maybe but unlikely, but three? How do you get three people to hate you that much unless you actually did do something horrible to each of them?
As far as leading questions go, that I already said is possible, but again seems to be a case of over-complicating something that has a simple explanation. In one version, you have complex series of events that include anonymous revenge, collusion, and incompetence, and in the other version you have one guy who thinks he can intimidate and coerce women from a position of power. The former happens, despite conspiracy theorists, very seldom, and the latter happens frequently indeed.
|
Even logically arrived at inferences are still inferences or theories and not evidence. Sociological trends may help with understanding claims, but they're not determinative. These things need to be tested within the specifics of the case.
It may be unlikely that all three women are conspiring, but it's not impossible. Their story needs to be tested. It is true that victims of assault are often fearful of raising it. But when they've gone to the newspaper rather than the authorities, it's fair to question if that is the case here. And above all else, it needs to be proven that Ghomeshi did something wrong (not disprove the presumption that he did).
Of course, the only way to do any of this is through a trial (or a proper, independent investigation by those trained to do them), but therein lies the problem with this case. Trial by way of the Star's reporting is meaningless because their second-hand story has little probative value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Owen Pallett has a pretty interesting take on the situation.
|
That is interesting. I do not see how it is helpful or illuminative in any way (as opposed to the Savage article, for example). I wonder if his friend might not have a case for defamation against him.