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".
Of course they are different. My point was: why do you believe that one (witness attended party) is far more reliable than the other (witness studied Rob Ford's appearance extensively prior to viewing video and then carefully viewed video multiple times in order to identify the person depicted in said video? Indeed, one might argue that the second scenario is more reliable than the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
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.
I'm not sure why we must go down this road again. "Claims of a video supposedly containing a person who looks like Ford seen by 2 reporters and some anonymous internet sensationalist" = evidence. You don't believe that it is credible or reliable evidence. Fine, defend that opinion, but incorrectly claiming that there is no evidence does nothing to strengthen your argument (incidentally, neither does writing "Period" at the end of your paragraph).
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
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.
It seems to me that what you and I believe about Rob Ford's history of smoking crack-cocaine is exactly what this thread is about, no? And again, we clearly have more than just "accusations and innuendo". We have three eye-witness accounts, as well as a slew of other circumstantial evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
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?
100% certainty of hypothetical events from the future is impressive indeed.
In any event, I don't really care if Ford resigns or not. I do however believe that he very likely smoked crack-cocaine and made a series of offensive remarks regarding Justin Trudeau etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
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.
What have they put in print that they haven't substantiated? The story was very, very clear with respect to what happened.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
We're not in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
What.
I was going to slide over this, but there's obviously a disconnect between the people who think that public opinion is like court, and those who realize that it is not.
Rob Ford is not being prosecuted for his alleged crack smoking. He is being asked to refute allegations of crack smoking. Towards the latter end, pretty well any relevant information is going to be brought up, because it is a process that is not under the control of any one entity, like a judge would be in charge in a trial.
Ah, but how is it fair that hearsay is relevant? How can you defend yourself when drug dealers say they've seen you smoking crack and have video to prove it, but won't produce the video? Are public figures reduced to being nothing more than easy targets for malicious falsehoods?
Well, the answer is - reputation. Someone brought up a scenario along the lines of "If it was Nenshi who was being targeted, you wouldn't be so quick to believe he was on the pipe". Well, no, but that's because it would be completely out of character. I wouldn't believe it of Stephen Harper, either, and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with past behaviour and credibility. Neither has been linked to substance abuse problems in the past, and neither has been caught lying about such problems. So in either case, reputation would incline me to doubt anything other than substantive proof.
In Ford's case, this reputation is completely lacking. He has:
- had a "failing to provide a breath sample" conviction in Florida
- lied about the conviction
- been caught with a joint in his pocket on the same occasion, charges dropped
- lied about ever being charged
- been kicked out of a Leafs game in 2006 for being drunk and disorderly
- lied about even being at the game
- charged twice with assault, including one charge of assaulting his wife
- been warned repeatedly about conflict-of-interest transgressions which he lied about and ignored until legally forced to recant his opinion that he had done nothing wrong.
- threatened a reporter by waving his fist around, running at him, and demanding the reporter's phone to get pictures of "spying"
And so on. So, when someone purports to have a video of Ford smoking crack, supplies a teaser picture of Ford with his arm around a known (and now dead) drug dealer, and then when 3 different people see the video and say they are reasonably certain it was Ford, there is plentiful reason to believe the video existed, and that it showed exactly what they say it showed. To assert that this proves "nothing" is not a moral act of requiring a higher standard of proof, but more like stubborn denial.
Is it certain the video is/was real, and that Ford has, at least once, been on crack? Well obviously not, and no one is saying it is certain, just that it is both believable and more credible than any alternate theory, which is that either this is a hoax (at least somewhat possible) or an attempt by the Star to further their vendetta against Ford (absolute nonsense without any evidence in its favour - although that irony seems to escape this theory's proponents) by any means possible.
Lastly, that the video is now likely to have vanished is perfectly in line with the narrative that Ford himself has purchased it, and that he now feels safe in making denials as to it ever existing or showing what it showed. It's also in line with a narrative in which it was a hoax.
Believe what you will, but come off the moral high ground and realize that that the only one to blame for this story having credibility is Ford himself, because he squandered his reputation for truth on multiple occasions and lost his own credibility along the way. If he had been upfront in the past about his transgressions, he might have been able to convince people he was telling the truth - it's not so much that he's a drunken buffoon, but that he is a liar. People will forgive you if you confess, and act contrite, but if you are an entitled, lying db, you'll reap the consequences.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
The G&M is reporting that Toronto police interviewed a "senior member of Rob Ford’s office" who claims to have information regarding a potential link between the alleged crack-smoking video and the recent murder of a drug dealer who was shown in a photograph with Ford.
As bizarre as this entire story is, surely the Fords (or one of their associates) wouldn't have been involved in murder to cover it up, right? Right?
Quote:
A senior member of Rob Ford’s office was interviewed by police last week about a tip linking a video allegedly showing the mayor smoking illicit drugs to a recent Toronto homicide, two separate sources have confirmed.
The staffer felt compelled to share the tip, which came to him from someone else in the mayor’s office, with police because it could constitute evidence in a homicide investigation.
[...]
The tip came into the mayor’s office shortly after reports surfaced in the Toronto Star and on Gawker.com regarding the existence of a video allegedly showing Mr. Ford smoking crack cocaine.
The informant in the mayor’s office purported to know the address and unit number where the video was being held.
They went on to say that the video originally belonged to an individual who may have been killed for its potentially valuable contents, according to a source.
The Fords used most of the two-hour Newstalk 1010 show to discuss their policy accomplishments and to launch attacks on city councillors and the media. Doug Ford, fiery, did most of the talking, and Rob Ford, sounding relaxed, left after one hour, saying he had to go to church for his daughter’s communion.
The caller’s question about the video was the first Rob Ford answered in any detail since the Star and Gawker published their reports 11 days ago. He has not responded to questions from reporters.
The same caller asked whether it is true that Ford appears in a photo with a 21-year-old, Anthony Smith , who was murdered in March. Ford said he poses for photos with “everybody,” and he deemed the caller a racist for asking about a photo of him with young black men, though she did not mention their race.
“That’s very sad, that she’s a racist,” Rob Ford said.
Doug Ford said, “Rob has taken thousands of pictures with young black men, with their hats on, with their little funny signs and everything else.”
WTF, Doug Ford!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Is it good judgement to trust that drug dealers gave you the only copy?
Cowperson
Considering that his brother is an alleged dealer and their personalities, my impression of the Fords is that they have the contacts to make sure that the crack dealers will play it straight.
oh yeah, didn't these Somalian crack dealers say, once they are paid, they want to start a new life in Calgary. Any sightings?
The article doesn't say they are investigating them for a homicide, rather, the homicide investigators have experience that other officers do not:
Quote:
Staff Inspector Greg McLane, the head of the Toronto police homicide division, told CP24 that the investigation was not related to a homicide but his officers conducted the interview because they have expertise other police officers may not.
#BREAKING: Mayor Rob Ford's press secretary and deputy press secretary have resigned. George Christopolous & Isaac Ransom have quit. #TOpoli
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
It's normal for crowd-funding campaigns to get a late bump, but the late surge in the gawker campaign is sort of interesting: I'm pretty sure that prior to last night, that $10,000 prize was unclaimed, which means that sometime in the last 12 hours, a single donor pledged $10,000 or more, despite the warning about the source being out of touch. Another pledge of $2,000 just a couple hours ago. There's some serious money flying around, it's not just a bunch of $25 donations.
All of this despite Gawker releasing another update this morning that they still have had no further contact with the source.
Total conspiracy theory here, but it would make sense that if the Ford office believed that a video did not exist or that the video had no chance of surfacing, they would pledge the money to make the funding goal succeed, so that the fact that the transaction does not happen despite the money being there, boosts their argument that the tape doesn't exist.
Another theory is that some addiction-related charity has figured out that they're in good shape to get some or all of the $200,000 if the campaign is funded but the transaction can't be completed, so they or their supporters are making sure it succeeds.
