News   Jul 18, 2024
News Roundup for July 18, 2024
 425     0 
News   Jul 18, 2024
Iridescent Evanescent
 586     1 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Side-by-Side The Davisville and Uovo Top Off on Yonge in Midtown
 903     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
OSS 117 said:
If the tape doesn't appear, the Star would only have to worry if they referenced sources that don't exist. As it is, their story revolves around two reporters giving eyewitness testimony about what they saw, and at no point did they say it was Rob Ford, only that it appeared to be Rob Ford. They're in no danger whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And you trust these sources to show up to court? To actually testify? And if they do, to do so truthfully?
 
OSS 117 said:
If the tape doesn't appear, the Star would only have to worry if they referenced sources that don't exist. As it is, their story revolves around two reporters giving eyewitness testimony about what they saw, and at no point did they say it was Rob Ford, only that it appeared to be Rob Ford. They're in no danger whatsoever.
Click to expand...
This is to protect the paper. Saying so and so is in a video, and saying it appears so and so is in the paper is a way to protect The Star from being sued I think.

Sort of how like CBC and the rest of the media keep saying in EVERY SINGLE STORY they write or talk about, that they "can not verify the video", etc.
 
khristopher said:
This is to protect the paper. Saying so and so is in a video, and saying it appears so and so is in the paper is a way to protect The Star from being sued I think.

Sort of how like CBC and the rest of the media keep saying in EVERY SINGLE STORY they write or talk about, that they "can not verify the video", etc.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, exactly.
 
Both the Star and Gawker, I believe, indicated that someone off-screen in the video was goading RoFo. Any speculation as to the source/motivation of this goading? I can't see a political opponent being involved of course. And does anyone think that the goading was done for fun, and then the video owner realized afterwards... "Hey I've got some good stuff here."

Or was it an intentional set-up by some drug dealers? I can't see RoFo casually hanging around some dealers after a buy to smoke "something", if he wasn't really, REALLY, comfortable with them. Of course the possibility exists that the screenshot we've seen in the media is not representative of The RoFo Event, at all. It could have been taken by the videographer before or after, possibly not even the same day. The reports indicated that RoFo was indoors when smoking whatever he was smoking.

I'm still curious about the motivation. Obviously RoFo was comfortable with whoever was holding the camera being there, to the extent that to our knowledge he didn't try to immediately get the camera/phone. For all we know, he remembered the next day, that someone had a phone, and started trying to get the evidence then. But the fact remains, someone off-screen was goading him.

I just can't imagine that there are too many people that would be capable of carrying on a conversation, even with a semi-coherent RoFo, on the subjects of Don Brosco football, and Liberal politics, all while being in the company of "whatever" smokers.
 
Blovertis said:
And my point is, Doolittle and Donovan did see the crack video. Good enough to convince me there was a big story worth putting on the front page.
Click to expand...

I trust homicide detectives (how have DNA proof and body parts) a lot more than the word of reporters.

It may convince me a story is there but not that the person is necessarily guilty of what they said.

They saw Ford smoking something from a pipe.... how do they know it was crack? How? Because some low life drug dealers said so? Or are they also experts in knowing what people are smoking from a video? How do they know it wasn't marijuana? Or heroin? How?
 
People are just ridiculous in North America. In most of Europe an accused person (no matter what proof against him) is not allowed to have his face shown in the media, until convicted. The "perp walk" the US police took Domenic Strauss Kahn on, was shocking to the French public. And in the end charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

You need cold hard evidence to convict, not circumstancial B.S..... a reporter saw him smoking crack in a video, doesn't cut it.
 
A thought did cross my mind- if faking videos is apparently so easy and lucrative, why aren't there any other 'purported' videos of other politicians out there? Why isn't there a video of Obama colluding with Islamists?
 
Tulse said:
Those would be OK?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? I understand hyperbole and conjecture are what drives a lot of the people in here.... but where did I say that?

The mayor of a city this large shouldn't be smoking ANYTHING in the company of drug dealers. Not even a cigarette.

But how the hell, did the reporters know he was smoking crack from a video? Please tell me that. Either they are experts in deducing what ppl smoke from videos... or they are taking the word of drug dealers.
 
FutureBuilder said:
I trust homicide detectives (how have DNA proof and body parts) a lot more than the word of reporters.

It may convince me a story is there but not that the person is necessarily guilty of what they said.

They saw Ford smoking something from a pipe.... how do they know it was crack? How? Because some low life drug dealers said so? Or are they also experts in knowing what people are smoking from a video? How do they know it wasn't marijuana? Or heroin? How?
Click to expand...

Do you really trust homicide detectives more than reporters in general? Or just in regards to this case? Because it's not like no one's ever been railroaded by an over-zealous cop.
 
FutureBuilder said:
I trust homicide detectives (how have DNA proof and body parts) a lot more than the word of reporters.

It may convince me a story is there but not that the person is necessarily guilty of what they said.

They saw Ford smoking something from a pipe.... how do they know it was crack? How? Because some low life drug dealers said so? Or are they also experts in knowing what people are smoking from a video? How do they know it wasn't marijuana? Or heroin? How?
Click to expand...

Well detectives, if they really wanted to, could find out what RoFo has been exposed to. And what he has smoked himself. Anaylsis of toenail clippings (fingernail clippings are more likely to be contaminated), for metabolites of cocaine and deratives would be present.

It wouldn't be the police pressing for this however. They wouldn't press charges for having metabolites of drugs in your system. It would be public pressure, and if he was partaking he would likely refuse to do testing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top