News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, to my point, I don't see how Lisi is needed at this point by police at all. It's up to him if he wants to face life imprisonment just for Ford, who can no longer help him.

There are numerous young men right now who are locked up and have full awareness of the situation. I don't expect them to hold back when it comes to their own ass at this point. Evidence has obviously been throughly documented, it's not going anywhere.

Police do however need to ensure the evidence against Lisi and Ford is rock solid, for without the Lisi conviction, Ford cannot be nailed on conspiracy and be subject to summary conviction (at minimum).
 
Dude, I totally hear you and mostly agree with you.

But I dunno if you've ever sat on a jury in a criminal trial??! There they always instruct the jury to remember 2 things:

1. Always wait till all the evidence is in before coming to a verdict.
2. Be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty.

Right now I'm at 99% sure Ford is guilty, I need that extra 1 percent to make it 100%. And that extra 1% will be in the form of a video. The video is out there, so therefore cops should show it to the public

The argument was that releasing the video would not be beneficial to a trial. Your argument was that it should be released ahead of the trial, so you can make a personal judgement. You used, of all things, 'a trial' as your example, ignoring the fundamental difference between your opinion and an actual court of law.

It's not important what you think at this point. The goal is justice.
 
Also, to my point, I don't see how Lisi is needed at this point by police at all. It's up to him if he wants to face life imprisonment just for Ford, who can no longer help him.

There are numerous young men right now who are locked up and have full awareness of the situation. I don't expect them to hold back when it comes to their own ass at this point. Evidence has obviously been throughly documented, it's not going anywhere.

Police do however need to ensure the evidence against Lisi and Ford is rock solid, for without the Lisi conviction, Ford cannot be nailed on conspiracy and be subject to summary conviction (at minimum).


There are also some people named in the ITO that aren't locked up right now that may have some awareness of the situation. Maybe if the police start hauling them in one by one they will eventually get the information they need to confirm what they believe transpired. A chain is only as good as it's weakest link.
 
Norm Wilner's most recent article:

Save Rob Ford
Every time he’s found transgressing, he does something even worse. What’s next?

"Visibility and responsibility have never sat well on Rob Ford's shoulders; he's only really effective as a politician when he stands in objection to something. He's terrible at governance, which requires shaping opinions and building consensus. No wonder he's constantly ditching work to get drunk and/or high; it's the only escape he has left."

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=195151

That article was outstanding.
 
Dude, I totally hear you and mostly agree with you.

But I dunno if you've ever sat on a jury in a criminal trial??! There they always instruct the jury to remember 2 things:

1. Always wait till all the evidence is in before coming to a verdict.
2. Be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty.

Right now I'm at 99% sure Ford is guilty, I need that extra 1 percent to make it 100%. And that extra 1% will be in the form of a video. The video is out there, so therefore cops should show it to the public

If you haven't yet, please read the unredacted parts of the ITO. No one is going to care about the video when they find out about the other things Ford has been doing. There is no way TPS went through this level of surveillance and expense for the sole purpose of busting a drug dealing driver and a dry cleaner. And pay attention to the headings of the redacted parts.
 
Dude, I totally hear you and mostly agree with you.

But I dunno if you've ever sat on a jury in a criminal trial??! There they always instruct the jury to remember 2 things:

1. Always wait till all the evidence is in before coming to a verdict.
2. Be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty.

Right now I'm at 99% sure Ford is guilty, I need that extra 1 percent to make it 100%. And that extra 1% will be in the form of a video. The video is out there, so therefore cops should show it to the public

Right now I'm 100% sure that Ford is guilty of being a liar, a hypocrite, and grossly misrepresenting facts on a regular basis. I don't need evidence of crack use to know that Rob Ford is not fit to be mayor. I have no interest in living in a city, country, or province where an elected official is so brazenly allowed to mislead the public, so frequently.

Beyond that we're also 100% sure that Rob Ford knowingly consorts with known criminals, which puts him directly at risk to all sorts of trouble, including but not limited to blackmail, extortion, grafting etc. (as others have pointed out already tonight). In fact there's a huge probability that this is part of Ford's current predicament.

So really, do you need to see crack, and what exactly does it prove?
 
The argument was that releasing the video would not be beneficial to a trial. Your argument was that it should be released ahead of the trial, so you can make a personal judgement. You used, of all things, 'a trial' as your example, ignoring the fundamental difference between your opinion and an actual court of law
The video is not part of the trial, because Rob Ford is not on trial. Its only part of Lisi's trial, and opinions among legal experts vary whether that means the video can be released to the public or not.

Read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha..._differ_on_whether_police_may_release_it.html
 
The video is not part of the trial, because Rob Ford is not on trial. Its only part of Lisi's trial, and opinions among legal experts vary whether that means the video can be released to the public or not.

Read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha..._differ_on_whether_police_may_release_it.html

By far, the most compelling argument (which suspiciously is not made on either side frequently) for withholding a piece of evidence, is for a charge not yet laid or to protect an ongoing investigation. This goes for both the video, and the redacted portions of the ITO.
 
If Lisi's extortion charge relates to the video, would the video not be evidence?

Absolutely. My take is that while it's release might not cause a mis-trial, it has potential to do so. This mainly comes down to the idea that, if the video contains what we think it does, nobody who has seen it will believe that Rob Ford, errr, Lisi, wouldn't try to bury it. This leads to an issue of risking a partial jury, and can be used by the defense as an argument.
 
That article was outstanding.

Is it ever. Wilner captures it all, using both insight and information, and expresses it brilliantly.

And he addresses the fact that LONG before any of this drugs/extortion/what-have-you, even before the alcoholism coloured the picture, Rob Ford was just a shit mayor. A. Shit. Mayor. No ability to build consensus, no interest even in compromising. Unacceptable anywhere, let alone a non-partisan legislature. No vision - zero, none. His approach to the mayor's job is akin to hiring a part-time greeter at Walmart to oversee the operations of the entire retail giant.

I am just so angry, so offended by this bastard who is holding our city hostage. Get the fuck out of there, idiot.
 
Screen Shot 2013-11-04 at 7.59.24 PM.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-11-04 at 7.59.24 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2013-11-04 at 7.59.24 PM.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 466
Dude, I totally hear you and mostly agree with you.

But I dunno if you've ever sat on a jury in a criminal trial??! There they always instruct the jury to remember 2 things:

1. Always wait till all the evidence is in before coming to a verdict.
2. Be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty.

Right now I'm at 99% sure Ford is guilty, I need that extra 1 percent to make it 100%. And that extra 1% will be in the form of a video. The video is out there, so therefore cops should show it to the public
I certainly understand your viewpoint, though I'll quibble over "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" vs "Beyond REASONABLE doubt" which is the usual standard for criminal cases; civil even less so in general, with a lower standard of proof.

The Ford case as it stands, though, differs from a typical court case in many ways: as yet, there is no end in sight for the dribs and drabs of evidence that can keep popping up, so waiting for all the evidence, is an open ended proposition. In such a real-world scenario, one either makes no decision, because there is insufficient evidence to do so, or one makes a decision based on the evidence one has up to that point. It doesn't mean things can't later come up to change the picture, and that you can't change your mind, but holding out for the mythical 100% seems something like a cop out. I'm not trying to browbeat you, or back you into a corner, but given the activities of the last years, the depth of the ITO, and the news of the last week, do you honestly feel there isn't enough evidence to make an informed decision?

Lastly, when dealing with politics and publicity in the court of public opinion, I think it's fair to say that the level of proof required generally drops even more. Requiring a conviction-level burden of proof at the public-opinion is a cart-before-the-horse situation. Investigative journalism and public opinion often drives criminal investigations, charges and convictions, at least within the political sphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top