Rob Ford's Toronto

[Edward Skira]

Quote Of The Day - Olympian Marnie McBean on Rob Ford voting no to honour the athletes “It’s cause we’re OK with drug testing, isn’t it?”

Brilliant!

 

[kbdid]

So the OPP blindsided Giroux?

 

[salsa]

Rob Ford: ‘Your block is dead,’ Lisi threatens Dixon neighbourhood over crack video, wiretap says

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ood_in_wake_of_crack_video_document_says.html

 

[Huge Seagull]

Asked if the mayor “knows a few dirty cops,†as is claimed in a conversation picked up on police wiretaps, he [Doug Ford] said, “No, not at all.â€

Phew. Well, that puts that to rest at least.

Did anyone remind Dougie about that time he claimed he'd asked his cop buddies for reassurance about the Cessna surveillance? (He must have gotten some pushback about that from Taverner or whoever, because he subsequently claimed he "misspoke," without elaborating, when asked about it by a reporter.)

 

[basic]

Does this count for something:

"Rob Ford is going mad"

 

[arvelomcquaig]

It seems the charge everyone is talking about is extortion. Experts are saying that it's highly unlikely that Ford will be charged. In general or just with the extortion charge? For all we know, and there have been hints, there might be other charges the cops are working on, hence TPS saying investigation is still ongoing.

There better be many charges to come. There are endless things to choose from: Drunk driving, rampant drug use, yelling about killing people, etc.

 

[salsa]

Does this count for something:

"Rob Ford is going mad"

Source?

 

[pud99]

CBC Radio news brief item: Said that 'sources' told CBC that Crown prosecutors advised that there is not enough evidence for additional charges, as a result of a meeting with the TPS and the OPP.

 

[ahm]

I still fail to see how this means that both extortionists get off without charges.

If I am a drug dealer, and then someone comes with a gun and robs me of my money and drugs. He committed a crime.

I got stick him up and take it all back. I committed a crime.

There's no "take-backsies" in the criminal code. Two wrongs don't make a right.

s.17 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act sets out that a person may be refused compensation if their behaviour directly or indirectly contributed to their injury - so for instance, a drug dealer may get refused for their claim for compensation as a victim of a crime even if the person who assaulted them is arrested, charged, and convicted of assault. The law does consider if one wrong contributed to, directly or indirectly, a subsequent wrong.

 

[pud99]

Source?

Wiretap transcript in ITO.

 

[pud99]

 

[JoeParez]

This entire thing reminds me of the courtroom scene in The Godfather Part 2 where Frank Pentangeli changed his story on Michael Corleone after co-operating with the Feds and the charges on Michael were dropped causing everyone to be shocked.

 

[pogopope]

*I mean, seriously: Is there anyone here who actually doubts that Slob and/or Thug's meaty paw prints aren't all over the violent attempts at retrieving the crack video? That's not even counting all the other shit, of which God knows there is plenty. How in the hell are the Fords walking away from all this? We're not talking here about Machiavelliaian masterminds a la Lex Luthor or Professor Moriarty; they're simply a pair of low level brutes. Two stupid, mean, utterly transparent, self-serving thugs. How have they managed to get away with everything?

1. They have money
2. Cops are largely conservative and/or don't give a shit about this type of crime
3. The other criminals involved are as stupid or stupider than the Fords (and significantly poorer)
4. Many of the accusers (e.g. brother-in-law) have their own credibility issues
5. Toronto has no mechanism to fire a mayor
6. It's not illegal to be a stupid fucking c*nt

 

[Dubster]

I want to clear the air for a bit. Let's go back to the Star article for a second:

Enter OPP Det. Insp. Chris Nicholas, also a veteran detective. Nicholas, according to two sources who were not authorized to speak publicly about the case, believed that Ford was the victim. His theory was that once the video was made, Siad may have attempted to extort money from Ford in return for handing over the video.

So the OPP came in and disagreed with the entire basis for the investigation itself. This isn't about "charges will never be laid," this is the OPP investigator coming in and completing disagreeing with the very grounds for pursuing Brazen II. Giroux felt otherwise and was continuing to investigate:

Toronto Police maintain that the investigation into the mayor, dubbed Project Brazen 2, is ongoing and the lead investigator, Detective Sergeant Gary Giroux, expressed bafflement about the OPP’s remarks.

“Our investigation is still ongoing and so the comment about the withdrawal is confusing to me because it’s a bit of a disconnect,” he said in an interview. “I certainly haven’t heard that they’re no longer engaged.”

About the Crown, I can't speak because the details behind their view is murky. But here is Donovan/Dootlittle:

One person with knowledge of the dispute said the Toronto detectives, who have presented all of their information to senior Crown attorneys and to a judge (to obtain search warrants), were surprised that the OPP detective so quickly came to the conclusion that Toronto’s theory was wrong.
“Nobody understands how the OPP came up with this. The Toronto police don’t know where this is coming from,” said a source with knowledge of the Toronto police involvement.

If the Crown were asked, "Do you think right now the TPS have grounds to charge Ford?" of course they're going to say no, because he hasn't been arrested and the investigation is on-going! But have they been asked whether they agree with the OPP that the BASIS of the investigation is flawed? I doubt it, else they would have quashed Brazen 2 ages ago.

There is a difference between questioning the grounds for an investigation, and admitting the police don't yet have evidence to lay charges.

 

[Franks2000inchTV]

s.17 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act sets out that a person may be refused compensation if their behaviour directly or indirectly contributed to their injury - so for instance, a drug dealer may get refused for their claim for compensation as a victim of a crime even if the person who assaulted them is arrested, charged, and convicted of assault. The law does consider if one wrong contributed to, directly or indirectly, a subsequent wrong.

That seems to be about compensation, though, not about criminal culpability.