With the Rob Ford crack “tape” seemingly lost forever, people are starting to get antsy. “Where is it?”, they’re rightfully asking. “Without it, who knows if it’s even real!”
Not precisely correct, but still, it’d be good to have a gander at that video, wouldn’t it?
And about that not being correct part, consider this for a moment; many crimes didn’t have video cameras, or good enough video evidence, to prove that they ever took place. So does that mean that all you need to do is to take someone out into a back alley and it’s your word against theirs?
In a court, that wouldn’t be the end of it. There’s this stuff called corroborating evidence — not proof, but strong hints — and in the absence of any recorded evidence we have … eye witnesses.
People tend to forget about this type of sworn evidence: people who actually saw the event in question.
Now I already know what the Ford supporters are saying: “But these are unnamed sources claiming this! Plus they’re drug dealers! Plus they’re lefties!”
There are at least five publicly named sources at this point — the reporters themselves — who have claimed (on record, no less), that they saw the video with their own eyes. In court, they’d be witnesses.
I doubt it. But the people who claim to own the video, probably yes. Does that mean that those people (the witnesses and the drug dealers are not to be conflated), were able to use their ill-gotten drug money to make up a sensational video? If you believe that Santa comes down your chimney every year, you might buy this one too. Does that therefore make the video fake? Highly unlikely.
Seems to me that with five public and named sources, the likelihood of the video existing being high, the likelihood of the video being fake being low, the fact that not only is the whole thing believable but also likely, and finally, that everything that the Fords have subsequently done points to a clear motive — it all sounds like a pretty solid case to me.
Ford’s defense: his flaccid word.