12 August 2009

More crap from the Globe

As usual, Christie Blatchford gets it right.

A front page story in the Tuesday Globe excoriates an Ottawa judge for remarks he didn’t make in the decision on the O’Brien influence peddling case. There’s another column that carries on with the same nonsense.

In his decision, Justice Douglas Cunningham assessed testimony from one Crown witness and found that the portion of her testimony on which the Crown was relying was not really central to the conversation she was having at the time. 

Even during the portion of the witness’ evidence led by the Crown, there were sufficient variations in the statement to raise questions about her recollections.  On top of that, the defence was able to demonstrate that, having had many significant events in her life at the time of her statement to police, the judge concluded that the witness’  “recollection of a brief, casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight”.

There is no reference by the judge to the sex of the witness or anything of the sort.  There is nothing but a straight-up factual synopsis of the evidence, which is what you’d expect from a judge.

And out that, the legion of professional Irks has launched into an incredible pile of nonsense.

Shame on Toronto’s national newspaper for giving such crap such prominence.

But, as usual, Christie got it right.

-srbp-

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

who do you represent Mr. Hollett? A simple question, only
a simple answer required. or do we have to get the press to ask you. or is it a dream of yours to be a cartoon on the editorial page.

Edward G. Hollett said...

On the sidebar of this blog is a simple statement of integrity that has been there for years.

The question you pose has been asked and answered every day for years.

Go read it:

"The opinions expressed at Bond Papers are solely those of the author.

Comments are welcome, either by e-mail to bondpapers at hotmail dot com or by adding remarks at the end of each post.

We encourage people to take responsibility for words by not posting anonymously."

The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone.

Can we say the same about you? Can the same be said of other anony-slaggers here and elsewhere?

Maybe that's why you and your friends won't reveal your identities.

People who hide themselves usually have good reason to be worried about the truth being known.

Anonymous said...

your words "We encourage people to take responsibility for words by not posting anonymously."

who is the WE if it is only you mr Hollett

Anonymous said...

hang on was that a Sasquatch?

John Fitzgerald Byers said...

I don't post anything here because the whole thing is just a front for the Liberal conspiracy to find all the patriots and then eliminate them.

They track your internet addresses and can hack into your computer and read all your e-0mail

Anonymous said...

is that true Ed? Do you Hack into computers and break privacy laws. or do you get the We of your I to do all that.
like to see him hack into me.