Two different eyewitnesses have come forward to corroborate one of the allegations of sexual assault.
You see, that's what I'm not sure of. Fowler said this from reviewing the redacted police report:
Nevertheless, the heavily redacted information that was provided confirmed that, of 38 witnesses interviewed by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), not one corroborated the complaint against Admiral McDonald that he pushed the head or face of a third person into the chest of the complainant.
I know Rory and he doesn't pull crap out of his hat. I'll be the first to admit though that a "heavily redacted" police report is worth - crap. IMHO the evidence is conflicted and until it's clear I won't go throwing stones.
Look back earlier in this thread - the MP's basically squashed two witnesses.
One of them came out to a media outlet.
That doesn't make the report true - it just raises a question in my mind of how valuable this witness actually is. I'm one of them folks from Missouri.
I have to admit that that I've found one or more screwed up police reports in my limited travels on both the prosecution and defence side. The one thing that I've learned is that you never take an investigator's report at face value. I always interviewed the witnesses personally before trial to see if what was on paper was there in fact and how the witness appeared to me while saying it. There's been more than one occasion where I flat out wouldn't believe a witness. (and one occasion where I was convinced my client was flat out lying to me because his story sounded so implausible but on further investigation found corroborative witnesses and paperwork to confirm his cock and bull story was absolutely true - go figure) - end result - I refuse to make snap judgements based on news reports and even police reports.
Neither do I - so I'd rather a NON DND entity take it over - and re-interview a bunch of people -- because quite frankly MP's have shown they know how to use a shredder a little too well.
If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have - and did - argue against it. This case in particular has made me change my mind. The extent of the redaction in this case to McDonald's counsel is IMHO, highly suspicious as I can't think that any of the normal exclusions on disclosure would apply. Then again this isn't a Stinchcombe disclosure but a piece of crap run through the
Privacy Act so the usual government obscuration was applied. Bloody sad, IMHO when dealing with someone who has give his life to the service and a few short months ago was trusted with its highest office.
I've always said: "The Forces are a 'what have you done for us today?' organization." The moment you leave you are forgotten about. Class A's are forgotten about until they are Class Bs or Cs. The moment you can't be used, you are a nothing. McDonald stopped being a something the moment he stepped aside.
I no longer trust them to look after anyone's interest and, in the case of criminal matters, it would be better if an outside agency that doesn't even pretend to care took over. That way at least you know where you stand.
