Although I have the greatest respect for your acumen generally, I was not impressed with this particular display. It seemed to me you started with an assumption that the woman named was correct and went on from there to "prove" it.
I started with a hypothesis-- that Frank Magazine named the correct woman-- and set out to test that hypothesis. That's a completely valid line of inquiry.
I found some circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory, and nothing that discredits it. I think Chelsea Nash being at the "Hockey Night In Barrie" event that the anonymous accuser said she organized for Brown is certainly persuasive. It's not proof, but if it's not her then it must be an awfully small world.
The media are not reporting either woman's identity (and for good reason, I believe.) But remember that people know. Brown knows, his friends know, probably a lot of gossip and rumors are going around Barrie from people who know. Remember that the one accuser who changed her story now says she has been receiving harassment and threats about the story, so her name is out there as well.
Of course that is the question, but it seems to me CTV has more to lose by not doing their due diligence in terms of ensuring the women and their reporter were at arms length than PB and friends have by claiming they didn't. Where CTV definitely failed was in not corrobating dates; surely they could and should have confirmed that PB lived in the house at the time the incident was said to have happened.
I think whether CTV did or didn't do any research, they have to say they did their research before going to press, because to say otherwise would be to admit liability in the inevitable lawsuit.
I disagree that getting one's age slightly wrong, and what time of year are terribly significant details after a decade; people's memories are a lot more fallible than most of us think. It is true that still in high school is more dramatic story, but when it comes down to it, if he's 35 and in a position of power when he behaves inappropriately, does it matter if she's 18 or 19 or even 20?
A reminder that the girl who claimed to have been underage drinking was the 2007 incident, which was when Brown was 28, not 35, and not in a position of power over her or anybody else.
And I say "bullshit!" to the claim that it doesn't change the story. Look back earlier in the thread and see how many of the indignant outcries about Brown feature variations on "she was in HIGHSCHOOL!" or "she was UNDERAGE!" "He was pouring drinks down the throat of an UNDERAGE HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!" "HE SHOWED HIS
**** TO A HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!!!!" I think it's clear and obvious that "underage" and "highschool" added a lot of fuel to the fire.
I think that every time I pointed out that nothing Brown was accused of actually rose to the level of wrongdoing, I was shouted down with some variation of "Underage!!!" "Highschool!!!" "Alcohol!" and "Weiner!" Well, she wasn't underage, she wasn't in highschool, and if a 19 year old wants to drink alcohol and snack on weiners, she is free to do so.
It seems to me there's a willingness here to give him the benefit of the doubt that wasn't accorded these women even before PB's denials.
And I say "bullshit!" to this as well. These women weren't given the benefit of the doubt? Their word was taken as gospel until one of them got caught in a lie and the claim was made that the other is a friend of one of the reporters.
Brown, on the other hand, was deemed guilty from day 1.
On the other hand, if it can be shown conclusively that these women lied and that CTV was complicit, then I agree thay PB should take them to court and they should have to pay for ruining his career. At this point, I don't think there's enough proof for that.
Obviously there's no proof of anything yet. But right now we're certainly at a point where CTV's story is facing some questions and they will be called on to address the questions about their reporting.
-k