05.29.2013 07:27 AM

The place where the Rob Ford crack cocaine video was shot, and people were shot

The seventeenth floor at 320 Dixon Road, in Kingsview Village.  Bullet marks can be seen on a door on that floor, above.

The Sun has more:

“Several days after the shooting, the Toronto Sun learned the holder of the video that allegedly shows Rob Ford smoking crack also lives on the 17th floor of 320 Dixon Rd.

Toronto Police won’t talk about the video or the shooting, so it’s unclear if the two are connected.

Police have confirmed that homicide detectives are investigating after learning of the whereabouts of the video from a senior staff member in the mayor’s office — now believed to be Ford’s former chief of staff Mark Towhey, who was fired last week…

Whether or not investigators have the video — which Ford has claimed “does not exist” — remains a mystery.

Interestingly, the man who is believed to have shot the 90 seconds of footage with his cellphone, and may have been killed for it, also lived in Kingsview Village.

Anthony Smith, 21, was shot to death outside a King St. W. nightclub March 28 and his 19-year-old pal, who can’t be named because of a publication ban, was wounded.

Both men are also in a much publicized photo where they and a third man appear to be socializing with the mayor.”


  1. Tracy Lamourie says:

    Who even knows what to say anymore. This has gone way, way past funny.

  2. Rob says:

    I don’t much care for Rob Ford, but I must say I’m impressed at how confident he is that the video can’t/won’t surface!

    • Warren says:

      Yep. Almost as if he knows something the rest of us don’t.

      • SmartOne says:

        What, like it might be fake?

        • Michelle says:

          It is an absolute impossibility that it was faked, not if it’s convincing. Unless people in Scarborough have access to skills and technology that even the largest film companies don’t have, it is just not possible.
          For those of you who are considering it may be fake, I ask you; Is Rob Ford really important enough to be the first subject of a convincingly faked video? If it was as easy as some people believe it is to effectively fake a human being moving and talking, why hasn’t their been an incriminating video of say President Obama, or Prime Minister Harper? Why don’t tabloid magazines come out with controversial videos every day?
          Until you can answer those questions (oh and refute the multitude of experts who actually work in the field) please stop passing around this trite, uneducated theory.

      • doris says:

        Yep ‘cos he now owns it!

  3. Tracey says:

    Warren, I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the recent staff hires by Ford office. The newbie football kids and the now shady Price. The smartest guy in the room is usually someone who hires smart people that bring something to the table. This is so opposite. And political suicide

  4. ray says:

    I agree Tracie but it says a lot more about us when an idiot can take all the oxygen out of a city while another one like Duffy the doofus takes it out of the country? Someone is winning the race to the bottom and any available mirror will tell us who that is.

  5. Arnold Murphy says:

    Cell Phone logs and phone company retention policies will reveal evidence if the video was shared or sent to anyone over the phone. Also the IPHONE apparently has a cloud back-up application that many people enable by default when they first get their phone, this may not even of occurred to anyone that the retention policies of I Phone are American and as such definitively means that the video would still be in the repository. The FBI surely would be co-operative in a murder investigation with the Toronto Police and the RCMP, sooner or later the video will emerge, no matter how confident the Fords are. After all they were probably confident they could erase emails stored under legal retention policies, but were wrong.

  6. Michelle says:

    What do you think of Joe Warmington’s piece on the matter? In your opinion is the Mayor’s office explanation about why the police came in for questioning convincing? Is it possible that it’s just a coincedence? Do constituents call the Mayor’s office to tell them their are drug dealers or other criminal activity on a regular basis? Is it common practice for the police to come in and interview someone in the Mayor’s office if that happens? If the former Press Secretary and his assistant were “just hiding” and expected to leave, why did Rob Ford look so surprised when he arrived at his office on Monday to find them gone?

    There’s a litany of other questions I have (as I’m sure you do) but these are ones that I thought I would start with.

  7. Niall says:


    I understand why (& for what immediate/near-term political purposes) you are popularizing both your interpretation of recent events in Ford Nation, and posing your (conventionally “investigative” journalistic) rhetorical questions, but I’m a little surprised that you would so easily suspend what I had previously believed to be a relatively stable ethical gyroscope in pursuit of the above mentioned objectives.

    Rob Ford is being accused (if that is even the right word) via a distasteful combination of allegation, innuendo, and hearsay, of which you (as a lawyer) should know well enough as any is no proper means or method to see that justice & truth will prevail.

    The “crack” (or crank, or meth, or hash, or qat, or spice, or K2, or bath salts, or freebase, or etc., etc) video is the factual equivalent of a UFO sighting, and the motivations of the “eyewitnesses” are highly likely to be money $$ (Gawker), or a class/aesthetic loathing of the Fords (the Toronto Star). A prejudice, I might note, that is the sole remaining permissible (even encouraged) chauvinism among the wiser and better of our chattering self-referential Laurentian elites.

    For an actual example of the disconnection between on one hand what is being said about Ford and his circle, and on the other what the actual facts of the matter indicate (to, I think, absolutely no one’s surprise) one can look no further than (oddly enough) the TO RedStar:


    What is the most upsetting and disgraceful ramification of the above destructive process is, as a long-time crime reporter noted, that the goalposts of journolism (sic) have now be irrevocable moved. So what?? Well, if you believe from a neutral standpoint that until some actual real evidence of criminal activity is made public Ford has been ill-used in the extreme, you also have to agree that this methodology (indictment (conviction even) via ephemera) is now unpleasantly here to stay, and will be ruthlessly used by partisans on all sides, to the degradation of us all.

    Yours in Christ,

    Niall from Winnipeg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *