04.27.2018 10:28 AM

Paikin cleared – and some background

As you all know, I vigorously and passionately support #MeToo. I believe it is the most important socio-political movement since Occupy.

But it is not, and should not ever be, untruthful. In order for it to continue (and the Cosby verdict this week reminded us all why it must), it must be true.

So, I was not at all surprised by the final outcome in the complaint Sarah Thomson made against Steve Paikin.  Her claims were “unsubstantiated,” quote unquote.

I can now reveal that I had a reason for believing her allegations were truly unsubstantiated.  I received the message below from one of you.  It showed Thomson seeking the very evidence she had already said she possessed.  I passed it along to Paikin, because it strongly suggested that she had no evidence to back up what she had already alleged.

Hopefully, a lesson will be learned, here.



  1. Peter says:

    The report called Ms. Thomson a “complex complainant”. Nice euphemism.

  2. Robert White says:

    Hey Robert:

    One, you are never allowed to use this site to post libel.

    Two, I am now suspicious you are not who you claim to be. Until you provide documentary proof at wkinsella@gmail.com, you will not be permitted to post here.

  3. Aurelia says:

    From yesterday’s New York Times on #metoo in the corporate world.
    “Finally, fed up, a group of women inside Nike’s Beaverton, Ore., headquarters started a small revolt.
    Covertly, they surveyed their female peers, inquiring whether they had been the victim of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Their findings set off an upheaval in the executive ranks of the world’s largest sports footwear and apparel company.”


    Crime victims, women who have been sexually harassed, and other marginalized people often start looking for others who have suffered at the hands of the same perpetrators. It’s often our only validation and it’s refutation of the cultural gaslighting of society, “don’t be ridiculous, you imagined it”.
    Formal investigators rarely look beyond the initial complainant, even though we know these are long standing patterns of behaviour on the part of perpetrators. When they investigate a non-famous man, or a man of colour, they literally start with “known to police” then ask anyone with information to come forward, and then interview “known associates.”

    Since they don’t card white people, or rich people, or reporters, they don’t start that way in investigations. In my personal experience? They do nothing.

    So we find our fellow victims ourselves, and gather evidence ourselves, and get publicity ourselves. Families of 1100 murdered and missing indigenous women had too. Friends and families of uncountable murdered and missing gay men of colour in Church-Wellesley had too. The dozens and dozens of Cosby victims would agree. Same for Harvey Weinstein.

    Right now, in a totally unrelated case, I know another group of young women who are self-investigating a perpetrator with many victims, because no one in authority, not one adult will lift a finger.

    Make sense why women would message each other now?

    • Warren says:

      The post refers to one case, and to one individual who was attempting to find evidence because she entirely lacked any in respect of herself. Everyone else got it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.