On March 8, 2016, I filed a formal complaint with the CBC, about how they covered the website and the "issues" between me and Desiree email dated 2016-03-08.
On April 14, 2016 - 37 days later - I received a response back, from Wayne Williams, News Director of CBC News, essentially trying to claim that CBC did nothing wrong and that he believes they presented the story fairly, honestly, and without bias.
Most of the CBC's response is clearly refuted by the points we made in the recent post Natalie Clancy and the CBC Are Full of Shit.
You can read the entire response from Mr. Williams in his email email dated 2016-04-14.
Now, let's have a look at some of Williams' bullshit responses and contemplate them for a moment:
Your complaint suggests we deliberately misrepresented the facts. With all due respect I can not agree...
While you say you provided proof Desiree Capuano, your former wife, lied about a number of allegations against you, the record is not clear.
Mr. Williams claims "the record is not clear". Huh? Is he high? Desiree made allegations against me and provided absolutely no evidence to support them. I made allegations against Desiree and provided reams of evidence to support them. How is the record not clear? CBC chose not to mention any of that supporting evidence so that it would appear it's my word against hers - and they made a point of mentioning I was convicted of perjury, suggesting I am a liar so Desiree's word is more credible.
For example your wife says your web site cost her a job and harmed her ability to find work...While your March 8 email suggests your ex-wife was lying about this, your response was, "If as a consequence of the website she's unable to get a job...Good." You had an opportunity to refute her claims but did not.
No she didn't! Desiree never once said she lost her job because of the website! All she said was that she was "laid off" - with no indication that her being "laid off" was in any way related to the website. In fact, she's stated under oath, that losing her job at Apollo Education Group absolutely had nothing to do with the website Responsive Declaration, page 16. CBC and KVOA edited the interview footage to deliberately create the impression Desiree was associating losing her job with the website.
As for me stating "If as a consequence of the website she's unable to get a job...Good", what the fuck does that have to do with CBC falsely claiming Desiree lost her job because of the website? It seems Williams is trying to distract us by turning the blame.
Any reasonable person would conclude a web site like yours is designed to have a negative impact on all aspects of your wife's life.
Again, Williams is trying to turn the blame around. This statement has no relevance to whether or not CBC presented the story truthfully and without bias. More specifically, the intended purpose of the website has nothing to do with whether Desiree actually claimed she lost her job as a result of the website or not.
On that site you say Desiree Capuano is a drug addict, a child abuser and a white supremacist.
Indeed. And I have provided proof of all of that. Why did CBC choose not to mention that there's proof? Why did CBC choose not to provide that proof to the viewers? It's all publicly available on the website.
When you were asked "Is there anything that would convince you to take the website down? You responded, "When she is destitute and homeless and the existence of the website would become irrelevant."
Again, what does that have to do with the accuracy and the completeness of the reporting?
You say you have proof Capuano lied when she said you threatened to kill her. We did not report that she said that. It was clear she "feared for her safety" and we explored that extensively with you.
Are we talking about the same story here? Clancy stated "...another includes an email about wanting to shoot her...Talk of shooting left her fearing for her and her fiancé's safety." Clancy knew I had a firearms license and that I owned a number of handguns. She also knew that Desiree knew that. And, as Clancy was saying those things, this is what was displayed in the shot:
Screenshot, intended to create the impression Patrick threatened to shoot (kill) me.
So, while the CBC segment didn't directly state Desiree said I threatened to "kill", is there any real doubt about the impression they were trying to make here? On a related note, Desiree did actually tell Ashlee DeMartino of KTVK in Phoenix, that I "threatened to kill her in emails". Just another example of Desiree's willingness to increase the severity of her allegations when they don't get her the response she wants.
And just how was it "clear" that Desiree feared for her safety? Particularly, when there were police reports filed long after the alleged threat to shoot her, where she insisted I had never threatened her or her fiancé, James Pendleton Sahuarita Police reports, page 3-4. Williams provides no explanation for why CBC didn't mention that.
We asked you about a conversation you had with your son when he asked if you would ever shoot his mother. You replied you'd have "no qualms" about killing her if that was legal.
You told us, "No qualms right...means no moral dilemma. That doesn't mean that I would actually do it."
Actually, that's not entirely correct. I did not say, in the interview, that I would have no qualms about shooting Desiree. I said that in the original email, dated January 11, 2015 email dated 2015-01-11 - what CBC aired was me referring to what was stated in that email. CBC deliberately cut out the part of the conversation prior to that single statement. Why?
We also reported that the Criminal Justice Branch told us that given what they understood to be your comment that they, "couldn't conclude that that would cause the complainant (your ex-wife) to have an objective fear for their personal safety."
But Williams ignores that Clancy's narrative immediately preceding the prosecutor's quote is "...but the Crown did not approve the charge, in part because Fox is in BC and she's in Arizona". The way the two shots are edited together it clearly implies that the reason Desiree should not have an objective fear for her safety is because we're in different locations. Especially when you consider the next shot, after Desiree whining, is attorney Kevin Westell talking about how, in a case like this, the physical distance between the parties isn't relevant.
How is CBC not misrepresenting the facts in this case?
You also say your wife was telling a lie when she claimed you hid your son from her. Your told our journalists the proof is in a transcript from a court hearing. Our read of that was far from conclusive.
Really? Are you obtuse? Have you even looked at the website? Are you saying that Desiree's admissions in her sworn declaration in the family court (Proof That I'm Lying About Fox Hiding Our Son From Me for 9 Years – My Own Sworn Testimony), and her own letters she wrote and sent to me in 2011 (More Proof I'm Lying About Fox Hiding Our Child From Me for Nine Years – My Own Letters) are "far from conclusive"?
When we did not see nor hear absolute evidence of proof we always provided both yours and your ex-wife's perspective in what is clearly a bitter dispute.
We reported what you had said in response to her accusation, "Fox told CBC that Capuano abandoned their son for years."
But CBC didn't provide any of the evidence that supported any of my claims! Hell, they didn't even mention that there was any evidence to support my claims! They presented the story entirely as "he said/she said".
As another example of CBC ignoring evidence because it might portray me in a more positive light: They pointedly reported that I had been convicted of perjury by falsely claiming to be a US citizen in federal court, then subsequently sent to jail and deported, for that same reason. However, they chose not to mention that Desiree (not me) had provided CBC a copy of my US birth certificate birth certificate. A person born in the US is automatically a US citizen; and, is obviously not committing perjury when he states, under oath, that he is a US citizen; and, cannot, legally, be deported from the US. But CBC made no reference to my place of birth or citizenship - they made implications, from which they expected the viewer would infer I was a Canadian citizen.
Now to your last point alleging we falsely reported the RCMP had recommended a charge of criminal harassment against you.
You say your proof is a police document you posted that says,"There is no criminal offense being committed."
That document was printed September 1, 2015, before the RCMP completed their investigation. We stand by our statement that the RCMP forwarded a charge of criminal harassment against you to crown in October.
The "investigation" Williams is referring to here is regarding my PAL (firearms license), not regarding the criminal harassment charge. The criminal harassment investigation was over almost immediately - it was a very open/shut case. The subsequent investigation into whether my PAL should be revoked as a result of Desiree's criminal harassment complaint is what took five months. And in the end it was determined there was no basis to revoke my PAL.
We did report that the Crown did not approve the charge, quoting a spokesperson who said, "In this case, the fact the people live in different countries played a part in that assessment."
But CBC failed to mention the other, more relevant reasons, such as Desiree's lack of credibility, her story changed repeatedly and she told different things to different law enforcement agencies, and the fact that the crime of criminal harassment hadn't actually been committed.
Is it really such an awful thing to have to admit that you withheld very crucial evidence from your viewers in order to convince them of something you knew was not true? That you deliberately misrepresented the facts to create a story where one didn't really exist? That you deliberately mislead your viewers (and readers)? And that you caused very substantial hardship to a person who hadn't actually done anything near what you were deliberately attempting to portray him of?
Come on, CBC! How can you expect to be taken as anything other than a tabloid when the person you're attempting to publicly defame can so easily publish the proof that your coverage of the story was complete bullshit?
Comments