Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

c.p.w.g.w

How can Rose McGowan stand up there giving a speech about Justice...she is part of reason why Weinstein was allegedly able to carry on for so long.

She took the money to keep quiet, and allow Weinstein to stay a free man.

Arghus

JohnCleary wrote: »

It states he had spinal surgery? I was in a bodycast and was happy to have a crutch / walking aid after I broke my spine.... and I was only 17.

Not defending him, but might aswell stick to the facts. Either the pic in the link is an amazing Photoshop, or he looks like sh1t

We've all seen enough Mafia movies by now to know that if you're in front of the judge then you have it looking like you're as sick and as frail as a dying dog. No one ever got extra years in the big house for looking like they wouldn't last another day above ground.

Harvey may be legit crocked, but it does seem conveniently inconvenient for him to be in such a seemingly pitiful physical state right now.

anewme

Arghus wrote: »

Harvey may be legit crocked, but it does seem conveniently inconvenient for him to be in such a seemingly pitiful physical state right now.

He looks dreadful although the first thing that sprung to mind for me was the Mafia Godfathers hobbling around when suited them.

He is really an ugly man, inside and out.

Bigbagofcans

He looks 80. Looking for sympathy with your walker, old man.

fryup

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ha using a walker coming out of court huh. lol.

Hangdogroad wrote: »

The old ageing Mafia boss trick. By the time of the trial he'll be in a wheelchair and claim to be blind and deaf.

like these greaseballs

BorneTobyWilde

Jury clearly have been got to. What a joke, but they are dealing with one powerful man.

Penn

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Jury clearly have been got to. What a joke, but they are dealing with one powerful man.

Not as powerful as he might have hoped. Found Guilty.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/24/harvey-weinstein-guilty-trial-charges-verdict

Guilty of first-degree sexual assault and third-degree rape. Almost definite jail time.
Acquitted of the top charges of predatory sexual assault though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Penn wrote: »

Not as powerful as he might have hoped. Found Guilty.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/24/harvey-weinstein-guilty-trial-charges-verdict

Guilty of first-degree sexual assault and third-degree rape. Almost definite jail time.
Acquitted of the top charges of predatory sexual assault though.

I really thought he’d get off. Wow. Admittedly, I didn’t follow the case but ever since OJ...

What's third degree rape in a nutshell? Wasn't aware of lack of consent but should have been?

Oranage2

Skynews says it's possibly 28 years in jail which would basically be a life sentence for him

pawdee

He's going down!

dark crystal

As well as this case, he's also been indicted on four counts of felony sexual assault in Los Angeles, which still has to go to court.

Weinstein could well be looking at a nice spell in prison...

fryup

now, lets see how he likes it :cool:

Quantum Erasure

Deleted User wrote: »

What's third degree rape in a nutshell? Wasn't aware of lack of consent but should have been?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/what-third-degree-rape-harvey-17806638

According to New York state laws, third degree rape is when a "person is guilty of rape in the third degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

• Who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than 17 years old;
• Who is less than 17 years old, and the defendant is 21 years old or more; or
• Without such person's consent, which is withheld for some other reason than incapacity to consent.

A person commits second-degree rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person

• who is less than 15 years old and the defendant is 18 years old or more; or
• who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.

A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

• By "forcible compulsion" -- compelling the victim through the use of physical force or the threat of immediate death, physical injury or kidnapping;
• Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
• Who is less than 11 years old; or
• Who is less than 13 years old and the defendant is 18 years old or more.

dark crystal

Torino wrote: »

Is rape one of your favourite subjects to discuss?

Yes, yes it is. It's like a form of tourettes I have. I slip the word 'rape' into every conceivable sentence I can. I have at least 157 threads on Boards concerning rape alone. I even have a little Harvey Weinstein shrine in my attic, that I direct all my rape rage at when I have no one to talk about rape to.


....Seriously, who are you and what in the name of God are you talking about??

cj maxx

I had completely mixed HW up with Epstein.

Boggles

Oranage2 wrote: »

Skynews says it's possibly 28 years in jail which would basically be a life sentence for him

29 years.

5-25 for the first one.

Parole to 4 years for the second one.

He will definitely be sentenced to 5 years.

Probably get 6-9.

They have lodged appeals all ready.

Galwayguy35

His lawyers are going to appeal so looks like it might be a while yet before he sees the inside of a jail cell.

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

His lawyers are going to appeal so looks like it might be a while yet before he sees the inside of a jail cell.

He is in a jail cell now.

Bail revoked.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. It's like a form of tourettes I have. I slip the word 'rape' into every conceivable sentence I can. I have at least 157 threads on Boards concerning rape alone. I even have a little Harvey Weinstein shrine in my attic, that I direct all my rape rage at when I have no one to talk about rape to.


....Seriously, who are you and what in the name of God are you talking about??

I lolled, so I did. Great wording and bluntness.

fergiesfolly

Hate saying it, but I could see Weinstein taking the Epstein escape route.

Boggles

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Hate saying it, but I could see Weinstein taking the Epstein escape route.

Murdered by the Clintons?

RabbleRouser2k

Boggles wrote: »

Murdered by the Clintons?

I heard some comedian making a joke along the lines of 'I won't say I dislike Harvey Weinstein... but I will say I cannot wait until this time next year when we get the 'Weinstein didn't kill himself' memes'.

Outlaw Pete

One perplexing aspect of this trial (and I know it's legal in certain states in the US - the "prior bad acts' law) was that testimony from other women who have made public allegations against Harvey was allowed to be heard as "evidence". Surely these prior bad acts should require an element of proof before a jury is told that they should consider them as evidence.

Harvey is clearly a nasty piece of work, but it would seem Mann had a sexual relationship with him, and as fcuked up as it sounds it was (what with him apparently having to inject his 'vagina shaped' penis and all - according to her) it was still and all, a sexual relationship:

Jessica Mann, now 34, an aspiring actress from a dairy farm in Washington state, met Weinstein at a Hollywood party when she was 25 and testified that he raped her in 2013 at a hotel in Manhattan.

Yet she continued a relationship with him for several years afterward, during which time she had consensual sex with him, attended Oscar parties as his guest and sent hundreds of affectionate messages, some of which Rotunno read aloud to the court.

In the weeks after the alleged rape, Mann emailed Weinstein to thank him for arranging an audition for a vampire movie: “I appreciate all you do for me, it shows.”

“Miss you big guy,” she wrote six months later.

She asked him to meet her mother in another email: “You can see how good my genes are.”

And four years later, she wrote, “I love you, I always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call. ”

Rotunno read out another message in which Mann wrote she was “blowing a super-rich Hollywood producer.”

ILoveYourVibes

they got him.

whyalwaysyou24

How many more Harvey Weinsteins are still out there?

Any man in a position where he can essentially make someone's career is always going to be tempted to go down this route.

I'd be horrified if any of my daughters ever went into the acting world.

jam_mac_jam

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One perplexing aspect of this trial (and I know it's legal in certain states in the US - the "prior bad acts' law) was that testimony from other women who have made public allegations against Harvey was allowed to be heard as "evidence".

Harvey is clearly a nasty piece of work, but it would seem Mann had a sexual relationship with him, and as fcuked up as it sounds it was (what with him apparently having to inject his 'vagina shaped' penis and all - according to her) it was still and all, a sexual relationship:

You can be raped by someone that you have a sexual relationship with.

dark crystal

Torino wrote: »

I'm Torino, I'm talking about your particular interest in rape.

This is getting fuc*in' creepy now

jam_mac_jam

whyalwaysyou24 wrote: »

How many more Harvey Weinsteins are still out there?

Any man in a position where he can essentially make someone's career is always going to be tempted to go down this route.

I'd be horrified if any of my daughters ever went into the acting world.

It may make some of think twice in future.

dark crystal

whyalwaysyou24 wrote: »

How many more Harvey Weinsteins are still out there?

Any man in a position where he can essentially make someone's career is always going to be tempted to go down this route.

I'd be horrified if any of my daughters ever went into the acting world.

Thankfully, I would hope it's becoming much less common now that many women and men aren't as afraid to speak out when it happens to them.

ILoveYourVibes

dark crystal wrote: »

Thankfully, I would hope it's becoming much less common now that many women and men aren't as afraid to speak out when it happens to them.

I honestly don't think anything has changed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One perplexing aspect of this trial (and I know it's legal in certain states in the US - the "prior bad acts' law) was that testimony from other women who have made public allegations against Harvey was allowed to be heard as "evidence". Surely these prior bad acts should require an element of proof before a jury is told that they should consider them as evidence.

Harvey is clearly a nasty piece of work, but it would seem Mann had a sexual relationship with him, and as fcuked up as it sounds it was (what with him apparently having to inject his 'vagina shaped' penis and all - according to her) it was still and all, a sexual relationship:

Testimony is considered evidence.

whyalwaysyou24

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I honestly don't think anything has changed.

I'd say it's got worse, seeing as being famous now is more of an aspiration for young people than ever.

ILoveYourVibes

whyalwaysyou24 wrote: »

I'd say it's got worse, seeing as being famous now is more of an aspiration for young people than ever.

I am not sure its worse. I dont think its better now.

I think people are more aware it can happen which is good they might be less naive.

I am certainly less naive than my mother's generation.

Outlaw Pete

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You can be raped by someone that you have a sexual relationship with.

Obviously, but it would be highly unlikely for someone to continue a relationship with someone who raped them, and while it does happen, when we are talking about accusations with little or know evidence to support them, the evidence that there was a sexual relationship after the alleged rape is very much relevant.

If someone accused you of trying to kill them, and you had proof that they kept coming around to your house for weeks after they alleged you had done this. Wouldn't you put forward that evidence as part of your defense? Of course you would, as you would know that it would highly indicative of them making up what they had claimed about you.

Well, there is no reason sexual assault allegations should be any different.

If there was some solid proof Harvey was guilty of this charge (or any person for that matter) then of course a subsequent sexual relationship wouldn't be much defense, but when the allegations are based on very little evidence, then such a sexual relationship very much is relevant.

ILoveYourVibes

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Obviously, but it would be highly unlikely for someone to continue a relationship with someone who raped them, and while it does happen, when we are talking about accusations with little or know evidence to support them, the evidence that there was a sexual relationship after the alleged rape is very much relevant.

If someone accused you of trying to kill them, and you had proof that they kept coming around to your house for weeks after they alleged you had done this. Wouldn't you put forward that evidence as part of your defense? Of course you would, as you would know that it would highly indicative of them making up what they had claimed about you.

Well, there is no reason sexual assault allegations should be any different.

What about domestic abuse? People live with abusers often for years after people tried to kill them.

Outlaw Pete

What about them? Not sure what you're asking me.

I am not saying such things don't happen, of course they do. Know of many women who were raped and went on to stay with their husbands.

jam_mac_jam

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Obviously, but it would be highly unlikely for someone to continue a relationship with someone who raped them, and while it does happen, when we are talking about accusations with little or know evidence to support them, the evidence that there was a sexual relationship after the alleged rape is very much relevant.

If someone accused you of trying to kill them, and you had proof that they kept coming around to your house for weeks after they alleged you had done this. Wouldn't you put forward that evidence as part of your defense? Of course you would, as you would know that it would highly indicative of them making up what they had claimed about you.

Well, there is no reason sexual assault allegations should be any different.

If there was some solid proof Harvey was guilty of this charge (or any person for that matter) then of course a subsequent sexual relationship wouldn't be much defense, but when the allegations are based on very little evidence, then such a sexual relationship very much is relevant.

I don't know if it is. People can stay with abusers for years after it happens, husbands have raped their wives. Of course it can be used in defence but it doesn't prove anything.

People can act in seemingly Ilogical ways.

Outlaw Pete

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

People can stay with abusers for years after it happens, husbands have raped their wives. Of course it can be used in defence but it doesn't prove anything.

I didn't say it proved anything, but what it does do is undercut the allegations when combined with other evidence such as text messages and emails which the accuser sent to the person they allege raped them and conversations they had with others about that person also after that date.

Here's a good article written before the verdict which might explain what I am trying to say a little better:

Both primary accusers gave accounts that were emotive but were also undercut, sometimes seriously, by other witness testimony or evidence. Haley’s has undergone renovation over various tellings. A calendar she kept is scrawled with the words “I love, I love, I love NY. I love, I love, I love stuff” surrounded by doodled hearts on the week of her alleged forcible oral sex. Later entries related to Weinstein she obliterated, and some of her other testimony, including the bleak characterization of an encounter previously described as consensual, invited skepticism when juxtaposed with e-mails saying “lots of love” or “totally bummed to have missed you.” Her roommate at the time testified that she told Haley, “That sounds like rape” when hearing of the alleged oral sex, but also told Haley to call a lawyer rather than police, did nothing when Haley declined, and could recall no other events in her friend’s life in the immediate aftermath.

Jessica Mann, who spent the longest time on the stand, testified that she lied to the defendant, to her friends, her boyfriend, her mother, her psychic, her life coach over the years when in e-mails or recorded phone calls she said Weinstein “validated” her, “understands” her, was “nothing but good” to her, made her “feel so fabulous and beautiful;” when she said she loved him and had set “boundaries” in the relationship. She said that a friend waited in the sitting room of the hotel suite while she was being bullied and orally raped, that she slept on the floor of that friend’s closet when she chose to stay an extra night in New York after the alleged vaginal rape so that she could go to a screening and celebrate Weinstein’s birthday the next day. The friend (now former) was not called by the prosecution. Testifying under subpoena for the defense, she contradicted Mann in large and small ways and was one of the trial’s most credible witnesses. Other than friends of the prosecutor or members of the DA’s office, no one I talked with felt confident they could tell when Mann was telling the truth and when she wasn’t. If jurors find a witness to be untruthful on some things, they may discard part of that witness’s testimony or all of it. Watching Mann under direct examination, unprepared, twisting, aching to tell a story that could not be told, I felt the prosecution had perpetrated an act of cruelty against her.

Relationships. The legal teams’ competing, and much-reported, rhetoric aside, it isn’t the fact of the accusers’ relationships with Weinstein but the quality, reflected in real-time communication, that bear attention. Nobody outside Room 1530 doubted that abuse and rape can coexist with a relationship, or that women maintain contact with men who hurt them. What rang false was the prosecution’s gothic language and theory of the case set beside the breezily ordinary language of witnesses’ e-mails to Weinstein—asking how he is, what’s his schedule, when is he in LA or London, can he meet her mom; reminiscing about their first meetings (when he was allegedly inappropriate or violent); asking for help with parking tickets, for job leads and party invitations; updating him on a family member, on feelings, work, a break-up with a boyfriend, her new phone number, her friends’ numbers where she can also be reached; making jokes; mugging for the camera, “Hi, from Berlin!”

Mann said every e-mail to Weinstein was a calculated charade for her own safety. As the court was bathed in the banality of messages, she suggested that the words ought not be trusted, that she had no free will, even typing from 3,000 miles away, even in taking a hair stylist job, even in the confidence with which she had told counselors about her relationship to her “client.” The prosecution insulted her as a “ragdoll,” a hick from the country, and put her in a position where she was compelled to deny any authority or responsibility in her own life, to disown her words, her prior self, as fraudulent. “I put myself in the lion’s den and it was exciting…it was a thrill,” she had written to a boyfriend in 2014. That does not prove she had not been raped, but jurors must consider the totality of evidence, and if they have doubts, those would not be unreasonable.

Source.

cannotlogin

The man used a walker to support him during the trial in all footage, yet managed to walk unaided after the verdict. Some recovery.

BorneTobyWilde

cannotlogin wrote: »

The man used a walker to support him during the trial in all footage, yet managed to walk unaided after the verdict. Some recovery.

It's a miracle !!
Praise The Lord .




Trump will probably pardon him.

seamus

This sh1tstain would give the mafia lads a run for their money.

He's now managed to avoid going to prison by claiming "chest pains".

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0225/1117432-harvey-weinstein/

He's paid for lawyers who have a whole playbook set up filled with these kinds of scams.

Next up will some kind of permanent disability or special needs that require permanent separation from other prisoners and special comforts in his jail cell.

secondrowgal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Obviously, but it would be highly unlikely for someone to continue a relationship with someone who raped them, and while it does happen, when we are talking about accusations with little or know evidence to support them, the evidence that there was a sexual relationship after the alleged rape is very much relevant.

If someone accused you of trying to kill them, and you had proof that they kept coming around to your house for weeks after they alleged you had done this. Wouldn't you put forward that evidence as part of your defense? Of course you would, as you would know that it would highly indicative of them making up what they had claimed about you.

Well, there is no reason sexual assault allegations should be any different.

If there was some solid proof Harvey was guilty of this charge (or any person for that matter) then of course a subsequent sexual relationship wouldn't be much defense, but when the allegations are based on very little evidence, then such a sexual relationship very much is relevant.

Source please?

secondrowgal

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nnfr_partnerviolence_a20-yearliteraturereviewandsynthesis.pdf

Sexual Assault in Marriage: Prevalence, Consequences, and Treatment of Wife Rape


"he research to date which would allow exploration of these issues is too scant and contradictory to allow for a clear answer to these questions. There is no known research on the differences between raped only (i.e., nonbattered) wives and nonvictimized wives. It has been noted by researchers in this field that a focus on the characteristics of the victim is unwarranted. As it is not the victim who is committing the assault, it is not surprising that the victims do not share identifying characteristics. As Russell (1990) suggests, demographics may have less influence on whether or not a woman experiences wife rape than on how she responds to the rape (e.g., if she stays, gets help, etc.)."

"Interpersonal coercion includes threats by husbands that are not of a physical nature; for example, threats to leave the relationship or withhold money. It is important not to minimize the impact of such threats. Many women are economically as well as emotionally dependent upon their husbands, and rely on them for their own and their children's sustenance. If the husband threatens, "You have sex now or I'll get sex elsewhere. I'll leave you," as cited in Russell (1990), this is a real and potentially terrifying threat."

"A common misconception regarding wife rape is that forced sex between a husband and wife should be less traumatic for the victim because she has previously engaged in consensual intercourse with her husband."

Outlaw Pete

I have already conceded that such relationships occur, but when they do, they tend to be because the women involved are trapped. Either as a result of mental abuse, or for financial reasons, or quite often both. Neither of these two women could be said to fit that characterization and to do so does a disservice to women that have been in such abusive relationships quite frankly.

seamus

If we go back to your assertion Pete that such allegations should be subject to a proof before going in front of a jury, then surely the same should be applied to character witnesses?

I don't know if they were used in this case, but that's not my point. It's the jury's job to assess the credibility of all witnesses. They don't take this testimony as sworn fact, but as character witnesses for the prosecution.

In terms of the relationship piece, people are complicated. There are all sorts of ways that individuals rationalise someone else's behaviour after the fact, including continuing to have a relationship with someone who has raped or sexually assaulted them.

In terms of whether this make the witness credible or not, that's up to the jury to decide. Perhaps the "prior bad acts" witnesses ultimately played no actual part in Weinstein's conviction and the other evidence itself was sufficient.

ohnonotgmail

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's a miracle !!
Praise The Lord .




Trump will probably pardon him.

Thankfully this is not possible as it was not a federal crime.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have already conceded that such relationships occur, but when they do, they tend to be because the women involved are trapped. Either as a result of mental abuse, or for financial reasons, or quite often both. Neither of these two women could be said to fit that characterization and to do so does a disservice to women that have been in such abusive relationships quite frankly.

It's a little OT, but I promise I have a point.

In the book The Watchmen, there's this disturbing plot involving one of the characters having a relationship (and subsequently a child) with an individual who attempted to rape her.
Many, even now, questioned the likelihood of this happening-that it might be some kind of disturbing 'fantasy' by the writer Alan Moore.

Sadly, no it's not. There are quite a few studies showing how many victims of rape will have a relationship with their rapist. The reasons can be quite varied (anything from not wanting to admit to being raped, (not victim blaming, btw, just noting it) to somehow convincing themselves that its a relationship-I know Joan Collins spoke about this, how she married her rapist who was also violently abusive). We even hear of children who were groomed and sexually abused who, later on as adults, still think they were in a relationship with their abuser.

Rape is a disturbing, and complicated, topic. So many varying shades of grey.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

This sh1tstain would give the mafia lads a run for their money.

He's now managed to avoid going to prison by claiming "chest pains".

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0225/1117432-harvey-weinstein/

He's paid for lawyers who have a whole playbook set up filled with these kinds of scams.

Next up will some kind of permanent disability or special needs that require permanent separation from other prisoners and special comforts in his jail cell.

He’s pathetic. Every public statement he has made since the shit hit the fan has had a “poor me” slant to it. He was probably deluded enough to think he would get people on side after decades of people kowtowing to him.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

If we go back to your assertion Pete that such allegations should be subject to a proof before going in front of a jury, then surely the same should be applied to character witnesses?

No, because character witnesses are not making a serious allegation and I feel when a witness is doing so, there should be some element of proof involved. I understand in certain circumstances (for example to rebut evidence which the defense themselves have introduced) such 'prior bad acts' evidence would be understandable but otherwise it's just too open to abuse, especially with regards to high profile cases (as this one undoubtedly was).

Take the Kavanaugh case as an example, where one women lied about him having raped her in an effort to bolster the case against him.

I don't know if they were used in this case, but that's not my point. It's the jury's job to assess the credibility of all witnesses. They don't take this testimony as sworn fact, but as character witnesses for the prosecution.

The PBA evidence was introduced with regards to the charge of predatory sexual assault (of which he was found not guilty) but it was more than mere character witness testimony. It was in fact to establish that Harvey had a pattern of conduct in that regard.

In terms of whether this make the witness credible or not, that's up to the jury to decide. Perhaps the "prior bad acts" witnesses ultimately played no actual part in Weinstein's conviction and the other evidence itself was sufficient.

The PBA testimony related to other charges (which he was found not guilty of) but it's kinda hard to dismiss such evidence entirely I would suggest. I mean, just look at the general public's view of Harvey before this trial. He was seen as an evil monster, and what informed such a view? Mere allegations.