Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

fergiesfolly · 24-02-2020 7:38pm

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

Boggles · 24-02-2020 7:39pm

fergiesfolly wrote: »

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

Murdered by the Clintons?

RabbleRouser2k · 24-02-2020 10:29pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:18pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:26pm

they got him.

whyalwaysyou24 · 24-02-2020 11:31pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:39pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:40pm

Torino wrote: »

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

This is getting fuc*in' creepy now

jam_mac_jam · 24-02-2020 11:40pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:44pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:46pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:47pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:48pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:50pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:51pm

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 · 24-02-2020 11:53pm

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 · 25-02-2020 12:00am

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 · 25-02-2020 12:15am

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 · 25-02-2020 12:32am

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 · 25-02-2020 1:16am

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 · 25-02-2020 1:22am

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 · 25-02-2020 8:59am

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 · 25-02-2020 12:41pm

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 · 25-02-2020 12:48pm

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 · 25-02-2020 1:05pm

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 · 25-02-2020 2:08pm

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 · 25-02-2020 3:12pm

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 · 25-02-2020 4:28pm

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 · 25-02-2020 6:47pm

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 · 25-02-2020 6:56pm

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.

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments