Harvey Weinstein trial

Samson said:
So we are not all complicit in his crimes? Why did Meryl Streep share a stage and smile when she also shared the common knowledge?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mer....69i57j0l5.17649j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

For much the same reason that his victims didn't go to the cops for decades: He held power over them and their careers. It's also the case that common suspicion isn't the same as common knowledge. Weinstein didn't assault every woman he dealt with. So women like Streep -- a powerful star herself -- could tell themselves "Well, he's always been a gentleman with me. Maybe these stories are exaggerated."
 
Bob001 said:
For much the same reason that his victims didn't go to the cops for decades: He held power over them and their careers. It's also the case that common suspicion isn't the same as common knowledge. Weinstein didn't assault every woman he dealt with. So women like Streep -- a powerful star herself -- could tell themselves "Well, he's always been a gentleman with me. Maybe these stories are exaggerated."
Click to expand...
It remains the elephant in the room for dopes like me.
 
Loss Leader said:
It was absolutely bananas. He attempted to try to show remorse but absolutely failed. In fact, he betrayed a shameless misunderstanding of what he had been found guilty of. He talked about how he helped raise money for various good works (generally true, but he misleadingly made it sound like it was all his own money which it definitely wasn't). He said there were character witnesses who loved him but wouldn't go on the record for fear of the new anti-male stigma. And he appeared to say that he was trying to donate money to build a hospital for ... women who think they've been assaulted but haven't, maybe?

Take all of those things and put them in a blender, because his speech hopped back and forth between these issues at intervals that were completely random.

(link)
Click to expand...



Holy Moly.

That "speech" actually sounds like it could be the ramblings of someone with some form of mental disorder. But whether that's the case or not, it's clear (as you say) that he most definitely was not showing genuine remorse for the actions - the criminal acts - for which he was convicted; he was exhibiting classic deflection and projection traits. And it veered into truly disgusting territory when he apparently tried to argue that his charitable acts (if true) somehow "offset" his criminal acts.

I suppose this speech, and the beliefs of Weinstein which underpin it, was entirely to be expected: after all, this is essentially the same belief system which drove Weinstein's criminal behaviour in the first place. His lawyers must have been wincing as he spoke......
 
LondonJohn said:
His lawyers must have been wincing as he spoke......
Click to expand...


"Wincing" would be a drastic understatement. They couldn't stop him from speaking but they knew full well that every word would be used against him on appeal, would be worked into every retrial, and would be used against him in LA. I once stopped a client from speaking so that I could quit, then walked out the door as he kept at it.

Lawyers of Weinstein's paygrade can't do that. But, for $400, I was more than happy to.*


*Criminal attorney ethics may vary from those in my specialty.
 
LondonJohn said:
Holy Moly.

That "speech" actually sounds like it could be the ramblings of someone with some form of mental disorder. But whether that's the case or not, it's clear (as you say) that he most definitely was not showing genuine remorse for the actions - the criminal acts - for which he was convicted; he was exhibiting classic deflection and projection traits. And it veered into truly disgusting territory when he apparently tried to argue that his charitable acts (if true) somehow "offset" his criminal acts.

I suppose this speech, and the beliefs of Weinstein which underpin it, was entirely to be expected: after all, this is essentially the same belief system which drove Weinstein's criminal behaviour in the first place. His lawyers must have been wincing as he spoke......
Click to expand...

I really do wonder about these serial abusers and how they view themselves. In their minds, they aren't the bad guy. It must be hard for him to rationalize what has happened to him.
 
I believe that in Weinstein's mind, he is the victim. Victim of those he was only 'helping'. Like 'no good deed goes unpunished'.

Poor, poor Weinstein.
 
LondonJohn said:
Holy Moly.

That "speech" actually sounds like it could be the ramblings of someone with some form of mental disorder. But whether that's the case or not, it's clear (as you say) that he most definitely was not showing genuine remorse for the actions - the criminal acts - for which he was convicted; he was exhibiting classic deflection and projection traits. And it veered into truly disgusting territory when he apparently tried to argue that his charitable acts (if true) somehow "offset" his criminal acts.

I suppose this speech, and the beliefs of Weinstein which underpin it, was entirely to be expected: after all, this is essentially the same belief system which drove Weinstein's criminal behaviour in the first place. His lawyers must have been wincing as he spoke......
Click to expand...

That speech sounds like most of Trump's speeches. The combination of playing the victim and blaming everyone else is unmistakable.
 
LondonJohn said:
Holy Moly.



That "speech" actually sounds like it could be the ramblings of someone with some form of mental disorder. But whether that's the case or not, it's clear (as you say) that he most definitely was not showing genuine remorse for the actions - the criminal acts - for which he was convicted; he was exhibiting classic deflection and projection traits. And it veered into truly disgusting territory when he apparently tried to argue that his charitable acts (if true) somehow "offset" his criminal acts.



I suppose this speech, and the beliefs of Weinstein which underpin it, was entirely to be expected: after all, this is essentially the same belief system which drove Weinstein's criminal behaviour in the first place. His lawyers must have been wincing as he spoke......
Click to expand...
It's a transactional morality, one that seems to have taken hold especially in the public sphere. It is the culmination of "he may have been a ruthless dictator but he loved his dog".

I suppose it isn't new, the rich and powerful (usually synonyms for each other) have always paid for their misdeeds by their "good deeds" or literally paying money to the victims of their behaviour.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I really do wonder about these serial abusers and how they view themselves. In their minds, they aren't the bad guy. It must be hard for him to rationalize what has happened to him.
Click to expand...

I never worked juvie, but what folks said that worked that division was that in interviewing an adult offender suspected of sexual exploitation of a minor the most common description from the suspect (if they could get one) was that "we were only fooling around."

Sex offenders of every stripe are phenomenally good at rationalizing away their responsibility for the acts they commit.
 
BStrong said:
I never worked juvie, but what folks said that worked that division was that in interviewing an adult offender suspected of sexual exploitation of a minor the most common description from the suspect (if they could get one) was that "we were only fooling around."

Sex offenders of every stripe are phenomenally good at rationalizing away their responsibility for the acts they commit.
Click to expand...

So true. Another one is, "I know she/he really wanted it". I worked a few years with the local Sex Crime Unit, and the offenders were never guilty, and I often listened to them pleading their innocence with that kind justification. And yes, they are NEVER "really" guilty.
 
Dr. Keith said:
He looked to be in pretty good health for someone in his nineties, maybe he'll pull through. What, he's in his sixties? Nevermind.
Click to expand...

Oh, you evil man! What a terrible thing to say!

OK, you made me laugh out loud!
 
Samson said:
You are joining in a level of nastiness totally unbecoming.
I find it appalling.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you think good old Harvey is innocent too? When someone has hurt as many people as he has, I will not only not feel bad about him catching this, but I will find a small smile about it.
 
Samson said:
You are joining in a level of nastiness totally unbecoming.
I find it appalling.
Click to expand...

It is nasty to comment on the fact that he looked nearly ninety as he pushed his walker into court? OK, maybe I'm nasty, but he looked very old for someone not yet 70. Why do you think he looked so old?
 
Samson said:
You are joining in a level of nastiness totally unbecoming.
I find it appalling.
Click to expand...

Oh please, your self righteousness is what is appalling. Also, it is no else's fault that you have NO sense of humor.
 
wasapi said:
Oh please, your self righteousness is what is appalling. Also, it is no else's fault that you have NO sense of humor.
Click to expand...

Harvey Weinstein guilty as charged.
Steven Avery guilty as charged.

Equivalent in your world on forum, and you have the efronterry to call me blind?
 
Samson said:
Harvey Weinstein guilty as charged.
Steven Avery guilty as charged.

Equivalent in your world on forum, and you have the efronterry to call me blind?[/QUO

I don't recall ever calling you blind. Humorless, yes. Also, I don't know what the hell your post means. Yes, they are guilty as charged. And what is efronterry?
Click to expand...
 
Samson said:
Harvey Weinstein guilty as charged.
Steven Avery guilty as charged.

Equivalent in your world on forum, and you have the efronterry to call me blind?
Click to expand...

Allow me to save the time and effort for what is surely coming next. We are mean to make fun of Harvey cause he is innocent because Lundy.

I personally have no doubts that he is guilty as sin and I think it is human to get a bit of satisfaction that someone who hurt so many is not doing well. I don't wish for him to take others down with him but it is what people like him do anyway.
 
Loss Leader said:
"Wincing" would be a drastic understatement. They couldn't stop him from speaking but they knew full well that every word would be used against him on appeal, would be worked into every retrial, and would be used against him in LA. I once stopped a client from speaking so that I could quit, then walked out the door as he kept at it.

Lawyers of Weinstein's paygrade can't do that. But, for $400, I was more than happy to.*


*Criminal attorney ethics may vary from those in my specialty.
Click to expand...


Doesn't the judge have to review an application for a lawyer to withdraw from a case, even in civil court? Can't a lawyer lose her/his license to practice for simply quitting and walking out the door in the middle of a client's statement?
 
Samson said:
Weinstein should never be shaded with expert testimony common sense tells us what happened here.
He got what he wanted first then they capitulated to the sordid truth.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is the sordid truth common sense tells you happened?
 
wasapi said:
Samson said:
Harvey Weinstein guilty as charged.
Steven Avery guilty as charged.

Equivalent in your world on forum, and you have the efronterry to call me blind?[/QUO

I don't recall ever calling you blind. Humorless, yes. Also, I don't know what the hell your post means. Yes, they are guilty as charged. And what is efronterry?
Click to expand...

efronterry is cheek.
You have the cheek to call me humourless now.
Oh dear, the point is Harvey Weinstein is either a little bit or a lot guilty, so in no way resembling the guilt status of Steven Avery. That is a dichotomy case.
Click to expand...
 
It's not over yet for Harvey:
Former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, weeks after being sent to prison in New York and already facing prosecution in Los Angeles, has been charged with an additional count of sexual assault in connection with the alleged 2010 attack of a woman at a Beverly Hills hotel, Los Angeles County prosecutors announced Friday.

Weinstein, who was previously charged with four counts of forcible sexual assault and battery in L.A., will now face an additional charge of sexual battery by restraint in connection with a May 2010 incident, Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey said in a statement.
Click to expand...
https://www.latimes.com/california/...ged-with-2010-sexual-assault-in-beverly-hills
 
Is there any independent corroboration of Weinstein's alleged behaviour or was the prosecution case reliant entirely on the witness evidence of his alleged 'victims'?

Did Weinstein actually commit rape or do anything else that would suggest he was a danger to anybody?
 
Dark Knight said:
Is there any independent corroboration of Weinstein's alleged behaviour or was the prosecution case reliant entirely on the witness evidence of his alleged 'victims'?

Did Weinstein actually commit rape or do anything else that would suggest he was a danger to anybody?
Click to expand...


This is a joke, right? There are numerous accounts of Weinstein's conduct going back decades. His employer settled multiple suits for big bucks. His own brother rebuked him. Rape and sexual assault are not commonly committed in front of witnesses, but there's plenty of evidence. And testimony is evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ein-scandal-complete-list-accusers/804663001/
https://pagesix.com/2020/03/10/bob-weinstein-told-brother-harvey-weinstein-you-belong-in-hell/

Etc.
 
Bob001 said:
This is a joke, right? There are numerous accounts of Weinstein's conduct going back decades. His employer settled multiple suits for big bucks. His own brother rebuked him. Rape and sexual assault are not commonly committed in front of witnesses, but there's plenty of evidence. And testimony is evidence.

Etc.
Click to expand...

Are questions allowed round here? ...snip...

And my question is not a joke and I see you HAVEN'T answered it!!

I know testimony is evidence...snip.... I'm asking whether the evidence is corroborated.

Are we relying on the say-so of witnesses or not? ...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 
Content edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom