Harvey Weinstein jailed for 23 years in rape trial

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

20 years in jail for a conviction of "forced oral sex" in 2006 - without any hard evidence. Is that justice?

I don't pretend that Weinstein is a nice guy. But is 20 years based on what an actress "remembers" from 14 years ago fair? I don't think so.

 

His jury disagree.

[sanuk711]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't pretend that Weinstein is a nice guy. But is 20 years based on what an actress "remembers" from 14 years ago fair? I don't think so.

Well............. a lot of the accusers say they didn't realise that they had been raped

........until after they didn't get the movie part.' ...................

 

 

.

Edited March 12, 2020 by sanuk711

[JustAnotherHun]

Weinstein was convicted long before the trial began.

Did anyone of the hang him higher shouters ever check the testimonies of the two female "victims"?

Does it seem consistent to those that a victim repeatedly meets her rapist, having sex with him and sending him love-messages and only remembers she was raped after Weinstein refused to give her a job?

Does the benefit of the doubt not count if you are an ugly, disgusting and unsympathetic guy?

 

[Berkshire]

I doubt Weinstein will do anywhere near 23 years.  Not because of parole, but because these type of guys won't last in prison.  He'll more likely follow in Jeffrey Epstein's footsteps. 

[varun]

This guy may well be an <deleted>**** with money and powerful connections,

but this entire trial has been a complete joke.

 

Proof needs be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" -

there was no hard evidence, no DNA and no smoking gun.

 

All there was is the testimony of the alleged victims.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, varun said:

This guy may well be an <deleted>**** with money and powerful connections,

but this entire trial has been a complete joke.

 

Proof needs be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" -

there was no hard evidence, no DNA and no smoking gun.

 

All there was is the testimony of the alleged victims.

And if that trial would have happend 10 years ago then likely he would have been declared not guilty.

[JustAnotherHun]

 

The rape accuser wrote to him after the alleged assault to accept party invitations, give him her new phone numbers and even express gratitude. One message read: “I feel so fabulous and beautiful, thank you for everything."

 Another read: “Miss you, big guy.”

 His lawyer pointed to a message the next year in which Haleyi asked Weinstein how he was doing and signed off with “lots of love."

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-international/harvey-weinstein-defense-closing-arguments/2076367/

 

No doubt? Really?

[Wake Up]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

There is limitations. Thats why he wasnt charged with other offences.

 

There is no evidence anyone is trying to cash in.

All the women are suing for millions of dollars and going to write a book and have paid speaking engagements in the future. It is all about the money. 

[natway09]

Why did she accept the invitation to go home with him in the first place ?

Maybe to have a cup of tea or further her salary increase ?

[Thingamabob]

Not a nice guy, to put it mildly, but 23 years is way too much. 5 years would have been more appropriate. Judge clearly influenced by Me Too/Media pressure. Sign of the times in which we live.

[tomauasia]

Most of these woman were happy to oblige at the time. Just hoes. Bla bla I don't believe one word from these birds. Why go they know. Sing a song she be on her knees next week 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, CharlieH said:

I am not excusing the offences etc but I think this historical stuff is all wrong, there should be a statute of limitation stopping these "claims" of X years ago, if a crime is committed report it st the time or within a reasonable time. Not try to "cash in"  on celebrity and jump on the preverbial bandwagon hoping for a pay day as I suggest some do.

I’m sure Weinstein agrees with you.

 

It seems though you have closed your ears to listening why the victims of sex crimes find reporting and seeking justice so very difficult.

 

The reasons have been explained again and again, from cases of sexual abuse in churches, the scouts, by famous TV personalities, people with power over their victims.

 

Time and time again we see the same pattern, victims taking years to get justice.

 

There’s enough cases of widespread sexual abuse that was perpetrated over decades for you to understand why you are so very wrong, there absolutely must not be a statute of limitations.

 

 

 

[mfd101]

2 hours ago, varun said:

Proof needs be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" -

there was no hard evidence, no DNA and no smoking gun.

 

All there was is the testimony of the alleged victims.

As in the case of Cardinal Pell, currently on appeal before the High Court of Australia.

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

It will be his life, unless of course it is reduced on appeal.

Let’s hope the former comes to pass and the latter does not. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If anybody is sentenced to 20 years of jail, don't you think it's fair to demand that there is proof without any reasonable doubt?

Should we just believe an actress who's job it is to play roles?

She could have gone to the police in 2006 with scratch marks and whatever. She didn't. Maybe at that time there was evidence and then he could have been convicted based on evidence. That would be fair for everybody.

No. If there is proof without reasonable doubt then everyone would plead guilty.

 

Note the word reasonable. Juries use their life experiences to themselves decide if there is reasonable doubt.

 

They obviously thought the evidence did not provide reasonable doubt.

[AnnaBanana]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I doubt Weinstein will do anywhere near 23 years.  Not because of parole, but because these type of guys won't last in prison.  He'll more likely follow in Jeffrey Epstein's footsteps. 

Nonsense.

Haven't you ever heard of Ivan Boesky, Bernie Madoff, and many others who thrived for years in various Club Feds.  None of them did "hard time".  Martha Stewart had her own little cottage at that government resort in West Virginia.  

Epstein was involved with intelligence agencies.  If it was just money and sex he would be alive today.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, varun said:

This guy may well be an <deleted>**** with money and powerful connections,

but this entire trial has been a complete joke.

 

Proof needs be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" -

there was no hard evidence, no DNA and no smoking gun.

 

All there was is the testimony of the alleged victims.

What would dna prove? It certainly doesnt prove rape.

 

Btw, he is convicted so they are alleged victims, just victims.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Sujo

[CharlieH]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure Weinstein agrees with you.

 

It seems though you have closed your ears to listening why the victims of sex crimes find reporting and seeking justice so very difficult.

 

The reasons have been explained again and again, from cases of sexual abuse in churches, the scouts, by famous TV personalities, people with power over their victims.

 

Time and time again we see the same pattern, victims taking years to get justice.

 

There’s enough cases of widespread sexual abuse that was perpetrated over decades for you to understand why you are so very wrong, there absolutely must not be a statute of limitations.

 

 

 

And yet the law disagrees with you and limitations exist.

Furthermore, having a different opinion to you does not make me "wrong" it just means we differ in opinion.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, CharlieH said:

And yet the law disagrees and limitations exist.

Furthermore, having a different opinion to you does not make me "wrong" it just means we differ in opinion.

Limitations are in place to be fair to the accused.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Wake Up said:

All the women are suing for millions of dollars and going to write a book and have paid speaking engagements in the future. It is all about the money. 

There are only 2 women.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

And yet the law disagrees with you and limitations exist.

Furthermore, having a different opinion to you does not make me "wrong" it just means we differ in opinion.

But your opinion is not borne out by studies on this exact issue.

[CharlieH]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Limitations are in place to be fair to the accused.

I totally agree, and in my opinion there should also be an equal penalty to those who make accusations that are later proved to be unfounded. 

[CharlieH]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

But your opinion is not borne out by studies on this exact issue.

What exactly are you referring to ?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

And yet the law disagrees with you and limitations exist.

Furthermore, having a different opinion to you does not make me "wrong" it just means we differ in opinion.

I’ve not simply you are wrong,  provided an argument why I think you are wrong.

There’s a difference.

[CharlieH]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve not simply you are wrong,  provided an argument why I think you are wrong.

There’s a difference.

Stating "you are so very wrong" and thinking i am wrong, theres a difference !

[PatOngo]

"Harvey Weinstein jailed for 23 years"

 

Bend over and pick up the soap, b!tch!

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

this wierd unjust verdict puts all man in danger, and creates

dangerous implications for any male out there.

any woman you slept / flirted with many decades ago can come and say

you raped her, and you might go to 20 years in jail.

no one will believe you that the sex was in her will.

she does not have to prove anything, but she must know how to act

dramatically and to use the right words to describe her "suffering".

she does not have to explain why she did'nt go to police for 20 years.

you are the devil because you are a man. very dangerous development,

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

34 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Bend over and pick up the soap, b!tch!

why are you talking to him like that? the one who lost here

is you, this was a trial against man power. another victory for

the feminazi anglo saxon movement. 

the whole trial was a jock and sold from the begining.

anyone with eyes in his head can see how they revenged him and 

over punished him just because he is a man, rich, not so attractive

and maybe even a jew.

and heck, even if he raped someone 15 years ago, someone who came to

his apartment from her own will and did not complain to the police for 

15 years, than he does not deserce 23 years. 23 years !! that is cruel !

[PatOngo]

24 minutes ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

why are you talking to him like that? the one who lost here

is you, this was a trial against man power. another victory for

the feminazi anglo saxon movement. 

the whole trial was a jock and sold from the begining.

anyone with eyes in his head can see how they revenged him and 

over punished him just because he is a man, rich, not so attractive

and maybe even a jew.

and heck, even if he raped someone 15 years ago, someone who came to

his apartment from her own will and did not complain to the police for 

15 years, than he does not deserce 23 years. 23 years !! that is cruel !

Send him some condoms, Scott, to help him protect himself!

[Scot123]

People's reaction here is very sad. Thank god I'm not a young man now. This is shocking on so many levels. These prostitutes yes prostitutes because that is all they are who sold themselves for a career in movie. Is he a nice guy No but is he a rapist I think 100% NO! In his position I think he had women lining up ready to sell their bodies for a movie roll. 

The precidence now set should scare the hell out of all red blooded males especially the young. Was talking to an older woman about this kind of thing and she did not have the attitude you would expect. Now in Scotland a young guy goes into an over 21 night club and meets a girl who says she is 21. Takes her home and they have sex. He is charged much later of having sex with a child. Meet a girl in a pub now in the UK and then have sex a week or so later when you don't phone her or when her boyfriend finds out you end up charged with rape. What chance do young men have now...?