The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[Galaxian]

You have clearly criticised the victims and have clearly suggested some of them deserve what they got or should have known better. If you think that just because the alleged victims were adults that absolves the abuser then you miss the point entirely. Anyone in a position of power or authority, who uses that position to exploit the target in question is abusing their position. I used the kids analogy to highlight the power differential.

They are still not victims, if they are adults, and have sex with him on a promise.
.......
If he uses his position of power to hint at a reward, and they consent, then they are taking a chance on his sincerity, and engaging in consensual sex.
They might be victims of a vague type of con, but they're not victims of a sex crime.
Women use the vague hint of interest to exploit men too. It's called being strung along. We don't call the men who fall for it victims. Idiots, maybe.

I would go further. ALL the women who have brought allegations from more than 6 years ago should be arrested & charged with defamation, criminal harassment, and obstruction of justice. As should the presstitute mass media who cheer them on from the sidelines..
Mindless, money grubbing sluts should have their feet held to the fire. They disgrace all the female gender. The retarded lawyers who cash in on this fiasco should also be charged & lose their registration.
These bastards are worse than Mary Whitehouse. They should be tried, fined & imprisoned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ugLDl0kLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrEU8cXf3ec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElqz7BcDlw

[Rum]

You..

Oh, I really can't be arsed.

Your post is shit. Nuff said.

[Forty Two]

To be fair, 42 repeatedly mentioned that Prince may just be remembering the events differently, which is nowhere near accusing her of lying. That sort of thing happens, and it is well documented that memories sometimes have very little in common with whatever actually happened.

I wasn't referring to Forty Two specifically. His tack of throwing doubt on the veracity of Prince's story aside,

I didn't through "doubt" on the veracity of Prince's story. I read exactly what she was quoted as saying, and noted that what she actually said happened does not, in fact, mean that she was given ruffies or slipped a mickey. She did not know she was drugged. And, she specifically stated that she was given a drink and very shortly thereafter (part way through her consumption of that drink) they left people in the living room, and went to another room, a bedroom, where she was asked to "finish your drink" and then they kissed and ultimately had sex.

there are plenty of people who are less circumspect and are all too happy to engage in explicit character assassination directed at alleged victims of sexual assault. I expect you are well aware that a standard practice of defence attorneys in rape cases is to put the plaintiff on trial. Accusing them of lying is mild compared to some defence tactics, but Blaine's attorney has essentially already accused Prince of lying.

Now, if there is evidence to present of the complainant, or any witness, lying, particularly about a fact of consequence to the case, then that is not unfair to confront the witness with that evidence. "You testified the rape occurred on January 1, 2017, yes?" Answer: "yes." "So, at the time, did you think it was rape?" "yes." "Did you think it was rape on January 2, 2017?" Yes. "What about January 3?" "Yes." "Objection Your Honor! Where is this going? Is Defense counsel going to ask about every day this year?" "Sustained, counsel - is this going somewhere?" "Yes, your honor, I am going to hand the witness Defense Exhibit 7, and ask her to identify it for the record, if she can. Ma'am do you recognize this document?" "Yes, that's an email I sent to Mr. Accused on January 2, 2017" "Yes, it is - and what did you write to Mr. Accused on January 2?" "I wrote 'thank you for a wonderful evening - and I can't wait to see you again - you're the best - we really had a good time and a whole lot of 'fun'," and I added a winky-face after the word fun." "So, ma'am, I ask you again, on January 2, when you wrote that, did you believe you had been raped?"

That is, in a sense, putting the accuser on trial, yes. But that is in no sense unfair. A prime example of that kind of testimony is in the case of Jian Ghomeshi in Canada, where the witnesses were confronted with emails they did not expect the defense to be able to show them, and they were exposed to be outright lying to the police and to the court.

DISCLAIMER: That is not a suggestion that all or most women lie in these cases - I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying only that in cases where there is evidence that ANY witness, male or female, lacks veracity, particularly on a point of fact crucial to the elements of the offense charged, then it is not only right and proper, but mandatory from an attorney ethics standpoint, to confront and cross examine the witness about it.

[laklak]

And now Mr. Sulu. Will it never end? Who's next, Mr. Fucking Rogers?

One could be forgiven if one thought to oneself "I say, old boy, does it look a bit like someone drove a big fuckoff wagon past here and everyone and their maiden Auntie jumped on?"

[L'Emmerdeur]

I didn't through "doubt" on the veracity of Prince's story. I read exactly what she was quoted as saying, and noted that what she actually said happened does not, in fact, mean that she was given ruffies or slipped a mickey. She did not know she was drugged. And, she specifically stated that she was given a drink and very shortly thereafter (part way through her consumption of that drink) they left people in the living room, and went to another room, a bedroom, where she was asked to "finish your drink" and then they kissed and ultimately had sex.

You're glossing over relevant details, Forty Two.

I had a high tolerance, but that week I was working and had decided not to drink,” Prince said. “But I decided to have that one drink that night. It wasn’t strong; it tasted mostly like soda.” After 20 minutes of superficial conversation, Prince claims Blaine asked to show her something in the adjacent bedroom.

[source]

As established earlier in this thread, 20 minutes is definitely enough time for Rohypnol to begin taking effect.

I followed him, and we went into the bedroom, and it’s dark. I told him right away when he texted me that I was working tomorrow. So I was thinking maybe we would have a sort of intimate conversation somewhere else for five or 10 minutes. But he spun around quite quickly and said, ‘Kiss me.’ I did kiss him. And then he said, ‘Finish your drink’ and took the glass from me and put it on the table, and that’s really the last thing I remember.

[ibid.]

Forty Two, do you actually believe that a woman who describes herself as having a 'high tolerance' for alcohol would black out after one vodka soda? Doesn't it strike you that something else could very well have been in that drink, and that in fact it's rather likely? I agree that she didn't 'know she was drugged,' but her description of events is completely consistent with the effects of Rohypnol, and not at all consistent with the effects of a single vodka soda.

there are plenty of people who are less circumspect and are all too happy to engage in explicit character assassination directed at alleged victims of sexual assault. I expect you are well aware that a standard practice of defence attorneys in rape cases is to put the plaintiff on trial. Accusing them of lying is mild compared to some defence tactics, but Blaine's attorney has essentially already accused Prince of lying.

[Snipped completely fictional courtroom narrative.]

That is, in a sense, putting the accuser on trial, yes. But that is in no sense unfair. A prime example of that kind of testimony is in the case of Jian Ghomeshi in Canada, where the witnesses were confronted with emails they did not expect the defense to be able to show them, and they were exposed to be outright lying to the police and to the court.

DISCLAIMER: That is not a suggestion that all or most women lie in these cases - I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying only that in cases where there is evidence that ANY witness, male or female, lacks veracity, particularly on a point of fact crucial to the elements of the offense charged, then it is not only right and proper, but mandatory from an attorney ethics standpoint, to confront and cross examine the witness about it.

Do you consider yourself to be standing in for a defence attorney in this thread?

[Animavore]

Weinstein sued.

http://www.thejournal.ie/actress-sues-h ... 3-Nov2017/

[Rum]

Weinstein sued.

http://www.thejournal.ie/actress-sues-h ... 3-Nov2017/

Good. Fuck the apologists and the misogynists. A slew of law suits will do the bastard in good and proper.

[Forty Two]

L'Emmerdeur - no, I am not standing in for a defense counsel. I was responding to the point about how it's supposedly common to unfairly put the witness "on trial" in rape cases. The reality is that all witnesses are subject to cross examination, which is a fundamental aspect of procedural and substantitive due process. And, not only is it not unfair or improper, it is generally required for the proper administration of justice and is the main way to address the issue of people doing what people do: lie. People lie. People are also wrong, even when they are not lying. People forget, misremember, and their memories change and fade over time. Cross examination is how we address that. There are protections in place for witnesses - for example, accusers in rape cases cannot be cross examined on their past sexual history, unless they make some claim to chastity or some other affirmative testimony that puts past conduct at issue. But, they most certainly can be cross examined on information which tends to contradict their testimony in the case.

Also, I never said that Prince couldn't have been drugged. I don't know. You don't know. I can only read what she is quoted as saying. Sure, it is not inconsistent with someone being drugged, but we don't have evidence that she was drugged. We have her statement that she had a high tolerance, but that's untested and self-serving, and people often overestimate their tolerance for alcohol. The also said she was very tired, and alcohol effects people differently when they are very tired, just as it does if they are very hungry, or very emotional. What does she mean by high tolerance? My wife thinks she has high tolerance, but she is drunk as a skunk after 2 drinks. I can have 5 and nobody knows I've even had anything but a soft drink. This is not a word or term with a concrete meaning.

Also, just as you wrote, she says she went into the side-room, leaving behind two people in the apartment - they were there. And, she hadn't finished her drink -- which she'd just received -- she then "finishes the drink" and there isn't 20 minutes from then to the start of things -- they're immediately kissing and fooling around. And, of course, the next, she says, she did not consider it rape. If you don't consider it rape at the time, then that would seem to be a point in favor of the side saying it wasn't rape. Perhaps not completely determinative ,because other facts might suggest that the person was rationalizing what was rape and they may say that they did not consent but thought non-consensual sex under the circumstances still wasn't rape. But, we don't know that at this time, because we don't have any further explanation of why she didn't think it was rape at the time.

I haven't foreclosed the possibility that it is rape. It may well have been. It's difficult to prove now, though, decades later, witnesses left unnamed and probably/possibly lost or unobtainable. At the time, had she thought it was rape and reported it, the witnesses could have likely been identified and questioned, and it would be relevant to know what they would say. Would they say she seemed disoriented and out of it, or sluggish and fading? Or, would they say she was excited and flirtatious? Does it matter? And, how long did they stay? What did they hear? Hard to know now. Also, decades later, and a complainant saying that she now thinks she was raped, whereas before she didn't think so - do memories fade? Do recollections get better or worse with time?

[Forty Two]

Weinstein sued.

http://www.thejournal.ie/actress-sues-h ... 3-Nov2017/

Good. Fuck the apologists and the misogynists. A slew of law suits will do the bastard in good and proper.

It sounds like they have some solid lawsuits, too. Lots of evidence, and at least partial admissions. If I were on Weinstein's side, i would not be too happy to put my fate in the hands of a jury. He'll be getting his check-signing pen ready and inked up, to try to assuage his accusers with some significant monetary justice. Some lawyer's kids will be getting their college tuition, home down payments and weddings paid for with some Weinstein contingency fees.

[Forty Two]

And now Mr. Sulu. Will it never end? Who's next, Mr. Fucking Rogers?

One could be forgiven if one thought to oneself "I say, old boy, does it look a bit like someone drove a big fuckoff wagon past here and everyone and their maiden Auntie jumped on?"

I don't feel much outrage about the allegations against Mr. Sulu. You got a guy who is out socially with George Takei, and drinking and carousing at the time, and they wind up back at Takei's house and Takei made a pass at the guy while they were both drinking and having a good time? Shocking. Takei touched him and made a pass, wanted some hanky panky, and took no for an answer. Big deal? Doesn't seem like much.