"A statement from the New York Police Department ... thanked "these brave survivors for their courage to come forward and seek justice"".

Looks as if the cards are stacked against him.

Jo wrote:
"A statement from the New York Police Department ... thanked "these brave survivors for their courage to come forward and seek justice"".

Looks as if the cards are stacked against him.

You don't even consider - for a single moment - that the allegations are true, do you?

Jo didn't say that at all ITK; some may well be true; all may be true; or all may be false - either way police should not be siding with one or the other before a court has decided. Or should we do away with trials entirely - except by media?

JK2006 wrote:
Jo didn't say that at all ITK; some may well be true; all may be true; or all may be false - either way police should not be siding with one or the other before a court has decided. Or should we do away with trials entirely - except by media?

Can you find just ONE post by her that doesn't "side" with the accused (and often convicted)?

"Looks as if the cards are stacked against him."

Well, they would be if he was a multiple rapist - and the fact that so many have come forward (including many well known names who have no doubt damaged their own careers by doing so) is rather compelling evidence to someone who has to judge the truth from alternative "versions"

He's lucky you're not on the jury ITK.

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Jo didn't say that at all ITK; some may well be true; all may be true; or all may be false - either way police should not be siding with one or the other before a court has decided. Or should we do away with trials entirely - except by media?

Can you find just ONE post by her that doesn't "side" with the accused (and often convicted)?

"Looks as if the cards are stacked against him."

Well, they would be if he was a multiple rapist - and the fact that so many have come forward (including many well known names who have no doubt damaged their own careers by doing so) is rather compelling evidence to someone who has to judge the truth from alternative "versions"

I am very sure that Nobody's career has been damaged. Quite the opposite!

And try finding just one post from ITK not endorsing the view that multiple accusations from adults popping up late in the day with financially-friendly claims equals iron-clad guilt. Funny site to be visiting with that attitude.

Everyone is welcome here, Jo; and, after all, he is a fellow Remainer.

It is awfully like the Jimmy Savile hysteria.
One minute Meryl Streep is calling him God and everyone is cheering and clapping, and the next minute he is a serial rapist and everybody knew about it.

I am starting to think that Weinstein is a decent chap. For one he seems to be a man of integrity. I was reading that he once came out and defended Polanski which implies to me that Weinstein both knew and fully embraced his own masculinity and that of others. He was at least partly honest with himself in wanting a world where men couldn't be locked up on silly sex crime charges, which is more than can be said of many who fall foul of the sex crime statutes (e.g. Rolf Harris made his retarded "Kids Can Say No" documentary and then got convicted under the same laws he helped propagate).

holocaust21 wrote:
I am starting to think that Weinstein is a decent chap. For one he seems to be a man of integrity. I was reading that he once came out and defended Polanski which implies to me that Weinstein both knew and fully embraced his own masculinity and that of others. He was at least partly honest with himself in wanting a world where men couldn't be locked up on silly sex crime charges, which is more than can be said of many who fall foul of the sex crime statutes (e.g. Rolf Harris made his retarded "Kids Can Say No" documentary and then got convicted under the same laws he helped propagate).

He called it a "so called crime" which is ridiculous, because it IS a crime and Polanski admitted to it, apologised for it, and wrote about it, and his version tallied with the girl's.

Weinstein's lawyer said the Most Accurate Thing about this entire drama : "Harvey Weinstein didn't invent the casting couch".

In 1973 as a gorgeous (and still!) blonde youth I found my self in Hollywood and for some reason the son of two of Hollywood's greatest movie stars ..himself an actor in many films..latched on to me (non sexual) and took me on tours of Los Angeles, the movie studios (where he was welcomed as Hollywood Royalty) to afternoon teas at actor's homes like Denis Hopper and so on.

Over long (liquid) lunches and chats he told me off the Golden Rule of The Casting Couch and the Whose Who who had slept with what agent or powerful mogul to attain success...it happens, it's real. it's part of the job and you are expected to play and it being the USA and Fame is Everything those who partake don't even blink an eye.....but the Most Important Thing was to say:

"Dear Mr, (or Mrs) -inset name of powerful producer here- I would love to spend the night with you but could we get that troubling matter of the contract signed and out of the way so we can just have fun "

The Harvey Weinstein Trial will be the Trial of Decade..as Bette Davis said.."fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride".

Careers will be destroyed, many who never dreamed they would end up in the spotlight will, accusers will be brought undone..someone is writing the film script as we speak.

Jo wrote:
And try finding just one post from ITK not endorsing the view that multiple accusations from adults popping up late in the day with financially-friendly claims equals iron-clad guilt. Funny site to be visiting with that attitude.

Always try and see a balanced argument ... the Jury can ONLY decide on the evidence presented - but never ever (unlike many on here) always asssume that someone MUST be innocent !

In The Know wrote:
Jo wrote:
And try finding just one post from ITK not endorsing the view that multiple accusations from adults popping up late in the day with financially-friendly claims equals iron-clad guilt. Funny site to be visiting with that attitude.

Always try and see a balanced argument ... the Jury can ONLY decide on the evidence presented - but never ever (unlike many on here) always asssume that someone MUST be innocent !

We can assume that both parties are telling the truth before the trial (unless its something drastic like Rolf in a concert that wasn't) but you cant get a fair trial if it is already fixed in the jury's mind that someone is guilty, and the press coverage does this by the way they report, such as the repeated use of the word victim, before we know who the victim is.

In The Know wrote:
Jo wrote:
And try finding just one post from ITK not endorsing the view that multiple accusations from adults popping up late in the day with financially-friendly claims equals iron-clad guilt. Funny site to be visiting with that attitude.

Always try and see a balanced argument ... the Jury can ONLY decide on the evidence presented - but never ever (unlike many on here) always asssume that someone MUST be innocent !

There's another aspect to it, apart from guilt or innocence.

That's the idea that Harvey Weinstein did indeed do the casting couch stuff alleged, but the argument is over whether that is illegal or just bad manners, or should be illegal. From the anti-male feminist side, there has been consistent pressure over decades to expand which manifestations of bad manners fall within the prohibitions of the criminal law.

An example from the Harvey Weinstein reports is whether a casting couch fumble was a quid pro quo OR whether his position of financial and career influence over the actresses vitiated their consent to do what they did in return for advancement (which they did indeed receive...)

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
We can assume that both parties are telling the truth before the trial (unless its something drastic like Rolf in a concert that wasn't) but you cant get a fair trial if it is already fixed in the jury's mind that someone is guilty, and the press coverage does this by the way they report, such as the repeated use of the word victim, before we know who the victim is.

You cannot assume both parties are telling the truth if their stories differ widely ! (one may be true, both may be false but both cannot be true !)

As I've said many times ... a Jury will convict / acquit on the evidence and how it is presented.
Its important that the Jury see the witness and hear them giving evidence (otherwise we could do it all by post !)

Did the witness sound convincing?
Could there be an ulterior motive?
Were they "shifty"?

... these are the things the Jury will witness and will help them decide who they believe and who they don't.

So if a jury believes the witness believes they are telling the truth, should the jury believe it IS the truth? Do you not think memories can change over years and can be influenced by media and other areas?

JK2006 wrote:
So if a jury believes the witness believes they are telling the truth, should the jury believe it IS the truth? Do you not think memories can change over years and can be influenced by media and other areas?

Yes I do ... but there is nothing else we can rely on is there?

... of course the guilty would like it that way so they can dismiss ALL claims by anyone at any time !

Correct but without other evidence there's a danger more and more innocent will be wrongly convicted, as I was. Sadly, without corroborative evidence, we simply must no longer allow convictions solely on the word of one person against another.