Harvey Weinstein gets 16 years for rape, sexual assault

S

Shiftless2

Well-known member
Thought there was already a thread on this but can't find it.

Harvey Weinstein gets 16 years for rape, sexual assault​

A Los Angeles judge on Thursday sentenced Harvey Weinstein to 16 years in prison after a jury convicted him of the 2013 rape and sexual assault of an Italian actor and model.


The sentence comes on top of the more than 20 years the 70-year-old Weinstein has left to serve for a similar 2020 conviction in New York, furthering the fall of the onetime movie magnate who became a .MeToo magnet.

Weinstein directly appealed to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa B. Lench, saying: "I maintain that I'm innocent. I never raped or sexually assaulted Jane Doe 1." The woman who Weinstein was convicted of raping sobbed in the courtroom as he spoke.

Moments earlier she had told the judge about the pain she felt after being attacked by Weinstein. "Before that night I was a very happy and confident woman. I valued myself and the relationship I had with God," the woman, who was identified in court only as Jane Doe 1, said. "I was excited about my future. Everything changed after the defendant brutally assaulted me. There is no prison sentence long enough to undo the damage."

Lench handed down the sentence Thursday after rejecting a motion by Weinstein's lawyers for a new trial. Prosecutors and Weinstein's attorneys declined comment after the sentencing.

Jurors in December convicted Weinstein of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault against ...

www.ctvnews.ca

Harvey Weinstein gets 16 years for rape, sexual assault

A Los Angeles judge on Thursday sentenced Harvey Weinstein to 16 years in prison after a jury convicted him of the 2013 rape and sexual assault of an Italian actor and model.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca
 
S2 #3
Please pardon me if I'm ignorant of an Oprah sex trade scandal. Count me an extreme skeptic.
I can't deny the body language / facial expression display. But I'm not prepared to declare Oprah a pimp because of it. Have you seen Oprah's yacht? I can't imagine Oprah would waste her own time pimping bottle-blondes.
 
I don't know whether Oprah has ever been pregnant, given birth. BUT !
I suspect she's maternalistic / humanitarian enough to not throw a sweet young thing to the wolves.

We can agree something's going on there. I wouldn't be too hasty to conclude Oprah knows the youngling is about to be victimized, but fails to protect.

Could be.
I doubt it.

Oprah's so $rich even her boat has an Internet site: https://yachtharbour.com/news/oprah...8-meter-superyacht-rising-sun-2921?src=_pos_2
 

Actor Julia Ormond Sues Harvey Weinstein For Battery​


Julia Ormond, who starred in films alongside the likes of Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford in the 1990s before her spotlight faded, filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein of sexually assaulting her in 1995 and then hindering her career.

Ormond, who also accuses The Walt Disney Co., Miramax and her former agents of knowing Weinstein was a problem but doing nothing about it, filed the case in state Supreme Court in Manhattan under the Adult Survivors Act, a law passed last year that allows ....

time.com

Julia Ormond Sues Harvey Weinstein For Battery

Ormond filed a lawsuit saying Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 1995, and accuses Miramax, Disney, and CAA of negligence
time.com time.com
 
Hopefully not quite as "free association" as it might seem to the casual observer:

A fundamental Christian premise:
Created sick, and commanded to be well. Christopher Hitchens

In that context:

Men generally are attracted to women that are "good breeders" and women generally are attracted to "good providers". tralphaz

This yin-yang of the human breeding prime directive makes the caster's couch ground zero for poison pill "romance".

I'm not justifying or excusing Weinstein or his partners in crime. But I can easily understand it.

- If she says "No." it's a serious crime.
- If she says "Yes." it could be the glorious beginning of a May / December, or at least an evening to remember.
 
- If she says "No." it's a serious crime.
- If she says "Yes." it could be the glorious beginning of a May / December, or at least an evening to remember.
Click to expand...
Think back to your teenage years in that parked car.

There really was a big difference between your girlfriend "not stopping you" and her saying "yes I want to do this" even though at the time I'm sure neither of us gave that a thought.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"There really was a big difference between your girlfriend "not stopping you" and her saying "yes ... " S2 #10
Click to expand...
I don't mean to dismiss it as a cliché. Aphorism might be a little more accurate.

The aphorism is: "No means no!"
The way our judicial system works, if the DA chooses to prosecute for rape, and the jury finds it wasn't exactly rape, but that "he" should do a little time for what it was instead, that's not an option.
In the U.S. legal system it's treated as a binary:
- guilty, or
- not guilty.

Certainly prosecutors may try to scale the charge, proportion it to the evidence, to what the DA believes s/he can get a conviction for.

Point being ultimately it's a binary. And it seems, whether written into the law explicitly or not, either she says "No" or not.

The closest thing I've experienced to an unwilling partner was on the dance floor. She seems to have been pressured into dancing with me. For me it was akin to dancing with a mannequin. I may actually have felt more uncomfortable about it than she did.
The thought of engaging an unwilling partner is extremely unappealing. Conversely,
engaging a partner as willing / eager as I am is about as good as it gets.
 

Harvey Weinstein Rape Conviction Overturned by New York Appeals Court​

In a 77-page ruling, the appeals judges decided the disgraced producer did not get a fair trial
BY KORY GROW

FOUR YEARS AFTER Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of rape in New York, a victory for the #MeToo movement, the disgraced film mogul’s conviction has been overturned. On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals reached a 4-3 decision to overturn the conviction.

In a 77-page decision, the majority of judges decided that the judge who oversaw Weinstein’s trial, Justice James M. Burke, should not have allowed prosecutors to let accusers whose allegations were not part of the charges against him to testify in the trial.

Alvin J. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who is currently prosecuting a case against Donald Trump, will now have to decide what course to take next with Weinstein, whom more than 100 women have accused of sexual misconduct. “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” a rep for the district attorney told ....

www.rollingstone.com

Harvey Weinstein Rape Conviction Overturned by New York Appeals Court

The New York Court of Appeals has overturned Harvey Weinstein's guilty verdict in a rape case but the producer remains in prison.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
 
Shiftless2 said:

Harvey Weinstein Rape Conviction Overturned by New York Appeals Court​

“We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and ... " #12
Click to expand...
Please pardon a novice question here.
Does overturning a conviction also overturn double-jeopardy?

I have little sympathy for sexual predators. BUT !

United States Constitution B.O.R. ARTICLE #5: Ratified December 15, 1791
No person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ...

So overturning the conviction nullifies the prosecution? Clean slate? Do-over?
 
From the article:

Alvin J. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who is currently prosecuting a case against Donald Trump, will now have to decide what course to take next with Weinstein, whom more than 100 women have accused of sexual misconduct. “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” a rep for the district attorney told the Times.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be an expert in NY state law but this sounds more like it was declared a mistrial (using a pretty flimsy argument) so the prosecutor is going to have to do a "do over". Which also means that the victims will have have to testify again.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"... more than 100 women have accused of sexual misconduct" Times.
Click to expand...
Kitty-cat grabbers.

I don't envy Bragg here.

Big Fat Tangent:
Not clear to me who has the authority to negotiate a global dismissal.
President Biden has the Constitutional authority to pardon. BUT !! Some legal opinion I've read on that indicates accepting a presidential pardon is tantamount to a confession of guilt. That may not be an issue for Trump. AND:
Some sources assert the president can only pardon violations of federal law.
All that aside:
should any thought be given to offering Trump a deal? If Trump makes a legally binding commitment to never seek public office, in exchange for dropping the charges?

And an even bigger, fatter tangent on etymology:

“Testify” Comes From the Latin Word for Testicle​

In ancient Rome ... men held their own testicles as a sign of truthfulness while bearing witness in a public forum."

www.psychologytoday.com

“Testify” Comes From the Latin Word for Testicle

Two baboon allies show their commitment by fondling each other’s genitalia.
www.psychologytoday.com www.psychologytoday.com

So, if men "testify", women ovafy? Where's R5 when you need 'im?
 
President Biden has the Constitutional authority to pardon.
Click to expand...
The Presidential power of pardon only applies to federal crimes - state and municipal crimes are outside of his jurisdiction.
 
Re #17

NBC did not say that overturning the conviction overturned double jeopardy - what they said was that the first trial was "no good" and Weinstein was entitled to a new trial. For this to be double jeopardy he'd have to have been found not guilty first time around and then charged again for the same trial.
 
Shiftless2 said:
Re #17
"NBC did not say that overturning the conviction overturned double jeopardy - what they said was that the first trial was "no good" and Weinstein was entitled to a new trial. For this to be double jeopardy he'd have to have been found not guilty first time around and then charged again for the same trial." #18
Click to expand...
Understood.
Point being: during the timespan between conviction and overturn, double-jeopardy may have been perceived to have attached. Yesterday's appeals court ruling resets that parameter.

Incidentally, at federal level, the "supreme court" is the final judicial authority. New York may have a State supreme court, BUT it is the NY court of appeals that has the final judicial word, within the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top