What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Weinstein found guilty

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty on several but not all charges laid against him.

This is another major #Metoo victory and its going to have some really bad consequences for men as he was convicted on accusations alone, not witness testimony nor forensic evidence, despite at least one of his accusers being found to have lied to investigators...with no punishment for it....Jessica Mann.

They just tore the obviously bad branches off a tree of accusations, and decided the rest of the tree was legit. Its madness.

I cannot see this as anything but a circus, and a dangerous one. I see this as a potential replacement for the drug war for the law enforcement and prison industries....the rapist witch hunt.

What are your views on the Weinstein case?
 

musicisgood

Sempai
Donor
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
314
He was seen going to the hospital, heart problems. Too much sex over the years maybe . LOL
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Too much sex over the years maybe . LOL

I was thinking quite the opposite. For all the women he supposedly either raped or had consensual sex with, it seems none were steady. Even 100 one night stands during his 67 years would be far, far too little sex.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
It seems he got 23 years. AFAIK based on nothing but accusations. I mean, he probably is guilty. But is probably enough? We are damned if it is....all of us. "Probably" could come after any of us at any time. Our sons. Or even our daughters.

What is also sad is that locking up Weinstein does not fix any of the rotten foundation that made the acts possible if they happened. Its all going to happen again and is happening right now....perhaps slowed down a bit by fear but that will subside again.

We need real norms and modes of operation....not fear of jail any time a woman might make an accusation. For example destroying Brian Banks didn't help anyone but the liar that got millions from their university.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
1,335
The legal process was followed and he met the standard for guilt. Like it or not.
He still has many opportunities to appeal.
Our justice system results in many people not getting justice and many others being wrongfully convicted. Very rarely does it happen to the rich and powerful though.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Do you mean that you don't like it, or that you don't think he met the standard for guilt?

Just wondering, have you sat on a trial jury before?

Please address this bland claim first: "The legal process was followed and he met the standard for guilt. Like it or not. "

All I did was match his bland claim with another. I found the bland claim to be a bit annoying, being bland, and substantiated by nothing.
 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
5,890
Reaction score
1,050
As I remember, in order to be found guilty, a jury must unanimously agree that based on the evidence and/or testimony presented the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven't followed this case closely, but it seems that he was found guilty.

If that's a sufficient answer, I'd like to understand your position better.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Based on the evidence you say?


Not a fan of FOX but who else is going to tell us that e-mails were denied as evidence? Is this now known as following the legal process in our Metoo world?

"Some of the women who claim they were victimized by the disgraced Hollywood mogul “also bragged about being in a sexual relationship with him,” Cheronis said.

Judge James Burke barred the defense from using the actual emails in a presentation planned for opening statements but permitted referring to the messages' “substance and content.”


I would quote of some of those mails for you except I obviously can't.

 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
5,890
Reaction score
1,050
like I said, I don't know the details of the case. I wasn't in the courtroom. Jurors are given explicit instructions at the beginning of the trial, and again before they go to deliberation. The verdict is supposed to only be based only on the evidence presented at the trial. Jurors are expected to not only be impartial, having been selected through an often exhaustive voir dire process where the judge and both sides are allowed to question and dismiss potential jurors, but also are not allowed to talk to anyone about the case, or consider any information obtained outside of the courtroom, or evidence presented that the judge instructs them to disregard. In high profile cases they are often sequestered to avoid jury tampering, which includes media consumption. They aren't even allowed to talk to each other or anyone else about the case until it goes to deliberation. They are also supposed to pass their verdict solely on the veracity of the charges, as evidenced by the prosecution and defense presented, and not make a political statement in passing their judgment (I say supposed to, because jury nullification is a thing, but it is discouraged). And if the defendant opts not to testify in their own defense, they are also not allowed to let that affect their decision.

The judge has discretion over what evidence will be allowed to be presented to the jury, upon review. Sometimes certain facts will be conceded/made clear at the beginning of a trial that they are not in dispute. Sounds like it could be something challenged upon appeal if they feel that the content of the emails were imperative to the defense or if the judge was incorrect to block their contents. There are many steps to bringing a case to trial, and as @mdchachi mentioned, there are many opportunities to appeal, as I'm sure he will. Due process is pretty exhaustive. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but note that I did say evidence and/or testimony: testimony under oath is considered evidence, and if the jury unanimously finds witness testimony credible, that alone can be used to convict. This is nothing new.

It's possible for the judge to be prejudiced, or for the jury to be stacked, tampered with or contaminated in various ways, or for them to ignore the instructions given to them. It's also possible for witnesses to perjure themselves on the stand, or even for evidence to be manufactured or planted. The system isn't perfect and many aspects of it are subject to strategy, but the verdict is based on the sum of the arguments and evidence presented, and there are mechanisms in place that are supposed to help keep the system honest, like recusals, mistrials, and appeals.

I'd expect a high-profile defendant like Weinstein to have the best representation available to him, which probably included attorneys who specialized in jury selection, making statements and presenting evidence, and questioning and cross-examining witnesses. And in this round at least, despite his resources, strategies, and expert counsel, he was still found unanimously guilty by seven men and five women. This may not be the last we've heard of this case, but I consider that significant. Without evidence that his due process was violated, I don't feel compelled to dismiss that outright as the result of some kind of new scary paradigm, as you seem to be. This is because I've been in the jury box, more than once, and I saw from the inside how seriously the process is taken.

Have I sufficiently responded for you to answer my questions? If I might pose another, if someone is in fact guilty of a single crime, and is convicted for that crime, does it matter if there were other untrue or less credible allegations made? If someone makes an allegation that turns out to be untrue, is that evidence of innocence on other charges, whether or not the untrue allegations made it into the courtroom? I could certainly imagine a defense attorney making that argument, but do you think it holds water?
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
1,335
But this I do not understand what "it" means.
Being wrongly convicted.

Please address this bland claim first: "The legal process was followed and he met the standard for guilt. Like it or not. "
All I meant was that he was convicted by a jury who found he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on some of the counts. That’s how it works. Like it or not.

Regarding tactics or questions about the judge’s rulings, if it was incorrect it can be rectified upon appeal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sentence got reduced or thrown out in appeal.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
like I said, I don't know the details of the case.


That's too bad. General knowledge of courts will only get one so far in a specific case. General knowledge of rape cases would go further. And my knowledge of rape cases in general leaves me in perpetual shock. What they so often call evidence looks like nothing but accusation, hearsay and codswallop to me.

In this case, the accusers say his penis is deformed. The jury was actually shown pictures of his penis and they confirmed it was deformed. So we know they saw his penis but he claims everything was consensual so it would not be unusual that they saw his penis. So what is the mental process here? That women would turn him down the instant they saw his penis, therefore, consensual sex could not have happened?

Do you mean that you don't like it, or that you don't think he met the standard for guilt?

Oh I think he met the usual American standard area of guilt for a rape case sure. But I also think that standard is garbage. So I guess you might say I don't like it.

That said, it would be interesting to hear what exact piece or pieces of evidence convinced them the most. I always tend to get smoke in response to such specific questions however.


Just wondering, have you sat on a trial jury before?

Nope. But that does not mean I am ignorant of how they work.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Oh I think he met the usual American standard area of guilt for a rape case sure. But I also think that standard is garbage.

I take this back. It was poorly thought out. I have not seen a shred of evidence that proves his guilt in any sense and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am thinking its not so much that the standard is garbage, but that there isn't really a standard at all. Its just make-believe which infects different court rooms more than others, perhaps dependent on the dramatics of the judges, lawyers, defendants, plaintiffs and witnesses.

I have to believe that anyone who believes they can sort a "he said, she said" situation beyond a reasonable doubt is delusional. It seems to be a matter of wanting something bad enough that one starts to believe in it....like a stalker who believes their victim secretly loves them. They want a way to resolve a "he said, she said", so they start working on avenues to resolve them, and refusing to accept there just isn't a way, they just a take a method or methods that pleases them most and employ it or them.

As an agnostic I accept that there are unknowable things and unsolvable problems, and as an agnostic it seems clear to me that most people do not and will not.
 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
5,890
Reaction score
1,050
It's our nature to form opinions based on incomplete information--as if there's such a thing as "complete" information--and we have even less of a complete picture of the proceedings than the people in the courtroom. I have my own opinions of what likely happened, as do you. But neither of us sat through the trial, and the court of public opinion is (or is supposed to be) inconsequential in passing a verdict. Both of our views are based on what fragments of information we've gathered, combined with our own biases and prejudices. Considering what you've written here regarding MeToo and rape cases in general, if you were in the jury pool you would quickly be dismissed for cause; I'd like to think that I could be impartial if I found myself getting voir dired, but I probably wouldn't be chosen either.

We do get some testimony recap, which can be reviewed here:

There's also a report after the jury came back here:

If this is all the evidence presented, then clearly the jurors found it compelling enough to convict on the two charges they found to be true, and were not convinced otherwise by whatever defense or cross-examination they heard. I think it does say something that they did not convict on the more serious charges. Jurors are instructed that they can believe a testimony in its entirety, or in part, in order to determine the facts of the case. It's not a perfect system, but 12 strangers came together and reviewed the arguments and testimony, and deliberated, and came to a conclusion not because they have a particular stake in the outcome, but because it's their civic duty to do so unless they absolutely cannot agree on a verdict. The jurors have the option to discuss the case after the fact, so you may or may not get your wish in knowing what they found compelling. That's entirely up to them.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
Again no one gives me specifics just links to peruse. It gets old ya know? I am not asking for details, but can anyone say anything other than "he said, she said"? If not than can someone just boldly agree that's all there is?
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
1,335
Again no one gives me specifics just links to peruse. It gets old ya know? I am not asking for details, but can anyone say anything other than "he said, she said"? If not than can someone just boldly agree that's all there is?
None of us were on the jury. So what do you expect?
I also can’t read that article but I would guess they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by contemporary witnesses who the victims told at the time of the incidents in question and gave testimony to that effect.
 

musicisgood

Sempai
Donor
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
314
it use to be sex pays quite well in holloywood
guess now people got to greedy for their own good

is he guilty of rape
it is more likely that he is
drugs were very common back then
that mexican (something forgot the name of it) was quite popular back then
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by contemporary witnesses who the victims told at the time of the incidents in question

What a way to become a "witness"...hearing a story. This woman gained a church full of "witnesses" after walking into the church half naked, cut up and claiming to have been abducted and raped by 3 men. It was all lies but the "witnesses" thought it was real.

 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
5,890
Reaction score
1,050
What a way to become a "witness"...hearing a story. This woman gained a church full of "witnesses" after walking into the church half naked, cut up and claiming to have been abducted and raped by 3 men. It was all lies but the "witnesses" thought it was real.

A couple of things...

If anyone from the church were brought up on the stand at all, they could only testify to what they actually observed (what she was wearing, she had wounds, her demeanor and what she had said), beyond that their testimony would be considered hearsay and inadmissible. It's likely they'd be called to testify if her case went to trial, as they were witnesses to her crime.

It sounds like this girl's story quickly fell apart and she confessed to lying, and already pleaded guilty to several charges; her motives were unclear, but in this case it seems like no injustices occurred and no one was even falsely accused, which would be additional charges. This is the system working as it should, no? There is a long history of cases like this where bigotry has been weaponized and people of color have been punished for crimes they didn't commit, but that is fortunately changing and charges are not brought to bear so lightly. 80 years ago, that church group might've rounded up a posse of vigilantes and gone looking for any three black men to pin it on. Many innocent boys and men were murdered in this way, because there was no judge and jury standing between them and a bloodthirsty mob.

In Weinstein's case, if people who the victims confided in at the time of the alleged crimes were called to the stand, I'm willing to bet the defense raised all sorts of objections to limit their testimony--the recap I linked to described some of these testimonies of their encounters with the victims immediately following the alleged crimes, and they describe the observational testimony as I explained above.

Every case is different, and is handled on its own merits, I'll thank you not to try to draw parallels between cases that have none. I don't think that is analogous to a situation like Weinstein's, where you are insinuating that he was targeted specifically by a cohort of women or overzealous prosecutors, who successfully fooled(?) a jury to convict him. If this is what you are saying, I'd like to know why you think they would go through with all of this? I'd also appreciate if you responded to my questions at the end of post #13. I'm not casually throwing links at you, I've been trying to address your concerns and provide a thoughtful response.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
I'd also appreciate if you responded to my questions at the end of post #13.

Okay.


If I might pose another, if someone is in fact guilty of a single crime, and is convicted for that crime, does it matter if there were other untrue or less credible allegations made?

First you need to clarify....are the untrue and less credible allegations directly related to the crime for which one was convicted? Perhaps an example is in order? Cause what you just described sounds like a false conviction.

If someone makes an allegation that turns out to be untrue, is that evidence of innocence on other charges, whether or not the untrue allegations made it into the courtroom?

For purposes of a court of law, it should not be.

For purposes of else wise trying to divine the truth, it might be.

But the problem lies in courts attempting to divine and use a person's character to divine guilt or innocence. They admit a lot of crap in that process and I don't approve of crap. On the one hand, you might have evidence that a person is a known and habitual liar. That is truly something to work with. On the hand you might have a list of charity donations or charity work. That's crap. I am sure the Wichita slayer had quite a charity background for example.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom