Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[andromeda331]

Terrible news. I'm confused on why it was overturned. Didn't the women testifying establish a pattern?

[bluegirl147]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Terrible news. I'm confused on why it was overturned. Didn't the women testifying establish a pattern?

I think the problem is the evidence of the pattern is the women testifying there is a pattern.  

At least he isn't going free.   Now he can be sent to CA and begin his sentence there.

Edited April 26 by bluegirl147

[Danielg342]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Terrible news. I'm confused on why it was overturned. Didn't the women testifying establish a pattern?

Here's what was at issue. The appeals court basically stated the following:

• Harvey Weinstein had no criminal record before the New York trial, so, in the eyes of the court, he had not been proven to have done anything wrong before the trial
• Despite this, the prosecutor brought forth as evidence the testimony of several women who accused Weinstein of crimes he was not on trial for, and thus were not being tested by the trial at hand nor were they tested previously
• The jury then based too much of their reasoning for conviction on these untested accusations, instead of properly evaluating the accusations that Weinstein was actually on trial for.

It's like this- you've got a murder trial with a defendant who has no criminal record. The prosecutor brings in all these people who testify the defendant committed murder in prior incidents. The prosecutor then says "because all these people said the defendant committed murder before, he must have committed this murder!"

Well, you can't base a fair conviction on crimes the accused is not trial for, because those crimes are not being tested by the court. The defendant needs the proper ability to defend themselves, and they can't if they're faced with the prospect of having to answer for crimes they haven't been charged with (since charges need to be supported by physical evidence, not simply on hearsay alone). You also can't use, as evidence, accusations of crimes that haven't yet been tested by the court, since, in the eyes of the court, it is not proven that the defendant actually committed those crimes. Because of the presumption of innocence, since the accusations are not proven, you cannot say the defendant committed those crimes.

Now, you are allowed to use character witnesses and use unrelated incidents to establish motive. Getting back to my hypothetical murder case, if part of the prosecutor's case revolves around suggesting the defendant has anger issues and wants to argue the evidence points to the defendant killing the victim in a moment of rage, the prosecutor can definitely bring in people who have witnessed the defendant get violently angry before, because then the prosecutor can prove the defendant can let their anger get the better of themselves. The prosecutor would still have to prove that the rest of the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, but at least the prosecutor can establish part of their case.

My guess is that Weinstein's previous trial judge thought that by using the testimony of the women who brought forward the untested allegations, the prosecution would simply use it as evidence that Weinstein was the kind of guy who simply "would commit rape", not as evidence that he actually committed rape. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for.

One other tangentially related point- Weinstein and his lawyers brought up the claim that the #MeToo movement unfairly influenced his trial, and there may be something to this. I mean, I really don't know how a jury can be expected to judge a case fairly when, on a daily basis, they're confronted by thousands of protesters who loudly shout at them and implore them to convict. There's a reason why juries are typically sequestered for deliberations- put in a hotel room without TV or newspapers and (I suspect) the Internet, because the judge can't risk the jurors being influenced by anything that would bias their evaluation of the case. How all those jurors- and the judge- can't be influenced by those protesters is beyond me.

[bluegirl147]

6 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for.

But you can't un ring a bell right?  Even if the judge told the jury to disregard that testimony they still heard it.

[supposebly]

Sounds like the jury wasn't properly instructed. Do they have to give arguments for their ruling?

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, supposebly said:

Sounds like the jury wasn't properly instructed. Do they have to give arguments for their ruling?

The arguments are in the ruling.

I haven't read it all, but based on the articles I've read, the appeals court stated that the trial judge shouldn't have even allowed the testimony of the victims who weren't part of this case; thus there wouldn't have been a "can't unring the bell" argument.

Here's hoping that when he's retried (I read the DA plans on retrying the case), he'll still get convicted.

[EtheltoTillie]

I'm not surprised by this decision.  I read all of the main decision last night.  It's a technical issue in evidence law, and nonlawyers may tend to call it BS.  As @Quof says above, due process requires that even a scummy jerk like Harvey Weinstein get a fair trial.

Evidence from non-charged crimes can sometimes be admitted to show a pattern or MO (like someone always carried this kind of weird knife that no one else had--it's hard to come up with an example that isn't in a gray area). Otherwise it just sounds like a pile on, i.e., he's the kind of guy who commits rape.  So that's why such evidence is usually excluded. 

Edited April 26 by EtheltoTillie

[EtheltoTillie]

Adding to my answer above.  Maybe my knife example could be used in a case of stranger rape to identify someone.  Here there is no identity issue. 

[Jaded]

People published this article on Thursday...

Jeannie Mai Accuses Estranged Husband Jeezy of Domestic Abuse and Child Neglect amid Ongoing Divorce

This one is from today Friday which also has People being a shill for Dulcolax...

Jeannie Mai on Being a Single Mom amid Difficult Divorce: 'I'm Going to Do Whatever It Takes' (Exclusive)

[Jaded]

Kevin Spacey's Accusers Come Forward for First Time in New Explosive Docuseries Spacey Unmasked

[Danielg342]

10 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

As @Quof says above, due process requires that even a scummy jerk like Harvey Weinstein get a fair trial.

The reason, if nothing else, is for precedent. All court systems use previous rulings to inform and influence future rulings, but this is especially important in the North American law system which is based on common law. Precedents allow the court system to clarify points government laws don't cover and can become just as strong as actual government legislation.

Which is why getting the ruling right is so important. As much as many of us want Harvey Weinstein to rot in jail, we shouldn't want our passion to get him in jail to muck up rulings and set bad precedents for the future. Because then we'd risk throwing a good person in jail who doesn't deserve it all because of a bad ruling.

[andromeda331]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:16 PM, Danielg342 said:

Which is why getting the ruling right is so important. As much as many of us want Harvey Weinstein to rot in jail, we shouldn't want our passion to get him in jail to muck up rulings and set bad precedents for the future. Because then we'd risk throwing a good person in jail who doesn't deserve it all because of a bad ruling.

I want it to be fair because I want him to be convicted without any way for him to get out. Which often seems like the case.

On 4/26/2024 at 4:08 AM, bluegirl147 said:

I think the problem is the evidence of the pattern is the women testifying there is a pattern.  

At least he isn't going free.   Now he can be sent to CA and begin his sentence there.

 

On 4/26/2024 at 7:13 AM, Danielg342 said:

Here's what was at issue. The appeals court basically stated the following:

• Harvey Weinstein had no criminal record before the New York trial, so, in the eyes of the court, he had not been proven to have done anything wrong before the trial
• Despite this, the prosecutor brought forth as evidence the testimony of several women who accused Weinstein of crimes he was not on trial for, and thus were not being tested by the trial at hand nor were they tested previously
• The jury then based too much of their reasoning for conviction on these untested accusations, instead of properly evaluating the accusations that Weinstein was actually on trial for.

It's like this- you've got a murder trial with a defendant who has no criminal record. The prosecutor brings in all these people who testify the defendant committed murder in prior incidents. The prosecutor then says "because all these people said the defendant committed murder before, he must have committed this murder!"

Well, you can't base a fair conviction on crimes the accused is not trial for, because those crimes are not being tested by the court. The defendant needs the proper ability to defend themselves, and they can't if they're faced with the prospect of having to answer for crimes they haven't been charged with (since charges need to be supported by physical evidence, not simply on hearsay alone). You also can't use, as evidence, accusations of crimes that haven't yet been tested by the court, since, in the eyes of the court, it is not proven that the defendant actually committed those crimes. Because of the presumption of innocence, since the accusations are not proven, you cannot say the defendant committed those crimes.

Now, you are allowed to use character witnesses and use unrelated incidents to establish motive. Getting back to my hypothetical murder case, if part of the prosecutor's case revolves around suggesting the defendant has anger issues and wants to argue the evidence points to the defendant killing the victim in a moment of rage, the prosecutor can definitely bring in people who have witnessed the defendant get violently angry before, because then the prosecutor can prove the defendant can let their anger get the better of themselves. The prosecutor would still have to prove that the rest of the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, but at least the prosecutor can establish part of their case.

My guess is that Weinstein's previous trial judge thought that by using the testimony of the women who brought forward the untested allegations, the prosecution would simply use it as evidence that Weinstein was the kind of guy who simply "would commit rape", not as evidence that he actually committed rape. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for.

One other tangentially related point- Weinstein and his lawyers brought up the claim that the #MeToo movement unfairly influenced his trial, and there may be something to this. I mean, I really don't know how a jury can be expected to judge a case fairly when, on a daily basis, they're confronted by thousands of protesters who loudly shout at them and implore them to convict. There's a reason why juries are typically sequestered for deliberations- put in a hotel room without TV or newspapers and (I suspect) the Internet, because the judge can't risk the jurors being influenced by anything that would bias their evaluation of the case. How all those jurors- and the judge- can't be influenced by those protesters is beyond me.

Thank you. 

[BetterButter]

Gérard Depardieu To Stand Trial In October For Alleged Sexual Assault Following Police Questioning

Quote

The announcement came after Depardieu was taken into police custody on Monday morning for questioning on sexual assault accusations.

 

[MadyGirl1987]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:20 PM, andromeda331 said:

I want it to be fair because I want him to be convicted without any way for him to get out. Which often seems like the case.

Too true. You also want to take away the opportunity for him, his lawyers and supporters to claim he was treated unfairly.

[Jaded]

Someone in the comments on TVLine mentioned how he probably won't like the discovery phase.

Dan Schneider Files Defamation Suit Against Quiet on Set Producers, Says Docuseries Is a ‘Hit Job’

[Kel Varnsen]

27 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Someone in the comments on TVLine mentioned how he probably won't like the discovery phase.

Dan Schneider Files Defamation Suit Against Quiet on Set Producers, Says Docuseries Is a ‘Hit Job

Wouldn't that be a big "it depends". There is a huge difference between shitty boss and if they suggested that he was an actual abuser without any actual evidence or even allegations it would kind of kill the credibility of their whole documentary.

[EtheltoTillie]

Former child star Mayim Bialik has a new episode on her Breakdown podcast on the Quiet on the Set documentary. She also has guests Jenna Von Oy, her Blossom costar, and another former child star who is now an advocate on child performer labor issues.  I watched part of it. It’s interesting. 

[EtheltoTillie]

PS to  previous:  I have watched only one episode of the documentary and won’t go back for the rest. Mayim’s guest called it trauma porn and also has not watched.

Edited Friday at 02:33 AM by EtheltoTillie

[Quof]

7 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

won’t go back for the rest

Mayim is sanctimonious and insufferable on most topics.   She has been called out for her comments on this subject before. 

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, Quof said:

Mayim is sanctimonious and insufferable on most topics.   She has been called out for her comments on this subject before. 

Mayim is at best strange.  But I will watch her from time to time depending on her guest.  I'm curious as to what she has said before to be called out on.  I'm not familiar with it. 

[Quof]

Here's a sample of her victim blaming. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harvey-weinstein-big-bang-theory-094800960.html

[EtheltoTillie]

I will express a complex or unpopular or nuanced opinion.  I believe dressing modestly and looking a certain way etc. does not protect you from sexual assault per se.  It does protect you from being targeted by the likes of Harvey Weinstein and other entertainment bigwigs who are not interested in attacking that type of woman. 

This is not victim blaming.  The targets of these attacks have suffered.  It does no good, I believe, to repeat that sexual assault is only a power act.  It has variations.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I will express a complex or unpopular or nuanced opinion.  I believe dressing modestly and looking a certain way etc. does not protect you from sexual assault per se.  It does protect you from being targeted by the likes of Harvey Weinstein and other entertainment bigwigs who are not interested in attacking that type of woman

I think that argument kind of falls apart since if every woman in Hollywood dressed and looked super modest I don't think Harvey Weinstein would just decide to stop being a sexual abuser.

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think that argument kind of falls apart since if every woman in Hollywood dressed and looked super modest I don't think Harvey Weinstein would just decide to stop being a sexual abuser.

Here's the thing, Mayim's idea of modest dressing is what almost every woman wears on a daily basis including actresses.  Maybe her skirts a an inch longer to full cover the knee and maybe she covers her shoulders more than the average woman, but not by that much.  Mayim is conflating red carpet fashion or going out clothes with what you wear on a daily basis.  You cannot judge someone's fashion as modest or immodest just based on what they wear when they are in the spotlight.  And most if not all of the women who were victims of Harvey would have been wearing "modest" clothing when meeting with him as a film producer.  

[BetterButter]

Kevin Spacey: 10 Men Accuse “Soulless Monster” of Sexual Assault in New Docuseries

Quote

The two-part Channel 4 documentary 'Spacey Unmasked,' set to premiere in the U.K. May 6 and 7, took a “forensic look” at Spacey’s rise to stardom and the accusations. Spacey has asked for more time to "refute any allegations made against me."

 

[EtheltoTillie]

It's not just about the clothes.  It's about looks.  It's Penny v. Amy Farrah Fowler on BBT.  Harvey Weinstein, who is a troglodyte in the looks department aside from being an sick bastard, wants a Penny, not an Amy.  This is the last I will say.  I know my opinion is unpopular, but that's part of his sick power trip and why he sought to make it big in the movie business and not, say, the garbage disposal business.  Unlike say, stranger rapists, he had something to offer.  He did exchange employment for his abuse or withheld it from those who didn't cooperate.

I still think he should spend the rest of his life behind bars. 

 

Edited Friday at 05:56 PM by EtheltoTillie

[Irlandesa]

8 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I believe dressing modestly and looking a certain way etc. does not protect you from sexual assault per se.  It does protect you from being targeted by the likes of Harvey Weinstein and other entertainment bigwigs who are not interested in attacking that type of woman. 

Having access to beautiful women didn't turn him into a sexual abuser.  He was a sexual abuser who had access to beautiful women. 

Not all of his victims were models and actresses.  If he were some rando in Oklahoma, he'd still be sexually assaulting less Hollywood-looking women.

 

[Mabinogia]

21 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Having access to beautiful women didn't turn him into a sexual abuser.  He was a sexual abuser who had access to beautiful women. 

Yeah, he was going to abuse no matter what, it's just that his position allowed him to be more selective about his victims. I do think that he preferred "Hollywood hot" type women because there are some men who judge their success by how hot the women they can bed are. Those men are assholes, but they exist and I think he was one of them. 

 

 

[Danielg342]

59 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I do think that he preferred "Hollywood hot" type women because there are some men who judge their success by how hot the women they can bed are.

The other part of that is what Harvey Weinstein would consider "Hollywood hot" is not what someone else would consider "Hollywood hot". Some may want Kaley Cuoco. Others will want Amy Farrah Fowler. Others will target someone else entirely.

There's no "foolproof" look.

Looking at those who have accused Weinstein of at least some kind of impropriety and I don't really see a "type". There's brunettes. There are blondes. There are people who are not what you would consider "Hollywood hot" on that list. There's young actresses and old actresses. Most are, admittedly, white but you still have Latinas (like Lina Esco) and you have Rowena Chiu and Lupita Nyong'o.

If that doesn't reinforce the idea that predators are opportunistic and will target anyone if the mood suits them then I don't know what will.

[bluegirl147]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:03 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Here's the thing, Mayim's idea of modest dressing is what almost every woman wears on a daily basis including actresses.  Maybe her skirts a an inch longer to full cover the knee and maybe she covers her shoulders more than the average woman, but not by that much.  Mayim is conflating red carpet fashion or going out clothes with what you wear on a daily basis.  You cannot judge someone's fashion as modest or immodest just based on what they wear when they are in the spotlight.  And most if not all of the women who were victims of Harvey would have been wearing "modest" clothing when meeting with him as a film producer.  

Considering Harvey would meet these women wearing nothing but a bathrobe I'm going to say the problem was definitely with Harvey.