Pretty Good News (Harvey Weinstein got 23 years in prison)

OneEyedDiva said:
Me either Gaer!! And Roman Polanski keeps skating by too. Damned shame. :mad:
Click to expand...
Looks like Polanski got away with it by:
At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation. However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.
 
rgp said:
I'm not wearing anything....you clearly fail to see that a jury may have found him guilty....But that does not mean he is. Being found guilty by evidence shown is one thing, but being found guilty by only the opinion of 12 people, that came to that conclusion by believing a mere accusation , is something else entirely.

You get over it......I am leery, and will continue to be, of any criminal accusation being enough to take away a persons freedom . Again remember , this could be any man...including you.

I hope the verdict is overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣..........YAWN
 

rgp said:
Indeed you are a bore.
Click to expand...
You've made your point that you believe your very, very nice man, Mr Weinstein couldn't, wouldn't force himself onto women, therefore he must be innocent. Would you please now stop spitting your dummy out of your pram and accept that you, yes, you, could just possibly be wrong, most of the rest of the world believe you are.
 
Ferocious said:
You've made your point that you believe your very, very nice man, Mr Weinstein couldn't, wouldn't force himself onto women, therefore he must be innocent. Would you please now stop spitting your dummy out of your pram and accept that you, yes, you, could just possibly be wrong, most of the rest of the world believe you are.
Click to expand...


If you would read what I said.......which apparently you did not........I never said he was a nice man, I only said, from the beginning , that there was no evidence produced , only accusation, of his behavior.

Others may believe the women.....I do not without any evidence. And not when the [supposed] incidents happened so long ago.
 
win231 said:
The long sentences are designed to pacify people to avoid outrage.
Weinstein will never serve anywhere near those sentences. No way any state prison will pay for his medical upkeep that long.
Sentences are automatically cut in half, plus good behavior reductions.
Older inmates are typically released even earlier to save costs; that's why the Manson girls were granted parole & they're much more evil than Weinstein.
O.J. Simpson was sentenced to 33 years for armed robbery & kidnapping. He was released after 9 years. Again, older inmates' medical care is higher, so they're labeled "Rehabilitated" & "No longer a danger to society."
Click to expand...

NONE of the Manson girls were paroled.
 
rgp said:
If you would read what I said.......which apparently you did not........I never said he was a nice man, I only said, from the beginning , that there was no evidence produced , only accusation, of his behavior.

Others may believe the women.....I do not without any evidence. And not when the [supposed] incidents happened so long ago.
Click to expand...

Victim statements and other corroborated statements are evidence. Maybe you should just go back to supporting/defending the Florida parking lot shooter (Michael Drejka).
 
Buckeye said:
So, in fact, they were not paroled, correct?
Click to expand...
No, they were not released, but I'm sure they'll be applying for parole again soon. And the Governor may be pressured to allow it.
It does speak volumes that the parole board would approve releasing them, regardless. It shouldn't take a Government action to prevent release of such evil. And Sharon Tate's family has to travel several hours to attend each parole hearing & also appeal to the governor.
 
Buckeye said:
Victim statements and other corroborated statements are evidence. Maybe you should just go back to supporting/defending the Florida parking lot shooter (Michael Drejka).
Click to expand...


Really?...Is that the best you can do?......I still do support Drejka btw.

Victim statements are merely accusations......Would you want to loose your freedom on only someone's word/accusation?
 
rgp said:
I'm not wearing anything....you clearly fail to see that a jury may have found him guilty....But that does not mean he is. Being found guilty by evidence shown is one thing, but being found guilty by only the opinion of 12 people, that came to that conclusion by believing a mere accusation , is something else entirely.

You get over it......I am leery, and will continue to be, of any criminal accusation being enough to take away a persons freedom . Again remember , this could be any man...including you.

I hope the verdict is overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...
Harvey Weinstein has a long history of coercing women into sexual acts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harve...es#New_York_trial,_conviction,_and_sentencing

As to the notion that he was found guilty by "only the opinion of 12 people", you do a disservice to 12 people you do not know. I have served on juries, criminal and civil, and never met anyone who did not take the responsibility seriously. Had the charges been "mere accusation", no jury would have convicted him. What emerged from the trial was a portrait of a man who used his power and influence to prey on women. And I see you made no mention of the fact that Weinstein was in fact acquitted of three charges that were far more serious, which further undermines the idea that the he was convicted by "mere accusation".

Most criminal trials come down to the testimony of witnesses: forensic evidence, including video, is nowhere near as commonly employed as the television shows would lead one to believe. Jurors convict based on testimony because they find the witness credible, or acquit when they find it questionable.

If Weinstein was wrongly convicted, he has the resources to pursue appeals as far as he can, so time will tell.
 
CatGuy said:
Harvey Weinstein has a long history of coercing women into sexual acts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harve...es#New_York_trial,_conviction,_and_sentencing

As to the notion that he was found guilty by "only the opinion of 12 people", you do a disservice to 12 people you do not know. I have served on juries, criminal and civil, and never met anyone who did not take the responsibility seriously. Had the charges been "mere accusation", no jury would have convicted him. What emerged from the trial was a portrait of a man who used his power and influence to prey on women. And I see you made no mention of the fact that Weinstein was in fact acquitted of three charges that were far more serious, which further undermines the idea that the he was convicted by "mere accusation".

Most criminal trials come down to the testimony of witnesses: forensic evidence, including video, is nowhere near as commonly employed as the television shows would lead one to believe. Jurors convict based on testimony because they find the witness credible, or acquit when they find it questionable.

If Weinstein was wrongly convicted, he has the resources to pursue appeals as far as he can, so time will tell.
Click to expand...


Coercing is not a crime....If the women gave into it?....that's on them.

"Jurors convict based on testimony because they find the witness credible, or acquit when they find it questionable."

Again, opinion.

The testimony of an eyewitness is entirely different than the testimony of the so-called victim.....ten years later.

Based on the logic/or lack of....displayed by you & others here. I could accuse you of anything....and if on the witness stand, I am convincing enough ....... you will be found guilty, on my word only.


"And I see you made no mention of the fact that Weinstein was in fact acquitted of three charges that were far more serious, which further undermines the idea that the he was convicted by "mere accusation".

Why would I mention that ?........That is the way I feel it all should have gone.
 
rgp said:
Really?...Is that the best you can do?......I still do support Drejka btw.

Victim statements are merely accusations......Would you want to loose your freedom on only someone's word/accusation?
Click to expand...
Best I could do? It's all that needs to be said. I assume you have volunteered your vast, expert legal insights to Harvey's legal team. The clearly don't know as much about this as you do.
 
Buckeye said:
Best I could do? It's all that needs to be said. I assume you have volunteered your vast, expert legal insights to Harvey's legal team. The clearly don't know as much about this as you do.
Click to expand...


So you are content with any accusation, being grounds for a guilty verdict?......And are willing to jail a person on accusation alone?

Keep in mind , the next one could well be you.
 
rgp said:
So you are content with any accusation, being grounds for a guilty verdict?......And are willing to jail a person on accusation alone?

Keep in mind , the next one could well be you.
Click to expand...

lol - You keep beating that same dead horse. It isn't about ANY accusation, and you know that. It is about multiple accusations by a number of people who were more believable that Harvey. It is the role of the courts and the jury to weight the facts and reach a verdict. That's what happened, and you can whine and snivel on here all you want but it doesn't change a thing.

And no, the next one could not be me. I have no fear of the truth.
 
rgp said:
Coercing is not a crime....If the women gave into it?....that's on them.

"Jurors convict based on testimony because they find the witness credible, or acquit when they find it questionable."

Again, opinion.

The testimony of an eyewitness is entirely different than the testimony of the so-called victim.....ten years later.

Based on the logic/or lack of....displayed by you & others here. I could accuse you of anything....and if on the witness stand, I am convincing enough ....... you will be found guilty, on my word only.


"And I see you made no mention of the fact that Weinstein was in fact acquitted of three charges that were far more serious, which further undermines the idea that the he was convicted by "mere accusation".

Why would I mention that ?........That is the way I feel it all should have gone.
Click to expand...
Quite true. Although I never coerce any woman, I don't see how saying "C'mon, babe," or "Lets," or "Lemme" can be a crime; if it was, prisons would be really crowded.
 
For me, the problem with these cases is the time that has elapsed since the incidents happened.

IMO the stories would have a greater ring of truth/believability if the incidents had been reported as they happened and not decades later.

Don't get me wrong I think that Harvey Weinstein is guilty of some very bad behavior. I also believe that some of these women border on being complicit in his crimes by not speaking out when the incidents happened.

If the first woman and every woman after that had spoken out the lives of hundreds of women could have/would have been changed for the better so I really don't see these women as heroes for speaking out now.

I don't question the events that happened as much as the motives of the people involved.

I'm not looking to change minds or argue this is just my opinion so please don't bother to start throwing rocks at me it's a waste of time.
 
Aunt Bea said:
For me, the problem with these cases is the time that has elapsed since the incidents happened.

IMO the stories would have a greater ring of truth/believability if the incidents had been reported as they happened and not decades later.

Don't get me wrong I think that Harvey Weinstein is guilty of some very bad behavior. I also believe that some of these women border on being complicit in his crimes by not speaking out when the incidents happened.

If the first woman and every woman after that had spoken out the lives of hundreds of women could have/would have been changed for the better so I really don't see these women as heroes for speaking out now.

I don't question the events that happened as much as the motives of the people involved.

I'm not looking to change minds or argue this is just my opinion so please don't bother to start throwing rocks at me it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...


I agree here.
 
Buckeye said:
lol - You keep beating that same dead horse. It isn't about ANY accusation, and you know that. It is about multiple accusations by a number of people who were more believable that Harvey. It is the role of the courts and the jury to weight the facts and reach a verdict. That's what happened, and you can whine and snivel on here all you want but it doesn't change a thing.

And no, the next one could not be me. I have no fear of the truth.
Click to expand...


Why does more than one accusation, make any of them fact.....decades later ?

"It is the role of the courts and the jury to weight the facts and reach a verdict."

One accusation or 20 accusations are not facts.


Well, if person points too you, with an accusation of you doing them wrong, and states that it is the truth.......Then you'd better fear it.
 
For the victim/s of rape, it is not easy to come forward immediately. It is traumatic. There is the fear of publicity, as well as ostracization and victim-blaming. Perhaps you have to be a female to fully understand this, though I know that men are also raped. Do men come foward immediately? Are they scrutinized as deeply as women?
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
Why does more than one accusation, make any of them fact.....decades later ?

"It is the role of the courts and the jury to weight the facts and reach a verdict."

One accusation or 20 accusations are not facts.


Well, if person points too you, with an accusation of you doing them wrong, and states that it is the truth.......Then you'd better fear it.
Click to expand...
Jeebus, give that dead horse a break. You can continue to whine an snivel all you want, but facts are facts, even when you don't think they are. The jury decides the facts, not some internet dipstick. The jury decided, based on the presented evidence and facts, that your buddy Harvey was guilty, The truth does not change over time.

And again, just because you apparently live in fear doesn't mean the rest of us do. Grow a pair, sis. 🥎🥎
 
I sang a song to my grandson that I learned as a elementary school kid, which I will NEVER sing to him Ever Again! It's done by two little kids, a boy and a girl. Here are the lyrics, sorry you can't hear the tune, it's cute.

Girl: What's your name, little boy?
Boy: My name is Lemme.
Girl: Lemme what, little boy?
Boy: Lemme Kiss You.
Boy: What's your name, little girl?
Girl: My name is Ally.
Boy: Ally what, little girl?
Girl: Ally Right.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top