The need for excitement was raised so.......

R

rgp

Well-known Member
Location
Milford,OH
Here's some?

Why was Harvey Weinstein arrested ? Not even a hint of evidence that I have heard ?? And most of the "alleged" accusations are years old.

Now....he is being paraded for the fanfare of the news media....Can a fair trial ever be held ?

Breast caress[er's] & ass patters are a far cry from rapist . That said, either are IMO only proven by video....I've seen nothing along that line.

And [again] IMO these lesser offence accusations only diminish the validity of the more serious offences....if they in fact exist.
 

Ruthanne said:
One of the things he is being charged with is rape. I saw it on the news this evening. That's far from an ass grabber.
Click to expand...


I saw that but...on what evidence ? Again I only see / hear accusation. That is now enough to have one arrested on , expect to surrender to a felony ?
 

rgp said:
We did?...OK, so where is, what sort of,... evidence is there ? I have heard none.
Click to expand...

He was indicted by a Grand Jury which heard the evidence, which is usually not made public until a trial. That's how our legal system works.
 
hearlady said:
Let the court decide. If he did it......off with his head!
Click to expand...

I agree 100%...But we continue to hear accusation . How about some evidence !?..I mean right now he is being tried in the court of public opinion ....not a fair trial as I see it.
 
rgp said:
I agree 100%...But we continue to hear accusation . How about some evidence !?..I mean right now he is being tried in the court of public opinion ....not a fair trial as I see it.
Click to expand...

As I just posted, he was indicted by a Grand July which heard the evidence. That's how our legal system works.
 
Olivia said:
He was indicted by a Grand Jury which heard the evidence, which is usually not made public until a trial. That's how our legal system works.
Click to expand...


Fine but,....if we are going to continually hear of only accusation ? Why can't we be privy to some of the purported evidence ? That way we [the public at large] could ponder both.

Or....IMO better yet...we hear of / be privy too, none of it, until AFTER the trial !?
 
rgp said:
I agree 100%...But we continue to hear accusation . How about some evidence !?..I mean right now he is being tried in the court of public opinion ....not a fair trial as I see it.
Click to expand...
He lived a life of public opinion by choice. As long as the opinion was he was a big ole stud he was ok with that.
Most times I would agree with you but something about him raises my sleeze flag so sorry if I'm judging.
 
rgp said:
Fine but,....if we are going to continually hear of only accusation ? Why can't we be privy to some of the purported evidence ? That way we [the public at large] could ponder both.

Or....IMO better yet...we hear of / be privy too, none of it, until AFTER the trial !?
Click to expand...

He has a very high-powered attorney. I'm sure if they want the public to hear the evidence, they'll find a way. However, maybe they don't really want that to go public. Maybe it would be worse for him. The attorney already made a public appearance and said that bad behavior isn't criminal. And that he wasn't defending bad behavior but only accusations of criminal behavior. But he didn't bring out what the evidence was that he will be refuting. So, maybe not a good idea for Weinstein to have all the dirt made public. I've already heard this attorney being highly praised for his skill. So, maybe just wait to see what happens. But already he's mentioned Weinstein's bad behavior which, again, he said he is not defending.

Another thing is that in order to get a fair trial, they need to get a jury that is not tainted with what is purported to be evidence. You seem to be wanting Weinstein to be tried by public opinion.
 
A grand jury seemed to think there was enough evidence to take it to trial, but having said that I tend to agree with one of your points. The one about getting (or not getting) a fair trial. That is something I see happening a lot these days. The media is all over various cases before they even get into a courtroom and people are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

Even after a trial, people on social media, (and forums like this) discuss the guilt or innocence of the accused, especially if he or she is found not guilty.

Once that could have, and did on occasion, land the people discussing it in jail themselves.
 
rgp said:
Fine but,....if we are going to continually hear of only accusation ? Why can't we be privy to some of the purported evidence ? That way we [the public at large] could ponder both.

Or....IMO better yet...we hear of / be privy too, none of it, until AFTER the trial !?
Click to expand...

Because that's the way the system works. The only people whose opinion on someone's guilt or innocence matters are the people on the jury. The public doesn't have any right to know the ins and outs of the evidence on either side prior to trial. Publishing the minutiae of the evidence could have the effect of screwing up either side's case, and it certainly taints the jury pool and can result in the accused's not getting a fair trial and/or the court not being able to empanel a jury who hasn't already made up their minds.
 
rgp said:
I saw that but...on what evidence ? Again I only see / hear accusation. That is now enough to have one arrested on , expect to surrender to a felony ?
Click to expand...
Usually they have to have evidence to charge someone so there must be some. I watch all the detective shows on tv, the true ones and that's how I know they have to have evidence to arrest someone on a charge.
 
hearlady said:
He lived a life of public opinion by choice. As long as the opinion was he was a big ole stud he was ok with that.
Most times I would agree with you but something about him raises my sleeze flag so sorry if I'm judging.
Click to expand...


LOL...I agree completely n the sleeze flag aspect...but consider this.

There is a bank robbery, we hear later that so & so has been arrested, and is suspect in the crime. {accusation}

His car matches the one caught on video @ the bank, he was found to have a weapon matching the one brandished in the bank video....He had dye-pack ink on the sleeve of a shirt found in his home...{evidence}

But with Weinstein ? Nothing...he was arrested on accusation of what she said happened years ago...Period.

Just doesn't seem right too me?
 
Ruthanne said:
Usually they have to have evidence to charge someone so there must be some. I watch all the detective shows on tv, the true ones and that's how I know they have to have evidence to arrest someone on a charge.
Click to expand...

No offence but that's Hollywood.....things differ in Hollywood.
 
rpg, would I be correct in the belief that you just like baiting and arguing? Since you landed on our shores it seems your only interest is conflict.
 
rgp said:
No offence but that's Hollywood.....things differ in Hollywood.
Click to expand...
It's not Hollywood at all. They are absolutely true stories with genuine evidence on ID. You don't know what I am talking about obviously. So I am not offended. And what I said is true that you have to have evidence to be charged with a crime.
 
This sort of crime, by its very nature, rarely has what we might call hard evidence. Especially if it's a historical offence, as these are. It's usually committed covertly, so no witnesses. I guess it often comes down to other little markers that suggest the nature of the accused and the possibility of an offence being committed rather than direct evidence. Juries only have to consider 'beyond a reasonable doubt' not no doubt whatsoever.
 
rgp said:
No offence but that's Hollywood.....things differ in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Having worked in this area for some 40 years, I can assure you that in the real world they DO have to have a level of evidence to charge someone, but they have no obligation to make said evidence available to the general public. If the case went to a grand jury, the grand jury would have heard the evidence and decided there was enough evidence to indict.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the jurors are prohibited from discussing the proceedings publicly or with anyone other than themselves.
 
AZ Jim said:
rpg, would I be correct in the belief that you just like baiting and arguing? Since you landed on our shores it seems your only interest is conflict.
Click to expand...


That would be incorrect....Are we only welcome here so long as we agree?

I have only seen accusation against this man...not even a mention of evidence ....& yet he is being charged...THAT should alarm all of us.

One person or several persons saying someone did something , is not evidence that it may have actually happened . Do we as a nation / society really want to start prosecuting on suspicion / accusation alone ?....I do not.
 
Ruthanne said:
It's not Hollywood at all. They are absolutely true stories with genuine evidence on ID. You don't know what I am talking about obviously. So I am not offended. And what I said is true that you have to have evidence to be charged with a crime.
Click to expand...

And just what says the stories ARE indeed true? The accusers ? Why is it that their word is absolute ? He says they are not true.
 
RPG - You're kidding, right? As with Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose and others, Harvey Weinstein does not have a sole accuser. These men have well-established MOs with multiple victims. Their patterns of behavior are strikingly similar from victim to victim. HW has been paying off accusers for decades. The number of women who have come out with virtually identical stories are upward of 40. But don't take my word for it, spend a minute on an Internet search to find out for yourself.

Regardless of what you might think, false rape or molestation claims are actually quite rare. Victims tend not to report sexually aggressive because they're afraid of not being believed, terrified at potential repercussions from the perpetrator or the community, deeply embarrassed and ashamed at having been unable to protect themselves from predators. We've seen this repeatedly over the past several decades, whether the abuse was at the hands of priests, relatives, bosses, coaches, doctors, teachers, trusted adults, or other people in positions of respect and power. Victims often don't report their experience because they feel isolated and guilty, as if they're partly responsible - maybe they unintentionally sent off seductive signals?

I have great confidence that the justice system can sort this out.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top