ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Harvey Weinstein , rape trials

Reply
Old 11th February 2020, 11:57 AM   #81
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
BS. Someone offers to contribute to your cause, you take it. You don't have the motivation or bandwidth to vet them. You know who else reportedly gave money to Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump, the aspiring dictator.

"BS?" He didn't just write checks. He sponsored fundraisers for her and solicited donations for her from others. She identified him as a long-time friend. And knowledge of his crimes was wide and deep. If she minimized his predations to get his money, it's an affront to his victims, just as she demeaned her husband's victims. It's just more evidence of Clinton's core character.
Quote:
The newspaper is also reporting that two women, including the controversial actor-and-writer Lena Dunham, warned Hillary Clinton's campaign about Weinstein's reputation as an alleged rapist. Weinstein was active in fundraising for Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
https://www.newsweek.com/harvey-wein...ow-lena-739543

George Clooney was one of many Hollywood insiders who knew about Weinstein:
Quote:
George Clooney slammed Harvey Weinstein on Monday for his alleged sexual assaults on multiple women, saying the famed Hollywood producer’s behavior was “indefensible” and “disturbing on a whole lot of levels.”

Clooney said in an interview with the Daily Beast that though he never saw any of the alleged sexual acts in the 20 years he has known Weinstein, he heard rumors about it for years.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...sible-behavior

She tried to discourage Ronan Farrow from writing about him.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/15...vey-weinstein/

Clinton actually has a lot in common with Trump: "I should get whatever I want, no matter what."

Last edited by Bob001; 11th February 2020 at 12:09 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 12:11 PM   #82
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,275
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"BS?" He didn't just write checks. He sponsored fundraisers for her and solicited donations for her from others. She identified him as a long-time friend. And knowledge of his crimes was wide and deep. If she minimized his predations to get his money, it's an affront to his victims, just as she demeaned her husband's victims. It's just more evidence of Clinton's core character.

https://www.newsweek.com/harvey-wein...ow-lena-739543

George Clooney knew about Weinstein:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...sible-behavior

She tried to discourage Ronan Farrow from writing about him.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/15...vey-weinstein/

Clinton actually has a lot in common with Trump: "I should get whatever I want."
Again, So?

George Clooney had heard rumors. He did not know. And Clooney worked in Hollywood. Not DC, New York and all over the world. HRC probably knew ambassadors and heads of states around the world far better than she did Weinstein and I bet she didn't know their sexual histories either. How many fundraisers do you think were held on Clinton's behalf? Probably hundreds. Again, I find is absurd to believe she should have known and shouldn't have taken his money.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 03:26 PM   #83
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
I wasn't talking about the NYT. I was talking about the Guardian article I linked.

And of course they are allowed to report on it but I guess I was expecting higher standards than that.

Ultimately the most important question is: will Weinstein be made to exhibit its vagina in court?
The prosecution made a mistake in trying to embarrass Weinstein by letting their witness mock his little willy, as it were, when Jessica claimed she first thought he was a hermaphrodite. The reason for this is not to spare Weinstein's blushes but because courts do not like vindictiveness. Likely she thought she was getting sweet revenge telling the world about his willy, or lack thereof, when in truth, Weinstein's lawyer was smugly grinning like a Cheshire cat after that disastrous testimony that left Jessica being heard loudly wailing in the lobby.

There was a case in England recently, as an example, in which a couple suing a friend for their botched garden design, which as an architect, she did as a favour for them free of charge, were told by the judge to pay the friend costs based on indemnity, estimated to be up to £2m (indemnity means they do not need to show reasonableness of the calculations). In his summing up, he blasted the pair, saying they were just being vindictive in pursuing the friend. Their aim was to punish her - he said - and that never goes down well as a motive.

So yeah, the prosecution thought they scored bullseye exposing - ahem - Weinstein's embarrassing little secret but I think he won the bigger battle there.

Last edited by Vixen; 11th February 2020 at 03:29 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 05:57 PM   #84
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She doesn't know anything about the specific testimony of these specific witnesses.
But you said she was "impugning the testimony of specific witnesses in a criminal trial".

Quote:
She testified, as a memory expert, that memories can change over time and therefore aren't reliable, the strong implication being that these witnesses' memories aren't reliable.
Is she wrong?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 06:49 PM   #85
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,010
Apparently Weinstein's lawyer has not been raped or sexually assaulted because she "never put herself in that position".

Good girl.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 09:20 PM   #86
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
But you said she was "impugning the testimony of specific witnesses in a criminal trial".

Is she wrong?
I'm sure she testified accurately. But testifying in general terms about what might generally be true doesn't mean that these particular witnesses are wrong about their particular testimony in this particular case. An expert could testify that people generally lose driving skills as they age; but that wouldn't have any bearing on whether a particular driver caused a particular accident. An expert could testify that, statistically, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes than women; but that wouldn't have anything to do with whether a particular woman committed a particular violent crime. Etc. These witnesses are testifying about what they experienced; Loftus is claiming their memories could be wrong based only on what she claims might generally be true. That is impugning their testimony; that's why the defense hired her. Interestingly, nobody seems to be claiming that Weinstein's memory that everything was happily consensual or never even happened might be wrong.

Last edited by Bob001; 11th February 2020 at 09:24 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 09:31 PM   #87
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
.....
There was a case in England recently, as an example, in which a couple suing a friend for their botched garden design, which as an architect, she did as a favour for them free of charge, were told by the judge to pay the friend costs based on indemnity, estimated to be up to £2m (indemnity means they do not need to show reasonableness of the calculations). In his summing up, he blasted the pair, saying they were just being vindictive in pursuing the friend. Their aim was to punish her - he said - and that never goes down well as a motive.

So yeah, the prosecution thought they scored bullseye exposing - ahem - Weinstein's embarrassing little secret but I think he won the bigger battle there.
I don't see how you can compare a civil dispute between neighbors to a felony trial for multiple sex crimes. She testified about what she experienced; if what she said about W. isn't true, the defense can refute it easily. The jury -- and the jury will make the decision here, not a judge -- might well decide that W.'s deformity helps explain his lifetime rage against women. It also prevents the defense from suddenly claiming "He's not physically capable of doing these things."

Weinstein might still walk, but nobody has any sympathy for him.

Last edited by Bob001; 11th February 2020 at 09:58 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 03:17 AM   #88
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I'm sure she testified accurately. But testifying in general terms about what might generally be true doesn't mean that these particular witnesses are wrong about their particular testimony in this particular case. An expert could testify that people generally lose driving skills as they age; but that wouldn't have any bearing on whether a particular driver caused a particular accident. An expert could testify that, statistically, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes than women; but that wouldn't have anything to do with whether a particular woman committed a particular violent crime. Etc. These witnesses are testifying about what they experienced; Loftus is claiming their memories could be wrong based only on what she claims might generally be true. That is impugning their testimony; that's why the defense hired her. Interestingly, nobody seems to be claiming that Weinstein's memory that everything was happily consensual or never even happened might be wrong.
All she can do is answer the questions posed to her. I'm sure she answered the questions the prosecution posed just as accurately. I really don't see what criticism can be extended towards her for testifying accurately.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 03:20 AM   #89
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I don't see how you can compare a civil dispute between neighbors to a felony trial for multiple sex crimes. She testified about what she experienced; if what she said about W. isn't true, the defense can refute it easily. The jury -- and the jury will make the decision here, not a judge -- might well decide that W.'s deformity helps explain his lifetime rage against women. It also prevents the defense from suddenly claiming "He's not physically capable of doing these things."

Weinstein might still walk, but nobody has any sympathy for him.
The jury has already seen photos of Weinstein's naked body, entered in evidence by the prosecution. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they didn't back up what the prosecution witness said about him.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 10:20 AM   #90
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The jury has already seen photos of Weinstein's naked body, entered in evidence by the prosecution. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they didn't back up what the prosecution witness said about him.

I didn't know that. But here they are (sort of):
https://pagesix.com/2020/02/04/harve...f-movie-mogul/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 10:26 AM   #91
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
All she can do is answer the questions posed to her. I'm sure she answered the questions the prosecution posed just as accurately. I really don't see what criticism can be extended towards her for testifying accurately.
The question is whether her testimony unfairly raises doubts about the memories of these particular witnesses in this particular case. She was hired by the defense for that specific purpose. A memory expert could testify in any case that sometimes people's memories are wrong. I'm not sure that contributes much to the pursuit of justice.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 10:27 AM   #92
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Apparently Weinstein's lawyer has not been raped or sexually assaulted because she "never put herself in that position".
Well, that's a new form of "blame the victim".
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2020, 11:15 AM   #93
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, that's a new form of "blame the victim".
I hadn't seen that. But that's what she said.

“I have not because I would never put myself in that position,” she said on the New York Times podcast. “I’ve always made choices from college age on where I never drank too much. I never went home with someone that I didn’t know. I just never put myself in any vulnerable circumstances ever.”
https://ktla.com/2020/02/07/weinstei...that-position/

Utterly delusional.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 10:59 AM   #94
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I hadn't seen that. But that's what she said.

“I have not because I would never put myself in that position,” she said on the New York Times podcast. “I’ve always made choices from college age on where I never drank too much. I never went home with someone that I didn’t know. I just never put myself in any vulnerable circumstances ever.”
https://ktla.com/2020/02/07/weinstei...that-position/

Utterly delusional.
What a smug moron. Being an attorney, she advanced her career by studying hard at school, going to a good law school, got a good position as an articled clerk whilst she learnt the ropes, went to barristers training, spent three years in a chambers before being called to the bar. Next few years, representing clients. Unless she was chased around the chambers with the senior partner wanting to show her his briefs, her profession is hardly comparable to that of a young woman not particularly academic and trained as a hairdresser/styler, who turns up in Hollywood with stars in her eyes.

The lawyer's comment is low and cruel. I can remember reading Marjorie Morningstar and Valley of the Dolls when I were t'young lass. These novels deal with young women wanting to becomes stars and go into acting and meeting along the way the 'Casting Couch', where they had to sleep with directors in payment for getting a part, which was little more than rape.

The big surprise for this lady lawyer should be that in 2020 aspiring actresses are still expected to provide sexual favours to slobs like Weinstein (and he is not the only one: there's Speilberg, Polanski and who knows who else?).

So whilst we can chuckle at the rather dimwitted Jessica who kept going back to be raped some more, on the other hand the stuck up lawyer with her supercilious grin should be more sensitive towards social mores.

O tempus! O mores!

Last edited by Vixen; 13th February 2020 at 11:00 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 11:12 AM   #95
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,010
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I hadn't seen that. But that's what she said.

“I have not because I would never put myself in that position,” she said on the New York Times podcast. “I’ve always made choices from college age on where I never drank too much. I never went home with someone that I didn’t know. I just never put myself in any vulnerable circumstances ever.”
https://ktla.com/2020/02/07/weinstei...that-position/

Utterly delusional.
She apparently specializes in representing and defending people accused of rape and other sex crimes. She not only has a vested interest in the perpetuation of victim blaming narratives like that, but that she'd air such attitudes herself is pretty astounding.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 11:14 AM   #96
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,090
My brush with fame, I'm only 2 degrees away from Weinstein. An in-law of my in-laws was a witness at the trial. I know this because I heard her name on the news.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 12:29 PM   #97
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What a smug moron. Being an attorney, she advanced her career by studying hard at school, going to a good law school, got a good position as an articled clerk whilst she learnt the ropes, went to barristers training, spent three years in a chambers before being called to the bar.
.....
Without digressing too far, I note that legal training in the U.S. and UK are different. In the U.S. someone is a fully qualified lawyer as soon as he passes the bar exam, which he can do as soon as he graduates from law school, which he can even attend part-time. Some states still allow applicants to "read law," meaning work as an apprentice to a lawyer and learn on the job, and California and maybe others allow people to attend law school online. Most new lawyers then start out as associates with law firms or in entry-level government jobs, but there is no division between "solicitors" and "barristers," and no specialized barrister training. If this particular lawyer got a good job straight out of law school, maybe with family connections, she may never have had to face the challenges common to her own profession, let alone Hollywood's.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 02:33 PM   #98
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,778
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
(indemnity means they do not need to show reasonableness of the calculations)
This is not true.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2020, 07:11 PM   #99
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,057
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Again, So?

George Clooney had heard rumors. He did not know. And Clooney worked in Hollywood. Not DC, New York and all over the world. HRC probably knew ambassadors and heads of states around the world far better than she did Weinstein and I bet she didn't know their sexual histories either. How many fundraisers do you think were held on Clinton's behalf? Probably hundreds. Again, I find is absurd to believe she should have known and shouldn't have taken his money.

I would take you more serioiusly if I did not suspect that if Weinstein was raising money for a Republican, you would be all over them for accepting.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 08:22 AM   #100
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I take it you are based in the USA and are not familiar with how UK courts deal with costs.

Quote:
The court may assess costs on one of two bases: on the indemnity basis or on the standard basis. If costs are assessed on the indemnity basis, the court will give the benefit of any doubt as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or whether the costs were reasonable in amount in favour of the receiving party.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/ind.../50629.article

Clear now?
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 08:30 AM   #101
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,273
And the relevance of how UK courts deal with things to the Weinstein trial is.....?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 08:52 AM   #102
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
And the relevance of how UK courts deal with things to the Weinstein trial is.....?
We were discussing the need to avoid being seen as vindictive in court.

Do keep up!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 10:21 AM   #103
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We were discussing the need to avoid being seen as vindictive in court.

Do keep up!
In a UK court?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 10:59 AM   #104
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
In a UK court?
In any court in the western world.

Take the fake sheikh of the News of the World: he tried to set up a celebrity procuring class A drugs so he could get a story. The trial of the celebrity was stopped as soon as the judge realised his malice and he himself was charged and jailed.

Perhaps one day when you rule the world you can dictate to people what they can and can't mention on a thread.

Until then, I shall just carry on responding as I see fit. Tant pis.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 10:30 PM   #105
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
The prosecution sums up:
Quote:
A prosecutor said on Friday that the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was “an abusive rapist” and “a predator” who used his power to manipulate and assault several women in the movie business, then stayed in touch with them to ensure their silence and compliance.

“He had a surefire insurance policy: That the witnesses were standing in line to get into his universe,” Joan Illuzzi, an assistant district attorney, told the jury during her closing arguments at Mr. Weinstein’s rape trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/n...ein-trial.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 05:41 AM   #106
Vixen
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I am not particularly familiar with how US courts come to reach their verdicts. Having read the following:

Quote:
Four other women also testified that Mr. Weinstein attacked them in various ways — among them, the actress Annabella Sciorra, best known for her role in “The Sopranos.” She testified last month that Mr. Weinstein pushed his way into her Gramercy Park apartment in the winter months of 1993 or 1994 then violently raped her even as she kicked and punched him.

Prosecutors are using her testimony to support the top charge of predatory sexual assault, which carries a possible life sentence.
I can accept that from the social prism Weinstein is the classic Hollywood producer/director serial predator. However, legally, it looks a weak case. Sciorra may well have been violently raped in '1993 or 1994', twenty-seven years ago - and I believe it to be true - but essentially , it comes to her word against his, it is out of time and is only there as back-up testimony.

Mann came across as a weak, even vindictive, witness, highlighting Weinstein's supposedly deformed body and how disgusting it was to have sex with him. Yet she notified him five times of her new phone number. She never made it as an actress so it is hard to see how he yielded power over her, insofar he could get her blacklisted, when she never got her foot on the ladder in the first place. Again, from a legal POV, it is her word against his.

I am sure you need to prove a lot more than popular perception to have someone jailed for life.

Last edited by Vixen; 15th February 2020 at 05:43 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 12:55 PM   #107
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am not particularly familiar with how US courts come to reach their verdicts.
.....

And yet you don't hesitate to make pronouncements about what would happen "in any court in the western world."

Weinstein will be judged by a jury of 12 citizens, selected from voter rolls and other public records. A verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" requires a unanimous vote; if one or more jurors disagrees with the others, the result is a nung jury, and the prosecution can choose to conduct a new trial or give up.

The sentence will be imposed by the judge, not the jury. Reports say the most serious charge carries a penalty of 5 to 25 years. I don't know if there's a mandatory minimum; if not, the judge could sentence him to as little as probation (fat chance!). A "life sentence" isn't really on the table, unless you just mean that he might not live long enough to finish a long prison term.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2020, 09:04 PM   #108
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,708
Case goes to jury; defense lawyer rebuked for addressing oped to jurors.
Quote:
Over the weekend, just days before jurors in the Harvey Weinstein case were set to begin deliberations, his lead defense lawyer, Donna Rotunno, wrote an opinion piece imploring them “to do what they know is right.”

The article in Newsweek magazine infuriated the Manhattan district attorney’s office, and on Tuesday the lead prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi, called Ms. Rotunno’s behavior “inappropriate,” and tantamount to jury tampering.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/n...a-rotunno.html

Bad news for Harvey:
Quote:
A half-hour later, the jurors sent a note to the judge asking for definitions of legal terms like consent and forcible compulsion, as well as written definitions of the charges against Mr. Weinstein and whether they could find him guilty of certain combinations of charges.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 05:37 AM   #109
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,023
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The question is whether her testimony unfairly raises doubts about the memories of these particular witnesses in this particular case. She was hired by the defense for that specific purpose. A memory expert could testify in any case that sometimes people's memories are wrong. I'm not sure that contributes much to the pursuit of justice.
Going back to this point, it depends on whether you believe that an expert witness may have a role to play by providing information that may address general misconceptions jurors may have. In the case of an area such as memory it would be general testimony, because you cannot directly examine a memory in the way you can physical evidence, and an attempt to do so could result in possible further contamination or distortion.

Jurors may have misconceptions about the nature of memory. It was/is commonly thought that an original memory is stored somewhere like a videotape, so that prompting to elicit a memory through suggestion will have no effect if the memory doesn't exist but aid retrieval if it does. We now know that such prompting can alter a memory or even result in a false one. There is a parallel with the belief that innocent people won't confess, meaning that manipulative attempts to provoke confession will have no effect on an innocent suspect. In both areas, expert testimony could be argued to assist with evaluating evidence. I realise some people object in general to this type of testimony on the grounds that jurors should make up their own minds about evidence and not be told what to believe. There may be a risk of jurors placing too much weight on expert testimony, or not being able to assess accurately how much it applies in a particular case (for example, assuming that all memory is useless, when it fact it may be fairly accurate under some circumstances). However, that needs to be weighed against possible effects of jurors being influenced by misconceptions that are not addressed.

There are some studies on the impact of expert evidence but it's a difficult topic to research, given the number of variables influencing jury verdicts and the limitations of using mock jurors.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 09:02 AM   #110
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Case goes to jury; defense lawyer rebuked for addressing oped to jurors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/n...a-rotunno.html

Bad news for Harvey:

I suspect he's paying her so much that she's ready to retire, so she doesn't care whether she's sanctioned, or even disbarred.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 10:53 AM   #111
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,275
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And yet you don't hesitate to make pronouncements about what would happen "in any court in the western world."

Weinstein will be judged by a jury of 12 citizens, selected from voter rolls and other public records. A verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" requires a unanimous vote; if one or more jurors disagrees with the others, the result is a nung jury, and the prosecution can choose to conduct a new trial or give up.

The sentence will be imposed by the judge, not the jury. Reports say the most serious charge carries a penalty of 5 to 25 years. I don't know if there's a mandatory minimum; if not, the judge could sentence him to as little as probation (fat chance!). A "life sentence" isn't really on the table, unless you just mean that he might not live long enough to finish a long prison term.
How old is Weinstein? If he goes to prison, that will compete with OJ and Bill Cosby's fall from the top. You might put Madoff in that list, but his pinnacle of success could be attributed more to the fraud he was committing.

Maybe I'm missing someone.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 08:44 AM   #112
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
In the 60 Minutes interview, Rotunno alludes to the dating app Tinder as a way of repeating her controversial view that women share responsibility for sexual assaults against them. She says: “When you go home with someone after swiping right, act like you have no idea what you may be consenting to seems ridiculous.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...ontinue-latest

If you willingly enter a mans territory, you better put out. It's as simple as that.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 12:40 PM   #113
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 33,668
Developing! Jury deadlocked on counts 1 & 3, unanimous verdict (unknown) on the other 3 counts. Judge said, go back and deliberate more.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 21st February 2020 at 12:54 PM.
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 02:43 PM   #114
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,057
Verdict not in , and it's getting ugly out there.
On some forums posters are screaming about "Stupid BImbos" and rejoicing that an acquittal will mean the end of the "Me Too " movement.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 04:27 PM   #115
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,590
conflict of interest

An article in The Nation: "By the summation phase, a young woman who days earlier had argued away the contradictions in prosecution witness testimony had decided, “It is a very weak case.” News accounts I’ve seen have emphasized only strength. They did not acknowledge defense attorney Donna Rotunno’s closing as a methodical review of evidence, which raised a mountain of doubt, or describe Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi-Orbon’s as a digressive appeal to emotion, which repeatedly declared Weinstein a “predatory monster” but otherwise sowed confusion. Instead, the media largely characterized the defense argument as an attack on women and sidestepped the vital matter of whether the prosecution had proved its case."

A criminal defense blog picked up on one aspect of the case, namely how one juror has a conflict of interest.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.