Harvey Weinsteins rape conviction overturned in New York

Tools    





"Equal justice for all" would mean you had also expressed even the slightest of concerns for the dozens of women that HW raped, which so far, you have absolutely not expressed.

What about them, don't you want justice for them, as well? Or are you only concerned about justice for the convicted sex offender in this situation?



"Equal justice for all" would mean you had also expressed even the slightest of concerns for the dozens of women that HW raped, which so far, you have absolutely not expressed.

What about them, don't you want justice for them, as well? Or are you only concerned about justice for the convicted sex offender in this situation?
Duck season.

But I notice you haven't condemned Hitler in the course of this topic, nor cruelty to pigeons.

What might we conclude from this?

Justice for all: A great concept.



But I notice you haven't condemned Hitler in the course of this topic
The topic of this thread, is quite specifically, Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction.

If the thread were about Hitler, then you might have a point, but it isn't.



The topic of this thread, is quite specifically, Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction.

If the thread were about Hitler, then you might have a point, but it isn't.
I see you refuse to condemn cruelty to pigeons, which to some might prove quite telling.

There is a saying that one may lead a horse to water, but that horse cannot be compelled to imbibe.

I wish you all the luck in the world in figuring things out, including the importance of such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty," "equal justice under the law," and "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

In the meantime, "That's all folks!"



"Innocent until proven guilty" is all very well, except that in the case of the thread topic, we're talking about a convicted sex offender and rapist of dozens of women.

It is quite evident that Harvey Weinstein couldn't prove his innocence in court, despite all of your whiteknighting for him.



"Innocent until proven guilty" is all very well, except that in the case of the thread topic, we're talking about a convicted sex offender and rapist of dozens of women.

It is quite evident that Harvey Weinstein couldn't prove his innocence in court, despite all of your whiteknighting for him.
I whiteknight for the cause of equal justice, as previously and exhaustively explained.

If this somehow isn't clear to you, I fear it never will be.

Do take care my sweet little duck.



I whiteknight for the cause of equal justice
If you did, you would have expressed at least some concern for all of the women that Harvey Weinstein raped - and, once again, you showed absolutely zero concern about them getting the justice they deserve under the laws of the United States.

When you only believe in justice for the rapist but not justice for the women he has raped, that is pretty far from "equal justice".



If you did, you would have expressed at least some concern for all of the women that Harvey Weinstein raped - and, once again, you showed absolutely zero concern about them getting the justice they deserve under the laws of the United States.

When you only believe in justice for the rapist but not justice for the women he has raped, that is pretty far from "equal justice".
Perhaps you are not a duck, but a bunny after all. That Energizer creature?

However long you may continue to hammer at your erroneous point, it will remain entirely fallacious. If you have genuine concern for the rights of women, I hope you can be a better advocate in future, or perhaps a less embarrassingly insistent and wrongheaded one.

But this has been fun, and I do look forward to our next encounter.



Posting this for all those who aren't whiteknighting for this convicted sex offender:


Manhattan prosecutors on Wednesday signaled that they might seek to indict Harvey Weinstein on new charges, saying they were vetting allegations from people who have accused him of sexual assault in recent years as they prepared to retry him after his 2020 sex crimes conviction was overturned.

Prosecutors did not say how many accusers they were interviewing or provide details of their allegations but said they were reviewing which of the accusations fell within the statute of limitations.

At the hearing on Wednesday in Criminal Court in Manhattan, Mr. Weinstein, 72, entered in a wheelchair, dressed in a dark suit and white shirt, holding a large tan book under his left arm.

It was the second hearing since Mr. Weinstein’s conviction was overturned last month. In a 4-to-3 decision, the New York Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers that the trial judge who presided over his 2020 case had erred by allowing prosecutors to call several accusers as witnesses, even though their allegations had not led to charges.

Mr. Weinstein, a former Hollywood producer who was convicted of sex crimes against two women at that trial, had been serving a 23-year sentence. At a hearing earlier this month, Manhattan prosecutors said they planned to retry him.

On Wednesday, Justice Curtis Farber, who is presiding over the case now, said if prosecutors convene a grand jury to seek an indictment on new charges, the court and Mr. Weinstein’s legal team must be given notice.

Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer in New York, Arthur Aidala, was sitting next to him at the defense table on Wednesday. Last week, in a letter filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, prosecutors accused Mr. Aidala of making public statements that were intended to intimidate and to attack the “credibility and character” of witnesses.

Mr. Aidala has publicly accused one of the 2020 case’s witnesses, Miriam Haley, of lying to the jury at trial and said that he would diligently prepare to cross-examine her at a new trial if she “dares to come and show her face here,” according to the letter.

In court on Wednesday, Nicole Blumberg, an assistant district attorney, said that prosecutors are concerned that Mr. Aidala’s statements could intimidate accusers — some of whom were not ready to come forward in 2020, but may be ready now.

Mr. Aidala said he apologized if “I offended the court in any way.” However, he defended his public statements, saying that he was standing up for his client who he said had been “beat” up in the media.

“I made some statements about a witness that testified in the last case that are accurate,” he told Justice Farber, adding: “It’s our position that lies were told in the last trial. I didn’t say anything to intimidate anybody. I just say, ‘Look, here’s the truth.’”

Ms. Haley, a former TV production assistant, said at a news conference shortly after Mr. Weinstein’s conviction was overturned that she would consider testifying again.

“I definitely don’t actually want to go through that again, but for the sake of keeping going and doing the right thing and because it is what happened, I would consider it,” she said.

In 2020, Mr. Weinstein was convicted of a criminal sexual act stemming from Ms. Haley’s accusation that he forced oral sex on her in his Manhattan apartment in July 2006.
He was also convicted of raping Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress, in a New York hotel room in 2013.

Mr. Aidala has said that his team would object to any plans from prosecutors to call Ms. Mann at a retrial because they believe Mr. Weinstein has already served enough time to account for the sentence in her case.

Before setting the next hearing date, Justice Farber asked that both sides refrain from “pandering to the press” in the lead up to the new trial.

The case will not be tried in the “court of public opinion,” he said.

But not long after the hearing, Mr. Aidala spoke to reporters outside the courthouse.

“It’s the court of appeals who brought sanity back into the equation,” he said.

Mr. Weinstein is still facing prison time in California, where he was convicted in 2020 of rape and sexual assault and sentenced to 16 years to be served after his New York sentence. Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer in California, Jennifer Bonjean, has said that she plans to appeal Mr. Weinstein’s conviction, and that she believes that the recent ruling in New York will help her chances of success, though several legal experts have cast doubt on that.

The next hearing in the New York case is scheduled for July 9.



I like to think that all clearheaded, goodhearted individuals are hoping for a fair trial and outcome this time around.

New York is notorious for misconduct at the lower court level, but perhaps the scrutiny that may pertain here will curtail some of this historically pervasive misbehavior.

I agree that it's a shame to see anyone whiteknighting on behalf of odious values, most especially judicial misconduct.

But one of the more unfortunate aspects of our new social media democracy is that anyone can speak up, and repeatedly, regardless of their capacity for clear and logical thinking. Such individuals are generally quite intractable, and unable to advance past their ineptitude.

In a structured debate format, such people would be thoroughly shamed and humiliated, and forced either to withdraw or improve themselves. But social media provides them with the opportunity, unfortunate for all concerned, to endlessly broadcast their erroneous thinking, and never move past the limbo in which they're trapped.

I always thought it might be interesting if platforms asked potential members to submit to a brief logic test to see if they were capable of clear thinking, but as this might drastically reduce membership to unsustainably small levels, perhaps it's best to look at the good such individuals may provide despite their shortcomings, such as sharing interesting third party content, and providing provocative questions for discussion.

I certainly wish all concerned in the Weinstein situation the best, including Mr. Weinstein, caught in a trap not intended for him, a lesser whale.



The trick is not minding
Weinstein was absolutely the intended whale. To argue other wise, is to argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions and was like some middle man who they had to settle for because they couldn’t catch the real culprit. It’s ludicrous.
The man set his own trap after trapping countless women in his hotel rooms, among other places.

Now, I’m all for due process. And I’d rather he gets a fair trial, that way there can be no questions about it, because if his lawyer can manipulate any legal technicality, they will. *
It’s just unfortunate that his victims have to relive this all over again. I can’t imagine how they must feel feeling that he may go free over some mistake or technicality or what have you.



I like to think that all clearheaded, goodhearted individuals are hoping for a fair trial and outcome this time around.
There has never been any serious suggestion that Harvey Weinstein isn't guilty of all of the things he was convicted of. Regardless of what happened during the first trial, he will be retried, and it's possible the outcome will be even worse this time around, as prosecutors have said there may be more accusers coming forward this time.

New York is notorious for misconduct at the lower court level, but perhaps the scrutiny that may pertain here will curtail some of this historically pervasive misbehavior.
No matter how many times you keep repeating this allegation, you have not provided any evidence to back it up; and, even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that Harvey Weinstein remains a convicted sex offender.

I agree that it's a shame to see anyone whiteknighting on behalf of odious values, most especially judicial misconduct.
Agree completely, so hopefully the person who has been whiteknighting on behalf of this convicted sex offender will think about why they are so intent on standing up for a convicted sex offender who raped dozens of women.

But one of the more unfortunate aspects of our new social media democracy is that anyone can speak up, and repeatedly, regardless of their capacity for clear and logical thinking. Such individuals are generally quite intractable, and unable to advance past their ineptitude.
Yes, absolutely. And whiteknighting for convicted sex offenders is probably a pretty good indicator of lack of clear and logical thinking. It does not benefit society for sexual predators not to be put where they belong. Convicted sex offenders definitely belong behind bars, serving the longest sentences allowed by law.

I certainly wish all concerned in the Weinstein situation the best, including Mr. Weinstein, caught in a trap not intended for him, a lesser whale.
Speaking of "lack of clear and logical thinking" - when a person who raped women for decades finally couldn't rely on intimidating his victims in order to keep them quiet, and the truth started coming out... it is certainly not like anyone "laid a trap" for a poor innocent person. Harvey Weinstein brought it on himself with his vile and disgusting behavior, and fully deserves the harshest sentence available under the law.



It’s just unfortunate that his victims have to relive this all over again. I can’t imagine how they must feel feeling that he may go free over some mistake or technicality or what have you.
Indeed!

And this is a fact that is not being acknowledged by anyone currently going, "oh, but think of the poor convicted sex offender!! He raped dozens of women over the years, so obviously they 'set a trap' for him - they must have forced him to force himself on all these women!!"



Accidental extraneous post.



Weinstein was absolutely the intended whale. To argue other wise, is to argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions and was like some middle man who they had to settle for because they couldn’t catch the real culprit. It’s ludicrous.
The man set his own trap after trapping countless women in his hotel rooms, among other places.

Now, I’m all for due process. And I’d rather he gets a fair trial, that way there can be no questions about it, because if his lawyer can manipulate any legal technicality, they will. *
It’s just unfortunate that his victims have to relive this all over again. I can’t imagine how they must feel feeling that he may go free over some mistake or technicality or what have you.
Weinstein was collateral damage, but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree with your "not the real culprit/not responsible for his actions" comments. But good on you for supporting ethical behavior by the state. I was starting to worry that for far too many, the end justifies the means.

...a fact that is not being acknowledged by anyone currently going, "oh, but think of the poor convicted sex offender!! He raped dozens of women over the years, so obviously they 'set a trap' for him - they must have forced him to force himself on all these women!!"
I don't see anyone doing this, so if you do, you may well be seeing straw men.

There has never been any serious suggestion that Harvey Weinstein isn't guilty of all of the things he was convicted of. Regardless of what happened during the first trial, he will be retried, and it's possible the outcome will be even worse this time around, as prosecutors have said there may be more accusers coming forward this time.

No matter how many times you keep repeating this allegation, you have not provided any evidence to back it up; and, even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that Harvey Weinstein remains a convicted sex offender.

Agree completely, so hopefully the person who has been whiteknighting on behalf of this convicted sex offender will think about why they are so intent on standing up for a convicted sex offender who raped dozens of women.

Yes, absolutely. And whiteknighting for convicted sex offenders is probably a pretty good indicator of lack of clear and logical thinking. It does not benefit society for sexual predators not to be put where they belong. Convicted sex offenders definitely belong behind bars, serving the longest sentences allowed by law.

Speaking of "lack of clear and logical thinking" - when a person who raped women for decades finally couldn't rely on intimidating his victims in order to keep them quiet, and the truth started coming out... it is certainly not like anyone "laid a trap" for a poor innocent person. Harvey Weinstein brought it on himself with his vile and disgusting behavior, and fully deserves the harshest sentence available under the law.
All addressed, and thanks for the value you do bring to the forum FB.



The trick is not minding
Weinstein was collateral damage, but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree with your "not the real culprit/not responsible for his actions" comments. But good on you for supporting ethical behavior by the state. I was starting to worry that for far too many, the end justifies the means..
Please explain on why you think he wasn’t the real culprit? The case was against him. Your post implied he was never the real target (collateral damage implies as much) which doesn’t make any sense when he was the one his victims had named as their assailant.



Please explain on why you think he wasn’t the real culprit? The case was against him. Your post implied he was never the real target (collateral damage implies as much) which doesn’t make any sense when he was the one his victims had named as their assailant.
Thank you for asking. I never said he wasn't a culprit, real or otherwise, but that he was collateral damage. I haven't spoken to his guilt or innocence, but rather the overturning of his guilty verdict due to classic New York prosecutorial/judicial impropriety.



I never said he wasn't a culprit, real or otherwise, but that he was collateral damage.
A serial rapist is prosecuted for his crimes, of which there is plentiful evidence. He is found guilty. How is that being "collateral damage"?

The bottom line is that justice for the victims of the serial rapist should not involve them having to testify again, yet you do not seem the least bit concerned about the victims of this convicted sex offender. You only seemed concerned about what this means for the serial rapist.



I'm closing this thread. The argument (if you can call it that) is going in circles and there appears to be little to express on the topic other than outrage anyway.