- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Harvey Weinstein conviction overturned
Posted on 4/25/24 at 9:51 am to Corso
Posted on 4/25/24 at 9:51 am to Corso
That’s what happens when you get greedy and swing for the fences
A base hit will help win games.
Play smart and don’t go for broke.
They tried to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the guy and it wasn’t necessary. They got sloppy with wanting blood that badly
A base hit will help win games.
Play smart and don’t go for broke.
They tried to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the guy and it wasn’t necessary. They got sloppy with wanting blood that badly
Posted on 4/25/24 at 9:58 am to GeauxTigers123
quote:
So basically they didn’t follow procedure? But everyone still knows he did at least some of what was alleged?
This is why the Waukesha judge put up with all of DB's shite when the rest of us (myself included) were screaming to bind and gag his arse. His case is airtight against appeal. She will be remembered as the judge who did it right. Will anyone even remember the Weinstein judge?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 9:59 am to Corso
So they get to do the trial a second time. Harvey may not ultimately have any relief at all.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:02 am to Corso
I'm sure Weinstein ran an active casting couch, but that seems more like soliciting prostitution with rich career rewards than a case of rape.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:13 am to jdd48
quote:
"including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case"
Honestly that sounds like more than just not following procedure or a minor mistake. It sounds like the judge allowed evidence in trial that should have never been allowed in. He'll still get found guilty at retrial.
question for legal experts:
wouldn't allowing them to testify about this be considered testifying about his character?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:16 am to Walt OReilly
quote:
Those whores knew exactly what they were doing with Harvey
Some did. Don’t feel sorry for those. Also some didn’t. That’s why he’s not just a dirtbag, he’s also a criminal.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:32 am to tLSU
Yep. No clue about New York but other bad acts can come into evidence if it meets certain criteria. If it was this guys MO to do this with ladies then decent chance it gets in. In LA anyway.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:41 am to pankReb
quote:
So it’s of your opinion that Harvey did nothing wrong and is innocent.
I don’t really care either way. If he rots in prison that’s fine. If he gets out it’s whatever. He’s an old fat dude. He probably won’t live much longer
My life doesn’t revolve around these people
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:46 am to Corso
Fun fact. Gavin Newsome’s current wife got nailed by Harvey Weinstein on the casting couch to get acting parts.
Gavin had to follow Harvey. That has to hurt.
Gavin had to follow Harvey. That has to hurt.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:01 am to Walt OReilly
quote:
If my daughter was one of his victims, that dude would be hanging from a bridge
Most of the parents of the girls he abused probably offer them up to him.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:26 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
If my daughter was one of his victims, that dude would be hanging from a bridge
which begs the obvious questions
why don't we care about other peoples daughters?
why isn't he hanging off of a bridge somewhere?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:41 am to Corso
allowing testimony from women for whom no charges were ever brought is effectively telling the jury "Old Harve has been doing this for years, so you ought to convict him of this one." the reputation of being a rapist is not evidence that he committed this rape, and the jury must base their decision on the evidence.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:41 am to TDTOM
I kinda believe the women he raped.
shite was overturned on technicality. Slimeball pos is still a slimeball pos
shite was overturned on technicality. Slimeball pos is still a slimeball pos
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:43 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
question for legal experts:
wouldn't allowing them to testify about this be considered testifying about his character?
I'm not an expert so perhaps an attorney can chime in here, but I seem to remember that there is a general prohibition against using past criminal convictions or allegations of bad behavior to prove current charges because the prejudicial aspect outweighs the value. For example if you were convicted of shoplifting 10 years ago and are now on trial for murder, the DA can't bring up your shoplifting charge.
There were/are some exceptions. For example if a person was convicted of robbing a bank in 1993 by cutting a hole in the roof and repelling down into the vault and was then re-arrested for bank robbery in 2007 by doing the same thing, you can't use the first bank robbery conviction in the current trial to argue that he was more likely to commit bank robbery but you could use it to show modus operandi - ie, he has experience cutting holes in the roof of banks so he definitely knew how to do this.
As to Weinstein, I seem to remember feminists getting huffed up about this rule because sexual assault crimes are notoriously difficult to bring and prove in court so they made an exception for sex assault claims. Now you can introduce "past sexual misbehavior" to prove current allegations under the theory "once a sexual deviant, always a sexual deviant". But I don't know the exact rules or whether you need an actual conviction to bring that in.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:52 am to Corso
Now he's gonna really rape us.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:52 am to TBoy
quote:
So they get to do the trial a second time. Harvey may not ultimately have any relief at all.
He still has a 13 year sentence in California to serve that's back to back with whatever he has in New York. Even if the NY case goes back to trial and he gets acquitted, he still dies in prison.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:56 am to Alt26
you can bet their arse they did
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:59 am to tLSU
quote:
All depends on the case and what one is trying to prove by using it.
The fact that the 7 judges split 4-3 tells me that it depends far too much on interpretation.
When seven experienced legal scholars have a differing opinion on such a fundamental legal principle, it should be taken as a glowing neon sign that the language of the law needs to be refined. Lawmakers need to do better.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:01 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
I kinda believe the women he raped.
"Raped" in the traditional sense doesn't really seem to fit here. He didn't corner them in an alley and yank their pants down.
Their handlers, like Oprah, pretty much hand delivered the girls to him, a millionaire movie producer.
It sort of went with the territory and was an open secret.
If they wanted the part, they let him put his grubby fingers inside them and more.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News