Model accuses Harvey Weinstein of "molesting" her

CaptainS

Hummingbird

griffinmill

Kingfisher
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
Here is a list of Weinstein's attempted rape list, then you can decide if he is capable of criminal charges for "attempted rape", or "actual rape", or "sexual harassment" or "sexual abuse".

https://www.thecut.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-complete-list-allegations.html

Nice list. Now, show me the hard evidence that would be enough to put a man in prison.

Even the prosecutor said there wasn't any evidence as recently as 2015.

Many on this on this forum have in the past had a varied sex life with a number of women. Imagine if you were famous? All it takes is *one* women to feel spurned and to make a public allegation against you. Many more follow suit because it's intoxicating to be a victim. Before long any kind of pass you made at a woman in your car after a dinner date is an attempted assault where she "froze" and felt "terrified" and even though she saw you multiple times after, she was only trying to "normalise" the "rape" by remaining friends with you.

Thousands of articles will be written about this by nerds and blue-haired feminists at Vox.
 
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
Here is a list of Weinstein's attempted rape list, then you can decide if he is capable of criminal charges for "attempted rape", or "actual rape", or "sexual harassment" or "sexual abuse".

https://www.thecut.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-complete-list-allegations.html

Nice list. Now, show me the hard evidence that would be enough to put a man in prison.

Even the prosecutor said there wasn't any evidence as recently as 2015.

Correct - the issue is not whether Weinstein had transgressed against moral or even divine stipulations.

The issue is whether he should be behind bars for what looks like cheating on his wife and trading jobs for sex with aspiring actresses and starlets.

If you put behind bars people because of that, then I am afraid that you are looking forward to a 30-40% prison population.

We have to always defend truth and reality. Those kind of Bolshevik legal cases can easily be twisted against anyone else. Your cries of "but I didn't even touch her your honor" can also be ignored because this is one big case of BELIEVE WAHMEN WITHOUT EVIDENCE. It's a mistrial of epic gargantuan proportions and people applaud it for what? Because Weinstein is an unlikeable ugly serial cheater? You heard recordings of him begging for sex or for a woman to come up to his room. I doubt such a bloke simply rapes someone. He simply used his power and position like most of the producers before him. The same women would not have voiced any concerns if Weinstein looked like a model. They would write it off as an experience. Michael Bay supposedly did the very same thing, but MIchael Bay is better looking and probably has more Game. Women don't feel ashamed after having had sex with him, can even brag about it with their friends.

I don't give a rat's ass about Weinstein, but the guy broke at best moral laws. Society even in conservative times at worst shunned such a person. They did not execute him publicly - they reserved that for real crimes.
 

brando

Sparrow
It’s like all these hoes just woke up with that regret consent and now Harvey’s looking at years in the slammer. What a travesty this is.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
IMO the miscarriage of justice lay in allowing Anabella Sciorra testify. Historically this type of "evidence" would never have been allowed as its undoubtedly going to emotionally influence the jury...which is exactly what the DA wanted

And now we know why the charges were brought in NY. New York is one of the only that has recently allowed "Molineux witnesses". That is witnesses that have no factual relevance to the case charged but rather designed to establish a pattern by "prior acts".


A Molineux hearing is a New York State pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of evidence of prior uncharged crimes by the defendant in a criminal trial. In most cases, evidence of prior uncharged crimes is not admissible because of its potential prejudicial effect. Under certain circumstances, it may be admissible. If the prosecutor wishes to bring in evidence of prior uncharged crimes, they request a Molineux hearing. The judge decides whether the evidence is admissible.

The name of the hearing process refers to the case of People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901), which established the process as precedent.[1]


For nearly 300 years "prior act" testimony has not been allowed for the very reason that it would unduly taint a jury.

Say for example someone was accused of robbing a bank but there are no witnesses that can identify the perp. And the perp has an alibi and was nowhere near the area. But the DA knows that the accused was previously charged with a similar crime so he tells the jury "He did it before but got away with it...dont let him get away with it again". That would / should never be allowed for obvious reasons. A jury would never be allowed top hear that. It would predjudice the jury on purely emotional grounds rather than actual facts.

But increasingly "prior acts" have been allowed especially in domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Its exactly the tactic that was used to convict Bill Cosby*

In the Weinstein case they held a Molineux hearing as part of the pre trial motions specifically to allow Sciorra's testimony. Even though she had no factual knowledge of the cases charged the judge allowed it.

There are "tests" for what should be allowed:

Relevance
For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible. Furthermore, certain public-policy considerations bar the admission of otherwise relevant evidence.

Reliability
For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge. Hearsay is generally barred for its lack of reliability. If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder. The trial judge performs a "gatekeeping" role in excluding unreliable testimony. ...[/quote]

So now we know why the DA wanted Sciorra to testify even though no charges were ever brought against Weinstein for her accusations. It was purely a strategic move and it did what was intended...insured a conviction.

The jury didnt convict Weinstein on the bigger "predator" charges because they didnt believe Sciorra. They even said so. But no matter. It did what it was supposed to do and Harvey was convicted for being a douchebag...not on the evidence

So why should we care about Harvey the scumbucket?

Issues with admissibility of evidence in non-democratic regimes

In some non-democratic legal systems, the courts effectively function as organs of those in power, and the rules of evidence are designed to favor their interests. In the People's Republic of China, for example, it has been observed that courts have historically accepted evidence that would be excluded in other systems, such as confessions obtained by torture. Evidence was introduced by the court itself, rather than the state, and evidence was used as part of "a process of legitimising the conclusion which had already been drawn before the trial".These practices have, in theory, been reformed by legislation, but questions remain as to whether they continue in practice.

*Cosby already lost on appeal on several grounds including admissibility of testimony at the state level.
 
< Absolutely correct.

The current narrative is anti-male and feminist with the ultimate goal of destroying family even more -destroying male-female bonds.

Cases like this will exacerbate the situation even more.

And keep in mind - once you hollow out the law like that, then a future more dictatorial regime can implement their political agenda on more grounds than feminism. They can for example enact new hate-speech laws. Then they put you behind bars because a woman claims that you told a non-PC joke 20 years ago. Other women come forward and the guy goes off to the gulag.

This is nothing new - humanity has had those kind of mistrials in the past and the legal system now evolved by creating counter-measures against it. The West created laws which had to present evidence before conviction. As one wise lawyer once said: "We know that sometimes guilty get free, but it's better than the alternative of countless innocents be convicted of crimes they did not commit." Because that historically has been the norm - a rich teenage girl could have easily accused the stable boy of anything not so long ago. He would have been gruesomely executed and there was nothing that could have been done about it. A trial and real evidence was fought for and won - and the crazy feminist harpies and the NPCs now cheer as the evidence-based legal system is disbanded before their eyes.

I really think that this Weinstein and Cosby case is the reverse Tinder-experiment in real life:

guy-conducts-twisted-experiment-on-tinder-as-fake-child-rapist-and-gets-horrifying-results

Convicted of molesting kids? Who cares - plenty of single moms would offer him their children for babysitting since he certainly turned a new leaf.
But Weinstein - he is guilty as sin for sure.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
PapayaTapper said:
So why should we care about Harvey the scumbucket?

At some point, it'll be our sons accused of rape with no evidence. This is how it starts, they set a precedent with a scumbag no one will defend, then use that to go after people they don't like.

Actual court will be run like a college court and we've seen how that turns out.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Captainstabbin said:
PapayaTapper said:
So why should we care about Harvey the scumbucket?

At some point, it'll be our sons accused of rape with no evidence. This is how it starts, they set a precedent with a scumbag no one will defend, then use that to go after people they don't like.

Actual court will be run like a college court and we've seen how that turns out.

Then don't teach them to hang around sluts and fuck sluts.

You want the sin but not the consequence. You want to find a way to parse the laws of man to protect you while you do immoral things. You want Sodom and Gomorrah but not the pillar of fire.

"Protect me, noble judiciary, with checks and balances, that I may Alpha-widow dozens if not hundreds of women and sleep soundly at night, safe in the knowledge that no worldly authority will correct the imbalance I have created!"

:laugh:

We reap what we sow, and we get the justice system we deserve. When we fight for a return to God and patriarchy THEN we will deserve a proper justice system.
 
Simeon_Strangelight said:
I really think that this Weinstein and Cosby case is the reverse Tinder-experiment in real life:

Convicted of molesting kids? Who cares - plenty of single moms would offer him their children for babysitting since he certainly turned a new leaf.
But Weinstein - he is guilty as sin for sure.

White Knights all nod approvingly as Weinstein is dragged to prison, thinking when all these "powerful" men are no longer "raping" them, all the hot women will FINALLY be free to give in to their TRUE lust for soft, amenable men. Little do they know, these women will still happily take a blow to the face from their abusive alpha boyfriend than waste their fertility on a pathetic orbiter.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
Captainstabbin said:
PapayaTapper said:
So why should we care about Harvey the scumbucket?

At some point, it'll be our sons accused of rape with no evidence. This is how it starts, they set a precedent with a scumbag no one will defend, then use that to go after people they don't like.

Actual court will be run like a college court and we've seen how that turns out.

Then don't teach them to hang around sluts and fuck sluts.

You want the sin but not the consequence. You want to find a way to parse the laws of man to protect you while you do immoral things. You want Sodom and Gomorrah but not the pillar of fire.

"Protect me, noble judiciary, with checks and balances, that I may Alpha-widow dozens if not hundreds of women and sleep soundly at night, safe in the knowledge that no worldly authority will correct the imbalance I have created!"

:laugh:

We reap what we sow, and we get the justice system we deserve. When we fight for a return to God and patriarchy THEN we will deserve a proper justice system.

Nope... man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins. Thats not man's purview.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
PapayaTapper said:
Nope... man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins. Thats not man's purview.

There was a Youtuber I used to listen to who used to say "Without God, there is no 'should.'"

What "should" happen is determined by whether or not it pleases God, so in a society that doesn't worship Him, what "should" happen is irrelevant. People will just do whatever they want.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Rob Banks said:
PapayaTapper said:
Nope... man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins. Thats not man's purview.

There was a Youtuber I used to listen to who used to say "Without God, there is no 'should.'"

What "should" happen is determined by whether or not it pleases God, so in a society that doesn't worship Him, what "should" happen is irrelevant. People will just do whatever they want.

There are those who believe a man raising his voice to a woman is "violence" deserving punishment by denying his freedom (incarceration). Should their belief be law of the land or should it be irrelevant?

I bet should would matter to you then
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
"Should" obviously matters.

But it means nothing if the greater society and/or the people in charge do not worship God.

When I was an atheist, I believed that there was no such thing as "right" and "wrong." I believed we could choose our own values and morality based on what is beneficial to the greatest number of people (or just beneficial to ourselves). You've read my other posts on the forum. Look how well that mentality worked out for me.

Without an ultimate source of morality (i.e. an ultimate "should"), we end up with degenerate values and bad laws. There's really no way around it.

PapayaTapper said:
...man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins...

There is a woman whose Twitter feed is dedicated to attacking pornography and porn culture. Someone responded to a tweet of hers by saying "You can't legislate morality." Her response: "All laws legislate morality." Truer words have never been spoken.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
PapayaTapper said:
...
Nope... man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins. Thats not man's purview.

Your position appears to be that if the law stated "man shall be imprisoned if he gives wahmen bad feelz" then nothing here would be amiss. Harvey could be prosecuted and sued into oblivion and we could all dust our hands and say "justice has been served".

But nobody gives a shit until the revolutionaries come for them or at least their wealth and their pleasures.

The ONLY thing that matters anymore is morality. You'll realise that when your wealth is being lawfully appropriated by Occasio and the rest of LaRaza, complete with lawful extradition orders. But right now you're only just beginning to feel the pinch that us otherwise-happy poors have felt for a long, long time. Being one hopped up charge away from bankruptcy and jail time.

Fuck the law.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
PapayaTapper said:
...
Nope... man should punish man for proven crimes against man's law....not sins. Thats not man's purview.

Your position appears to be that if the law stated "man shall be imprisoned if he gives wahmen bad feelz" then nothing here would be amiss. Harvey could be prosecuted and sued into oblivion and we could all dust our hands and say "justice has been served".

But nobody gives a shit until the revolutionaries come for them or at least their wealth and their pleasures.

The ONLY thing that matters anymore is morality. You'll realise that when your wealth is being lawfully appropriated by Occasio and the rest of LaRaza, complete with lawful extradition orders. But right now you're only just beginning to feel the pinch that us otherwise-happy poors have felt for a long, long time. Being one hopped up charge away from bankruptcy and jail time.

Fuck the law.

Im first generation American - Cuban. I grew up with daily reminders of the immense losses my family suffered at the hands of socialists / communists. The pain, suffering, and injustices were consequences of a society that decided the only way to fix itself was the total destruction of the system rather repairing the corruption. The descendants of that society are still paying for that 3-4 generations later


Your position appears to be that if the law stated "man shall be imprisoned if he gives wahmen bad feelz" then nothing here would be amiss.

The above in my view would also be amoral. No my position is the actually the opposite: Its the continuing divergence of law and morality that is one central causes of western societies' decay.
 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
griffinmill said:
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
Here is a list of Weinstein's attempted rape list, then you can decide if he is capable of criminal charges for "attempted rape", or "actual rape", or "sexual harassment" or "sexual abuse".

https://www.thecut.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-complete-list-allegations.html

Nice list. Now, show me the hard evidence that would be enough to put a man in prison.

Even the prosecutor said there wasn't any evidence as recently as 2015.

Many on this on this forum have in the past had a varied sex life with a number of women. Imagine if you were famous? All it takes is *one* women to feel spurned and to make a public allegation against you. Many more follow suit because it's intoxicating to be a victim. Before long any kind of pass you made at a woman in your car after a dinner date is an attempted assault where she "froze" and felt "terrified" and even though she saw you multiple times after, she was only trying to "normalise" the "rape" by remaining friends with you.

Thousands of articles will be written about this by nerds and blue-haired feminists at Vox.

You have to take into account "consent" and the ability to consent without intoxication, threats, bribes, and physical dominance.

Women consent to having sex with Dicaprio and he's never been accused of being rough with anyone, in fact, the stories are about how he is a lazy lover and just listens to his headphones while the women do all the work.

Harvey and Cosby have been accused by dozens to hundreds of women of rape by intoxication (for Cosby), threats, bribes, and physical dominance. The Casting Couch and sexual harassment is still illegal. It is also a form of prostitution, if you think about it, and Weinstein would have been better off if he just paid the women 1K per night rather than pretending to offer them acting jobs.

Weinstein would have never been able to have sex with those hundreds of actresses if he wasn't a studio boss. He is fat and ugly, and every juror knows that he was only able to have sex with these women through coercion through threats, bribes, and physical dominance.

I'm sure the California trial will have more evidence against Weinstein, and more testimony from dozens of women. Harvey could have testified to his version of consensual sex with his dozens of mistresses. The jurors judged whether to believe the 2 victims or Harvey's version of events.

Adultery is no longer a crime, but maybe it should be in this case.

The average guy is not going to deal with the hundreds of accusers faced by Weinstein and Cosby. The average guy is not an unapologetic sex addict like those 2 men.

Most men have the self-control to refrain from pre-marital sex. If a man chooses to engage in pre-marital sex, then he must be willing to deal with the consequences if the woman complains.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
jcrew247 said:
You have to take into account "consent" and the ability to consent without intoxication, threats, bribes, and physical dominance.

Women consent to having sex with Dicaprio and he's never been accused of being rough with anyone, in fact, the stories are about how he is a lazy lover and just listens to his headphones while the women do all the work.

Harvey and Cosby have been accused ...

You don't think Leo gives girls drugs or alcohol? Right. Brad Pitt is known to bang underage girls - they can't legally consent - yet no one has accused him.

The only difference is that Leo and Brad are good looking and women aren't embarrassed to have been with them.

jcrew247 said:
I'm sure the California trial will have more evidence against Weinstein, and more testimony from dozens of women.

Any evidence at all would be a start.

jcrew247 said:
If a man chooses to engage in pre-marital sex, then he must be willing to deal with the consequences if the woman complains.

Should a man have sex, he should just deal with being put in jail by the unsubstantiated testimony of an upset woman? That's crazy.
 

griffinmill

Kingfisher
Check out some of the stories about Jared Leto. The internet is flush with them like it was once upon a time about Weinstein.

Jared is good looking and that makes all the difference.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
jcrew247 said:
Adultery is no longer a crime, but maybe it should be in this case.



If women were held equally accountable for voluntarily trading their ass for opportunity then Id be more inclined to agree with you.


Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin[2]) is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", and "one hand washes the other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
She must be glad he never had the chance.
Doesn't mean she won't still be looking over her shoulder on occasion...

Harvey Weinstein suggested Jennifer Aniston ‘should be killed’ over sex assault claim

Harvey Weinstein suggested that Jennifer Aniston “should be killed” upon learning that the National Enquirer was planning to report he sexually assaulted her, court papers revealed Tuesday.
On Oct. 31, 2017, amid the barrage of #MeToo allegations against the disgraced movie mogul, Weinstein’s spokeswoman forwarded him an email from the Enquirer, the records show.
“Not sure if you saw this one. Jennifer Aniston,” wrote Sallie Hofmeister, a senior executive at the powerhouse Sitrick public relations company.
In its email, the Enquirer said that “Jennifer confided to a friend that during the production of the 2005 movie ‘Derailed’ Weinstein sexually assaulted her by pressing up against her back in [sic] grabbing her buttocks.”
The Enquirer also said, “Through the years he would frequently stare at her cleavage/breast and move his mouth around making Jennifer uncomfortable.”
“We also quote a source close to Jennifer who tells the Enquirer: ‘Harvey was infatuated with Jennifer Aniston — He had a massive crush on her and constantly talked about how hot she was,'” the message added.
About 45 minutes after receiving the email, Weinstein used his iPhone to send Hofmeister a terse response, the records show.
“Jen Aniston should be killed,” he wrote.


https://pagesix.com/2020/03/10/harv...ston-should-be-killed-over-sex-assault-claim/
 
Top