Another set-back for #Metoo

[Belle]

This time it's Harvey Weinstein. It seems the trial was rigged and there's to be another. Well, who'd have thought? He'll die soon anyway and still has charges upheld in California. 23 years in prison is a huge sentence, especially when murderers often receive less - only to be released and re-offend. The histories of serial killers are littered with this narrative.

Meantime, just maybe, it's time for the girls to demonstrate some discretion and personal responsibility in keeping away from KNOWN sex predators - whether for career reasons or anything else.

New York court overturns Harvey Weinstein 2020 sex crime conviction
New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on sex crime charges, a shock reversal in the landmark case that launched the #MeToo movement.

In their 4-3 decision, judges cited errors in the way the trial had been conducted, including admitting the testimony of women who were not part of the charges against him.

“Order reversed and a new trial ordered,” the ruling said.

“The accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality,” wrote Judge Jenny Rivera, in an opinion for the majority.

“The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light.”

Weinstein, 72, was convicted in February 2020 of rape and sexual assault by a court in New York, and later sentenced to 23 years in prison.

It was not immediately clear what would happen to Weinstein, who is being held at the Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York state.

He was subsequently convicted and sentenced by a Los Angeles court to an additional 16 years in prison for the rape of a woman in a Beverly Hills hotel room, to be served after the first sentence.

Bombshell allegations broke against the Academy Award-winning producer in 2017, launching the #MeToo movement and paving the way for hundreds of women to fight back against sexual violence in the workplace.

“With today’s decision, this Court continues to thwart the steady gains survivors of sexual violence have fought for in our criminal justice system,” Judge Madeline Singas, who dissented against the ruling, said.

“Forgotten are the women who bear the psychological trauma of sexual violence and the scars of testifying again, and again.”

Before the allegations against him emerged, the producer and his brother Bob were Hollywood’s ultimate power players.

They co-founded Miramax Films, a distribution company named after their mother Miriam and father Max, in 1979. It was sold to Disney in 1993.

Their hits included 1998’s Shakespeare in Love, for which Weinstein shared a best picture Oscar. Over the years, Weinstein’s films received more than 300 Oscar nominations and 81 statuettes.

AFP

Share this article

[jserraglio]

Meantime, just maybe, it's time for the girls to demonstrate some discretion and personal responsibility in keeping away from KNOWN sex predators - whether for career reasons or anything else.

Right, Weinstein is a KNOWN sex predator who just got off in one state, the unanimous jury guilty verdict being set aside on a technicality.

But your standard ploy — in this instance shaming the women who had the courage to testify against this monster — will not alter the fact that, as you yourself concede, he remains a convicted rapist in another state. Was that trial “rigged” too?

BTW, the witnesses against Weinstein at trial were women, not as you would have it, girls.

#MeToo Matters

[Rach3]

But the ploy of shaming the victims who had the courage to testify against this monster will not alter the fact that he remains a convicted rapist in another state.

#MeToo Matters

The facts, as usual ignored here, are that No One found that any of the victims were lying , the appeals court simply ruling that only the most recent victim should have been heard from in her case.As any lawyer and judge knows the “prior bad acts” evidence rule is a fraught concept difficult to apply precisely because it is so probative of the defendants probable guilt.The trial judge, who no one, even Weinstein,accused of being crooked, made his best judgment call in the heat of battle,and now an appeals court with many ,many months to think about the issue has decided they would have done differently. As we always say, appeals courts may not be right, but they are last.The case has everything to do with entitled White males who think all women are fair game.

[Belle]

I think you'll find I referred to this as a 'SET BACK'. You stick to the NYT victim narrative and I'll stick to the more balanced "Australian" newspaper.

Not all white men are monsters who see women as fair game, but it suits your narrative to have them viewed as such. It's just so sad to see revenge being so fundamental a part in your politics and thinking. Here a victim, there a victim, everywhere a victim, victim. (Sung to the tune of Old MacDonald had a farm!!)

Any woman who ignores scuttlebutt about a serial rapist/sexual assailant and goes ahead with an assignation anyway is absolutely stupid. They all did this because they thought they could have "careers". Well, their lives certainly 'careered' out of control. Women have a responsibility to behave with decorum, discretion, personal responsibility and dignity - otherwise certain types of men will pounce. And they don't even have to be white!! Bill Cosby. Perhaps you don't think he was 'entitled' because he was black. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Every adult should know that and act on the basis that sexual predation is a possibility. Of course, that doesn't prevent a stranger raping somebody; we all know that. As Mike Pence once said, "I'll never be alone with a woman in a room".

I repeat, 23 years incarceration is manifestly excessive. But he had money!!

Back in the days of Louis B Mayer the hapless, under-aged Garland was not a grown-up female with, er, agency as to her own personal choices and responsibilities. Perhaps you don't think women HAVE responsibilities???!!!

[jserraglio]

They all did this because they thought they could have "careers". Well, their lives certainly 'careered' out of control. Women have a responsibility to behave with decorum, discretion, personal responsibility and dignity - otherwise certain types of men will pounce. And they don't even have to be white!! Bill Cosby. Perhaps you don't think he was 'entitled' because he was black. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Hmm. Packed into one paragraph are imputations of narcissism, gloating, moralizing, and playing the race card.

[Rach3]

Every adult should know that and act on the basis that sexual predation is a possibility. .... Perhaps you don't think women HAVE responsibilities???!!!

What a perverse , degrading view of women , that women must and should have to live their lives constantly on the lookout for efforts of sexual predation aimed at them, and if such an effort occurs, blame themselves for having not looked out carefully enough.

[jserraglio]

She wants sex offenders back out on the street after serving shorter sentences. Inevitably then, there is going be a slew of toxic ’s for the ’s to be ’ing out for! 🫤

[Rach3]

Male violence in OZ ? Surely all lies:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/australi ... index.html

[barney]

There does seem to be an upsurge in male violence against women this year, and it's very daunting. Too early to say if it's coincidence or a trend.

The only counter-point I'd like to make is that males are overwhelmingly the victims of male violence, far more than women are, and that this deserves attention too. And we're up to an average of one female death every four days at the hands of men, which is certainly a desperate concern - but I've never heard a woman worry about the rate of male suicide, 47 a day. (Don't worry, Joe - I'm sure the figures in the US are vastly higher than one every four days; you're still ahead.)

Some of the perpetrators were on bail, leading to a backlash against recently relaxed bail laws. But they were relaxed partly because they were disproportionately punishing indigenous people, who dont wnat to see the changes reversed. Meanwhile, Aboriginal men kill their women and children at eight times the rate of the rest of Australia, but when children are removed for their own safety the activists cry racism. They never seem to have a solution, other than more government money to fund activism.

It's all very intractable but, whatever the solution is, I doubt it will come via gender politics.

PS: Department of Justice figures say that 4079 women were killed in 2021 in the US. That's 45 every four days compared with one in Australia - 45 times the rate with 12 times the population. Yes, the US sure leads the way again.

[Belle]

What are your figures on females killing partners and children, Barney? We have one living 40km up the road from here who was recently released after serving 20 years for killing her 4 babies; the trial and evidence was deemed 'unsafe'. Suffice it to say her husband, who died recently and who had remarried, always maintained she had killed his babies. In fact, an ex student of mine was the lawyer who got her out of jail!!

And males are also the victims of female violence, only we are forbidden to hear about it. A relative of ours has a mother-in-law who regularly who gets drunk and hit her husband (who died 18 months ago); now she's hitting her 14 year old son. An emergency trip had to be taken by family to rescue the boy from the mother only 2 weeks ago. I was with them when the frantic call came in from the bruised and crying son.

A son of ours was coercively controlled by his narcissistic wife; there are plenty of stories about like this. But media censorship has forbidden the stories being told.

I said to one son today, "you boys had better get organized and fight this battle as nobody is going to do it for you and you're fighting a formidable army of aggrieved and entitled females".

Today our PM has announced $5,000 for each victim of DV; naturally the assumption is they'll all be women. This will mean one thing: the issuing of Apprehended Violence Orders will skyrocket, most of them unjustified, so that women can get the cash. I anticipate massive rorting of this system and men had better take cover.

What annoys me is that the (so-called) Justice system needs to be front and centre for never seriously punishing offenders and letting others out on bail. But is there ever any mention of this? Of course not!!!

No government will ever eradicate violence; only utopians think this.

[barney]

What are your figures on females killing partners and children, Barney?
What annoys me is that the (so-called) Justice system needs to be front and centre for never seriously punishing offenders and letting others out on bail. But is there ever any mention of this? Of course not!!!

No government will ever eradicate violence; only utopians think this.

No government can eradicate violence, this is true. Governments cannot change the human heart.

Google tells me: There were 45 female domestic homicide victims and 33 male victims in 2020–21 (in Australia). Among these, most were killed by an intimate partner.

[Belle]

Actually the statistics for both female and male-initiated domestic homicide have reduced in the last two decades, but I don't have the actual stats at my fingertips. The role of drugs and alcohol are certainly part of that mix, as is financial problems. In the late 1970s I do remember somebody telling me that the rate of DV was quite high on the Upper North Shore of Sydney - the home of the affluent, company directors and the like!! DV doesn't generally discriminate between rich and poor, but the latter are found in greater numbers.

I can't remember hearing anything about these things when I was growing up, though I do know a couple of my father's colleagues had problems with alcoholism. There is one exception to my DV knowledge, but I understood little at that time. When I was about 9 we played with the local family of 3 boys. We were 3 girls and all about the same age. One day we were playing in their backyard and I was standing near the garage when I heard the eldest of those boys (about 11 at the time) being thrashed by his father. It was a very decent belting, from what I could hear. That boy grew into a very troubled man who died at 55 and I'm sure that what I heard wasn't the first or the last physical violence he endured. For some reason I never discussed what I had heard then or even years later, probably because the father died about 3 or 4 years later himself (he was American, as it happens).

[Belle]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/05/0 ... e-justice/

[Rach3]

MP assaulted Yeppoon ?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/australian-m ... 07098.html