• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Harvey Weinstein scandal

This is hyperbolic from me now, but I feel like there are a lot of people who would like for it be a disbarrable offense for Harvey's lawyer to go with the argument that the plaintiff had sex with Harvey for career advancement.
 
The Weinstein trial is in full flow. Teh Gruaniad has an interesting way of reporting it;

The dramatic rape trial of Harvey Weinstein continued on Tuesday with the cross-examination of an accuser who suffered a panic attack under questioning the day before. The 34-year-old witness alleges she was violently raped twice by the film producer in 2013. Her claims form a central pillar of the prosecution’s case.
The Guardian is not naming the witness because she has not indicated publicly if she is happy to be identified.

By lunchtime on Tuesday the woman had been through several hours of cross-examination by Rotunno, who has tried to paint her as a serial liar who manipulated Weinstein, 67, in order to advance her career in the film industry.

The witness described Weinstein as the manipulative one. She said she looked up to him like a father figure and had a complex relationship with him, in which she would be on the receiving end of his fluctuating emotions. She said he raped her twice, though she and Weinstein also had a number of consensual sexual encounters.
Click to expand...

Teh Gruaniad

How bizarre that Teh Gruaniad would not name the witness/accuser.
 
TSwizzle said:
How bizarre that Teh Gruaniad would not name the witness/accuser.
Click to expand...

Why would you consider that to be bizarre as opposed to the common actions of decent human beings who've made a decision to not make things worse for a rape victim? Not giving her name doesn't impact the facts of the story in any way, so what's the problem with a decision not to be dicks?
 
Bizarre is maybe not the correct word. But in any event, every other report I have seen names the witness/accuser.
 
TSwizzle said:
The Weinstein trial is in full flow. Teh Gruaniad has an interesting way of reporting it;

The dramatic rape trial of Harvey Weinstein continued on Tuesday with the cross-examination of an accuser who suffered a panic attack under questioning the day before. The 34-year-old witness alleges she was violently raped twice by the film producer in 2013. Her claims form a central pillar of the prosecution’s case.
The Guardian is not naming the witness because she has not indicated publicly if she is happy to be identified.

By lunchtime on Tuesday the woman had been through several hours of cross-examination by Rotunno, who has tried to paint her as a serial liar who manipulated Weinstein, 67, in order to advance her career in the film industry.

The witness described Weinstein as the manipulative one. She said she looked up to him like a father figure and had a complex relationship with him, in which she would be on the receiving end of his fluctuating emotions. She said he raped her twice, though she and Weinstein also had a number of consensual sexual encounters.
Click to expand...

Teh Gruaniad

How bizarre that Teh Gruaniad would not name the witness/accuser.
Click to expand...

Because publicly named rape victims regularly get death threats and life damaging harassment by allies of the rapist. That is precisely what happened to Kobe Bryant's victim when her name was "accidentally" leaked to the media, frightening her into refusing to testify.

Also, why did you bold that second part. Are you implying that people don't get raped by those with whom they have previously had consensual sex?
 
ronburgundy said:
Because publicly named rape victims regularly get death threats and life damaging harassment by allies of the rapist.
Click to expand...

Considering the name of the witness/accuser (all of them) are already in the public domain, I doubt that's why Teh Gruaniad elected not report the names.

ronburgundy said:
Are you implying that people don't get raped by those with whom they have previously had consensual sex?
Click to expand...

Nope, it happens all the time unfortunately.
 
TSwizzle said:
ronburgundy said:
Because publicly named rape victims regularly get death threats and life damaging harassment by allies of the rapist.
Click to expand...

Considering the name of the witness/accuser (all of them) are already in the public domain, I doubt that's why Teh Gruaniad elected not report the names.
Click to expand...

Not contributing to problems caused by unethical journalism standards is still worthwhile, even when other media outlets don't care. They likely have a general policy of not naming rape victims to avoid those instances when it causes harm to the victim.
Not being a conservative outlet, The Guardian probably views rape as a serious crime rather than something that you brag about doing dozens of times while running for President and have your supporters say "Meh, we have no problems with that."

ronburgundy said:
Are you implying that people don't get raped by those with whom they have previously had consensual sex?
Click to expand...

Nope, it happens all the time unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Then why did you go out of your way to bold that sentence as though it has particular relevance?
 
ronburgundy said:
They likely have a general policy of not naming rape victims to avoid those instances when it causes harm to the victim.
Click to expand...

More likely Teh Gruaniad is doing a bit of virtue signalling.


ronburgundy said:
Then why did you go out of your way to bold that sentence as though it has particular relevance?
Click to expand...

Going to be relevant ? It is relevant.
 
The thing else the men and women in Hollywood knew what was going on, it was no secret. As a kid I knw ew what 'the casting couch' meant.

They made a moral choice to keep quite and make money. To hell with all their sudden outrage. Wait, what sudden outrage? Hollywood has been largely silent.
 
Should this lawyer be disbarred, jailed or even executed for this closing argument?

Harvey Weinstein's lawyer during closing arguments: “In their universe, women are not responsible for the parties they attend, the men they flirt with, the hotel room invitations, the plane tickets they expect, the jobs they hope to obtain"
Click to expand...
 
Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty In Rape Trial

Former film mogul Harvey Weinstein, whose many accusers spurred the Me Too era with their public allegations of rampant sexual misconduct by him, was found guilty Monday on two charges ― a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree.

However, the jury panel consisting of five women and seven men notably found him not guilty on the two most serious charges of predatory sexual assault.

The trial represented a milestone in the Me Too era, spanning six weeks of often emotional witness testimony and grueling cross-examination.

Weinstein, 67, pleaded not guilty to the five charges he faced, which stemmed from two incidents: Onetime aspiring actor Jessica Mann said Weinstein raped her in 2013, and former production assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi said he sexually assaulted her in 2006. Several other women, including former “Sopranos” actor Annabella Sciorra, also took the stand to demonstrate a pattern of misbehavior.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom