Harvey Weinstein's conviction was overturned

Wow.

In NY you can only be "raped" by a penis. That's why Trump was found guilty of "sexual assault" instead of rape because EJC couldn't be sure his dick wasn't a finger. I wonder if this is part of the case? Weinstein's dick, like Epstein's, was mangled and described as "raw hamburger" by one of his victims. Hamburger meat, deformed egg and mushroom dick, the 3 spooges.

These metoo cunts have vilified not only sex but just an innocent glance. They went way too far. The US is miserable now. Sex makes the world go round, unless you’re an SSRI Frau. Poetic justice for him to walk free. Most of the accusations were “revised consent” situations by aging sluts who were pissed that they weren’t made into the next Julia Roberts and/or didn’t win an Oscar. Fuck em all. I don’t automatically believe women just because they are women.

16 Years for a conviction in California no matter what happens in NY. It's a pleasure to watch this cretin drain his coffers and spins his wheels.

If Harvey were Blq he’d free long ago

Money can buy the best lawyers.

He’s raping me again right now!

His hologram is raping Rose! Won’t someone stop the non-stop rape?!

I wish him the best.

If Harvey looked like Brad Pitt this wouldn’t be a problem. That’s a fact.

Best news I've heard all day.

Thanks for the context R2, that does explain a lot about why the conviction was overturned, the victims could not be sure that what this repulsive creature penetrated them with was actually a penis or not. I hope there is an alternative charge they can pin on him

"But was it 'rape-rape' ?"

R11 me too, gurl! Come join Meryl and I for celebratory drinks!

And this is why this decision is bad for Donald Trump. See, scumbags CAN get a fair trial in New York

R3 Trump you shouldn’t be posting from inside courtroom-you POS

Does Weinstein have a cock?

No matter what happens in the NY case he'll still die in prison on the California case.

No, R3, they did not vilify sex. They called out and vilified a man who abused his power. Weinstein and men like him think they can put their cocks in any orifice they so choose. Weinstein and others like him abused women. You can still have no strings attached sex...but each partner must consent to it. The women Weinstein abused did not consent to his overtures. They were in vulnerable positions. He could make or break their careers.

He's a scumbag.

R19 is absolutely right. If it was possible to convict him on grossness they'd have an airtight case

What happened to his wife? Wasn't she some sort of fashion designer?

R21. Georgina Chapman is or was dating Adrien Brody after dumping Harv.

Good for him, now he's only a rapist in one state and not two!

R19 like all the FEMALE elementary, middle and high school teachers who are always getting probation for diddling their students?

What a surprise

*Jennifer Lawrence likes this* 👍

Does anybody read anymore? The conviction wasn't overturned over a penis or not a penis:

[quote]The New York Court of Appeals, in a scathing 4-3 opinion, overturned Weinstein's conviction on sex crimes against three women, finding the trial judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes."

[quote]The court said that testimony "served no material non-propensity purpose" and "portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light."

MISTRIAL!

Harv needs to get out and hightail it to Saudi Arabia.

Rose must be upset but Harvey eating her pussy was never a crime

This was clearly prosecutorial malfeasance and an overzealous judge. The judge fucked up in the Roman Polanski case too, which enabled Polanski to flee.

Does this mean he has to be transferred to a CA jail?

I do believe he raped a couple of women (Annabella Sciorra and poor batshit Paz de la Huerta) and should be in prison. But 90% of his accusers were former casting couch types whose careers did not go the way they planed. Asia Argento was particularly egregious - I knew her socially in the mid 2000s. Not even for the fucking a 17 year old thing, but because she had a “relationship” with and basically procured other women for Harvey. And actually has a fascinating connection with Sciorra - she started fucking Sciorra’s on/off boyfriend, the sometimes brilliant but fucking nutty Abel Ferrera during the filming of New Rose Hotel.

Going to a movie producer’s hotel room alone at night when you’re an adult woman? Really? How did anyone buy that these women didn’t know what was up? I remember Rose McGowan trying to accuse Alexander Payne of rape and saying it happened when she was “16 or 17”, what a fucking joke.

#ROSEARMY

@r25, OMG, Hillary touched a scumbag criminal... I know someone who had a baby with one 🤨

Let’s all shave our heads in solidarity with Rose! 🥀

Rose McGowan was caught lying and I bet the others all said yes because they wanted to be movie stars but then regretted it because they didn't become A-listers due to their lack of talent anyways.

Rose is a nutjob. She has no credibility.

Judge ordered a new trial, right?

I am not a criminal lawyer but very long time one with some criminal law experience. I recall it has always been the law that past bad acts can only be used in a very limited way where the MO is identical but not as a pile-on to show propensity. The prosecution has to prove the case at hand. The appeals court seemed to say this was a pile-on of past incidents?

Once again, DL is totally fucked up about sexual assault. How in the fuck did this become a thread about Rose McGowan? She's definitely touched, but diverting the discussion to her is some next level shit.

The prosecution seemed to have proved its case against him, but the presiding judge messed up by allowing prior accusers to testify at the trial. The Appeals panel found this to be a big no-no and voted to overturn. Barely overturn, as the vote was 4-3 in favor from what I read this morning, but that's all it takes.

So there will be a new trial, he's not off the hook completely. The drama continues, for him and his victims. He's currently appealing his LA conviction as well, it will be interesting to see how that goes.

I believe so r40, but I'm not schooled in NY state law to understand it fully. Someone else here can clarify.

Rose was a leader but then it came out she only had her pussy eaten out after going alone to his hotel room in hopes of work. She made it worse for persons that were actually raped.

R41 is a rapist

I hope he is freed so I can ask him for a movie role *spreading legs*

This doesn't mean he's been pronounced innocent, just that he has to be retried. Whether NY will want to retry him is another question (I suspect they will, however).

Most of these women fucked him for money and then turned around and cried rape for publicity. Hollywood is made up of whores who will do anything to land a role. McGowan still supports a convicted child molester.

Not sure if it’s worth it to try him again. He may get a lesser sentence than what California gave him.

I think any young woman who wants to work in the biz understands at some point she will be raped and assaulted, She may not know when, or who, only that it will happen, likely multiple times. Certainly any producer who asks her to lunch to discuss a project is suspect, and should be treated accordingly. If he responds affirmatively that she will be sexually assaulted at this lunch, will be relocated to his hotel room at the last minute, then she is at fault for going along or not bringing her mother and a bodyguard. Likely the rapist producer/director/studio head will respect the woman erring on the side of caution and give her the job.

Why do women even want to be in the movies? Do they want to be raped? It's sick. It's a profession for whores. There are plenty of good jobs where your boss won't rape you as easily as they do in Hollywood, and you won't be labeled a #metoo cunt, maybe. Apply for those jobs.

Did Bradley sleep with Harvey too?

There was no rape. Just regresty. Woman mad that they slept with an icky man hoping to get a career.

He better not come this way again!

You’ll never work in this town again!

#IstandwithWeinstein

The Oscars will FINALLY be relevant again!

[quote] “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.” The court’s majority called this “an abuse of judicial discretion.”

This was the reason for the overturn. It's Rule 404(b) of evidence (prior bad acts). I'm always surprised at how many "prior bad acts" and how much hearsay get admitted into evidence. In my jurisdiction, you won't know anything about a criminal defendant's past unless he or she "opens the door" to it.

A blow job lasts for minutes. An Oscar is forever. Faced with that choice I would be down on my knees in seconds.

I don’t see too much shame in it either. People have traded sexual favors for advancement as long as there’s been…humans. But it is quite depressing how many poor bitches had to fuck that ugly pig and got nothing out of it.

A lot of women who had dealings with him (sexual or not) and have had successful careers as a result of it have not come forward much - not just JLaw but Michelle Williams, Renee Zellweger, Alicia Vikander…I do truly believe the someone like Angelina Jolie when she said she didn’t have anything to do with Harvey - she didn’t really need to.

@r55, How many time you going to show that picture?

Shirley Temple knew the deal back in the 30s

Miserable old fuck.

[quote] Georgina Chapman is or was dating Adrien Brody after dumping Harv.

R22 well she upgraded bigly there. From swamp monster to stunner

Doctor Flamenco chimes in

I understand the view held by some posters here that women are to blame for assaults, or that they usually claim assault after consensual sex. Although I'm not sure what they get out of the latter, other than vilification, it's clear they have sexual hangups that make them uncomfortable. They regret their urges and blame the man.

As a gay man I feel the same way about other gay men. I don't understand the whores who go to gay bars and are subsequently assaulted or even murdered. FFS, you're gay, of course people want to murder you. I truly hate this victimhood shit. People deserve whatever they get, end of story.

In case I wasn't clear, aspiring 'actresses' should never have 'lunch' and gay men should never go to 'bars'. You are asking for it.

After metoo, I believe NO women.

The troll @r64 has a selective memory... I wish you well, troll 🤨

In case I REALLY wasn't clear I'm a MAGA gay who voted for Trump and am not ashamed to admit it. Women are liars.

^ So, just a run of the mill dickhead then

I think Rose raped me. Allegedly. Maybe.

Trump never assaulted anyone except his wife which is legal in Slovenia!

#freeHarvey

^ The wife he raped, Ivana, was from Czechia

Two years ago Geraldo Rivera talked about how a situation like calling on witnesses for unrelated offenses was one of the issues that helped Bill Cosby's appeal.

R10 That's because no one would complain about being raped by Brad Pitt. Hell, I'd pay for it.

Brad Pitt is not my type. He looks trans. I prefer manly men like Weinstein.

One thing all courts can agree on regarding Weinstein: He sho is ugly!

Jennifer Lawrence right before she orally stimulated his gangrene vagina:

^ Jennifer Lawrence is a hillbilly who was used to ugly

The rules on whether the prosecution can introduce evidence of other, unrelated "crimes or wrongs" are intricate and judges can in good faith disagree on their application. These are the NY rules of evidence applicable to the admissibility of evidence of other "crimes or wrongs":

4.21. Evidence of Crimes and Wrongs

(1) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter.

(2) In a criminal proceeding, where the defendant interposes a defense, the People on rebuttal may prove the defendant’s commission of other crimes or wrongs when such crimes or wrongs are relevant and probative to disprove the defense.

Georgina Chapman got her reward. I’d have married Weinstein too if I knew I would be getting to fuck Adrien Brody at the end. He’s unbelievably sexy in person.

Same with Alicia Vikander, the last true Harvey girl success story. After her Oscar win, she locked down Fassbender’s prize hog and never looked back.

[quote] Weinstein's dick, like Epstein's, was mangled and described as "raw hamburger"

Epstein had a mangled dick?

Weinstein had gangrene. That’s why his dick was messed up. What did Epstein have?

He’s not getting out of prison and will die behind bars

So…. In the original NY case that convicted Harvey, were there any women that testified who claim they had non-consensual sex (rape) with him?

The few who testified and had sex with him claim it was consensual, and the rest of them just presented evidence that he “had the propensity” for sexual violence due to being a “ugly creep with power”.

Who is claiming Harvey raped them and why didn’t they testify? Paz De La Huerta? Annabella Sciorra? Without their testimony, how could they possible convict him for a crime like rape?

He’s a sexual predator and creep that clearly grossly abused his power. Sciorra did testify, but I think her case was deemed too old to prosecute on. Her account sounds like actual rape by him. He was convicted of only the most recent cases in 2006 (an assistant) and 2013 (an aspiring actress).

It’s very hard for me to have an opinion on this. Some of these accusations sound like rape. Others sound like (1) remorse for ever consenting to have sex with him or (2) some instances where Weinstein was an aggressive asshole with women he had established sexual histories with. I’m honestly not moved by the Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino stories. I’m sure he was sexually aggressive with them, but he didn’t rape them and I don’t know enough about their professional careers to place all the blame on Weinstein. This is where I agree that there was unnecessary MeToo noise that should never have been evaluated in his prosecution.

[quote] The jury of seven men and five women at the New York supreme court took five days to reach their verdict. They found the defendant guilty of a criminal sex act in the first degree for forcing oral sex on the former Project Runway production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006.

The Annabella Sciorra charge: not guilty, IIRC.

Kantor doesn’t make sense and actually implies the jury was rightfully swayed by the chorus of “he’s a creep” stories for Judd and others.

Judd - why is she the face for this again? Sure, she was the first to speak to Kantor, but he didn’t sexually assault her. Now she’s complaining that she couldn’t properly plan for her national park trip yesterday due to this news. I’m not buying her victim story.

You sound creepy R88.

I can’t comment for sure

But

I think some of these woke women just wanted movie roles and willingly slept with the scumbag. When they realized maybe $$ could be made….

You can't rape the willing.

[quote]I’m not buying her victim story.

I don't believe a word Ashley Judd says and you shouldn't either. That broad's crazy.

Judd does indeed have resting crazy face.

The entire Judd family are mentally ill.

Momma Judd seemed all right, well, at least until she offed herself.

[quote]I am not a criminal lawyer but very long time one with some criminal law experience. I recall it has always been the law that past bad acts can only be used in a very limited way where the MO is identical but not as a pile-on to show propensity. The prosecution has to prove the case at hand. The appeals court seemed to say this was a pile-on of past incidents?

I've always been confused by this point of law, because it seems like such a gray area to me in deciding what testimony is or is not relevant and allowable.

[quote] Momma Judd seemed all right, well, at least until she offed herself.

She was the nuttiest.

I posted above that Rule 404(b) of evidence covers prior bad acts. 404(b) is the federal rule and some states, like mine, also use that some number, 404(b). Someone, above, posted the NY analogous statute (different number).

Yes, the judge has discretion on what to allow. But in general, in trial, you're supposed to present evidence of the specific conduct that the defendant is charged with. E.g., if Defendant drove drunk on September 1, 2023, (and got charged for drunk driving on that date) you need to stick with what happened on Sept. 1.

You can't put up a witness who says: Bob has always been a drunk and he smashed my punch bowl last Christmas.

However, if Bob the defendant takes the witness stand and says: "I never drink," then you can submit evidence that you did see him drink and smash a punch bowl last Christmas.

R92 = Naomi Judd.

They didn't call them the Juggs for nothing!

Judd’s case against Weinstein was repeatedly dismissed since she’s not his employee, but she was going to appeal in 2020. Did that just go nowhere (like her career)?

You know, I get the argument that this is just quid pro quo and regret.

However, I've always gotten the feeling that it went a bit further than "blow me, and I'll make you a star."

I always got the sense that there was an implicit threat of "and if you don't" involved. In that world, it doesn't even take active badmouthing to torpedo a career. When someone like Weinstein actively pushes someone, good things happen - and there are finite roles, let alone career making roles. The "if you don't" threat may be the implicit threat that he'll just ignore you and ALWAYS push other actresses over you, effectively torpedoing you.

There was a great Law and Order episode where the senior partner at a law firm dangled the carrot of partnership in front of a black woman lawyer and the implicit threat was that he would withhold his support for her candidacy if she didn't have sex with him. While she could have said no, a woman who was denied partnership would unlikely simply be able to go to another firm and make partner. McCoy was trying to make the case that it was effectively rape, even if she did technically consent.

It always seemed to me that when you put someone into a corner where the option is to consent or see your career constructively torpedoed, it's effectively the same as a knife to the throat.

R104, he’s a bully and creep. No doubt. Like Matt Lauer, he asserted his power with his penis.

Also similar to Matt, it’s not a criminal act to have consensual sex with someone. It’s a professional error on both sides. While Weinstein had power, there were other studios to work for. It’s a disgusting business, but he doesn’t deserve to be locked up just for being a bullying creep.

[quote] he doesn’t deserve to be locked up just for being a bullying creep.

He's not. He's locked up for rape. The New York convictions were for raping an actress and sexually assaulting a production assistant and the L.A. conviction is for raping an actress. The New York convictions have been overturned due to prosecution error and a retrial is ordered. The L.A. conviction stands, which is why he is still in prison.

Is that okay with everyone that he remains locked up or is Weinstein the victim now?

Ashley Judd said “I WILL BE A VICTIM!”

[quote] While she could have said no, a woman who was denied partnership would unlikely simply be able to go to another firm and make partner. McCoy was trying to make the case that it was effectively rape, even if she did technically consent.

What your talking about is coercion. While gross and unethical, it isn't the same as rape.

Also, I work in a law firm and many junior partners and associates (male and female, although all white) have been denied partnership over my years there. At least two of them went on to be a partner elsewhere. It's not a career-breaker.

R103 sorry but careers aren't mandatory. These actresses could also work at McDonald's. Jennifer Lawrence proved to us that you can have sex with Weinstein multiple times. Some are tough enough for Hollywood, others aren't.

[quote] sorry but careers aren't mandatory.

Gibberish.

An employer/supervisor/colleague who makes sexual favors mandatory for employment is breaking the law. They are the ones who can go work at McDonalds, hopefully after some jail time.

Matt Lauer and Andrew Cuomo were stripped of all professional duties and faced public scorn for such actions, r109. Rightfully so.

They weren’t sent to jail for being sexual creeps. If Weinstein raped anyone, he should go to jail. If he coerced Annabella Sciorra to have sex with him for professional gain or offered that to Ashley Judd or Mira Sorvino, it’s the same as Lauer and Cuomo.

R110 They weren't sent to jail because there were no criminal charges against them, in Lauer's case because of the statute of limitations. But yeah, they are the ones who can find another job, not the people they harassed, and in Lauer's case, raped.

[quote]Also, I work in a law firm and many junior partners and associates (male and female, although all white) have been denied partnership over my years there. At least two of them went on to be a partner elsewhere. It's not a career-breaker.

There was more to the setup. Also, a black woman making partner at a white shoe firm was uncommon at the time the episode aired. She had spent her entire career at that firm, and it would have raised questions that she was denied partnership. There is a difference between leaving and making partner and leaving because you were denied partner.

[quote]sorry but careers aren't mandatory.

Agreed. Careers aren't mandatory. However, that doesn't make coercion okay. When the other party has sufficient power, quid quo pro quickly and easily slides into coercision.

It's not clear that Weinstein didn't make the transition from quid pro quo to coercion during the course of his "consensual" activities.

My gut instinct is that he is guilty and a piece of slime, and quite ugly also, but as we know these bitches are actors who live for drama, they got themselves into it, think about like this, my mom kept telling me not to pester the cat yet I continued and I got bit and clawed and bloody, whose fault was it? I didn't play the victim, I learned my lesson as a child.

Once again the common denominator is... Fucking straight CUNTS, they are relentless and need to be stopped and called out every time they open they're mouths.

I was at a DGA panel discussion for Brokeback Mountain. Some flack asked Heath Ledger if he would like to work with great auteurs like Harvey Weinstein. Ledger snickered looked over at Michelle Williams an said loudly " No!" The audience was a bit taken a back as this was years before it became generally know Harv was a perv.

[quote] Fucking straight CUNTS, they are relentless and need to be stopped and called out every time they open they're mouths.

Works for me.

WTF Harvey raped Heath Ledger !

No..That was me and it was hardly rape.

[quote]If he coerced Annabella Sciorra to have sex with him for professional gain or offered that to Ashley Judd or Mira Sorvino, it’s the same as Lauer and Cuomo.

In Sorvino’s case, she allegedly refused his come-ons but then she claims he blacklisted her in Hollywood as retaliation.

[quote]In Sorvino’s case, she allegedly refused his come-ons but then she claims he blacklisted her in Hollywood as retaliation.

I wasn't aware of this allegation, but it fits with what I was saying earlier in r103 and r112.

It really seemed like it went beyond a simple offer to exchange sex for a career with fear of reprisal if you said no, not just simply ignoring you.

[quote] There is a difference between leaving and making partner and leaving because you were denied partner.

R112 - Really not looking to drag this out, but to be clear - those lawyers I knew left because they were denied partner, and then went on and made partner elsewhere (some opened their own firm, quite successfully).

Hollywood loves a victim, and that it was a black woman is just catnip to them. Today she'd also be a transsexual Muslim.

Both Judd and Sorvino turned down the grotesque advances of Harvey Poopstain who then told Peter Jackson the two "were impossible to work with". This is the source of Judd's defamation suit which has NOT been thrown out. Judd never worked with Horrible Harve so how could he know? And fuck Jackson for taking his word for it, and all the other enablers.

R121 but he was right. They refused the casting couch which is part of the work in Hollywood. Other stars like the SNL wife did their jobs well and as a result have careers spanning over decades. I would have also slept with Harvey because he is actually my type.

[quote]An employer/supervisor/colleague who makes sexual favors mandatory for employment is breaking the law. They are the ones who can go work at McDonalds, hopefully after some jail time.

R109 Ewwww I wouldnt want to buy McDonalds off Weinstein, even as drive thru. I'd have concerns about food safety

[quote]I would have also slept with Harvey because he is actually my type

R122 Shudder. Normally I dont like to yuck someone elses yum but...... what the actual fuck? I guess there is hope for all of us, there really IS a lid for every pot, however misshapen and unfortunate in appearance

R121, Judd never made a Miramax film in the 90’s? Seems unlikely.

I don’t believe Weinstein raped all those women. They willingly slept with him but he didn’t give them roles and now they’re saying they were forced

I agree @R33