The disgraced movie mogul’s appeal was dismissed in 2022. But on Thursday, New York’s highest court agreed with Weinstein’s claims that he was judged “on untested allegations of prior bad acts” in a way that portrayed him “in a highly prejudicial light”.
Writing the court’s majority opinion, Judge Jenny Rivera said Judge Burke had acted “erroneously” in allowing the testimony of accusers who were not complainants in the case, calling it “an abuse of judicial discretion”.
“The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial,” the court said.
Essentially, varied women were allowed to say he did bad things to me. But they weren’t the women how was charged with doing bad things to. So, it was all a load of bad character witnesses. Which ain’t fair.
Ho Hum.
In other news Donald Trump is fined nearly half a billion dollars on account of the completely uncorroborated, wildly inconsistent and temporily impossible (claiming to have been wearing a dress that hadn’t even been designed at that time) ramblings of a nutty old lady with a self-confessed fondness for rape fantasies in a case only made possible by re-writing existing law for this one sole purpose.
Guilty verdict overturned. Not the same as a not guilty verdict. Verdict awaits new trial.
I thought he was dead. So, who “accidently garroted himself while brushing his teeth” am I mixing him up with?
I don’t know Homer Simpson, I (sniffling)I never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but ( sniffling) I’m sorry I can’t go on.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVnccXkymM
If they could prove that he raped the women that he was accused of raping, why would they involve anyone else?
jgh, that was Epstein. Different -stein.
I hold no brief for this Weinstein character and by all accounts, he seems to be a thoroughly unpleasant character. But I’m bound to say that in many of the allegations made against him, he does appear to have been guilty of nothing more than taking “yes” for an answer.
llater,
llamas
llamas, the stuff i saw tells me this guy sets up the situations where there is massive incentive and pressure to say yes, they say stop it, no, no, don’t do that, try and move on, he doesn’t take no for an answer, more pressure, he was relentless and probably still alot say no but he definitely went far far OTT. It wasn’t just quid pro quo. It was v nasty stuff, multi, multi sexual assault at the v least. Of course he still deserves a fair trial and those rules protect us all, not for him, but he isn’t to be pitied.
Well, at least Judge Burke was in line with the legal whoring that seems to be the standard operating procedure in the State of New York.
@Llamas, Ronan Farrow’s book Capture and Kill covers much of Weinstein’s behaviour and is well worth the read.
In brief there was a recurring pattern of meetings being shifted to Weinstein’s hotel room at the last minute followed by sexual assault and worse. Authorities refused to act despite having an audio confession in at least one case.
The title of the book refers to news journalists close to Weinstein acquiring the exclusive rights to victims’ stories and then refusing to publish them while blocking their publication elsewhere.
If you have any interest in cybersecurity then reading how PI’s working for Weinstein tracked the victims and reporters via their iPhones is essential reading.
‘llamas
April 26, 2024 at 10:18 am
But I’m bound to say that in many of the allegations made against him, he does appear to have been guilty of nothing more than taking “yes” for an answer.’
Yeah llamas. That was the impression I gained. It’s interesting to see comments from people who actually felt he was guilty. As to the truth of any of the allegations, I can only say damifino.
I read Ronan Farrow’s reporting about Weinstein at the time, but have not read his book. No Question but that Weinstein committed many heinous crimes, which is why he is still in jail today. Note I never said otherwise.
But at the same time, reporting showed that there were many women who looked at the inducements he offered and decided to take that deal. And many more who knew full-well – either from their own experience, or from the reports of others – of his activities, but chose to turn a blind eye, for professional or financial reasons. Yet now, many of them have chosen to come forward claiming “Oh, he did icky things to Me, Too!”, or to now acknowledge behaviours which they kept quiet about at the time. This kind of quid-pro-quo is as old as Hollyqood itself, as is the culture of silence, and it feels pretty hypocritical for all these folks to be up in arms about it now. Me, Too! I want some of that reflected sympathy and aura of PC that comes from allying myself with actual victims – even if I chose to accept the deal he offered at the time!
In no way am I suggesting that he “is to be pitied . . . .”, but he also deserves the same fair shake as anybody else, and not to be vilified with unprovable allegations when it is socially and politically advantageous. Or to now be condemned for acts which, although unpleasant and disturbing in hindsight, seem to have been OK with the ladies at the time.
llater,
llamas
Actresses were prettier when Harvey Weinstein was involved in casting decisions.
They’re all dogs and fatties now.
Free Harvey, and he will free us.