Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Contrarian Crows: Harvey Weinstein
I just want to point out that I defended the slime ball Harvey Weinstein back in 2017.
1: Water flows downhill. Every time. In any system where there are powerful men and supplicative women, water will flow downhill. No amount of moralizing or preaching changes that one whit.
2: None of these women are “victims.” Not one. Any girl or woman who goes to Hollywood knows perfectly well what the cost of admission might be. Indeed, Hollywood is where women sell themselves anyway – so what is the real difference between seducing an audience and seducing a director? I am quite sure there are millions of young women who would cheerfully administer to a Harvey Weinstein if it meant she might get Her Big Break. This is a transaction, as old as the profession itself.
We can stop being surprised or outraged. Get off our high horses. This kind of behavior is baked into the cake: it cannot be “reformed” or eliminated. As long as there are powerful men, and attractive women who want things from them, water will flow downhill.
In the actual trial, I am starting to look… um… prophetic. Yes, he is a slime ball. But no, it is no surprise that Hollywood has a casting couch. Weinstein may not walk. But he is not going to be locked up forever more, either.
Published in General
She testified under oath. Weinstein did not. I’m no lawyer, but it sounds like due process to me.
Agreed. That is a real phenomenon, and I understand it somewhat. It’s traumatic. Freezing during the crime is also something that happens. It’s all so terrible and I feel bad for victims of these crimes. I don’t blame them for these things.
However. Knowing that real victims don’t report and knowing that real victims sometimes freeze during the crime doesn’t help us in situations like this. Do we have evidence to support the account in question? What does the accused have to say? How are we to navigate a situation like this where we don’t have sufficient evidence to make a solid determination on anything other than emotion and sympathy? What weight should we give to accounts like this in other legal proceedings? How can a defendant ever defend himself against an account like this?
So if Weinstein gets up and testifies that he didn’t rape her….. then what? Case closed? I’m not following you’re line of thinking. Is She-said sufficient evidence for you? It isn’t for me. Especially after so long. The very nature of treating that as evidence is dangerous to due process.
People lie. People misremember. People justify and rationalize.
We’ll see. I think I saw he’s not testifying. The case is near sending it to the jury.
It was a hypothetical. The point stands whether Sciorra (or any woman in that position) testifies under oath or just gives an interview. I’m curious about how people balance these competing pulls.
Starlets may be a dime a dozen, but mostly what Harvey W did was decide which movies were going to get made, and for how much money, etc. So it could be said that story idea, script, maybe director, etc, are more important than which starlet(s) happen to be cast.
Wouldn’t testimony from that other person be the very definition of hearsay?
Juanita Broderick is waving her arms and yelling “What about me???”
No she’s an eye witness, More than a witness. A participant. Heresay is a third part who heard the story from someone.
Agreed. Woman are treated badly in these cases. It tends to be his word against hers.
I meant the person Sciorra supposedly told. That wouldn’t be an eye witness, or a participant. And it would be hearsay. (Not heresay.)
But my point was, if that’s going to be the (new) standard, then Bubba should be thrown in the clink before Weinstein. Broderick was seriously injured by Clinton biting her lip and stuff.
I don’t know what the exact definition of heresay is, but her being told by the participant shortly after it happened is corroboration. I agree on Bubba getting off but I don’t know if Juanita had corroboration in any way.
It’s not exactly corroboration either. I think it’s also important to distinguish between what should be admissible in court versus what clues we can pick up to try to divine whose story is more credible for our own private opinions and actions. Coming out into the court of public opinion also has its ethical problems, but that’s why we have libel laws and such and I agree with President Trump that they should probably be strengthened.
Theoretically speaking (because I’m not really following the Weinstein case and am not conversant with all the testimony), suppose the participant lied to his/her friend about what happened? I mean, the friend has no way of knowing how accurate the participant’s description of the event is since he/she wasn’t there to witness it for himself. The friend can corroborate that the story the participant is telling now is the same story he heard from the participant earlier, but he can’t corroborate the event itself since he wasn’t there to witness it.
She told people too.
But really, any kind of “he/she told someone else” is necessarily hearsay. (And it is hearsay, not heresay. Hearsay. Hear, and then say.) It might also be corroborative if there is proof that it took place at or very close to the time of the actual event. But it would need to be something more than “I remember…” if someone’s life – basically – is at stake. Otherwise there is no way to prove that Sciorra – or whoever – didn’t actually tell them to say it, just before the trial.
Otherwise you have two people saying “I remember this from umpty years ago” and the accused saying “it never happened.” Where do you get “beyond a reasonable doubt” from that? “2 against 1” might win on the elementary school playground, but doesn’t cut it in court.
Also true.
That is true. It is not full exculpatory but adds to the credibility of the witness. Remember both people went under oath.
Yes, and if/when the accused says “I didn’t do it” also under oath, where do you go? As I said “2 against 1” might work on the playground, but it is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But he didn’t. Weinstein did not testify. Yes if both on he said/she said testify conflicting statements then you have no choice but to let him go. But in this case there were multiple women making similar charges. Were they all lying? Was this a conspiracy? Unlikely. The scum is as guilty as sin.
Yes, but they weren’t testifying about the same charges, the same instance of the alleged crime. Were they all lying? Is that the only alternative to complete truth? I think it’s not which is why there is inherent doubt to he said she said, even if multiple she’s accuse he if similar things.
Yes people lie. No it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. Yes people misremember; yes people rationalize and self justify and convince themselves of things that are either not true or extremely subjective. Yes it might have happened exactly as she said it did. How can we figure out which is which? Being under oath has nothing to do with it.
My main point was the “under oath” part, but even without that, I don’t think it makes sense to assume that an unrebutted accusation is necessarily truth “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Not when that can lead to a prison sentence, or even worse.
But if that were to become the new legal standard, then every accused just needs to deny it, in court, and that’s that.
And here’s a bit from Peter Robinson about memory.
https://www.adrive.com/public/HbrUaT/Ricochet%20Podcast%2009-29-18%20clip%20A%20Supreme%20Moment%20%20418.mp3