Harvey Weinstein - guilty or not guilty?

[Jon]

I have always been a believer of innocent until proven guilty. However, nowadays it is guilty by mob rule and media assassination. Let me tackle a difficult case, since the entire world appears to be against this man. My views are based on the legal allegations, not on whether he is or isn't "forward" with women.

To my mind, the legal system should be about finding the truth and applying justice accordingly. But unfortunately, many of the actors (no pun intended) attempt to pervert this process.

There are 3 women making legal accusations against Mr Weinstein. The first one now has spiraling credibility issues, since post-assault she has be found to have sent messages saying how much she loves him, that she can't wait to see him again but hates feeling like a booty call.

The second accuser now has snags too. Her own witness says she performed "an act" in order to further her career, although the "victim" says she was forced. And very recently, there is new evidence that she texted her husband saying, "Just wondering if u have any news on whether harvey will have time to see me before he leaves? x Miriam." In addition, it has been found the detective was coaching the victim to delete information off her phone after it was requested for evidence.

I know little about the third accusers claims.

Comments on a postcard!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I know HW was arrested and charged with specific crimes of a sexual nature. Like you, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I am somewhat ambiguous about the #MeToo movement.

On the one hand, where there is that much smoke, at least a small fire has to be present. And to continue the metaphor, it is possible that the smoke IS coming from a relatively small fire, not a raging inferno. On the other hand, the #MeToo movement didn't override the USA's constitutional protections regarding due process. A lot of that smoke is coming from strident voices fanning the flames. But the "old monster movie" mentality involving villagers, torches, and pitchforks isn't right in a lawful society either.

It is possible that some good can come of it, though. I sincerely hope that the #MeToo movement encourages women to press charges sooner rather than later, because the sooner a crime can be properly investigated, the fresher the evidence (and witness testimony) will be. Waiting 30 years while letting a grudge fester? That is not healthy because of the continued stress implied by that fearful or angry (or both) silence. Waiting long enough for the statute of limitations to run out? That is not right either, because quick charges could have led to the early detection of a predator. How many victims could have been protected by taking a sexual predator off the streets sooner?

 

[Jon]

Doc, I am largely in agreement with you. What I fear with the #MeToo movement is a power grab that leads to unlawful accusations, and in particular rewriting history because someone didn't like a particular event in the past. How easy it is now for a woman to ruin a man's life and exact revenge based on mere accusation. Perhaps the #MeToo movement was only successful because it didn't require fair legal process. You just sling mud and that's enough. After all, proper legal protection has been there for years already. If people have come forward because they did not feel that was enough, they are essentially saying that "proof" is not required. That is a very dangerous position to take.

It brings to mind that old phrase: "Does the means justify the ends?"

 

[Bee]

Jon, I see you laying breadcrumb trails and I'm not falling for... oh, wait... there's a lot I have to say about this.

It's very hard (whichever gender you are) to be able to debate this in an objective manner. Let me say first of all, that I accept - and Jon will back me up on this - that both men and women are subject to unwanted attention and worse. I also go further and say that ALL alleged victims of harrassment/abuse should be protected by anonymity, AND SO SHOULD THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR.

As we discussed on an earlier thread, there are many reasons why a victim may not come forward - whether than victim is female or male. Some of that reasoning is hard to understand for people who have not experienced it themselves - and even for those who may have, as we all deal with things in different ways.

Whatever the #MeToo movement has morphed into, I believe the intention was to simply highlight how many women have experienced assault/attack of a sexual nature. At the time, when I posted #MeToo on social media, there were many of my male friends who were simply astounded, shocked, and saddened at the sheer numbers of the women they knew who posted the same status.

The part where I'm really struggling to keep emotion out of it is:

How easy it is now for a woman to ruin a man's life and exact revenge based on mere accusation

To which I reply, how easy it is for a man to ruin a woman's life by assuming he can take something that doesn't belong to him.

But, that kind of emotive argument won't get us anywhere and makes me look like a bitter man-hating woman. If you know me at all, you'll know that's not true. I love people - all sizes, flavours, shapes, colours. I love men. I simply want men to recognise that women have equal value. Note, I've said equal value. I'm not interested in men and women being the same. I don't subscribe to that notion. I don't want to push men down, I want to help pull women up.

It's always been the case that false accusations ruin reputations and lives. Whether those accusations are from women or men and whether or not those accusations have a sexual connotation. Give anonymity to both sides. Stop trial by media. Let due process determine the truth. But please, don't ever assume that because you personally would never attack/assault a woman, that it doesn't happen. It does. And THAT's what #MeToo was about.

And, as a last comment about mud-slinging - of all the women I know who have said #MeToo (myself included), I have never seen anyone naming and shaming their attacker.

I get that men currently feel bombarded and attacked from all sides. My rational self empathises and wishes there was another way to equalise the imbalance. My irrational self also sits back and says: Good. Now, please listen and learn and ensure that future generations of men and women don't have to endure what we are all collectively experiencing.

And finally, maybe the #MeToo movement has moved on. Maybe people are using it to push their own agendas. I want nothing to do with that.

 

[Jon]

how easy it is for a man to ruin a woman's life by assuming he can take something that doesn't belong to him.

That is what the law is for, to catch the perpetrators as best you can. However, I would like to argue that is the opposite situation to my statement, where there is both a) no proof and b) no due process. I am all for men being caught for crimes they have committed. But I am not for men's lives being ruined on hearsay.

The #MeToo movement has spawned from the Harvey Weinstein criminal case, brought by those 3 women. Is it really right that (possibly) 3 female false accusations (i.e. criminals) fuel a #MeToo witch hunt against potentially innocent men, while at the same time their own testimony is lacking credibility? It makes a mockery of assault claims against men, perhaps reinforcing a stereotype of women bringing lawsuits primarily for financial gain against rich men. Let us remember that Harvey is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It devalues the real cases of sexual assault that should be rightfully punished.

I read that only about 5% of false female accusations are brought to trial. That is a level of immunity from prosecution, making the "victim" feel safe in adopting a strategy of assault allegation against the innocent for personal gain.

saddened at the sheer numbers of the women they knew who posted the same status.

Once again, where is the evidence that anyone posting #MeToo is being truthful? If the initial birth of the movement was based on false accusations, what is to say what followed is truthful either. To be clear, I am not saying that anyone who posts #MeToo is lying. But it also doesn't mean they are telling the truth either. People have all sorts of motives: sympathy, psychological disorders, getting the truth out, revenge.

And THAT's what #MeToo was about.

I would argue that this is true for some people. For others it is a power grab. For some it is revenge for something else. For Kavanaugh it is politics. I'm just saying!

I have never seen anyone naming and shaming their attacker.

It is risky making comments that could be libelous. But many others have named and shame. Ken Barlow - 4 accusations, proven false. Ronaldo - first accusation proven false. Second accusation in progress (since the $300K hush money was obviously not enough!). Harvey Weinstein - first two accusers desperate to see him after alleged rape happened. And the list goes on...

maybe the #MeToo movement has moved on. Maybe people are using it to push their own agendas.

Perhaps it started with it being used to push their own agendas, as argued earlier. I agree it has probably morphed.

To finish off this long post, I believe in using the law to catch criminals. I do not believe in a witch hunt, where those poor witches had no evidence against them and did not enjoy the fruits of a hard fought justice system. Finally, flip the genders and the same applies.

 

[Bee]

#MeToo may have spead virally post the HW allegations, but had been around as early as 2006.

Once again, where is the evidence that anyone posting #MeToo is being truthful? If the initial birth of the movement was based on false accusations, what is to say what followed is truthful either. To be clear, I am not saying that anyone who posts #MeToo is lying. But it also doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.

Let's take your position and assume that a high percentage of people posting #MeToo are stretching the truth for any one of the various reasons you've suggested. But what about the remainder? What percentage is not enough to take an issue seriously? And, by questioning the veracity of the people posting #MeToo, you are in essence lumping me into that category. So, it's pretty difficult for me to respond without sounding emotional, subjective, or without disappointment. You know I'm a truthful person.

By questioning the veracity and credibility of HW's accusers, aren't you also stepping into the role of judge and jury? Is it for you to decide that there is no case to answer? I know you will say you are responding to the evidence, but do you have all of the evidence? Or do you have what the highy biased media is presenting?

My post was very clear that I believe in anonymity to protect both sides until an accusation is proven in a court of law. We are in fact, agreeing - but as usual, from different angles.

 

[Jon]

Let's take your position and assume that a high percentage of people posting #MeToo are stretching the truth

Actually, that is not my position, although I can understand why you think it might be. My position is that you cannot say if someone posting #MeToo is telling the truth or not. This brings me to the stance some take that women should always be believed if they come forward with sexual allegations. I believe Hillary Clinton also said this, yet characterises Bill Clinton's accusers as nutjobs and liars.

Saying all women should be believed is also the same as saying all men should be disbelieved. If feminists want equality, they should also be stating that they want all women to be disbelieved too, else this is not equal. Fair?

I think the issue of assault should be taken seriously, but not based on mob rule and media assassination. And by this, I mean all assault, not just sexual assault. I was hit around the head in a shopping car park and was told by the police that I could perhaps get £10 compensation. Yet it appears pinching someone's bum counts for perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds! (Complete guess on penalties for the pinching.)

By not questioning the veracity of those who post #MeToo, are you not therefore being judge and jury on who their alleged attacker was (whether named or unnamed)? If you come under the umbrella of posting #MeToo, do you believe you should be the exception of the rule that evidence is necessary to convict? I am not accusing you of anything, just that while I may think someone is a truthful person, that is me thinking in bets. Some people are more believable than others. Yet there are many people who lie, stretch the truth, want revenge, want sympathy, have false memories, enjoy attention and a whole host of other reasons.

Is it for you to decide that there is no case to answer?

No, that is for the law to decide. But I am entitled to my opinion. If someone claims to have been raped, but tells the person a month later by text that they love them and can't wait to see them again, in my mind it shoots to pieces that person's credibility. It could have still happened, but I consider it extremely unlikely.

do you have all of the evidence?

No one has all the evidence, because in the case of Harvey Weinstein, the detective has been telling the accuser to get rid of some of the evidence. Also, other evidence has been concealed by the prosecution, only having come to light very recently. The latter is about the alleged text to the accusers husband asking when Harvey can see her again. No one has all the evidence, unless you have a camera running with audio. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case with sufficient evidence to convict. A credible witness would help.

I don't think you are sounding emotional. I am being subjective.

Or do you have what the highly biased media is presenting?

The media is highly biased AGAINST Harvey. I am presenting a case FOR Harvey. He is one of the most vilified men in America right now. In most people's minds, he is as guilty as sin. Hung, drawn and quartered before he can even present disconfirming evidence!

I too agree with anonymity for both crimes. Even if an allegation is proven false, there is still the stigma of "no smoke without fire". To me, that phrase means nothing. It implies something happens if there is a "noise" about something. "Russia collusion - no smoke without fire." Show me the evidence, that is all I care about. So, to protect all parties, who should both be considered innocent until due process has completed, keep their names out of it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Once again, where is the evidence that anyone posting #MeToo is being truthful?

There is indeed no proof that a person posting online has even a grain of truth in what they say (unless they have a reasonable web site hyperlink to public court records or something like that). The only solution to this problem, and it has always been there for people if they wanted to actually use it, is to come forward to the police and let them gather evidence. Unsupported accusations have never been useful and never will be.

 

[Jon]

Doc, we are on the same page.

 

[Bee]

We're all on the same page - and yet, I'm left feeling like I'm having to defend myself.

For a third time, for clarity: I believe in anonymity for both sides so the courts can determine the truth. Trial by [social] media is tantamount to a witch hunt and serves no good purpose.

Stop focusing on the % that might be using #MeToo for their own ends and understand that a significant number of women have been or face being attacked/assaulted because they are seen as fair game by some men. (Yes, I know it happens the other way round too - and it's equally crappy).

Here is a list of things women think about or do to keep safe when going about our daily business:

1. Hold your keys like a weapon
2. Check the backseat of your car
3. Call someone just for the sake of having someone just in case
4. Never go outside alone at night
5. Lock the windows and doors in your home at all times
6. Don’t drink too much
7. Never put your drink down
8. Watch your drink when it’s being poured
9. Own a big dog for protection
10. Carry perfume, hairspray, pepper spray or mase just in case you need to spray it
11. Park your car in well lit areas
12. Avoid parking garages if possible
13. Don’t get in an elevator alone or with a large group of men
14. Change your route on your way home
15. Don’t use highway rest stations
16. Watch what you wear
17. Don’t wear headphones when out in public
18. Avoid wooded areas in general
19. Always go out in groups
20. Never get an apartment or hotel room on the main floor
21. Always meet in a public place when on a first date
22. Always have cash in case you need it for an emergency ride home
23. Update your friends and family on your whereabouts/plans to be safe
24. Leave outside lights on every night
25. Keep your blinds closed at night
26. Lock the car door the second you get inside and as soon as you exit
27. Send license plate information if you are getting in a car with a stranger to your friends in cas

As a man, how many of those things do you do? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question. I'm just attempting to highlight an inequality. This is what your wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers, daughters, nieces, aunts, and friends do - almost without thinking. It's exhausting.

 

[Jon]

Men have things they have to think about too:

1. Can I get away with a comb over?
2. Why do I have to wear my cuban heels to be attractive?
3. Will they still love me when I tell them I'm their dustman?
4. Can I order the lemonade at the bar and still be gruff?
5. Would they still want to date me when they see the condition of my Y-fronts, which I hope they will be washing for me?

 

[Bee]

1. No
2. You don't
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. I'm out.

 

[Jon]

5.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Had to throw in #5, didn't you, Jon...

 

[Jon]

Like a moth to the flame...I knew I shouldn't, but I just couldn't help myself.