Harvey Weinstein Accused Of Sexual Misconduct- Page 3

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 12:26pm

I just googled his name and this story is all over the place.

So, you could have provided a link, yet you still refused to do so. Why is that?

[Movidude742]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 10:28pm

Well I did and when I did a news search on him, the story indeed seemed to have a bunch of different hits

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=harvey%20weinstein

I don't know what happened, but similar stories about Harvey certainly existed back when I was a regular on Kevin Smith's message board.

[skeetshooter]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 4:05am

Sleaze factor here is odious.

What'll his wife think of him inviting a model up to his private office on a Friday night, let alone the public?

This is the guy who championed Roman Polanski, ugh, who pled guilty to pedophilia.

Will the grime smear "family friendly" Finding Neverland? Or will the public never connect the dots of the name of a producer with his show?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 8:36am

- sleaze factor is equal or greater for Bill Clinton, also married and perhaps the most popular man in the U.S.

- even Mia Farrow has remained friends with Roman Polanski.

- No, it won't affect Finding Neverland.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 8:51am

I don't believe this woman for a second.

[Back Row]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 9:52am

Probably just a misunderstanding. Harvey invited her to his office because she had expressed and interest in Finding Neverland. She was thinking of the Broadway musical. He groped her breast and put his hand up her skirt because he thought that she wanted him to "find neverland". Must have been the language barrier.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 10:08am

Miss Battilana has an interesting history.


article Updated On: 4/1/15 at 10:08 AM

[James885]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 10:27am

"Her 70 year old former lover"? She was dating a 70 year old at age 18? I'm the last person to defentd Weinstein, but come on. Something's a little fishy about this girl.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:24am

Well if you go past the headline in that Daily Mail article it was not a case of them dating, more like she was his paid mistress. But "former lovers" makes for a more interesting headline than "prostitute and john."

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:27am

She admits to having sex with him for the money which, under Italian law, made it non-consensual because of her age at the time.

The reason it was non-consenual is because Italian law recognizes that young people can be manipulated into sex by bucks as a form of undue coercion.

None of which suggests that Weinstein didn't do what she said he did.

Nor does it mean that he did.

Frankly, even if he did, while this might be sexual misconduct, it is far from the worst sex offense. The complaint is that he touched her breasts during an attempted seduction and when she said no, reached under her skirt and asked for a kiss, and when she refused he stopped.

I'm not excusing the alleged behavior. No means no and what he is accused of might certainly be the misdemeanor crime of forcible touching.

But it's hardly the sex crime of the century.





Updated On: 4/1/15 at 11:27 AM

[SweetLips]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 2:28pm

We only know what we read-unless we were there..

The young 'lady' seems to have questionable morals so unwanted sexual advances would not be unusual-more the norm.

 

She seems an opportunist trading on body and looks--

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 02:28 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 3:10pm

Just like everyone else, people with "questionable morals" have sole and exclusive rights over their bodies, how they share them and with whom.  

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 03:10 PM

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 5:10pm

"Just like everyone else, people with "questionable morals" have sole and exclusive rights over their bodies, how they share them and with whom. "

Yes, well said.  

In response to the question about what is meant by victims being put on trial, sometimes literally - i meant exactly that.  It was not a metaphor for trying to establish the credibility of the accuser during the trial of the accused assailant. It means sometimes the accused assailants are not put on trial at all, but the victim is.

I had actually just finished reading an article yesterday before i saw this thread about an 11-year-old girl who accused 2 men (one over 18 and one over 20) of forcibly raping her, an accusation corroborated by medical evidence from her rape kit (tearing, scrapes, etc.)

The police did not prosecute the accused attackers, but instead charged the 11-year-old girl with filing a false report and locked *her* up for 2.5 years, saying that she had a reputation of "promiscuous" behavior (even though an 11-year-old cannot legally consent to any kind of sexual activity and in this case she did not even verbally consent).  7 years later, the police department apologized to her family for the disgusting way they handled her case, but not before she was institutionalized for 2.5 years as a result of their literally putting her on trial for making the accusations (again, for which there was also medical evidence), while not even charging her attackers (i.e. not putting them on trial at all). 

 

more info:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/danielle-hicks-best_n_6865180.html?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 5:27pm

Being skeptical of Ambra Battilana's story does not make Sweet Lips guilty of doubting Danielle Hicks-Best's story or aqny other story.

I only wish the media would cover the stories of Danielle Hicks-Best MORE and the stories of people like Ambra Battilana LESS.

Bravo to the Washington Post for reporting on and publishing that story.

I wish Danielle justice and happiness.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 7:02pm

I posted that information and article link in response to HenrikEgerman's question about how anything other than putting the victim on trial could ever happen, where he was using it metaphorically to mean 'establishing the victim's credibility in the process of putting the accuser on trial', whereas i had been using the phrase literally to mean 'putting the victim on trial' (and not trying the accused attackers at all).

 

I did not imply that anyone posting in this thread was doubting Danielle-Hicks Best's story - it was posted as an illustration of what i was talking about by saying that victims are sometimes literally put on trial.  Even during the trials of some accused attackers, victims are asked about their own sexual histories, etc., which is more of a metaphorical putting the victim on trial, and does not go to the credibility of the victim.  (Since as Henrik and I agree based on his post regarding people's ownership of our own bodies, someone can consent to sex many different times with many different people and still have 100% right to not consent to having sex with someone else (or with a previous partner another time), so a history of promiscuity does not support an argument that someone consented to sex with a specific attacker in a specific instance.)

[ebontoyan]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 7:35pm

As for me, I am not watching Finding Neverland and that was before this story broke (No interest in story). Now I will also recommend to friends and acquaintances not to watch the show!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 9:37pm

Oh, good lord.  

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 10:06pm

I appreciate everything you're saying, Adam.  

I'd only add, at the risk of repetition, that the expression "being on trial" to distinguish treatment of the accused at a criminal trial in terms of unfair treatment and scrutiny is, from a legal standpoint, a metaphorical misnomer.   Because what is really put to the test at a criminal trial - what is really being evaluated, i.e. "tried," -  is not the accused him/herself but the proof against the accused.

Of course if there is a conviction, the accused is subject to punishment.  But that only occurs at sentencing after the trial has been concluded in the event of a guilty verdict.

A more apt observation of the injustice people are referring to when they metaphorically say "the accuser, not the accused, is the one being 'put on trial' " would be to more simply say that "the accuser, rather than the [convicted] accused, is being punished."  

But, of course, it's far from the only metaphor in the world that's idiomatically murky. 

The real problem is when judges don't get the difference.  For instance when they turn to the defense and say "no, I won't allow you to explore arguments and lines of inquiry against the police or the complainant or another prosecution witness because "they are not on trial here."  Actually, no.  It's their evidence and their credibility which are being evaluated by the trier of fact, i.e. are the proof that is being tried.  

Of course not all lines of inquiry and arguments are relevant and material to that evaluation, and therefore many of them should be disallowed.  A good example here is, in the great majority of instances, the sexual history of the accuser in a sex crime case.  But often judges refer to witnesses for the prosecution as being unfairly put on trial when the defense follows lines of inquiry and arguments which are relevant and material to the proof against the accused.

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 10:06 PM

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:04pm

Henrik, I agree with you that relevant questions relating to credibility of the complainant and the evidence itself are reasonable to ask.  It is exactly the irrelevant questions of the type that you mention (e.g. sexual history, what the complainant was wearing) that make it seem like sometimes the complainant is him- or herself being put on trial.  I agree with you that relevant questions are reasonable to ask of the complainants as part of the process of trying the accused person.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:11pm

Well, his investors in FN must not be happy hearing this news along with his gorgeous wife Georgina Chapman must be livid!

[SweetLips]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:14am

Each case relating to this subject should be taken individually and there is no way I have the intelligence to debate the subject with learned ones here.

I[male] was molested by a minister of religion as a 12yo--to me it was 'so what', left no emotional damage and I enjoyed a fantastic sex life with both sexes [yes-bi-sexuals DO exist].

If Mr Weinstein DID make advances to this very attractive and worldly woman, you can bet THIS one knew EXACTLY what was going on and how it would play out.

Unattractive elderly wealthy male, youthful 'chorine' in the privacy of his office, she says, he did, who knows.

What a load of crap.

Leave it to the lawyers.