There is plenty of reason to think of Harvey Weinstein as a pig, but jurors can only act on the evidence presented in his trial. The two victims allege rape, but then went on to later have continuing sex with him. Is the rape charge credible? I would not convict him on this evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-trial-consent.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Their charges look absurd in light of this. Either they chose to ‘forgive’ him for the supposed ‘rape,’ or they decided it was not rape and went back to bed with him; then much later wanted to cash in on the (entirely valid in itself) #MeToo movement.

Rank opportunism.

If I were on a jury, I don’t think I could vote to convict on a rape charge, where the alleged “victim” willingly got back into bed with the defendant. I don’t care how many other “victims” have similar stories. More nonsense is still nonsense.  

The man is clearly a pig, but being a pig isn’t illegal. I’m not so sure he’s a “rapist”.

Many of these women were opportunists who used their body and sexuality to get ahead in Hollywood. Some of them now regret it. I’m not so sure any of them were “raped”. 

That’s my take on the circus so far. I’m sure others feel differently. 

Having been on several juries, I was generally impressed with how seriously my fellow citizens took the duty.

So I feel no urge to have an opinion without reviewing the case presented. I trust that the jury will get it right. If he convicted, he deserved it. If he doesn't, it wasn't proven.

 

On 2/13/2020 at 12:13 AM, nycman said:

If I were on a jury, I don’t think I could vote to convict on a rape charge, where the alleged “victim” willingly got back into bed with the defendant. I don’t care how many other “victims” have similar stories. More nonsense is still nonsense.  

The man is clearly a pig, but being a pig isn’t illegal. I’m not so sure he’s a “rapist”.

Many of these women were opportunists who used their body and sexuality to get ahead in Hollywood. Some of them now regret it. I’m not so sure any of them were “raped”. 

That’s my take on the circus so far. I’m sure others feel differently. 

 

On 2/13/2020 at 12:36 AM, caeron said:

Having been on several juries, I was generally impressed with how seriously my fellow citizens took the duty.

So I feel no urge to have an opinion without reviewing the case presented. I trust that the jury will get it right. If he convicted, he deserved it. If he doesn't, it wasn't proven.

 

Well, juries are often cherry-picked and not necessarily the brightest people. I certainly feel there was reasonable doubt as to whether rape occurred or whether these women (repeatedly) used sex for personal gain, then later (after having reaped the rewards) regretted it. Weinstein is obviously a creep, but could it not be possible that these women consented to sex, if only for nefarious purposes? I don't think most jurors understand the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt," but rather just go by their guts, and what they feel is more likely than not to be the case. It's the reason there are so many innocent people languishing in prison. 

 

One of my great annoyances with internet culture is the obsession with having and expressing uniformed opinions.

Some of the jurors gave interviews on why they convicted. I found their logic sound.

Nobody here, to my knowledge, sat through the entire trial and then deliberated and then had 12 people agree that a crime had occurred. 

But, hey, let's trash their efforts to achieve justice because we have opinions.

caeron, each of us no doubt has some experience with jurors. I am glad that yours was positive, and the fact is that all across the country jurors do their civic duty and do it well. But many of us have seen some strange exceptions.

The Weinstein jury was asked to do something not commonly done in sex cases and bring the MeToo movement with them into the jury room. I wouldn't have, but that's just me.

On 3/5/2020 at 4:13 PM, caeron said:

 

One of my great annoyances with internet culture is the obsession with having and expressing uniformed opinions.

Some of the jurors gave interviews on why they convicted. I found their logic sound.

Nobody here, to my knowledge, sat through the entire trial and then deliberated and then had 12 people agree that a crime had occurred. 

But, hey, let's trash their efforts to achieve justice because we have opinions.

No, I did not sit through the entire trial, obviously. But I would love to hear about what you heard about the jurors' logic. Why was there essentially no doubt in their minds that the sex couldn't have been consensual and/or used for personal gain of the women involved? I haven't heard those interviews. What did they say?

Rape without force. Next Kamala could say Willie Brown raped her and in today's world of metoo-he would be convicted. Maybe the pendulum swings too far either way.