NEW YORK (AP) — “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra confronted Harvey Weinstein from the witness stand Thursday, testifying that the former Hollywood studio boss overpowered and raped her and made other... Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Annabella Sciorra: Harvey Weinstein held me down, raped me

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 43)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

2 months ago - Thursday 1/23/20 - 5:54:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
NEW YORK (AP) — “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra confronted Harvey Weinstein from the witness stand Thursday, testifying that the former Hollywood studio boss overpowered and raped her and made other crude overtures that included sending her X-rated chocolates and showing up uninvited in his underwear with a bottle of baby oil in one hand and a video in the other.

In a quivering voice, Sciorra told the jury that Weinstein barged into her apartment in the mid-1990s, threw her on a bed and forced himself on her as she tried to fight him off by kicking and punching him.
2 months ago - Thursday 1/23/20 - 5:54:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
Weinstein is not charged with attacking Sciorra, whose accusations date too far back to be prosecuted. Instead, she testified as one of four additional accusers prosecutors intend to put on the stand to show that the powerful Hollywood producer had a pattern of preying on women. Weinstein, 67, could get life in prison if convicted..

https://news.yahoo.com/weinstein-tr...
2 months ago - Thursday 1/23/20 - 5:56:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
In opening statements on Wednesday, another Weinstein lawyer, Damon Cheronis, argued the encounter was consensual, not rape, saying Sciorra once told a friend that she “did a crazy thing and had sex with Harvey Weinstein."
2 months ago - Thursday 1/23/20 - 7:59:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
Boy this guy sounds like a real dirt bag
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 12:49:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
wouldn't 20 years in prison effectively be a life sentence for him?

anyways, i'm glad they've exposed some of the scumbags in hollywood, but innocent until proven guilty.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 1:33:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 12:49:00 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
but innocent until proven guilty.


I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say, but I just want to remind everyone that this just applies to the government and taking away someone’s liberty. It does not mean that people cannot form their own opinions about someone’s guilt or innocence until a court has settled the matter.

For one thing, someone can be found not guilty, and it can be perfectly reasonable to believe they are actually guilty. Just look at OJ. The standard for finding someone guilty of a crime is really high, and there can technical reasons why someone is found not guilty but still strong evidence of guilt exists (e.g. evidence being found not admissible, information revealed in plea discussions, etc.).

Further, people can be found not guilty for a criminal offense but civilly liable for that same
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 1:38:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
offense. Again, just look at OJ. He was found NG of murdering 2 people in criminal court but civilly liable for murdering 2 people.

Finally, not everyone can be charged for every crime. Maybe the SOL has run out. Maybe evidence was ruled inadmissible was excluded and prosecutors decided to not prosecute without that evidence. You can still evaluate evidence and make up your own mind.

The criminal justice system exists to determine if someone should have their liberty or life taken away. It does not exist to settle public opinion.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 1:44:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
The OJ trial was a travesty of justice. I hope changes have been made since that mockery of a trial.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:01:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 1:44:35 PM Noldor wrote:
The OJ trial was a travesty of justice. I hope changes have been made since that mockery of a trial.


I mean, people love to blame the jurors (wonder why). But the police and prosecution made some pretty big mistakes.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:09:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
I try not to form opinion unless the number of victims is overwhelming. (Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Rozon, Ghomeshi)
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:32:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 1:44:35 PM Noldor wrote:
The OJ trial was a travesty of justice. I hope changes have been made since that mockery of a trial.


The glove didn't fit- - they had to acquit.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:33:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:09:27 PM Abzurd wrote:
I try not to form opinion unless the number of victims is overwhelming. (Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Rozon, Ghomeshi)


Each of those people started out with one victim.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:48:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
I watched an interview of defense attorney Donna Rotunno and she said Weinstein could not get a fair trial because of all the “one-sided media rampage” press coverage against Weinstein. Her defense was very forceful. She seemed to be a very competent attorney and had problem attacking Sciorra.

“Weinstein denies assaulting those accusing him in court, and has categorically denied all allegations of nonconsensual sexual contact”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:49:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 1:44:35 PM Noldor wrote:
The OJ trial was a travesty of justice. I hope changes have been made since that mockery of a trial.
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:32:49 PM CowDung wrote:
The glove didn't fit- - they had to acquit.


Yup. The prosecution made a big mistake.

And they didn’t properly prepare. (This makes me cringe so bad).

And then there were the Fuhrman tapes

And the missing blood
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 2:50:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 1:44:35 PM Noldor wrote:
The OJ trial was a travesty of justice. I hope changes have been made since that mockery of a trial.
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:01:17 PM Courtbebe wrote:
I mean, people love to blame the jurors (wonder why). But the police and prosecution made some pretty big mistakes.

I think Judge Ito was mostly to blame. He constantly gave advantages to the defense, such as not allowing crucial evidence or never over-ruling their objections or allowing ridiculous things like asking Mark Fuhrman if he’s ever used the N-word (he didn’t say N-word, he actually said it, loudly and with passion) or allowing OJ to try on the glove. Or just allowing the trial to drag on and on.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:01:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:50:52 PM Noldor wrote:
I think Judge Ito was mostly to blame. He constantly gave advantages to the defense, such as not allowing crucial evidence or never over-ruling their objections or allowing ridiculous things like asking Mark Fuhrman if he’s ever used the N-word (he didn’t say N-word, he actually said it, loudly and with passion) or allowing OJ to try on the glove. Or just allowing the trial to drag on and on.


1) Judges don’t get to just decide what evidence is admissible. They don’t get to sustain or overrule objections with the objective of making things equal between prosecution and defense. Do you have examples of Ito making actual *legal* mistakes?
2) Support your statement that allowing the n-word to be said was an actual *legal* mistake.
3) Darden was the one who asked Simpson to try on the glove. That was his mistake. The judge’s
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:03:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
job is not to keep the prosecutor from doing a bad job. If the prosecutor wants to dig himself a hole and the defense doesn’t object, any judge is going to let that happen.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:04:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 3:01:54 PM Courtbebe wrote:
1) Judges don’t get to just decide what evidence is admissible.


Applying their own standards, I mean.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:09:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:09:27 PM Abzurd wrote:
I try not to form opinion unless the number of victims is overwhelming. (Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Rozon, Ghomeshi)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:33:36 PM Courtbebe wrote:
Each of those people started out with one victim.

There was way more victims when the cases were made public.

2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:13:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:09:27 PM Abzurd wrote:
I try not to form opinion unless the number of victims is overwhelming. (Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Rozon, Ghomeshi)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 2:33:36 PM Courtbebe wrote:
Each of those people started out with one victim.
On Friday 1/24/20 - 3:09:29 PM Abzurd wrote:
There was way more victims when the cases were made public.


Think about why that might be.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:16:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
What’s your point?

I’m saying reading a newspaper article doesn’t make me qualified to establish a verdict.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:41:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
And my point is, you can form an opinion on someone after one accusation.

When society requires an “overwhelming” number of victims before forming an opinion it allows people like Weinstein and Cosby to flourish. It silences victims.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:43:13 PM EST (GMT-5)
what sucks about bill cosby is he actually admitted to drugging women with quaaludes but hannibal burress (another man) had to call him out on everything.
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:46:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
One is also more likely to form the wrong opinion if they have too small of a sample size for their evidence...
2 months ago - Friday 1/24/20 - 3:47:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 1/24/20 - 3:46:19 PM CowDung wrote:
One is also more likely to form the wrong opinion if they have too small of a sample size for their evidence...


What?

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 43)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit