Harvey Weinstein
Discussion
Thorodin said:
I don't think the insurance policy is 'his'. Think it's an indemnity by the studio companies to avoid corporate Class actions by millions of people.
I may be wrong as to ‘his’ policy but the fact is there is a policy that has paid and it’s not his cash. Whether they have recourse against him (likely) is unclearMost likely this is to cover individuals involved in business that were embroiled in the mess. It gives them closure as to liability
popeyewhite said:
aaron_2000 said:
This isn't the Twitter-sewer.Do you think someone who physically incapacitates another person would be any better than Weinstein himself?
YouTalkinToMe said:
Burwood said:
I know losing absolutely everything in your life can be a bit stressful, but somehow I dont believe - if none of this had happened - that he would be walking into the Golden Globes like that this year.Just saying.
techiedave said:
YouTalkinToMe said:
Hopefully when this is all over and been found to be a dreadful misunderstanding Harvey can be issued with one of those motorised wheelchair things. He can then whizz around here and there checking the rushes looking over sets etc.The trial is expected to last about two months. At present, the parties are wrangling about jury selection.
BTW, the poster above may perhaps have been referring to separate charges that the prosecutor in LA presented a week or so ago. The current trial is in New York and deals with five alleged offences committed in NY.
Twitter had a go at Donna Rotunno's opening remarks for Weinstein, which asserted that me too has gone too far and now women won't have doors opened for them by men, etc. A high risk and possibly ill advised gambit, but Ms Rotunno did not deserve the torrent of (sometimes ironically sexist) abuse that was directed at her by Tweeters who do not understand the legal system and the role of a lawyer in that system.
BTW, the poster above may perhaps have been referring to separate charges that the prosecutor in LA presented a week or so ago. The current trial is in New York and deals with five alleged offences committed in NY.
Twitter had a go at Donna Rotunno's opening remarks for Weinstein, which asserted that me too has gone too far and now women won't have doors opened for them by men, etc. A high risk and possibly ill advised gambit, but Ms Rotunno did not deserve the torrent of (sometimes ironically sexist) abuse that was directed at her by Tweeters who do not understand the legal system and the role of a lawyer in that system.
I add that the defence team is making various applications to the Judge, in a bid to build the record for an appeal in the event of conviction.
Litigation is like warfare, chess, poker, and some types of competitive sport - you keep trying to force the other side to make decisions, with a view to one or more of those decisions being a bad one. In American criminal litigation, the defence tries to get not only the prosecution but also the Judge to make decisions, hoping that one or more of the Judge's decisions will be appealably wrong.
Litigation is like warfare, chess, poker, and some types of competitive sport - you keep trying to force the other side to make decisions, with a view to one or more of those decisions being a bad one. In American criminal litigation, the defence tries to get not only the prosecution but also the Judge to make decisions, hoping that one or more of the Judge's decisions will be appealably wrong.
Breadvan72 said:
The trial is expected to last about two months. At present, the parties are wrangling about jury selection.
BTW, the poster above may perhaps have been referring to separate charges that the prosecutor in LA presented a week or so ago. The current trial is in New York and deals with five alleged offences committed in NY.
Twitter had a go at Donna Rotunno's opening remarks for Weinstein, which asserted that me too has gone too far and now women won't have doors opened for them by men, etc. A high risk and possibly ill advised gambit, but Ms Rotunno did not deserve the torrent of (sometimes ironically sexist) abuse that was directed at her by Tweeters who do not understand the legal system and the role of a lawyer in that system.
Thank you for your concise answer.BTW, the poster above may perhaps have been referring to separate charges that the prosecutor in LA presented a week or so ago. The current trial is in New York and deals with five alleged offences committed in NY.
Twitter had a go at Donna Rotunno's opening remarks for Weinstein, which asserted that me too has gone too far and now women won't have doors opened for them by men, etc. A high risk and possibly ill advised gambit, but Ms Rotunno did not deserve the torrent of (sometimes ironically sexist) abuse that was directed at her by Tweeters who do not understand the legal system and the role of a lawyer in that system.
Out of curiosity I watched the series Bull and wonder how much of that is based on reality. I just assumed juries were selected in the UK based on not very much really. Just who was in for service that particular day and did they have any connection to the accused or circumstances surrounding the trial.
The Bull show suggests that jury selection is more intense and particular in the programme it seems to involve asking questions and determining the jurors personality and likelihood to convict/ not convict the defendant. If you have seen the show you will get what I mean
I thought it was just a plot device but there seems to be an industry in the states of Trial consulting services which this show is based on
Treat all legal dramas with some scepticism - they are dramas. Jury selection is a big deal in the US. It is not a very big deal in the UK - there are limited bases on which prosecution and defence may object to a juror.
In the US a cottage industry of jury analysis has sprung up. In big money trials, the defence team may even have a shadow jury paid to listen to the evidence and tell the lawyers what they think of it.
Also, sadly, in the US witnesses are often coached. In the UK witness coaching is illegal (this is not to say that it never happens). Witness familiarisation training is, however, a thing. This may involve a witness being given training on what to expect in court, and a practice cross examination by a lawyer not working on the case. The might be on a made up set of facts (this is not very effective in my view), or on the witnesses's CV, personal life, career etc. That is effective in my view because it is realistic. Being asked by a real trial lawyer about, for example, the three worst decisions you have made in your life is much better at familiarising you with what might happen in court than being asked about some road accident that never happened.
Re legal dramas: most UK based ones are mega rubbish and super unrealistic. "Defending the Guilty" is, however, quite excellent. It is hilarious, sweary, realistic, and is authentically barristery (exaggerated for comic effect). It is also quite important. "Creaky system!" See also The Secret Barrister's book of the same name, and his/her new book "Fake Law". Most people are unaware of the chaos and confusion that decades of neglect and underfunding have created in the CJS. The system is quite literally falling apart at the seams. I am glad that I do not work in it apart from occasional forays re POCA cases which are quasi-civil cases heard by criminal judges.
The prison system is knackered also. Overcrowding is common, many of the buildings are in bits, the staff are demoralised, there is little resource for rehab programmes to curb re-offending, and just this week a prisoner on remand awaiting trial was stabbed in the throat by another prisoner, and left in a segregation cell after surgery rather than being put in the prison hospital.
In the US a cottage industry of jury analysis has sprung up. In big money trials, the defence team may even have a shadow jury paid to listen to the evidence and tell the lawyers what they think of it.
Also, sadly, in the US witnesses are often coached. In the UK witness coaching is illegal (this is not to say that it never happens). Witness familiarisation training is, however, a thing. This may involve a witness being given training on what to expect in court, and a practice cross examination by a lawyer not working on the case. The might be on a made up set of facts (this is not very effective in my view), or on the witnesses's CV, personal life, career etc. That is effective in my view because it is realistic. Being asked by a real trial lawyer about, for example, the three worst decisions you have made in your life is much better at familiarising you with what might happen in court than being asked about some road accident that never happened.
Re legal dramas: most UK based ones are mega rubbish and super unrealistic. "Defending the Guilty" is, however, quite excellent. It is hilarious, sweary, realistic, and is authentically barristery (exaggerated for comic effect). It is also quite important. "Creaky system!" See also The Secret Barrister's book of the same name, and his/her new book "Fake Law". Most people are unaware of the chaos and confusion that decades of neglect and underfunding have created in the CJS. The system is quite literally falling apart at the seams. I am glad that I do not work in it apart from occasional forays re POCA cases which are quasi-civil cases heard by criminal judges.
The prison system is knackered also. Overcrowding is common, many of the buildings are in bits, the staff are demoralised, there is little resource for rehab programmes to curb re-offending, and just this week a prisoner on remand awaiting trial was stabbed in the throat by another prisoner, and left in a segregation cell after surgery rather than being put in the prison hospital.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 11th January 21:11
To be fair I am wary of most legal stuff. I love the shows but think "yea right"
I just found the Bull show quite likeable but was genuinely surprised such things existed.
I do recall a CPS programme about a year ago I think > about bringing cases to trial a bit like an after 24 hours in custody thing.
Anyway thanks very much its been very interesting. Have a cracking weekend
I won't ask you if you think Harveys walking frame is a ploy !
I just found the Bull show quite likeable but was genuinely surprised such things existed.
I do recall a CPS programme about a year ago I think > about bringing cases to trial a bit like an after 24 hours in custody thing.
Anyway thanks very much its been very interesting. Have a cracking weekend
I won't ask you if you think Harveys walking frame is a ploy !
Cheers. I am vegging out with jet lag and watching Zorba the Greek (a film I have failed to see before). I do not know if the walker is a ploy, but I am rather suspicious about it. I genuinely and strongly believe in the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, but can still think that Weinstein is a sleazebag.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff