Following a nearly two-month trial, Weinstein was convicted last month of raping an Italian model and actor after he barged into her hotel room.”
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in. That means according to her story, she opened the door for him.
‘I did not rape this woman. I did not see this woman. I wasn’t at the hotel,” Weinstein said.’”
He claimed his accuser, as a former actor, knew how to “turn the tears on” and said the woman’s allegation was the result of a “cottage industry” of lawyers who have made careers out of suing him. Jane Doe 1 filed a civil suit against Weinstein shortly after he was convicted.”
The evidentiary standard for criminal convictions is beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the judge has to be about 99-100% sure that the defendant is guilty. He-said-she-said doesn’t meet this standard. There simply isn’t enough evidence for a conviction. Even with the conviction overturned on appeal, in the meantime if Weinstein was sued in civil court, it would be difficult to recoup the award because civil suits have the much lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of evidence. That means the judge only has to be 51% convinced of guilt.
You might not understand the trap they set. By sacrificing someone we don’t like such as Weinstein, they’ve paved the way to go after good guys such as Trump, Assange, Kavanaugh, etc
Sorry but I agree. He is a scumbag Hollywood Jew, and in fact I do believe he is a rapist. But the trial was obviously a sham. They are not mutually exclusive circumstances.
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in.
You realize you're basing this whole thing on how a reporter wrote a sentence. Not about the trial but about a remembrance of the trial.
You're substituting your reading of this sentence and saying that over ways what the jurors saw when they heard the witness testify and heard the witness cross-examine and heard Weinstein's evidence.
You realize you could have just checked this fact right???
Because what happened and what barged in means here was that Weinstein was not invited and demanded to be let in and she did let him in. There's a lot of reporting on the trial. You can read about her testimony. You could read what she actually said
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in. That means according to her story, she opened the door for him.
The evidentiary standard for criminal convictions is beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the judge has to be about 99-100% sure that the defendant is guilty. He-said-she-said doesn’t meet this standard. There simply isn’t enough evidence for a conviction. Even with the conviction overturned on appeal, in the meantime if Weinstein was sued in civil court, it would be difficult to recoup the award because civil suits have the much lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of evidence. That means the judge only has to be 51% convinced of guilt.
You defending Harvey Weinstein?
Who was convicted of rape by jury?
You might not understand the trap they set. By sacrificing someone we don’t like such as Weinstein, they’ve paved the way to go after good guys such as Trump, Assange, Kavanaugh, etc
Sorry but I agree. He is a scumbag Hollywood Jew, and in fact I do believe he is a rapist. But the trial was obviously a sham. They are not mutually exclusive circumstances.
You realize you're basing this whole thing on how a reporter wrote a sentence. Not about the trial but about a remembrance of the trial.
You're substituting your reading of this sentence and saying that over ways what the jurors saw when they heard the witness testify and heard the witness cross-examine and heard Weinstein's evidence.
You realize you could have just checked this fact right???
Because what happened and what barged in means here was that Weinstein was not invited and demanded to be let in and she did let him in. There's a lot of reporting on the trial. You can read about her testimony. You could read what she actually said