[quote="Puffer Fish”]You are trying to cloud the issue.
That is not directly relevant to the argument or point I am making.[/quote]
No, I am trying to make sense out of an argument that seems to make very little sense and is mainly based on negativity and disagreeableness, because you are pro-Weinstein and anti-women in this whole HW scandal.
If they make a wrong decision based on faulty logic (which you seem to support) in the first place, then it's very likely they could make that same wrong decision again, in a retrial, or appeal.
What you consider “faulty logic”, is the logic that has been in place for centuries. The earliest lawyers in Western society were Greek, if I’m not mistaken, and the US just adopted many of the Greek law customs and procedures and also some passed on from England. This logic is well established and no one has tried to overhaul it or overturn it in all this time.
The judge is only human but his/her rulings are based on evidence, prior rulings and through observation and examination of witnesses and the other actors appearing before the court. Here, actors are the players in the court proceedings – plaintiff or defendant. Once the highest court makes a ruling, no one can question it. HW can try appealing all he wants but if no judge wants to grant an appeal, then that’s it.
The point is the logic and reasoning they are using to decide if the man is guilty in a case like this.
That's what the argument is about.
It is useless to argue about the logic and reasoning when you do not want to understand the legal procedures in the US. It has been like this for centuries. No one will change the process just because of a rich white man who thinks he should be pronounced innocent and then be free to go back to his Hollywood whoring days.
I think you are side stepping the whole real issue. How will the court decide if she has a valid claim? That is the question.
They look at the facts in the case, the evidence in the case. The court considers that HW was an influential force in Hollywood. He commanded respect but also fear. They look at her interactions with him and if any of his staff can back up her statements because they were witnesses and they understood HW’s habits and routines. Anyone close to HW can be called as a “character witness”.
Emotion, or totally leaving it up entirely to an individual case by case basis, is not a good idea.
Emotion is not the main reason why HW has been declared guilty. It should be on a case by case basis, because each rape/abusive event is different. There were different circumstances and different dynamics between the persons involved.
I'm pointing out a problem here. You don't seem to want to look at that issue.
Your inability to consider anyone except HW is a problem. You have a clear bias towards his side. You DO NOT want to believe that anyone speaking against Weinstein could actually be telling the truth. What, so HW is perfect and can do no wrong? I find that unbelievable.