Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 3449 times)

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #250 on: December 07, 2017, 03:15:50 PM »
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #251 on: December 07, 2017, 03:53:38 PM »
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #252 on: December 07, 2017, 05:47:19 PM »
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?

How did you get the idea that the accused’ testimony is not equally valid evidence? This incredible idea you have that accusations are the ultimate proof is fatally flawed.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #253 on: December 07, 2017, 05:54:21 PM »
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.

Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Testimony from alleged victims carry weight, sure. From 40 year old memories? I think a reasonable lawyer could invalidate it - memories from 40 years ago are easy to poke holes in. Add in the clear political motivations involved in waiting for this precise moment, it’s not hard to invalidate the whole thing.

Look, Moore sounds like a creep, not denying that. I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.  I guess that makes me unique here. If insisting on due process is a bad thing, I don’t want to be good.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #254 on: December 07, 2017, 06:49:50 PM »
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates. 

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #255 on: December 08, 2017, 01:47:40 AM »
I'm still wondering whatever happened to the woman who said she was raped by Trump when she was only 13 years old. Is she okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-06.html#read_more

"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.

The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.

That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them. "

---------------------------------------------------------------

If the allegations about him sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl are true, then of course he shouldn't be in office, but if they are false then should he drop out anyway? By that standard Trump should have dropped out too since a woman accused him of full on raping her when she was only 13. Why did that story suddenly stop right after the election anyway? I'm sure it's just a coincidence but I don't want a man in office who is guilty of raping 13 year old girls so why hasn't the media gotten to the bottom of that?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #256 on: December 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM »
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.
I make the same argument about Infowars, Mother Jones, and Vox. As should you. Outlets with clear motives to engage in political activism are not the most reliable of sources of political analysis so some skepticism is warranted. That being said, believe whatever you want. Doesn’t make it true though.  ;)

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates.
I’d prefer voters not be told accusations are equivalent to ironclad proof and everyone realize that mob rule is a bad thing. You think that’s stupid? I’m pretty sure that if you look at the history of mob actions you won’t find the great results you think there are. As for your wager, let’s see your proof, what do you base that imagined position on? And note, I took the same position on Franken as I have on Moore in regards to due process so you’re behind the 8 ball already.  ;)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #257 on: December 08, 2017, 10:19:31 AM »
Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual - it was barely 19 years since Jerry Lee Lewis had married a 13 year old. Oh yeah, that's some creepy *censored*, no doubt about it and I'm not comfortable with it. But it wasn't criminal.

I was thinking about that and, actually, it happens in modem times as well. In 1993 at the age of 39, Jerry Seinfeld dated 17 year old high school senior Shoshanna Lonstein. People Magazine:
Quote
The story of Jerry and Shoshanna is probably best told in a People article titled “The Game of Love,” published in March of 1994, which is positioned from the perspective of the world having taught itself to accept their romance. “When Jerry Seinfeld fell for 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein, cynics snickered,” the subheadline reads. “No more.”
Jerry himself:
Quote
“I am not an idiot,” says the comic. “Shoshanna is a person, not an age. She is extremely bright. She’s funny, sharp, very alert. We just get along. You can hear the click.”
I don't recall anyone demanding Jerry's career be destroyed over this. It was a bit of tabloid fodder and that's about it.

More recently, in 2011 51 year old Doug Hutchison married Courtney Stodden - she was 16. Again, tabloid fodder and a few jokes but there was no howling mob demanding Hutchison be destroyed.

So after decades of this being nothing more than eyebrow raising and being nothing more than source for late night jokes as recently as 6 years ago, we're supposed be on board with the idea that Roy Moore doing it 40 years ago is a horror that must result in his political and personal destruction.

Why should anyone buy this as being a horror now? Sure, it has elements of perv to it, no doubt. But it's not illegal and, in fact, not at all unique either.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #258 on: December 08, 2017, 10:45:34 AM »
"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

So I was beat to the Seinfeld reference  ;D

However, signed "in two different inks", signed unusually, and refusing to allow examination of it? And nobody is supposed to question this? Seriously? I don't know, maybe it is his signature but from what we know now there's absolutely no reason to accept it at face value and the Moore team have a reasonable demand it be checked out. So why stonewalling?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #259 on: December 08, 2017, 11:33:08 AM »
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #260 on: December 08, 2017, 11:58:25 AM »
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?
Catching a bad impersonator is not exactly proof of anything.

Now, google up Beverly Nelson and take a look at breaking news, literally minutes before this post! She is now admitting she altered the yearbook. 
Quote
One of the women who accused Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore of making advances on her when she was a teen and he a local prosecutor admitted Friday to forging part of the yearbook inscription she offered as proof.

Beverly Young Nelson told ABC News she wrote part of the disputed note in her high school yearbook that she and famed attorney Gloria Allred presented as proof the then-30-something Moore sought an inappropriate relationship with her in the late 1970s. Nelson still insisted that Moore wrote most of the message and signed the inscription, but said she made “notes” to it.

How confident are we in Nelson now?

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #261 on: December 08, 2017, 01:26:48 PM »
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #262 on: December 08, 2017, 01:54:30 PM »
Up until a few minutes ago, the claim was Moore wrote the whole thing. So you’re saying, “sure, she lied about that but the rest is 100% accurate!”. Pretty weak.  It very well may be what you say, but with Nelson having misrepresented at least part of it, shouldn’t she now comply with Moore’s request to allow the rest of it be validated? Havng been caught in a deception, the burden if proof is now fully on Nelson and Allred. They need to come clean.

By the way, why admit this now? Nelson knew she was deceiving peole all along, why admit her deception today?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #263 on: Today at 12:27:05 PM »
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

I’ve just seen a close up of this and you’re missing a significant part. The inscription is in black ink. The date and location is in blue ink and Nelson admitted she added that. You know what else is in that blue ink? The “Moore DA”. So someone named Roy did sign Nelson’s yearbook. However, Nelson added the surname Moore to it along with the “DA” (which is higly suspect and likely copied from the court documents she had). That is, in fact, forgery.  Did Roy Moore write this or did some other Roy?

Having clearly embellished this, are there other facets of Nelson’s story she embellished? It’s really hard to trust Nelson at this point.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #264 on: Today at 04:56:35 PM »
They aren't "different colored inks".  There is a photo that has really inconsistent lighting that the ink color looks different across the page, that is an illusion not actual color differences.  Shots with good lighting show the same color of ink for everything.

A hand writing expert has concluded that it is his signature.

Quote
A handwriting expert has concluded that the signature in then-16-year-old Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook was, in fact, Roy Moore’s, attorney Gloria Allred said at a Friday press conference.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-signature-yearbook-handwriting-expert_us_5a2aeb19e4b0a290f0507d2b

You probably aren't aware that signature analysis it is quite easy to spot a traced or forged signature due to forgers have entirely wrong pressure points in the signature.  Even with photocopies it is almost impossible to fool experts.  For instance here is the result of an experiment with photocopies of forgeries, and 69 out of 72 experts were able to catch all of the forgeries.

Quote
Lindblom and Gregory Dawson of the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto sent photocopies of signatures—both genuine and forged—to 72 document examiners in Canada, the US, Australia and Britain. Each examiner looked for characteristics such as pen lifts, hesitation and tremor, without knowing whether or not the signature was genuine. All but three of the examiners accurately identified these and produced a list of suspect features that was almost the same as that produced by Lindblom and Dawson from the originals.

Lindblom says these results, reported in Science & Justice (vol 38, p 189), suggest that photocopies can provide stronger evidence than courts have assumed. “We have probably been too conservative,” he says. “In many instances, we can give as strong opinions as with the original.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921464-100-copies-of-forged-signatures-dont-fool-experts/

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #265 on: Today at 06:20:12 PM »
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person. We now know that expert was very wrong - or maybe Nelson wrote the whole thing. Nelson and Alredd still refuse to allow anyone else to examine it. There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not? Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

Accusations require proof. That proof should  be available for examination. I know I’m essentially alone here in that idea but, nevertheless, it’s a reasonable and intelligent standard. Only the intellectually dishonest insist otherwise.