this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
362 points (98.4% liked)

News

23014 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The women who came forward against Harvey Weinstein reacted with fury after the disgraced media mogul’s rape and sexual assault convictions were overturned by a New York appeals court on Thursday.

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty in 2020 of raping and assaulting two women, and is serving his 23-year sentence at a prison in upstate New York.

In a 4-3 decision on Thursday, New York’s highest court ruled the original judge made “egregious errors” in the trial by allowing prosecutors to call witnesses whose allegations were not related to the charges at hand.

Weinstein was once one of Hollywood’s most well-connected and powerful producers who made a series of Oscar-winning films. But behind the glamourous facade, it was a different story. More than 80 women have accused him of abuse ranging from groping to rape. Even with his conviction overturned in New York, he remains convicted of rape in California.

The Weinstein revelations launched the #MeToo movement in 2017, which saw women from all corners of society come forward to talk about their experiences of sexual harassment and assault.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 105 points 6 months ago (5 children)

It must be amazing to have that much money and influence.

Coincidentally the podcast I'm listening to as I type this is talking about a man sitting on death row who was convicted solely on the testimony of one "bite mark analyst" who was later shown to be an absolute fraud in a field that is already highly dubious at best. The appeals court in his case feels that just because the "expert" was wrong in all his other cases doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong in his. So that's cool.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Charles McCrory is spending his 38th year behind bars, convicted of killing his wife. The bite mark expert in his case recanted his testimony, saying he now knows he cannot say whether a bite mark on the victim matched McCrory’s teeth. Yet the Alabama courts have declined to free McCrory.

Alabama’s Court of Criminal Appeals ruled earlier this year that the jury was capable of deciding on its own whether the bite marks matched, a finding that ignores science suggesting such perceived visual matches cannot be valid. The court also cited other evidence in the case, including a witness who said he saw McCrory’s truck at the house during the time of the murder. No physical or forensic evidence links him to the crime.

Three years ago, after the bite mark evidence in his case collapsed, McCrory was offered a deal: Plead guilty and walk free. He refused.

“I refused to take it because I didn’t kill her,” McCrory told NBC News from his prison facility. “I did not kill my wife.”

The Innocence Project is now pursuing appeals through the federal courts.

“Prison is hard — a lot of the stories that you see on the news about prisons, particularly Alabama prisons, are true,” McCrory said. “It is a nasty place, and it’s not a place I would wish on anyone.”

“I don’t give up hope,” he said. “And certainly there’s days of disappointment and days when you’re down and out … but I just believe that somewhere there’s a truth in this that will come out, and you can’t give up. That’s just not an option.”

https://news.yahoo.com/bite-mark-analysis-no-basis-204726311.html

That’s disgusting that the courts just can’t admit when they are wrong. Even after the testimony fell through, they still wanted to get a guilty plea out of the guy. I’m not surprised this is in the south. smh

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Three years ago, after the bite mark evidence in his case collapsed, McCrory was offered a deal: Plead guilty and walk free. He refused.

That, right there, is the most disgusting part of the American ~~justice~~ legal system: nobody from the judge on down to the beat cop gives the slightest flying fuck about catching the correct perp; they only care about securing convictions so their records look good. They wanted him to absolve them of having fucked up and imprisoned the wrong person, and his continued imprisonment is nothing but an attempt to force that absolution from him.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not just the court. The prosecutor's office as well. Their position is "we are ok with letting you go; as long as we can do it without admitting that we made a mistake".

And this is an institutional problem. The conviction happened 38 years ago. Everyone involved in prosecuting the case is gone. The office of the prosecutor is simply unable to admit that the office made a mistake.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Of course, how could the public ever trust them again if they made mistakes? /s

We live in such a bizzare time where facts won't meet up with other facts. Where science rules our daily lives but is distrusted on every level. Where we keep making the same mistakes because some one 100 years ago didn't really care.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago (44 children)

in a field that is already highly dubious at best

A huge amount of so-called forensic "science" is dubious. Blood splatter analysis, bite mark analysis, voice print analysis, handwriting analysis, all bullshit. Even more 'respected' forms of forensic analysis are not slam-dunks like people, including people on juries, are convinced they are. Fingerprints can be misidentified, especially if it's a partial print (and it's a myth that no two are alike anyway). DNA samples can be tainted.

Basically, the entire field of forensics is built on a lot of very shaky ground and, unfortunately, has resulted in a lot of wrongful convictions. It needs to be overhauled by actual scientists.

load more comments (44 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

I hope you read Radley Balko. He has done so much to expose the fraud of things like bite marks and other shit done by MEs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

This is why conservatives (or anyone else opposed to science and education) should not be allowed to work in criminal justice or law enforcement.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I had read at the time that it was considered pretty questionable and people weren't sure it would stand up to appeal. You get accused of a crime, and there isn't much evidence that you did it, but in the trial a bunch of people say that you did the same thing to them, but also without evidence and they didn't report the crime.

The guy is obviously guilty and has gotten away with it because he was rich and powerful, but I can see how the scenario could be abused to convict someone who's Innocent.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just chiming in to say I appreciate seeing these reasonable takes

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Love some nuance.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 months ago (3 children)

"Yeah sorry, there were so many victims, even ones that didn't file, that we considered it character assassination"

So I guess the lesson to take away is that, if you want to be a prolific rapist, you better make as many victims as possible, apparently that serves to lower the bar for dismissal.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think you're missing the important part: be extremely wealthy.

[–] UFODivebomb 6 points 6 months ago

"Commit so many crimes that the trials for your crimes interfere with the other trials for your crimes. "

  • Trump... Probably
[–] sukhmel 23 points 6 months ago

Just like with stealing money: you steal a grand and it's jail time, you steal a million and you're a respected person

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Or, the lesson is: if you want to prosecute a rapist, don't bring up rapes other than the one you are prosecuting.

The defense brought this up at trial not because Weinstein had expensive lawyers, but because any competent defense attorney would. At that point, the judge decided the defense was wrong, and the prosecution decided to take the risk that the defense was right. That risk backfired. Now, every Judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney in the juristiction is on notice about how to correctly apply prior bad acts rules to sexual assult cases, so they should be able to avoid making this mistake again.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Noun as someone verbs as someone else verbs

What a terrible headline

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Victims furious after Weinstein rape conviction overturned. Bragg committed to retrying case"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sukhmel 3 points 6 months ago

It barely makes sense even on the third attempt to read it 🤣

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Shit like this is the most commonly cited reason as to why women don't report rape.

The legal system indirectly favours rapists and supports rape, yes, supports rape, with its forest of hoops one must jump through, the male-dominated inquisitions with their nasty, vulgar, insulting weasel-word questions which insinuate and imply and which would never be asked of any man for any reason. It's such a degrading experience that some women report it as worse than the rape.

edit: there are way too many retards. Calm down, you too can know things if only you bother to try

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is what made the MeToo movement powerful. You need the high number of women coming forward to strengthen each other. It's a shame it kind of fizzled out but this is proof how deep systematic oppression runs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›