Much like the time he got the list of all pedo friendly pals blocked from release by a court in that rich sex trafficker's trial, he is doing the same now in trying to block all names of the victims of the disgraced producer being released. Oh, sure they are framing it in a different way, but the fact is they don't want someone else to be able to access the names.
That DA- Cyrus Vance I think? Super tight with Weinstein and the Clintons (who we know are friends of Epstein).
ReplyDeletelol dam this could totally fuck hollywood up knowing which stars fuckvd weinstein.
ReplyDeleteIt's only a matter if time. The names were always going to come out. There's the women who didn't want to and paid a price -- and there's the women who in a second would put out to get ahead.
Delete✋ me
DeleteI Would put out to get ahead. Depending on how far ahead it would put me, yes indeed
Rosie riveter: Congrats! You're a big part of the problem. Now, go to counseling or church or whereever and find some self respect.
DeleteLet's be clear Unknown... I do not need you for a moral compass. this whole idea that every woman is a victim is getting old. Some of them had a dream and got ahead.
DeleteAnd everyone has a price ...EVERYONE, even sanctimonious you 🤗
Alan Dershowitz?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/alan-dershowitz-has-been-hired-by-harvey-weinsteins-lawyer-as-consultant-1108452
ReplyDeleteWhen your lawyer needs a lawyer, you know you did some terrible shit.
DeleteAnyway, who don't they want seeing the victim list? Ronan Farrow & the like?
It could be to appease some as yet unnamed and unknown-of Weinstein couch surfing actresses, who would otherwise be high profile voices actively trying to raise a new public outcry against Weinstein once exposed publicly themselves
DeleteIf there is a hell, Dersh should go there
ReplyDeleteWasn't dersh on the epstein plane? explains a lot.
ReplyDeletei cannot stand the clintons. they are a horrible, repulsive, disgusting family.
ReplyDelete+1000
Delete"Dershowitz provided legal assistance to millionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors." Definitely Dershowitz.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely Dershowitz. He just joined Legal Team Weinstein. And the bankruptcy sale of the company to Lantern was the worst deal for the victims EVER. And I completely blame NYS AG Eric Schneiderman for this. If it wasn't for his lawsuit, the group lead by Maria Contreras-Sweet was going to buy the company and set aside $75M for victims. Now that's gone and the victims will now be forced to fight for crumbs with the other unsecured creditors.
ReplyDeleteAre you anti-Semitic? Every person you named is Jewish.
DeleteLOL!
DeleteYes Dershowitz. He not only negotiated the Epstein plea agreement in Florida, the prosecutor he negotiated it with is now our Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta.
ReplyDeletePart of that plea agreement the gov't agreed to was to never prosecute Epstein's close associates for similar crimes. They include, of course, Dershowitz, Trump, Prince Andrew and Clinton. This is an outrageous thing for a prosecutor to agree to.
Read James Patterson's non-fiction book about the Epstein case, "Filthy Rich":
https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Powerful-Billionaire-Shocking/dp/0316274054/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Fascinting. In the most horrible way.
Delete*fascinating.
DeleteHuh, I didn't know Patterson had written a book detailing this sickening case and how it confirmed once and for all the complete corruption, and laughable disregard for "equal rights and protection for all" by the US justice system during the whole farcical affair. Huh, a whole bunch of lost respect regained for an author I'd consider least likely to ever write anything of true value again after he basically turned mainstream popular fiction novel writing into a "Lego meets Madlibs" assembly process
Delete@Manuel Bun
DeleteDying here! 😂😂👏 "Lego meets Madlibs" assembly line is so very accurate and hilarious. I read that above about Pattetson and thought to myself, dammit, do I have to read a Patterson book? Yes, I might have to. At least I can giggle about Lego merts Madlibs
apparently vanity fair was emailed the list before story broke.
ReplyDeleteThe fun part is all the ones on the list who don't come forward before the list is out, would be known whores, complicit in tradin beaver for work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoop will shit her 200 panties if her name is listed🤣
DeleteJeffrey Epstein pedo Black book. Trump and Clinton names are there. Lock them all.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat is up with James Patterson..? I know the Epstein deal was rotten, but I find it odd he's naming a Clinton in a negative light after previously writing "My Life" and also now co authoring a new book with Bill.
It makes me question his role in "exposing" things.
Can someone explain the benefit of releasing names of 'victims' of sexual assault that have not come forward? Are they not really 'victims'? How are they even on a 'list' in the first place? What is the benefit of the public knowing?
ReplyDeleteSeems rather sadistic to me. Maybe I missed something here.
@she. Not victims but people whose career exploded by getting down and dirty with Pigstein. Play for parts. Kind of like yatching for roles.
Delete@Sher
DeleteThe blind says the list contains names of victims. I think New York has rape shield law. The blind implies the attorneys are using rape shield as a means to keep the media from contacting the women.
This might blow up in their faces. If the media can't talk to them then Harvey can't ask fir mistrial or an appeal on the grounds of witness tampering or biased jury.
Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteDon't waste your $ on the Patterson book. There is no info in it you can't find elsewhere on the web. What a hack job--same with the Aaron Hernandez book he wrote
ReplyDelete@OB
DeleteOh thank goodness that you did the hard lifting. I really did NOT want to read anything by him.
@sd Auntie
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying! That makes more sense. But how would those names be on a list appropriate for court? If they didn't come forward, they should not be on any list.
It would be second hand gossip or conjecture. Even the public accusers aren't considered reliable/genuine in a court until there is reasonable evidence.
If someone famous did give good evidence of his abuse but wants it sealed, I'm on their side! They didn't have to say anything. Only the evidence matters. Victims aren't on trial here.
@Sher
DeleteThe victims ARE the evidence.
The names on the list ARE pertinent for court.
Those names on the list are not necessarily gossip, conjecture, etc. Attorneys on both sides need to interview them to determine this and to possibly have them testify at the upcoming grand jury trial.
Making the list available to the prosecution & the defense is part of the discovery process. It does not matter if the victims came forward on their own or if a witness or potential witness named the person. The prosecution & defense need to be able to interview/depose the person to see if they have info that is pertinent to the case. It is also possible some victims are deceased, in which case they may or may not decide to investigate further on the decedent's behalf.
A person can be forced to testify if they are considered a material witness.
Some jurisdictions have a rape shield law. Their identities are concealed, not their testimony. The way the blind is written, attorneys are using the rape shield law not to protect the victims but to keep the press from talking to them.
Right now NY state is allegedly in process of forming a grand jury. This tells me they have evidence to move forward with a trial.
Sometimes new evidence is uncovered during grand jury proceedings.
James Patterson is a "limited hangout." Some of the info in his book is interesting, but there is a lot of stuff left out. It also helps provide cover for Trump, claiming he threw Epstein out of MarALago. As far as I know, that't the only source for that claim.
ReplyDeleteIf they can get Ken Starr on the team too, it'll be just like old times.
ReplyDeleteIf the public really knew what goes on at the highest levels, the pitchforks would be out.
ReplyDeletePatterson is writing a book with Clinton... I thought that was really odd. Here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/President-Missing-Novel-James-Patterson/dp/0316412694/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525554107&sr=1-3&keywords=james+patterson+bill+clinton+book
@Bleu
ReplyDelete"It's only a matter if time. The names were always going to come out. There's the women who didn't want to and paid a price -- and there's the women who in a second would put out to get ahead."
No judge in their right mind is going to allow a list compiled of "these women slept with him for roles" if the women aren't making their own statement (affadavit). It's not only unethical and inadmissable, it's illegal!
@Sher
DeleteThe grand jury has not even begun.
The purpose of a grand jury is to examine the validity of an accusation before trial. Sometimes new evidence is discovered at this phase.
If the list pertains to women who put out for a role, they need to be questioned. Did they tell Weinstein they would do this for the role before he got a chance to make a pass? If so, this is not rape but meets both the dictionary and legal definition of prostitution. That does not mean they will be prosecuted for that crime, but Weinstein's defense can argue women knew how much power he had and that they willingly offered themselves to him so why would he rape anyone.
Did the women agree to sleep with Weinstein after he made a pass and if so were they told they would not have a job & they would be ruined if they did not submit? If so, that is rape. If Weinstein implied this then that is rape.
Were these women forcibly raped by Weinstein but chose not to fight rumors that they are willing to be couched?
That list matters and their testimony is needed.
If the list pertains to women who were raped or allegedly raped, both the prosecution and defense have a legal right to examine them.
The judge will allow the women who did not come forward to be interviewed/examined in court. That will be their chance to confirm or deny they were raped by Weinstein. An eyewitness with video or photographic evidence may have said Jane Doe was raped by Weinstein while Jane Doe will say she wasn't.
Both the prosecution and the defense have the right to examine the people on the list. Remember, we are at grand jury phase, not trial phase.
Weinstein's been in my town for months now. Everyday, I wonder why he is not overwhelmed by paparazzi. It's a 45 min flt from LA. I can't believe there's not 1 photog out there who isn't interested in hunting him. He wouldn't be hard to find. He's not even hiding. He lives in the beautiful condo building I have driven by for yrs and fantasized about living in. He goes to the same juice shop everyday for a green juice and vegan cookie. He's apparently looking healthy and fitter. And he just gets to hang out at tony restaurants and resorts (all while crying poor to the courts)and no one, save for that 1 guy who tapped him on the cheek at The Sanctuary, has bothered him. Would someone in the know from LA tell me why he isn't being stalked here? It's a 6 hr. drive from LA! When all that news broke last fall, I thought, There's nowhere on Earth where that guy will be able to hide....but apparently all he had to do was go to Scottsdale! Hahaha
ReplyDelete@Amy Hurley
DeleteAren't there rehab facilities & churches in Scottsdale that are really fronts for the elite to practice their perversions?
You can always drop a line(dime?) to TMZ and the district attorney's office in New York that is about to convene a grand jury.
@ T.W.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate the explanation. Frankly, I'm not following his prosecution. Interviewees isnt what the blind is implying here.
Of course there will be a list of potential people to be interviewed. His maid, nanny, driver, bulding security, etc... could be on that list along with many who had various roles in dealing with him. Male and female. Big deal. Those people existing is public knowledge.
That does not make it a "list of victims"- willing or otherwise.
If this is Weinsteins own personal list, I wouldn't put much stock in it being a truthful account. He is a smart sneaky bastard who can pick and choose the sex partners best suited to his defense, whether it's true or not.
We shall see!! I hope they keep everyone out of the public eye that want to be private.
@Sher
DeleteThe issue is whether or not the victim list should be made public if the grand jury decides there is enough evidence for a trial to take place.
There are valid legal and moral reasons for releasing the list or keeping the names secret. The blind is saying the defense wants to do what can be considered the right thing for the wrong reason.
The blind says the list of names are the names of the victims. We already know who some of them are. Even then, the prosecution may not call all the names because some of the women refuse to press charges and the prosecution has more than enough physical evidence, recordings, and eye witnesses and victims willing to testify. It is also possible the list is incomplete due to them not knowing about other victims.
Grand jury investigations are conducted by the prosecution. The defense cannot plead its case. There is no judge. The jurors are to decide whether there is enough evidence for a trial to take place.
Grand jury proceedings are private. Depending upon the jurisdiction, the transcripts could be made public only if the grand jury determines a trial can take place.
Watched it live, but there is a video where Dershowitz speaks on the topic in the blind at a pro-Israel event. He actually says people who accuse him of pedo sympathies are anti-semites against Israel. Seriously, deflect much!!! (Reminds one of when in the 80s and 90s someone immediately says they're not gay when its revealed they have Aids.)Please find the video it's galling.
ReplyDelete