Times of India article on Harvey Weinstein's arrest on rape and sex crime charges in New York city
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news/harvey-weinstein-charged-with-rape-sex-crimes-involving-two-women/articleshow/64321255.cms
It quotes the NYPD (New York Police Department) that Weinstein was "arrested, processed and charged with rape, criminal sex act, sex abuse and sexual misconduct for incidents involving two separate women." ... "The NYPD thanks these brave survivors for their courage to come forward and seek justice".
One of his alleged victims, Rose MacGowan said, "I have to admit I didn't think I would see the day that he would have handcuffs on him" ... "I have a visceral need for him to have handcuffs on."
The investigation has been done by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the police.
Hats off to the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the New York police department for upholding the awesome principle of 'Equal justice for all' in the USA by charging Weinstein for these crimes. Note that Weinstein has not been judged guilty so far. If he is declared 'NOT GUILTY' by the court, say due to lack of evidence, then he will not be a convicted rapist. It will be up to individuals to assess whether they believe the multiple rape allegations against him or not. But legally the guy would not be a rapist, no matter how many people have made the heinous allegation against him.
Yesterday night I was reading the part of (former FBI Director) James Comey's recent and famous book covering why he decided to prosecute Martha Stewart, as U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York, which I think is the same as what is referred to as Manhattan District Attorney above. Here's the wiki section related to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_case_and_conviction. Comey's account was that had she acknowledged to the federal investigators and the police, her mistakes of indulging in insider trading, she would have only got a stern warning and a fine which would have been small change for the very wealthy woman that Martha Stewart was. But Martha Stewart, according to Comey, lied to the investigators and tried to cover-up her financial insider-trading crime.
Martha Stewart had a lot of fan following and the crime was a financial crime (involving around 50,000 dollars worth of insider trading). From what I recall of my reading yesterday night, there were a lot of people who did not want Stewart to get prosecuted for this. Comey had to decide. Comey recalled that he had once successfully prosecuted an Assistant Pastor (and got him jailed for a short term) as the Assistant Pastor covered up for financial crimes of his boss, a Pastor and Mayor of a city, and lied to federal investigators even though the investigators advised him to plead guilty (which may have saved him from jail time). Comey then felt that when he had prosecuted this Assistant Pastor (surely somebody who would not be anywhere close to having the wealth that Martha Stewart had), how could he NOT do the same for Martha Stewart. [Ravi: That seems to me to be the crux of the 'equal justice for all' principle.] So he took the unpopular in some circles decision to prosecute Martha Stewart, and despite her having hired some top lawyers, the DA and police were able to win the case. From the above wiki page, "After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of electronic monitoring)."
Ravi: I think James Comey's decision was the right one to prosecute wealthy Martha Stewart for refusing to acknowledge her guilt to federal investigators and trying to do a cover-up job by lying to federal investigators.
In this Harvey Weinstein case, the allegations are of a heinous crime of rape. So it is a much more serious matter. The DA and police had to do their duty of prosecuting him as he seems to have not pleaded guilty. Weinstein should be allowed to present his side of the case in court. It is up to the DA and police to prove the allegations of rape (very difficult for old incidents perhaps due to lack of evidence). Congratulations to the DA of Manhattan and the police for starting the criminal case against the wealthy Harvey Weinstein.
[I thank indiatimes.com and wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above short extracts from their websites (quotes of police and victims from indiatimes.com) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
It quotes the NYPD (New York Police Department) that Weinstein was "arrested, processed and charged with rape, criminal sex act, sex abuse and sexual misconduct for incidents involving two separate women." ... "The NYPD thanks these brave survivors for their courage to come forward and seek justice".
One of his alleged victims, Rose MacGowan said, "I have to admit I didn't think I would see the day that he would have handcuffs on him" ... "I have a visceral need for him to have handcuffs on."
The investigation has been done by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the police.
Hats off to the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the New York police department for upholding the awesome principle of 'Equal justice for all' in the USA by charging Weinstein for these crimes. Note that Weinstein has not been judged guilty so far. If he is declared 'NOT GUILTY' by the court, say due to lack of evidence, then he will not be a convicted rapist. It will be up to individuals to assess whether they believe the multiple rape allegations against him or not. But legally the guy would not be a rapist, no matter how many people have made the heinous allegation against him.
Yesterday night I was reading the part of (former FBI Director) James Comey's recent and famous book covering why he decided to prosecute Martha Stewart, as U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York, which I think is the same as what is referred to as Manhattan District Attorney above. Here's the wiki section related to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_case_and_conviction. Comey's account was that had she acknowledged to the federal investigators and the police, her mistakes of indulging in insider trading, she would have only got a stern warning and a fine which would have been small change for the very wealthy woman that Martha Stewart was. But Martha Stewart, according to Comey, lied to the investigators and tried to cover-up her financial insider-trading crime.
Martha Stewart had a lot of fan following and the crime was a financial crime (involving around 50,000 dollars worth of insider trading). From what I recall of my reading yesterday night, there were a lot of people who did not want Stewart to get prosecuted for this. Comey had to decide. Comey recalled that he had once successfully prosecuted an Assistant Pastor (and got him jailed for a short term) as the Assistant Pastor covered up for financial crimes of his boss, a Pastor and Mayor of a city, and lied to federal investigators even though the investigators advised him to plead guilty (which may have saved him from jail time). Comey then felt that when he had prosecuted this Assistant Pastor (surely somebody who would not be anywhere close to having the wealth that Martha Stewart had), how could he NOT do the same for Martha Stewart. [Ravi: That seems to me to be the crux of the 'equal justice for all' principle.] So he took the unpopular in some circles decision to prosecute Martha Stewart, and despite her having hired some top lawyers, the DA and police were able to win the case. From the above wiki page, "After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of electronic monitoring)."
Ravi: I think James Comey's decision was the right one to prosecute wealthy Martha Stewart for refusing to acknowledge her guilt to federal investigators and trying to do a cover-up job by lying to federal investigators.
In this Harvey Weinstein case, the allegations are of a heinous crime of rape. So it is a much more serious matter. The DA and police had to do their duty of prosecuting him as he seems to have not pleaded guilty. Weinstein should be allowed to present his side of the case in court. It is up to the DA and police to prove the allegations of rape (very difficult for old incidents perhaps due to lack of evidence). Congratulations to the DA of Manhattan and the police for starting the criminal case against the wealthy Harvey Weinstein.
[I thank indiatimes.com and wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above short extracts from their websites (quotes of police and victims from indiatimes.com) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment