The typo has now been corrected, but I honestly thought for a second that "juros" might be some new slang for "jurors." You know how there's all this cutesy millennial slang like "doggo" and "kiddo."
Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault retrial on a rape charge ended in a mistrial Thursday after the jury foreperson refused to return to the jury room because of threats from other jurors, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
From the Hollywood Reporter:
The jury foreperson had sent a note Wednesday afternoon asking to speak to the judge and then told the attorneys and Judge Curtis Farber: “I feel afraid inside there. I can’t be inside there.” He added that other jurors had been trying to get him to change his decision, and, when he had refused, had said “Oh we will see you outside,” and that he was concerned for his own safety....
On Monday morning, the foreperson had also asked to speak to the judge and said that jurors were considering elements from Weinstein’s past that weren’t being used as evidence in the trial and weren’t part of the charged crimes.
Another juror, who was juror No. 7 on this case and the youngest on the jury, had asked to address the court twice Friday, first saying he had heard jurors discussing another juror in the courtroom elevators, and then asking to be excused from the jury as he did not feel the process was “fair,” while staring at the defense table.
“If you’re a deliberating juror you have to be punched in the face in order for it to rise to the level of a real threat,” Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala said Thursday, while urging the judge to call for mistrial before the juror entered. “It’s insane in the membrane, insane on the brain.”
Arthur L. Aidala, one of the defense lawyers, described the juror, who works in information technology at a bank, as “meek.” Mr. Aidala called the man a “25-year-old kid who lives with his grandmother” and “a computer kid” and he argued that the man’s concerns should be examined further before being brushed aside....
Justice Farber appeared unmoved and denied the defense motion, noting that the man had never said any of the jurors were being threatened. The juror’s statements were vague, the judge said, adding that perhaps “his youth makes him uncomfortable to experiencing conflict.”
Maybe these young people today aren't up to debating about different opinions, but is the problem with this one juror who came forward to report his discomfort, or is it with the jurors who are, supposedly, doing the shunning? Maybe they don't want to hear what they don't agree with. What if the new generation is losing the capacity to serve on a jury?!
Donald Trump just now:
— Ammar Moussa (@ammarmufasa) October 18, 2024
"I was so amazed that Harvey Weinstein got schlongged, he got hit as hard as you can get hit. Because he was sort of king of the woke, right? And yet he got hit."
What? pic.twitter.com/GNb5m0dOcf
A good title. It's something I was trying to parse on my own yesterday.
The article is at The New Yorker, written by Ronan Farrow. Subheadline: "The legal issue behind Weinstein’s successful appeal is also at the heart of the former President’s hush-money case." The subheadline in my head was: Big man brought down by sex. Or should it be: Pile everything together and the monster will be visible?
Consider this: Farrow's book about Weinstein was called "Catch and Kill" (commission earned), and in Trump's trial, David Pecker has been testifying about the National Enquirer’s "catch and kill" scheme.
From a CBS News story about Trump's lawyer's cross-examination of Pecker:
Pecker said he first gave Trump a heads up about a story in 1998.... [Trump's lawyer Emil] Bove had Pecker walk through negative stories that he had killed about other figures, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.
The NYT reports. Free access link.
In a 4-3 decision, the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him.
Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein... had not received a fair trial....
Now it will be up to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg — already in the midst of a trial against former President Donald J. Trump — to decide whether to seek a retrial of Mr. Weinstein....
If he is not retried, he still faces a 16-year sentence in California, where he was convicted of rape.
Here's the opinion. Excerpt:
From the Rolling Stone article:Vincent Gallo is one of my best friends so I have to say something here. I know him to be brilliant, kind, insightful, and in the case of film making specifically, a truly professional and serious artist. Even if you read the description of these complaints, to me it is clear he… https://t.co/td4ZlTnXFz
— Seán Ono Lennon (@seanonolennon) January 12, 2024
"Often, you don’t have witnesses to a crime committed behind closed doors, and sometimes in the context of an intimate relationship. But what you may have are other victims, who can echo and corroborate a victim’s account of violence. This is critical because, even today, jurors come to court steeped in sexist biases — for example, that 'real' rape victims fight back physically against their attackers and report sex crimes immediately. These cultural prejudices cast doubt on the individual accuser. A group of accusers is harder to dismiss.... The central insight of the #MeToo movement has been described as 'the power of numbers across time' — in other words, the strength of a chain connecting one victim’s experience to another’s."
From "Weinstein’s Prosecutors Brought His Past Into the Courtroom. Good" by Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a former federal and state prosecutor in New York, and Jane Manning, director of the Women’s Equal Justice Project and former sex crimes prosecutor.(NYT).
This was the former Hollywood producer’s second criminal trial; he is currently serving a 23-year sentence in New York state prison, though he was granted an appeal earlier this year. The convictions were related to one victim. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on three other counts, and Weinstein was acquitted of a sexual battery allegation made by another woman....
Writes Dana Goodyear in "Harvey Weinstein, the Monster of #MeToo/If Weinstein is acquitted in L.A., it will be tempting to conclude that #MeToo is over. But, even if he is convicted, some may reach the same conclusion" (The New Yorker).
The jury has been deliberating for 3 days so far. Today is Day 4, so the prospect of acquittal is real.
"... to remove some of his scrotum. '... Because of an infection, his testicles were actually taken from his scrotum and put into his inner thighs,' the lead prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Paul Thompson, told the jury at the beginning of the trial.... In October, the jury was shown photos.... Now, as deliberations have begun, the verdict on three charges, all pertaining to Jane Doe #1, will largely rely on Weinstein’s genitalia.... During her testimony, Jane Doe #1... tearfully told the jury that Weinstein demanded she 'suck his balls'.... Rehashing the graphic details, she said, 'He forced me to do what he asked… I was crying, choking.' But during cross-examination, one of Weinstein’s attorneys, Alan Jackson, asked Jane Doe #1 how Weinstein’s 'balls were in your mouth,' if he does not have testicles. 'The reason that you changed your story is because you realized at some point that Mr. Weinstein does not have testicles in his scrotum'.... She... said she never changed her story...."
Sorry for the ugliness. It's an interesting evidence issue, and we've been following the dreadful story of Harvey Weinstein. His lawyers say the incident never happened, and the jury may find reasonable doubt.
From "Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wife breaks down describing Harvey Weinstein’s ‘fish-like’ penis in court" (NY Post).
"The New York decision had been hotly anticipated by the state’s legal community, particularly after oral arguments in December, when members of the five-judge panel that heard the case seemed skeptical of some decisions made by the trial judge. But the decision Thursday was unanimous — and clear.... Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers... argu[ed] that three women who had accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual assaults for which he was not charged should never have been allowed to testify and that prosecutors had 'tried Weinstein’s character not his conduct.' But Judge Mazzarelli said... that their accounts had been key in showing Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of behavior. They demonstrated, she said, that Mr. Weinstein did not see his victims as 'romantic partners or friends,' but that 'his goal at all times was to position the women in such a way that he could have sex with them, and that whether the women consented or not was irrelevant to him.'"
This is the intermediate appellate court, and Weinstein's lawyer indicates there will be an appeal to New York's highest court.
"... that’s kept Hollywood whispering for decades. Disney was allegedly forced to hire bodyguards to protect the cast and crew of 1991’s 'What About Bob?' after the actor hurled a glass ashtray at co-star Richard Dreyfuss and threatened to 'throw' the film’s female producer 'across a parking lot.'... Despite his enduring status as a beloved Hollywood bad boy, Murray has repeatedly been accused of violently clashing with co-stars — from alleged head-butting to 'inexcusable and unacceptable' language — on numerous sets stretching all the way back to the 1970s."
From "Sad tale of Bill Murray’s on-set violence surfaces amid ‘behavior’ investigation" (NY Post).
More stories here: "Bill Murray allegedly behaved inappropriately on his latest film. It’s not new territory" (L.A. Times).
I'm looking back at my old posts with the "Bill Murray" tag:
In 2015, people were talking about "Living a Bill Murray Life." Murray had composed 7 rules to help you live like him, which was presumably something quite a few of us thought of as a cool thing to do.
In 2016, I featured this Bill Murray quote: "What stops us from looking at ourselves and seeing ourselves is that we’re kind of ugly, if we really, if we look really hard. We’re not who we think we are. We’re not, uh we’re not as wonderful as we think we are."
In 2018, I quoted something Harvey Weinstein had said in 2014: "Being a Murray-ite is a religion, where you can behave as badly as you want to people, and they still love you. I used to feel guilty about behaving badly, and then I met Bill, and it feels so much better."
"Everyone saw an assault take place. Everyone in the room with their own eyes. And then if you would have tuned in 20 minutes later, you would have never known that happened."
Said the comic Nikki Glaser, quoted in "Howard Stern Lambastes Will Smith and Academy Inaction Over Chris Rock Oscars Slap/Comic Nikki Glaser called into the show and said she was also shocked, adding she was worried about what Smith's actions signal to others who don't like a joke at a club and attack a comic over it" (The Hollywood Reporter).
This is a big change from the usual post-Oscars complaint about the stars and all their activism. This time the complaint is about all their inactivism.
From "How Harvey Weinstein Survived His Midlife Crisis (For Now)," a 2004 article in New York Magazine. The "Michael" in question is Michael Eisner. If you care.
I'm seeing that quote because it is in the Oxford English Dictionary, the most recent example of the use of the word I looked up, "soulless." That is, most recent for meaning 2a: "Of a person: lacking spirit, sensitivity, or other qualities regarded as elevated or human; (now esp.) lacking in human warmth, feeling, or sympathy; cold, heartless."
I'm actually more interested in meaning 1, "Having no soul," because I was having a real-life conversation about the notion that some people don't have a soul, and whether, if that could be true, the soulless person could acquire a soul, and whether a person who regards another person as soulless has a moral or intellectual obligation to look inside himself and seriously examine whether he himself has got a soul.
I read the news today....
"Legendary Drummer Nick Barker Thinks Modern Death Metal Has Become Soulless "There's very little artistic merit these days'" (Metal Injection).
"Internet slams ‘idiot’ senator who tweeted graphics attacking infrastructure bill"
(Raw Story)("Each of you Republican Senators is just a soulless husk
void of a heart, morals, or any ideas of value-- mere grifters and
racists willing to say and do anything for money, the future be damned.
What a legacy").
"Justin Bieber Continues to Gush on the Soulless ‘Justice’" (The Emory Wheel).
"Godzilla vs Kong Review – Soulless CGI MonsterFest" (NerdFest).
"Safaree Samuels Explains How Social Media Creates Culture of Soulless Materialism and Vanity: ‘The Reality Is Nobody Shows the Struggle’" (Atlanta Black Star)("Social media got 22-year-olds wanting to off they selves cause they don’t make 6 figures and drive a 7 series. S–t is terrible. Got Women thinking if you can’t afford a Chanel bag, you doing bad in life and offer them nothing. Got dudes thinking a good 9-5 is slavery. Nobody likes their body, nobody like their home. Just a mass group of people wanting what others have. Or pretend to have").
***
If you want to share your comment, you can email it to me here.
Mga Post
