- cross-posted to:
- moviesandtv@lemmy.film
- cross-posted to:
- moviesandtv@lemmy.film
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/1767005
Kevin Spacey wept and said he was humbled after being cleared of sexual assault in one of the UK’s most high-profile #MeToo trials.
…
The actor, who stood trial under his full name, Kevin Spacey Fowler, was found not guilty of nine sexual offences against four men in their 20s and 30s, between 2004 and 2013.
…
Spacey had previously denied 12 charges – seven sexual assaults, three indecent assaults, one count of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, and one count of causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent.
A further charge of indecent assault was added mid-trial, taking to 13 the total number of alleged offences listed on the indictment.
Last Wednesday, the four indecent assault charges were struck off by the judge because of a “legal technicality”.
The court heard that two of the complainants in the case were pursuing Spacey in the civil courts.
After getting off on a “technicality”?! Lol
“Technicalities” are largely when the prosecution has introduced a level of doubt into the case because they’ve not done a proper job constructing their arguments. If they can’t argue the case properly, it’s 100% correct that the person is found not guilty.
I just wish it was reported as “Prosecution found to have brought a case without evidence” or whatever it is in this case, rather the than “Man escapes justice” style of wording.
I was once told “we have a legal system, not a justice system”
Sometimes the law brings justice, others it just brings the law.
What “technicality” are you talking about? The jury listened to nine counts by four accusers and delivered a unanimous verdict. It wasn’t dismissed on a technicality, unless there is something I missed.
Exactly. I don’t know the details but, while he is innocent in the eyes of the law, it isn’t exactly the name-clearing win Spacey seems to think it is.
Isn’t it?
Seems like it is to me.
Well it sounds like this is going to the civil courts, so it all rolls on. If that goes nowhere then yes, he clears his name.
Wouldn’t they need to show damages in civil court?
That was my understanding but I’m not an expert. They might have a good case (don’t these tend to revolve around lost earnings?) or it could have been just said out of spite to rain on his parade or their lawyer reckons Spacey would settle (because what’s a few hundred k when you could be earning millions?). We’ll have to wait and see.
Loss of earnings or reputational damage I suppose, I think these might be quite hard to demonstrated but like you I’m not entirely sure.
We will have to see how it develops, I’ll be honest, it would be quite nice if one of my heros wasn’t actually a bloody sex pest for once.
> Loss of earnings or reputational damage I suppose, I think these might be quite hard to demonstrated but like you I’m not entirely sure.
Ironically, it’s Spacey who has lost earnings and reputation but that’s not how it works.
> I’ll be honest, it would be quite nice if one of my heros wasn’t actually a bloody sex pest for once.
That’d be great. It feels like so many people you read or watched from.the seventies to the nineties was up to no good.
I am in my 40’s so I don’t remember the 70’s, but 80’s and 90’s it really was a different time! I mean honestly so was the 2000’s, when I think of some of the TV that was made. Remember something about Mirriam?
What technicality? The stigmatism of just being accused should not be a reason to condemn someone for life.
No, because the jury rejected the claims.