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.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    So dna isn’t unique as well? And I mean, we haven’t boiled every drop of water on the planet, how can we know all water boils at 100c at sea level.

    There isn’t much things we know that was tested to such an extent.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You really do not understand how science works. You are arguing that the test for uniqueness is the same as the test for uniformity.

      If someone were to claim that every drop of water is unique, you would have a point. No one is claiming that. That is the claim about fingerprints and it is a claim which has never been tested to the satisfaction of anyone working in that field of science.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’m not saying it’s proven beyond a doubt, my point is that something that has turned out true the millions of times we have checked can’t possibly be a myth.

        You can say there’s a possibility of it being wrong but shouldn’t lump it in with antiquity gods just for the sake of your argument.

        There’s a whole range between fantasy and certain beyond a doubt, you should stop assuming I’m an idiot and ask yourself why you are so adamant about defending the extreme in such an abrasive manner.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          my point is that something that has turned out true the millions of times we have checked can’t possibly be a myth.

          Can’t possibly be a myth? So you know for a fact that, based on the supposed millions of times that we have checked (have we checked millions of times? do you know?) no two of the estimated 100 billion people that have lived over the course of the past 200,000 years had the same fingerprints, yes? And you can present empirical evidence to support that claim? Because I’m really not sure how you can claim that with any sort of certainty based on a sample size of what is likely less than 1% of that number over the course of less than two centuries.

          Otherwise, I think it could possibly be a myth.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I believe it’s probably true. I don’t believe it can be classified anywhere near the word myth since that implies it’s almost certainly false.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              People believe it’s “probably true” that the world was created in 7 days. And they have only a little less credible evidence at their disposal than you do.

              • Grimy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                In our current discussion, I’m assuming based on the millions of times it has been true while you are assuming and declaring as truth based on one mystical scenario that has never been found. For all your talk about science, I don’t think your reasoning is very thorough.

                The above scenario would only apply to me if said people had also found millions of world’s that were also created in seven days. It applies to you as is because your double finger print scenario is currently completely imaginary.

                I’m going to leave it at that but if one of us is a zealot running on blind faith, I don’t think it’s me.

                  • Grimy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    you are assuming and declaring as truth based on one mystical scenario that has never been found

                    That’s not how science works.