MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Tried twice, found not guilty twice
Either he has good lawyers or he’s had his career ruined by spurious allegations
As a fan of his films im personally glad he’s been found innocent of any wrongdoings.
Some will argue that in cases like this the accused should also have their name protected, but then again Harvey Weinstein is the perfect counter argument to that one.
no easy answer here..
He’s got good Lawyers, and he has had his career ruined. Having good Lawyers only helped to prove his innocence, it didnt get him off the charge. Look at another case today, a bloke jailed for 20+ years for rape, yet he has been found not guilty today. His original Defence must have been bloody awful if his story , told on the radio today, was correct. He didnt fit the description, his DNA wasnt on the vistim, he was at another place etc.
no easy answer true.
And yes, I'm sure he had great lawyers. But as you say he has been found innocent twice. As a society I think unless we trust the system there's no prospect of a return from the slippery slope that ends in Trump.
So I hope he has an opportunity to rebuild his life, personal and professional. It'll never be what it once was.
Does this mean I can watch Usual Suspects again? Love that film!
American Beauty just became a little less weird too
He has had an awful of of allegations made, many of a similar nature, from lots of unconnected people.
He also appeared on flight logs of Jeffrey Eptseins private jet flying out to his island.
I think it is fair to assume he is a bit nasty, even if not (yet) proven in court.
Not read up massively, but wasn't Spacey more about offering gifts/money/etc for sex or whatever, then these allegations came around about crotch grabbing and so on, and all of those found not guilty due to lack of evidence or credibility?
This is literally the story of anyone with fame or fortune who acts inappropriately these days, a few spurious claims make the credible ones look less credible, but again, in this day and age with cameras and monitoring everywhere, you'd expect airtight evidence at least once, probably wouldn't mention him in the same breath as Weinstein, as he was found guilty without a shadow of a doubt over dozens of charges!
that is literally the definition of [i]un[/i]-fairness, surely 🤔I think it is fair to assume he is a bit nasty, even if not (yet) proven in court.
He also appeared on flight logs of Jeffrey Eptseins private jet flying out to his island.
I don't think young underaged girls/women are his thing.
Either he has good lawyers or he’s had his career ruined by spurious allegations
As a fan of his films im personally glad he’s been found innocent of any wrongdoings.
As a fan of justice truly being done, I hope they're just spurious allegations, as a cynic I'm aware he can afford excellent legal representation...
There has been a few others also recently that have made me doubt the justice system. Anyone who heard the recording of Mason Greenwood would be more than surprised that he got off.
Sexual assault is so incredibly hard to prove due to our archaic law which was designed to protect men way back when. There is also an incredibly high barrier to even getting to court - evidence must be good. Incidence of false allegations of sexual assault are so rare and even rarer they get to court
Add those things together and its easy to draw conclusions
@frank you might want to Google your namesake before throwing stones 🤔
Sexual assault is so incredibly hard to prove due to our archaic law which was designed to protect men way back when. There is also an incredibly high barrier to even getting to court – evidence must be good. Incidence of false allegations of sexual assault are so rare and even rarer they get to court
Add those things together and its easy to draw conclusions
And yet in the news today is the case of a man falsely convicted and imprisoned for 17 years for rape, because the jury was misled, there was no physical evidence against him and the police ignored compelling evidence that another was guilty. Evidence must be good?
17 years ago. A different time and place. Are you really attempting to say Spacey was fitted up by bent cops?
Also that was not a false allegation - it was a real rape just the wrong suspect fitted up
How often does that happen or false accusations compared to how often are rape cases dropped or found not guilty?
17 years ago. A different time and place.
No time at all
Are you really attempting to say Spacey was fitted up by bent cops?
No, I never even hinted at that ffs! I am merely raising an eyebrow at your assertion that 'evidence must be good'.
Also that was not a false allegation – it was a real rape just the wrong suspect fitted up
Come on TJ, you're putting words in my mouth, go back and read it again. I said 'false conviction', not 'false allegation'. Because of massive police incompetence, there are two victims, a seriously assaulted woman who was denied true justice and a innocent man who had his life destroyed by lazy, incompetent if not malicious policing.
How often does that happen or false accusations compared to how often are rape cases dropped or found not guilty?
Rape convictions are far too low. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you can't also object to a miscarriage of justice due to negligent policing. Does it?
Nuance missed blokeuptheroad
apologies
Incidence of false allegations of sexual assault are so rare and even rarer they get to court
Still, in these (few?) cases, should the accuser(s) be able to do so with full anonymity and without consequences? My feeling is that this is actually counter productive as it means juries are less likely to convict in genuine cases.
My ex girlfriends father worked in the TV and film industry and I remember him not having good word to say about Spacey and his general conduct way back in early 2000.
Bit of a wrong un amongst others words used to describe him.
The number of arrests after sexual offences is tiny. The number of prosecutions after arrests is small. The number of wrongful convictions is small. You would not believe how little time and money Legal Aid criminal defence lawyers are given to prepare for trial.
in this day and age with cameras and monitoring everywhere, you’d expect airtight evidence at least once,
I think it was in 1999 or so when I first heard the rumour that Spacey was regarded in London theatrical circles as being unsuitable to leave with young men.
It is remarkable that to get an article published (let alone charges) about Weinstein, Crispin Odey, Spacey, even Dan Wootton, you need a massive volume of forensic evidemce and witnesses. Meanwhile, people are convicted of much more on less up and down the country.
Being a wrong un in general and innocent of sexual assault in these cases are not mutually exclusive.
There has been a few others also recently that have made me doubt the justice system. Anyone who heard the recording of Mason Greenwood would be more than surprised that he got off.
Didn't his court case fall apart as his accuser withdrew her comments and was back with him and just given birth to their first child!
There's a scene from early doors where ken is reading out the quiz answers that his lawyers got taken out.
homophobia most likely. Probably wouldn’t have batted an eye if Spacey had been interested in (younger) women.My ex girlfriends father worked in the TV and film industry and I remember him not having good word to say about Spacey and his general conduct way back in early 2000.
Bit of a wrong un amongst others words used to describe him.
as you say he has been found innocent twice.
Was he found innocent, or was he found not-guilty? Those are not quite the same thing. Not-guilty just means that the prosecution didn't present convincing enough evidence, it doesn't mean that the allegations aren't true.
Being found not-guilty of criminal charges means you don't go to jail. It doesn't mean that people have to like you or that employers can't blacklist you for being a creepy ****.
I am sure he is sleaze but think most knew where it was going when they went back to his pad. Nothing illegal
Surely that depends on the legal system? For instance in Scotland you can return a verdict of 'not proven' as well as guilty and not guilty. None of those are 'innocent' but one is definitely more so than the others.
None of those are ‘innocent’
Exactly. I very much doubt that Kevin Spacey was found "innocent".
You're missing my point, you're equating 'not guilty' to 'not proven' and inferring guilt where there may be none.
That logic is how lynch mobs start, think on...
My ex girlfriends father worked in the TV and film industry and I remember him not having good word to say about Spacey and his general conduct way back in early 2000.
Well that proves absolutely nothing.
That logic is how lynch mobs start, think on…
FFS, Spacey has a long, long list of complaints about harassment by people who didn't know each other. In this case, he was found not guilty on criminal charges. That does not mean that he was found innocent. He's a very creepy guy and everyone in the business knows it, that's why he'll never work as an actor again.
Without good evidence (which is difficult to get in vast majority of cases) it is difficult to be absolutely sure that a person is guilty when it is basically their word against some one else's.
The number of unrelated charges should count for something but again it needs more than that.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal trial of murder. However, he was later found guilty in a civil trial because it was blindingly obvious to everyone that he was as guilty as hell. A not-guilty finding in court does not mean you can claim to be exonerated. (Donald Trump is another example.)
A similar thing has happened with Kevin Spacey. He was found not guilty in a criminal trial, but it's blindingly obvious that he is a very creepy guy who continually harasses people for sex. No, we can't send him to prison for that, but it's perfectly reasonable for potential employers to refuse to hire him because he is so obviously a serial sex pest.
He’s a very creepy guy and everyone in the business knows it, that’s why he’ll never work as an actor again.
I wouldn't place any bets on that. He made films in Europe last year, with the trial still hanging over him, and
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64301135
Louis CK admitted offences and still works and wins awards.
I think producers will be circumspect in hiring him, but he'll work his way back in. The barrier is whether other actors will withdraw rather than work with him on productions
Yeah, it's pretty clear he's a bad 'un regardless of the results of this and previous court cases.
I think producers will be circumspect in hiring him
Well, Jet Jandreau hasn't given up on him.
Surely that depends on the legal system? For instance in Scotland you can return a verdict of ‘not proven’ as well as guilty and not guilty. None of those are ‘innocent’ but one is definitely more so than the others.
both not proven and not guilty have exactly the same legal meaning in scotland. And since in most legal systems you enter the dock innocent until proven guilty a person found not guilty can reasonably say they are innocent. If, with all the resources of the state behind it, the prosecution couldn’t prove a case to the satisfaction of the jury then he not been proven guilty, and like the rest of us is regarded as innocent. I do wonder with “celebrity cases” if the prosecution are so scared of being accused of bias towards the famous person that sometimes they pursue cases which had the accused been less well known they would have dropped.
Money talks, same with that City/United player who has admitted he likes bedding many girls. Very difficult to prove these things.
He’s a very creepy guy and everyone in the business knows it, that’s why he’ll never work as an actor again.
Many people in the business seems to have “known” this long before the court cases - but still engaged him. Cynically, he’ll never work again because the public stigma means his movies would be avoided not because the “business” is keen to sort itself out and avoid exploitation by artists.
he was found not guilty on criminal charges. That does not mean that he was found innocent.
You know people are innocent until they're proven guilty, right?
You know people are innocent until they’re proven guilty, right?
A defendant is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's a legal concept, it doesn't mean they are actually innocent. Guilty people sometimes escape justice and are found not-guilty (OJ Simpson and Donald Trump, for example). The finding of not-guilty in itself doesn't mean that a person is innocent. Kevin Spacey had a decades long record of being a sex pest. He may be legally not guilty on these particular charges but I doubt that many people believe he's innocent of being a sexual predator.
You know people are innocent until they’re proven guilty, right?
Exactly this. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is embedded in the human rights act. It’s remarkable how many folks on here are up in arms about the Tory’s trying to erode basic human rights, yet seem to be happy to ignore one of its key pillars when it suits
innocent of being a sexual predator.
Although he has been found not guilty of any illegal behaviour, you still describe him as a sexual predator?
What's the definition of a "sexual predator" and when does their behaviour become illegal?
Cynically, he’ll never work again because the public stigma means his movies would be avoided
Really?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23952252/
I do find some of the comments here very concerning.
The man was found not guilty - to have any faith in a modern rule of law that has to conflate in your mind to innocent.
On my first post I said I hoped he could rebuild a life but it would not be the same life as before. I still hope for that. But it won't be the same life as basically the fact he's not too pleasant a person has been aired very much in public. But that's not the same as being found some weird legally 'not guilty but also not innocent' bullshit outcome some of you seem to wish for.
Remarkable the number of people on here who don't know the difference between "he shouldn't be sent to prison because the allegations haven't been proven to the criminal standard and he hasn't been duly convicted" and "he should be socially and professionally shunned as a sexual bully". Does Prince Andrew have a login here?
homophobia most likely. Probably wouldn’t have batted an eye if Spacey had been interested in (younger) women.
Would be a very weird form of homophobia for people in relatively gay-friendly showbiz to repeatedly pick on this one particular actor 15+ years for being gay, out of all the gay actors in the world. Plus, of course, there's all the remarkably consistent testimony of him being a terrible person - even if that behaviour wasn't proven to be criminal.
remarkably consistent testimony of him being a terrible person
Doesn't this apply to a lot of "superstars"? Their money, power and influence goes to their head and they behave in ridiculous self entitled ways?
Doesn't make them criminals.
Remarkable the number of people on here who don’t know the difference between “he shouldn’t be sent to prison because the allegations haven’t been proven to the criminal standard and he hasn’t been duly convicted” and “he should be socially and professionally shunned as a sexual bully”.
Exactly.
homophobia most likely.
The homophobia thing is Spacey's transparent attempt to deflect criticism of his behaviour. This didn't happen because of homophobia, it happened because he spend decades behaving like a ****.
But thols your point wasn’t that he is a nasty piece of work, it was that (and I quote)
The finding of not-guilty in itself doesn’t mean that a person is innocent
yet that’s the very foundation that our legal system is based upon. he is absolutely innocent (of the many crimes he was tried for). He may or not be a unpleasant individual but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to his innocence
it happened because he spend decades behaving like a ****.
Which is perfectly legal, plenty of people have been doing exactly that on this forum.
But once again, you've fallen straight into the tabloid 'where there's smoke' mentality despite having been found not guilty twice. Once I can kinda see but you would think the second case would be a bit more robust.
Whether he's an arsehole or not is neither here nor there, the law applies equally to everyone and if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt then that's that.
Which is perfectly legal,
The things he's accused of are not perfectly legal. He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person's word against another's. The idea that he was just a bit rude in dealing with people completely ignores the things he was accused of doing for decades.
The Trump rape trial is an excellent example of someone who is guilty as sin being found not guilty. That case failed to meet the legal definition of rape (it was legally sexual abuse, not rape,) but the accusations were completely consistent of the behaviour that Trump has boasted about. Trump then tried to twist his technical defense into an argument of innocence, which the judge in the case utterly rejected. He was found not guilty, but is very much not innocent.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-trial-columnist-carroll-4974ef026f3da61bc6f1b7ddda3ad10e
He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person’s word against another’s.
Elton John appeared as a witness for Spacey. He had been accused of assaulting someone at a party at Elton's house. Turns out he wasn't even there in the entire year that the alleged assault took place, let alone the specific date/ event in question. Unless Elton is lying, that seems pretty conclusive.
He may or not be a unpleasant individual but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to his innocence
You're aware of the #metoo movement? You understand how difficult it has been to get evidence against Harvey Weinstein? All of the women who came forward to give evidence, all that testimony? You know that he spoke to Hilary Clinton and asked for her help in shutting down Ronan Allen's reporting? Harvey was convicted of just 4 counts of rape and 1 count of sexual assault. That's it. All those women over countless decades...
These are men with huge influence and power and can afford the very best lawyers. I'm not surprised he walked away. To call him innocent stretches credulity
The things he’s accused of are not perfectly legal. He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person’s word against another’s.
Do you not see what a scary road you are travelling down here? You are basically saying that, regardless of the jury outcome in your mind he's not innocent of the charges of illegal activity (separate to being an unpleasant person - specifically the illegal elements) because he got as far as sitting in the dock. What would have to have happened in court for you to feel comfortable in your head that he needs to walk away considered an innocent (specifically innocent of the charges of illegal activity, not good) man?
You cite Trump, so I think it fair enough to spin that.........whilst obviously a totally different case Trump's continued insistence on having won the election despite legal process determining the opposite feels to me like it's in the same ballpark. A "yeah I know the verdict was not guilty but they are really difficult cases to make stick so I just know he's guilty as **** anyway" attitude is sniffing down the same rabbit hole.
So, should there be a sanction against those making allegations that are proven to be false in a court? Should these accusers benefit from anonymity once shown to have lied? I thought that was called perjury but maybe that needs a higher burden of proof.
(Note: I'm only considering where a third party has given evidence against them).
There has been a few others also recently that have made me doubt the justice system. Anyone who heard the recording of Mason Greenwood would be more than surprised that he got off.
A little different in that Greenwood never faced charges in court.
In my, perhaps naïve, view Greenwood's case is more troubling than Spacey's.
Do you not see what a scary road you are travelling down here?
I pointed out that he was found not guilty rather than being found innocent. That's not a scary road, it's a description of how the legal system works.
Like Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump, Spacey has numerous allegations against him spanning decades. The evidence isn't sufficient to put Spacey in prison, but I don't think many people believe he's the innocent victim in all this.
You understand how difficult it has been to get evidence against Harvey Weinstein?
Harvey Weinstein is serving life for crimes he was convicted of. I suspect there was plenty enough evidence
As convert points out, Sounds like you are saying that in cases of rape, which I acknowledge are hard to prove, no defendant can ever be ‘truely innocent’ ?
I pointed out that he was found not guilty rather than being found innocent. That’s not a scary road, it’s a description of how the legal system works.
No. Only in your head. You are just plain wrong here and need to appreciate it
One starts a trail as innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if the jury determines you not guilty your status remains unchanged - i.e. innocent. At no point is your status in a transition between the two. Its binary.
Tbh your twisting of that is a bit unpleasant.
Sounds like you are saying that in cases of rape, which I acknowledge are hard to prove, no defendant can ever be ‘truely innocent’ ?
Nobody's saying that. Don't make things up.
it’s a description of how the legal system works.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
So by being not found guilty, by default he must be presumed innocent. That’s how the legal system works..
Trump has never been charged with or prosecuted for rape or any other sexual offence. He has never been acquitted or convicted of any criminal offence.
Doesn’t this apply to a lot of “superstars”? Their money, power and influence goes to their head and they behave in ridiculous self entitled ways?
Doesn’t make them criminals.
Amazingly, there is a spectrum of entitled behaviour between "being a pain in the arse" (I want Bolivian sheep's milk in my latte, not Argentinian) to "being a sexual predator" (repeatedly propositioning and pressuring people to have sex with you when there is an age, wealth and power imbalance).
Trump has never been charged with or prosecuted for rape or any other sexual offence.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-trial-columnist-carroll-4974ef026f3da61bc6f1b7ddda3ad10e
Yes - that is a civil lawsuit. He was not prosecuted or charged with any sexual offence. He was not acquitted of rape.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered by the state to be innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to draw your own conclusion as an individual. Hitler and Bin Laden were never convicted of any offence. They're both guilty of murder.
He’s a very creepy guy and everyone in the business knows it, that’s why he’ll never work as an actor again.
Didnt stop Roman Polanski
Hitler and Bin Laden were never convicted of any offence
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face …
You’re entitled to draw your own conclusion as an individual
You are at liberty to think whatever you want however i suspect if you were so brave as to claim he was guilty from a platform anyone took any notice of, you may yourself find yourself in court for libel
i suspect if you were so brave as to claim he was guilty from a platform anyone took any notice of, you may yourself find yourself in court for libel
A libel suit would be in a civil court, which is a different matter to a criminal trial. Trump lost $5 million in a civil case against Jean Carrol, despite not having been convicted of a crime. Spacey's lawyers will be telling him to shut up and say nothing about the case. They absolutely will not want to start launching libel suits, keeping it in the news is the absolutely last thing Spacey wants.
The things he’s accused of are not perfectly legal.
I never said they were, I was saying behaving like a **** isn't a crime and should have absolutely NO bearing on a persons legal rights.
These are men with huge influence and power and can afford the very best lawyers. I’m not surprised he walked away. To call him innocent stretches credulity
@nickc I was talking with respect to his legal standing and nothing more.
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face …
They aren't given the presumption of innocence, so that argument works pretty well. Fred West was never convicted of murder but nobody seriously doubts that he was guilty.
Burden of proof in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities (greater than 50-50), not beyond reasonable doubt (greater than 90-10). Spacey has been found not guilty of any criminal activity at the latter higher burden of beyond reasonable doubt. That might mean he is wholly innocent, or it might mean that there was sufficient doubt in the minds of a jury of peers so as not to convict. I have no idea since I am not party to proceedings. Legally, it does not matter, he has been proven innocent of any criminal activity. Of course if there is a future civil damages case, that burden of proof is lower but that does not carry a legal conviction.
The BBC seemed to imply guilt on its initial webpage, Spacey centrepiece with a whole column of different people making separate allegations on the right hand side. The page soon disappeared and as Spacey said, 'those allegations were a stab in the back.' Wonder how those allegators feel now?
Wonder how those allegators feel now?
Assuming the allegations were factual, I imagine they are angry and disappointed at the verdict.
Wonder how those allegators feel now
I bet they're (croco)dialling their lawyers right now
Assuming is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. We know that at least one of them is a liar.
He is innocent of the charges, that's the end of that matter.
That's not to say that the behaviour wasn't inappropriate and unwelcome, but a jury has decided (after much deliberation, and I believe a partial decision rather than unanimous) that he didn't meet the threshold for being found guilty.
However, that doesn't make his past behaviour beyond reproach
An arbitrator in LA ordered Spacey to pay nearly $31 million to the makers of “House of Cards” for violating his contract by sexually harassing crew members.
So, both sides have valid points here. But the simple fact is that he is innocent of any crime.
If only Andrew Malkinson could have afforded snappy lawyers like Spacey.
Thought it distasteful that some of the jurors waited around in the lobby to meet Spacey afterwards.
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face
Yes, precisely. They were (and are) innocent in the eyes of the state. We all know they were guilty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a maxim of criminal law and speaks to whether the state can apply criminal sanctions in the absence of a conviction (it can't). It doesn't control what you are entitled to think about the person or whether the person bears moral guilt (more accruately - shame) for what they did.
The defamation point is a red herring. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with defamation law. This might seem like all the same thing to you. It's not.