Forum menu
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