3 ms·
The one that really gets me is where vicious bastards pay off witnesses so they cannot legally testify against them. Is that situation being reported wrong? E.
by harry8 4y ago
The one that really gets me is where vicious bastards pay off witnesses so they cannot legally testify against them. Is that situation being reported wrong?
E.g. Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k. Surely in a criminal trial you can be called, take the oath and tell the truth? I don't want to follow anything in hollywood if I can avoid it so I don't care to know the details of weinstein and mcgowan at all. Just it was being reported like that and my jaw dropped. You can pay off witnesses so they can't testify now? Wow.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k McGowan was not able to testify because the particular offense against her was not charged and the judge didn’t allow testimony about prior acts before a certain date, not because of the settlement.
- harry8 4y agoSo that's not a thing? You can't accept a settlement that prevents you from giving evidence at a criminal trial?
- jdminhbg 4y agoA settlement where you can't testify at a trial is just witness tampering. It's not legal.
- dragonwriter 4y agoIf you could, members of criminal organizations would engage in sham civil suits against each other which they would then “settle” with no-testimony agreements.