Kevin Spacey

[Gotmygladragson]

Just saw the not guilty verdict. I haven’t been following it closely but from the bits I have seen, I’m surprised. Was this what was expected?

You mean the guy who gets his dick out to harrass female colleagues? Well yes I think he should have lost his job a long time ago 🤷‍♀️

I hope so too.

@GatoradeMeBitch obviously I only know what is reported in the media but Kevin Spacey was never accused of “having sex” with a 14 year old. What I have read is that the 14 year old in question said KS flirted and started kissing him but stopped when asked to.
This happened when KS was in his 20s so not exactly a creepy older man. The 14 year old was at a party hosted by KS so you can understand why he was assumed the 14 year old was older.

An inherent bias towards what exactly?

That's exactly what the barristers are there for! To use their rhetoric to present their client's side of the story in the most favorable way.

I'm hoping your comment was supposed to be sarcastic.

I think @VeniVidiWeeWee thinks jurors (and presumably the judge!) ignore the prosecution barrister, ignore the defence barrister - and pluck the truth out of thin air!

You either have faith in the criminal justice system or you don’t.

the people in court who heard all the evidence and made the ‘not guilty’ decision are the only ones who can speak authoritatively on this - the rest of it is idle speculation.

i do think there has been a certain amount of ‘trial by social media’ and people online wanting KS to be found guilty - so now the verdict has gone the other way people are being sceptical. Had a guilty verdict been reached I doubt we would have had so many posts saying ‘well I’m sure it’s not true’. People are biased and think there’s no smoke without fire.

The tone of this thread is pretty disgusting in itself.

Either people saying the criminal justice system doesn't work.
Or I knew someone who vaguely knew someone who KS looked at in a creepy way so he's guilty!

It's done. It's been to court. Let the guy get back on with his life!

Tbh I felt a bit uncomfortable after the verdict when the jurors were shown on live TV hugging Kevin Spacey. (It was by the doors so the TV cameras caught it, along with newspapers like the Guardian.)

It did come across a bit like some of the jurors were fawning over the big Hollywood star, and it could be argued that it wasn’t appropriate in an English court building.

That’s why some people are wondering if a juror or two (or few) were possibly a tad over-awed at any point by being in the considerable presence of Kevin Spacey and his formidable legal team.

MN is the worst for trial by social media as there are so many that think they are experts on here - at everything

@AutumnCrow they would have been very careful over who was actually picked for the Jury. You don’t literally get 12 people and that’s that. More people are called up and if someone really would be inappropriate for a case they would be dismissed.

Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the courts? and just lock people up because 'well my BFF saw one of his ex-friends post a tik tok video of a leg in a photo that was taken 20 years ago at a party, see I told you he was sleazy" I do wonder about the IQ level of society somedays

Yes I agree - hence my slightly raised eyebrows at the scenes at the end. They seemed incongruous.

It was a coincidence that I caught the live footage of the Spacey stuff. I was watching BBC 24 Live waiting for the Andy Malkinson appeal verdict. Now that’s what I call a miscarriage of justice.

It was a coincidence that I caught the live footage of the Spacey stuff.

Just letting us know there, are you.

This.

Yes, you do pretty much get 12 jurors and that's that. This trial tool place in London - it's not like an American trial where the legal teams can interview and reject jurors like in the OJ Simpson case!

The way jury service works in this country is that jurors on jury service are called at random to a trial that is starting that day. They are shown the defendant and given the names of key witnesses too. They are asked whether they know any of those people. If they do, then they cannot take part. If they don't, they immediately sit down and are sworn in.

The legal teams on either side have absolutely no control over this. There is no opportunity for them to say they don't like a particular juror. It all happens very fast and at random. Rightly so, IMO.

And it's the judge that does the asking.

To allow for the possibility that some people will be ineligible due to knowing the people involved, more than 12 are called down to the court, and the surplus dismissed once they have 12.

In this case, I don't think there's anything to stop there having been 12 Kevin Spacey megafans sworn in (or indeed 12 Kevin Spacey haters). Now, if someone had actually crossed paths with him in real life, that would have been different.

@LawnmowerBlues I did Jury Service. More than 12 were called up. We had to fill in a survey before it began.
2 were dismissed straight away as they had links with the job related to the case. 1 didn’t turn up. 1 was dismissed after the first day when it was realised her job meant she possibly couldn’t be impartial. The Jury was kept at 11 people for the case I was on.

@LawnmowerBlues there were also some people who were just dismissed for no specific reasons but simply because more than 12 were called up to start with.

Good to see my cousins brother and other such relatives are alive and well on this thread

Yes, so did I. I don't think what you've said contradicts what I've said - ppl with a link to the case are ineligible, agreed. I'm interested what it was about the other juror's job that made them ineligible, as I've not heard of that and it goes against what I've been told. I know in the last there were certain jobs like police that weren't allowed to take part, but that's no longer the case.

*in the past

Yes, that's what I said too, right? But the key point is they are dismissed because the random 12 are already in, not because they are seen as less worthy jurors in any way.

Were you there? Did you hear all the evidence? No, thought not.

Given that MN is usually very hot on scoping out predatory and creepy behaviour from men it is weird here that a lack of prosecution in this case must mean he’s never done anything wrong at all!

There are situations when ‘scoping out predatory and creepy behaviour’ is necessary. Advising people to trust their instincts in a relationship. Advising someone to get out of a harmful situation. Discussing the problems of male behaviour. However, I’m not a fan of the rushing to conclusions and disproportionate punishments dished out in these cases.

On one of the Huw Edwards threads someone was asking ‘apologists’ (read anyone who was questioning whether his alleged behaviour warranted the outcome) if they would be happy to have such a man as a personal friend or to want photos of their son. Which I found absurd, as the bar for both the behaviour itself and the evidence needed for what I’d accept in my personal life is somewhat lower than the bar set for someone’s life being up for annihilation.