This probably has been mentioned a lot already, but is there any actual proof of the sexual harassment filed against Casey Affleck or even a court case examination?
shareHe settled. That's your proof.
shareFor what it's worth, the accusers settled too! I don't know why people take settlement as a sign of guilt. It's very hard to PROVE innocence even if you're acquitted. So at times, making the accusations go aways may be the best policy.
EDIT: Another reason I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt is the words of 2 other women who worked on the same project:
http://aceshowbiz.com/news/view/w0005226.html
Exactly the settlement is PROOF Casey did something wrong. Now the OP can saw whatever he or she wants BUT in the court of public opinion a settlement is what rich people use to make their problems go away. Except for Casey Affleck this is an admission of guilt. Innocent people DO NOT SETTLE. NEVER EVER would I settle if I knew I did nothing wrong. Casey sexually harassed these women he groped one woman in the bed while she was sleeping. He was sexually aggressive with both women coming on to them.
shareIt is a civil action .It is easier to settle than to prove the accusers lie.BUT I believe the accusers don't lie .
I don't know if Affleck is all time like the accusers describe him but watch the filming or the movie or how Phoenix was at this time so I believe they reacted like *beep* during the filming
No it isn't Mr. Judge!
shareExactly!
shareAnyone with any sense would settle if they knew how drawn out and expensive it can be. We are always told like pulling off a band aid.
sharePeople who believe settlement equals proof are idiots of the worst kind. It's easier to settle a case and move on than to pursue it and counter sue the accuser as it's expensive, not to mention emotionally draining as the case goes on extensively for months. Just because someone settled, it doesn't mean they committed the act. If you are at all familiar with law, then you'd know that majority of the time defendants settle even though they may have not committed the crime. It's a simple fact.
Also the fact that these articles compare this case to Parker's is astoundingly shallow. In Parker's case, there were evidences, not to mention the case went to trial where the jury acquitted him and his co-writer. Comparing the two case is an insult towards the accuser of Parker's case.
One day in the year of the fox came a time remembered well...