These Are the 6 Women Who Are Testifying Against Harvey Weinstein

This case will come down to the credibility of the female accusers who are claiming Weinstein either raped them or committed acts of sexual assault upon them. (1) If the credibility of any of these additional 4 women for any reason fails to appear credible at any time in their testimony, then the prosecutor's strategy will have backfired and the case will end up with a hung jury. (2) More problematic might be the scenario where it is shown by the defense here that these 2 plaintiffs (or any of their four additional witnesses) actually had cordial or friendly communications or personal contact with the HW several months after the alleged attacks occurred.This is disturbing and may damage the credibility of the plaintiffs' testimony. Why would any woman who has allegedly been sexually assaulted or raped by a man have socialized with him several weeks or months later. Early last year there was a small newspaper article, published in the NY Post when all this Weinstein stuff started to surface, about an aspiring actress who had accused HW of rape or sexual assault but who was seen socializing and dining with him in a chic restaurant several months after the alleged attack occurred. When the photos appeared of them dining together, the prosecutor questioned the actress's credibility dropped the charges against HW in that case. Either way, fasten your seatbelts--it's gonna be a bumpy ride !

"One night in the spring or summer of that year, Mr. Weinstein pulled her into a secluded stairwell in the lounge and masturbated before she ran away from him, prosecutors said. Still, Ms. Wulff agreed to meet with him at his company’s office to discuss a potential role in “Pulse,” a movie that was being produced by Mr. Weinstein’s brother, Robert Weinstein, in Los Angeles." Yea, pretty typical behavior by an aspiring actress. Why did she want to still have a meeting with him after he allegedly forced himself on her. Why didn't she file a complaint? I am very skeptical that Weinstein actually raped anyone. Because there was no good reason to do so. Most of these aspiring actresses who begged him for movie parts would probably provide sexual favors to anyone who can help them with their career. That is pretty much an open secret in Hollywood...

"Annabella Sciorra, best known for her role in “The Sopranos,” " In article after article, the NYTimes persists in this dubious assertion, and, to what end? They didn't deem it necessary to continually associate others with a role. Rose McGowan, for instance, was simply, "Rose McGowan the actress." With all due respect for Rose McGowan, I am not familiar with her work, yet that didn't make her story any less compelling or significant. Ms Sciorra has been incredibly courageous, she should be treated respectfully. The irony is that, given Harvey Weinstein's effect on her career, that minimal role may have been a rare opportunity for her. Living life as an Italian American, Ms. Sciorra knows what is going on here. I suspect it doesn't feel too good. The NYTimes has never shied away from stereotyping Italian Americans. Please, exercise a little consideration and sensitivity.

Put him in a cell with Dr. Huxtable.

I understand, without totally agreeing with, the ruling that some alleged victims can testify about their encounters in order to establish a pattern of behavior, even though these events were never proven. What I do not understand is the rationale for allowing Ms. Perez to testify, not that the events described by Ms. Sciorra occurred, but that Ms. Sicorra said that they did. That seems irrelevant at best, and hearsay at worst; and should have been inadmissible in either case.

I watched an interesting interview the other day. The interviewee, a victim of rape and sexual assault, said “...every abuser makes decisions... it is those decisions that should be on trial...” So, here I am reading about manipulation of circumstances (excusing assistants and others to ensure that victim is alone and isolated), premeditated behavior, staging (injectables, oils, etc) and power dynamics in relation to another persons career prospects.

Who would put themselves in this spotlight, yrs. later in some cases? I believe every word these women tell us.

One of the worst things about all this, is that if Weinstein had been held accountable much earlier, a lot of these subsequent attacks might have been prevented. Weinstein, like Kavanaugh and others like him, are indoctrinated from an early age that because they are the privileged few, they are above the law and any accountability. They can always buy or influence their way out of it. From sexual assault to draft-dodging, the rules that everyone else must obey simply do not apply to them. And I think in many cases it give them a kind of god complex. It's no wonder then, that when they are faced with some kind of accountability for the first time in their lives, they are aghast. Shocked by the sudden loss of an imperviousness they thought would last forever because the world "owed it to them", they actually see themselves as the victim of a "system" that has betrayed them. "How can I be held accountable to a society that, from childhood, had always told me that I was above the law and it's rules of conduct?" Thus we end up with the kind of pouting umbrage Kavanaugh displayed during his confirmation hearing. The quintessential, "How dare You accuse Me of anything!". Which reminds me of another very powerful person in the news who, one suspects, has never been held accountable for anything. It's as sad, as it is pathetic, as it is incredibly dangerous and despicable. Unfortunately, this kind of indoctrination into the gilded halls of unaccountability continues unabated.

Read Ronin Farrow's new book about this and how hard it was to print the first stories about HW because of his power and influence in all areas of the media and entertainment businesses. The cowardice of NBC was eventually exposed. This is very timely because the trial is now underway. These witnesses describe a pattern of assault, rape and abuse followed by NDAs and money to buy silence. Sound familiar with POTUS and Ailes and others?

I am a criminal defense attorney who defended many rape cases over my career. Under what NY calls Molineau prior bad acts can be allowed into evidence in order to show a defendant's mo. In my experience judges often allowed just one (in a rare exception) two prior bad acts witnesses. This is permitted under a believe that a judges instructions to the jury can cure any prejudicial effects of such testimony. But I never heard of 6 or more prior bad act witnesses being allowed to testify until the Cosby and Weinstein trials. This is really a shocking development and destroys any possibility of a fair trial for Weinstein. We will see what the NY Appellate courts do if Weinstein is convicted.

Certainly it is clear by now that Harvey Weinstein has zero respect for women, yet this man had enormous power to determine how women are portrayed in films. This is a major problem in Hollywood: one gender in charge of how the world sees and perceives the other gender. When I read the credits of a film and they are chiefly male, I can almost be certain (although there are exceptions) that the female characters will be stereotyped or objectified in some way. With men in all the major roles including writer, editor and director, it is extremely unlikely that the full humanity of women will be shown. Do we need more evidence than the astonishing fact that so few American movies pass the Bechdel test: a film must have two named women characters who talk with one another about something other than a man? It is time for women have some control of the ways they are portrayed in films and television, because these determine to a great extent how our daughters come to understand who they are and who should be in society and the world.

If you want to see the extreme prejudicial effect of allowing bad character witnesses, you need look no further than this Weinstein trial and the bulk of comments that readers post about it. Most readers' comments strongly condemn Weinstein and declare the readers' certainty that he is guilty. But those comments appeared before there was any testimony whatsoever by either alleged victim of the crimes for which Weinstein is on trial. Clearly the readers are determining guilt based upon the bad character evidence introduced at the trial and the bad character evidence that has been relentlessly appearing in the media since Weinstein was first accused. I doubt the readers react to bad character evidence any different than do the members of the public that sit on the jury.

Allowing witnesses to testify to bad character is prohibited as violation of due process of law because it is so prejudicial. Jurors convict because they think the defendant must be guilty since he is a bad person, not because there is sufficient evidence he did the offense for which he is charged. Courts created exceptions to the rule such as for showing manner of behavior (that the style with which the crime was committed is a style that the defendant has previously used). But those exceptions are just a ruse to allow the prejudicial evidence in since the jurors usually react as expected and convict because the defendant is a bad person. An example was Bill Cosby. At Cosby's first trial, bad character witnesses were excluded and the jury refused to convict. At the retrial, bad character witnesses were allowed and the jury convicted. When judges are biased and want to assure a conviction, they allow bad character witnesses using the exceptions as excuse. When judges are honorable and want a fair trial they refuse to allow bad character witnesses, thus striving for due process and fairness.