Weinstein is the lowest form of life. He's disgusting.
But it cannot be that everything that would exonerate him is a reaction to forced sex. Otherwise no one would ever be found innocent--or guilty, for that matter.
5
What a fake! if he honestly believes he's disabled, I would apologize profusely, but given the disabling of many of the supposed victims I don't give his status as credible. Why do the richest people that are in the negative media feel the need to be victims. Why also do we support it? Dang, I wish for values and ethics to come back to a norm....
1
Why is Rape the only Crime in which the Victims “ motive “ before or after the attack questioned ? If someone robs a Store or gas station once, but never again robs that location, but remains a customer, that must mean the Robbery didn’t happen.
Right ? NO. I believe them, every word. And I’m really tired of looking at the Photos of the sick old Man ACT. He’s Sick, but not in that way. He’s a violent rapist and abuser, that finally was caught. Period.
6
I would like to know more about the psychology, or motives, of criminal predators--what they are trying to gain, and what would tend to inhibit them--useful knowledge for helping to navigate the terrain of abuse so many people encounter in our society.
2
I graduated summa cum laude in three years from Boston University, then started my MBA at Northeastern. I was raped by my statistics professor in this fast-track program at the end of my second quarter there. I was 20 years old, still living with my parents, still a virgin. I became obsessed with doing to him what he had done to me. I saw him three more times, getting incredibly drunk, having sexual contact. He became alarmed the third time after I passed out on the bathroom floor, and decided that maybe I wasn't "mature" enough for this. I transferred my obsession to an older divorced man, another professor. I drank to escape the loss of agency and control I suffered during the rape, a moment that altered the course of my life. I drank for oblivion, even as I was trying to get my career off the ground. I started cutting myself and fell into a self-destructive spiral of depression that ended 5 years later with a 35-day stay in a psychiatric hospital. It took me many years to admit or accept I'd been raped, even though he blocked my exit when I tried to leave his office and used physical force to restrain me. Until we wake up and realize that having sexual contact with someone against their will is soul murder, we'll continue to hear confusing stories of trauma adapted to in a world of different ways. We'll keep seeing human anguish recounted in courts and in the media. Men who can't understand this are complicit. Those who know better and stay silent are equally guilty.
12
It is a sad fact that women who want to be cast in films realize that being assaulted by powerful men is the price they might have to pay to get good roles. That is the reality of Hollywood. But when one realizes that women who clean offices between 6pm and midnight undergo similar predation by male supervisors. Their payoff is not being cast in a film, their payoff is being allowed to continue to work and get a paycheck. Our culture allows this.
Harvey Weinstein is simply one of those men who enjoys brutalizing and humiliating women. He will be acquitted because our legal system only punishes men whose victims are not as willing as these victims were.
Now when I see a beautiful women on the big screen I will say to myself “how many men did you allow to brutalize you over the years in order to get this role?” This changes how I see Hollywood films. Probably true of TV and live theater also.
I think I will not go to films anymore. Just too creepy...what a price our culture places on being in the spotlight. Maybe books are a better escape...at least most female authors did not have to submit to sexual assault to get their book published. Or am I being horribly naive?
3
He wants us all to believe he’s weak and needs a walker. Surely this elderly man with a walker is incapable of assaulting these women. As they say in the business, always play for sympathy my boy!
5
That’s a tough one. I think there’s enough evidence to convict him, but personally I would have to rule out those who went on to have consensual sex. At that point it’s less rape and more opportunity. Sad as that is because I believe them. Not a juror. Am glad.
3
The issue is consent. Both parties must consent to each level of activity. Otherwise the party who does not receive consent may be considered by the other party to have been a rapist. And just because one was raped by the other party, this does not preclude consensual sex later, albeit perhaps under the unethical pressure applied in order to have a prayer of furthering one's career. In many other countries -- such as Ireland -- the legal situation is perfectly clear in this case, as I learned being on the jury of a rape trial.
My experience as a civil rights lawyer dealing with sexual abuse and violence is that the victim DOES. NOT. WANT. RAPE. TO. HAVE. HAPPENED.
They're freaked out, and they're trying mightily to return to a world where they couldn't imagine that they would be raped. They think - I think mistakenly - that choosing to "ignore it" and "get on with their lives" that they can avoid having to address the emotional ramifications. They intentionally chose denial. So they don't report. Or victims try to re-frame what happened as something that THEY could control; that they had some agency in their rape.
In my experience, the strategy fails miserably. "Getting over it" - whether said by the victim to herself, or heard from well-meaning outsiders -- is destructive and prolongs the emotional healing.
So these victims' responses are entirely reasonable. They're common.
Then this choice, that seemed like a reasonable strategy at surviving, becomes further victim-blaming... more used against her, and another "poor choice." Sigh. Pity victims.
5
"Trying cases where the alleged victim remains on good terms with the purported rapist is “practically unheard of,” said Kaethe Morris Hoffer, executive director of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, who after working with victims for three decades could recall only a single prosecution under these circumstances"
I question the accuracy of this claim. In thirty percent of all adult rape cases the rapes were committed by husbands, common-law partners, or boyfriends. And it stands to reason that, in a number of these cases, a cordial relationship existed for some time after the alleged rape. I cannot be certain, but it seems logical that a good number of marital rapes would be followed by at least one instance of consensual sex, so that such cases would not be rare at all so that the expert's claim is likely wrong.
3
How is this situation different from a rape that occurs in a marriage, another complex relationship?
Being a female subordinate of a sexually exploitive male executive is a complex relationship and often involves surrender, humiliation, and manipulation.
To imply or suggest that a woman can simply change her career when she encounters assault IN THIS CONTEXT is to not understand the dynamic.
The incidents W is accused of are indiviual assaults. He is being tried for those assaults alone--not the relationship.
The judge should instruct the jury accordingly.
5
The Hungarian proverb perfectly describes the situation: the accused is 19 and the victims are 1 less than 20.
The entertainment industry is a cruel business. Even though I completely believe his accusers 100%, Sadly, HW is right when he says that this is often what has to be done to the get the part. But Sometimes he needed a particular actress more than she needed him. Many years ago When I was young and naïve and pursuing an acting career, my acting teacher in NYC, Gloria, said to her students that still resounds deeply with me--"do not let yourself become a victim of this industry." Meaning if there is perhaps something else you want to pursue in life, have at it. Even if it means never making the big time. So I chose to become a banker instead and happily never looked back. I hope the justice system does not let his accusers down. They have already paid a costly price in pursuit of fame and fortune.
I read about Harveys memory expert, the one who testified for OJ Simpson, and how memories fade over time.
Certain memories can fade over time, but being raped isn't one of those, so sorry, but my vote is to convict.
Also, calling on a friend you've employed as a character witness and to dispute a victims testimony is a bald faced shot at lying to sway the jury.
I still vote to convict.
Putting Harvey behind bars is necessary, I don't see it as risky at all.
6
So if someone shoots me, I openly despise them, I testify against them in court, they're convicted and I later forgive them and forge an open, compassionate friendship with them does this mean they shouldn't be held legally responsible for harming me?
2
This is also kind of the opposite of what you describe. They immediately forgave his actions then later changed their minds after gaining some distance and perspective.
Also you cannot equate rape and murder.
1
I stopped engaging in sex about 15 years ago. Like riding a motorcycle, the consequences far outweigh the risks. And then there’s the whole issue of placing trust, that your counter-party isn’t a disease carrier.
2
You either believe proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, in all cases, is required to convict or you don’t.
If Weinstein is convicted on the evidence presented by the alleged victims it sets a precedent that there can never be sufficient exculpatory evidence to acquit in a case where the parties both agree intercourse occurred
1
We can get some clear, objective definition of rape; whatever falls within this definition is rape, whatever falls outside it is not.
Or we can go the other way and decide rape is whatever a victim says it is.
I honestly can not think of a middle ground; that is why this jury, and many other juries in the times to come, will find themselves in an untenable position no matter what they decide in the end.
4
Real life is NOT an episode of Law and Order, SVU.
In REAL LIFE, interpersonal relationships are complicated, multi-dimensional, and don’t wrap up in a meat little bow like they do on a TV show.
In real life, child abuse victims can turn into child abusers. In real life, victims of domestic abuse often continue to live with their abuser and even protect their abuser for years or even decades. In real life, victims of assault like were suffered at the hands of Weinstein will suffer an unbelievably complex array of emotions and behaviors. Because that’s real life.
The fact that some of the victims of Weinstein continued to have relationships with him after they were assaulted is NOT unusual. Quite the opposite, it’s quite normal for victims of abuse to continue to have relationships with their abusers.
People need to shed their pop culture assumptions and stereotypes about what a victim “should” look or act like. Because almost all of them are incorrect and not based on any kind of scientific evidence at all.
11
For Weinstein's defense attorney to award herself points for never having been raped is so completely out of order, it cries out for disciplinary action from the Bar Association.
What do we say to victims of arson? "How dare you have allowed the fire to happen?" Or of a bank robbery: "Being a bank, did you do everything in your power to make it impossible to be robbed?" Or the bereaved family of someone who dies because of a drunk driver: "If your loved one had never left the house, they would be alive today!"
Sexual exploitation of humans whose existential need for a job or a wage makes them easy prey employment is a holdover from the days of Slavery & Serfdom as legal, culturally accepted systems in certain societies, e.g. the USA, Poland, Russia.
The Master/Slave mentality is easily imposed upon a person with an undeveloped self-concept or a limited frame of reference for sorting out the many types of people/resources around them (including police); or conditioned to believe themselves worthless by upbringing in which even describing a rape to prudish, traditionalist family members might seem as daunting as flying to Mars. In fact, 'proper' young women or men, from sheltered backgrounds, who have heard little about rape & lack the imagination to see their prospective boss as a sexually violent aggressor become the perfect targets for someone with such criminal inclinations.
Weinstein's victims are no more to blame than the residents of Flint, MI, for being trapped.
5
Any system of laws that does not punish Weinstein seems an indictment on that system of laws.
Not that anyone would suggest rules written long ago by white men in power would be inherently biased for any particular special interest... cough
2
Looking at the photo of weinstein with his walker reminds me of the movie 'casino' and the mafia bosses in the defendants' chairs/wheelchair and with their oxygen tanks, then smoking while meeting in the holding room discussing the hits they were putting out on anyone who had possible info that could be used against them if the feds put on the pressure.
And in the latest news, trump again fires the competent so he can bring in someone who'll yes him all along the unfolding path. Hopefully the path will come to an end sooner than i fear it might.
1
This is exactly why us midwesterners despise Hollywood and all that comes with it. Just sickening. The worst fear from a man that I have to come to terms with is him telling me who to vote for, other then that an occasional shaking of his empty glass to denote a refill is needed is a lifestyle I am good with. This is just heartbreaking.
1
@RS
Yet you still pay money for their content, right?
You watch the awards shows? You buy the tabloids that showcase the red carpet looks, the latest gossip on Hollywood divorces?
Trump is himself of/from Hollywood. It's how he became a household name. If you voted for Trump or given money to the GOP, you are most certainly feeding the industry you claim you "despise."
Plenty of midwesterners making money in/from the Industry...
We despise Hollywood, too.
"The two women at the center of the case not only had friendly communications with the Hollywood producer after their alleged attacks, but also agreed to have sex with him."
Why did they have any kind of relation with this guy?
They seem to have had sex with him to further their careers.
7
Uncharted legal territory?
If I steal from a store the first time I visit, later return and legally purchase items, did I still steal the first time? The answer is obvious.
Consent to later sexual acts does not nullify lack of consent during initial encounters. To suggest otherwise helps to perpetuate the very rape myths highlighted in this trial.
5
The jury will be instructed that the elements of rape include the use of violence or the threat of violence or blackmail, duress or other similar threats to force a victim into sexual intercourse. And what happens after a rape does not change what happened at the time of a rape -- every judge instructs the jury to this effect if it is relevant to the case.
The suggestion that subsequent consensual sex is a contraindication to rape is utter nonsense. Most notably, the crime of marital rape often includes evidence of a mix of consensual and non-consensual sex. This article suggests that such a fact pattern is so unusual as to be a contraindication to rape. That is not even close true. And the suggestion otherwise stated by the reporters and the so-called expert here is utter nonsense.
5
The real problem lies in the absurd time limitations and procedural hurdles for bringing Title VII sexual discrimination claims.
Scenarios like these are well know in the severest workplace harassment cases, and making Title VII claims much easier to bring should be a high priority. There is plenty of evidence here to hold Weinstein liable, many times over.
Based on the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, it is possible that Weinsten could go free, and that may be something we need to accept to preserve those standards.
Legal vindication, on the other hand, should not be something he is allowed to have. That's the part we can't accept.
1
Bad facts make bad law. The 'problem' (and it's not a problem at all if you want checks on the power of the state to take away an accused's freedom) is that the burden of proof in criminal cases is high. Reasonable doubt will bring acquittal, as it should, so prosecutors need to be careful about not only what they bring before a jury, but how they deliver the argument. If it's "multi-layered" and complicated, reasonable doubt is inevitable, and the accused will be exonerated (of criminal charges). If the prosecutor wants to argue that the standard is too high, well, the forum for that is not the courtroom.
4
I don't know, I think it's must have been really just a very unhealthy environment with everybody using everybody else. For sure people take advantage of positions of power, but other people will use whatever they have to advance their carreers. If nobody said yes it would not be possible to practice such predatory behaviour as Weinstein allegedly has. I just don't buy all this victim stuff and rationalizations and psychologizing. To me they are a way people will tend to deal with their guilt and pass it on to someone or something else. We remain responsible for our actions; we are faced with choices, and choices have consequences. Some of those consequences we may not like, but every choice comes with a price.
8
If there are other women who claim sexual harassment, why is the trial resting on the dubious testimony of these two? I am a woman and a feminist, and it boggles my mind how a woman can “date” her rapist. A bad relationship is not the same as rape or assault, and it is not under the purview of the legal system. I’m sure Weinstein could have been charged with harassment or even assault based on the testimony of other victims. But if the evidence of rape boils down to “its complicated”, he will be acquitted.
18
@Mor
There are additional women who testified to establish a pattern of behavior. Been in all the papers.
1
@Mor
"I am a woman and a feminist, and it boggles my mind how a woman can “date” her rapist. "
Are you? Are you a feminist? Is your mind really boggled? If your mind is actually "boggled" at this, you need to do even 10 minutes of research about why women wind up in or stay in abusive relationships and about the psychological aspects of processing sexual assault, and also about the messages that women grow up with with respect to sexual assault. Seriously. 10 minutes of reading.
2
My guess is that Weinstein will be acquitted. As many of the commentators here point out, being in a long term relationship with someone who abuses you repeatedly is your problem, not just the abusers. Even among ‘ordinary’ people with no power it is not uncommon for women to get into relationships with abusive, toxic men, and then when that fails, move on to the next abuser. I know several women who do that. It’s also a well known phenomenon to social workers and psychologists because, often there are children involved in this mess, and the violent boyfriend abuses them as well.
11
The two women at the focus of this trial didn’t have consensual sexual encounters with Weinstein until AFTER they were forced into sexual acts with him.
Once one of the worst things imaginable has happened with a person who has leverage over your career—and is reputed to have damaged the careers of women whom he attempted to sexually exploit—it surprises me not one bit that a victim might try to “leverage” the abuser.
Karma some might call it. A way of turning “lemons into lemonade” others might suggest.
But it’s actually a well known and prevalent, if very sad, element of pursuing a career in a male dominated industry. The degree here may be extreme but the plot is familiar. Far too familiar.
4
Weinstein is a low-life. But the alleged crime he is accused of is rape of these particular two women, not of being a low-life. Is he guilty? Probably yes. Beyond reasonable doubt? Certainly not.
I can't see him being convicted.
14
Women have had to live with the rights of men to assault them sexually or physically for a long time. Women have been told to put up and shut up by the whole legal institution for a long long time. If a women fights or even just says no, they are often punished with absolutely no recourse to protection or justice.
All of these women knew they were on their own and had to do whatever they decided to do to protect themselves, which includes their livelihood. It’s a capitalist economy after all.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh got a medal from the most powerful man on the planet who was voted into his position after admitting to sexy assaulting women. Never mind the kind of men that sit in the Supreme Court.
Every women on that stand can proudly say, I did what I had to do because that is the world I live in. I know there is no justice for me. I know there is no protection for me. This is the world I live in.
6
@Morgan you’re wrong, sexual behavior is a two-way street, and women are active participants in it, sometimes tacitly and sometimes overtly.
3
I hate to say it but despite what Weinstein's attacks, I feel he will not be found guilty. The fact that most of the women continued communicating with him after they were assaulted, will plant doubt in the minds of the jurors.
Also that Weinstein was instrumental in their careers, something they knew and by having sex with him they could further their careers.
All of this plants doubt. I don't agree, and believe the man is a serial rapist, but proof beyond doubt? I don't think the prosecution has enough evidence.
11
If I were on the jury I would vote not guilty. He's a horrible person but these charges should never have been brought.
13
@Julia
@BorisRoberts
One of the great errors of our internet age is the assumption that we can, based on reported details in the media, reach sound conclusions about situations that are, in fact, much more complicated than we imagine.
Can you say "Covington kids"?
If *I* were on the jury, I would have heard all the evidence.... but I have not, so I will reserve judgment.
On the matter of reaching conclusions based on media evidence, I highly recommend the best piece in response to the Covington kerfuffle, "Stop Trusting Viral Videos" by Ian Bogost.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/viral-clash-students-and-native-americans-explained/580906/
I recall once nearly being raped by a man I considered a friend. After weeks of casual conversations and hanging out (rare), he tried to assault me. We never communicated or saw one another again. While I get that these women who say they were assaulted by HW (and I believe them) felt obliged to continue having sex with him for purposes of furthering their careers, doing so diminishes their claims, in my mind. If your career was too valuable to cause you to say no to him, then why bring assault charges?
91
a career is one thing, dignity and self-acceptance are another and in my mind more important
4
@OGI Very insensitive remark -- there are many reasons that are totally understandable and believable to persons with some degree of empathy, compassion and recognition of the variety and complexity of human response to horrible events that can explain why a person might see, date or even have a relationship with her rapist. Some have already been mentioned here -- fear of retaliation, financial repercussions, the desire to take control of the situation and not feel oneself a victim -- sorry that you are able to see this only in the light of your own reaction and as a result denigrate and minimize other responses that don't meet your high standards.
18
@OGI
So why didn't you report him? Surely you had an obligation to do so to protect other women. In my mind, your failure to act precisely as I think you ought to have diminishes your implied claim that your experience gives you any special authority to comment on this matter.
See how that works? Its really dismissive of what is always a traumatic and complicated experience.
5
Why do I have to read about forced oral sex with my morning tea? Can't the Times simply say forced sexual activities? It's all so sordid and ugly.
I say this as one who worked in Hollywood, and had my own encounters with strong and powerful men.
They rue the day.
8
if he's acquitted he will stride out of court without his trusty walker, and with a big grin on his face.
6
we just saw Trump (another rich and powerful person) acquitted of his charges of abuse of power etc... this is the world we live in and these guys are the last gasps (hopefully) of a horribly unequal power structure in the world. doubtful that HW is convicted unfortunately
1
@Richard - I doubt the walker will be there.
Weinstein is no man. He does a disservice of others of his gender, portraying bestial behavior as masculinity. If he were a true man, he would own up to what he did; he's not fooling anyone anymore.
But with the walker bit, he is simply pathetic.
5
If an ex-girlfriend comes along, after a long term relationship with me and now claims I assaulted/raped her once out of the many times we were intimate, how do I defend myself? I would say it never happened and look, we were together all this time and she never said a word about it, much less reporting to the police etc. It sounds like an obvious and reasonable defense to me. Isn't that this case?
The prosection and Weinstein's accuser want to say this doesn't matter in the least. I have a problem with that.
I believe Weinstein is a vile monster, but the burden of proof in this case is not met based on what I have read. I would not want to be a juror on this case, if it meant acquiting him on the law knowing what a dirtbag he is.
39
How the pendulum of rape trials has swung ---
+ Time was when a rape conviction required coraporative evidence. The testimony of the victim was not enough. In addition, the accused could call witnesses to show that the victim's had history that suggested ready consent to sex.
+ Now the accused may be convicted of rape, not only on the testimony of the victim alone, but also with the support of witnesses that were sexually assaulted by the accused in the past - sometimes in the very distant past.
+The accused, however, is no longer able to call witnesses to testify about the victim's sexual history.
8
@Henry
"Suggest[ing] ready consent to sex" is smearing the victim through conjecture & speculation.
Consent is explicit, not something to be inferred or 'suggested' by other actions elsewhere in some hypothetical past.
Criminal proceedings actually have strict rules against speculation. Gossip is inadmissible.
The fact is: with the exception of a very small % of humans now described by medical science as Asexual, all adult human beings are known to have biological sex drives that are intrinsic to us all until death occurs.
The ancient double-standard that proclaimed Males to be "naturally hot-blooded & in need of sex" but a Female could be required to "hold it in" is scientifically unsound. It is incompatible with basic biological reality.
Requiring explicit consent before sex is not a stretch. It is not difficult. Weighing accusations of violence, of assault, on the basis of other events with other persons -- not on trial -- is illogical, irrelevant & a grave abrogation of someone's basic civil rights.
The actions attributed to Weinstein in this trial are morally reprehensible, repugnant, intolerable & unambiguously criminal. How he intimidated some of the women he assaulted into continuing to attempt to remain in his good graces -- a classic feature of Master/Slave dependency -- is not any kind of excuse for what he did, nor is it evidence for his defense.
It merely compounds his guilt.
Slavery was once legal in the USA.
It ceased to be, in 1863.
1
Wealthy, powerful women scream for the persecution of their wealthy, powerful male colleagues. Meanwhile, working class women face daily harassment, and often outright assaults, by their male employers with no hope for justice.
The #metoo movement has evolved into an irrational hashtag mob that will set women back decades with the paternalistic presumption that women don't have the same agency or determination as men.
True equality demands that we behave as equal to men. If we are sexually harassed, we must take responsibility and come forward with our allegations IMMEDIATELY.
Piling on a "fallen" man, years after the fact, discredits ALL women.
16
@Celeste
Sexual assault is traumatic.
If you watch "Queen & Slim," a wonderful film directed by a woman, you will be reminded of how difficult it is for a certain category of people, e.g., those who cannot afford lawyers, to come forward with accusations against police officers (as 1 example).
Some people are shy. My older sister was painfully shy, yet became a greatly admired teacher, a Ph.D. from Cal in Literature. She was strikingly beautiful, besides. In her 30s, she signed her 1st professorial contract with a famous midwestern college.
Within months, she was being viciously harassed by one of the Deans. This was the Reagan era. She ignored his explicit, intimidating notes with dignity. It was how she had been brought up. She shared her concerns only with her family. I told her she should sue the college & the man for the sexual harassment. She was afraid it would draw negative attention to her, create a more dangerous situation (she was living alone far from us in CA) & impact her career.
Six years later, the Faculty voted her tenure. But the sexist male college executive vetoed giving her tenure. Her career withered away. She was given low-level positions at a subsistence wage. She is now retired. It was a huge loss to US academia, because she is a fantastic Russia expert who could have trained others.
The fact is: millions of women face threats & harassment. Some are bodily attacked. It's easy to say: "Immediately" report all events. In reality, that's hard.
3
Some commenters have argued that on the basis of coercion, this enters into the territory of rape. But depending on multiple factors, it’s closer to sexual-harassment or even prostitution.
11
Sexual activity may or may not be consensual, but it is always transactional.
The transaction may be for emotion, physical pleasure, support of various types, status, progeny, and on and on. The transaction value need not be, and usually is not, the same for both (or all) partners.
Just because these women chose to participate in transactional sexual activity after they had been physically forced into a non-consensual sex act should be legally immaterial. If my long-term accountant stole from me 5 years ago but has since cleansed his sticky fingers doesn't de-criminalize his act.
3
Repeated abuse over 10 year marriage, including the night before the wedding when I had said that I would like not to have relations. He said you're mine. then proceeded. This is a guy I had three children with. so No, it is not a simple matter. Eventually, I got out and took the kids.
14
@Claudine
My heart goes out to you. Be well.
5
There was a time when both our laws and our societal beliefs didn't recognize rape within marriage. Now we finally recognize that a woman can in fact be raped by her husband. We also know that a woman raped by her husband may remain married to him, and may continue to have sex with him; they may even have children together. Why do we expect things to be different here? This is not so hard to understand, except within the anarchic mindset that rape occurs only between strangers.
7
It's not just a question of the putative victim's credibility, but of establishing the necessary mens rea on the part of Weinstein. If the best evidence of their communication at the relevant times is the preserved emails and the jury infers that the written communication reliably reflects the oral communication as well, it would be difficult to think that Weinstein realized there was no consent. (It's a bit like Aziz Ansari's Very Bad Date, where the woman felt overpowered by the patriarchy when he presumptuously ordered her wine, but then she later hopped naked onto his kitchen counter.) Weinstein is a very bad man, but I'm glad I'm not on that jury.
4
I don’t think she was naked on the kitchen counter. But she did have relations with him. I love Aziz, but the lady wanted Red and he gives her White?
Using each other to get what you want...sad with bad results.
9
Weinstein used his power over these women and now he's pushing around a garage-sale walker trying for the sympathy vote. This is a man used to manipulating people.
3
He is certainly a manipulator. That's not what he is accused of.
2
Because he's a brute and the sex is awkward, doesn't make it a crime. Just because he's a brute and the sex is awkward and it happens a hundred times doesn't make it a crime.
11
I cannot believe that out of all of the women who have come forward regarding Weinstein's transgressions, the two who are actually in court carried on sexual relationships with him post-harassment. Is Weinstein a brilliant tactician w/r/t his misdeeds or just the luckiest man alive? This trial could really go either way.
10
The life experiences of the jurors will determine both the context within which they hear and process the evidence, and will determine the verdict itself.
Frat boys like Kavanaugh? Forget it. She wanted it.... Harvey walks
Women (or men) who have been in physically or psychologically abusive intimate relationships... uh oh Harvey
Women (or men) who have worked for manipulative, predatory or emotionally abusive bosses who controlled their paycheck and careers ... uh oh Harvey
I predict a hung jury .....
2
This is a massive failure in State Labour oversight.
Think of the dynamic: 50-60 year old Multi-Millionaire producer is waiving a 6 figure contract to a recent high school grad. And the meeting is in his hotel room.
And the perpetrator is seen shaking hands with every key politician of the last 20 years, including employing the President's daughter.
1
As an older woman remembering the waters of my youth, I don't find this to be unusual at all. Once you realize that resistance is futile, you give up and endure whatever it is you have to do until it is over. It's a survival mechanism. It doesn't mean you like it. Sometimes, the only choice left to you is surviving, or not. But is doesn't mean it leaves you unaltered. Choosing to endure does not mean a happy outcome. The consequences can be devastating and life-long.
10
I have never served on a jury, but I wonder could a juror think as follows: if this was the court of public opinion then he probably did it; but in a court of law I have reasonable doubt. The problem with #believe women is that it seems at times to recommend substituting the former for the latter.
10
He had huge control over their careers. They had to keep him happy or get how of Hollywood. The fact that extortion continues, does not mean that it is not extortion.
2
Personally I have no doubt that Weinstein is sexual predator who deserves jail time. But would I convict if I were a juror on this case listening to these witnesses? I kind of doubt it.
This article serves the very useful purpose of questioning what happens when ideology and a powerful social movement pressure prosecutors into bringing cases on less than convincing evidence. The article subtly vindicates the DA's decision years ago not to go after Weinstein.
The problem is that life is complicated -- or as this article puts it: "the dynamics [of the complaining witness's relationships with Weinstein may be] too complicated for a conviction."
Look. No is no. In the eyes of the law, even a wife can be raped when, despite years of consensual sex both before and after, her husband takes her during a heated argument without her consent.
But in the Weinstein case, although it is understandable that these women would continue a relationship with Weinstein for career-related reasons -- that their interacting with a powerful industrial czar would be complicated and multi-layered -- "complicated and multi-layered" motivations don't really resonate in a rape trial.
The article states: "Allegations against the producer ... helped ignite the #MeToo movement." Yes. And the #MeToo movement helped ignite this prosecution. That's the problem.
127
@Barry Schreibman
"Takes her" without her consent during a heated argument?
Gross. Just say rape. What exactly are you imagining here? She's yelling at him for not doing the dishes and so he "takes her" to punish her? What?
""complicated and multi-layered" motivations don't really resonate in a rape trial. "
So because you and others are intellectually lazy, we should what, not prosecute people for rape?
"Yes. And the #MeToo movement helped ignite this prosecution. That's the problem."
Not really, though. All it sounds like to me is more men whining that women are calling out their bad behavior with more nonsense drivel about how social movements are bad, without giving any clearly defined reasons based in reality.
3
@C’s Daughter Here's a clearly defined reason based on reality: acquittal based on a lack of evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution that would not have been brought but for pressure from social movements, and which does great damage to these very social movements because a very bad person beats the rap. Is that reality-based enough for you?
And I'm sorry you don't like my writing style ("take her"), but what I described is based on actual prosecutions and on decided law.
6
So this gal continued to have consensual relations with Weinstein after she was "raped"? For all the MeToo's out there, this doesn't help your case.
27
Case never should have been brought. Manhattan DA pressured by public opinion. We are now seeing why they were so reluctant. Harvey will be found not guilty on all charges. And rightfully so based on this weak case. The jury cannot be expected to put a man in jail for the rest of his life based on all this. Too much evidence in favor of Mr. Weinstein.
20
In 1968 I was raped by my friend’s roommate. As a way of coping with the horror of that assault, I stoped going to classes and just isolated myself. Then I had a short term relationship with my attacker before I discontinued the relationship. I know it was my way of trying to feel less victimized and taking some control. I fully understand Ms. Haley’s reaction.
154
@Nancy P
Sorry to hear that. Thank you for sharing it. I truly hope life was good to you afterward, that you were able to heal, as much as possible, and that you know contentment, even happiness.
18
@Nancy P Thank you so much for sharing, so many survivors have subsequent contact or relationships with their rapists for very similar reasons, I hope we are moving closer to truly acknowledging the complex and lasting consequences of surviving rape.
5
Thank you for your insight, testimony and wisdom, Nancy P.
1968 was a wretched year.
4
Does Harvey Weinstein really need to use a walker, or is this showmanship from the showman?
1
Wow, Trump AND Weinstein might be acquitted in the same month? Two of the most indisputably criminal & despicable people.
Meanwhile regular people spend years in jail for marijuana possession.
Our legal system is a joke.
35
Psst. Hey, want to be in a movie? How bad do you want to be in that movie? That's been going on forever, and this trial isn't going to stop it.
12
No so. One day the tapped actor will say no thanks, in that case I’ll go knock the doors of other female directors, or I’ll find someone else to work with who won’t ask me to pay with sexual favours for the privilege.
1
He’s really committed to that walker
9
It is a fight between facts and a recently developed theory that tries to explain irrational behavior
It is a fact that these woman for whatever reason had on-going sexual relations after the alleged rape with Weinstein, which no theory can reasonable explain to cross the reasonable doubt threshold.
14
“You don’t tell him you love him in 2016 and you are tired of being a booty call in 2017 and call him a predator in 2020,” said Damon Cheronis, a lawyer for Mr. Weinstein, referring to messages that Ms. Mann sent to the producer after her alleged 2013 rape.
Umm- yeah. You do. When you feel your livelihood and self worth depend on it. Why we’re still making these arguments when we know the dynamics of these traumas are more than complicated is beyond me.
7
@KN Justice is important. In order to have justice, when there is an accusation, jurors need to be open to the possibility that an accuser is lying.
If maintaining an ongoing relationship with someone for years, while telling that him you love him and introducing him to your mother, does not present a reasonable doubt that perhaps the accuser was not really being abused, then there is no justice. Weinstein may very well be guilty, but if jurors can't find a reasonable reason to doubt an accuser in these circumstances, then there is no point even to bother with evidence or trials.
11
@KN Well, it is confusing to the recipient of these loving words.
2
@KN
All true lines- but it isn't rape.
1
Rape is a crime. Using power to commit a crime is another crime.
9
There are so many degrees of murder to reflect circumstances. Why is there only one degree of rape?
16
It's pretty common for women after an assault to feel like they're worthless and to have a very hard time saying no.
If anything their behavior here just shows it's even more likely that he raped them.
13
@Paul Dejean So, if the women e.g. had run straight to the police in tears and demanded a rape kit, that behaviour would show that it is even less likely that he raped them? In a case where a man was falsely accused of rape in these circumstances, what kind of evidence do you think he could show that would exonerate him?
3
@Paul Dejean More likely is not beyond reasonable doubt, which is why Harvey will walk. L.A. will be different.
3
This only shows how distorted the process is for women seeking justice against a serial sexual predator.
It is disgraceful that these types of tactics can be used in a court of law. I hope the jury shoots them down.
I am a man who grew up in a brutally physically violent home. Does the fact that I continued to go home in to my teenage years condone or absolve this behavior on the part of a parent?
I am sure some will say, well you were not an adult. But the concept is the same.
Weinstein is a monstrosity. The lawyers defending him are using reprehensible legal tactics to justify their immoral and unethical behavior in defending this lout.
We just endured Dershowitz trashing norms and ethics, now this.
Is it any wonder so many have such low opinions of certain types of lawyers?
15
Rape is a crime. Criminals are not above the law.
7
If these women agreed to have sex with Weinstein after they were supposedly attacked by him, then I believe the prosecution does not have a case, and he should be acquitted. Thank you.
22
Ok let me ask you this: if it was the kind of attack where you could see evidence, like a black eye and broken ribs, would you still say he’s innocent cause she slept with him after?
2
what is the principle underpinning your conclusion?
What a woman does after being violently assaulted is irrelevant to the fact that a crime was committed.
Victims respond in many ways to trauma. Sometimes they seem self-destructive or irrational.
There is no right way to be a victim. but raping a woman is always wrong
ng.
12
@HK True, but sex is messy and you need clear evidence of a crime. The difference, we're told, is consent, but that's a hard distinction to determine after the fact.
3
it's not "unchartered territory", it happens all the time. because we live in a society that creates contradictions for women between image and reality, social norms and self-perception. until we start accepting that all people are conflicted and reactive beings, we're not going to progress in our navigation of the grey area. where i live (canada), new training on sexual violence is about to become mandadory for all judges. recognizing that those grey area dynamics are misunderstood is a good first step.
8
When a man has the power to make or break your career, he has the power to coerce you. It's not hard to understand at all once you understand power dynamics.
12
@Patti O'Connor True, but they were using him for that purpose. Not all actors work through Weinstein. The power of sex allows women to get all sorts of things from men, like dying for them, working their butts off for them, spending lavishly on them...
Power isn't a crime.
4
So there is no physical evidence and we have only the word of the accuser, who after the event continued to have a friendly and sexual relationship with the accused. If we are supposed to always believe the accuser, then how can anyone ever be found not guilty of a rape charge?
17
@Liz In this case, it's the pattern that makes him look guilty, guilty, guilty. Or do you believe all those women are lying, just as people would like to believe that all the women who have detailed Trump's actions were lying (despite the fact that he stated what he did in a recorded conversation and paid out money in secret agreements to keep things quiet.)
3
What physical evidence are you actually looking for here? Are you talking about the thousands of rape kits that sit in precincts that never get used even when there is an accusation? I will never understand this argument of requiring physical evidence of rape, there is no logic there given the nature of the crime. If it is required, there is no hope for the vast majority of victims to receive any justice.
Any good lawyer will tell you to settle a legal issue BEFORE you go to court/jury.
Settle when more issues are within your control, if possible.
Criminal matters are of course different, but avoid juries if you can. Too unpredictable, too irrational. Think O.J. or even senate Republicans.
1
Is Weinstein pleading poverty as well as being not guilty? I’ve seen homeless people with better walkers.
9
Besides the specific case of Weinstein, whom I consider a despicable human being, if this standard would be applied to everybody from now on, essentially any man who has been in a longer term relationship with a woman can be accused of rape, with no other proof than the word of the woman, after the relationship ends and the woman feels like getting some payback for an unhappy end of the relationship.
Yes, there are married women who sometimes bear for a long time an abusive husband, but to believe any nasty claim made during a ugly divorce, based just on the word of one spouse is absurd. Imagine that during a really bad divorce the husband claims that his wife cheated, and offers no other evidence than his word. Would that count for something ? Or are some people more equal than others in front of justice ?
17
@Class enemy "based just on the word of one spouse is absurd."
Using your analogy we are on how many 'spouses' for Harvey - 6+? So yes some people are more equal than others - rich men. This case wouldn't have been brought with only ONE 'spouse'. How many women have to come forward to successfully prosecute a rich man?
Post hoc consensual sex would tend to nullify any claims of mental anguish/emotional harm. Unless the accusers were so impacted by the first experience as to be mentally incapable of rationally deciding to engage consensually.
9
“Why would a rape victim ever talk to the rapist again? Why would a victim consent to intimate contact with the rapist?”
We live in a very strange society when answers to these questions aren't self-evident. You can't imagine a scenario where victims are forced to interact with their sexual assailants again? You've never heard of childhood marriage, have you?
Allow me to demonstrate my point. This is a passage from "Psychology Today":
"Beginning at the age of eight, Sherry Johnson was continually raped by various members of the church that she and her mother belonged to. At only 10 years old, she found out that she was pregnant. A month after she gave birth at age 11, she was forced by her mother to marry her 20-year-old rapist in order to avoid any legal inquiries or criminal charges against her or the church leadership. Sherry finally divorced him at age 19, but by then she had borne five more children by him."
Need I say more? Yes, rape victims commonly interact with their sexual predators and often have multiple sexual encounters with the same predator. I can't believe jurors need the relationship spelled out for them.
12
Let's be clear about one thing: sex without consent is rape. It doesn't matter what happens before or afterwards.
I don't think there would be any confusion about this if we were talking about a different kind of crime. Suppose that my employee steals from me. Suppose that I know this, and for whatever reason, I continue to employ this person for a time. Does that magically make the earlier theft okay -- or something other than theft? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
The jurors have the unenviable task of reaching a verdict from contradictory arguments and confusing evidence. And somebody who reads this article from beginning to end will most likely get a nuanced picture of the circumstances. But this is the blurb I see under the headline on the front page:
"The two women at the center of the case agreed to have sex with Mr. Weinstein after their alleged attacks, leaving the jurors in uncharted legal territory."
You can do better than that, New York Times. If two people have consensual sex after (or before) one person rapes the other, the rape is still a rape. There's nothing new, ambiguous, or uncharted about that. From the full article, I can see how there are credibility issues with this case, but that nuance is painfully lacking in the blurb under the headline.
22
@milese "Suppose that my employee steals from me. Suppose that I know this, and for whatever reason, I continue to employ this person for a time. Does that magically make the earlier theft okay -- or something other than theft? Of course not. That would be ridiculous."
It doesn't make it OK. But if the employee claims you gave them the money and you claim they stole it, I'm going to have to side with the employee. Why? Because your actions as the employer are consistent with it being a gift and inconsistent with them stealing from you.
9
I would not want to be a Juror hearing this case. This case sounds like a possibility of a hung Jury
2
It looks like Weinstein, like most predators, knew who to target. He didn't go after Meryl Streep. He didn't go after people with more power than he had. He went after women who were nice, friendly, reasonably trusting people without much power.
The fact that they were young and trusting meant that they didn't expect him to be a monster. And they wanted to believe that he wasn't.
He could rape them, and afterwards, he would apologize. Insist it was a misunderstanding. He could make a pity play: he was old, ugly, still "learning" about consent. This would make the victim feel better. Her sense that people are basically good could be restored. He had apologized. He wasn't a monster, he was just a guy who didn't know limits. Much like in an abusive relationship, he would send flowers. Say that he didn't know what had gotten into him. He would take her on a real date, to show how he had changed.
If she then had sex with him, she would feel less like a rape victim (which is a horrible feeling) and more like someone in a relationship with a complex man (which is less horrible.)
But if she did have sex with him, then legally he was safe from the rape allegations because he could say it was all consensual.
He maintained this pattern for a long time because he knew how to do it effectively. And if the young women forever lost their enthusiasm for the business and their ability to trust, then too bad for them.
I hope the jury sees through him. I really hope so.
36
I’ll be showing your comment to anyone I know who doubts Weinstein’s guilt because of the “consensual” sex that happened afterward. I wish the jury could read it as well. It’s very insightful and provides a plausible explanation as to why these women continued to engage with Weinstein despite being raped by him. Not only that, but it helps make a very complex issue a bit easier to understand. Thanks for sharing.
4
I’ve been following this case closely. It seems to me that there is a pattern of psychological dysfunction in the women who are victims of predators like Weinstein. Poor self esteem, likely past sexual abuse, and unhealthy feelings re sex and relationships. Although this arouses sympathy, it also begs the question of responsibility. Making the case that Weinstein is a victim is abhorrent to me. But at the same time, the women’s cry of victimhood seems to be based a on lack of self awareness and failure to face their own weaknesses.
10
The problem is that W saw those weaknesses and exploited them. As the more powerful party, it is his responsibility to do the right thing.
2
@Gwen Vilen Sooooooo, a "lack of self awareness and failure to face one's own weakness" means you can' be raped???
4
So let me get this straight. Because they are damaged from past sexual assaults (your presumption, not mine - plenty of obviously competent and well adjusted women were victimized by Weinstein), they are more vulnerable to future assaults. But they cannot be considered victims then because of ‘failure to deal with their own weaknesses.’ Astonishing lack of empathy in this vicious little circle you posit here. It’s just victim blaming in longer sentences.
2
Weinstein had a lord and master plantation mentality when it came to actresses. He used his power to subtract full agency from his victims via control over their present and future livelihoods as well as their personal reputations. Weinstein made it clear time and again that he expected compliance in order for victims to obtain work and references in the industry, and that failure to comply would result in professional and possible personal ruination, leaving many stark examples in the industry for those coming after to learn from. I'm confused as to why people are confused as to whether or not he raped anyone. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is de facto rape. It's plain on the face of things.
4
This is a complex case.
No woman (or man) should ever have to provide sex or sexual services of any sort to get, keep, or advance in a job, any job. That’s pretty much the law as things stand, and if clarification of the law is necessary, this should be legislated.
But there’s another side to this. No woman should voluntarily provide sex to gain employment or advance her career. Some women do. In these situations there are two parties at fault, the woman who initiated the behavior, and the man who went along.
Ali Watkins, currently a reporter for this newspaper, had a long running sexual relationship with a married man 31 years older than herself, who was Director of Security for the Senate Intelligence Committee. During this period she wrote many well-regarded stories, many likely sourced with her lover’s help. The relationship ended when her lover lost his job. Her behavior seems inappropriate.
In the Weinstein case, the law gives an advantage to the women; as the article notes, his accusers’ prior sexual history is inadmissible under rape shield laws, but Mr. Weinstein’s prior relationships are evidentiary. Perhaps this is as it should be, it’s complicated.
From what I’ve read, the relationships between Mr. Weinstein’s accusers and the accused seem consensual and perhaps even transactional. Thus, though repugnant, Weinstein’s behavior may not have violated the law. The jury must decide. There was a power imbalance; in life, there often is.
10
I have little doubt that Weinstein was violent and coercive with these two women (and everyone else). I've read enough about him and his physical rapport with women to know that's how he likes to have sex. He's not "making love", folks. He's causing pain and exerting his power. He was making them do it when they didn't want to. That's a crime for which he should be punished.
Having said, that, it is entirely possible that these women didn't mind at the time. Why is Fifty Shades of Grey so popular among women? Is possible to enjoy being overpowered by a man while knowing it's painful and wrong? Unfortunately, that's what the defense will stress - that sure, he was probably forceful and hurtful, but the women didn't mind and came back for more. So is it violent sex or is it sexual violence? Weinstein says he can't tell the difference; can the jury?
31
@Julie
In my view, legally speaking, the issue is whose state of mind is more relevant? Is it Weinstein's state of mind that, hey, these women are still seeing me so I can't be assaulting or raping them. Or, is it the women's state of mind that this is not a fully consensual relationship and they are going along with it because he is an important player in the movie industry and they can't just drop him, much less accuse him of rape.
3
@Julie Reading a book and real life are two separate things. The former is under your control, the second is not.
2
@Julie Or they hated it, but felt it was necessary to survive in Hollywood.
2
I fell really sorry for the victim's pain and I apologize if my comment can be interpreted as insensitive. I took my car to the mechanic. His service was terrible and he broke my car. Should I be quiet and pretend it did not happen and continue to take my car to him? If he asks for a meeting to discuss the situation in a hotel room at night, should I go or should I ask it to be in a public place where I would feel more secure he will not attempt to harass me? When I tell my friends what he did to my car some say I should do nothing and continue to use his services because who knows what this man can do to destroy your life. They keep sending their cars to him. I hear he can call all car retailers and other mechanics and tell them I am a bad customer and ask them not to sell me a new car and to not service my car. He IS a bad mechanic, everyone knows it but some people keep taking their cars to him and nobody files a formal complaint to the authorities. Therefore he thinks he is doing something some people want. 25 years later I finally was able to tell everyone how much damage he did to my cars but then his lawyers kept asking me why I never complained before and kept using his services repeatedly for years. I'm confused.
6
@HJB BUT does it necessarily mean that he didn't actually initially break your car?
5
@HJB It's not "I took my car to the mechanic". This isn't akin to optional services where a woman has infinite options in the marketplace. This is about one predator wielding enormous power in an industry. And about the traumatic effects of being on the wrong end of that power dynamic. Period.
7
@Movie Fan Maybe not a crime, though.
1
As someone who has friends who have experience rape and abuse, some of you need to realize that post-rape psychology is EXTREMELY complex before you start dismissing these women. Whether they were granted career favors afterwards is not the point here. Even if it appears consensual, there is often a broken line of logic after such trauma that severely impacts the victim’s future choices.
29
@B
There's no question that the psychology is complex but that psychology is a key driver of evidence in this case. If Weinstein wanted to engage sexually with a woman who did not want to engage sexually with him and made that clear, of course he is guilty. But if the complex psychology caused the woman to pretend she was interested in Weinstein, a juror could have a hard time voting to convict.
9
@B The psychology may be extremely complex, but the legal issue at stake is simple. You don't engage in an long, ongoing sexual relationship with someone when it suits you, then go back and claim that your first encounter was rape when you later regret your choices.
Adult women are capable of making adult decisions. Sometimes, this means accepting responsibility for a bad decision.
14
So you have the insight to claim that they were never raped first and simply regretted it later? Power dynamics are at play here, and it’s not a simple legal issue regardless of if our system has a sufficient way of approaching it or not (I do not believe it does). There needs to be reform in how we approach this, because it happens far too often time and time again.
You do not get to speak for these women as if you know their situation in full.
3
I am struck by how the prosecution's premise seems to be: 'a relationship is based only on what i want and how I define it on a day-to-day basis'. Meaning: changeable in my own mind at any time. That is not a case that can be successfully prosecuted.
If I held my ex-girlfriends to this standard, I could drag more than a few of them into court. Mental anguish, manipulation, quid-pro-quo, etc.
He will be appropriately acquitted.
19
@dmckj Umm, if you decide to give someone money, you get to change your mind at any time, even on a day-to-day basis. If you are the recipient of the money, you don't get to take it without permission, even if you are given it on another occasions. Same deal with sexual activity. Consent is necessary *every* time.
4
@Movie Fan You've unwittingly made my point. On a transactional basis, if I have money and you don't, I have to agree to give the money every time, right? And yet in a marriage relationship, a sole breadwinner is legally and culturally bound to unquestioningly share that money with the other, right? But sex is different, right? By your own example, how so?
But, I agree with you to the extent that money and sex are often inextricably intertwined. Always have been, always will be.
1
As an attorney of nearly forty years, it is inconceivable to me that a prosecutor would join dubious claims of criminal conduct with credible claims.
These cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why join dramatically unequal claims in a single prosecution and hand reasonable doubt to the defense on a platter?
I fear that the defendant's victims may soon be victimized a second time by what appears to be prosecutorial malpractice.
59
@Didier
The only named two victims — the only ones that were not time barred. But since those two victims had relationships with Weinstein that continued after the alleged assaults, something more was needed. And that consisted of the testimony of the four whose claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and which was offered as evidence of Weinstein’s similar past behavior, for the purpose of establishing a pattern of sexual assaults....
2
@Marcus Aurelius
Sorry for the elision in the first sentence. It should read “The indictment named....”
1
@Marcus Aurelius
“...the four whose claims were NOT barred...”
Mea culpa. I’m having typing fits today...
1
The jury is not in "uncharted legal territory" as the photo caption suggests. Under our criminal justice system, the state has the burden of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty of the alleged crimes. That standard is the same in this trial as it has been in every other criminal trial since the founding of our nation. If a juror has reasonable doubt, then he/she must vote to acquit. It will come down to whether the jury finds the prosecution's witnesses credible. There is nothing "uncharted" about that.
31
This is a political prosecution. It will look good when they run for office. More than one juror will have reasonable doubt.
16
@Lawrence
Vance will never be reelected in NYC regardless of the outcome of this trial. It was his failure to prosecute earlier, when his office had taped evidence from a woman who wore a wire, that allowed Weinstein to continue.
1
The prosecution's ability to use the so-called "other acts" evidence in these cases is despicable. It allows the State to, basically, back a loading truck up to the trial, and dump accusations from other alleged victims into the present case. They're allowed to argue that such evidence is not improper "character" evidence against the defendant, but it is actually just that. Essentially, the jury gets to use such prior accusations or incidents to prove that if he did it then, he must be guilty of these current accusations. It's a horribly unfair evidence rule specifically written to favor the State in prosecutions, not only in rape trials but all trials. It's a farce, yet State prosecutors use this type of evidence, over and over again. They can't prove Weinstein guilty of these charges with just these two women, so they need "extra" evidence to do so. No justice.
31
There is a logical conundrum here. If the victim’s behavior post-event is to report the event, this is viewed as supporting the guilt of the accused. If the victim maintains a cordial relationship, this is also viewed as consistent with guilt on the part of the accused. In brief, the assumption of guilt becomes a non-falsifiable hypothesis, for which no set of post-event facts can establish innocence.
14
@LTJ I'm lost in deciphering your conundrum but what is not a conundrum to me is that women who seek work or stardom in an exhibitionistic industry where many males feel entitled to sexual foisting know the risks up front. The consequences of submission or refusal are theirs alone to live with. Don't expect the general public to have much pity for actresses. John Poole
7
Why are THESE two cases at the "center"? Does "center" mean that by some quirk of law or deal the prosecutors have agreed to or cannot avoid, all the other cases are being subordinated to and being treated as equivalent to these two cases? Or is each case going to be decided as a separate charge by the jury?
Or is "center" a tactic being pushed by the defense, who are hoping to imply that Weinstein is only as guilty as the weakest link in the testimonies against him?
This article incurs more questions than answers.
7
@Craig H. These are the only two cases that fall within the statute of limitations. The other cases are evidence of prior similar misconduct. "Prosecutors also called on four other women with allegations of sexual assault against Mr. Weinstein, ones that could never result in charges because they took place too long ago" Read the article again.
6
What about the other 90 women who have accused him of sexual assault?
@Craig H. These two cases were chosen because they were recent enough that they could be prosecuted. Many of the women who came forward were raped over 10 years ago.
I'm sure there were other, more recent cases. But you also have to get the women to testify. And look at how they are raked over the coals when they do.
1
The first time you are a victim, the second time might be a repercussion of the first. But the umpteenth time you are an accomplice - a willing participant.
Sorry, girls, I don’t believe a word of your made-for-movies stories.
66
@Conservative Mom - victim shaming is unfortunate. People in power abusing their position and consistently withholding work unless his demands were met is unfortunate. By your logic the first 2 rapes these women endured should be disregarded.
11
@Conservative Mom wrote: "The first time you are a victim."
That time is the crime being tried.
And the evidence of "the first time" was provided.
Don't get yourself confused.
15
@kp,
Yes, because, they both had a love affair with the man, in hopes of getting jobs. They must not have been too traumatized.
I bet if Monica Levisky had accused Clinton of forcing himself on her, you would be defending him. Right?
3
If a husband can violently assault his wife, then any relationship with any history can co-exist with a fundamental violation- the absence of consent and a variety of physical & emotional coercion.
These women charging Weinstein are not angels- their opportunism is obvious, but this is not a basis to excuse his exploitation & abuse.
Power is the crucial variable. Would any of these women has agreed to be his 'booty call' if not for his quid pro quo & retaliative threats ?
72
@Sara - Agreed 100%.
While they may be opportunists, unfortunately with all the power he wielded it's apparent its another pay to play system like most areas of contemporary US society. If they didn't put up with this and put out because of it, their chances of a successful Hollywood career diminished. An unfortunate and despicable atmosphere for any woman trying to follow her dreams.
17
@Sara
You see opportunism; I view the women who testified as having finally found the courage to speak their truth after #MeToo reached a critical mass.
It's really a matter of opinion. And the only opinions that matter are those of the 12 jurors, not NYT commenters.
20
@Sara
ImO your question could also be formuled in this way : "Would any of these women has agreed....if not for their own quid pro quo & their hopes (to get roles)".
5
If the prosecution or defense really, called even one trauma specialist (which I hope they did) they would all hear how it is actually very common for a survivor to have subsequent sexual contact with their rapist/abuser. This happens for a variety of reasons such as trying to repair the injury by having consensual sex after rape, trying to take control of a situation in which someone stripped you of all of it, trying to convince the self that it didn't happen or wasn't damaging by continuing contact with a person, those are just a few of the complex psychological survival responses that are very common. When the individual is in a position of power that can only exacerbate these potential effects.
54
@KAnderson If it is common for a survivor to have repeated sexual contact with an abuser then it is also common that a prosecutor will probably not charge an abuser with a crime, and if they do it is likely that the trial will result in a not guilty verdict. I think we will probably see a not guilty verdict in the Weinstein trial, since the burden of proof will likely not be met, given that the victims appeared to have had a relationship with him. Even with the testimony of a trauma specialist.
5
For this trial. His LA trial will be a completely different story. He doesn’t have a way out of that one.
5
@Mike Well as we all know it is extremely common for rape of any kind if it even makes it to trial to end in a verdict of not guilty, which is why consistent dialogue and education about the realities of rape are so necessary. In 1993 our federal government outlawed marital rape, which acknowledges that rape can and does exist within the context of a consensual relationship.
2
If I commit a crime against someone, and my victim remains on friendly terms with me, does that mean I didn’t commit the crime?
If I commit an act of criminal violence against my spouse, and she stays married to me, does that mean I didn’t commit that crime?
If I assault you at work, and you still work for me, does that mean I didn’t assault you?
173
@Bill bartelt The short answer to your question is it raises a reasonable doubt that the conduct complained of occurred and if only one of twelve has such a doubt, you will be acquitted. If you were the accused you would be very thankful for this rule.
17
@Bill bartelt
As multiple commenters have already noted, the issue is the high burden of proof.
Starting an argument with the premise that a crime did occur is tautological.
16
@Bill bartelt No, but it casts doubt on your guilt in a court of law.
9
I believe in "me too" but there are so many issues of due process here. What if the jury believes Sciorra but not Mann or Haley, which seems plausible under these facts? Can the jury convict Weinstein of Mann's rape based on Sciorra's testimony? Do multiple accounts that can't support a conviction on their own equal one finding of guilt? We want to put rapists in jail but letting the state stretch the prosecution to get convictions is a scary slippery slope.
18
Here is something a rape victim might think as she is being raped: "This isn't happening." Another thought is: "what is happening," or "how can this be happening?" Closed communities be they religious, vocational, professional, cultural or even academic tend to rally around the male. And certainly when a powerful or well connected male assaults or "takes advantage of" someone within that closed community, that male has plenty of opportunity to spin his own story before the girl or woman or boy can clearly stand in their felt sense of what happened and name it for what it was. I think of the Greek myth of Daphne. Apollo pursues Daphne. Daphne prays to her father, a god, for deliverance and her father turns her into a tree. It is not Apollo who turned into the tree. It is Daphne.
104
@Debra Merryweather
Certainly women can blank out during the actual assault.
Far less common, even improbable, is where the alleged victim initiates sexual contact afterwards in the absence of any significant pre-existing relationship.
9
@EDM Maybe it is uncommon, but not improbably. Think of the dynamics of the relationships between Weinstein and the victims. He was their boss or held unbelievable power over their career in an industry that is brutally competitive, not some random stranger. Rape is an assault that is unlike other equally violent assaults, and a victim’s response to rape are not the same as victim’s response to other types of assault.
5
@EDM I don't think you understand the power dynamics involved.Tacit and overt pressure is placed on sexual abuse victims to not "be victims" as in be identified as or even self-identity as sexual assault victims. This can play out in victims reframing the assault and the "relationship" whatever it's been. Some religions encourage young rape victims to marry older rapists to legitimize the relationship. Context.
23
Weinstein may well be a rapist, but these aren't the witnesses to prove it. It seens that he coerced them in some manner into having sex but afterwards they went along with, and even encouraged an ongoing relationship. Eventually the witnesses may have decided they weren't getting enough out of that relationship and, as they matured, became disgusted with their own complicity. As human beings will do, they rationalized their behavior by recasting themselves as helpless victims. When men do that, they are accused of mansplaining.
33
Methinks you don’t understand what mansplaining is.
Quid-pro-quo is rape, whether the victim appears to consent to the arrangement or not.
Every healthy relationship involves some sort of exchange of favors, but those are mostly given through love and without consequence of reprisal should sexual desires go unrequited on occasion. These women weren't so much given promises of career breaks, so much as promised career ruin if they failed to comply with their alleged assaulter's requests and give in to his aggression.
It's rape today, it will be tomorrow, and despite some people thinking otherwise, it was rape in 2013, doesn't matter what happened after the fact.
9
@PB
Ouid-pro-quo is Quid-pro-quo. Rape is rape. And never the twain shall meet.
5
@PB Excuse me, but quid-pro-quo sex is pretty much the rule, not the exception. As such, nearly all sex is rape?
Quid-pro-quo: I take you out for dinner, we go to a show and have nice conversation, and you decided it was enjoyable enough (i.e. you got enough out of it) to want to have sex.
No quid no quo: I tell you I want to save money, we meet at a coffee shop, and you decide you aren't interested in a cheap man.
That is what most of life is about, whether you acknowledge it. Women market their youth and beauty all the time. That is quid-pro-quo. Men do the same in a different manner.
6
@PB Saying it doesn't make it true.
1
I don't know why this is even open to question that someone can be raped and still have amicable even intimate relations with the rapist afterward -- just think of intimidation and fear as 2 factors - fear of financial or other repercussions for example, ovious incentives. Depressing that this is even at issue.
14
The man does not look attractive. That alone says a lot.
Either these women really fell for the guy or they were indeed overpowered by a man who controlled their destiny.
But is this type sexual behavior transactional only for one party? And not the other?
It would appear that the women knew exactly what they wanted. And used sexual favors to get it.
Sounds more like a case of sour grapes.
23
How can an old man in a walker rape so many women? It doesn't make sense. These women must be ganging up on grandpa to fleece him. What other explanation is there? Did they help him out of his trousers too? /s
@Bill
This comment demonstrates for all the shortcomings of the jury system, as well as universal suffrage.
1
@GMooG - I believe Bill's comment was sarcasm.
3
90 women. Coincidence? You be the judge.
12
@Never mind the...
A while ago several thousand in France accused a woman of being a witch in league with the devil, and burned her at the stake. You be the judge. In the last century, the German people decided that 10 million plus men, woman and children were not human and murdered them. You be the judge.
2
I have no doubt that Weinstein was a serial predator and am very disappointed that the women with the strongest claims against him did not go to the police on time. I understand their reluctance, but these 2 women may not have persuaded the jury.
19
I suggest a new catagory of sexual crime. Call it coersive extortionist rape. When a person has the well known reputation of being able to offer significant opportunity within a lucrative industry, so much so that it is internationally known, said individual is well aware themselves of that power. To use it in the manner described is certainly a form of extortion.
7
@Steve Believe it or not, it is not that difficult to say "No" to a proposition, or to walk out of a hotel room. Most women would want nothing to do with Weinstein and would not engage in a ongoing relationship with him. These two did.
That some people are obsessed by celebrity status, or the alleged glamour or money someone has, does not absolve anyone of taking responsibility for their own actions, including a decision to go along with whatever the celebrity wants.
5
@Steve
OK. Let's say your employer offers you $15/hour to make coffee, but $100/hour to clean the bathrooms instead. Extortion? How is that different than what you propose?
2
Even in the context of a marriage, forced sex is still rape.
44
@Amanda While this is true, the jury may not see staying in a marriage and hoping to continue to get good movie roles in the same context.
5
@Amanda
Even outside of marriage, consensual sex is consensual.
4
@Amanda So the converse is true as well? If women withhold sex for control and as a mechanism to get what they want, that is extortion?
That is the logical corollary.
5
They agreed to have sex with him because who could get them in the movies. Is it really that complicated?
38
Um...not that the jury can consider it but Harv has lot's of women coming forward, alleging rape, assault, harassment, bullying, and other forms of sexual sexual deviancy (forced massage and observed masturbation). If his victims continued to see him in some context, have sex with him and maybe describe feelings about him...he can still be guilty of the things he is charged with. Why? Power. He had all the power and they had none. Saying "no" and having him respect that was impossible. He controlled, in some instances their careers, and he controlled in many instances their future ability to develop and sustain a network to obtain other jobs, So, put him in prison for 20 years and let him think about it for awhile. When he comes out...more power to him.
4
Rape is not just between strangers, rape happens in relationships as well. Marital rape is something that is not discussed or as ‘routinely’ publicized as date or stranger rape. This case has huge implications for people in abusive relationships, whether the abuse comes from physical, emotional, financial abuse or significant power differences. While the women in this trial had relationships with Weinstein afterwards, that does not negate the fact that he took their bodies for himself without their consent. Consent is not generalized, it’s good for one encounter. Consent workshops now teach that sex with a partner one time does not imply that you’ll have sex again. Sex without consent is rape, regardless of what happens between the individuals afterwards.
16
Forget the Jury. This case will be resolved in either the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals.
2
If he is acquitted by jury, it ends. Rule of double jeopardy. Cannot try a person twice on same charges. If a mistrial occurs as ruled by presiding judge then a retrial can take place. If he is convicted now, he can appeal perhaps.
9
Courts have ruled that rape can occur in marriage. The relationships in these cases have not been formalized with a ceremony, but are not different in that they are ongoing and complex. Non-consensual instances of sexual intercourse are rape whenever they occur. A pattern of such instances makes a predator who merits conviction and punishment.
29
@ged A marriage is a legal and in some cases religious contract that, while breakable, may provide context for why a married victim of rape might stay. Children are another factor. I don't necessarily think continued employment in the movie industry provides the same context and this might be challenging for the jury.
2
@Justin While employment is the obvious part of the reason the women stayed, psychologically the dependence is likely to be more complex. But you are right that not all jurors might see that.
The women’s story is plausible to me - that this was non consensual sex and they felt pressured to maintain a friendly & sexual relationship afterwards. But it’s also plausible that these were ongoing consensual relationships that the women didn’t enjoy or were bearing because they hoped to advance their careers. It seems also plausible that they courted or invited the behavior to advance their careers - and now in the era of metoo they regret their past choices or are reinterpreting the interactions.
To send someone to jail for rape - it just has to be a clearer story. The case in la sounds much stronger. It’s not that we don’t believe women, it’s just that criminal guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and drawing hearts and dating the person for 3 years introduces that doubt.
167
@Anon "It's not the case that we don't believe women"? No, that exactly the case. Our willingness to think that having consensual (?) sex later means it was consensual before, *despite the woman saying it was rape*, is a case of not believing women.
26
@Jeremy
The men who accused Kevin Spacey of misconduct were not believed in the court of public opinion either.
2
@Jeremy The rule is not Believe Women. The rule is start by believing and then listen to the evidence. If the evidence creates doubt, then you don't convict. If the rule is just Believe Women, why have trials at all?
5
The transactional nature of the sexual acts here—where both parties were using each other for their own purposes, will almost certainly result in a hung jury at best. Harvey sounds like a despicable man but whether the Prosecution has met its beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof that the act was non-consensual is another matter. One or more of those jurors are likely to conclude that it was consensual.
111
Maybe it's uncharitable on my part, but it looks like people facing sexual assault charges, during court proceedings at least, have sudden and "dramatic" health issues. Almost seem's like its coached.
I hope the jury in this case is open to the concepts brought before them. Otherwise it's the same old case where the victim is judged and not the accused.
14
It does not matter what happened after the attacks. This is simply a case where women were taken advantage of without consent and then were put in a place where they felt forced to play along or else lose their jobs. Rape victims, especially in workplace power situations like these, often continue to “stay friendly” with their abuser in power in order to keep their job security. These women absolutely still deserve justice, this new development does not change that fact.
36
@Justin M. I agree that it doesn't matter what happens after an attack. Rape is rape, and I don't doubt that some victims might, for a variety of reasons, maintain outwardly friendly relationships with the attacker.
But the purpose of this trial is to determine whether or not the attacks took place at all. The evidence rests on the accounts of the alleged victims, which means that to convict Weinstein, the jury has to fully believe the women. And for this, the their behavior after the attacks will inevitably play a role.
41
@Justin M.
While I agree with you on the face of your argument, convicting a person for any crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the heaviest burden placed on any prosecutor in our legal system. It's a tough bar to jump over, and intent also plays a huge part in jury deliberations.
Any good defense attorney is going to make the argument that what happened after the attacks does indeed matter, especially relationships that continued for years.
We can argue about the power men have over women in the film industry, and how that system can lead to abuse of power. But I keep asking the question, do actresses (and actors) make it in Hollywood only via the casting couch? Do any say no and succeed anyway?
6
@Justin M.I see your point and these women have my sympathy. But I also assume that these women - like Weinstein - hoped to gain from these relationships and in that sense it was a bit more consensual than they are willing to admit. No doubt they were unhappy that they were having sex with Weinstein but were they not keeping the door open to advance their careers? Yes there is a power issue. But women have always used men - for financial gain for example - are we to seriously believe Weinstein's wife married him for love and had no idea of his reputation? I rather think she wanted access to his bank account to finance her design business - but maybe I am too jaded. Is Jerri hall deeply in love with Rupert Murdock? Alas! Men want beauty and youth and women want access to power and money.
11
Wow. I don't know how I would react if I were on this jury. I would have so many questions: Was the career drive of the women assaulted so strong that they would keep enduring contact with Weinstein just for a role in a movie?
Why would they continue to send him texts and e-mails that would clearly lead him to believe that his despicable behavior was something they actually enjoyed and wanted to continue?
How can you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that some of the relationships continued for several years, and that during that time the women involved kept asking him for favors, or to accompany him to Hollywood galas, or for a part in one of his films?
Are there no actresses in Hollywood who have been successful without subjugating themselves sexually to a predator like Weinstein? Was that the only way to "make it" there?
Tough to be on this jury.
80
@Len Not so tough apparently.
Jury is there to determine if the charges against Weinstein are true or not. Focus on those specific charges. Not what happened before or after that. Its common to discredit witness and alleged victim but that does not change the fact of what might have happened in this case. Jury is not here to determine if the acts by this 2 women should be seen in bad or good light. They are here to determine if Weinstein is guilty of criminal charges against he faces. Not here to determine if this 2 women are guilty of having relationship with him even after the attack.
Truth is usually simple.
12
@Vsppn
A good argument. But Weinstein is facing a series of charges and the prosecution has made the case to show a pattern of sexual misconduct against him. In going with that argument, the multiple charges over a period of years begs the question for any juror: why did the survivor/victim continue the relationship and for what reason?
That is precisely the reason why his defense attorney is making those arguments. Our courts still employ the "reasonableness" standard: what would a reasonable person conclude from this pattern of behavior.
With that said, I think Weinstein is a slime ball who deserves what he gets, but the burden is still pretty heavy on any jury to get to a guilty verdict.
14
@Vsppn
And that rape can occur within the context of marriage has been legally established.
2
When men no longer control the world women will be able to stop betraying their instincts in order to survive.
88
@Holly
Spot-on genius.
6
@Holly
I'm not so sure of that. Last I looked, women are humans, and humans betray their instincts all of the time. That's one thing that defines humans as opposed to other animals: we make choices that are not in our best interests all of the time. Other animals, not so much or even not at all. Dostoevsky pointed out that humans are defined by being able to make the perverse decision to do things that directly harm themselves.
9
@Holly
A man who thinks he controls his world is a man who has never been married.
9
This is not uncharted legal territory.
Lack of consent is rape.
64
@MAmom2 looks pretty consensual on paper. Therein lies the problem...
13
Sorry, we may not like Weinstein, and he may well have been very wrong, but to prosecute someone for rape in a situation of a “three year relationship that alternated between consensual and non-consensual sex” and included many expressions of interest, love and desire by the woman, to convict for sexual assault in that situation based solely on the say-so of one side, is collective social insanity. Again, not saying Weinstein was right, but to call that rape seems a bridge much too far.
These sorts of prosecutions will also negatively affect how men and woman behave towards each other in the future, and in addition seems to infantilize the woman by removing all sense of independent agency on her part with respect to her actions in the matter. She may have been wrongly misled and taken advantage of by Weinstein, but that doesn’t mean she had no say or choice in the matter either.
To reiterate to all who are gong to respond negatively - Weinstein may have been very wrong, but there’s still a broad gulf between grossly wrong, immoral behavior and rape.
140
@Jay by 1993 our federal government ruled that "marital rape" is still rape and against the law. Rape can and does happen within the context of a relationship. The way one survives this relationship is often difficult for non-survivors and non-trauma specialists to understand. And more often that not survivors are not believed just on the say-so of one side. But you can read the research and begin to understand a bit more deeply because it does sound like you have a true curiosity on the subject and the more we all learn abut rape and power and control dynamics the better.
22
@Jay
Stockholm Syndrome.
10
@Jay - That is the most nieave, shallow in understanding of something I have ever read.
3