The prosecution has attempted to explain the accusers' behavior as not untypical of 'victims'.
'When Ms Haley had sex with Mr Weinstein two weeks after he allegedly assaulted her in 2006 - and signed one of her emails to him "Lots of Love" - she was trying to make what happened "not so disgusting" and "almost normalize the situation," Meghan Hast, a prosecutor, told the jury.'
But isn't it also possible that now - NOW - she is doing the opposite: trying to make what happened 'as disgusting as possible' and 'beyond the bounds of normality'? The defense's terms are 'relabeled' and 'reimagined.'
What is the truth? When, as here, there exists no contemporary record, written or otherwise, it becomes almost impossible to establish the truth.
At such cases, doesn't "reasonable doubt" operate in favor of the accused?
6
Pathetic Mr. W, rumpled, dumpled and looking so vulnerable himself with his medical prop.. He could never have done anything to these strong and evil women who are accusing him of such vile acts...not him. Who wrote this script? It stinks.
4
This chasing around the room has been around point of fact a highly placed actress of my acquaintance has already informed me that multiple agents who were familiar with this pattern of being harassed or hit upon was well known in the industry,,so simply you were never to be alone in the room with Harvey...…...that's it.He had no business hitting on or shall we say a quid pro quo...…........for a contract.This seems to be some sort mental ill ness on Harveys part......….possibly getting worse as his finances went up and down......how tantalizing to see if he can get his due with these poor souls......…..
Nothing will ever convince me that this man isn't the predator that these women say he is. If he gets off, I truly have no faith in the justice system at all.
4
One never forgets being sexually assaulted. Years don’t erase the memories and neither do decades.
I believe Harvey Weinstein’s accusers. Stories are all very consistent and these women didn’t all het together to conspire against him. Just like Cosby, Weinstein should be held accountable.
9
Guilty as charged.
1
Wouldn't it also be true that Weinstein's memories have faded over the years? I find it likely that his memories of attacks on so many women for so many years are now remembered as consensual encounters because I doubt he could admit to himself that he is a sexual predator.
6
The thing about sexual abuse is that it doesn't stop after the initial rape. It doesn't just stay in your mind; it changes who you are and your future choices.
How do you disengage from someone who has just confirmed your worst and most secret fears about yourself? Especially if they are in a position to continue to manipulate you.
3
"Memories fade." The defense is literally saying that this woman forgot that she WASNT raped.
2
The thought about memories on wthether they do or do not fade is a questionable thought. Most people do not remember what they did a week ago, but if someone was brutally attacked and raped; they are scarred by that memory for the rest of their life. There are victims that are unable to get a full nights sleep without recapping the traumatic experience and trying to remember how they were unable to defend themselves. Whether or not a person maintains a "relationship" with someone, a lot comes to thought. Maybe they are keeping this person near due to Mr. Weinstein holding something over Ms. Sciorra and he has threatened to expose it; and one may never really know. I hope that the jury really look into all of the details of the case and all of the testimonies to see that Mr. Weinstein should be convicted.
2
Elizabeth Loftus has been wrongly representing memory research since the 1990s. UCI should have fired her long ago. Research has shown that memories of highly distressing events are actually more likely to be retained. She is not a respected scientist. She is someone who gets paid to give expert testimony with a slant that defense attorneys can’t get from reputable memory researchers. She knew she could make a career of doing this because early on the media sensationalized her work and coined the term “false memory syndrome,” not a real diagnosis, but in fact a media invention. And then thanks to the explosión of misguided attention from the media, Loftus made a career (and presumably lots of money) testifying for the defense in sexual assault and child sexual abuse cases. It’s shameful.
6
I looked at her Wikipedia page.
She may of course be wrong, but to yell that “She is not a respected scientist,” is just plain silly.
3
The memory of a rape never fades. Ever.
31
@Mary A
Personally, I don't know whether he's guilty or not and haven't been following this closely. It is probably true that the memory of a rape would never fade. It certainly hasn't for me. But it is also possible to imagine something and to fill out the details in one's mind and then "remember" something that never happened.
Hillary "remembered" running from an air force plane under fire while she was on a diplomatic trip as FLOTUS. The problem is it never happened. Fleeing from a plane under fire is something that someone would definitely remember. It seems to me that she was probably fearful at the time and imagined the terrible things that could happen and somehow converted the half dream into a memory of how brave she was. So it wasn't that she was really lying, but relating courage she believed herself capable of having.
The two women he is on trial for raping are going to sue for big bucks if he's convicted and their relationships seem transactional. The 30 year old memory may be motivated by her perception that she is helping them.
The jury is hearing all of these details first hand and will decide what they decide.
2
@Mary A. Can someone post the link to the audio that was made public a while back from a police recording? It was only a minute or two, but I couldnt get through it, it was so vile to hear this man carrying out a sexual assault against a different young woman.
Everyone should listen to hear what sexual assault sounds like - if you can take it.
1
Weinstein and his attorney, are story tellers.
Their expert is a professional story teller.
Yet only the prosecution attempted to tell a story.
Now the jury decides what is truth.
Did Weinstein craft a successful show?
1
I believe Annabella Sciorra.
Her account of what Weinstein did to her is so strong and solid, it does not need a walker for support.
49
Mr. Feldsher described himself as a defender of Mr. Weinstein, saying that he had kept in touch with the producer even after scores of women came forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct.
Mr Feldsher, may you never have children and expose them to the likes of Weinstein, who you. describe as a sex addict... What do addicts do? They certainly don't listen when they have an urge, be it drugs, alcohol or sex...
I'm sure you still get work from Weinstein, so what price a soul, Mr Feldsher?
19
@Kbu You are right! Mr. Feldsher who is defending Mr. Weinstein should think about all the women who came forward to him and defend the women against Mr. Weinstein instead. Clearly Mr. Weinstein did something to the women because they wouldn't be coming forward about an allegation this harsh for no reason.
1
Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He used his power to control women for his sexual gratification. In this power dynamic he preyed on women with less power and they did not know what to do. Psychology research shows over and over how this dynamic plays out, and why people with less power may continue to associate with their tormentor. No matter what happens in the court of law, he needs to have his reputation destroyed (check) so he no longer has the power, and he needs to be kept away from women.
32
Perhaps if Annabella Sciorra and Harvey’s other victims took a cue from Harvey’s tattered playbook rolled into the courtroom in wheelchairs or using a walker they’d receive a better reception.
I am sooooo tired of aging sexual predators trying to convey they are too weak to have sexually abused and raped people. That dog shouldn't bark no more.
39
@Greg You definitely make a good point about how he is making himself seem so weak with the walker. He is portaying himself to be this "old man" who is incapable but behind closed doors we will never know who is really is and how "weak" he may be.
1
This notion that memory fades holds true for normal memories. If you asked most people what outfit they wore last Friday they might not be able to tell you. But for a vicious assault like the one Ms. Sciorra described to fade is extremely unlikely. There are certain indelible events in everyone's life that people NEVER forget. Unfortunately for Ms. Sciorra, a terrible rape is one of her indelible memories. I hope Weinstein spends the rest of his miserable life behind bars.
54
@NMY
agreed.
similarly, many people have vivid memories of when they first heard about
- 9/11
- JFK assassination
- family member's death
- etc
kinda wondering if the expert witness has any memories that she trusts of herself.
7
@NMY I grew up in NYC and was sexually assaulted on a subway platform when I was 16. I don't call it a rape because he ejaculated before he penetrated. I am now 70. I remember the circumstances, what I was wearing, the terror, the sound of his voice, and the smell of his cologne. An experience like this is emblazoned into one's soul.
10
I expect he will be convicted, but only because the judge allowed six accusers to testify (four outside the 5 year statute of limitations, in Sciorra’s case over 25 years ago).
There’s great strength in numbers. The issue for me: is it fair to convict on the basis of multiple accusers when there would be no conviction if each one were tried separately?
These are the kinds of questions we used to debate in law school; probably still do.
15
His trial in LA is for only one woman who had absolutely no contact with him before or after the alleged rape. It will be a lot harder for him to deny that one.
17
@Steven Roth Sounds like that same argument would be useful against class action law suits as well...
It's also the reason that large numbers are needed by the NTSB and the CDC to track patterns of problems with automobiles, and illnesses like the coronavirus.
3
This trial is fascinating. I do not know what is true, but my advice is: If you want to get off and can afford it, get a good lawyer. Not necessarily an honest one, but one who argues things well. Soon no one knows what is true.
13
@Sam You are accurately describing the justice system in the United States as it has been since the beginning. The smarter lawyer wins (especially if they happen to be a gifted orator as well). The more money you have to throw at your defense the better your chances of getting off.
10
@Gill Sit in a courtroom, sometimes brilliant lawyering helps, but more often there is this stuff called evidence, and when you spend more than a few minutes in court, it sometimes adds up to something no argument can counter.
Debating is not so bad when your interests are involved. Or would you prefer to have to overturn an investigating magistrates presumption against your interest? Like Japan? Innocent or guilty, an adversarial system with a presumption of innocence seems very agreeable to every citizen if they become a defendant.
4
@Robert
You are correct in theory, and I hope that most of the time evidence provides a clear verdict. But that is not the case. There are high profile cases where high paid lawyers decide the outcome. Remember OJ Simpson? Evidence of DNA on a bloody glove was not enough because the glove had shrunk and "did not fit" Dershowitz helped on that one.
So, do you think Weinstein is guilty? Or have you been sufficiently confused by the lawyers that you can't tell. I really have no idea. The job of the lawyers is not to seek truth, but simply to win the day. Sort of reminds me of the legal blocking of witnesses at the impeachment trial. Truth or evidence did not matter as long as the day was won.
11
There is plenty of evidence he was not a pleasant person to be around.
But there is not enough evidence to convict BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
24
I agree.
6
@Full Name (required)
That is your opinion, not a fact, and I disagree: I see him as clearly guilty. Without doubt.
24
@Full Name (required) you haven’t been in the courtroom to hear all the evidence. So I don’t see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
13