Weinstein rape trial begins with film producer facing up to life in prison

By Tom Hals, Brendan Pierson

 

FILE PHOTO: Film producer Harvey Weinstein leaves New York Supreme Court after his arraignment in his sexual assault case in New York, U. S., August 26, 2019. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - The rape trial of Harvey Weinstein, the former movie mogul who transformed the independent film world with award-winning movies like “Shakespeare in Love” and “The English Patient,” begins this week in Manhattan.

 

Once one of Hollywood’s most powerful producers, Weinstein, 67, has pleaded not guilty to charges of assaulting two women in New York. He faces life in prison if convicted on the most serious charge, predatory sexual assault.

 

One of the women, former production assistant Mimi Haleyi, has said that Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 2006. Prosecutors say Weinstein raped the second woman, who has not been publicly identified, in 2013.

 

In all, more than 80 women have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct dating back decades.

 

Those accusations helped fuel the #MeToo movement, in which hundreds of women have publicly accused powerful men in business, politics, the news media and entertainment of sexual harassment or assault.

 

Weinstein has denied the allegations, saying any sexual encounters he had were consensual.

 

Jury selection in the case, which will take place in state court in Manhattan, is expected to begin on Tuesday following a pretrial conference on Monday, according to Danny Frost, a spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, whose office brought the charges.

 

The trial will hang over the Hollywood awards season, which kicked off with Sunday’s Golden Globes. Weinstein was once a fixture at the industry’s glitzy ceremonies, with numerous critically acclaimed small-budget films such as “Shakespeare in Love,” which won the Oscar for best picture in 1999.

 

“First and foremost, this trial is important for the dozens of women who have experienced sexual assault or harassment at the hands of Harvey Weinstein,” said Tina Tchen, the president of Time’s Up Foundation, which was founded in the wake of the Weinstein allegations.

 

Juda Engelmayer, a spokesman for Weinstein, said on Thursday that the two women in the criminal case had long-term relationships with Weinstein. He said it was prejudicial to conflate the criminal matter with allegations in civil cases or with public grievances he said were lodged by women who were not part of any lawsuit.

 

Allegations against Weinstein first were reported in the New York Times and The New Yorker magazine in October 2017.

 

Within days, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which selects Oscar winners, had expelled Weinstein. On Oct. 15, Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If you’ve ever been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”

 

#MeToo became one of the most used widely used hashtags. In 2019 it was viewed 42 billion times, according to data from Brandwatch, a research firm.

 

Finding impartial New York City jurors amid the media frenzy surrounding the Weinstein case will be a challenge for both legal teams, experts said.

 

Lawyers will likely question potential jurors about their knowledge and opinion of the case, their work history and whether they have been victims of sexual misconduct.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-06

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

If he really raped those women then I hope he will be convicted to jail for years.

 

Having said that I really like to see if there is any evidence and if he will be convicted. Because it seems lots of women think that because they say something happened many many years ago we all should believe them.

Sorry I don't just believe them. Why didn't they come forward when it just happend? They could have shown their bruises to the police and let one or more doctors record the details.

Did Weinstein force them to stay in his room? Did he lock them in? Did he maybe hold them down? If that happened then there should be evidence.

Or did he make advantages and maybe they didn't like it but then they thought about all those wonderful film roles they might get. And maybe they thought that's a deal they should not miss.

 

Let's see what the evidence shows. If there is enough evidence convict him. And if there is no evidence then I hope Weinstein will start his own lawsuit to demand lots of money from the women who ruined his life. 

"OMG"... What are the "Hollywood Liberal Democrats" going to do with there God going to prison???

If, as I believe he should be, found guilty I hope he never sees the light of day again. 
 

If allegations are proven it shows this creature is pure filth. 

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If, as I believe he should be, found guilty I hope he never sees the light of day again. 
 

If allegations are proven it shows this creature is pure filth. 

It would appear that he thought he was untouchable and could use his position to force himself on attractive young women who found him repulsive because the girls were promised some kind of career enhancement. It's a bit like the American version of the Jimmy Savile debacle.

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by SteveK

9 minutes ago, SteveK said:

It would appear that he thought he was untouchable and could use his position to force himself on attractive young women who found him repulsive because the girls were promised some kind of career enhancement. It's a bit like the American version of the Jimmy Savile debacle.

Except this time the piece of <deleted> has been caught and will suffer, if guilty...

I see he is now sporting a fashionable new walker.

Sympathy?

28 minutes ago, SteveK said:

It would appear that he thought he was untouchable and could use his position to force himself on attractive young women who found him repulsive because the girls were promised some kind of career enhancement. It's a bit like the American version of the Jimmy Savile debacle.

Savile's victims were mostly children (girls and boys). They were audience members on children's TV shows, kids in care homes etc., not aspiring actresses. But there is definitely a similarity in the way both used their position of authority to abuse the victims (allegedly in Weinstein's case). 

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

+1.

Harvey Weinstein, all the money in the world and he had to harass and assault women to get his rocks off? 

What a POS if he did.  Money cant buy you love, but it could have bought him some great short times and more in LOS and other SEA venues

 

 

 

 He  should have come to Thailand , Money can buy you love here, short time.

  However that said , i have been lucky ...555

 

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by elliss

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

5 hours ago, SteveK said:

It would appear that he thought he was untouchable and could use his position to force himself on attractive young women who found him repulsive because the girls were promised some kind of career enhancement

And if those girls decided they are willing to have sex with him to enhance their careers, would that be called rape or prostitution?

 

It seems lots of those stories are about he inviting girls to his hotel room and then he wants to have sex with them. Obviously that is not nice, but is it a crime? Could the girls have just turned around and leave the room? If they could have left but they stayed then that was their own decision.  I understand that maybe after it, hours or days or years later they think they should not have done that. But that doesn't make it rape, it was still their decision to stay (at least if it happend like that).

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If he really raped those women then I hope he will be convicted to jail for years.

 

Having said that I really like to see if there is any evidence and if he will be convicted. Because it seems lots of women think that because they say something happened many many years ago we all should believe them.

Sorry I don't just believe them. Why didn't they come forward when it just happend? They could have shown their bruises to the police and let one or more doctors record the details.

Did Weinstein force them to stay in his room? Did he lock them in? Did he maybe hold them down? If that happened then there should be evidence.

Or did he make advantages and maybe they didn't like it but then they thought about all those wonderful film roles they might get. And maybe they thought that's a deal they should not miss.

 

Let's see what the evidence shows. If there is enough evidence convict him. And if there is no evidence then I hope Weinstein will start his own lawsuit to demand lots of money from the women who ruined his life. 

Well said. MeToo has so <deleted> males that few are prepared to point out that many "wannabe famous" female actresses will willingly play the "game" to get ahead.

Seems to me that after a few women came out and accused him of naughty things a lot of other women decided to be aggrieved and jumped on the band wagon.

Harvey seems to be a revolting man that deserved to be taken down, but life in jail also seems to be excessive, unless the accusations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So long as he didn't drag them into his lair, tie them down and rape them while they screamed "stop" I would not convict him of more than abuse of power.

I've seen too many women play the sex game to take them seriously just because they say so.

9 hours ago, Skallywag said:

+1.

Harvey Weinstein, all the money in the world and he had to harass and assault women to get his rocks off? 

What a POS if he did.  Money cant buy you love, but it could have bought him some great short times and more in LOS and other SEA venues

 

 

You couldn't have made my case any better.

Weinstein didn't need to harrass or assault women to get his rocks off. Plenty of gold diggers would have jumped for the chance.

Ergo, IMO, if he had sex with "wannabe famous" actresses, it was because they were willing ( till PROVEN otherwise ).

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You couldn't have made my case any better.

Weinstein didn't need to harrass or assault women to get his rocks off. Plenty of gold diggers would have jumped for the chance.

Ergo, IMO, if he had sex with "wannabe famous" actresses, it was because they were willing ( till PROVEN otherwise ).

Or he got off getting over on them.

Just now, sirineou said:

Or he got off getting over on them.

Fair point. Has anyone on the prosecution side made that suggestion? Unless a couple of psychiatrists interviewed him and confirmed that, I doubt it would fly in court though, as very hard to prove.

It's far easier to prove loads of wannabe famous actresses slept with him to get ahead as that is, IMO, quite common in such circles.

I've personally known some women that use the sex appeal game to get what they want.

If he "raped", he should hang. However, if the women were coerced, because of his position and their desire to suceed, then it's their choice.

Throughout my career, I didn't advance much because I chose not to play the game. And, none of those games required me to pull down my pants! 

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair point. Has anyone on the prosecution side made that suggestion? Unless a couple of psychiatrists interviewed him and confirmed that, I doubt it would fly in court though, as very hard to prove.

It's far easier to prove loads of wannabe famous actresses slept with him to get ahead as that is, IMO, quite common in such circles.

I've personally known some women that use the sex appeal game to get what they want.

Just remember , rape is not about sex as much as it is about power. 

  If the prosecutor did not think they could convict they would not had brought the case to court.

There will be a trial and we will know pretty soon.

23 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Just remember , rape is not about sex as much as it is about power. 

  If the prosecutor did not think they could convict they would not had brought the case to court.

There will be a trial and we will know pretty soon.

IMO rape is more about violence against women than a power thing, which IMO is a man using his position to intimidate women into sex while ( them ) not wanting to, which is different to women sleeping with powerful men willingly, to get ahead

However, which it is, may come out, depending on how good his lawyers are.

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You couldn't have made my case any better.

Weinstein didn't need to harrass or assault women to get his rocks off. Plenty of gold diggers would have jumped for the chance.

Ergo, IMO, if he had sex with "wannabe famous" actresses, it was because they were willing ( till PROVEN otherwise ).

I’m not sure on what basis you claim ‘Weinstein didn't need to harrass or assault women to get his rocks off.’

 

Being rich and powerful is not an antidote to being twisted.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure on what basis you claim ‘Weinstein didn't need to harrass or assault women to get his rocks off.’

 

Being rich and powerful is not an antidote to being twisted.

 

 

 

and you were in the rooms at the time to know that...............................................?

Perhaps you have made a psychiatric examination of his mental state to know that................................?

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and you were in the rooms at the time to know that...............................................?

Perhaps you have made a psychiatric examination of his mental state to know that................................?

You know I was not, but I’m willing to listen to the women who were, all of them.

 

You Meanwhile are busy posting defense of Weinstein replete with accusations against his accusers.

 

Your post history on rape builds a revealing picture.

Edited January 7, 20206 yr by Chomper Higgot

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Know I was not, but I’m willing to listen to the women who were, all of them.

 

You Meanwhile are busy posting defense of Weinstein replete with accusations against his accusers.

 

Your post history on rape builds a revealing picture.

I'd ask you to retract the less than truthful claims, but you never do, so I won't.

Bye.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. MeToo has so <deleted> males that few are prepared to point out that many "wannabe famous" female actresses will willingly play the "game" to get ahead.

Seems to me that after a few women came out and accused him of naughty things a lot of other women decided to be aggrieved and jumped on the band wagon.

Harvey seems to be a revolting man that deserved to be taken down, but life in jail also seems to be excessive, unless the accusations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So long as he didn't drag them into his lair, tie them down and rape them while they screamed "stop" I would not convict him of more than abuse of power.

I've seen too many women play the sex game to take them seriously just because they say so.

In principle I follow your post but what you write about "tie them down" etc. is too extreme.

I think if he locked the door so that they could not walk away that is already evidence enough that he kept them against their will.

I guess many men are strong enough that they don't actually have to tie down the victim. So that is really not a necessary condition for rape.

If he forced them to have sex with him against their will that is rape.

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If he forced them to have sex with him against their will that is rape.

I agree 100%.

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think if he locked the door so that they could not walk away that is already evidence enough that he kept them against their will.

Proving that he did it so they couldn't leave would be difficult. Simplest explanation for locking the door would be so no one could walk in while they were "engaged in negotiations".

Has anyone mentioned if he had a secretary in an office outside his office? If there was, has s/he made a statement re hearing screaming etc? If so, that would be proof I would accept.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Proving that he did it so they couldn't leave would be difficult. Simplest explanation for locking the door would be so no one could walk in while they were "engaged in negotiations".

Has anyone mentioned if he had a secretary in an office outside his office? If there was, has s/he made a statement re hearing screaming etc? If so, that would be proof I would accept.

Let’s see what evidence the jury accepts.

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

In principle I follow your post but what you write about "tie them down" etc. is too extreme.

I think if he locked the door so that they could not walk away that is already evidence enough that he kept them against their will.

I guess many men are strong enough that they don't actually have to tie down the victim. So that is really not a necessary condition for rape.

If he forced them to have sex with him against their will that is rape.

The term ‘forced’ is not simply be physical force, hence ‘screaming’ to alert others nearby might not be the response to the ‘force’ allegedly being applied, and then ‘lack of screaming’ not evidence there was no ‘force’ or was no rape.

 

 

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And if those girls decided they are willing to have sex with him to enhance their careers, would that be called rape or prostitution?

 

...or a miscalculation 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. MeToo has so <deleted> males that few are prepared to point out that many "wannabe famous" female actresses will willingly play the "game" to get ahead.

Seems to me that after a few women came out and accused him of naughty things a lot of other women decided to be aggrieved and jumped on the band wagon.

Harvey seems to be a revolting man that deserved to be taken down, but life in jail also seems to be excessive, unless the accusations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So long as he didn't drag them into his lair, tie them down and rape them while they screamed "stop" I would not convict him of more than abuse of power.

I've seen too many women play the sex game to take them seriously just because they say so.

I know from first experience that there are some women out there who are total pathological liars, who know 100% that due to their innocent appearance everyone will believe every word coming out of their lives. Not all of them live in Thailand !

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The term ‘forced’ is not simply be physical force, hence ‘screaming’ to alert others nearby might not be the response to the ‘force’ allegedly being applied, and then ‘lack of screaming’ not evidence there was no ‘force’ or was no rape.

 

 

Back to she said he said then.

Presumed innocent till proven guilty gets a bit difficult when it all happened long ago and no one filed a police report.

If there are police reports and the police never acted on them, tell me I'm wrong.