Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Harvey Weinstein Alleged Victim Statement


103 comments:

Hey Jude said...

'He invited me to his room.'

'When I arrived I was relieved to find another woman in his room and thought immediately I was safe.'

----
He invited her to his room. She went to his room. She did not have to go to his room - I think he had already left the lobby and gone to his room, when she made the choice to make her own way up to his room. I don't know what her complaint is - she engaged with him, yet writes as if she was under threat, powerless, terrified. He walked her to the door when she decided to leave - he tried to kiss her, which she interprets as harrassment, yet she went to his room, where another woman was present - making her feel 'safe' - she did not have to go to his room, yet went, expecting to find him there alone? A director was present at the meeting in the lobby. When the director left, she said she and Weinstein were alone, yet it appears his assistant was also present or nearby - she was not really alone with him at any time, as when he left to go to his room, she had spoken to his assistant. I'd say she is jumping on the bandwagon.



Anonymous said...

The statement seems truthful. The writer is consistent throughout the letter in her pronouns. She relays the story as she remembers it. She explains her thought process at the dinner table and again, up in the room. She is recalling the reasons she stayed, even when her instinct was against it. She lists three (yes, 3) reasons why she wanted to sing. She also speaks of the guilt she felt after the movie for taking the role.

Something happened to empower the author to feel confident about sharing her experience. She does not believe there will be any repercussions for telling her story.

Just to be clear, she never stated she was raped or physically or sexually abused by Weinstein or the woman. He was definitely a pig, spoke inappropriately, set her up by not leaving her a way to leave the restaurant, had another woman in the room who obeyed him and by blocking the door. All lewd and criminal behavior.

The author must have been very young and this must have happened before cell phones were prevalent. She was also incredibly naive by staying alone at lunch with Weinstein. Also, by agreeing to go to his room when she could have waited in the lobby or bar, or even stood outside. She never mentions calling anyone from a cell, payphone, lobby or restaurant phone. Maybe now that she is older and more experienced, she is less worried about what others think of her.

The only weird thing? Why isn't she outraged? Or angry? Maybe she got counseling. Her priority is to share her story and, to empower others like her.

GetThem

Bobcat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

http://deadline.com/2014/04/cara-delevingne-model-movie-pan-tulip-fever-719602/

Hey Jude said...

Get Them - how do you get they had a dinner, or lunch? It was an informal meeting, it sounds like it was just coffee, or drinks, in the hotel lobby. She says the meeting was in the lobby, and when the director left, Weinstein asked her to 'stay' for a chat - they did not move from the lobby.

She could have asked at reception for her car to be brought, or just waited in the lobby until it was brought if she didn't want to ask - it was her decision to go to his room. She would have been safe if she had remained in the lobby, she chose to move out of the safety zone, into one she anticipated might not be safe.



Katprint said...

Hey Jude, it is pretty clear that you have no idea how sexual harassment works. Yes, she went to his room even though nobody forced her to, same as how many women have remained working at jobs where they were being sexually harassed even nobody forced them to remain at those jobs. The context was, she was an actress who had been hired for a movie and was required to meet with her director and him (the movie producer.)

An "invitation" under these circumstances, especially when reinforced by instructions from his assistant that she should comply, is not something that can be turned down without adverse consequences. It is more like when your boss tells you, "Please finish [task x] before you leave tonight." Your boss might have phrased it politely, and nobody is "forcing" you to stay late to get the task finished, but the subtext is that you will be in trouble if you do not.

People shouldn't have to choose between earning a living or freedom from sexual harassment.

Anonymous said...

Well as we learned to do in actual rape cases, I was looking for her to separate herself from him. Like a true rape victim will not say after the fact, " we walked to the door" they separate themselves from their attacker. She called him "he" the whole time and was never actually raped or assaulted, so I'm once again confused...lol

Kelley Jordan

Bobcat said...

"I quickly declined and asked his assistant if my car was outside. She said it wasn’t and wouldn’t be for a bit and I should go to his room."

-----------

The assistant's behavior is disturbing. An assistant, in the context of a hotel, should have been able to quickly round up the actress' car. If they are meeting in a hotel lobby, one large enough for them to sit and meet, would there not also be a concierge that could quickly get her car? The assistant is not working to help the actress here, even though she "quickly" declined the invitation and asked for her car.

------------------

"At that moment I felt very powerless and scared but ( ) didn’t want to act that way hoping that I was wrong about the situation."

------------------

"that" moment - being 'stuck' by his assistant who said what she "should" do - prompts her to place her emotions in the retelling.

Hey Jude said...

'As soon as we were alone he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and how he had made their careers and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature.'

So, after this, he asks her to go to his room, and she declines. He goes to his room. The meeting is, therefore, over.
She asks for her car, the assistant says it will be a while, she should go to his room. At this point, she had the choice to say, no, she had already passed on that, she didn't find it appropriate, or she had another engagement, or that she would rather just wait in the lobby for her car.

She said he had made plain that sleeping with him had furthered the careers of many actresses. When she chose to go to his room, she would have done so with that in mind. As she was not obliged to go to his room, it was a career furthering choice.

I was not discussing how sexual harassment works, I was looking to see in what sense she was a victim. I do not see a victim, rather, with the facts given, she made a career choice. He had intimated how a career could be furthered by actresses who worked with him, and, with that information, and a lobby in which to ponder it, she decided to take up the invitation to join him in his room. She's a bit sketchy on the kissing. She also is in great haste throughout. Quickly, swiftly, immediately, so maybe she was not in a great rush to get off the phone, or to get away from him.

I don't see how that Is like staying on late at the office.

t's a known of Hollywood culture - it shouldn't be, but they all have enabled it by contining to pose happily with him for photos, and to speak well of him in public, and to make their informed choices in the furtherance of their careers. It's difficult to imagine his reputation did not go before him, so. I think if they have been victims, they have also been willing victims.

Did one not 'joke' he'd have to make her win an Oscar before she would watch him shower? That doesn't sound like a victim, to me.

Good on them if really they do want to change the culture from one long known to be of fame through sexual laxity. to fame through merit.


Hey Jude said...

I doubt the young lady would be stuck in any situation from which she could not, if she wanted, extract herself with a fiery glance.

Hey Jude said...

Okay,, Anon - I was going to take a day out, anyway - it's easy enough to scroll past my posts.

Anonymous said...

Hi HeyJude,

Thank you for correcting me. You are correct, the letter never said they had dinner/lunch, only that they met and chatted in the lobby.

I think the rest of what I said is clear. Just replace anything dinner or lunch related with the word Lobby and I stand by the rest of my comments.

I would add that just because she chose to go to his room doesn't mean anything that happens to her thereafter is her fault. That is blame the victim mentality. I'm sure that's not where you meant to go with it.

Have a pleasant evening.

GetThem

Buckley said...

When they are in the lobby, she says "we were alone". She says "when I arrived" in the room, though they both went up together. He walked her to the door- not "we" went to the door.

Anonymous said...

It never actually says they went to the room together. Missing time?

GetThem

Anonymous said...

I think the statement is likely truthful, but missing a lot of information: here are some that stick out to me...

"I answered none of his questions and hurried off the phone but before I hung up, he said to me..." - it's not in order...she "hurried" off the phone, but he obviously had time to ask her several questions and make a statement before she hung up - also she "hurried off the phone" and then she "hung up" - out of order, considering he made a statement before she could hurry off the phone

"A year or two later..." - this is the next interaction with him that she mentions, but that is a long time inbetween - did they meet or talk at all in the meantime? it's such a jump in the story - what has been her relationship to HW?

"The director left the meeting..." - does that mean the meeting was over? why did the director leave?

"As soon as WE WERE ALONE he began..." - she is identifying herself here WITH him, not separate - and this is already since she had an "odd and uncomfortable" conversation with him

"I quickly declined..." - quickly seems unnecessary

"At that moment, I felt very powerless and scared.." - here she introduces emotion instead of telling the facts - from what I understand, this would be misplaced - also, the reference to time "at that moment" is sensitive

"When I arrived..." - did anything else happen before she arrived?

"thought immediately I was safe..." - the use of the word "immediately" indicates sensitivity?

"she began some sort of advances at his direction." - what did she do? we aren't given much information here - she must have at this point understood what their intentions were. What does "some sort of advances" mean - it seems very mild language for unwanted attentions

"I swiftly got up..." - "swiftly" - again, along with "hurried" "quickly" and "immediately" -seem unnecessary words - also, she "got up" - she must have been sitting...we don't really know what happened in between - when had she sat down, or laid down?

"He walked me to the door..." - sounds gentlemanly, not like you'd describe someone who had harassed you

"I was also terrified..." - she was 'terrified' "that this sort of thing had happened to so many women I know" but not 'terrified' when she was alone with HW and another woman, knowing the nature of his inappropriate sexual comments to her thus far?

Then she gets very preachy about men being abusers and women needing to be brave and speak out. This takes up about a quarter to a third of her statement.

She says "this is only the beginning" indicating she is thinking of more to come, perhaps more statements about HW, from other women? or more statements about other men?

Please feel free to analyse my analysis.
SLH


Anonymous said...

Peter posted this for the purpose of statement analysis--discerning whether the statement is reliable or not.

The statement seems reliable until the writer skips over what happened between when she started singing and when Harvey made her kiss him before she left the room. Additionally, the writer's reasons for not speaking out indicate deception.

Filling in the blanks, the writer may have gotten the part by participating in a threesome with Harvey and the other person he arranged to be in the room.

Anonymous said...

She is accusing him of:

Inappropriate phone conversation.
Inappropriate lobby conversation about his sex life.
Asking her to kiss another woman.
Asking the other woman to make unknown "advances."
Blocking the door.
Trying to get her to kiss him.

I don't see why this is so hard to believe it happened to her. She's not accusing him of anything more than what we read in the letter. If she is trying to use innuendos to influence readers to think more happened, she failed miserably.

The guy was a jerk and a creep, but she is not accusing him, at least in this letter of rape.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

Well, Katprint is the only one with an inkling of a clue on here tonight.

To others whose names are unknown or forgotten:
She never stated she'd been raped...GET OVER IT NOW!
Walking her to the door isn't gentlemanly after being an ogre on the phone and in the lobby prior. This isn't a snapshot, but a rolling film that connects from one incident to the other.


After reading this my only thoughts are: Oh, Gawd!

DumpOfTheStigYukYuk said...

They ALL "accepted"his terms WILLINGLY!

Katprint said...

Hey Jude, the reason it is like staying late at the office is because HE IS HER BOSS.

To clarify the law in the United States concerning sexual harassment (in other countries like France, the law is different), it does not matter if the employee could have stormed off. It does not matter if the attempted sexual contact was unsuccessful. Furthermore, if one employee who submits to the sexual advances of his/her employer receives favorable treatment above other employees who did not submit, that also constitutes sexual harassment / sexually hostile workplace environment.

There is really not a lot of grey area here. There is also little motive for someone to "jump on the bandwagon" and make up a story like this, particularly since it is described as having happened years earlier "when I first started to work as an actress" so the civil statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit would have expired.

Anonymous said...

Weinstein is another liberal hero: scumbag, pervy rapist.
Right now the liberals are celebrating Eminem: Someone who raps about raping and killing women, raping & torturing a young girl (pedophile rapist) and hating and degrading gays.
Ben Affleck: Another liberal hero. I was told by someone who I attended college with 20 yrs ago who knew him in Boston that he had RAPED a women he knew. I was told this 20 yrs ago. IF I KNOW, YOU DONT THINK CELEBRITIES KNOW?!?!?!
IF SOMEONE IS DEBASED AND SEXUALLY DEVIANT OR A RAPIST, LIBERALS WILL LOVE THEM.

Anonymous said...

And they all claim to be "sex addicts" and go their bullshit liberal rehab for this non-existant addiction. RAPIST DOES NOT EQUAL SEX ADDICT.

Anonymous said...

What a very ugly man he is with that face that is half-flab. I cant imagine the horror of his victims.

Casandra said...

I get the feeling that maybe a little bit more happened than she is willing to admit in this statement. She uses words like uncomfortable, fear, powerless, scared, nervous, hesitant, guilty, terrified, harassed, abused, raped, fault. A lot of emotional words. She also uses the word 'door', which is typical in statements about abuse. Maybe she is not ready to face what really happened to her, either in this situation or another.

Sascha Stange said...

@Anon, 10:06pm

Yes, thought the same. Also, the singing seems sensitive to her. The. „...“ indicate missing information and she has a need to explain why she sang. I wonder if she did something that could be considered inappropriate.
Also, connecting the singing with the term „audition“ is interesting. An audition is something performers go to get jobs.

Sascha Stange said...

Ben Affleck is a convicted rapist and he is still able to have a career? Oh no, wait, it’s just a rumor you heard from someone about a third party you don’t seem to know. So, to hell with due process, that scoundrel must be guilty and all his liberal friends are in cahoots with him!
Rumors destroy careers. It’s very easy to make up allegations. The more time has passed since the alleged incident the harder it is for the accused to refute them (because we have come to a point where the accused has to proof his innocence where crimes of a sexual nature are concerned).
Victimhood has become like a currency and so it is no wonder that when a celebrity is accused a whole slew of new victims, who suddenly are empowered to speak, turn up in newspapers and talk shows.
To get to the truth we must disregard our own sympathies, political views or feelings about a person but look at the evidence only.
Peter teaches us a scientific method to analyze information and get to the truth. Not following it but being guided by base feelings turns us to demagogues and brings us to the same level those are at who dogmatically „listen and believe“ and know that the patriarchy is always to blame.

Anonymous said...

I think nothing more than what she stated happened and that was because she managed to take control of the situation.She got off the subject by singing.
It would be terribly awkward to have another woman make sexual advances on you at the whim of a older perverted male. Even moreso to have that same ignorant male try to kiss you.

The door is mentioned as most hotel rooms have one and is the only exit to the outside world.As most homes have doors.

There are several that have come forward with the latest being he grabbed her boobs. Now the issue is why won't the DA prosecute him?

Easy: assault on a female isn't illegal.

Saint Theresa said...

There's almost as many false allegations of rape against men in society. Which also ruins men's lives, their self esteem, and changes their view of women. Check out Diana Davidson of femininism kek. She began a non profit for men accused of such because of the amount of truly insane fake allegations that have tore families apart, ruined men financially and emotionally not to mention locked up unjustly

General P. Malaise said...

This actress might be married to someone who would not like the full story so in her story she isn't sexually assaulted just had a creepy encounter with Weinstein, several times!

There are a number of indicators that point to deception by omission.

John mcgowan said...

Harvey Weinstein speaks out after rape allegations

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles Police Department responded to what it called a "family dispute" yesterday in Hollywood. Entertainment news website TMZ says Harvey Weinstein's 22-year-old daughter told police her father was "suicidal and depressed."

Hours later, Weinstein told a gaggle of paparazzi that he was hoping for a "second chance," and was "being good" as he got into a vehicle.

Facing allegations of sexual assault, Weinstein told reporters: "I gotta get help, guys. You know what, we all make mistakes. Second chance, I hope."

But the embattled movie mogul took a defiant tone with a jab at other Hollywood stars.

"You know what, I've always been loyal to you guys, not like those f****** p***** who treat you like s***, I've been the good guy," he said as he climbed into the back of a black SUV.

Earlier on Wednesday, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said he declined to prosecute Weinstein in 2015 on a recommendation from the sex crimes unit of the New York Police Department.

In March that year, actress Ambra Battilana Gutierrez told the NYPD that Weinstein had groped her.

Gutierrez wore a wire, and recorded a conversation with Weinstein the following day:

GUTIERREZ: Why yesterday you touch my breast?

WEINSTEIN: Oh, please, I'm sorry. Just come on in, I'm used to that. Come on. Please.

GUTIERREZ: You're used to that?

WEINSTEIN: Yes, come in.

On Wednesday, Vance promised to investigate any new claims against Weinstein, encouraging "additional victims to contact the office."

Actress and model Cara Delevingne said Weinstein made sexual advances during a meeting, trying "kiss me on the lips."

Actress Lea Seydoux charged that Weinstein, "suddenly jumped on me and tried to kiss me."

Weinstein has hosted numerous Democratic fundraisers over the years. Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that she would give any money her campaigns received directly from Weinstein to charity.

"This was a different side of a person who I and many others had known in the past," Clinton said.

Another Democrat, former Vice President Joe Biden, called Weinstein's alleged behavior "disgusting, immoral, and inexcusable."


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvey-weinstein-help-rape-sexual-harassment-allegations-mount/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=43413524

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how she is deceptive by omission in this instance. While it is true there is missing information, due to lost time, it doesn't seem relevant. We either believe what she wrote, or we don't believe it, but should only be based on her words. I believe he did everything she accused him in this letter:

Inappropriate phone conversation.
Inappropriate lobby conversation about his sex life.
Asking her to kiss another woman.
Asking the other woman to make unknown "advances."
Blocking the door.
Trying to get her to kiss him.

Even if the missing time ended up showing that other events happened, her words show a pronoun consistency of what she is accusing him of above. She uses the word "I" too many times for me to bother counting, but a LOT.

GetThem


General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I don't understand how she is deceptive by omission in this instance. While it is true there is missing information,

so you think the missing information is just bland talk about an upcoming movie project?

ask yourself why is this person going public with a "nothing happened" between me and said"creepy person"?

Peter Hyatt said...

Focus on the statement with the question, "Is her allegation against Weinstein reliable or unreliable?" for the conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Get Them:

If there is missing information, it could very well be relevant.

Just as an example:

An interviewer could ask, using her language, for more detail regarding when and before she 'got up'.

It could point to an inappropriate relationship that she fully participated in. So maybe what she's saying DID happen but there is more to the story. That would be relevant, I think.

SLH

Anonymous said...

Peter:

I think the allegation is unreliable.

SLH

Peter Hyatt said...

why?

If you always explain your answer, it can allow for correction when wrong, and firming of principle when correct.

it is a huge factor.

Analysts in training learn to send me their work directly in terms that expect that I have no training --everything must be explained and even buttressed with examples. This teaches them how to deal with future clients, superiors, district attorneys, and so on.

While doing so, it increases their own learning exponentially.

Experienced professionals do it routinely.

It helps them and others.

Anonymous said...

I guess because my point is this...

Because in this instance, let's assume she had a threesome. Let's assume she danced naked on the roof. So what? Let's assume your worst case scenario. My point is her accusations are still reliable. She may have left out information that may put her in a poor light, but it does not detract from what he did to her. She did not control him and force him to behave that way.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

I think the statement is unreliable because the author is holding back information.

Can I refer back to my posting at 10:00 last night, rather than re-state them?

I do believe that he did what she says he did, but that there is more that she isn't sharing, making the statement unreliable.

SLH

Anonymous said...

So I am saying (again) I believe her accusations are reliable.

Anonymous said...

So I am saying (again) I believe her accusations are reliable.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

SLH, I agree with your statement today and of last night.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

Get Them:

And I agree with you that he did what she said...but that the statement as a whole is unreliable because she has left out information.

SLH

Anonymous said...

SLH,

I think we agree on two points. We agree he did what she said, and, that she left out information.

We just disagree on the reliability portion. I totally get what you are saying about it too. I hope Peter will eventually let us know since others are hung up on the importance of the missing info in this scenario.

Enjoy your day.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

Get Them:

Yes, we agree but come to a different conclusion. I, too, am looking forward to reading Peter's analysis.
SLH

Hey Jude said...

Katprint - I did not say she made it up. I believe her, but I do not believe she was a victim. She could have excused herself when the director left, or at any point during Weinstein’s tales of his sexual conquests, but she chose to stay. That she did not leave, or object to the conversation, led him to invite her to his room. She declined, he went to his room. She then spoke to his assistant, who is not hotel staff, or therefore, responsible for her car. She asked the assistant to find out if her car was outside - from which it can be gleaned that she does not consider herself to be below the assistant - she asks and expects HIS assistant to find out if her car has been brought to the entrance, rather than find out for herself. She is a confident girl from a wealthy family - the producer’s assistant will do her bidding. If the assistant said she ‘should’ go to his room, and she had not wanted to, she would not have gone. It would be interesting to know the whole of that exchange.

I don’t see why anyone believes she would find it an obligation rather than a choice. The meeting was over, and she could leave, or she could join him in his room in the knowledge that he had made the careers of some actresses who had engaged with him socially and sexually.

‘At that moment I felt very powerless and scared but didn’t want to act that way hoping that I was wrong about the situation.’

I think she didn’t act that way because she did not feel very powerless or scared. She was in a hotel lobby, which is a safe place. The ‘situation’ was that he had told her that some actresses had slept with him and he had made their careers. It is doubtful any actresses slept with him in a hotel lobby, and against their will, rather they would have taken up an invitation to go to his room willingly, in the expectation of his furthering their careers, having first considered ‘what price fame?’ and if they were interested in taking the shortcut on offer.

‘I didn’t want to act that way’ is another way of saying ‘I didn’t show it’. I think she says, ‘I didn’t want to act that way’ because she did not act in that way, and if questioned, the assistant would say she gave no indication that she had felt powerless or scared - that she did not act in that way.’

She was in a quandary as to whether to go to his room or not - what price fame? - but I do not believe that she was a victim. I think there is self-justification in the telling, that she wants others to believe she is a victim, and she wants to believe that herself, but she was not unable to walk away from ‘the situation’. I think it’s reasonable to say she did not expect, in view of his lobby boasting, that if she went to his room, it would be in order to play dominos.

The singing ‘like an audition’ - she was already hired for the film the meeting had been about, perhaps she hoped to impress him in hope of a different role in a future movie.

Engaging socially in a private hotel room is not like staying late at the office. It would be like working late at the office if she had been asked to stay later on the set than had been agreed.

--
It is not that it did not happen, it is her casting herself as a victim which is suspect.

Anonymous said...

Nuance is lost on you.

Anonymous said...

HeyJude,

Thanks for sharing your reasoning for your conclusion. May I ask your thoughts on the behavior of how she described Weinstein?

Thanks.

GetThem

Hey Jude said...

The phone call, and the bragging about the actresses he had slept with, I would agree were sexual harassment.

When she did not leave when the director left, she had begun to move out of the 'safe' professional zone of the joint meeting. Once the conversation turned to his sexual conquests, and she still did not leave, she had entered into his personal, social and sexual life.

I don't think what followed was harassment, as she was aware of him sleeping with willing actresses, and because she went to his room of her own accord - 'when I arrived' - she had probably delayed for the powder room, and when she reached his room it was an 'arrival', which is more than just getting there. So, she can't arrive at his private room, knowing his interest was not in dominos, or in afternoon tea, and then years later, quickly, swiftly and immediately be prompted into remember she was somehow a feminist who was harassed into compromising her principles, and a powerless, scared, terrified, victim, too timid and scared to contradict the assistant - who she had just asked to locate her car, as though she were her own assistant.




Hey Jude said...

Get Them - I think Weinstein's behaviour is despicable, and that he took advantage, and abused his position - but also that he was enabled by the women who were willing to give him their attention.

Anonymous said...

The guy who told me that said it reliably and he also said that Ben raped a woman he knew BEFORE he was in show biz. He seemed sad when he was saying it, he was not saying it viciously. I believe him.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a saint your friend is. Not starving orphans, battered women, or disease victims, but "falsely accused rapists" was the cause that pulled at her heart strings. Touching.
Because many women make up stories of being raped bc nothing is more fun than being torn to shreds and being accused of being a slut and having to share every personal detail about the rape while the rapists lawyer humiliates & blames the victim.

Anonymous said...

"But" in a statement generally negates what preceded it. Hope Jude is never on a jury in a rape case.

Hey Jude said...

No, nuance is not lost on me, Anon. I can see she was in quandary, and she was concerned that if she did not join him in his room, that would be to her disadvantage, and she wanted to get on in her acting career. She, and they all, should be able to do that without expectation of any type of sexual harassment. It's horrible that such a situation could arise, but it is also a known of Hollywood, that some actresses see their careers go forward if they are willing to sexually accommodate those who cast, and others along the way. Why do some comply? Because they genuinely have, or believe they have no choice, or because it works for them?

If it was ever a real going feminist concern the culture would, could and should, have changed decades ago. Some want, and have wanted to get on, regardless of how, and to have the advantage over the next actress - such probably consider sex as a commodity.

Still, we are not meant to be looking at morals and principles or the mysterious arrival, decades late, of feminist outrage to the Hollywood table. It is like the overlaying of one reality on another, sudden feminist outrage against the culture of sexual harassment, while it's also the culture which some of them have continued to perpetuate and enable.






Hey Jude said...

I have never been called for jury service. I feel I am missing out. :-/ still, you never know - one day, maybe. That 'bit' does not negate hat went before it - his behaviour is despicable, he took advantage, and abused his position. He was also enabled by the women who were willing to give him their attention. I know that is an unpopular saying, but it is true.

Hey Jude said...

^that 'but' ^

Anonymous said...

You've convinced me, now I'll just scroll and roll past your blathering posts.

Anonymous said...

The question is whether the statement is reliable. If we mostly all agree the accusations she referenced are true, then that makes THE statement reliable.

The missing information does not matter at this point because:
A. THE statement is truthful.
B. She is not accusing him of anything from the blocks of missing time.

There is nothing she did during the missing time, that would change the fact that THE statement is true. Even if she murdered someone, had an orgy, got drunk and high or more, it doesn't CHANGE the truth she shared in her statement.

If this doesn't make sense at this point, I don't know what to tell you.

GetThem

Peter Hyatt said...

The point will be:

Is her accusation true?

In sex abuse cases, missing info is a given, just as minimizing language isa a given.

We must then judge:

is the missing information impacting the allegation?

That she would withhold inappropriate behavior is expected. The missing info, in context, is part of the case. But does it change the outcome of the analysis?

Peter

Hey Jude said...

Well, I'd say some of the statement is reliable and some of it is a bit iffy.

Hey Jude said...

What are her accusations?

He made a phone call asking if she had slept with any of the women she was seen out with in the media, and advising her if she was gay, or seen with a woman, especially in public, she would not be able to play the role of a straight woman or to make it as a Hollywood actress.
The phone call made her uncomfortable.

When they were alone, in the hotel lobby, he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and made famous, and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature.

In his room, where there was another women, he asked them to kiss.

As she was leaving, he tried to kiss her, and she stopped him.

---

The phone call may have been intended as friendly advice from one in the know, to a young aspiring actress.

We do not know if she participated in, or encouraged, the conversation in the lobby. He 'began' to brag, therefore did not continue for long - so maybe, therefore, did not brag about 'all' the actresses he had slept with and made famous. (She may wish for other actresses to think she has that knowledge, when she does not?) We do not know in what context he spoke about 'other inappropriate things of a sexual nature', whether they related to requirements of any movie role, what made them inappropriate, or if others would also find them inappropriate.

He asked them to kiss - she does not say that they did, or,that she found the request objectionable, only that the other woman made some sort of advances towards him. She herself then got up,and sang (as you do, when you feel sexually harassed and abused)...

He saw her to the door and tried to kiss her on the lips - she stopped him. She was a guest leaving his room. She says he stood in front of the door, not that he blocked it. She gives the impression, but does not say he tried to prevent her leaving. It is probably a Hollywood thing to kiss all your room guests goodbye, and she had just sang him a song, so.

Still, I do not know what her specific complaint is.

I am not sure the phone call was intended as sexual harassment.

As far as I can see, she did not care for his conversation. She was not sexually assaulted.

Hey Jude said...

^sung hm^ - and he probably stood in front of the door because he was opening it for her - he was seeing her out.

I think she is putting a spin on events, to make herself less willing to engage with him than she was, so even if her statement is technically reliable, which I don't know if it is, it would still seem unreliable to me. I think she is saying those things retrospectively, and that she might have described them quite differently at the time, when her immediate interest was in advancing her career.

Bobcat said...

Her accusation is unsupported.

Where she begins in important. She asserts that:
"he said to me that if I was gay or decided to be with a woman especially in public that I’d never get the role of a straight woman or make it as an actress in Hollywood."

That is her strongest accusation - that he advises her that she can't be "out" in public if she wants to work in straight roles. At the time of the call, she doesn't say that it was tied to a work offer, which would be an argument for discrimination, but if she doesn't say it, we don't say it for her.

"Some sort of advances upon his direction" should be explored.





Hey Jude said...

Hi mcsnnfsukt him for looking for sexual favours, and agree it shouldn't happen, but how,is there not complicity, and a shared collective responsibility, from all,the actresses now coming forward to say they were aware of Weinstein's behaviours, and abused, despite that necessitating their engagement and consent? It would be harassment, but once they engage, that has to become moot. IMO. I am digressing, this is not the exercise. I thought it was whether she was a victim or not, as the title is 'Alleged Victim Statement' and there were no instructions as to how it should be discussed.

Hey Jude said...

Bobcat - maybe they raped him. :-D.

---

Leaves room.

Hey Jude said...

^ Hi mcsnnfsukt ^ I don't know either. Lost in translation.

Anonymous said...

I also wonder what her "accusation" is..the closest thing I can think of is sexual harassment. Is this the charge?

She doesn't say he raped her, or abused her, though she mentions these things at the end, giving the reader the impression that's what he did. Obviously, what he did was creepy, but that's why I think the missing information is important.

SLH

Bobcat said...

"is the missing information impacting the allegation?"

No. She wasn't in public.

"That she would withhold inappropriate behavior is expected. The missing info, in context, is part of the case. But does it change the outcome of the analysis?"

No. Harvey previously advised her that she wouldn't get work if she was with a woman, but then he directs another woman to kiss her and make other advances. He still gave her the job.

She was not discriminated against.

Anonymous said...

Bobcat

Is it her allegation that he discriminated against her?

SLH

Anonymous said...

Assuming the missing information is she had sex with the woman and Weinstein in the room we need to know if she is saying it was forced. Or, that she was coerced into it and then given the part to keep her mouth shut.

If her lying is by withheld information, wouldn't we need more data? She is telling the truth in her statement, but withholding information... how can one clarify without more asking more question? Like if she was under duress, or felt intimidated and she agreed to sex, that is still forced sex.

I still need a better explanation to show she is n't telling the truth in THE letter. Peter even said missing info and minimizing is normal, so where in the letter does it show she is not truthful?

The best I can see in the letter are a few extra adjectives, but they I'm not convinced it's not normal embellishing to make her point.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

She also says, "he asked us to kiss" - using the word 'us' in reference to the other woman in the room, which doesn't separate them, but indicates togetherness. This is in addition to "as soon as we were alone"- indicating participation on her part.

Does her reference to the "door" possibly indicate prior sexual abuse, earlier in life?

SLH

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I guess the reference to the door is necessary because he stood in front of it. I'm trying not to make assumptions but it's so hard.

SLH

Peter Hyatt said...

Begin by believing her.

See if she uses pronouns appropriately with past tense verbs.

See if the pronoun "we" disappears

Someone pointed out that she has had time to process this, so don't jump to conclusions about emotion placement.

IF she talks you out of believing her, then consider deception.

As yourself, has she talked me out of believing her?

This includes some points where she might withhold embarrassing detail.

Peter

Sascha Stange said...

The whole statement centers around her career. She first mentions her first movie.

She likens what happened, the singing and the „...“ to an audition, writes that she thought she got the role because of it and feels that she didn’t deserve it. Let’s believe her.

The other parts where she is inserting „...“ are about her reason to stay quiet and why she is speaking up now. She said she kept quiet because of Weinstein‘s family - has he lost his family since or why have priorities changed? Because women who speak out are heroes, incidentally she is one of them, and there „are“ strength in numbers.

I think her statement as such is reliable, including her emotions. She puts herself in the statement with commitments. However, there seems a lot of information missing.

I also believe her that after she did what she did to get the role, she rebuffed Weinstein‘s attempt to kiss her on the mouth which signifies intimacy and is said to be rejected by prostitues for that reason.

In the broader context, I believe that Weinstein behaves inappropriately but that she went along willingly in this „audition“ for financial gain. (She was not employee of his at the time and, who knows, had she refused a more talented actress might have received the role - the term „audition couch“ exists for a reason).

In conclusion, allowing grown ups the agency of free will and believing in otherworldly naïveté, I don’t see how she was a victim.


Sascha Stange said...

Oops, fat-fingered some parts on the mobile. Specially in the last paragraph. Should read „not believing in otherworldly.“

Bobcat said...

I believe her, but she has withheld a direct accusation.
I would explore what prompted the change in language from "his room" to "the room".

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter:

ok. I'm starting over...

SLH

Anonymous said...

She speaks in the past tense consistently. She has had time to relive the experience for a long time since it happened before cell phones. She is able to retell the story as she recalls it
She uses the pronoun I (I'm and I'd) approximately 39 times. She only says he when recalling Weinstein's statements or actions.

She does not get super detailed, or mention smell or water. Yet, she provides SO much information that an investigator could easily ask tons of questions. A liar doesn't give that kind of detail. She is consistent from start to finish in that he was acting poorly and she was weak to his influence.

She does call him Harvey, good terms, when they meet in the lobby. She refers to him only as "he" after they leave the lobby.

I just believe her. I don't see any inconsistencies.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

Liberals have found their new hero--a horrible rapper who barfed out a crappy freestyle that most people could have written semi-unconscious after a week-long bender. Eminem, the new liberal hero and spokesman, someone who glorifies raping and killing women and raping and torturing a young girl. I hope all liberals who glorify Eminem will ROT IN HELL. Jesus has already cursed these people in one of his messages. The liberals have shown their true colors: VICIOUS PREDATORS. PURE EVIL!!! AMORAL. PSYCHOPATHS.

Anonymous said...

In a police interview, I withheld that the man made me blow him and anally raped me, by saying that he raped me in different positions. I was too embarrassed to say he anally raped me. This withholding has caused considerable guilt for me.

I believe her, and I also believe she withheld the worst of the encounter.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for weighing in Anon about why you withheld info, maybe some victim blaming posters will learn something.

Alex said...

"I still got the part for the film and always thought that he gave it to me because of what happened."

What happened?

Alex

Hey Jude said...

Here is how it was posted on Instagram, in case anyone wants to copy and paste it for their analysis - easier than copying from the image. It was in two posts made consecutively on the same day, each accompanied by a text graphic.
————-

Text graphic: DON’T BE ashamed of your story IT WILL INSPIRE OTHERS

caradelevingneWhen I first started to work as an actress, i was working on a film and I received a call from Harvey Weinstein asking if I had slept with any of the women I was seen out with in the media. It was a very odd and uncomfortable call....i answered none of his questions and hurried off the phone but before I hung up, he said to me that If I was gay or decided to be with a woman especially in public that I'd never get the role of a straight woman or make it as an actress in Hollywood. A year or two later, I went to a meeting with him in the lobby of a hotel with a director about an upcoming film. The director left the meeting and Harvey asked me to stay and chat with him. As soon as we were alone he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and how he had made their careers and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature. He then invited me to his room. I quickly declined and asked his assistant if my car was outside. She said it wasn't and wouldn't be for a bit and I should go to his room. At that moment I felt very powerless and scared but didn't want to act that way hoping that I was wrong about the situation. When I arrived I was relieved to find another woman in his room and thought immediately I was safe. He asked us to kiss and she began some sort of advances upon his direction. I swiftly got up and asked him if he knew that I could sing. And I began to sing....i thought it would make the situation better....more professional....like an audition....i was so nervous. After singing I said again that I had to leave. He walked me to the door and stood in front of it and tried to kiss me on the lips. I stopped him and managed to get out of the room. I still got the part for the film and always thought that he gave it to me because of what happened. Since then I felt awful that I did the movie. I felt like I didn't deserve the part. I was so hesitant about speaking out....I didn't want to hurt his family. I felt guilty as if I did something wrong. I was also terrified that this sort of thing had happened to so many women I know but no one had said anything because of fear.

Hey Jude said...



Text graphic:
‘The devil whispered in my ear, “You’re not strong enough to withstand the storm.”
Today I whispered in the devil’s ear, “I am the storm.”

caradelevingneI want women and girls to know that being harassed or abused or raped is NEVER their fault and not talking about it will always cause more damage than speaking the truth. I am relieved to be able to share this....i actually feel better and I'm proud of the women who are brave enough to speak....this isn't easy but there are strength in our numbers. As I said, this is only the beginning. In every industry and especially in Hollywood, men abuse their power using fear and get away with it. This must stop. The more we talk about it, the less power we give them. I urge you all to talk and to the people who defend these men, you are part of the problem

Hey Jude said...

'When I first started to work as an actress, i was working on a film and I received a call from Harvey Weinstein asking if I had slept with any of the women I was seen out with in the media. It was a very odd and uncomfortable call....i answered none of his questions and hurried off the phone but before I hung up, he said to me that If I was gay or decided to be with a woman especially in public that I'd never get the role of a straight woman or make it as an actress in Hollywood.'

---

Was the call left on an answering machine? She was working on a film when she received the call. She does not say it was a cell phone call. She answered none of his questions. Perhaps because it was a recorded message? 'He said to me' - why include that, as that would be assumed, as the call was to her. Is she trying to convince that he did actually speak to her - he said to me. She 'hung up '- a landline telephone is 'hung up' - did she receive the call while she was working on a film, picking it up as a message later?


Hey Jude said...

To me it sounds that way - 'I received a call asking' - vs expected - 'he called me'.

Someone earlier said it was pre-cell phone - not so, as the girl is only twenty-five now.

Alex said...

She begins her statement by introducing herself as an actress and to establish the fact that she knew HW previously. She also introduces the subject of sex between women by HW during the first phone call. She wants us to know what HW is into, she just doesn't want us to know about her level of participation.
I believe what she says is true but there is a lot of withheld information that has to do with what she doesn't want to reveal about herself.

Alex

Alex said...

She also says the director "left" the meeting and HW asked her to chat "with" him signaling heightened tension.

Alex

rob said...

By her own statement, he made it clear to her before going to the room what he wanted/expected/was used to getting, yet she chose to go. She didn't know the other woman we there till she got there. Yet she went.
Why didn't she respond in the lobby, 'if that what you expect from me, then I won't be getting the part'.
You can always say 'NO'
But if you are willing to do anything to get the part/job/whatever, then don't blame others because you chose to go to the room.
Especially, don't wait till others make charges, then try to pile on. It really makes your story seem uncredible. He didn't rape or attack her. He did make her feel uncomfortable, but he did state what he wanted/liked/was used to, up front.

rob said...

I also think that because he obviously returned to his room without her and left her to decide-do I go or not- and she decided to go. It's on her.
He is a pig. No denying that. But if you decide to jump in the sty with him, then that's on you.

Anonymous said...

Questions:

Why doesn't she have a cell phone, but she has a car?

If she was comfortable asking the assistant for her car, why not borrow a cell? There are no young people without a cell phone attached to their arm for years now.

Rob's point regarding the director is valid. He "left." Does it matter if he left, or only if she is using the word to describe herself leaving?



Annie B said...


Whinestein had a clause allowing for sexual misconduct, so the company could be in trouble for firing him.

My question: Could this be considered premeditation in court?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22228/harvey-weinsteins-contract-allowed-sexual-ryan-saavedra

Hey Jude said...

Anonymous - why do you say she does not have a cell phone? That she doesn't mention using one doesn't mean she doesn't have one.

Anonymous said...



The we/us does drop off, insofar as she uses it to describe her encounter with HW and the other woman - she does revert back to I/she/him/his etc after "he asked us to kiss". The we/our pronouns come back into play at the end, but in reference to a different group - she is identifying herself with "women and girls", who have been harassed, abused and raped.

The verb tenses are consistent for the most part - one difference I noticed was in the sentence "she said it wasn't and wouldn't be for a bit and I should go to his room" - but in this case I think the future verb tense of 'go' is appropriate because she is describing what the assistant told her she should do in the future. There is probably no other way she could say this.

The point where there is a major break in how she uses verbs is in the sentence "He asked us to kiss and she began some sort of advances upon his direction" - Here, she uses the irregular verb "began" but she doesn't complete the verb phrase with an action verb (as she has done correctly in other places i.e. began to brag - began to sing).

"began some sort of advances" doesn't tell us what 'she' did. And 'she' drops out of the picture at this point.

The next point of incorrect verb tense is in the sentence "I was also terrified that this sort of thing had happened to so many women I know but no one had said anything because of fear"

She uses the past tense "was" but then the present tense "know" and then past tense "had said" - should she have used the past tense of the verb 'know' in this sentence? She also incorrectly uses the verb "are" instead of "is" near the end..."there are strength in our numbers" - this seems odd because most of her grammar is correct.

I would consider deception at the point in the room where it isn't clear what happened, and then I would question motive for the statement at the end where her verb usage isn't correct.


SLH

Anonymous said...

Jude - Exactly. She doesn't mention having a cell phone. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

SLH,

I agree with all your points. I think using the word "know" however, is probably correct. The other option would be to say "I knew" in the past tense. If she knew people in the past and also now, it seems okay to say it in the present tense.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

SLH,

I should add it seems okay that she made that comment in present tense since her other comments are consistent. One change of pronouns in that many sentences might be a good spot to ask her for clarification.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

GetThem:

I know what you mean. It could be ok either way. Maybe I'm wrong and her statement is reliable:) in that case, I will have learned something.

Anonymous said...

SLH,

I feel the same, I know for sure I could be wrong. I like your comments so I threw it out there for brainstorming. Anyway, I love learning new things which is a good, since I'm always learning something new. I especially love learning in here. Statement Analysis with Peter is enjoyable and keeps me thinking.

GetThem

Anonymous said...

GetThem:

Yes, life is learning isn't it?! Reading here is intriguing, for sure. I am in suspense for the answers to this puzzle.

SLH

Hey Jude said...

Lol - the answers might be a long time coming, at least if earlier cliff hangers are anything to go by. :)

---
Anon, that's partly why I think he left her a message on her home telephone rather than spoke with her on her cell phone. Plus, you don't hang up a cell phone, you end the call. And 'she answered none of his questions' - well she couldn't if it was a recorded message. If it was a recorded messafpge, it was advice, which he knew was being recorded. 'He said to me' - well, technically on a message yes, if not in person. Why does she find a need to say that - if he didn't actually say it to her, directly, but she wanted people to think they had spoken, she might say that.

--

So, I am still at the beginning, again.



Anonymous said...

Hey Jude:

I guess if I want answers on my timeline, I would have to take the courses.

Do you suspect deception at the beginning of the statement?

SLH

Anonymous said...

Lmfao! F&ck liberals!!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0u3jXFM0k

Anonymous said...

This is pretty comical--Harvey pleading for Polanksi in 2009:

www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html



Roman Polanski is a man who cares deeply about his art and its place in this world. What happened to him on his incredible path is filled with tragedy, and most men would have collapsed. Instead, he became a great artist and continues to make great films. I was with him the day he won the Legion of Honour in France, which was a spectacular day. I remember the incredible love and affection that people have for him.

Now Thierry Frémaux, the director of the Cannes film festival, and I are calling on every US filmmaker to lobby against any move to bring Polanski back to the US, where he could face life in jail.

Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honoured. The theory going around is that the reason Switzerland cooperated and acted on a longstanding extradition order with the United States this time was because of their own troubles in the financial crisis.

I hope the US government acts swiftly because because film makers are looking for justice to be properly served. I will be organising the effort myself by emailing everybody I know to sign the petition. And I know that Thierry Fremaux has got hold of Nicolas Sarkozy.

We will have to speak to our leaders as well – particularly in California. I'm not too shy to go and talk to the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to ask him once and for all to look at this. The problem is to do with the legal situation in the state. They are doing this because they want a circus, to make their toughness overt – and that is where I draw the line. This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally.

It is a shocking way to treat such a man. Polanski went through the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family. How do you go from the Holocaust to the Manson family with any sort of dignity? In those circumstances, most people could not contribute to art and make the kind of beautiful movies he continues to make.

I remember when I took Quentin Tarantino with me to a very private screening of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which shows some of the legal irregularities of his case.

I was involved by the film, and it was an amazing experience to see people weep at the end of it. Warren Beatty and Robert Evans were there, too, and you could feel the sense of injustice from these people who are part of Polanski's life. They know that, at heart, he is a humanist.

When Martin Scorsese was up to win best director for Gangs of New York, we faced Polanski and The Pianist. We were campaigning hard for Marty because he had never won best director, but when Marty lost to Roman, he turned to me and said: "I'm so happy right now. Of all the people in the world that I'd want to lose to, it's Roman. You have to understand that Polanski's films have influenced me as an artist all these years and his terrible political situation has been something we have all had to suffer through. We won because Roman won."

I think the reason we can all be on Polanski's side over this is not to do with what happened in 1977. It's to do with the fact that the punishment for what happened so many years ago had already been decided.

The deal was that if he spent time in prison, which he did pre-sentencing, his sentence would be commuted but when he came back to sentencing the judge went back on the deal. Forget about the Seventies era and whether this is excusable – this is a miscarriage of justice, and the government is making him a scapegoat.