I listened to a good bit, but not all, of the testimony in this case, as it was replayed on Court TV. I have no idea what the jury is thinking. Based on questions they have asked, it doesn't look like they gave much credit to Niv, the Great and Powerful, who supplied the "trauma-informed" pseudo-science for the State's "believe-the-accusers" pitch.
Each of the witnesses who accuse the defendant of rape apparently also had consensual sexual relationships with him, with many friendly communications of record after the alleged misconduct. All of the State's witnesses who were accusers or "pattern witnesses" had significant inconsistency and credibility issues. Weinstein, of course, looks like a true piece of work in his own right. The man has obvious issues, if not balls. Yet, despite his ball-less, fat, ugly hairiness, reputed black-heads, and foul odor, several of these attractive young women admitted to having consensual sex with him. I think that detracted from what the State was trying to sell.
I have no sense of where the jury is going or where they will come out. For myself, I am left wondering whether Weinstein is a rapist, or simply such an infamous heel in his treatment of women that this group of accusers decided he needed to be punished for life, and piled-on accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/harvey-weinstein-jury-re-hears-rosie-perez-testimony-no-verdict-on-day-2-of-deliberations/ar-BB10atVm
No comments:
Post a Comment