The magnitude of the scandal and the blatant ways in which others went along with the coverups is legitimately shocking, particularly the disclosure of the language in his contract that allowed him to get away with it as far as the company was concerned so long as he paid them back the costs of any associated lawsuits as well as a series of fines. The fact that such a morally depraved clause existed in a contract is pretty much proof that Hollywood is in actual fact a modern Sodom and Gomorrah, not just a metaphorical one. If a corporation will go so far as to indemnify in writing the expected future sexual harassment by an employee in 2017, what won't they agree to overlook?
It's one thing for a private company to be willing to overlook the sins and transgressions of an employee who had the talent to make them a lot of money. While the actions (or lack thereof) by the board of The Weinstein Company are inexcusable, they are still somewhat understandable. There was a lot of money to be made and Mr. Weinstein was, of course, one of the founders of the company that bears his name. It's another thing for media outlets to sit on the story out of fear and sycophancy, as everyone from the New York Times to NBC News is accused of having done for years. But it's quite another for the government to fail to protect citizens when presented with evidence that a crime has occurred, regardless of the relative positions of power and status that the victim and the perpetrator may hold.
A war of words broke out in the wake of the scandal between the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office when it was revealed that a criminal complaint for sexual assault was made against Mr. Weinstein in 2015. In a nutshell, Mr. Weinstein was accused of sexually abusing Italian actress Ambra Battilana by fondling her breast without her consent, which would have been a misdemeanor under New York law. (In Kentucky, such an act would have been considered a felony offense of Sexual Abuse 1st degree.) Ms. Battilana agreed to wear a wire to try and record Mr. Weinstein confessing or making admissions regarding the offense.
This is a very common investigative technique used in sexual assault investigations where, as in this case, the victim and perpetrator are known to each other. Oftentimes in sexual assault cases, there are no witnesses. In a sexual abuse case, particularly one in which no bodily fluids are involved as in the fondling of a female breast or buttock, there's not going to be any physical evidence. In order to break the "he said, she said" stalemate, some sort of proof is needed. Otherwise, a "tie" goes to the suspect.
A recorded conversation can be one way to get that proof. Ideally the suspect will say something on the recording that can be used by a skilled interviewer during an interrogation to elicit a full(er) confession. I've done dozens of these types of "stings" myself, usually over the telephone, through text messaging, or via Facebook instead of in person. The goal is to get the suspect to at least admit that the event occurred and that his action was objectionable. The magic words that you want to get a suspect to say are "I'm sorry." With those two words, the suspect admits both that the event happened and that the victim is right to be upset about it. From there, it's only a question of confirming the specific details.
Stings can also be helpful in disposing of false accusations. If the encounter was actually consensual, then the suspect will oftentimes provide you with details that the purported victim left out in her initial complaint.
In a "normal" case, which is to say a case involving two people who were not nationally or locally famous and particularly cases involving victims and suspects from one of the lower social classes, a recorded conversation between the victim and suspect like the one obtained in the Weinstein case would be considered a slam dunk. Even if the suspect then refused, as would be his right, to come in for an interview, a sting that went as well for law enforcement as Weinstein's did would be enough to substantiate probable cause. He never denies or challenges the victim's narrative. He admits it happened. He says he's sorry multiple times. He says he won't do it again, yet at the same time his tone and manner of speaking show him to be very domineering and borderline threatening.
And yet the DA declined to file charges, going so far now as the scandal is mushrooming as to blame the investigators for not consulting with the DA's office beforehand. There's a word for that and the word is "bullshit." An anonymous NYPD official put it best when he (or she) suggested that the press "ask the DA if they would have approved the arrest if the guy's name was Harvey Schmuck."
There's been plenty of speculation after the fact regarding donations made to the DA's election campaign coffers by Mr. Weinstein's lawyers after the charges were declined. And sure, it looks like a bribe. It might have been, but more likely it was something more fundamental to the way prosecutors think. At the end of the day, they can't go around "pissing on people who matter."
I took that line from The Wire. Here's the full clip with a NSFW language warning:
The nasty, simple fact is that Harvey Weinstein was a person who matters, at least in 2015. Big donor to the Democratic party. Friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He mattered and all of the women he sexually harassed, especially a minor Italian actress that nobody ever heard of, don't.
The thing is, you don't have to be a multi- millionaire movie producer and campaign finance bundler for the Donkey party to matter enough to get love from the justice system. And stuff like this doesn't just happen in New York and LA.
Long time residents of Lexington are familiar with the Ron Berry scandal. For those who aren't, the short version is that Mr. Berry was the director of a disadvantaged youth program in Lexington called Microcity Government for decades. Over that time he sodomized and sexually abused numerous children, predominantly black males. He was convicted in 2000 of 12 counts of Sodomy, but it is alleged that he victimized dozens of other kids.
What's worse is that numerous Lexington city officials knew about and covered up the abuse. A lawsuit filed in 1998 named some of them as co- defendants with the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government as well, although the individuals were eventually dismissed from the suit, leaving only LFUCG as the sole defendant. And, of course, Democrats being Democrats, Gov. Steve Beshear partially restored some of Mr. Berry's rights in 2008.
The truth of the matter was that Mr. Berry at the time that he was running Microcity Government, was someone who mattered. He was a pillar of the black community. He delivered the black vote. He got things done and his victims were underprivileged youths who most certainly did not matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment