Why was the Harvey Weinstein jury hopelessly deadlocked in his third NYC sex crimes trial?
This is why. The accusation was that he had raped actress Jessica Mann in 2013. However:
Mann, now 40, broke down several times during her painful testimony as she faced off against her abuser for the third time after a jury at last year’s retrial could not convict the ex-powerhouse producer of rape.
“I said, ‘No’ over and over and I tried to leave,” Mann said through sobs, shortly before she demonstrated to jurors how Weinstein allegedly pinned both of her wrists above her head during the sex attack.
Mann had testified that she did have a consensual relationship at one point because she felt it could lead to a “loving relationship” — while also acknowledging she knew about Weinstein’s power in Tinseltown and how it affected her decision to get involved with him.
At what point did that consensual relationship end, how clearly was that communicated to Weinstein, and why were they alone together at the time of the alleged rape? Did the jury factor into their deliberations the fact that Mann is an actress and that her tears could be performative?
Most important of all, probably, was this piece of evidence [my emphasis]:
Weinstein’s attorney Teny Geragos held Mann on the ropes during a brutal, multi-day cross-examination when she was pressed repeatedly about her relationship with Weinstein and a so-called love note — written by Mann just two days after the alleged New York City attack — which was introduced for the first time at any trial.
“Do I love him or the idea of him? With him — easy. The idea of expanding that — fulfilling,” Mann mused — two days after she said she was sexually assaulted by Weinstein in a room at the DoubleTree hotel in Manhattan.
Based on that note, I think he should have been acquitted – not because he didn’t rape her (that is unknown and at this point unknowable), but because the note introduces very strong reasonable doubt that he did.
Sexual relationships are often fraught with miscommunication and/or misperception, plus failures of memory and ex post facto revisions of memory. The year 2013 is also a long long time ago.
Gotta love them jornolists: “a jury at last year’s retrial could not convict the ex-powerhouse producer of rape.”It can be read that Weinstein IS the “powerhouse producer of rape” !
Plus, it is bizarre to retry, for the third time, a person 13 years after the alleged event.
Ladies, if you have the misfortune of getting raped, go to the police immediately, not a decade later. OK?
You are ruining it for the girls who aren’t trying to play things to advance their careers.
(Did that prosecutor know about that note from two days later? If so, he should have to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this case.)