Harvey Weinstein convicted: Jurors explain the mixed verdict

Washington [US], December 21 (ANI): The Harvey Weinstein trial jury deliberated on matters of consent, morality, the casting couch, and power disparities in Hollywood for ten days.

According to Variety, they arrived at a split decision following their Monday talks. They convicted the discredited producer of raping Jane Doe (1) but exonerated him of sexually assaulting Jane Doe (3). On allegations involving two additional women, including one who is Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the spouse of California Governor Gavin Newsom, they were at a standstill. Three jurors gave an explanation of their decision-making process after they were dismissed from the case Tuesday afternoon.

Talking to Variety, the jurors said that while they empathized with all of the women, it was sometimes hard for them to determine what had happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Everybody seemed very believable — it’s just hard to prove all of it, with time and memory. It’s just their word,” said Jay, a mechanic supervisor who did not provide his last name. “Nothing was black and white. Nothing was super clear.”

According to Variety, Siebel Newsom said in court that Weinstein raped her in 2005 when she was a rising actress and director. Many jurors expressed their concern over the fact that she and Weinstein had numerous email exchanges following the alleged rape. She inquired about meetings with Weinstein and requested donations for her husband’s campaign in those emails, who at the time was the mayor of San Francisco.

A 62-year-old banker named Michael, who was also a juror, claimed to have voted in favour of Weinstein’s conviction on Jane Doe (1) and (2). He did, however, vote to reject Siebel Newsom’s accusations. “I was considering the situation while also looking at her subsequent actions,” he told Variety.

“She wanted access to Harvey Weinstein and it sounded like she wanted access to a lot of his resources too… That did raise some reasonable doubt in my mind.”
Some jurors interpreted the accusations through the lens of the “casting couch,” focusing on the defence’s claim that the women voluntarily participated in “transactional” sex, as per Variety.

It was like “pulling back the curtain on a curtain of the entertainment industry where flexible morals was a way of doing business,” according to Michael, who stated the testimony was like that.

He maintained that transactional sex dates back to Biblical times and that the “casting couch” has been a fixture of Hollywood for 100 years. “Now it’s, ‘If you want to have sex with me, you gotta greenlight my career,'” he told Variety. “‘If you want to have sex with me, you gotta push my books and my scripts. If you want to have sex with me, you’re gonna have to give me full access to you and all your resources.’ Those are things that go on. Morally I don’t think it’s right… At the end of the day they’re making decisions that — ultimately, they’re trying to further a career.”

However, as per Variety, the “casting couch” defence did not work in Jane Doe’s (1) case. However, Jane Doe (1) did not respond favourably to the “casting couch” defence. She said she had little contact with Weinstein after he sexually assaulted her at the Mr C Beverly Hills hotel, saying she barely knew who he was until seeing him at the L.A. Italia Film Festival in February 2013. The defence, according to Variety, said that neither Jane Doe (1) nor Weinstein had been in her hotel room that night and that Jane Doe (10 had just made up the entire sexual assault. The jury rejected that defence.

Harvey Weinstein was convicted of three rape and sexual assault charges on Monday. The jury found Weinstein guilty of raping Jane Doe, an Italian model, in the Mr C hotel in February 2013. The jury acquitted him of the felony charge of sexual battery against Jane Doe (3), a massage therapist. Additionally, they disagreed on the accusations made by two additional accusers, Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lauren Young. On the accusation of sexual battery against Young, the jury voted 10-2 to convict him; on the charges of rape and forcible oral copulation against Siebel Newsom, they voted 8-4.

In a statement, according to Variety, Jane Doe thanked the prosecution for “believing in me and fighting so hard for all the victims, including me, in the trial.”
“Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013 and I will never get that back,” she said. “The criminal trial was brutal and Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand, but I knew I had to see this through to the end, and I did… I hope Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime,” as per Variety. For the offences for which he was found guilty, including forceful rape, forcible oral copulation, and penetration by a foreign object, Weinstein could receive a sentence of up to 18 to 24 years in jail.