Imagine the carry-on if Weinstein is either acquitted or alternatively, there’s a hung jury. Yet on the evidence he could well be. Here’s why.
He’s been charged with sexual molestation offences against two women. The Judge allowed a large number of others to give evidence against him of their similar experiences to show he had form. They however, were all out of time to make a formal criminal complaint which raises the question why not at least one of them had done so?
That said, I don’t doubt they jury will accept he has form. But their verdict must be confined to the two complainants’ cases.
With both the evidence is clear that after the alleged assaults, on their own initiative they actively pursued a continuing relationship, hardly the behavior one would expect from a genuinely distraught victim.
Weinstein is physically unattractive and considerably older than the two complainants. So why did they pursue him after their alleged assaults? We all know the answer being the same reason they were in contact in the first place, namely the hope he could make them stars.
That’s normal human behavior. Everyday, numerous people suffer others they dislike but endure for their personal benefit. Shopkeepers doubtless have numerous awful customers, so too professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants etc will all have fee-paying clients they can’t stand but for financial reasons, continue the relationship. Schoolteachers will have pupils they detest.
Many employees doubtless dislike their employer, but overall opt on balance for the perceived advantages from continuing the relationship. As said, the evidence is clear that happened with both cases here and that may well trouble at least some of the jurors.
Perhaps the prosecutor should have argued that despite the complainants actively pursuing a continuing relationship after the alleged offence, and even if motivated by the hope of stardom, the offence still occurred. That’s probably the reality of the situation and if the jury were all rational (optimistic perhaps with 12 random people) they would convict.
A final interesting point is the people called for jury service were grilled about their reading and awareness of the matter. Some said they were incapable of an impartial view, understandable given the publicity, and were given the boot.
But in this age of ignorance it’s probable that some of the chosen jurors genuinely were unaware, after all as fast declining traditional media figures show, a large percentage of the population are willfully and perhaps blissfully, ignorant of the news.
The one certainty is a hell of a carry-on arising should there be a hung jury or indeed an acquittal.