NEW YORK: Opening statements in Harvey Weinstein’s #MeToo rape retrial began Wednesday with a prosecutor telling jurors about the three allegations at issue in the case, including one involving a woman who wasn’t part of the original trial in 2020. Weinstein’s lawyer countered that the women and the one-time Hollywood powerbroker had consensual relationships.
Kaja Sokola, a former model from Poland, alleges that Weinstein pinned her to a bed and forcibly abused her in 2006 after luring her to his Manhattan hotel room with the promise of movie scripts. Four years earlier, Sokola alleges, he molested her at his apartment when she was just 16, Assistant District Attorney Shannon Lucey told jurors.
Weinstein, 73, is charged in connection with the 2006 allegation, but not the earlier one. Sokola previously sued and received $3.5 million in compensation, Lucey said.
It’s the first time Manhattan prosecutors have detailed Sokola’s allegations, which were added to the case after New York’s highest court overturned Weinstein’s conviction last year. The rest of the retrial involves allegations from two women who were part of the original trial — Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann.
The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named, as Haley, Mann and Sokola have done.
Emphasizing Weinstein’s onetime influence in the movie industry, Lucey said the ex-studio boss used “dream opportunities as weapons” to prey on women. He is charged with raping Mann and forcing himself on Haley and Sokola.
“The defendant wanted their bodies, and the more they resisted, the more forceful he got,” Lucey said.
Weinstein, she said, “held the golden ticket: a chance to make it, or not.”
The Oscar-winning producer, seated in the wheelchair he now uses because of health problems, whispered with one of his lawyers and appeared to take notes as Lucey described his alleged crimes, but he didn’t look at the jury.
Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies raping or sexually assaulting anyone.
His lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told jurors in his opening statement that Weinstein engaged in “mutually beneficial relationships” with women who wanted his help in the industry but that nothing he did was illegal.
“In this case, the casting couch is not a crime scene,” Aidala argued.
He implored jurors to view the case with an open mind and to wait until they’ve heard all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Acknowledging Weinstein’s former career, Aidala compared the opening stage of the trial to a movie trailer.
“How often is a preview great, but the movie falls flat on its face?” the defense lawyer said. “After you hear all of the evidence, their case is going to fall flat on its face.”
The audience in the packed courtroom included Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. He inherited the landmark #MeToo case, brought by his predecessor, when the Court of Appeals last year threw out the 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence because the judge allowed testimony about allegations Weinstein was not charged with. The reversal led to the retrial.
Weinstein’s retrial is playing out at a different cultural moment than the first. #MeToo, which exploded in 2017 with allegations against Weinstein, has evolved and ebbed.
The jury counts seven women and five men — unlike the seven-man, five-woman panel that convicted him in 2020 — and there’s a different judge.
At the start of Weinstein’s first trial, chants of “rapist” could be heard from protesters outside. This time, there was none of that.
Weinstein is being retried on a criminal sex act charge for allegedly forcibly abusing Haley, a movie and TV production assistant at the time, in 2006, and a third-degree rape charge for allegedly assaulting Mann, a then-aspiring actor, in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.
Weinstein also faces a criminal sex act charge for allegedly abusing Sokola, also in 2006. Prosecutors said she came forward days before his first trial but wasn’t part of that case. They said they revisited her allegations when his conviction was thrown out.
Weinstein’s acquittals on the two most serious charges at his 2020 trial — predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape — still stand.
Sokola’s lawyer, Lindsay Goldbrum, said Weinstein’s retrial marks a “pivotal moment in the fight for accountability in sex abuse cases” and a “signal to other survivors that the system is catching up — and that it’s worth speaking out even when the odds seem insurmountable.”
During jury selection, a prosecutor asked prospective jurors whether they’d heard of the #MeToo movement. Most said they had, but that it wouldn’t affect them either way.
Those who indicated it might were excused.
Harvey Weinstein’s rape retrial opens at a different #MeToo moment
https://arab.news/buv4q
Harvey Weinstein’s rape retrial opens at a different #MeToo moment
- It’s the first time Manhattan prosecutors have detailed Sokola’s allegations
- Emphasizing Weinstein’s onetime influence in the movie industry, Lucey said the ex-studio boss used “dream opportunities as weapons” to prey on women
UK pays Guantanamo detainee ‘substantial’ compensation over US torture questions
- Abu Zubaydah has been held at Guantanamo Bay without charge for 20 years
- British security services knew he was subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation’ but failed to raise concerns for 4 years
LONDON: A Saudi-born Palestinian being held without trial by the US has received a “substantial” compensation payment from the UK government, the BBC reported.
Abu Zubaydah has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for almost 20 years following his capture in Pakistan in 2002, and was subjected to “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the CIA.
He was accused of being a senior member of Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the US. The allegations were later dropped but he remains in detention.
The compensation follows revelations that UK security services submitted questions to the US to be put to Abu Zubaydah by their US counterparts despite knowledge of his mistreatment.
He alleged that MI5 and MI6 had been “complicit” in torture, leading to a legal case and the subsequent compensation.
Dominic Grieve, the UK’s former attorney general, chaired a panel reviewing Abu Zubaydah’s case.
He described the compensation as “very unusual” but said the treatment of Abu Zubaydah had been “plainly” wrong, the BBC reported.
Grieve added that the security services had evidence that the “Americans were behaving in a way that should have given us cause for real concern,” and that “we (UK authorities) should have raised it with the US and, if necessary, closed down co-operation, but we failed to do that for a considerable period of time.”
Abu Zubaydah’s international legal counsel, Prof. Helen Duffy, said: “The compensation is important, it’s significant, but it’s insufficient.”
She added that more needs to be done to secure his release, stating: “These violations of his rights are not historic, they are ongoing.”
Duffy said Abu Zubaydah would continue to fight for his freedom, adding: “I am hopeful that the payment of the substantial sums will enable him to do that and to support himself when he’s in the outside world.”
He is one of 15 people still being held at Guantanamo, many without charge. Following his initial detention, he arrived at the prison camp having been the first person to be taken to a so-called CIA “black site.”
He spent time at six such locations, including in Lithuania and Poland, outside of US legal jurisdiction.
Internal MI6 messages revealed that the “enhanced interrogation” techniques he was subjected to would have “broken” the resolve of an estimated 98 percent of US special forces members had they been subjected to them.
CIA officers later decided he would be permanently cut off from the outside world, with then-President George W. Bush publicly saying Abu Zubaydah had been “plotting and planning murder.”
However, the US has since withdrawn the allegations and no longer says he was a member of Al-Qaeda.
A report by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times, was locked in a coffin-like box for extended periods, and had been regularly assaulted. Much of his treatment would be considered torture under UK law.
Despite knowledge of his treatment, it was four years before British security services raised concerns with their American counterparts, and their submission of questions within that period had “created a market” for the torture of detainees, Duffy said.
A 2018 report by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee was deeply critical of the behavior of MI5 and MI6 in relation to Abu Zubaydah.
It also criticized conduct relating to Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, widely regarded as a key architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, warning that the precedent set by Abu Zubaydah’s legal action could be used by Mohammed to bring a separate case against the UK.
MI5 and MI6 failed to comment on Abu Zubaydah’s case. Neither the UK government nor Mohammed’s legal team would comment on a possible case over his treatment.
