Harvey Weinstein’s Team Wants the Jury to Believe He’s a Scapegoat of #MeToo

by

In the final stage of the Harvey Weinstein rape case on Wednesday, his legal team argued that he is being made a symbolic target due to his role in the ongoing #MeToo movement.

Arthur Aidala, Weinstein’s lawyer, questioned the jury by saying, ‘Would we be in this courtroom if not for Harvey Weinstein?’

Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg began her closing arguments by stating, ‘The reason for this case isn’t that the defendant is Harvey Weinstein, but rather because he allegedly raped three individuals.’

Harvey Weinstein is being re-tried for criminal charges of sexual assault and rape, stemming from accusations made by a former assistant on the TV show “Project Runway,” Miriam Haley, who claims he coerced oral sex at his Manhattan apartment in 2006, and Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress, who alleges she was raped by Weinstein in a Manhattan hotel in 2013. These charges were presented during the 2020 trial, but Weinstein’s conviction was overturned in April 2024. Shortly after, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced his intention to re-try Weinstein, the former movie magnate.

Previously known model, Kaja Sokola, has emerged as a fresh accuser in this case, claiming that Harvey Weinstein compelled her into performing oral sex against her will at a hotel in 2006. This allegation leads to an additional count of criminal sexual misconduct being brought up against him.

The #MeToo movement has played a role in this court case, as several witnesses have cited a 2017 article from the New York Times as their motivation to speak up. However, this trial hasn’t received as much attention or public demonstrations compared to similar cases in 2020. This trial occurs at a time when some people’s perspectives on #MeToo are evolving. Several women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by the same individual as the defendants in this case, have voiced their support for the three witnesses, but they also expressed growing skepticism towards the movement, stating that it’s being criticized as part of the ‘anti-woke’ backlash.

On Thursday morning, Judge Curtis Farber plans to guide a jury of twelve regarding the charges, following which they will start their deliberations. This is after approximately six weeks of testimony from over twenty prosecution witnesses and a few defense witnesses. If found guilty on any counts, Weinstein may spend the remainder of his life in prison. However, if he’s not found guilty, Weinstein would still be in custody due to his 2022 California conviction, which his legal team has appealed.

In his final statements, Aidala maintained that the interactions between Weinstein and the women were consensual and business-oriented, serving as a means for career advancement without requiring formal education.

Aidala stated that instead of going through the process of education, they prefer to skip ahead. They see a quicker route, and unfortunately, they believe that Harvey Weinstein is this shortcut.

Haley stated that Weinstein assisted her in securing a position on ‘Project Runway’, and afterwards, she kept proposing ideas for a TV project to him following the claimed event. Weinstein facilitated Sokola’s work as an extra in ‘The Nanny Diaries’, although her scene ultimately didn’t make it into the movie, and he arranged for Mann to audition for ‘Vampire Academy’. However, the casting director testified that Mann was too old for the role.

None of these ventures ever took flight or led to long-term professions. Aidala proposed that if they had succeeded, the woman might not have been involved in the court case.

The event involving Sokola transpired following Weinstein mentioning he had a script for Sokola to review in his hotel room, and after Haley agreed to an invitation from Weinstein to attend the premiere of Clerks 2 in Los Angeles. Upon meeting him at his apartment before departing, she found herself in a situation where she met Weinstein. Mann, who later stated that she was in a consensual relationship with Weinstein at one time but did not consent to the encounter in the Manhattan hotel, initially viewed this meeting as beneficial for her career.

“He never had any interest in their careers. He had interest in their bodies,” Blumberg said.

Additionally, Aidala highlighted that these three women were part of a compensation fund set up for victims of sexual misconduct following the bankruptcy of Weinstein’s company. Each of them had received approximately half a million dollars from this fund.

According to Aidala, since they couldn’t secure what they desired when Harvey held power, they found an alternative method to achieve their goal once Harvey was in a lower position.

In the final part of the trial, Aidala and his defense team have attempted to question the reliability of the three women’s testimonies by highlighting inconsistencies in their accounts. Furthermore, it was revealed that these women had maintained some level of contact with Weinstein following the alleged incidents. Some of them even reached out to him for business purposes via friendly emails, while Mann continued to meet with Weinstein, as indicated in emails presented to the jury on Tuesday.

Blumberg has countered that the women “knew it was necessary to stay on his good side.” 

She additionally highlighted Weinstein’s influence in the industry, presenting images of the ex-tycoon with the Clintons and Michael Bloomberg, as potential explanations for why the women continued their interaction and delayed reporting the claimed offenses.

The individual currently in the courtroom, seated in a wheelchair, is not who we’re discussing; instead, it’s the man who wielded power across the entirety of Hollywood,” Blumberg stated, providing one of the initial direct mentions of Weinstein’s health during the trial.

One significant challenge looming over the new trial revolves around the Molineux rule, which played a crucial role in reversing Weinstein’s conviction when the appellate court decided that the trial judge incorrectly permitted testimony from other women regarding unproven accusations against Weinstein.

During this trial, only the accusers provided testimony regarding allegations of sexual assault against Weinstein. However, they also recounted other instances with him that were not part of the case and which they described as unwanted. For instance, Sokola testified that when she was 16, Weinstein touched her genitalia and placed her hand on his penis for masturbation.

In those instances, Blumberg stated that they clarified the kind of connection involved. Moreover, he pointed out the balance of power that was present.

Beyond the constant debates between the parties, Aidala demonstrated an extravagant flair during his final statements, incorporating discussions about personal topics such as his own love life, mimicking the testimonies of witnesses, and using a grandmother’s red sauce metaphor. Contrastingly, Blumberg started by stating, “I prefer to steer clear of all the jokes and instead bring us back to the real world.

A big picture of a younger Weinstein and his partner Georgina Chapman at the time was positioned before the witness stand, directed towards the jury. Aidala repeated his opening statements, acknowledging that Weinstein had been unfaithful to his spouse multiple times, but then added: “There’s quite a distance between immoral behavior and criminal activity.

Before Resuming my gaming session on Wednesday, I’ve repeatedly asked for another game reset (or mistrial) over the past few weeks, just as Aidala did.

Farber informed Aidala that it was number 11, and refused the request. Subsequently, he rejected Aidala’s fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh motions for a mistrial, all connected to the District Attorney’s final remarks,” (in a more concise form)

“Farber told Aidala it was the 11th instance, and declined the request. He also dismissed Aidala’s subsequent four motions for a mistrial, which were linked to the closing statement by the District Attorney,” (a slightly shorter version)

Read More

2025-06-05 00:25