I took this case because I believe Mr. Weinstein did not commit these crimes. I also believe in the rule of law and the pursuit of justice. It begins with a search for the facts.
Functioning more reactively than substantively, and without sincere reflective analysis, the media have largely dictated the narrative without asking questions to determine if the accusations are supported by anything other than a person’s account. They have chosen to put forward the flawed notion that the more accusations, the more believable the accusations.
Beginning in October 2017, the public has only read or been provided with one-sided accounts. Few have wanted to consider necessary details that are intentionally overlooked. Many of Mr. Weinstein’s accusers pursued and initiated contact with him, sought his advice, asked him out and noted their fondness for him. To be clear: There are only two accusers by whom Mr. Weinstein is being accused of criminal acts, not 70 or 80. Many of the supposed reports by dozens of accusers are from people who claim to have had uncomfortable, but not unlawful, encounters.
Facts matter. In a vacuum, one person’s account alone can tell a story. Many unrepresentative stories have been told to conveniently paint the picture of Mr. Weinstein today.
The need to fill a 24-hour news cycle has given rise to irresponsible journalism, costing people their reputations and livelihood.
The #MeToo movement, while serving the good cause of leveling inequities between men and women, has also altered the definition of free speech. Now, speech is only free if it mimics public sentiment. Honest reporting takes a backseat to money and clicks. Instead of accountability, journalists give the public what they believe it wants, truth and fact-checking be damned.
Regrettably, the real narrative could open reporters or their companies to toxic and sometimes vengeful public scrutiny. That’s not something commercial organizations, vying for market share and ad revenues, can afford right now.
Editors and writers have told us that, although discernible through the evidence in the form of emails, texts and conversations in their own words, “there is no appetite to hear” anything disapproving about many of Weinstein’s accusers.
Beyond the media, the movement has changed how these types of crimes are investigated. I can accuse someone of selling drugs.
But, without facts or evidence, I could easily be dismissed. Yet, when it comes to allegations of sexual abuse, the public and prosecutorial bar has been lowered to a dangerous level of whom the public believes. Today, a reputation can be destroyed by a mere accusation.
There are many who want what they believe is justice, notwithstanding the facts. Their anger over what has long been “acceptable” abusive and discriminating behavior is understandable. But exacting a pound of flesh on principle, disregarding due process and due diligence, will never serve justice.
The way we manage personal accountability today has changed. Where my father taught me to take responsibility for my actions, there is a vocal minority that suggests that any adversity we face is someone else’s fault. That same chorus would blame others, believing it somehow absolves them of their own feelings of guilt or offers some solace. It never does.
This trial will allow Mr. Weinstein to demonstrate just how harmful jumping to conclusions can be. We will demonstrate the true nature of many of the relationships in their proper context.
I caution you to reserve judgment and to not set your intellect aside in place of emotions. Under the law, we are innocent until proven guilty. I hope that never changes in our country.
The truth will come out.
My team and I are here to uncover it.
Donna Rotunno is an attorney for Harvey Weinstein.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
