Indeed it is what happened here with some of them. These girls were not really struggling actresses they were actresses on the cusp of success who were suddenly called to the office of the most successful producer in Hollywood, and when they got there found he was masturbating into a potted plant and telling them 'this is the way Hollywood works" or "You'll never work in this town again" (Yes, he actually said that) if they turned him down. Look, I don't think for a minute that all or even most of the stars who get ahead in Hollywood do it entirely on talent, but most of those who turn down guys like Weinstein suffer no more repercussions from the refusal than the fact that he doesn't call them back. From what I understand this was a guy who actually DID ruin some careers and here was his big mistake
From what little of the case I'm familiar with it should never have been brought to the bar. The prosecution's case sux.
You rape your secretary, then tell her she'll be fired if she says anything. She shows up for work the next day and accepts a bonus. You've not raped her? There are all sorts of ways to rape someone. Look, if he told them flat out. "I can make your career, but I want sex in exchange " then I don't see there being much of a case. He was saying, "I'll break your career unless I get sex from you" (or just taking the sex and then threatening them if they said anything) and that's the problem, it's the element of coercion that makes the difference.
But that is very much a he said, she said. What impresses me about the defence case is the individual witnesses they have produced who contradict them. Even Annabella Sciorra told her outcry witness that she 'thinks' she might have been raped, well either she was or wasn't, if there is ambiguity it wasn't rape.
I don't see why you say that. If you have sex with an unconscious woman that is indeed rape, as courts have ruled several times, especially if you have plyed her with alcohol or drugs like Rohypnol. One thing that makes the prosecution's case is the same as with Cosby, repetition. One woman might be he said etc several 10's or even hundreds is something else. I know juries are not supposed to consider any case but those brought but juries are human.
But he didn't, they weren't unconscious. I have big problems with the Cosby conviction too, if they knowingly and consensually took drink and drugs with him and then had sex under their influence that is not rape.
The Jury seems to be in a quandary: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...trial-says-they-re-hung-judge-orders-n1140521
Cosby was a great fan of Qualuudes. He also picked up a lot of the women he was accused of at the Playboy Grotto and yes, with a lot of them a charge of rape justifying 10 years incarceration seems harsh. OTOH the conviction he was sentenced on seems to involve considerable deception and coercion. My opinion is that both Cosby and Weinstein were involved in considerable activity that bordered on rape and then began to cross the line.
