PROSECUTORS in Harvey Weinstein's rape trial have rested their case after more than two weeks of evidence punctuated by harrowing accounts from six women who say the disgraced film mogul ignored pleas and excused his behaviour as a Hollywood norm.
Now Weinstein's lawyers will start calling witnesses of their own, including a psychologist who specialises in human memory.
The defence is looking to raise doubts about the women's recollections of encounters that in some cases are more than a decade or two old.
Weinstein, 67, maintains that any sexual encounters were consensual.
The criminal charges at the trial in New York City are based on allegations that Weinstein raped a woman in March 2013 and that he forced oral sex on another woman, a TV and film production assistant, in 2006.
The allegations against Weinstein helped fuel the #MeToo movement.
Prosecutors rested their case after the last of the other accusers finished telling jurors about an encounter with Weinstein in 2013.
Lauren Marie Young, a model from suburban Philadelphia, alleged that Weinstein invited her to his Beverly Hills hotel room, lured her to the bathroom, stripped off his clothes, pulled down her dress and groped her breast.
Additional women, including Young, have been allowed to give evidence as prosecutors attempt to show there was a practised method to Weinstein's alleged attacks, including inviting women to his hotel room to discuss business, then disrobing and demanding sexual favours.
Her evidence bookended that of the first accuser to testify, actress Annabella Sciorra, who alleges Weinstein barged into her apartment in the mid-1990s, threw her on a bed and raped her as she tried to fight him off by kicking and punching him.
In between, jurors heard similar stories of Weinstein ingratiating himself with much younger women, appearing to show interest in helping their careers before getting them into a hotel room or an apartment and allegedly violating them.
Jurors were also reminded of the complexity of the women's relationships with Weinstein.
The woman Weinstein is charged with raping faced three days of questioning, much of it on cross-examination, as Weinstein's lawyers scoured friendly, sometimes flirtatious emails she sent the film producer after the alleged assault.
The woman acknowledged meeting Weinstein for other sexual encounters.
She said she kept in touch because "his ego was so fragile", and that contacting him "made me feel safe".
At one point, Weinstein lawyer Donna Rotunno asked the woman why she would accept favours from "your rapist".
The woman turned to jurors and declared: "I want the jury to know that he is my rapist."
On Wednesday, prosecutors showed jurors emails they did not see during that exhaustive cross-examination that showed it was Weinstein trying to keep their complex relationship afloat, pining for meetings as she latched on to excuses to avoid him.
After one instance of getting the cold shoulder, Weinstein emailed the woman's roommate in October 2013, writing: "Tell your friend... I'm friendly."
In December 2015, Weinstein asked the woman: "R u meeting me or forgetting me..."
The trial has moved far quicker than anyone involved anticipated.
Jurors were initially told to expect six weeks of evidence.
Now the case could be decided by mid-February.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel