2

The German newspaper FAZ reports:

Die Ankläger erreichte eine schriftliche Stellungnahme der früheren Nachwuchsschauspielerin Lucia Evans. Darin beschrieb Evans den Oralsex mit Weinstein in dessen Büro im New Yorker Viertel Tribeca als einvernehmlich.
my translation: The prosecution has received written testimony from the former actress Lucia Evans. In it Evans describes the oral sex with Weinstein in his office in Tribeca, New York as consensual.

Vox on the other hand reports:

Evans maintains that she is telling the truth. “The decision to throw away my client’s sexual assault charges says nothing about Weinstein’s guilt or innocence. Nor does it reflect on Lucia’s consistent allegation that she was sexually assaulted with force by Harvey Weinstein,” said her attorney Carrie Goldberg in a statement. [...]

And ABC News reports:

Prosecutors said in a Sept. 12 letter to the defense unsealed last week that they discovered an account after Weinstein's arrest that could suggest the encounter was consensual.
"According to the Witness...the Complainant [Evans] told the Witness that...the Complainant had gone to the defendant's office, where the Defendant told her, in substance, that he would arrange for the Complainant to receive an acting job if she agreed to perform oral sex upon him," the letter said. "According to the Witness, the Complainant told her that she thereupon performed oral sex on the defendant."

So according to Vox, Evans still says that the originally told the truth. According to ABC News, the prosecution send a letter to the defense, saying that an unnamed witness claimed to have heard that Evens said that it was consensual. According to FAZ, Evens wrote a letter saying that it was consensual. Did the FAZ misunderstand the issue, did Vox wrongly report on this, or are both stories true (ie they refer to two distinct letters)?

  • The second half of your second quote is not contained in the link you provided. -- I think you're confusing letters here. The FAZ report is about a letter received by the prosecutors, your (unsourced) quote talks about a letter sent by the prosecutors to the defense. – DevSolar Oct 23 '18 at 9:41
  • @DevSolar I messed up the source, it's fixed now. The thing is that I couldn't find any other reference to the letter mentioned in the FAZ. My assumption was that other reporting on the story - eg by Vox or ABC News - would have mentioned such a letter (Evans herself saying that it was consensual is a lot more convincing than hearsay from a third party). And that's why I thought that the FAZ possibly misunderstood the issue. If you can find other references to the letter mentioned by the FAZ (or a link to the letter itself), that would make for a great answer. – tim Oct 23 '18 at 9:49
  • 2
    It's worth noting that even if she consented Weinstein still broke the law by conditioning an offer of employment on the performance of a sexual act. – phoog Oct 23 '18 at 16:23
  • 1
    @ceejayoz AFaik there wasn't a settlement in this case. But if this case is true (which I don't believe as I was still unable to find a confirming source), cofounding factors such as that should be included in a good answer. – tim Oct 24 '18 at 6:40
  • 1
    @ceejayoz Yes, I definitely agree with you on that and think it's important to point this out, so thanks for your comment! – tim Oct 24 '18 at 12:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .