- Jul 17, 2020
Oh sure, but the argument there was if it where überhaupt possible for Weinstein to sexually assault her based on said scaring. Not that Jane Doe was able to testify/remember said scaring to prove she had in fact seen it..basically Weinsteins defense already conceded to the fact that he at the very least exposed himself to her.Probably a good time to revisit the Harvey Weinstein case. Based on some articles I've read, Harvey's defense attorney mentioned that Harvey had "deep scarring tissue" in his genitals, which would not have made it possible for him to sexually assault Jane Doe 01. I don't actually know how he was convicted, though. Many women accused him, and it sounds like proper physical evidence was never presented, but the jury found him guilty due to how convincing Jane Roe 01 sounded.
Also, interesting to note that Harvey's defense attorney's main argument was that Jane Roe 01 could not provide physical evidence. Make of that what you will.
the “identification”. If you will, would be resounding evidence in this case where flashing is the crime