Newly revealed emails in the Harvey Weinstein trial show that his accuser contacted the movie mogul after the alleged rape and wanted to continue seeing him. She even told him that no one “understands me quite like you,” according to court papers his lawyers filed Friday.
Weinstein stands accused of rape, one of the only instances of his alleged sex crimes that may make it to a courtroom, and his accuser remains anonymous. She alleges that Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in March of 2013. Her case comes as the #MeToo movement grows, a movement that really kicked into gear when the first bombshell accusations came out against Weinstein.
The defense is attacking the accuser’s credibility, and the emails they are focusing on will play a large role in their strategy. They argued the emails suggest an “intimate, consensual relationship, not the aftermath of a rape,” as The Associated Press describes. The defense also argues that it was unfair to Weinstein that he was indicted even though the emails were never made available to the grand jury before it handed over a true bill, according to The Associated Press.
Not even 30 days after the alleged rape, the accuser sent an email to Weinstein in which she praised “all you do for me,” according copies of emails filed in court. She also told him via email that “it would be great to see you again.”
Emails put together a timeline showing that the two had a continuing relationship after the alleged rape.
“There is no one else I would enjoy catching up with that understands me quite like you,” she emailed him a few years ago.
In February of 2014, she sent a message that particularly showed that she had some level of affection for Weinstein, even though that doesn’t in any way mean Weinstein didn’t sexually violate her in the past. Not being able to meet up with him as planned prompted her to email “I love you, always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call,” including a smiley face at the end of the text.
About 400 emails were filed, and none of them are accusatory in nature or more directly, according to defense lawyer Ben Brafman. He said that the prosecutors should have been aware of the emails but “likely” didn’t giver an accurate description of the communications to the grand jury, which he thinks would make the entire ordeal “fundamentally unfair.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office declined to comment.
New York appeals courts have sided with the idea of prosecutors not showing all evidence but remind those prosecutors that they shouldn’t be seeking indictments no matter what the facts are.