My reading was that Sherrerd was pointing out that by not telling anyone or writing anything contemporaneously, Tweeden loses one line of evidence. Which she does. Doesn’t imply that such behavior, or the opposite, is unusual.
…what is the legal definition of “one line of evidence” and how do we apply it to every other case of historical sexual harassment or abuse? Do all the victims of Harvey Weinstein who didn’t tell anybody for decades also loose a “line of evidence”? Kater Gordon didn’t tell anyone for a year. Is she one line short too? And what should be the real world consequences be for women and men who are making historical claims of sexual harassment and abuse be for being one line short of evidence?
What is there to doubt about her story? We have the photo. We have her version of the kiss, we have his. If we make the assumption she is lying about the kiss: then if she were to claim that she told her husband after the kiss happened (and the husband corroborated the story) we are still left with the possibility that the husband is now lying. So if that were to happen: do we really have “another line of evidence?” Or do we just have another layer to the story?
Point taken. But keep in mind that this was a USO skit, not a Spielberg production. That Franken thought that practicing kissing was even necessary is evidence of extreme creepiness IMO.
Known in the law as “fresh complaint”.
Why the emphasis on answering under oath? Are we not believing women who are coming forward about sexual abuse now? Furthermore when we don’t know what “is” is what does being under oath prove?
Strongly disagree. The point of practicing the kiss is to avoid unexpected incidents. See Banquet Bear’s link. He was right to insist on practicing and wrong not to explain why.
I figure they were performing in front of a few hundred people. This wasn’t a high school play. But honestly the crowd size doesn’t matter. Kissing brings up feelings, so it has to be negotiated.
This isn’t hard Banquet Bear. This is simply about weighing evidence, something done by courts, policy makers, consumers, producers, film critics, judges, juries, sapient creatures and possibly a few non-sapient creatures.
The evidence that exists about something is separate from whether it actually occurred, but is central to our best understanding of what occurred. Life isn’t always fair.
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. A performance in front of (probably) a few hundred service people that are likely to be in the 19-25 year old range sounds about as close to a high school skit as you can get. The fact that she was planning on turning her head tells me that this was not a serious production.
Agree to disagree it is. Because this is the dope, I’ll tack on that cumulatively USO crowds for a single season can total in the low 5 figures. Though admittedly misunderstandings would presumably only occur during the first gig or so.
No one except Franken really knows if she was groped, including the woman herself. What we do know: he’s about 60 in that picture, she’s like half his age. Asleep, unaware, and trusting.
His words were brief on this, someone is going to make him explain it. Someone is going to force him to say (for example) that he was only pretending to grope her breasts when she was asleep because he thought it was funny, and so he had it photographed and who knows what other hilarious things.
But anyway. Way too soon to dismiss the photo. Wait for the investigation.
IIRC, she said that the reason she didn’t raise an official stink at the time was she was afraid Franken would have her fired.
Exactly how would that be so? How would hiring/firing decisions come under his authority? Did he have any authority? We could stretch it, and say well, maybe Franken told her he could and she believed him?
Outside of that implausible scenario, what?
…no he wasn’t right to “insist” they practice the kiss. Not being able to “insist” on the kiss is the entire point of consent. If she refused to do the kiss then the correct thing to do is to rewrite the scene, not to insist that the kiss must happen.
It shouldn’t be, but you are certainly making it hard!
And just like the courts, and just like policy makers, and just like consumers, and produces and film critics and judges and juries you are holding Tweeden to a different standard than you are other victims. You don’t have to do that.
But you can be fair, can’t you? This isn’t about “life”: this is about you. You don’t have to dig into Tweeden’s past, you don’t have to judge Tweeden based on what she did 11 years ago do you? Does “weighing the evidence” in a case where nearly every single detail isn’t in dispute really something you need to do?
Lets pretend she didn’t tell anyone.
Has anything changed?
Lets pretend she did tell someone. Her husband. He states that she told him about the kiss eleven years ago.
Has anything changed?
This is the kind of thing that defence lawyers use to attack people in court. They don’t use it to add “one line of evidence” to the case. They do it to attack the character of the person. To make them seem less credible. Telling the husband at the time adds nothing to this story. Its just a line of attack. If she had have told him I’m sure the “line of attack” would be something else.
…it isn’t implausible at all. Do you remember the actress Rae Dawn Chong? She was one of the “it girls” for a short while in Hollywood. But she dropped off the radar for a long while. She was “difficult to work with.”
About the time that Rae Dawn became “difficult to work with” she was sent for an audition by her agency with Steven Seagal which ended (according to Chong) withSeagal harassing her and exposing himself to her. The agency represented both Rae Dawn and Seagal.
You don’t have to be in the position to “hire or fire” in Hollywood (or many other industries to be honest) to have control or influence over somebody else’s career. If the revelations over the last couple of months haven’t made that clear to you then perhaps the revelations that will come out in the next couple of months will make it clear to you instead. Because it isn’t stopping here.
Also as has been mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another, merely gaining a reputation for antgonizing more established stars or for making public complaints has always been bad for your career. Franken would not need to do anything about it or even KNOW anything was done but the agencies and producers would just “make the problem go away” as being just what you do.
You don’t recall correctly. Here’s exactly what she said (it’s in the article linked to in the OP):
Emphasis added, not for you 'luci, but for those who are still in the “why didn’t she tell anyone at the time” camp. I’m not aware of anyone corroborating her story, so if anyone here wants to say she’s lying, that’s a different matter. But it does appear that, at least according to her, she told some folks about the issue at the time it happened.
Everyone, the tiny issue of whether Tweeden has any contemporaneous corroboration is a distraction. There are numerous reasons why she wouldn’t tell anyone at that moment (she does seem to have told her husband not too long after the event). One already stated, which seems to be getting ignored, is that the culture at the time frowned on accusations. The incident is gray enough where there would likely not be legal charges and, at best, she gets an apology from Franken. Meanwhile, she’d be known as the actress who accuses performers/comedians of sexual harassment/assault for “making a bad joke.” I don’t agree with that, but I have no doubt people would have argued that if the incident had become public knowledge when it happened. Ultimately, she DID tell someone close to her about the incident years before she revealed the incident to the public. Whether she told someone in time to make her statement constitute as “contemporaneous corroboration” is a question best suited to the courts. In my opinion, making such a distinction only matters in the legal realm. Plus, her reason for coming forward aligns with her reason for not coming forward earlier: the support from recent accusers of famous/powerful men (she specifically notes Weinstein, I believe) indicated there was a paradigm shift happening in the industry. That all makes sense to me. Personally, I’m going under the assumption that both Moore and Franken are guilty of the worst accusations leveled against them. Doesn’t change my position that Moore’s conduct was far worse and, unlike Franken, makes him unfit to be a Senator.
Yes and no. Human memory is notoriously inaccurate, so I would question anyone’s ability to remember precise aspects about events that happened 10 years ago. In this case, where part of the issue hinges on whether there was tongue or not, and how much tongue there might have been, a 10 year old memory all by itself might not be all that persuasive. Sorry if this offends anyone, but in this case, I find the photo to be the more damning piece of evidence.
I have no reason to doubt Tweeden and what Franken did, by his own admission, seems to have transgressed the boundaries of propriety. But this entire thread of discussion is a testament to the ability of political elites to distract ordinary people so that they focus their attention away from things like policy to things that have no bearing on their life.
In both Al Franken’s case and Roy Moore’s case, I’m totally fine with leaving it in the hands of voters. Don’t like Franken? Don’t vote for him. Don’t like Moore, don’t vote for him. Let prosecutors and law enforcement decide if the allegations against them warrant a criminal investigation or a civil lawsuit, and let the people decide if these allegations disqualify them from office. I maintain that even once making unwanted sexual contact with someone is a serious and potentially disqualifying offense in my view, depending on the type of contact, the frequency of the context, and the surrounding context. Multiple offenses only make that person less qualified. But that’s my view as a voter. The people have already voted for Bill Clinton and Donald Trump with fairly strong evidence suggesting that they both engaged in sexual misconduct. I don’t see why things should change now.
Unfortunately while we’ve been debating whose sexual offenses are worse (going back to the 1980s and 90s), we’ve had an administration manipulate intelligence to launch an illegal an disastrous war. We’ve had a disastrous recession that left millions of homeowners underwater, wiped out hundreds of banks, and erased trillions of dollars in savings and wealth. We now have a debt-GDP ratio that’s beyond 100%. We’ve seen wealth inequality go to records not seen in a century. We’ve seen much of the middle class disappear. We’ve seen prison populations explode and schools fail. We’ve seen our infrastructure crumble. We’re more divided than ever. The top 1% and rich mega church pastors would love nothing more than for us to keep debating whose sexual conduct is worse - anything to keep us from thinking about the concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
I’m pretty much with you, asahi, on the “let the voters decide” idea. Especially since we’re talking about actions that happened before these guys were Senators (and Moore isn’t even one yet). Earlier, I mentioned censure for Franken, but thinking about, I don’t see where that makes sense. If it was something he did while he was a Senator, sure. But the accusations so far are from pre-Senator days.
Well, yeah, it must, since conflicting memories are nothing more than that.
So, when you look at the picture, it is clear to you that one or both of Sen Franken’s hands are in direct contact with her? I have posited the possibility of a crude and juvenile pantomime, but you have convincing evidence otherwise? Perhaps you should share that with us.
Because, as I’ve said, I see his left hand. Fingers are splayed, and “background” is visible between them, which would not be the case if the hands were in direct contact with her outermost garment. Also, the fingers case shadows on her person, which would not be the case if they were in direct contact. The right hand, it appears to me, is more problematic due to the camera angle, but to my eye, there is a shadow cast that is consistent with both hands being several inches or more away.
But have a look, tell me what you see.