ReportWire

Tag: Legal proceed

  • Rape accuser testifies against filmmaker Paul Haggis

    Rape accuser testifies against filmmaker Paul Haggis

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — He was a famous moviemaker. She was a publicist working a film premiere where he was a VIP guest. He’d offered her a lift home and then invited her to his apartment for a drink.

    Once there screenwriter-director Paul Haggis abruptly tried to kiss her, backed her into his refrigerator, and had a question for her, accuser Haleigh Breest told a jury Thursday.

    “Are you scared of me?” he asked, according to her testimony.

    And so began, Breest said, a sexual assault that ended with the Oscar winner raping her. She’s suing him in a civil case that’s now on trial.

    Haggis maintains the 2013 encounter was consensual, and his lawyer has argued that Breest called it rape because she’s out for money. She’s seeking unspecified damages.

    In a steady, unsparing tone, Breest recounted what she said was a terrifying, painful attack that left her shocked and “really struggling to comprehend what had happened.”

    “I couldn’t understand how somebody who seemed like a nice guy would do that,” she said.

    As she spoke without looking at him, Haggis, 69, watched largely expressionlessly, sometimes rubbing his bearded chin or taking notes.

    The Associated Press generally doesn’t identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Breest has done.

    Breest, now 36, said she first met the “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” screenwriter in 2012 at a premiere afterparty where she was working.

    Breest and Haggis exchanged occasional professional emails and party chitchat, she said, over the months before their paths crossed again at another premiere party she worked on Jan. 31, 2013.

    A tipsy — but not stumbling drunk — Breest accepted the filmmaker’s offer of a ride, and then his invitation for a drink, she told jurors. She said she suggested someplace public instead, but he pushed for his apartment in Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood, and she didn’t want to offend one of her employer’s red-carpet guests.

    “But just so you know,” she testified that she told him, “I’m not sleeping in SoHo tonight.”

    Yet Haggis’ advances began as soon as she put her bags down in his loft’s open kitchen, Breest said.

    “You’ve been flirting with me for months,” he soon said, according to her.

    “I don’t even know you,” she said she replied.

    Breest said she dodged him and thought she’d politely defused the situation when he started showing her the apartment. But when they reached a guest bedroom, Haggis “became aggressive very quickly,” pushed her onto the bed and pulled off her tights and clothes as she tried to keep them on and told him to stop, she said.

    Then, she said, he forced her to perform oral sex and wanted intercourse. She said she asked to take a shower as a subtle way to get out of the room, but he followed her there, then steered her back to the guest bedroom and made a further series of unwanted sexual moves that culminated in rape.

    “I was like a trapped animal. There was nothing for me to do,” she said.

    Breest said she passed out soon afterward, awoke alone on the bed the next morning and left without seeing Haggis again.

    That day and in the ensuing months, Breest said, she told a half-dozen friends that she had been sexually assaulted, naming Haggis to some. She said she informed her boss the next year that Haggis had done something bad to her.

    Breest didn’t tell police. She testified that she was scared and concerned about how her allegation would be handled.

    Nor did she confront Haggis when he emailed her the day after the encounter to ask about photos from the premiere. Nor at subsequent screenings or in emails, some of which she initiated, about social events and movie matters.

    “I didn’t want my work experience to be awkward,” she testified, so “I pretended like everything was normal. And it wasn’t.”

    Behind the scenes, Breest anguished over what had happened and what to do, according to text and other electronic messages shown in court.

    The communications, sent to friends, veer from frank descriptions of forced sex — “and I kept saying no” — to moments when she seemed to downplay it (“it sort of is” rape).

    At times she said she wanted to avoid Haggis, at others she mused about seeing him again to try to regain some equanimity and “not be the victim.” The messages are salted with lighthearted texting slang — “lol,” “omg,” “haha” — that Breest says were attempts to use humor to defang a tough subject.

    Haggis hasn’t testified thus far, and his lawyers haven’t yet gotten their chance to question Breest. In an opening statement, defense attorney Priya Chaudhry pointed to some of the accuser’s messages — such as a comment that she needs “to get something out of this” — to question her credibility.

    Breest said her remarks just reflect her horror at being victimized, her desire to seize back a sense of control in her life, and her confusion at how someone she thought well of could violently turn on her.

    Now, she said, she understands that night.

    “I thought I was getting a ride home. I agreed to have a drink. What happened never should have happened,” she told the jury. “And it had nothing to do with me, and everything to do with him and his actions.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mel Gibson can testify at Harvey Weinstein trial, judge says

    Mel Gibson can testify at Harvey Weinstein trial, judge says

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Mel Gibson can testify about what he learned from one of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, a judge ruled Friday in the rape and sexual assault trial of the former movie mogul.

    The 66-year-old actor and director was one of many witnesses, and by far the best known, whose identities were revealed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The judge and attorneys had taken a break from jury selection for motions on what evidence will be allowed at the trial, and who can testify. The witness list for the trial is sealed.

    Judge Lisa B. Lench ruled that Gibson can testify in support of his masseuse and friend, who will be known as Jane Doe #3 at the trial. Weinstein is accused of committing sexual battery by restraint against the woman, one of 11 rape and sexual assault counts in the trial against the 70-year-old.

    Prosecutors said that after getting a massage from the woman at a California hotel in Beverly Hills in May of 2010, a naked Weinstein followed her into the bathroom and masturbated. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty, and denied any non-consensual sexual activity.

    Weinstein’s attorneys argued against allowing Gibson to testify, saying that what he learned from the woman while getting a massage from her does not constitute a “fresh complaint” by the woman under the law by which Gibson would take the stand. A “fresh complaint” under California law allows the introduction of evidence of sexual assault or another crime if the victim reported it to someone else voluntarily and relatively promptly after it happened.

    Prosecutors said that when Gibson brought up Weinstein’s name by chance, the woman had a traumatic response and Gibson understood from her that she had been sexually assaulted. Gibson did not remember the timing of the exchange, but the prosecution will use another witness, Allison Weiner, who remembers speaking to both Gibson and the woman in 2015.

    Judge Lench said Gibson’s testimony will depend on how the accuser describes the exchange with him when she takes the stand, and she may choose to rule against it at that time.

    Weinstein attorney Mark Werksman then argued that if Gibson does take the stand, the defense should be allowed to cross-examine him about widely publicized antisemitic remarks Gibson made during an arrest in 2006, and about racist statements to a girlfriend that were recorded and publicized in 2010.

    Lench said a wider discussion of Gibson’s racism was not relevant to the trial, but she would allow questioning of whether he had a personal bias and animus toward Weinstein.

    Werksman argued that Gibson had such a bias both because Weinstein is Jewish, and because Weinstein published a book that criticized the depiction of Jews in the Gibson-directed 2004 film, “The Passion of the Christ.”

    “Any evidence of Mr. Gibson’s racism or antisemitism would give rise to a bias against my client, who challenged him,” Werksman said.

    The lawyer briefly, and mistakenly, said he thought the movie won a best picture Academy Award, but Weinstein, whose films once dominated the Oscars, shook his head as he sat at the defense table.

    “Sorry, my client would know better than I would,” Werksman said. “But it was an award-winning movie.”

    The defense also argued that Gibson was trying to whitewash his image by focusing on Weinstein’s wrongdoing and asserting himself as a champion of the #MeToo movement.

    The prosecution argued that Gibson had made no such suggestions about himself, and that at the time of the conversation with his masseuse he said he was discussing getting into a business deal with Weinstein, showing there was no such bias.

    Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Gibson’s past comments “despicable,” but said they had no relevance for the narrow purposes he would be called to the stand for.

    Gibson’s testimony raises the prospect of two of Hollywood’s once most powerful men, who have undergone public downfalls, facing each other in court.

    An email seeking comment from a representative for Gibson was not immediately returned.

    In one of several similar rulings Friday, Lench also found that “Melrose Place” actor Daphne Zuniga could testify in a similar capacity for a woman known at the trial as Jane Doe #4, whom Weinstein is accused of raping in 2004 or 2005.

    The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused.

    Weinstein is already serving a 23-year sentence for a 2020 conviction for rape and sexual assault in New York. The state’s highest court has agreed to hear his appeal in that case.

    He was subsequently brought to Los Angeles for a trial that began Monday, five years after women’s stories about him gave massive momentum to the #MeToo movement.

    Friday’s arguments came a day after the premiere of the film “She Said,” which tells the story of the work of the two New York Times reporters whose stories brought Weinstein down.

    Weinstein’s attorneys previously sought to have the Los Angeles trial delayed because publicity from the film might taint the jury pool, but the judge denied their motion.

    The trial is expected to last eight weeks. The judge and attorneys will return to the jury selection process on Monday morning, and opening statements are expected to begin on Oct. 24.

    ———

    Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Families seek truth as Airbus, Air France face crash trial

    Families seek truth as Airbus, Air France face crash trial

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — Nicolas Toulliou had just proposed marriage to his girlfriend. Nelson Marinho Jr. was heading off on a new oil exploration job. Eric Lamy was about to celebrate his 38th birthday.

    They were among 228 people killed in 2009 when their storm-tossed Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris slammed into the Atlantic. After more than a decade of legal battles, their families have a chance at justice in a courtroom.

    Aviation industry heavyweights Airbus and Air France are charged with manslaughter in a trial that opens Monday over the crash of Flight 447 on June 1, 2009. The worst plane crash in Air France history killed people of 33 nationalities and had lasting impact, leading to changes in air safety regulations, how pilots are trained and the use of airspeed sensors.

    But it almost didn’t come to trial. The companies insist they are not criminally responsible, and Air France has already compensated families. Investigators argued for dropping the case, but unusually, judges overruled them and sent the case to court.

    “We made a promise to our loved ones to have the truth for them and to ensure that they didn’t die for nothing,” Ophelie Toulliou, whose 27-year-old brother Nicolas was killed, told The Associated Press. “But we are also fighting for collective security, in fact, for all those who board an Airbus every day, or Air France, every day.”

    She said the companies present themselves as “untouchable,” and that Airbus made no effort to address families’ concerns. “For them, we are nothing. They did not lose 228 people. They lost a plane.”

    Few families in Brazil, which lost 59 citizens in the crash, can afford to travel to France for the trial. Some feel the French justice system has been too soft on Airbus and Air France — two industrial giants in which the French government has an ownership stake.

    The trial is expected to focus on two key factors: the icing over of external sensors called pitot tubes, and pilot error.

    The Airbus A330-200 disappeared from radars over the Atlantic Ocean between Brazil and Senegal with 216 passengers and 12 crew members aboard. The first debris was only spotted at sea five days later. And it wasn’t until 2011 that the plane — and its black box recorders — were located on the ocean floor, in an unprecedented search effort at depths of more than 13,000 feet.

    France’s air accident investigation agency BEA found that the accident involved a cascading series of events, with no single cause.

    As a storm buffeted the plane, ice crystals present at high altitudes disabled the pitot tubes, blocking speed and altitude information. The autopilot disconnected.

    The crew resumed manual piloting, but with erroneous navigation data. The plane went into an aerodynamic stall, its nose pitched upward. And then it plunged.

    The pilots ”did not understand what was happening to them. A difficulty of interpretation, in an all-digital aircraft like all the aircraft in the world today — well, it’s easy to be wrong,” said Gerard Feldzer, a former pilot and pilot trainer for Air France.

    He said he and pilots around the world asked themselves afterward “if it had been me, would I have acted in the same way? It has been a very difficult question to answer.”

    No one risks prison in this case; only the companies are on trial. Each faces potential fines of up to 225,000 euros — a fraction of their annual revenues — but they could suffer reputational damage if found criminally responsible.

    Nelson Marinho, whose son Nelson Jr was killed, is angry that no company executives will be tried.

    “They have changed various directors, both at Airbus and Air France, so who will they arrest? No one. There won’t be justice. That’s sadly the truth,” Marinho, a retired mechanic who leads a support group for victims’ families, told The AP.

    Air France is accused of not having implemented training in the event of icing of the pitot probes despite the risks.

    In a statement, the company said it would demonstrate in court “that it has not committed a criminal fault at the origin of the accident” and plead for acquittal.

    Air France has since changed its training manuals and simulations. It also provided compensation to families, who had to agree not to disclose the sums.

    Airbus is accused of having known that the model of pitot tubes on Flight 447 was faulty, and not doing enough to urgently inform airlines and their crews about it and to ensure training to mitigate the resulting risk.

    An AP investigation at the time found that Airbus had known since at least 2002 about problems with pitots, but failed to replace them until after the crash. The model in question — a Thales AA pitot — was subsequently banned and replaced.

    Airbus blames pilot error, and told investigators that icing over is a problem inherent to all such sensors.

    “They knew and they did nothing,” said Danièle Lamy, president of an association of victims’ families that pushed for a trial. “The pilots should never have found themselves in such a situation, they never understood the cause of the breakdown and the plane had become unpilotable.”

    Lamy lost her son Eric a few days before his 38th birthday. She has struggled ever since to find out the truth.

    “The plane had sent messages to the ground about the problem but had not warned the pilots. It’s as if you were driving a car at 130 (kph, about 80 mph), your brakes were no longer working but the car sent the alert to the mechanic and not to the driver,” Lamy told the AP.

    She is among 489 civil parties to the trial, which is scheduled to last through December.

    The crash forced Airbus and Air France to be more transparent and reactive, Feldzer said, noting that the trial will be important for the aviation industry as well as for families.

    “The history of aviation security is made from this, from accidents,” Feldzer said.

    ———

    This story corrects the type of plane to A330-200 and corrects the spelling of Toulliou’s last name.

    ———

    Vaux-Montagny reported from Lyon, France. David Biller in Rio de Janeiro and Angela Charlton in Paris contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Families seek truth as Airbus, Air France face crash trial

    Families seek truth as Airbus, Air France face crash trial

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — Nicolas Toulliou had just proposed marriage to his girlfriend. Nelson Marinho Jr. was heading off on a new oil exploration job. Eric Lamy was about to celebrate his 38th birthday.

    They were among 228 people killed in 2009 when their storm-tossed Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris slammed into the Atlantic. After more than a decade of legal battles, their families at last have a chance at justice.

    Aviation industry heavyweights Airbus and Air France are charged with manslaughter in a trial that opens Monday over the crash of Flight 447 on June 1, 2009. The worst plane crash in Air France history killed people of 33 nationalities and had lasting impact, leading to changes in air safety regulations, how pilots are trained and the use of airspeed sensors.

    But it almost didn’t come to trial. The companies insist they are not criminally responsible, and Air France has already compensated families. Investigators argued for dropping the case, but unusually, judges overruled them and sent the case to court.

    “We made a promise to our loved ones to have the truth for them and to ensure that they didn’t die for nothing,” Ophelie Toulliou, whose 27-year-old brother Nicolas was killed, told The Associated Press. “But we are also fighting for collective security, in fact, for all those who board an Airbus every day, or Air France, every day.”

    She said the companies present themselves as “untouchable,” and that Airbus made no effort to address families’ concerns. “For them, we are nothing. They did not lose 228 people. They lost a plane.”

    Few families in Brazil, which lost 59 citizens in the crash, can afford to travel to France for the trial. Some feel the French justice system has been too soft on Airbus and Air France — two industrial giants in which the French government has an ownership stake.

    The trial is expected to focus on two key factors: the icing over of external sensors called pitot tubes, and pilot error.

    The Airbus A300-200 disappeared from radars over the Atlantic Ocean between Brazil and Senegal with 216 passengers and 12 crew members aboard. The first debris was only spotted at sea five days later. And it wasn’t until 2011 that the plane — and its black box recorders — were located on the ocean floor, in an unprecedented search effort at depths of more than 13,000 feet.

    France’s air accident investigation agency BEA found that the accident involved a cascading series of events, with no single cause.

    As a storm buffeted the plane, ice crystals present at high altitudes disabled the pitot tubes, blocking speed and altitude information. The autopilot disconnected.

    The crew resumed manual piloting, but with erroneous navigation data. The plane went into an aerodynamic stall, its nose pitched upward. And then it plunged.

    The pilots ”did not understand what was happening to them. A difficulty of interpretation, in an all-digital aircraft like all the aircraft in the world today — well, it’s easy to be wrong,” said Gerard Feldzer, a former pilot and pilot trainer for Air France.

    He said he and pilots around the world asked themselves afterward “if it had been me, would I have acted in the same way? It has been a very difficult question to answer.”

    No one risks prison in this case; only the companies are on trial. Each faces potential fines of up to 225,000 euros — a fraction of their annual revenues — but they could suffer reputational damage if found criminally responsible.

    Nelson Marinho, whose son Nelson Jr was killed, is angry that no company executives will be tried.

    “They have changed various directors, both at Airbus and Air France, so who will they arrest? No one. There won’t be justice. That’s sadly the truth,” Marinho, a retired mechanic who leads a support group for victims’ families, told The AP.

    Air France is accused of not having implemented training in the event of icing of the pitot probes despite the risks.

    In a statement, the company said it would demonstrate in court “that it has not committed a criminal fault at the origin of the accident” and plead for acquittal.

    Air France has since changed its training manuals and simulations. It also provided compensation to families, who had to agree not to disclose the sums.

    Airbus is accused of having known that the model of pitot tubes on Flight 447 was faulty, and not doing enough to urgently inform airlines and their crews about it and to ensure training to mitigate the resulting risk.

    An AP investigation at the time found that Airbus had known since at least 2002 about problems with pitots, but failed to replace them until after the crash. The model in question — a Thales AA pitot — was subsequently banned and replaced.

    Airbus blames pilot error, and told investigators that icing over is a problem inherent to all such sensors.

    “They knew and they did nothing,” said Danièle Lamy, president of an association of victims’ families that pushed for a trial. “The pilots should never have found themselves in such a situation, they never understood the cause of the breakdown and the plane had become unpilotable.”

    Lamy lost her son Eric a few days before his 38th birthday. She has struggled ever since to find out the truth.

    “The plane had sent messages to the ground about the problem but had not warned the pilots. It’s as if you were driving a car at 130 (kph, about 80 mph), your brakes were no longer working but the car sent the alert to the mechanic and not to the driver,” Lamy told the AP.

    She is among 489 civil parties to the trial, which is scheduled to last through December.

    The crash forced Airbus and Air France to be more transparent and reactive, Feldzer said, noting that the trial will be important for the aviation industry as well as for families.

    “The history of aviation security is made from this, from accidents,” Feldzer said.

    ———

    This story corrects the spelling of Toulliou’s last name.

    ———

    Vaux-Montagny reported from Lyon, France. David Biller in Rio de Janeiro and Angela Charlton in Paris contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link