Piers Morgan Uncensored - Harvey Weinstein's Agent Speaks Out

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

After disgraced Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was hospitalised just days after his 2020 New York sexual assault conviction was overturned last week, Piers Morgan Uncensored is joined by his former assistant and one of his accusers Rowena Chiu and his lawyer Donna Rotunno, who gives Piers Morgan an update on his health and whether he will be eligible for a new trial. PMU contributors Ava Santina and Esther Krakue then react to the interviews, giving their thoughts on the case. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, the New York Court of Appeals sent shot ways through Hollywood last week by overturning Harvey Weinstein's conviction for rape. They said he didn't receive a fair trial because prosecutors in the pivotal Me Too case call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the charges against him. Weinstein will remain in jail. He's also convicted of rape in California last year and sentenced to 16 years behind bars. In a moment, I'll talk to his lead lawyer in the New York case, Donald Rotano, and will debate the issues surrounding one of the most seismic scandals in Hollywood history. But first I'm joined by Rowena Chu, one of the disgrace mogul's former assistants. Rowena, thank you very much indeed for joining me. Now, your case with Weinstein fell out of the statute of limitations.

It took place in Italy, and you said that he attempted to rape you in a hotel room during the Venice Film Festival in 1998. He was silenced for 20 years by signing an NDA. So that's your experience with Weinstein. What was your reaction when you heard that this New York case had collapsed? Yeah, I think it was very shocking news and obviously devastating to the women who'd taken the stand. I think that we all felt that collectively, through the meeting movement, we'd worked incredibly hard to get Harvey behind bars,

whether we took the stand or whether we spoke out publicly in the news and in the media. So it very much felt like the camel passing through the eye of a needle. So this was a gut punch, certainly, to the women who'd put in, so much effort to have him put behind bars. I mean, the specific reason that the case has collapsed is that prosecutors call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the charges against him. There were three women who testified about prior bad acts.

Now, that was just deemed to be a breach of the normal lawful process. You know, one of the issues around Me Too was not that many bad people didn't get held a proper account because they clearly did, including Harvey Weinstein, which is why he's in jail. But that also due process really matters. And people did feel concerned that due process was kind of trampled on in some of these cases. And you could argue, if you were looking at this dispassionately and didn't have a direct involvement as you obviously do and feel very strongly about it,

that the way that trial was conducted by bringing in three women who were not to do with the original charging was just unfair, whether it's Harvey Weinstein or anybody else. We fully agree that I think due process needs to be upheld. At the same time, I think that we need to call for a reform in the law here because I think it's very, very difficult for women to actually bring their cases to court. You know, with regards to this specific case, yes, it's true that they used several secondary witnesses, three secondary witnesses, as you say, and I was actually on the short list to be one of those secondary witnesses. You know, my understanding is that the DA's office wanted to build a picture of bigger predation. So given that, that 100 plus women had come out against Harvey, and only very, very few of them were able to have their cases heard in the New York Court. I think it made sense that we built a pattern of predation. The DA was attempting to show the jury

that it's not just that just, but just that Harvey had raped these several women, but that he had a much bigger pattern of predation where there were a number of victims that for various technicalities in the legal system could not come forward today, but that this man was clearly a serial rapist with crimes that spanned several decades. And so that was a picture that was built.

It is true that technically under the New York law, there is uncertainty about the use of secondary witnesses that varies case to case. I feel it was very much justified in this case. The law is clearer in L.A., and that is why we believe that the verdict there will stand. What is your view? Obviously, whenever Harvey Weinstein's name appears in the news again,

it must resonate very powerfully with you. What is your view of him now? It's, of course, hugely triggering. I mean, you just flashed up his face right before I came up on interview. So, I mean, it is, of course, hugely triggering, I think, for any of his survivors to see his name in the paper, to see his photo in the press. Because I agreed to speak publicly, I get constant reminders of who he is. I see his face all the time. I'm constantly in interviews where I'm speaking about this.

You know, I think it's really, I think the emotional, I think nowadays the society recognizes better that the emotional impact of sexual assault runs incredibly deep and can go on for decades. And I think that that is part of our argument about the statute of limitations, that the law is arcane and desperately behind when it comes to statute of limitations. Because really, in some jurisdictions you're saying, well, after three years, you should have gotten over your rape or you can't give evidence about your rape after three years. And I think that that time limit is desperately arcane, knowing that many survivors really aren't able to speak about their trauma for years, aren't willing to come out about it. And the true facts of a case might not, as it did not for me, come out until decades afterwards. There will be some, as you know, who will say, well, you signed an NDA. You did a deal with the devil, essentially, is what the critics would say if they were taking that position. And you should have spoken out at the time.

What's your response to people who have that view? I believe that Zelda Perkins and I very much tried to speak out at the time. We spoke out to middle management, senior management at Miramax. We spoke out to HR. We spoke out to lawyers. We tried to go to the police. We were stopped at every turn. And we didn't voluntarily sign the NDA.

We were coerced into signing an NDA. So I think we were part of a system where we had very little power at the time. And Harvey held all the cards. And I think it is a matter of deep grief and a retriguing of that trauma that he appears to still hold quite a few cards that he is able to run an appeal from jail and he is able to overturn a verdict in his way is an indication really that even behind bars,

his power is still relatively unfettered. Rowena Chu, thank you very much for leaving me. I appreciate it. Of course. Well, join me now is the lead lawyer in Harvey Weinstein's New York case, Donna Raton. Well, Donna, great to see you. Thanks for coming on the show.

Obviously, a major victory for you as a lawyer here. Why do you think this has happened? Well, I think it's happened for a couple of reasons. Number one, at the cornerstone and the forefront of our system should be due process and a fair trial. And I listen to your segment ahead of time, and I agree with what you stated. At the end of the day, Pierce, this does not have to do

with any of the women or their allegations. It has to do with laying the foundation for fairness in a courtroom. And at the end of the day, we should all want that. How is Harvey Weinstein since this decision? Because there were reports he'd been taken to hospital. Can you tell us anything about that? Yes, I think, you know, clearly his health has been failing and suffering for quite some time. Once you are transferred from one area of a New York state prison back to the basically holding jail where you wait pending trial, they have to make sure that you're okay.

So I think part of the hospitalization was that he's tested, that he's okay. I know that he was trying to call. I received a message that he was trying to call on Saturday. I have not spoken to him since he was placed in the hospital, but I have spoken to others that he's doing okay. Have you spoken to him since the decision? No, I have not, actually. He has spoken to others through me and we have shared messages,

but unfortunately we haven't had a chance to speak directly, but I'm sure that will happen soon. He sent a number that he'll be calling me from. So hopefully it'll be in the next couple of days. And from what you've gleaned from what he's told others, what is his reaction to this? He's obviously very happy. I mean, this is a long time coming.

This has been a horrible situation for him, for his family, for people who care about him, for those of us who have fought tooth and nail for him. So, you know, obviously he's thrilled. This is a landmark verdict. It's historic in many ways. And again, it's really about. the fairness of a trial. It's not about specific allegations. It's not about right or wrong conduct. This is about what is fair in a trial. And, you know, my position on this has been for decades

that you cannot parade a group of people into a courtroom to then establish that someone is guilty of behavior to someone else. I don't think it's fair. I don't think it allows due process. Thankfully, the court in New York agreed with us on this point. And also, the court, court decided that given all of the bad acts that they were going to allow in if Harvey were to testify, things having nothing to do with sexual allegations didn't allow him to get on the witness stand and tell his story. And in a he said, she said, group of circumstances, how do you not allow someone to get up and actually tell their story? This was someone with no criminal background and he was basically barred from taking the stand. The Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who, of course,

moment is involved in bringing this hush money prosecution against Donald Trump as ongoing getting all the attention. He will now decide whether Harvey Weinstein faces a retrial for this conviction. What do you think will happen? He threw a spokesman in an email so we will do everything in our power to retry this case and remain steadfast in our commitment to survive as a sexual assault. Do you anticipate that there will be a retrial? That's their decision to make. I think given the facts and evidence that they will not be able to use, I think it changes the landscape of their case. I also think that they have to see if the women who testified

would want to come back and testify again. I think it's too soon to say. I think in all the circumstances where cases are overturned, the prosecutor's initial reaction is we're coming back with full force, but that's not always what happens. Obviously, he's already in jail because of what happened with California, and there's no suggestion that that case will get overturned. So it doesn't really change an awful lot

in terms of his ability to win his liberty at the moment. I'm not so sure. You have to remember that in L.A. there was arguments made in front of the jury that Harvey Weinstein was a convicted felon. Those jurors were seated in that case under the knowledge and being given the knowledge that he had already been convicted in New York.

Everyone knew that. You'd have to live under a rock to not know. that. So I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure that the court in California won't say that given that he is at least, at least eligible for a new trial. There have been, as our previous guest said, you know, over 100 women have made allegations against Harvey Winston of varying severity from rape to sexual assault and other allegations. You said in 2020, is Harvey guilty committing sins, sure, but that doesn't make you a criminal. A sin is cheating on your wife. Would you stand by that categorization of what's happened to him, or has anything that's come out since changed your mind?

Yeah, I absolutely stand by that characterization. I do think he was guilty of sins and not crimes. And really, Pierce, when you look at all of the women that want to yell these rallying cries, I mean, I would say to anybody, if you find yourself in a position where you believe you were the victim of sexual assault, you should file a claim with the police.

no one stops a grown woman from going to the police department and filing a claim. That's what you should do. And this idea that we should expand statutes of limitations, that is completely ridiculously unfair. And you have already ruined him in the court of public opinion. And the one place it should be fair for him is in a courtroom. That's the one place you should know that you can go and be judged based on fair allegations, based on allegations that you can defend. How does someone defend against crimes that happened 30 years ago without the ability to go back and say,

I was in this place at this time and this location? A man like Harvey Weinstein, a man like Donald Trump, a man like Brett Kavanaugh, all these people have the ability based on their life to look back and say, I know where I was at these points in time. When you take away the statute of limitations and you say that this crime happened to me between the years of 1993 and 1994, how can someone defend against themselves? So if you wanna ruin their reputation in the public eye

and you wanna run around and yell and scream about how horrible they are, you have that right. But in a courtroom, you should not have the right to have this carte blanche ability to go after somebody and take away their freedom. And in terms of these NDAs, women who sign NDAs, they are the ones that could have stopped this behavior years ago. So to now come forward and say,

it's everybody else's fault, I think, is disingenuous. Do you not think the women 20 years ago in a very different climate would have been, understandably, as our last guest said, extremely concerned about retribution, perhaps the end of their careers, about being made pariahs. I mean, that was a very real risk at the time. In fact, it was happening left, right and center to women that made allegations. I mean, I can understand why a woman in that environment

and that are very, very different post-Me2. but previously, very hard to make that kind of allegation in a workplace and not become a pariah or lose your job. I don't disagree, but they also had other options. And they sat in a room with lawyers where an NDA was slid across the table and a check was slid back. So I think it's just a little bit disingenuous to say I didn't have the ability to come forward when you were signing NDAs. You were coming forward and you were making a choice. You spoke to how many mate lists on BBC's Newsnight several years ago, said that a sexual consent form takes away all the ambiguity.

Let's take a look at this. If women want equality, they need to take control. And part of that broader conversation, part of that taking of control, you suggested might lie in a consent form, a signing of a contract before sex? Why not? Why not? Just talk me through how that works then.

But why not? It takes away all of the ambit. So go on, be my lawyer and draw up the form for me. Do I sign it once? Do I sign it for the duration of a relationship? Do I sign it for one night? How does it work? I guess that's a conversation that parties would need to have with each other. But I mean, I would definitely think that if this is a situation that, you know, is you bring somebody to your home and it's the first time or, you know, you're starting a relationship with somebody, why not? And if I sign the contract and then I change my mind and I say, no, I don't want to. have sex, then am I breaking the contract or is he raping me? I guess that's something that the parties will have to talk about in drafting the agreement. Again, an interesting discussion.

I mean, there are women, I'm sure, that will be completely in agreement with you. There will be others utterly horrified at the idea that all romantic entanglements now or encounters end up with a written request form for consent before anything happens. I mean, do you think that is actually something that is practical in the real world? Well, I think, you know, and I'll preface it by saying, of course, consent can be revoked at any time. So I will preface it by saying that. However, as a lawyer who tries these cases in court, I would take my chances where someone had signed a consent form and said that they were consensually becoming active in certain behaviors.

So, you know, is it a perfect situation? No. But I'd much rather have a consent form. than that. Don't know, let me ask you, putting aside the fact that you're obviously a lawyer who's defended Harvey Weinstein, but given the volume of women who've made so many serious allegations against him, given the fact he was convicted in this trial in California, in all your dealings with him, what is your view of him as a man, just speaking as a woman, not his defense attorney?

Sure. I can only speak to my experiences with Harvey, and obviously I spent all. a lot of time with him and a lot of hours. And he was nothing but unbelievably respectful of me. He was grateful to me. He was unbelievably deferential. I mean, I would get upset with him about little things and he would be fearful almost. I never saw him get angry or lose his temper

or attempt to be powerful over me, not once. Harvey is a very detail-oriented man. He cared about making sure we turn over every stone and it would make me crazy while we were getting ready for trial. And I would say, Harvey, we can't go down every rabbit hole. And he would say, but sometimes you catch a rabbit. So, I mean, we had a really great relationship, actually. And I understand the allegations that were made.

And I understand that there is a Hollywood culture that is different than the culture maybe you and I live in every day. But at the end of the day, from personal experience, I never had one negative interaction with Harvey Weinstein, not one. Harvey had been represented by male lawyers until he brought you on board. Suddenly you were this big, strong woman defending this guy accused of all these multiple attacks on women. How have other women treated you since you took on this? You know, women who know me absolutely were supportive, understanding.

I didn't receive any pushback from any person who actually knows who I am, knows what I stand for, knows about my beliefs in the justice system and what should happen. There's always going to be people outside. Obviously, I'm not welcome at Nobu Malibu and with all the women in Hollywood. But at the end of the day, I think that people see that I am strong, I am no nonsense, I am going to call it like I see it. And whether you like that or not, it doesn't really affect who I am or how I'm going to continue. So, yes, have I been called a traitor to my gender and have I been called horrible names and have I been threatened on social media? Yes. But for all of those things, I've also been thanked. I've also been praised. And frankly,

Pierce, neither side really motivates me. It's really doing what I think is right and I'll continue to do that. The Me Too founder, Tarana Burke, said after the verdict, many people, many survivors and those who love and support survivors, probably thought that original verdict meant that was going to be change, that it marked a change and marked a difference in how this justice system was going to move and operate. her implication being that this decision and this overturning of the verdict has had the opposite effect that actually it's stopped any chance of change. What do you say to that? I think that there are changes in society, and there should be. Societal changes happen all the time. We're used to this. This is how history moves. But in terms of a courtroom, there still has to be a basic due process.

There still has to be a level of fairness. And so I think the conversation is twofold. You can do whatever you want on the social justice side of things. When it comes to an actual courtroom, it still needs to be fair. People should be judged and jurors should make decisions based on facts and evidence that have to do with charged conduct. And this idea that you're more guilty or you're potentially guilty because of other things you've done in your life is a slippery slope and it does not have a place in the justice system.

So although I believe that should society change its conversation, should workplaces operate differently. All of those things are up for social conversation. But when it comes to a courtroom, courtrooms need to be fair and you need to be judge based on the conduct you are charged with. I mean, the biggest problem, it seems to me, with these kind of cases,

is that in America, for example, out of every thousand rape cases, only six of the men accused end up in jail. I mean, that doesn't suggest the system is fair, does it? Well, I don't know if it doesn't suggest it's fair, but I think it maybe suggests that, you know, both sides need to have a conversation about it. And I have a very hard time. And I'm speaking about adult women and adult men that enter into whatever level of relationship they enter into. I'm not speaking of stranger danger rape.

I'm not speaking of children who are victims. I am speaking of circumstances where there is gray. People have had a relationship. People work together. and I'm talking about circumstances like Weinstein, where there were quid pro quo circumstances. And so I look at those circumstances and I say that if women don't like the behavior, they need to speak up. You cannot expect that you can. And in terms of a courtroom, now I'm not talking about the way you handle it in your personal life,

but in terms of a courtroom and receiving the justice that you want in a courtroom, if someone has done something wrong to you, you need to come forward. And I don't like, as a woman, I don't like this idea of infantilizing women. Women have rights and choices. And today, Pierce, women have all the power in this arena. And my problem is, is that you can't have all the power and continue to act like a victim. So as the world has changed, women really do have the power in this arena. And we also have to look at wrongfully accused circumstances.

And that's why a courtroom is so important. Look at Trevor Bauer. Look what happened to Trevor Bauer from the Dodgers, and that girl set him up and she lied. He lost his livelihood. He lost his $51 million contract. We can't talk about these things in a vacuum where only women are victims. Women, quite often, are perpetrators in these circumstances as well. And so I think we have to have a really fair conversation if it's really ever going to change. Donna Rottano, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Of course. Great to see you. Thanks, Pierce. Well, political journalist David Santina and Uncensored, to Esther Cracker with me. I mean, fascinating two interviews, Esther, both very different. One woman who claims that she was raped by Harvey Weinstein, as many women have come forward to say it happened to them as well.

And he is a convicted rapist. We shouldn't lose track of that. But this case, collapsing in New York, because he wasn't really given due process. It's clearly a significant moment here. What do you make of it? And the only thing that stands between him and freedom is the one case. that's still being upheld in California. I think one thing that's interesting that Donna mentioned

that really resonated with me is the culture because we often forget that this happened in Hollywood. Me Too was basically the Hollywood's version of mob justice and when you're dealing with the mob or reason and nuance

walks out the door. Hollywood is not known for having great morals or having people that don't sell themselves for favors and all that. And there was a frenzy around this. This was the start of the Me Too campaign. Harviwis too is one of the first big fish to get taken down in Hollywood.

rightly so. I mean, 100 women coming forward, clearly there is evidence of, at the very least, some form of sexual impropriety. But this is also an industry where people exchange sexual flavors favors for roles. You have Harvey Weinstein who said, you know, who clearly was dealing with women that love to be flat and love detention, these, you know, vapid actresses. Many of the women that have come forward are undoubtedly victims. But when you don't separate that from women that were happy to have sex with him or whatever and then regretted it, or regretted sexual advances or whatever, that's when you actually do an injustice by,

that's when you do an injustice by the real victims, because you don't delineate between people that are actually victims and people that are saying, oh, I regret it, and they're just following the line, and they want to be, you know, celebrated. I don't know where that line of thinking is coming from, because what... But it's true.

There were women that slept with him for morals. Fine. In the specific cases that have been tried, where has the favour fallen into women who actually had consensual sex with him? I know that there were instances where some of the women had consensual sex. with them and then there was also sexual assault on top of it.

And that was what some of the blurred lines were. But I don't know what you're talking about. But the reason why this case fell, one of the reasons why these two cases fell, is because you had women that were testifying that had nothing to do with the charges against it. But this is what I'm confused about, because this is also what Donna was saying there as the lawyer.

She was saying that, you know, you shouldn't be, it's a slippery slope if you start including in past behavior, a prior behavior. But in any other case, you always include past behavior. You have character witnesses. If someone's, I don't know, been convicted of a felony before or they've been convicted of petty theft. All of that were going to the...

But you wouldn't have specific alleged victims queuing up who were outside the specific charges. But you have character witnesses. Hang on, you have character witnesses to come in and testify and say this is what this person is like normally in real life. Yeah, but what you wouldn't have is people saying actually he did the same thing to me.

They would have to be part of the charge. Isn't that confusing? But I don't... But here's how... Okay, but look, here's the point, Ava. This is how the legal system was. And the problem, it seemed to me, was me too, was not Me Too,

which I think was a very good thing for society, broadly speaking. The problem was that due process did get trampled in many different instances, which did a disservice to the actual intention of Me Too. Sure, but the question here is, is due process the correct way that we should be going about?

Yes. That's... Fundamentally, always. What I'm arguing is, I'm sorry, I'm not arguing for a judge to skirt around what is the law. I'm saying, is the legislation up to date? Is the legislation? fit for purpose. Well, every man or woman accused of serious offences should be entitled to proper due process.

We agree with that, right? So that's all what's happened here. Due process did get trampled in this New York case, it seemed to me, with Harvey Weinstein because there was so much antipathy and bad negative press of pain, the people wanted to convict him without actually going through proper due process.

And that way is a slippery slope, I think. Yeah, and you're talking about establishing a pattern of behaviour. Hold on. But what you don't understand, about the establishing a pattern of behavior is these are just women, this man has a clean criminal record. If you're going to establish a pattern of behavior, you have to establish a pattern of

convictions. So if you have a bunch of random women saying, oh, he did this to me too and me to, me too, it doesn't hold as much weight as he feels actually convicted of something. This is a man in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the law who has a clean record and he could even stand there and defend himself on the stand. But it is a problem, I mean, Eva, it is a problem

to me, these conviction rates, both in America and the UK, the conviction rates for rape and serious sexual assault are I mean, there's something fundamentally wrong with a system where almost everyone who gets accused of a serious sexual assault seems to get away with it. I don't actually think that's the case because proving sexual assault... But these conviction rates are far worse than they are for other crime.

No, not necessarily. In the UK, conviction rates for sexual assault are basically on par with fraud, right? And I spoke to a lawyer about this. Are you defending the conviction rate in the UK? I'm about to speak in terms of how it works in the law. It is very difficult to prove sexual assault and that is why it's so difficult to get a conviction. Now I know there are imperfections in the law but just saying it is terrible and therefore you need a blanket overhaul is not understanding necessarily in comparison to other conviction rates. So conviction rates for fraud are basically on par with sexual assault. But I don't.

And what about this idea, what about this idea that Donna floated of, you know, consent forms? Is it is it a mad idea in the modern world? It doesn't feel very romantic to me, but would it stop? What if she said, would it stop a lot of the ambiguity? If someone said, I consent to have sex with it. There isn't ambiguity. I think that most sensible people know that there isn't ambiguity when you're even within relationships. It's perfectly logical.

You know why it's perfectly logical? Because this is what I don't understand about feminists and the people that are very in favour of the Me Too movement. They're never talking about changing the culture and morality. You wouldn't, you wouldn't need, you wouldn't need a consent form if you establish certain moral values. We're talking about Hollywood, well basically Hollywood has walked out the job. If we've had for decades an industry where women could easily and freely trade sexual favors for roles and no one was up in arms about it until the Me Too movement

Guess what the responsibility are on people as well that are complaining about this sexual impropriety in that industry I have to change both of them Let's actually just talk about what happened here though. Okay, so you've got women who were forced to sign NDAs and the reason that they took that check is because they probably realized that they would never They wouldn't work again. They weren't forced. Can I just get through a point? They were forced They probably realized that they would never work again so they had to take the money other way because they were forced They were not forced. What do you mean they weren't false? They weren't forced.

They were not forced. But you weren't there. But you weren't there. Well, hang on. Nobody is forced to sign any NDA. Well, okay. However, however, it is certainly true, Esther, the mood around these things back then

was way different to that. I appreciate that. Women were not really listened to about this kind of thing. And they probably did fear they would lose their careers if they didn't do some deal with the devil, as I put. Absolutely. But one, they were not forced. And two, you have to make a difficult choice.

They deserve justice. But in part of getting that justice, you cannot say, I'm going to sign this NDA and take this check and then 20 years down the line. Actually, no, I'd rather have some justice, please. Because not only are you working against yourself and your own justice, you're working against other victims. You cannot sit there and say you're a bastion for women's rights

and you want to defend women. You know what has changed? And do this to women as well. Right. I mean, what has changed in answer to Tarana Burke's point, but nothing changing. Actually, it has changed. Women will not sign NDAs like that ever again.

Very few because- Yeah, no, I would agree with that. But also, there are certain instances where if you, you sign the NDA to get the check because you'll be out of work. That's what the problem is. And that's why they would have taken the first place. But I think that has changed too now. Well, yeah, quite possibly.

But then I think this is a pretty landmark moment, right, where I think that women who want to come forward will probably consider. But you know what? It's a landmark moment because actually due process got trampled on. And this is what I said at the time this was all happening. For God's sake, apply due process or down the line, it will come back and haunt everyone. And that's what's happening here.

I'm not arguing. Categorically, I am not arguing about, you know, superseding due process. What I'm saying the problem is is that the process is not fit for purpose because clearly if you can't bring in testimonials for other women who've also experienced similar behaviour as backup to explain a witness. Yeah, but that's not due process. But in a case point it's one person's well against enough. That's down to the prosecutors to bring a case and work out who they're going to charge him with assaulting. That's due process.

But assault evidence. You can't just bring any Tomlick and Harry. That's true. But assault evidence. As he treated you badly at all. But assault evidence is you do that with a character. to witness and if all evidence is always It gives a reference about what kind of person they are.

They don't give specific allegations of similar crimes. But what evidence do you actually want them to bring? Okay, Esther, answer the question. What evidence do you want them to bring? Because unless you, if someone has, if someone, there isn't evidence of sexual assault. There isn't it. When you go to the police, they do swabs,

they take pictures of between, between you. No, they do in there. And then how do you, how do you report that happened a year ago? Here's a thing. What if you were too frightened ago the day after? I don't appreciate this whole, the conviction rates for rape, in my opinion, and sexual assaults are too low and therefore the system is broken. What is the ideal conviction rate for you for sexual assault?

What's the number? What's the target number? What do you mean what's the target? Because if you're saying that conviction rates are too low, you have to have a target. Okay, higher than 3%. What is that? 3.1? Okay, 3.1. Come, that's such a silly question. That's not a silly question.

You can't set it. You can't set a percentage on it. I personally... You have to compare it to other things. But I think the fact these numbers are so low everywhere, suggest to me there is a flaw in the system, and it's why women, largely speaking, do not actually report these things.

Because they don't think there's much hope of them ever getting accountability. So, yes, there are women who tried on. Yes, there are women who invent stuff. Yes, there are men. I interviewed a young footballer who had a terrible experience where he was eventually acquitted in seven minutes

by which time his whole reputation was trashed. Of course that happens. But there are many, many women who also get attacked where the perpetrator gets away with it. And that's a conversation. I also do think the perpetrator also is dealt in unfair hand because you know sometimes the accused might not feel they'll be able to get a proper conviction so word of mouth spreads instead so you ruin someone's reputation rather than actually trying them fairly

in a courtroom okay got to leave it there it's an important debate yeah it is and as donna said it's nuanced it's more complicated than people think thank you both very much i appreciate it