Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyPurehart
Yeah, but in the case of Rose...she literally took money for her silence and then almost 20 years later, pointed fingers at others instead of herself when she was just as guilty.
How many women were molested while she cashed a check..? Last year she was raging on about women in Hollywood and she could have said something then.
|
Sure, she settled at the time with non-disclosure conditions put in place to keep her silent. She even withdrew her statement with Ronan Farrow because of the legal consequences she would face. Weinstein's legal team were hounding everyone as you may have read.
So here we have one party who is not only against the bully but also the juridical construction put in place to keep her in check. And it's all on her?
In that light, the only fair chance she'd have for credibility sake is that she would never have settled, keeping the discourse transparant and simple, so we can all point fingers at whether her word is more worthy than others.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.