‘This Doesn’t Imply He’s Not Responsible’: An Interview With Rowena Chiu, a Survivor of Harvey Weinstein

When Harvey Weinstein’s conviction was overturned by the New York Courtroom of Appeals final month, the choice reverberated far and huge. For a lot of survivors, the unraveling of the conviction proved, as soon as once more, the failed promise of prison justice. This failure was felt most deeply by the greater than 100 ladies who’ve accused Weinstein of assault and harassment. Amongst these ladies is Rowena Chiu, whose account helped expose Weinstein’s predations. 

Since first listening to Chiu’s story, I’ve admired her from afar. I’m impressed by her braveness in coming ahead, her insights into energy, and her persevering with dedication to upending a tradition that tolerates abuse. So it was an important honor to speak with Chiu about her reactions to Weinstein’s authorized victory. We spoke concerning the prospect of testifying towards him in court docket, the significance of authorized accountability, and the way the #MeToo motion can higher middle ladies of shade and different susceptible populations.  

On this second of setback, I puzzled whether or not Chiu would really feel—understandably—defeated. Simply the alternative is true. As Chiu instructed me, superbly and powerfully, “There’s work to be performed and we roll up our sleeves and we do it.”

This interview has been flippantly edited for readability.

Deborah Tuerkeimer: Thanks a lot for agreeing to speak with me; it’s an honor. Due to the entire occasions within the information recently with Harvey Weinstein’s conviction, I’d like to begin by backing as much as the trial itself. What was it like to look at Weinstein be dropped at trial in New York Metropolis and to see the trial unfold?

Rowena Chiu: I’m very honored to be speaking to you too.

Final week’s information concerning the verdict overturned was significantly private to me as a result of I used to be on the record to be in a extra linear witness in New York and to be a secondary witness in LA. … The judges had truly accepted my case in LA and mentioned I needs to be given a time to take to take the stand. They’d even gone as far as booked me a resort room and a automobile in LA, and I used to be truly set to talk the next morning after which my testimony acquired canceled on the final minute. … They have been going to have 5 main witnesses and 5 secondary witnesses, they usually couldn’t have secondary witnesses exceed the first witnesses. So, when one main witness wasn’t keen to testify, my testimony was taken off the docket.

So, I watched the decision overturn with numerous emotion and trepidation as a result of I used to be so near being a secondary witness in each instances. I’d given proof to the New York DA on a number of events, no less than two in-person interviews and quite a lot of telephone calls … lengthy interviews that lasted hours at a time. 

I adopted the case very personally and I very a lot felt all the ladies that took the stand. It was exhausting for me to be in New York. I keep in mind attempting to make plans to be within the courtroom, and I by no means managed that mockingly as a result of the media that encircled the trial was so nice and we had spent a lot time speaking to the media that I by no means made it into the courtroom.

I feel that raises a extremely attention-grabbing level concerning the relationship between regulation and media, particularly in a case similar to this, the place the precise authorized trial is the pentacle of the way in which Harvey Weinstein has been tried. His protection group used that as one of many pillars of their protection: that Harvey has been tried within the court docket of public opinion and that’s invalidated what has occurred within the court docket of regulation. However definitely that relationship between what occurred within the court docket of regulation and the court docket of media, or if you’ll public opinion, bore a really attention-grabbing relationship even for me as one in all his survivors.

Throughout the trial, it very a lot felt that anybody of these ladies who have been up on the stand may have been me. … My concern even again then in March 2020 was: Would he be capable of overturn it?

Rowena Chiu

Chiu: I really feel like I didn’t actually reply your query about the way it felt. Throughout the trial, it very a lot felt that anybody of these ladies who have been up on the stand may have been me. I imply, actually a hair’s breath away it may have been me, and clearly that feeling was actually horrific to be carrying round.

Like many survivors, through the weeks of the trial, all of us struggled to eat and sleep, and we thought incessantly about what was taking place in that New York courtroom.

I felt emotions of doom, as many ladies do within the U.S. in the intervening time given the present political scene. It’s exhausting to not have nightmares concerning the political future, the financial future and the longer term for ladies. Throughout that point, it was as if I have been on that stand myself. I felt it very viscerally, to an extent to which bodily functioning was fairly troublesome. I felt like an enormous weight the entire time the trial was on.

I’ll admit that I didn’t suppose the decision would go in our path. I used to be staggered on the day. Sarcastically, I used to be in LA about to attend a convention on sexual assault and trauma, and I used to be there with a bunch of Weinstein survivors, who runs Echo Coaching. And so, a big group of us, 15 to twenty, had gathered in LA for this coaching and I used to be on the flight when the decision got here out. After I stepped off the airplane and my telephone exploded, I knew instantly the decision was out, however I used to be fairly positive it didn’t go in our path. I assumed he’d be exonerated. I assumed it’d be not responsible. And so, I used to be completely staggered that there was a sentence in any respect and there was a verdict of responsible.

In fact, it was an enormous aid. You most likely see the images within the media—monumental lineups of survivors jubilant and elated. Being each British and Chinese language, I feel my response was considerably muted as a result of I assumed concerning the weight of how flawed the authorized system is on this explicit space and the way little it stands up for ladies and the way a lot I had gone via to even get to this place.

My concern even again then in March 2020 was: Would he be capable of overturn it?

Tuerkeimer: Wow. Properly, you have been prescient and right here we’re, and it’s Could 2024 and naturally Harvey Weinstein’s conviction has been overturned by a New York appeals court docket. What was it like to listen to that information?

Chiu: It’s deeply irritating. I’ve described it within the media as the mixture of a intestine punch, a slap within the face, and the tearing open of a wound, and I actually do suppose it’s all of these issues. I attempted to consider methods through which I may describe it as viscerally as attainable as a result of it truly is a really visceral factor, to clearly the ladies who testified primarily, however to an enormous group of us for whom these ladies stood. 

As a result of the authorized system is so restricted and flawed on this explicit space because of jurisdictions, statute of limitations, cultures of the regulation and historical past of the regulation round sexual assault, it has meant that very, only a few ladies can ever take the stand. Due to this fact, these ladies have to face for the remainder of us. They actually symbolize us. So to have their testimony invalidated on this manner is especially painful. 

I feel it virtually hurts extra as a authorized technicality. I maintain attempting to elucidate within the press however, no, this doesn’t exonerate Harvey. This doesn’t imply he’s not responsible. This doesn’t imply he didn’t commit these sexual assaults. That is actually a authorized technicality; the judges on the newer court docket of attraction felt that the DA mustn’t have known as upon secondary witnesses and that’s an entire different dialog. I imply that’s a fancy dialog. It’s a completely different dialog, however it’s separate from the dialog round ‘was he responsible of those crimes?’ and the thought that he’d need to be retried now with the identical set of survivors having to present their testimony once more is extremely painful.

I maintain attempting to elucidate within the press, however no this doesn’t exonerate Harvey. This doesn’t imply he’s not responsible. This doesn’t imply he didn’t commit these sexual assaults.

Rowena Chiu

Chiu: I feel it contributes to the bigger societal tradition of not believing survivors—instantly the default place is ‘these ladies are mendacity. These ladies are after cash. These are false accusations.’ In fact, all of the web trolls got here out instantly and now it’s ‘the criers,’ ‘lock up the false accusers,’ as a result of that’s the manner our society operates. 

Individuals have missed the nuance—that is truly a authorized technicality and doesn’t replicate upon the perpetrator’s guilt. Now it’s identical to, Harvey’s an harmless man. He’s a household man that we introduced down. It’s actually attention-grabbing that society has taken what has occurred to a couple ladies and extrapolated it throughout all ladies: ‘Due to this fact, all ladies should be mendacity about Harvey. Anybody who has ever accused Harvey should be mendacity.’

It goes again to this concept of credibility. I staggered that the credibility of 1 man, now a confirmed rapist, can maintain up so effectively in society, and but, the testimony of lots of, now virtually 1000’s, of girls towards Harvey doesn’t maintain up in any respect. It’s actually staggering.

Tuerkeimer: Let’s discuss extra about that, the court docket’s resolution. As you already know, it was based mostly on the admission of testimony from three so known as different acts witnesses, ladies who weren’t the victims of the charged crimes however described abuse that couldn’t be charged both as a result of it came about outdoors the statute of limitations or outdoors the jurisdiction of New York. How do you concentrate on the ability of a number of ladies telling their tales?

Chiu: That is actually private to me as a result of I used to be on the record to be a witness. I used to be precisely one in all these ladies whose story couldn’t be tried as a result of it came about in Italy in 1998 and subsequently it was outdoors the geographical jurisdiction. My assault didn’t happen within the state of New York, and it was effectively outdoors the statute of limitations. And so, my testimony was provided to the choose as a witness. So, I clearly really feel strongly about the usage of the witnesses or secondary witnesses.

I’ve this to say, within the public area at the moment, greater than 100 ladies have come ahead with accusations towards Harvey Weinstein. Given the proportion of girls truly keen to talk out about sexual assault, it hovers someplace between 1 and 5 %. It’s seemingly that these 100 ladies solely symbolize generously perhaps 1,000 ladies, perhaps 10,000 ladies that really are survivors of Harvey Weinstein. So, these within the public already are a really small fraction. A only a few handful are capable of go that camel via the eye-of-a-needle authorized necessities that imply you may carry a case towards Harvey within the state of New York.

So, I simply suppose whenever you do the maths, the concept there are three main witnesses, three secondary witnesses … there’s six ladies that may arise for the 100 ladies which have spoken out, perhaps the thousand ladies which might be precise survivors of Harvey or perhaps even the ten,000 ladies which might be survivors of Harvey. We’re by no means going to know. Some ladies have been silenced by concepts that may by no means communicate out. Some ladies are far too beneath disgrace and they’re going to by no means communicate out. Different ladies have actually dedicated suicide on account of what has occurred to them. They’re unable to talk out.

We’re by no means going to know the extent to which the borders of his sea of wrongdoing.

Very, only a few ladies can ever take the stand. Due to this fact, these ladies have to face for the remainder of us. They actually symbolize us.

Rowena Chiu

Chiu: I can’t consider that we’re sitting right here identical to, ‘Ought to there be three ladies that talk out about him or six?’ I simply discover that nearly insulting. The variety of ladies that really get to take the stand is so restricted. That is controversial.

I do know for me personally, going again to 2020 and considering again by myself interviews with the New York DA, do I feel the New York DA did the best factor by permitting witnesses? Really I do. As a result of I feel that it’s very easy to say that of three main witnesses that took the stand, they’ve an axe to grind, or they have been former girlfriends of Harvey, or they have been well mannered to him afterwards, or they took his calls, or they answered his emails. And certainly, all these issues have been mentioned each concerning the ladies in New York and concerning the ladies in LA. 

It’s really easy to discredit the few ladies that took the stand. I feel the New York DA, because the LA DA did, is skilled to construct a much bigger image, as a result of there’s such a much bigger image on the market. Tons of of girls on the market. So, to say that these three or these six or nonetheless the tiny handful stand for thus many others I feel is completely cheap and past cheap. Really, virtually desperately allowable. I nonetheless truly simply discover it exhausting to wrap my head round the truth that so few ladies should stand for the remainder of us, however that’s the manner the authorized system is constructed.

I feel the issue about that’s I used to be on Piers Morgan’s present of all locations with Donna Rotunno, Harvey’s lawyer of the New York case, and my interview with Piers instantly preceded Donna approaching the present. In actual fact, she entered the Zoom earlier than I truly had a chance to depart it, and I leapt upon that ‘depart assembly’ button like a cheetah or a gazelle. I couldn’t get out of that room quick sufficient.

Her argument is that the accusers present no respect for civil society and the rule of regulation and that we should uphold the rule of regulation. Properly, I need to say as somebody who went to regulation college—who was truly at regulation college on the time she was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein even—I’ve deep respect for the rule of regulation. Her argument relies on the idea that the authorized system is simply and honest to each women and men, to each perpetrators and victims and that’s removed from the case.

And so, this can be a significantly necessary nuance, I consider that survivors in every single place consider in a civil society and a rule of regulation. They wouldn’t come to courts of regulation on the lookout for treatment in the event that they didn’t consider within the rule of regulation, however what we would like is for the regulation to do a greater job of equally representing the rights of girls because it does for males.

Tuerkeimer: Can the authorized system ship justice to survivors?

Chiu: Not because it stands. I feel that we obtain small victories—like let’s not overlook that Harvey will proceed to serve a 16-year sentence in LA. So, there’s some justice in the truth that Harvey will not be at present a free man and hopefully is not going to be for some time. That’s a modicum of justice however is it insulting to even name it justice.

What number of lives has one individual destroyed? Although Zelda Perkins and I attempted to make use of the authorized system to battle him in ‘98, particularly for the aim of stopping him from harming different ladies.

What number of ladies did he then go on and hurt within the ensuing 20 years earlier than he was ultimately caught?

We tried to make use of the authorized system to forestall Harvey from committing wrongdoing manner again in ‘98 and it was woefully insufficient for 2 younger ladies who had no cash and no energy and no title. The authorized system was not on our aspect.

I used to be going to make a touch upon the usage of the title Harvey. I feel that to me it’s a reminder that that is what he requested me to name him. … I exploit that phrase in media to remind him that we had a private relationship—that of mentor and mentee, that of boss and assistant—and that he was fallacious to make use of that private leverage as a solution to try and rape me. 

Rowena Chiu

Tuerkeimer: Do you hope to see Harvey, as you name him, retried in New York Metropolis and do you are worried concerning the credibility of the ladies whose testimony is not going to have the added corroboration of extra victims?

Chiu: I used to be going to make a touch upon the usage of the title Harvey. I feel that to me it’s a reminder that that is what he requested me to name him. It’s a reminder I as soon as labored as his assistant and that we knew one another personally. It appears disingenuous a long time later to begin calling him Weinstein as if he have been a fictional determine. I feel the phrase ‘Harvey’ customized it as a result of his assault on me was certainly actually private. He used quite a lot of private particulars that he knew about my buddies, my household, my likes, my dislikes, my life as leverage towards me. And so, I exploit that phrase in media to remind him that we had a private relationship—that of mentor and mentee, that of boss and assistant—and that he was fallacious to make use of that private leverage as a solution to try and rape me. 

Tuerkeimer: Thanks for explaining that. I feel it’s actually highly effective and I’m glad you employ that phrase to explain him.

Chiu: As a former lawyer, I attempt to decide on my phrases with nice care, particularly within the media.

I might argue vehemently for the usage of secondary witnesses as a result of we sadly dwell in a society the place it does take many ladies to come back ahead earlier than one may be believed.

Rowena Chiu

Tuerkeimer: If he’s retried and it’s just one girl, perhaps two however perhaps one, how is the jury going to evaluate their credibility?

Chiu: That’s such a troublesome query, since you marvel is it price retrying Harvey. In fact, I might need him to be retried as a result of I fear a few stool that solely has one leg.

Initially after they began the prison trials, they talked about having a prison trial in New York, LA and London and due to my associations with all three of these cities, I agreed to testify to the New York DA, the LA DA, and the particular investigation group in London. I considered it as a stool with three legs being extra secure.

London to this point has not but tried prison proceedings towards Harvey, however when the LA trial was being put collectively and I used to be in the course of testifying for that, lots of people mentioned, why ought to we trouble with LA? He’s already in jail. He’s going to be in jail for the remainder of his life. He’s not a wholesome man. He’s going to die in jail. And I mentioned no, I really need as many nails within the coffin as attainable. I don’t belief the New York system. Extra particularly the system. I simply don’t belief one system by itself, particularly as a result of Invoice Cosby walked free, and I feel that the extra sentences we are able to string collectively the higher.

I do know there was quite a lot of criticism for the LA trial for placing ladies via it when it wouldn’t quantity to something and now I say, effectively thank god for that. I imply with out California, Harvey would actually be a free man proper now and he’d be rehabilitating his popularity. As a result of from Rikers, he’s been studying scripts and attempting to place movies collectively, which is type of horrific to suppose that he could possibly be rehabilitated in that manner.

So, I feel that query of ought to he be retried in New York is definitely very troublesome. In fact I would favor a retrial. I personally would favor a retrial in New York as a result of I would really like that stool, as I talked about, to have as many legs as attainable. If it seems that just one main witness is ready to take the stand, it’s actually horrific for that individual. I don’t have the privilege of claiming ought to that individual go up. No one would blame that one particular person and even these two people or perhaps even three people, as there initially have been, for not wanting to place themselves via that once more. It’s horrific.

We as a society ought to take a step again and take , lengthy take a look at it and say, ‘how can or not it’s if 100 ladies have spoken out towards Harvey, we’re solely actually permitting three of them to take the stand, leaving them just about defenseless within the face of a jury who could or could not consider them? Why would we put ladies via that? Why is it so constrictive that only a few ladies are capable of go up there despite the fact that many have spoken out?

After which, outdoors the courtroom, the reverse is true. By that I imply to say, contained in the courtroom we’re anticipating an enormous case to hold on the testimony of 1 or two or three ladies and we count on that to be credible.

We all know that in society instantly outdoors that courtroom, many ladies communicate out towards the identical perpetrator. Even then, that physique of girls will not be essentially believed. Courtrooms are actually a microcosm of what occurs in society.

Let’s not overlook a jury is manufactured from up 12 bizarre women and men that are supposed to symbolize the view of the frequent individual in society. In English regulation, we name that the person on the omnibus, reasonably charmingly. If that’s true, then we have to take note of the truth that ladies’s views for some purpose are discredited. Due to this fact, I might argue vehemently for the usage of secondary witnesses as a result of we sadly dwell in a society the place it does take many ladies to come back ahead earlier than one may be believed.

Tuerkeimer: I feel that’s so insightful—the hole between what it takes to be believed outdoors the courtroom after which what our authorized guidelines demand within the courtroom is big. I really feel like we may discuss for hours however I’m eager to ask you one final query and it’s a giant one.

In October of 2019, you printed an essay in The New York Instances publicly coming ahead together with your allegations for the primary time, precisely two years after Jodi Kanter and Megan Twohey broke the Weinstein story and also you mentioned this, “I don’t know what the trail forward appears to be like like.” So, what are your reflections now, virtually 5 years later, about that path?

Chiu: It’s fascinating listening to my very own voice echoing again in a half a decade. I’d virtually forgotten about utilizing that sentence. Very like Jodi and Megan, after they printed their authentic piece on Oct. 5, 2017, they didn’t understand how it could land. There’s a scene within the film saying, ‘Perhaps we’ll publish it and no person will learn it.’ They’d no concept that it could reignite the #MeToo motion, that it could lead to them successful Pulitzer prizes, writing a e-book, making a film. They’d no concept what the trail forward of them held and on the time once I wrote that New York op-ed I felt equally. I had no concept.

I went on the NBC At this time Present with Jodi and Megan and Ashley Judd on Sept. 9, 2019, and now once I look again on it, I feel it’s hilarious—I assumed, ‘effectively that is actually a quarter-hour of fame’ as a result of it actually is quarter-hour. That is quarter-hour of fame the place I’m going to do that extraordinarily scary factor. I’m going to go public, after which I’d agreed for my title to be in Jodi and Megan’s e-book and that’s it. There’s going to be a media cycle for a day or so after which I’m simply going to return to my life with my 4 youngsters in Palo Alto and life will go on. I had no concept that I might be actually kicking off an entire path, an entire avenue, an entire broad avenue or boulevard of activism and advocacy.

I’m type of staggered once I look again at the one that wrote that New York Instances op-ed actually trembling in trepidation at what would possibly come. I didn’t know whether or not no person would learn it or whether or not lengthy misplaced childhood buddies would learn it. I didn’t understand how far it could go. It’s true, truly, that people who find themselves not heard from since 1998 have ended up studying it. 

I had no concept that I might be actually kicking off an entire path, an entire avenue, an entire broad avenue or boulevard of activism and advocacy.

Rowena Chiu

Chiu: I imply that New York Instances article has actually gone a great distance around the globe. It has opened doorways for me to discuss these points in company workplaces, in faculties, in universities, in church buildings, in synagogues—in anyplace that I name a middle of energy around the globe. I’m grateful for the chance to begin at these type of conversations as a result of I nonetheless really feel that the work of #MeToo motion is admittedly solely simply starting by way of shining a light-weight on actually how oppressed and suppressed ladies are in many various sectors.

I significantly typically communicate for ladies of shade, ladies who’re undocumented, ladies who work for an hourly wage, ladies who don’t communicate English and their worry of sexual assaults. Their expertise of sexual assaults on an hourly, every day foundation is one thing that’s past comprehension. You understand, modern-day slavery continues to be a factor right here within the U.S. So, whereas current justices exist there’s work to be performed and we roll up our sleeves and we do it.

Tuerkeimer: Thanks a lot for that work, for doing it regardless of I’m positive a private toll that it exacts as effectively, and thanks additionally for taking the time to speak with me and sharing your story with the Ms. viewers.

Chiu: In fact. I’m very honored to be right here.

Up subsequent: