Paz de la Huerta says Harvey Weinstein raped her twice in her home in 2010

Paz de la Huerta

I feel like screaming and ripping my hair out sometimes after reading these accounts of Harvey Weinstein’s victims. One of the issues I keep coming back to is: why are there statutes of limitations on rape and sex crimes? Why is it that if a woman was raped 15 years ago, her rape “doesn’t count” within the justice system because the statute of limitations has expired? It’s such bullsh-t. We had this conversation during the pedophile-priest controversies in America and abroad, with so many of the crimes falling outside of the existing state and federal statutes. Just end the statute of limitations for sex crimes across the board, at every level.

Anyway, that ^ is mostly me just needing to focus my rage on something besides another devastating story about Harvey Weinstein raping another woman. This time the victim is Paz de la Huerta. Paz tells Vanity Fair that Weinstein first raped her in the fall of 2010, and then he raped her a second time in December of the same year. You can read the full VF story here. Here’s the main part of Paz’s story:

One night that November, de la Huerta ran into Harvey Weinstein at the Top of the Standard bar at the Standard, High Line hotel in Manhattan…When they met at the hotel in 2010 de la Huerta was 26 and Weinstein was at the height of his powers as an Oscar-winning producer. The Weinstein Company was about to enter a streak that would see it win best picture at the Academy Awards two years in a row, first for The King’s Speech in 2011 and then The Artist in 2012. Weinstein offered de la Huerta a ride home to Tribeca. In de la Huerta’s account of the night, Weinstein arrived at her apartment demanding to come inside and have a drink. “Things got very uncomfortable very fast,” the actress, now 33, told Vanity Fair in a phone interview on Wednesday.

“Immediately when we got inside the house, he started to kiss me and I kind of brushed [him] away,” de la Huerta said. “Then he pushed me onto the bed and his pants were down and he lifted up my skirt. I felt afraid. . . . It wasn’t consensual . . . It happened very quickly. . . . He stuck himself inside me. . . . When he was done he said he’d be calling me. I kind of just laid on the bed in shock.”

De la Huerta described a second assault that allegedly happened in late December 2010, when Weinstein showed up in her building lobby after she came home from a photo shoot. The actress said she had been drinking, and was frightened by Weinstein, who had been repeatedly calling her, despite her asking him to leave her alone. “He hushed me and said, ‘Let’s talk about this in your apartment,’” de la Huerta said. “I was in no state. I was so terrified of him. . . . I did say no, and when he was on top of me I said, ‘I don’t want to do this.’ He kept humping me and it was disgusting. He’s like a pig. . . . He raped me.”

Afterward, de la Huerta said, “I laid there feeling sick. He looked at me and said, ‘I’ll put you in a play.’ He left and I never heard from him again. He knew he had done a bad thing.”

[From Vanity Fair]

The rest of the Vanity Fair story is about the criminal case the New York special victims unit is building against Weinstein, and how Paz’s story might still be prosecutable because the statute of limitations hasn’t expired yet on rapes committed in 2010. What struck me was how similar Paz’s story is to Annabella Sciorra’s story, of how quickly Weinstein physically overwhelmed her in her own home. Weinstein’s rape of Sciorra would not be prosecutable though, because it happened in the early 1990s, outside of the statute of limitations.

Also: don’t even start with the “why did Paz let him into her apartment the second time,” trolls. DO NOT START. Paz is not a perfect victim – no woman is. She says she was drunk (which I believe) and he clearly took advantage of that. Women have the right to go out, drink alcohol and return to their apartments or homes without predators using their drunken state to intimidate them, manipulate them and rape them.

Celebrities at the Chiltern Firehouse

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

105 Responses to “Paz de la Huerta says Harvey Weinstein raped her twice in her home in 2010”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Neelyo says:

    All of her troubles make a lot of sense now. It’s awful to think of the ridicule and scorn that was dumped upon her at the time and she was dealing with demons worse than anyone suspected.

  2. Tina says:

    Agreed about the Statutes of Limitation, we don’t have that in Canada for sex crimes.

    • detritus says:

      I think it is especially important because of the type of mental injury sexual violence creates.
      These types of things are not always immediately accessible.

      I was taught the best thing for a survivor is 48 hours where they can be safe, either to be alone or to join supportive company, with access to a shower and a bed.

      This is completely counter to what the legal system requires from a victim. There are so many cases like that, where the legal system is counter to what is best for the survivors.

      • Wilma says:

        @Detritus That explains a lot about why so few women follow through. I’ve been through this and my sister has been through this. The emotional toll of pressing charges was too much in the hours and days immediately after. We both chose our mental health back then.

      • detritus says:

        ah Wilma. I’m so sorry you had to even make that choice. You did the right thing though, your health is always of the upmost importance.

        I really want to work out a balance, so that we can appropriately prosecute aggressors, but keep our victims safe and allow for the most and quickest healing. Its going to be difficult to find that balance, for sure.

    • Juls says:

      I desperately want to move to Canada. If Canada were filet mignon, USA would be a shriveled up gas station hot dog by comparison.

    • Nicole says:

      We should have that but we don’t unfortunately

    • PPP says:

      I’m starting to think more and more that, together with repealing the statute of limitations, numerosity should be a form of evidence. Surely it is relevant that a suspect has committed sexual crimes before. Moreover, in the utopia where we processed rape kits and logged them nationally, a rape victim could at least do a rape kit and not go through with charges, but if another does, her/his rape kit could be used as a form of evidence that the suspect has turned up on x amounts of rape kits.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      There should be no statute of limitations for any form of child abuse, too, not only sexual. Physical and verbal abuse, as well. Children are not in a position to take their abusers (who are often their parents or other relatives) to court. The statute lets child abusers get away with murder – sometimes literally – because despite abuse being a crime, the odds are very slim that they will face prosecution.

    • noway says:

      I also think they should eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual assault, but not sure it will result in more convictions. Any crime without physical evidence or witnesses is hard to win and more time just makes it worse. This is the reason why a lot of women don’t press charges. I’ve tried to think of ways we can proceed criminally which are more conducive to convictions and more beneficial to the victims, but other than a few areas not sure what we can do. I also wonder if a case doesn’t result in a conviction what will that do to the victim. Is it better to have your day in court, and lose or not go at all? I understand why victims stay quiet it’s traumatic any way you look at it. As much as I feel it is appropriate to public shame these abusers, I just wish we could discuss better punishment alternatives. Glad doesn’t seem like the right word, but I am glad someone might be getting a criminal charge against Weinstein.

      • Lady D says:

        Okay, I know this is just TV, but on Law and Order SVU, Benson has said several times over the years to the victims that it is far better to have your day in court and face your accuser, even if you lose. She has said she’s never known a victim to regret testifying, but knows many who regret not doing it. I think a lot of what they say and do about rape victims is accurate. She runs a foundation in real life called A Mighty Heart, and it is dedicated to helping sex abuse, domestic violence and child abuse victims and also to clearing the thousands of rape kits that are backlogged and have yet to be tested for DNA.

    • Aurelia says:

      No limit in New Zealand either. Or Australia, or the U.K. Praise be.

  3. Babooshka says:

    As an attorney it drives me crazy when people say “statute of limitations are stupid.” SOL exists because when a charge or claim is based on the word of the victim, timing is especially important. For example, if a person comes forward with a claim of sexual assault when he was a 7-year-old, 20 years after the fact, arguably the charge is suspect from the beginning.

    The person’s memory has been subject to change and influence, essential witnesses might have forgotten the events or even be dead, it may be impossible to get physical evidence in the case.

    As much as it is emotionally difficult to process, defendants have rights too. and the legal system requires that the state prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. you can’t do that just based on what a victim says–so SOLs exist to make sure people are convicted and put away based on proper claims and so a plaintiff or the state can actually make their case.

    • Carol Hill says:

      I was 7 when a man exposed himself to me. My memory is NOT suspect. I remember exactly what happened, what he said and looked like. Assault is not something you forget easily.

      • Babooshka says:

        Ok I understand your memory is not suspect but in many instances, there could be witnesses who could’ve corroborated your story who maybe dead or too old to remeber the details.

        You still would need to have enough evidence and the sol exists to make sure defendants are convicted and tried on more than one person’s account of events. Put yourself in the shoes of the defendant (for ex- if someone wrongly remembered something that put you in the defendants position, wouldn’t you want to be protected?

    • Sherry says:

      I was going to say the same thing. If there were no witnesses, no evidence and the victim does not come forward in a timely manner, anyone can go to the police and allege they were the victim of a crime 10, 15, 20+ years ago. Without compelling evidence they are telling the truth, a prosecutor will not prosecute.

      It’s a “she said/he said” situation. They could very well be telling the truth, but that doesn’t make it a winnable case without corroborating evidence.

      *I’m not a lawyer, just married to one who used to be a prosecutor.

      • MC2 says:

        Yes & then, in your situation, no charges would be brought. I went to the police for my rape & then how to testify in front of a grand jury, present my evidence & they decided if & what charges would be brought. Going to the police is one thing, charges being levied against a perp is another and one does not equate to the other in most cases.

    • Juls says:

      I get what you’re saying Babooshka. But there are no statute of limitations on murder. And the victim is deceased and therefore cannot be questioned in court. Their memory of the crime is moot. Yet cold case murders are solved after decades if there is enough evidence. Evidence is the key. If there is enough to prosecute, the case should go forward. The case, a rape for example, should not be dropped because an arbitrary amount of time has passed if there is enough evidence to proceed. It should be based on evidence, not amount of time that has passed.

      • Pinetree13 says:

        Exactly. Babooshkas argument makes no sense to me. If it can’t be proven in court due to lack if evidence that is one thing…but to ignore the case altogether because it passed an arbitrary timeline? That’s stupid. We are not saying get rid of having to prove the case, but it is so dumb to say “your rape doesn’t count because it was 9 years ago instead of 7. Oh you have two witnesses as well? We don’t care”

      • noway says:

        I think the statute of limitations on sexual assault should be eliminated, but I don’t think it really helps the core problem. Babushkas is right, witnesses of crime are unreliable to begin with much less with time, (take a law class on witnesses and see how accurately people see, and you’ll know what I mean) and most of these older cases would never go to court. If you didn’t go to a hospital or report it at the time, I am not sure what physical evidence you could have and Pinetree13 if you have two witnesses to rape or assault that seems really unusal.

        The big issue is victims don’t feel comfortable talking about it at the time or even later. Most of these victims only felt comfortable after a slew of victims came forward. Somehow we need to change that dynamic, because any crime is more likely to result in a conviction if it is done in a timely manner. Not blaming the victims for not coming forward, but somehow we need to change it so more will feel like I can and should do this.

    • detritus says:

      Babooshka, I’m sure you are very aware that ANY first person account is susceptible, regardless of time lapsed. This is especially when reporting details, his shirt was red, he came in at 8:35. Often, immediately after a traumatic event (48 hours is what I’ve seen), accounts are less correct and more details are confused or missing or misreported.

      Please keep in mind that with sexual violence, survivors are not reporting a detail. They are reporting what often amounts to many actions, many details.

      Statute of limitations is useful and justified in many cases, but in sexual violence it provides yet another barrier to appropriate justice.

    • WTF says:

      I’m an attorney as well. My issue with your argument is that the statute of limitations also prohibits claims where there IS evidence. For example if the assault were recorded or there were witnesses, or an underage victims became pregnant- there would be DNA. But with the SOL, none of that matters.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      I think a lot of people don’t think about these practicalities because our feelings immediately go to “This is disgusting and that person should never feel safe from prosecution.” which I get. But unless you have evidence that can be examined much later, like a body, it’ll always be incredibly hard to do anything about it decades on. Real life is not a Netflix series.

      To me, the issue is not with the statute of limitations, it’s the fact that vicitims feel too ashamed or afraid to come forward earlier. And even if they do come forward, they are the ones on trial when it comes to sex crimes. That’s why it comes out 30 years later and there’s nothing to be done about it anymore. Just scare and shame them long enough and you’re fine.

      Let’s also not forget that laws were usually written by men. I think it’s not ALL about practicalities.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        It’s not all about practicalities. In the case of child abuse, the law protects abusers until a point at which the child is grown and may be able to make a good case, complete with medical records and eyewitness accounts (in the case of physical abuse, there are often bystanders) – but then is told, too late, yeah, we call it a crime but *we don’t really mean it.* Suck it up and get therapy – and pay for it yourself. It’s injustice upon injustice.

    • Bettyrose says:

      So, are you saying SoL laws don’t apply when there’s DNA evidence?

    • PPP says:

      I understand and agree with what you’re saying. However, in something like the Cosby case, the sheer number of women coming forward, I think, is itself a form of evidence. And that’s how sexual predators operate. They do this serially. I wish that in cases where the number of accusers is higher than, say, three, the statute of limitations could be waived and the number of accusers would be considered relevant, rather than trying each crime separately with without reference to the others.

    • Wren33 says:

      I understand SOL. The defendant is left without any way to say, “Well on that night or at that time I was actually at X place” because what witness is going to remember what they saw 20 years ago. But I do wonder if there is a way to leave exemptions for cases with hard physical evidence.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Just because abuse claims are difficult to successfully prosecute does not mean it is appropriate to close off that judicial avenue for victims. Just because it’s hard for adult survivors to get people to believe them doesn’t mean they are not entitled to try to make their case and get justice.

    • Radley says:

      I don’t see what not having a statute of limitations on sex crimes has to do with your argument. In any case, it’s either going viable in a court of law or not. It’s not like pressing charges equals instant conviction. Victims should have the right to press charges even if many years have passed. Then the judicial system and/or a jury can decide what happens next. But a survivor should have the right to say I’m here to press charges 15 years later because back then it would have been too traumatic. That’s legit. How many of us have been sexually assaulted? How many of us didn’t tell anyone for years or still haven’t told? It’s so painful. Survivors shouldn’t be punished for that.

    • Maria S. says:

      Thank you for saying this. It’s absolutely correct.

    • A Fan says:

      @Babooshka

      The absence of statutes of limitations must be feasible and have merit if other countries (such as Canada) have legislation to make this part of their criminal justice system.

      [*Clearly, it works.*]

    • Ange says:

      It works perfectly fine elsewhere, exceptionalism doesn’t negate that.

  4. Sayrah says:

    Awful. Hopefully they can bring charges on him for this one.

  5. Megan says:

    When the hell did he have time to make movies? He was constantly on the prowl for his next victim.

  6. Coco says:

    I feel terrible for her and for all the ridicule and eye rolling she’s endured. Makes me think of other actresses who flame out in a messy way or just disappeared. What happened to them?

    • megs283 says:

      Same here. Suddenly a lot of things make sense. :-(

    • PPP says:

      Hopefully we can take these lessons to real life. I have known some messy women in my life and they were all dealing with serious demons. Instead we laugh at them and act like they’re easy and snub them when they could use a little sympathy and warmth.

    • LaLa says:

      Exactly. I’ve always felt awful for not being able to do anything about a first-person account I read from a young celebrity. It was on a FML-style website that never really got famous, the whole gist was you got to vent your secrets out through anonymous posts, although this poster’s user name, combined with her story, made it very obvious who is was about. She was denouncing child sexual abuse, a topic I am particularly… well…

      I tried asking around on a few websites if anything could be done. They brushed me off because, in the end, you cannot do much with an anonymized internet post.

    • magnoliarose says:

      One of the reasons these stories have been so hard to read and digest is because of women like her. I don’t think Harvey was the only one in her case and I think she has been traumatized more than twice. The reason I believe that is because of her substance abuse problems and the terrible rumors and how self-destructive she is. I remember vaguely something she said once about it.
      I feel sorry for her. She has been ridiculed so much including my Lana del Rey, and it all just seems cruel now knowing what she has endured. It was never funny, but she did make a spectacle out of herself often, and it was usually caught on camera by someone.

  7. Caity says:

    I’m so sorry for what she’s been through but maybe some good can come from her horror with criminal charges

  8. Katherine says:

    Most victims actually were in a vulnerable position so it’s horrible how society likes to prefer the perfect victim, the perfect set of evidence, perfect post-trauma behavior, preferably witnesses, other victims to corroborate the story, perfect reasoning and logic for victim’s actions, and don’t get me started with all the “why did you put yourself in that position of being alone with him?” or “why didn’t you say something earlier?” You don’t hold the perpetrators to the same standard, do you.

    I was raped by my father from the age of 5 to 11. I shall take no victim blaming and have no tolerance for perfect victim seekers. F them. Also, what’s up with the statute of limitations? I could barely process the trauma for the first 15 years, let alone file a police report. So now what?
    Am I supposed to f-king “let it go”? Gee, thanks, I guess I’ll go cry to my therapist now and continue hating myself for not accomplishing as much as the rest of my peers and not being married with great career and kids. Keep asking me why I’m sad or why don’t I have a boyfriend or tell me that I need to get out more and meet new people and be sociable and just shake it off, and just move on, after all, so many years have passed, am I right?

    • PPP says:

      I was molested by my father as well. When asked why I didn’t come forward I was like– um, I didn’t even know what he was doing was wrong. It was all I knew. And my mom was a useless, unemployed drunk. I should have blown up my family at the age of seven? I’ve also been asked why I didn’t fight him off. Again, I was 5, 6, 7, 8. He scared my mom and all my friends. People are dumb as hell about this stuff. There should be a national conversation on how to talk to people who’ve experienced this stuff.

      • Kim says:

        Katherine, PPP, thank you. My own experience is very similar, I was blamed by my mother and other women in my family. With all of the news of abuse finally out in the open, I’m having new memories surface, accompanied by strong physical and emotional abreactions. Suicidal ideation is daily. It’s very difficult. My father has never had to answer for it. I’m almost 50 and am so worn down by a lifetime of trying to overcome it all.

      • Katherine says:

        Yes and yes and yes. I for one did not know what a divorce was, didn’t know it was an option to not have father live with us, I saw mother struggling to make ends meet and spending all her time at work or stressed over the drunk a-hole of a husband, from the perspective of a lonely and scared prepubesent kid I honest to god did not see how she could help me in my situation, or anybody else. Nobody asked me why I didn’t fight him off (the f-king nerve!!) but if it helps, I actually did, that’s why the abuse stopped at 11 despite the divorce came through later. So f them. I refuse to accept any sort of discussion on this from people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. They need to SIT THE HECK DOWN, SHUT THE F UP and LISTEN.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I am sorry for all of you brave ladies. I read your posts often even if I don’t reply all the time and now I know behind all those great posts are survivors. You don’t owe anyone a smile or anything else.
        You are victims, and nothing was your fault.

        @Katherine No one has the right to question how you chose to survive. No one. There is no perfect victim or “right” behavior when something so wrong has happened.

        I have been struggling too after these stories came out. I feel like I have been slightly out of it for the last few weeks. I didn’t realize how widespread sexual abuse is, but it makes me wonder about people from my past or actresses or entertainers that collapsed and disappeared.

    • Snowflake says:

      I’m so sorry that happened to you

    • the_blonde_one says:

      Yes, that’s why I WILL NOT TOLERATE any need for perfect victim-ness. I was raped by my grandfather when I was young enough to not remember it but I can say with certainty that it lingered in there somewhere and contributed to my a: not being very able to recognize that the molestation that occurred by others when I was a bit older was wrong and b: my putting myself in circumstances later in life (and even now, who knows) that showed just how little I thought of myself.

      It’s never just one stand alone incident that we can judge someone’s reactions on- it’s the entirety of their lived lives. we don’t know what they’re carrying around and how long each additional incident of trauma will take to deal with in a healthy manner.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Oh, everyone here. I know how it is. People shut out what they do not want to hear. Survivors of all forms of child abuse are not believed and not supported. Expected to get therapies that are often inadequate or not comprehensive or downright harmful (Freud, anyone?), using precious money that they/we might want to use on savings/vacations/nice things – assuming the money is there if we are under/unemployed, maybe with other health problems. Society likes to see “resilient” victims, but that’s a crock – that’s just a way people make themselves feel better about allowing child abuse to continue. Given the gross mis-comprehension about child abuse and sexual assault, and willful misunderstanding about the pliable nature of memory (when many survivors have wounds and witnesses), and the centuries-old desire to brand women as hysterics, we have a massive problem, a lot of people bleeding inside, and no restitution – no justice. And they wonder why we’re angry…

      • PPP says:

        Speaking of Freud, do you know where the Oedipus complex came from? Originally he discovered that the women he was treating for hysteria had been sexually abused as children, and as we now know is common, it was most often by family members. He published this in his original case studies, but as these women were from influential families, Freud faced a great deal of pressure, so he changed his case studies so that the women secretly wanted to bone their fathers. The Oedipus complex is original gangsta victim blaming.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        PPP, thanks for adding this. A lot of this true history is still not taught in schools of psychology and psychoanalysis. For those who want to learn more, one resource is here:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assault_on_Truth

        The American psychotherapeutic establishment was for too long “in bed with” Freudian principles, perhaps because the American culture has its own larger issues with men, women and children, as well as with sexuality. It was too easy to align with notions of ‘repression’ that also make older men somehow sexually magnetic figures to little girls.

        Freud may have been insightful doctor about other things, but he was ambitious and raised in a Victorian elite and power structure that was no friend to women. He made up a powerful story that his funders and admirers found easy to accept, and built his ‘genius’ reputation on gross injustice.

  9. Jane says:

    I really wonder how Georgina Chapman feels right now. I watched a couple of her interviews. She seems really classy and not bimbo-ish. Yes there is money and access and privilege but this woman is educated and beautiful.. she cannot have been totally in the dark about her husband’s behavior. Nothing is worth that.

    The mind boggles. Her life is ruined now so i hope the 10 years of being his mrs was worth it

  10. Applapoom says:

    I always thought of her as a huge trainwreck mess because she looks so dishevelled and out of it in the pictures I have seen. Immediately after reading this I did googled pictures of her BEFORE 2010. She looks normal and not zoned out. I feel bad now. She must have been on a really bad downward spiral. How awful.

  11. Wren33 says:

    Ugh. Reminds me in the initial story the Miramax executive who said that Weinstein once whispered in her ear, “There are things I’ve done that nobody knows.”

  12. teehee says:

    I dont think anyone is going to start anythign abotu any of the victims by now. This has nothign to do with her anymore than it does with any other woman. This man is a predator and the victim is absolutely not related to his crimes.
    He sees a chance and takes it, whether its a sober, drunk, black, white, poor, rich, powerful, known, unknown etc etc woman. He just sees someone he can easily rape, because of his position and hers– I bet he preys on women outside of the industry as well, but they are less relevant for headlines.

  13. detritus says:

    Again, to those who need to talk, who need to reach out, who are hurting, please, please seek support. The CB community is here for you, but sometimes you need a little extra something.

    RAINN 1-800-656-hope
    https://www.rainn.org/

    AWHL 1-866-863-0511
    http://www.awhl.org/

    If your are outside of the State or Canada and need support, you can still call in to one of these numbers and they can find resources for you. They will find you someone to talk to, someone who will believe you, someone who can listen.

  14. smee says:

    To me, the penalties for rape and for child molestation are way too light. By doing either of these things you are proving that you don’t abide by the norms of society – one or two years in prison isn’t going to help the perpetrator change. Rape should always be considered felony aggravated assault and receive the longest sentence available. Too many judges don’t take these cases seriously. I’d surely rather spend my tax dollars keeping these people in prison than wasting time and money pursuing small time drug crimes.

    As for Paz – I feel really bad for her. She’s a mess. Her career has suffered from her behavior, which we now realize was from trauma. How does she ever get back the roles that would have gone to her if she hadn’t been assaulted? I hope some sort of compensation goes to the women who were harmed by that creature.

    • Ravine says:

      I’d say it’s likely that his rich victims, at least, will sue him and either win or get settlements, whether or not he’s found guilty in criminal court. O.J. Simpson had to pay over thirty million dollars to the family of one of his (alleged) victims for “wrongful death”, despite being acquitted of murder. So I think even in the even that there isn’t enough evidence to find him guilty of the *individual* crimes, the fact that he’s CLEARLY a serial rapist should make him at least sue-able. I’m not a lawyer though, so if any attorneys could weigh in, I’d be interested to hear their predictions.

      • imqrious2 says:

        OJ lost the civil suit, to the judgement of $30M, but has only paid about $100K or so. He declared bankruptcy; his NFL pension is not allowed to be touched, so he basically thumbed his nose at the Goldmans, and he literally said, they’ll never see it. Complete POS, waste of skin.

  15. Tee Hee says:

    Wow, CB likes banning people who’s comments don’t agree with their own, huh?

    LOL good luck.

  16. Paz always seemed so…. damaged. Fragile but trying so hard to be badass. Like someone broke her and she was desperately trying to put herself back together. Now we know. Someone did break her. And he needs to pay.

  17. ELJohns says:

    NY Police say that his arrest is imminent. PLEASE LORD JESUS TAKE THIS MAN AWAY!

  18. Samantha says:

    I loved her on Boardwalk Empire. I’m really sorry this happened to her, I hope getting it out helps her heal. Once again, imgaine her coming out with this story in 2010. The poeple who blame women for not coming forward would have called her a liar because of her persona.

  19. JRenee says:

    Thread shift slightly. …just read Adam Venit of WME was the guy who groped Terry Crews. He’s taken a LOA.
    And people wonder why victims were quiet, there’s so many of these guys in the industry. ..

  20. Ellis says:

    If I had a daughter, she’d be getting a body cam for Christmas.

  21. phaedra says:

    I know nothing of Paz’s work, but I do know her from gossip blogs and what a “mess” she supposedly is. Now I wonder how much of what I read was Weinstein’s propaganda machine? All of this makes me rethink everything I “know” (i.e. read) about so-called horrible celebrities. How many were behaving badly on set and how many were being smeared by Weinstein after being freaking ASSAULTED?!

  22. Nicegirl says:

    A quote on the wall in my counselor’s office, “Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.”

  23. BB says:

    #metoo thank you Kaiser and CB… it’s heartbreaking and opens up so many wounds. I’m encouraged and fortified by this community. Let’s power on and never be silent again, if we are able to lend our voices in protest. If not, that’s good too.