Rape and sex assault case against Harvey Weinstein should be thrown out because accusers lied and police were corrupt, film mogul’s lawyers tell court
- The Hollywood mogul has been ‘vilified’ by a ‘vicious media’, his lawyers said
- They added the evidence was ‘never critically examined or investigated’
- Weinstein’s team also said police had withheld evidence which would have potentially exonerated the film producer
Lawyers for Harvey Weinstein have called for the case against him to be thrown out, claiming they have proof of police corruption and evidence that accusers lied.
The Hollywood mogul had been ‘vilified’ by a ‘vicious media assault’, they said, and evidence ‘never critically examined or investigated’ because of the public pressure to prosecute him.
Weinstein’s team last night revealed they had damning evidence which they say proves former production assistant Mimi Haleyi had sent ‘loving messages’ to Weinstein after he allegedly raped her in 2006.
In one, two years after the alleged assault, she says it was ‘great’ to see Weinstein at Cannes film festival.
Harvey Weinstein’s (pictured) lawyers have called for the case against him to be thrown out, claiming they have proof of police corruption and evidence that accusers lied
Another unnamed woman had tried to ‘fabricate evidence’ to support her claims, solicitors say.
And police had withheld evidence which would have potentially exonerated the film producer, his legal team has said.
Officers also allegedly tampered with witness evidence and told one woman, whose evidence was not brought before the court, that ‘less is more’.
Bombshell documents filed at the New York Supreme Court this week, and seen by the Daily Mail, claim that the lawsuit has been ‘irreparably tainted and rendered defective by police misconduct’.
Thousands of emails handed over prove women who allege they were sexually assaulted had ‘for years engaged in loving and often intimate conversations’ with Weinstein ‘before and after the date of the alleged assault’, papers claim.
The documents, filed by Weinstein’s lead attorney Benjamin Brafman, have plunged the case, which has been rumbling on for almost a year, into chaos. In a statement last night, Mr Brafman said the case was ‘falling apart’.
Lawyers for Mr Weinstein told of a ‘shameful campaign’ by the police to ‘force’ the District Attorney to prosecute Mr Weinstein.
‘The startling reality is that the District Attorney seems most willing to sacrifice the truth in this case on the altar of political expediency,’ papers add.
The latest revelations come after one of the six criminal charges against Weinstein was last month thrown out.
These related to an aspiring actress he was said to have assaulted in 2004. Lucia Evans claimed Weinstein had forced her to perform a sex act on him when she was a 21-year-old university student.
Since October last year scores of women have come forward to claim they were inappropriately treated, sexually assaulted or raped by Weinstein, 66.
But last night his lawyers said that if the case against him is not thrown out, a full hearing should be held during which all of the evidence of police corruption is presented before a judge.
The documents allege that a police officer involved in the case, Detective Nicholas DiGaudio, had spoken to an independent witness who had completely undermined the testimony of Miss Evans.
The woman, who has not been named, reportedly told officers Miss Evans had lied about her relationship with him.
Detective DiGaudio is alleged to have told the witness that ‘less is more’ – suggesting that some information was intentionally held back.
Another accuser, referred to as CW1 in court papers, was allegedly told to ‘clean up her phones’ by the detective.
A defence witness said she had spent time with CW1 who spoke about her relationship with Mr Weinstein in ‘the most glowing and loving terms’.
The judge will rule next month on whether the case will go ahead.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.