Concerning Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and similar people

Written by Rick Archer
May 2018

Rick Archer's Note:

Recently I watched a Frontline presentation on Harvey Weinstein.   We all know about Harvey Weinstein, so I won't burden you with the details.  However, there was one story in particular that caught my eye.  It dealt with the curious case of Ambra Battilana.

Ambra Battilana is an Filipina-Italian model who is a real beauty.  She was a finalist for Miss Italy as well as first runner-up for Miss Universe Philippines.

In 2015 Ms. Battilana was widely covered by American media for her part in exposing sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein.  Ms. Battilana went to the police to allege that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her in his hotel room while they were reviewing her portfolio.  She told the NYPD that Hollywood mogul Weinstein groped her breasts and thigh against her will and tried to take things further.

After filing a police report that night, the cops persuaded the woman to wear wire while speaking with Weinstein the following day. 

While Weinstein did not say anything especially damaging on the wire, his responses definitely seemed to confirm that 'something' had happened.   Let's put this another way... Weinstein did not say a single thing that would lead one to suspect he was being falsely accused.  In recent times, this recording has been made public, so anyone can study it if they care to.

However, when Weinstein, 66, was later confronted by the police, he denied the allegations.  Furthermore, a source close to the Hollywood producer called it 'an attempt at blackmail'.

Considering Weinstein is worth $200 million, one can see he is valuable enough to try blackmailing him.  So why put himself in a position to be blackmailed?

It's the same thing as Michael Jackson.  I was willing to take Jackson's word for it the first time he paid extortion money rather than go to trial to face the allegation he had shared his bed with a little boy.  But when it happened a second time, I knew the allegations were true.  Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, oops, I didn't learn my lesson the first time!

How do I explain this?   I have a close friend who is an honorable man.  He is deeply concerned about protecting his reputation.   He says it is too easy in this day and age for someone to make false accusations.   Therefore he goes overboard to avoid ambiguous situations.  For example, he confided he refused to take the babysitter home alone for fear he might open himself up to false accusations. 

Meanwhile the media scoffs at VP Mike Pence for his practice of never being in a room alone with any woman other than his wife.  

In other words, there are steps wealthy men can take steps to protect themselves if they are concerned with blackmail.  So why should we feel sorry for them when the Cosbys and Weinsteins of the world keep running into the same situation? 

Cosby, Weinstein, and certain others are repeatedly confronted with legions of women who have stepped forward and said 'the same thing' happened to them as well.  The pathetic thing is that every single one of these predators deny anything happened as if we are so stupid we are going to believe a word they say.

According to Frontline, once Weinstein realized that Ms. Battilana had a strong case against him, he went to work.   He hired people to dig up dirt on Battilana and they did a good job.   A lurid story emerged from Italy where Battilana received considerable money from a businessman in exchange for sex, then turned around and went to the police to cry rape. 

When Weinstein ran across this story, he fed it to the tabloids and provoked a nasty feeding frenzy. 

Personally speaking, I do not have the energy to study the Italian gossip story thoroughly enough to form an opinion as to Ms. Battilana's virtue.  Whatever she did in the past, that still did not give Weinstein the right to trap her in his hotel room and attempt to force himself on her.  Why is her virtue suddenly on trial?  It was Weinstein who attacked her, not the other way around.  For crying out loud, what gives the media the right to drag her through the mud?

Frontline seemed to suggest these nasty articles in the press about Battilana were designed to distract us all from the real problem.  It upset me that once aspersions had been cast on Battilana's character, suddenly the tabloids tried to make Weinstein's claim that he was being set up for blackmail seem more credible.  I was darkly fascinated when Frontline produced a gossip columnist who admitted Weinstein reimbursed him for printing certain stories either with money or by passing other useful pieces of gossip. 

In the end, Frontline said Ms. Battilana dropped the charges. Frontline also said the woman walked away with a cool million.  And Weinstein wants us to believe he is innocent?

The good news is that the Battilana story pried apart the 'Weinstein Open Secret' wide enough for the New York Times to go in for the kill.   Thank goodness. 

I think what bothered me the most about the Frontline story was the thought that Harvey Weinstein has been getting away with his abuse of women for 40 years.   As a certain well-known TV celebrity once pointed out, "When you’re a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything you want.  Grab 'em by the p...y."  Weinstein seems to have taken that advice a little too seriously.

How do these people get away with this stuff?   That question kept me awake.  The list is endless.  Bill Cosby comes to mind among others.  But why stop with Hollywood? 

How about the media?  Newscasters are dropping like flies.

What about the Catholic Church?   Lots of people knew, but no one did anything.

What about Watergate?  Thank goodness for Mark Fell, aka Deep Throat.

What about Bernie Madoff?   Someone had to know.

What about Enron?   Someone had to know. 

What about Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky?  How many people had to look the other way to allow Sandusky to operate?  

What about Larry Nassar, the monster who molested all those vulnerable female gymnasts?   Lots of people knew about him.  They all looked the other way.

Now we hear about George Tyndall, the gynecologist at the University of Southern Cal who conducted inappropriate pelvic exams and made sexually offensive remarks to patients.   After a 2016 internal investigation found Tyndall guilty, the university did not report the matter to the state medical board. 

Do you need more examples or do you get the point?  These monsters are allowed to operate because no one in authority has the courage to act.

Look no further than Cyrus Vance, the New York District Attorney.  Vance had a credible witness, Ambra Battilana, willing to testify and he had Weinstein's audio dialogue to support her allegations, but he decided not to press charges due to lack of evidence.   Lack of evidence? C'mon, Vance, what more do you need, buddy?  Many have speculated there could be other reasons for Vance's reluctance. 

Oddly enough, cold feet reminiscent of Vance's decision to back off operates throughout these stories.   I once wrote an article on Insider Trading.   Naturally I listed Bernie Madoff as one of the prime culprits.

Not many people know this, but Bernie Madoff was exposed early on by an outsider who was deeply suspicious of Madoff's unbroken chain of success.  A stock trader named Harry Markopolos had been viciously chewed out by his boss for underperforming vis a vis Madoff. 

"Markopolos , you incompetent fool!  You think you're smart, so why can't you get the same results as that Madoff genius?"

Markopolos was enraged by the insult.  He had been made to feel mediocre because he was being beaten so badly.  Burning with shame and bitterness, Markopolos decided to study Madoff closely and discover his secret. 

Markopolos was a master at statistical analysis.  Using probabilities, Markopolos concluded the odds against Madoff's continued success stretched all limits of credulity.   After Markopolos did his careful analysis, he wrote a letter to the New York stock exchange watchdogs.  The NYSE sent someone over who promptly dismissed the allegation as nonsense.  Markopolos was aghast, so he wrote again.  And again.  To his dismay, it took ten years to get anyone to believe him!   But at that point, it was too late.  Due to the watchdogs looking the other way, the financial collapse of 2008 cost innocent people vast fortunes.

So why did it take so long?  Markopolos believed that Madoff was being protected by someone high in government.  In other words, the cheaters watch out for the cheaters.   That says it all.  Our society has become split down the middle... honest people are forced to defend themselves against dishonesty in every walk of life.  Corrupt allies stop at nothing to tell lies to protect powerful people.

I wrote about Madoff again in an article where I analyzed Corruption.   As they said in The Godfather, a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more money than a hundred men with guns.  Anyone who has ever studied the stock market or the pharmaceutical industry might tend to agree. 

HBO had a docupic about Joe Paterno recently.  I had to turn it off.  I could not stand to watch all those people who turned their backs. 

I once wrote a story about Paterno.  The title was 'JOE PATERNO -  THE HERO WHO FELL OFF THE PEDESTAL'.

In a manner similar to Bill Cosby, I grew up with Joe Paterno as one of my heroes.  Paterno symbolized how college athletics are supposed to be.  His football players went to class, took their own tests, graduated on time.  We all admired Paterno.  He ran his football program 'The Right Way'.  

Except that Paterno also knowingly let a Minotaur Monster run free down in the basement of his sports complex.  Sandusky was actually once caught raping a screaming young boy down in the shower room.  Nothing was done. 

It was a different boy who eventually broke the Sandusky story open first met Jerry Minotaur in 2005.  The kid was 10 at the time.  Like all the others, this kid had no father and was in great need of attention.  Sandusky took a shine to him.  Sandusky began to meet the young man at his school and drive him home.  This escalated into invitations to sleepovers at Sandusky's house. 

Records show that the young man stayed overnight at Sandusky’s residence in College Township, Pa, on many occasions.  There he fell victim to the Little House of Horrors.  The boy said he screamed in pain when he was attacked by Jerry Minotaur down in the basement.  Sandusky's wife was in the house at the time. 

One has to wonder if Sandusky’s wife ever heard anything.  If so, did she look the other way?  What did she know?  Was she willing to throw away a husband, a life of comfort and her reputation for some little boy screaming down in the basement?  Probably not.  The whole story turns my stomach.  As the reader can gather, heroes in the Sandusky-Paterno saga are few and far between.

Don't get me started on Larry Nassar.  This story is also too much to take.  The number of female victims who complained to authorities about Larry Nassar boggles the imagination.  Coaches, police, administrators, even parents... they all looked the other way.  As the reader can gather, heroes in the Nassar saga are few and far between.

Okay, I think I've made my point.  Monsters are allowed to operate because people in position to stop them turn their backs. 

So I asked myself how do these Monsters get away with it.  That is the question I tossed around in my mind.  In fact, I wrote this article as a way to answer that very question to my own satisfaction... How do the monsters get away with it for so long!?

 

1. FEAR OF REPRISAL!!!

Once upon a time I found a dangerous handgun in my trash can out on the street.  Whoever put the gun in there didn't even bother to cover it up, probably because they were in a hurry.  When I lifted the lid to deposit another bag of trash, the gun was sitting right on top in plain sight.  $500 gun. 

I handed the gun to a policeman friend who had it checked out.  There was no record of a crime committed with that gun, but we all know the truth.

That discovery let to a recurring nightmare.   Here at my home, I have a long, tall fence that offers parked cars quite a bit of privacy, especially at night.  What if I walked outside at night and witnessed the gangland execution of an innocent victim in a car parked in front of my house?   Or what if I witnessed the rape of a young girl in one of those cars?  

If I had the guts to report what I saw, we all know that the only way the criminals would get free would be to take me out.  If they were the type to kill once, what would they have to lose by killing again?

Could I trust the police to keep my name and address a secret?  All it would take was one bad cop to pass on the information.  Could I trust the media to do the same thing?  I believe by and large most of the media are decent people, but there are some who would sell their mother if it would get them ahead.

Or what if the criminal saw me and guessed that I lived at that address?  I would never be safe.   Fear of reprisal is a powerful reason to keep one's mouth shut. 

Harry Markopolos said the same thing.  After turning in Bernie Madoff, he was certain someone would take him out in the dark of night. 

 

2. SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Let's get back to Harvey Weinstein.  Supply and demand is a major reason Monsters like Harvey Minotaur get away with what they do.  

There is an ample supply of ambitious starlets hungry for their first break.  Those women are fresh meat for Harvey Minotaur.  Those young women know full well there are 100 other women competing for the same role.   If Jane Who Wants to be a Star believes that Debbie Who Wants to a Star will 'cooperate', then that fear operates like acid on Jane's virtue.  Some of those women are bound to be desperate enough to succumb to the Casting Couch and become easy pickings for the Minotaur.

It's the same thing as doping.  If Athlete 1 thinks Athlete 2 is doping (and winning!), (and setting records that will never be broken!), (and making lots of money!), (and getting lots of fame!), then the temptation to dope becomes unbearable for Athlete 1. 

 

3. WHY TAKE A CHANCE AND STICK UP FOR A NOBODY?

Harvey Weinstein kept a lot of people employed.  Actors, actresses, writers.  Agents, publicists, lawyers.  Executives, directors, producers.  Did the people who worked for Harvey Weinstein really wish to kill the Golden Goose by going to bat for some girl they would never hear from again?  Did Mrs. Sandusky wish to live the rest of her life in shame after her friends abandoned her for staying married to a monster?

 

4.  WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO REPORT THE CRIME?

Several actresses stuck up for themselves against Weinstein and saw their careers come to a grinding halt.  They strongly believed they had been Blacklisted after complaining about Harvey Weinstein, but how could they prove it? 

Well-known actresses such as Mira Sorvino and Sean Young said in the Weinstein Frontline piece their careers fell off the charts after speaking up.  In Sean Young's case, she never recovered.  In Mira Sorvino's case, she said it took a long time to overcome the nasty rumor that she was an bitchy diva, uncooperative, demanding, selfish. 

Sorvino and Young are women we know about.  There are likely other women whose careers ended thanks to Harvey Minotaur that we will never know about.

The helplessness of knowing a woman's career could end if she stuck up for herself undoubtedly is responsible for many heart-rending decisions that it was easier to keep one's mouth shut and bear the shame.  What a terrible thing to live with.

 

5. DIVIDE AND CONQUER

I'll tell you what I am going to do.   I am going to write down five names.  Weinstein, Cosby, Sandusky, Madoff, Nassar.   Then I am going to visit Google and see what the current victim count is.  Here goes.

Weinstein:  85 women as of october, 2017
Cosby:  60 women
Sandusky:  52 counts of sexual abuse
Madoff:  51,700 claims filed as of April 30, 2014
Nassar:   265 women as of January 31, 2018

So here is my point...  No one speaks up until someone else speaks up first.  

There is an old saying that the nail that sticks out the furthest is the first one to get pounded.  Why be the first to speak up and see they have become a lightning rod for more misery than they ever imagined?   Ambra Battilana is the poster girl for the utter uselessness of expecting authorities to do their job.  Think of all the wasted hours and all the humiliation Ambra Battilana suffered only to get no justice. 

Many people stay silent because they fear no one will believe them.  In every he said-she said situation, the one with the big reputation always has the upper hand.  Even when someone does speak up, frequently the authorities in charge look the other way because it is so hard to prove molestation or rape. 

The Divide and Conquer technique works because no one dares to be the first to speak up.  With everyone keeping their mouth shut, the monsters get lucky because their victims have no way to find others to support their claims.

 

6. BUYING SILENCE:  NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS

The Divide and Conquer technique only works if the Monster can keep everyone quiet.   The moment someone publicly comes forward, then the cat is out of the bag and the others become tempted to speak up.  

McKayla Maroney was an Olympic gymnast who was terrified to tell the truth about what Larry Nassar did to her.  However, people in high places persuaded her to take the money and keep her mouth shut.  So Maroney signed a non-disclosure agreement and used the money to get psychotherapy.  But what she really wanted to do was expose the Minotaur. 

Finally, Maroney got so angry that she decided to defy her gag order and speak out against her tormentor anyway.  This led to a remarkable situation.  Model Christie Tiegen, wife of singer John Legend, heard about Maroney's dilemma.  Read what Tiegen said:

"McKayla Maroney faces $100,000 fine if she speaks out at Larry Nassar sentencing after USA Gymnastics made her sign an NDA ordering her to stay quiet about abuse as part of her $1.25 million settlement.

The entire principle of this should be fought - an NDA to stay quiet about this serial monster with over 140 accusers, but I would be absolutely honored to pay this fine for you, McKayla.  C.T."

Tiegen was not alone.  Several people stepped up.  Encouraged, Ms. Maroney went ahead and spoke out.  Maroney alleged that USA Gymnastics tried to silence her abuse story nearly a year earlier by making her sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of a financial settlement she needed to pay for psychological treatment.

Maroney stated: “That agreement was written by USA Gymnastics lawyers, and it was designed to do one thing, which is keep their secret from the public.”

Maroney alleged that USA Gymnastics insisted on a confidentiality agreement so it could further conceal true nature of Nassar's horrific sexual abuse of minors from public scrutiny, outside investigation, and law enforcement.

A major consequence of this gag treatment was to allow Nassar to continue to molest other girls.  In this case, USA Gymnastics operated much as Joe Paterno and Penn State had operated... they did not want the reputation of the institution sullied by the news that they knowingly harbored a Minotaur.

Non-disclosure agreements are common in out-of-court settlements but have come under fresh scrutiny in recent months with revelations that alleged sex abusers and harassers such as Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly and Harvey Weinstein used them to keep accusations under wraps and allow their misconduct to continue.  For decades, Weinstein was able to keep his accusers quiet through the powerful 'non-disclosure agreement' technique.  This complicated legal device is designed to enforce unbreakable silence under the penalty of death.  Well, maybe not death, but how about financial ruin?  Close enough.

Zelda Perkins was a former assistant to Weinstein who spoke to Frontline.  Back in the 90s, Perkins accused Weinstein of attempted rape, an allegation denied by Weinstein.  Soon it became unbearable to work for the man, so Perkins allowed Weinstein to buy her silence for $200,000, then left the company.

In practice, when somebody breaks a non-disclosure agreement, they face the threat of being sued for breaking their silence.  They could be required to pay hefty financial damages and return the original money as well.  These contracts are very intimidating because they work as scare tactics against victims unsure just how much it will cost them if they dare to speak out. The risk of being sued and having to pay a lawyer or pay damages is more than enough to discourage most people from stepping forward.

Wealthy men throughout America use the non-disclosure agreement to mask their predatory activities.   For example, Weinstein bought Perkins' silence for twenty years.   In the case of Zelda Perkins, she used that $200,000 to move to Central America to get as far away from Weinstein as she could.  The thought of risking her remaining money to stand up Weinstein was daunting to Perkins. 

Weinstein was worth $200 million.  He could afford to hire lawyers to keep Perkins tied up in court for the rest of her life if she said something.  It was not until Weinstein was crippled by the other women coming forward that Perkins finally felt brave enough to speak up.

 

7. FEAR OF COUNTER-ATTACK ON ONE'S REPUTATION

There are two sides to the current media frenzy to expose sex predators.   While I am all for exposing monsters, I am not fond of the media's tendency to harm innocent victims by rushing to judgment. 

The media's disregard for 'innocent until proven guilty' is well known.  The media thinks they have the right to be judge and jury before most cases go to trial.  All they have to do is use the word 'alleged' and they feel they have the right to say anything they want. 

For example, do you know who Aziz Ansari is?

According to Wikipedia, in January 2018, a woman using a pseudonym accused Ansari of sexual misconduct in an Internet article appearing on Babe.  The article was met with a mixed response among news commentators.   A debate arose as to whether the incident described in the Babe article actually constituted sexual misconduct.

Let me just say that I don't know what the truth is, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.  I have read enough accounts to form an opinion, but I openly admit there could be more to the story than I am currently privy to.

With that said, here is my opinion.  From what I gather, Ansari pressured a date to have sex with him.  This was their first date and she was uncomfortable, so she declined.  Ansari did not like getting turned down, so he whined about it and kept pestering the woman to reconsider.  Ansari's persistent pleading irritated the woman, so she went home.  To my knowledge, no force was ever used and no threats were ever made.  When I read this story, Ansari's crime seemed to be pushing too hard and being awkward about it. 

Given what I know, I have a hard time understanding what elevates what comes across as a 'Bad Date' to the point where this man's reputation is attacked on a national level?   That nasty, bitchy story will follow this man for the rest of his life and the man has no recourse.   Good grief, an account of what happened is on Ansari's Wikipedia page.  It could remain there permanently.  I don't know how you feel, but I would be sick knowing a story like this would follow me wherever I went for a lifetime.

All it takes is a simple Google search on Ansari and this same story pops.  As an experiment, I typed 'Ansari' in Google.  Take a wild guess what came up first?  Hey, go check for yourself if you don't believe me.  I have a thin enough skin as it is.  I would want to die if a story calling me out on my sexual inadequacy became what I was best known for. 

And what about this woman?  She destroyed this guy.  Not only did this woman hide behind a cloak of anonymity in her 'Babe' story, she had the nerve to humiliate this guy for asking for sex.  Since when is that a crime?   Sorry, but then I'm guilty too.  I've asked women for sex and gotten shot down.  So have a lot of other guys.  Raise your hand!  Last time I checked, guys are not only allowed to ask, they are supposed to ask.   So maybe this Ansari guy lacked style, but why crucify him?  Why not educate him instead?

Personally, I think this woman crossed a line.  Even more so, the Internet website Babe crossed an even bigger line by printing this garbage.  Shame on them!

Nor do I not think I am alone for feeling that way.   Several news personalities stated publicly that Ansari's actions did not constitute sexual misconduct.  Furthermore his accuser's narrative trivialized what was most important... the protest against serious forms of sexual abuse.   

So what about Richard Jewell?  Do you feel sorry him?   Do you even know who Richard Jewell is?  Let me tell you who Richard Jewell is.  He's the guy who saved many lives at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and was rewarded with a life of misery. 

Jewell had been hired as a security guard working for AT&T.  Jewell was doing his job when he discovered a backpack filled with three pipe bombs on park grounds.  Jewell immediately alerted police and helped to evacuate the area before the bomb exploded, saving many people from injury or death.  This guy's a hero, right?  WRONG!!!!

Initially hailed by the media as a hero, three days later, some dumbshit leaked to the press that Jewell was being considered as a suspect.  Here is the deal... Jewell did fit the profile.  Jewell was an ordinary citizen, maybe not the sharpest guy.  He was a down-on-his-luck guy with minimal education working for minimum wage at a menial job.  Suddenly he's in the right place at the right time.  The FBI would not be doing its job if they didn't consider him.  The FBI always considers the person who reported the crime. It is standard operating procedure. 

However, it is not standard operating procedure to leak this knowledge to the press.  I will briefly paraphrase what happened, but I have to tell you the full story is fascinating reading:  How the Press Printed the Erroneous Richard Jewell Story

Basically, Kathy Scruggs, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter who covered the Atlanta Police Department, began to pick up hints from police sources that the bombing probe might have taken a new turn.  Trying to pin it down, Scruggs met with a source after work.  Reading between the lines, they probably shared a drink or two and began to talk.  Reading between the lines, maybe the source was trying to impress the reporter.  Who can say?  The source told Scruggs that investigators were beginning to look at the security guard in a new light, as a possible suspect.

It did not help that Richard Jewell had a shady past.  An FBI background check learned Jewell had been arrested in 1990 for impersonating a police officer.  Jewell also had employment problems while serving as a deputy sheriff in Habersham County, Georgia.  In addition, Jewell made the mistake of admitting he hoped to parlay his hero status into a full-time job somewhere.  In retrospect, who could blame Jewell for telling what he was hoping for.  But to suspicious minds, this sounded like Jewell had done something desperate in order to land a better job.

So many people in law enforcement were talking about this guy that Scruggs got to the point where she just could not contain herself anymore.  If someone else scooped her on this story, her life would never be the same.  With her instincts screaming that this guy was guilty, she persuaded herself to print a story.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed that the FBI was treating Jewell as a possible suspect EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Jewell fit the profile. GUILTY!!  Unbelievable.  They even had a name for it.

Next thing you know, the experts were explaining that Jewell had 'Hero's Syndrome'.  National TV conducted an interview with an expert on "Hero's syndrome," discussing the way a person might try anything, even a staged act of heroism, to draw attention to himself.

Jewell was lambasted based largely on the "lone bomber" criminal profile. For the next several weeks, the news media focused aggressively on Jewell as the presumed culprit, labeling him with the ambiguous term "person of interest".  One reporter after another sifted through his life to find stories to match the leaked "lone bomber" profile that the FBI had used.   The media portrayed Jewell as a failed law enforcement officer who may have planted the bomb so he could "find it" and become a hero.

Everyone jumped on this guy.  They even made jokes about how pathetic he was.  In a reference to the deadly Unabomber, Jay Leno called Jewell the "Una-doofus".  Other public references included "Una-Bubba". 

Tom Brokaw of NBC said on air: "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well.  There are still some holes in this case".

Oh really, Tom?  A few holes in the case?  So why not keep your mouth shut?

Jewell was never officially charged, but the FBI thoroughly searched his home twice.  They questioned his associates, investigated his background, and maintained 24-hour surveillance of him.  The pressure only began to ease after Jewell's attorneys hired an ex-FBI agent to administer a polygraph which Jewell reportedly passed. 

Now get this... no one ever said they were sorry for what they had done to this man.  Whoever started the rumor was never punished to my knowledge.

As we now know, a man by the man of Eric Rudolph was the true criminal.  But that didn't matter to many people.  All they could remember was that Jewell was the Unabubba idiot who tried to be a hero at the Olympic games.

Six years later in 2002, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes interviewed Jewell.  Jewell said that in all these years, nobody had apologized to him, not the City of Atlanta, not the State of Georgia, not the local, national or international Olympic committees.

"For 88 days I lived a nightmare," Jewell said later. "For 88 days my mother lived a nightmare.  In a rush to show the world how quickly it could get its man, the FBI trampled my rights as a citizen.  In its rush for the headline, the media cared nothing for my feelings as a human being.  I felt numb, sick. I was in shock and felt helpless . . . I felt like a hunted animal, followed constantly, waiting to be killed.  My reputation was ruined.  People who knew nothing publicly said I was guilty and got away with it."

Jewell never quite recovered from the public humiliation.  He died ten years after the agony the media put him through.   To this day, Jewell's case is considered a prime example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information.   But does that stop anybody?  No, of course not.

As one can see, I have considerable energy on the Richard Jewell story.  I deeply sympathize with this man.  There media gets it wrong a little too frequently for comfort.  Remember the Duke Lacrosse team story?  Remember the University of Virginia fraternity implicated in a Rolling Stone article for a rape that never took place?

On the other hand, it cannot be easy for a media person.  Most people forget that Woodward and Bernstein made a serious error on a front page Watergate story.  Their story said a witness had given testimony to a grand jury about White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman.

"This was one of the real dreary days of our reporting life. In fact, I don't think I've had one that bad, because it was just flat-wrong," Woodward says. "But we'd done so much reporting that we knew Haldeman was at the center of this, and Mark Felt [aka Deep Throat] later told us that it was a Haldeman operation, which all of the tapes and everything else have demonstrated."

"We had the story right, the substance of it. What we had wrong was the attribution.  It had never come before the grand jury," Bernstein says. "It was the substance that was really important — at the same time, we had not been diligent in nailing this down, this one aspect of it."

"You've got to remember that the stakes of this thing by now were so high that the president of the United States and his spokespeople almost every day were attacking The Washington Post for using innuendo and hearsay information," Bernstein says. "We had been assiduous and careful, and people were starting to really believe the stories we had written. And, boom, came this, and it looked like it could all be over."

In a way, the Media is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.  For example, I get the feeling the Weinstein story was on the verge of breaking several times, but the Media backed off, preferring to err on the side of caution.  I get a similar feeling that the story about sexual predators in the Catholic Church could have broken earlier than it did, but again the Media did not have enough evidence to feel safe in breaking such an alarming story.  If one thinks Harvey Weinstein is powerful, then think how powerful the Catholic Church is.

I suppose this is another reason the Monsters take so long to catch.  During this #MeToo movement, the Big Fish drop soon after the Media breaks the story.  Once the cat is out of the bag, other silent victims step forward and now the Monster is running for his life.  However, the bigger the fish, the more careful the Media has to be.  The media types don't think twice about dragging a nobody like Richard Jewell over the coals, but the Big Fish have the power to fight back. 

All it takes is one bad mistake and the cost could amount to an extinction-level event.  For example, the Gawker story about Hulk Hogan put that Internet web site out of business.  All it takes is one mistake with the wrong guy and everyone else gets nervous about taking on the biggest, most litigious bullies on the block, guys like Weinstein. 

Speaking of Weinstein, a well-known Harvey Weinstein trick is to use the media to assassinate the character of his enemies.  Earlier I wrote what Weinstein did to Ambra Battilana by revealing her Italian sex scandal.   However, I have an even better example of how the media lets itself be used by the Bad Guys. 

How many of you have heard of Jeff Wigand?   Jeff Wigand was a whistleblower who paid a bitter high price for his courage.

•  He lost his $300,000 a year job.

•  He lost his severance package.

•  He lost his medical benefits despite having a very sick daughter

•  He was forced to use savings to cover his daughter's expenses.

•  He lost his wife who left him over the incident.

•  He lost his children.

•  He lost his home.

•  He had his reputation assaulted.

His former employer tried desperately to discredit his credibility.

His former employer paid hacks to develop a 500-page smear document based on flimsy half-truths, then spread it to every major media outlet in the country including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Wigand was labeled a malcontent, a shoplifter, a lousy father, and a wife beater in front of the entire country.  As we know, these kind of impressions stick because rarely does the victim have a way to fight back.

•  Wigand endured death threats and shameful threats to harm his children.

•  Wigand faced a series of frightening law suits threats based on non-disclosures that could conceivably leave him penniless.

•  Wigand faced a real possibility of prison time involving his decision to speak out despite having signed a powerful confidentiality agreement.

•  Dr. Wigand, who had a PhD in biochemistry, was blackballed in the industry. 

He had a tremendous problem finding work.  Unable to find a corporate job in his field, he took a job at DuPont Manual High School, in Louisville, Kentucky.  Wigand taught Science and Japanese for $30,000 a year -- one-tenth of his former salary. 

Now we know why whistleblowers are few and far between.  However there was one interesting twist of irony.  Jeff Wigand was named 'teacher of the year' in Kentucky.   Not bad for a man labeled in national news as ' a malcontent, a shoplifter, a lousy father, and a wife beater'.

Have you guessed who Jeff Wigand is?   Jeff Wigand is the man responsible for bring the cigarette industry to its knees.  No one will know how many lives Wigand saved through his courage. 

If you would like to know more about him, I wrote a good story about the man a few years back.  He is a big hero to me.

Jeff Wigand.  You will need to scroll about halfway down the page to find his story, but it will be worth your time.  It is an amazing story.

So what does Jeff Wigand have to do with Harvey Minotaur?

Jeff Wigand had his name dragged through the mud by his former employer Brown and Williamson.  Harvey Minotaur does the same thing to his victims who speak up.  He spends countless dollars to people who dig up dirt on any woman brave enough to stand up to him in public. 

The Ambra Battilana story makes this clear.  Harvey Minotaur paid private investigators to dig up dirt on this woman to discredit her.  Then he paid gossip columnists to leak the negative stories he was able to dig up.  

Very few women have the power to fight back against a dirty tactic like this.  However, actress Ashley Judd was one of the few who had the resources to take on Weinstein and fight back.  Ashley Judd sued the disgraced film producer by claiming that her career withered because Weinstein spread lies about her in Hollywood after she rejected his sexual requests.  Behind her back, Judd had been labeled 'difficult' as retaliation for her refusal to acquiesce to this powerful man with all the cards.

Judd knew this would be a tough case to win.  You need proof, right?   It is rare for people to recover damages for smear campaigns.  It is complicated to prove the action took place and it is difficult to show how someone's smears directly harmed someone’s career.

But Judd had an ace up her sleeve.  She had a powerful buddy who agreed to come to her aid.  Peter Jackson, an Oscar winner for Lord of the Rings, is an A-list director who came forward to say that he removed her from his casting list “as a direct result” of what he now thought was “false information” provided by Mr. Weinstein.  Let's hear it for Peter Jackson!

According to the lawsuit, until Jackson came forward, Ms. Judd did not know that “something unseen was holding her back from obtaining the work she wanted, and had been doing so for decades.”

Peter Jackson originally wanted to cast Ms. Judd in a prominent role in his “Lord of the Rings” film series.  But Weinstein “torpedoed Ms. Judd’s incredible professional opportunity,” according to the complaint.  Weinstein had falsely told Jackson that Ms. Judd was a “nightmare who should be avoided at all costs.”

It is great to see Ashley Judd stand up to Weinstein, but other actresses have not been so fortunate.   Actress Rose McGowan said she was “blacklisted” because she had the nerve to tell people how she “got raped” by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein back in the 90s.  Unfortunately, unlike Ashley Judd, her only evidence amounted to hearsay. 

McGowan explained that she never reported the rape to the police because a criminal lawyer advised her that she was unlikely to win.  The lawyer also warned her she was likely to see her name publicly ruined by the Weinstein spin machine.  Unable to refrain from telling people what Weinstein had done to her, she spoke up anyway and paid a high price.  McGowan was a big star in the 90s, then disappeared from the planet.  Her fame was here today, gone tomorrow.  It is incredibly difficult to get justice when facing someone with so much money and power.
 

8. DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD IN COURT

I don't know about you, but I am sensitive to criticism, especially the untrue kind.  I cannot imagine finding the courage to allow myself to be subjected to the treatment some woman have to go through to achieve justice.

In order for women to legally fight a Weinstein or a Cosby, they have to allow themselves to be publicly crucified in court by nasty lawyers who beat the absolute crap out of them.   Their virtue and reputation are called into question by skillful interrogators who constantly use mean-spirited innuendo to provoke them and hurt their feelings.  Not only is their name is dragged through the mud, they cannot retaliate against their legal tormentors.   They have to just sit there and take it on the chin. 

There can be no doubt that anyone who speaks out against a powerful man like Weinstein or Bill Cosby can expect their name to be exposed to painful public scrutiny.  Bill Cosby's lawyers set the low bar standard in his recent trial. 

Lawyers Tom Mesereau and Kathleen Bliss told the jury that Cosby's sexual assault charges were based on "flimsy, silly, ridiculous evidence".  They argued that Cosby was falsely accused by a "pathological liar" scheming for a big payday.  They added that poor Mr. Cosby was the victim of an elaborate frame-up.

They claimed that chief accuser Andrea Constand consented to a sexual encounter at Cosby's home in suburban Philadelphia, then leveled false accusations against the "Cosby Show" star so she could sue him and extract a big settlement.

"Members of the jury, you are dealing with a pathological liar," said Cosby lawyer Tom Mesereau. 

Constand, 45, alleged that Cosby knocked her out with three pills he called "your friends" and molested her in January 2004.  Her account was bolstered by the testimony of five other women who took the stand and said Cosby had done the same thing to them, first drugging them, then assaulting them.  One woman spoke directly to Cosby through tears, "You remember, don't you, Mr. Cosby?"

For their courage to speak up, each woman had to pay a heavy price.  Each woman was forced to face the same kind of withering criticism as the defense ripped into them.  Each woman was accused of being motivated by the prospect of money and fame in return for coming forward with fabricated accounts.

The defense produced a star witness to stick up for Cosby.  Their star witness was Marguerite 'Margo' Jackson, a former Temple University colleague of Andrea Constand who testified that Constand spoke of framing a high-profile person for the purpose of filing a lawsuit. 

Constand had received $3.4 million from Cosby over a decade ago.   Lawyer Mesereau argued that this settlement was only made in order to buy some peace and quiet for Cosby.  He added that paying this amount was not an admission of guilt on Cosby's part.   Mesereau argued the $3.4 million was "one of the biggest highway robberies of all time.  Mr. Cosby thought he was paying for peace, but he certainly didn't get it, did he?"

After Marguerite Jackson's testimony, Bliss and Mesereau conducted an aggressive effort to stoke doubts about Constand's credibility.  They highlighted more than a dozen inconsistencies in what Constand had said over the years.

Mesereau, best known for winning an acquittal in Michael Jackson's 2005 child-molestation case, showed jurors a list of what he said were Constand's "biggest lies" and displayed excerpts from her police statements and testimony to help back up his claims.

Bliss argued that Cosby, once revered as America's Dad, was an innocent man caught up in the current witch hunt of the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct.  Innocent people had died during the Salem Witch Trials.  Now history was being repeated.  Like the Salem Witch Trials, innocent men such as Cosby were being condemned by the unruly mob

Following the guilty verdict in the Cosby trial, no doubt Andrea Costand felt vindicated.   But the vicious attacks on her character must have hurt like hell. 

The cross-examinations in the Cosby trial were described as brutal, no-holds barred attacks on virtually anyone who took the witness stand.  Anyone who stands up to a monster like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein can expect to be treated like vermin. 

I contend that lawyers like Bliss and Mesereau are a major reason most people don't want to fight a powerful man like Bill Cosby.   People like Weinstein and Cosby have the money to pay a hatchet man countless dollars to assault the character of each and every witness.   Who is willing to go through that?

How many people have the courage to withstand outrageous public accusations?   How would you feel having your name linked to the phrase 'pathological liar' in news shows, newspapers, and media outlets around the country?

Very few people have those kind of guts, especially since we know there are certain members of the media who will print or speak all kinds of lies.   As we can see, in this day of Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, a 'Good Reputation' is an endangered species.  Anybody who wants to spread a public lie can do so with impunity.   It is effortless to besmirch the character of another and rarely does the victim have a way to clear their name.  It seems like whoever hits first has a huge advantage. 

I contend that powerful men get away with terrible things because they have the money to buy people and they have friends in high places who will say or do whatever is necessary to protect their bad boy.   Especially in areas such as sexual abuse where there is little proof beyond one's words, who is more likely to get justice... the nobody or the one who controls the media outlets?

In this day and age, it is so difficult to know who to trust.  It is for this reason that I have learned a valuable lesson:  Consider the source!   When someone says something, ask yourself who stands to gain what and why.  Furthermore, consider the track record of the source.   What is their hidden agenda?  Who will benefit the most if people believe what they are saying?  Who has the best track record for telling the truth in the past? 

I have written this article as a way to explain why I believe 'Open Secrets' are allowed to continue unchallenged for years, maybe even decades.  Who has the guts and financial resources to take on the big fish?  In the end, it always seems like the bullies can use their deep pockets to intimidate the small fry.

Anyone who decides to take on a powerful person is asking for the toughest fight of their life, especially in this litigious society where it costs so much money just to defend oneself.  After everyone else goes broke paying lawyer fees, the meek will be the only ones left with any money.  The meek and the lawyers will inherit the earth.  That's not funny, is it?  But it just might be true.

I hate bullies and I hate exploiters.  I think we all do.  But it sure is hard to knock them down.  Evil flourishes because it is so difficult for decent people to stand up to it.  Martin Niemöller is remembered for his quotation about Hitler:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.