| In Trial of
Kevin Spacey Jury Found Him Not Liable of
Sexual Misconduct Now Loftus Ruling
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Stand-up
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
-
Video
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 26 – Anthony Rapp's
lawsuit against Kevin Spacey
was removed to Federal court
in November 2020, and an
anonymous co-plaintiff C.D.
was added.
Then
C.D. was
removed and,
on October 20,
the jury ruled
against Rapp,
thread here
and below.
Spacey wanted to
make C.D.'s name public, to
order to conduct discovery, he
says. C.D.'s lawyers
opposed it, letter on Patreon
here.
On May 26, 2022
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held a
hearing, with Spacey
testifying, on Rapp's motion
to remand the case. Judge
Kaplan at the end said it is
his present intention to deny
the motion to remand, and that
the trial will start in
October. Inner City Press
attended then tweeted here.
[Then video
here]
On October
6, 2022, the
trail began. On the
way in video I,
II; afterward
Space
and Vlog.
Here's
the live tweeted thread
by Inner City
Press of the openings,
here
On
October 7, Day
2, with
a stated
victim of the
Public Theater
of Joe Papp, a
Rapp friend
who was told,
and the
beginning
(direct) of Rapp
himself. Thread here.
On
October 11,
Day 3, Rapp
was on the
stand all day,
first on
direct, then
under cross
examination,
thread here.
On
October 12,
Day 4, Rapp
was cross
examined to
the end - then
under Rule
412, a
courtroom
closure.
Thread here.
October
13 began
with the news
that Spacey's
lawyer
Jennifer
Keller tested
positive for
COVID. It
seemed the
trial would be
postponed -
but, with
instructions
for testing
Sunday and
Tuesday, it
proceeded,
with Rapp's
expert Roccio.
Thread here.
On October
17, Kevin
Spacey took
the witness
stand and said
his father
was a neo-Nazi
and white supremacist
- Inner City
Press was
there, thread
here.
In the
afternoon,
Spacey
explained (away?)
his apology, and
minimized
his link(s)
with Jeffrey Epstein,
thread here.
On October
18, after
cross of
Spacey, his
expert Dr.
Bardey -
instead of the
expert he
first paid,
Dr. Loftus
of Ghislaine
Maxwell trial
fame, who
apparently
didn't say
what Spacey wanted
and so wasn't
called as a witness.
Thread here.
On October
19, evidence
in the case ended
with re-re-direct
and -cross of
Spacey's
expert Dr.
Bardey. Thread
here.
On October 20, the closing arguments, Inner
City Press live tweeted them, thread here:
OK -
now Rapp v. Kevin Spacey closings
arguments, with Rapp's lawyer going
first.
Rapp's lawyer: We heard of [Spacey's
lawyer] Ms. Keller that facts are
stubborn things. And they are. So let's
consider them. There is no evidence that
Anthony was envious of John Barrowman,
and Mr. Spacey's sexual interest in him.
Rapp's lawyer: Nothing in this record
shows that Mr. Rapp at 14 had sexual
feelings for Mr. Barrowman. They used
this in their opening because they
needed to prove it to win. And they
didn't prove it. We'll talk about that
night. But Ms. Keller overstated
Rapp's lawyer: We heard from
Andrew Holtzman, that Spacey came into
his office with a noticeable erection
and attacked me. That's what happened
that day. Do you think if there was dirt
on Holtzman they wouldn't have brought
it out?
Rapp's lawyer: Let's talk about 1986 and
the night that brings us here.
Kevin Spacey laughed and cried and did a
Jack Lemmon interpretation. But there's
an awful lot of things that Kevin Spacey
does not remember. What did he say after
Anthony Rapp came forward?
Rapp's lawyer: Mr. Spacey in his own
email said he was heavily involved in
drugs and alcohol. He said, I was
drinking heavily and doing drugs. But
now he says, the play was so demanding
he didn't do either.
Rapp's lawyer: Outside the presence of
this lawsuit, he admits to drugs and
alcohol. Now he sees it doesn't look
good and changes it. It lack
credibility. It's no honest. It taints
everything.
Rapp's lawyer: Even months after Mr.
Rapp came forward, Mr. Spacey is writing
to his buddy that he doesn't remember.
Either he's lying to his friend, or he
truly has no memory. But they he claims
it all came back to him when he saw the
article. It's not honest.
Rapp's lawyer: They go and depose John
Barrowman. He too says Spacey took them
out to dinner then to the Limelight. It
was a forerunner to Studio 54, a disco
in a church with lights and music and
Page Six. He takes a 14 year old
to a hot club.
Rapp's lawyer: How is it appropriate to
make a pass at a 19 year old when a 14
year old is in the bathroom? That's
their defense. And why can Anthony
sketch the apartment so well? Even if
there's no door, does it mean he is
lying? Is that what comes up for you?
Rapp's lawyer: And after Spacey
picks him up like a groom does and bride
and Anthony escapes to the bathroom,
when he comes out Spacey doesn't say
he's joking, he asks, Don't you want to
stay? This was trauma. But they say he
just wants to bring Spacey down.
Rapp's lawyer: If this were only about
bringing Mr. Spacey down, couldn't he
have come up with a better story? More
with the hands? They said Dr Rocchio is
a paid expert. She testified two days
without notes. Dr Bardey charges more,
$500 an hour versus $450
Rapp's lawyer: If you call a man a
liar, you've got to give him a motive.
Professional jealousy, at a time that
Anthony is at the height of his career.
Now it's homosexual rage. But Anthony
said coming out was everyone's decision.
Rapp's lawyer: It doesn't matter where
the story was published. Anthony came
forward out of guilt, frankly, that he
hadn't come forward before. He didn't
tell his mother until the day she died.
Rapp's lawyer: Anthony has done this to
hold Kevin Spacey accountable. Now
they're saying that a person who was
abuse has to avoid seeing the abuser,
even on TV, or they're negligent.
Spacey's lawyer Jennifer Keller:
Objection! We never argued that. Rapp's
lawyer: I'll have a chance to speak to
you again, after Ms. Keller and her
excellent oratory skills. This happened.
He has shared it with you. Thank you.
Judge Kaplan: We'll take a break. You
will be given menus.
Now before she starts her closing
argument, Jennifer Keller is hunched
over with Spacey, planning what to say,
how to respond to Rapp's closing? Drum
roll.
Not hot mic moment for savvy Spacey: he
pushes the defense table microphone to
the side, and whispers in Keller's ear,
like a baseball manager to a pitcher.
Jury entering! Spacey's lawyer
Jennifer Keller: I want to thank you
jurors, on behalf of Mr Spacey, for
paying such close attention. I never
talked about homosexual rage, never said
Anthony Rapp was in love with Mr
Barrowman. I called him the Big Cheese
in Joliet.
Keller: We are here because Mr. Rapp has
falsely accused Mr. Spacey, of an
incident that never occurred, in a room
that does not exist. I am not going to
call him Anthony. He is 51 years old. He
is not a child.
Keller: Mr. Rapp tried to hitch his
wagon to the #MeToo movement - which was
necessary, women were not believed. But
Mr. Rapp's story is dependent on their
being a wall, and a bedroom. And neither
existed. And his story, it seems it
comes from Precious Sons
Keller: This was a party story
that Mr. Rapp kept telling. But he can't
ID a single witness from the party,
can't describe them. There was no party.
Mr. Rapp's book is in evidence, as
Exhibit Triple B. He wrote he was
annoyed at his mother following him.
Keller: The book is a confessional. It
says it is about Rent but it is not. It
is about babyhood, and his boyfriend
trying to leave him - except, the Kevin
Spacey story is not there. And it's from
2006. It is not the work of a private
person, let's put it that way
Keller: Yes, I asked Mr. Rapp is,
being on Star Trek, he moved from the
bathroom to the room via a
Transporter. Yes we deposed Mr.
Rapp first. Because, on the studio, we
needed to lock him down so he couldn't,
pardon me, wriggle out
Keller: This turns out to be one of the
shortest parties in history. Was it a
half hour party? This only make sense is
no one is every going to ask you about
the details. The devil is in the
details. This party never happened.
Keller: Who does he tell about it?
He tells his brother. [Note: Kevin
Spacey's brother Randy Fowler may be
been nearly entirely absent from this
trial, but will not be from forthcoming
booklet soon here.]
Later, he tries to get The Advocate to
publish a story in 2001 after Mr. Spacey
gets an Oscar for American Beauty. It's
strange - if Mr. Rapp was a gay
activist, you wouldn't think he's want
to out and claim a child molester
Keller: Do you remember Brian
Williams? Highly respected news man who
lied about being in a helicopter gunship
that was hit. He was exposed. President
Reagan told a story how as an army
photographer saw the Nazi death camp -
never happened, never left the US.
Keller: No one saying Anthony was in a
homosexual rage which is, I might say,
an offensive phrase. But Mr. Rapp got a
lot of attention from it. He got an "Out
and Equal" champion award - and told a
false story, about being inspired by the
#MeToo NYT op-ed
Keller: Imagine it were 2052 and
someone accused you- Rapp's lawyer: I
have to object. Judge: Sustained.
Keller: A person is accused. How do you
defend yourself? A bad person says, This
person is a liar. But this is Me Too
time. Mr Spacey is told he must
apologize
Keller: Mr. Spacey gives Mr. Rapp the
benefit of the doubt and issues a
non-apology apology. He insists on "if."
And in Feb 2018 Mr. Spacey writes, It's
like hearing about a person I do not
know. He muses it might have been later,
when he was 19
Keller: If I've offended people, the way
I cross examined Mr. Rapp, I'm sorry.
But it's a necessary part of getting to
the truth. It's fair to say that
Precious Sons was the big moment in Mr.
Rapp's life. It got some reviews but no
one went to see it.
Keller: If it bad judgment by a 26
year old to take a 19 year old and a 14
year old to the Limelight. I'm 69 but
even I know clubs are not jumping at
7:30 pm. That's the time to take kids to
a club. Is it evil? I like it was nice,
actually.
Keller: Mr. Spacey because a global
star. Mr. Rapp? Stardom did not follow
him. It's hard to make a living as a
working actor. Him saying there's no
envy is like me saying I don't even Ruth
Bader Ginsburg. It's not credible
Keller: You can Google him
anywhere in the world -- Judge Kaplan:
No you can't. There's no evidence in
this trial about Google. Go on.
Keller: Mr. Rapp is well known now for
taking down one of the greatest actors
of his generation.
Keller: Dr Rocchio didn't talk about the
baseline. So, Dr Bardey, of course we
had to retain someone. He didn't go to
Maine. We went down the street, to a NYU
professor, who works at Bellevue. He
can't say, but I'm going to say, that
Mr. Rapp was faking it. Keller: Dr
Bardey says he show narcissism. What is
that?
[From the creative commons: 'Narcissism'
comes from Ovid's Metamorphoses...When
Narcissus rejects the nymph Echo the
gods punish him, making him fall in love
with his own reflection in a pool of
water.
Keller: Our star witness is the floor
plan of the small studio apartment. Mr.
Rapp has given an impossible
story. So I urge you, reject any
compromise verdict, awarding $1 of
damages. It. Didn't. Happen. 1 penny is
too much.
Keller: The first question on the
verdict form is, Did Mr. Rapp prove by a
preponderance of the evidence - he did
not. Vote no. Judge Kaplan: In ten
minutes, the rebuttal and my charge.
[And then? This thread will continue]
We're back, with Rapp's rebuttal
and then jury charge. Rapp's lawyer: The
proof has to come in the case, not in
argument. Mr. Barrowman never told
Anthony about what he said Mr. Spacey
did, until the late 90s... Let's put up
the verdict sheet. Judge Kaplan: No.
Rapp's lawyer: The first question on the
verdict form is, Did we prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr.
Spacey touched -- Judge Kaplan: If you
can't restrain yourself, you'll have to
sit down. Rapp's lawyer: We have proved
it by a preponderance.
Rapp's lawyer: Why are you getting
on top of a child on a bed? There's a
question, Did he do it to gratify Mr.
Rapp's sexual desire? Keller: Objection!
Beyond the scope! Judge: I'll allow it.
Rapp's lawyer: Your award for the
past should reflect all the ways it has
impacted Anthony in the past. And as to
the future, Dr. Rocchio says it
continues. Don't let him get it
away this time.
Judge Kaplan: Counsel's personal wishes
are not to be considered.
Judge Kaplan: My instructions are going
to be in 4 parts. It's going to be
the shortest jury charge I've given in
28 years. 38 minutes later, instructions
winding up.
Judge Kaplan: The exhibit will be sent
in. Ladies and gentlemen, you may retire
to deliberate. Keller says she is
disappointed that Rapp's lawyer said, "I
hope you don't let him away with it this
time," which clearly implies there are
other times. This was premeditated.
There should be some kind of sanction.
Judge Kaplan: I'm not going to do
anything now.
Judge Kaplan: If there is a defense
verdict, it's a matter of professional
conduct, if anything. If there's a
plaintiff's verdict, it could be a
matter for motion practice. Just like
Mr. Rapp's answer about why did you
bring this case. That's where we are.
OK - it's 4:02 pm and the plaintiff's
team has reassembled at their table in
the courtroom. The jury has reached a
verdict - and it's hard to imagine it's
for Rapp, if it's this fast.
Note: if the jurors answered Yes to
Question 1, they'd have to go to
Question 6. If they answered Yes to
Question 2, they've have to go to
Questions 3, 4 & 5. But if two No's,
they just send a note back: we have a
verdict. Now Spacey at defense table.
Drum roll.
Judge Kaplan: I'm advised that we have a
verdict. Please bring in the jury.
Judge Kaplan: Clerk will publish the
verdict. Question to jury. Answer:
No.
Judge Kaplan: Is there a motion to
dismiss the case?
Yes.
Dismissed.
Six days later, in the docket on Doctor
Loftus: "MEMORANDUM ORDER: This case,
familiarity with which is assumed, was
tried to a jury which returned a special
verdict to the effect that plaintiff had
failed to prove that the defendant
touched one or more of plaintiffs sexual
or intimate parts. Plaintiff thus failed
to prove a fact that was a sine qua non
to the timeliness of plaintiffs action,
and the case therefore was dismissed.
During the course of the trial, the
Court made two evidentiary rulings upon
which it reserved the ability to
elaborate at a later time. This
memorandum states the bases for those
two rulings. And as set forth herein.
Neither would it have been appropriate
to give a proposed charge explaining
that the "defendant has not offered any
explanation for not calling Dr. Loftus."
See Request to Charge No.15 [Dkt 239].
As defendant noted in pre-trial
briefing, plaintiff's request to charge
was, in essence, an attempt to penalize
Mr. Spacey for not wasting the jury's
time with a witness whose opinion
plainly was not material and whose
deposition plaintiff was free to offer
if he genuinely believed it relevant. In
this case, the only discernible effect
of adding the missing witness charge
would have been to confuse the issues."
Video
outside of
court here
(Oct 18, Loftus Q)
and
here
(Oct 17,
Epstein plane
Q).
Watch
this site.
Back on
September 17,
Spacey through
counsel filed
a letter
seeking to limit
the
anticipated
testimony of
Dr. Lisa M. Roccio - who
also testified for
the
prosecution in
US v. Ghislaine
Maxwell:
"Defendant
Kevin Spacey
Fowler (“Mr.
Fowler”) will
and hereby
does move this
Court, before
the United
States
District Judge
Lewis A.
Kaplan, in the
United States
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York,
located in the
Federal
Courthouse,
500 Pearl
Street, New
York, NY
10007, on
October 6,
2022, or a
date to be set
by the Court,
for an order
in limine to
preclude
plaintiff
Anthony Rapp
from offering
expert
testimony on
credibility
issues and
other improper
opinions of
his expert
witness, Lisa
Rocchio, Ph.D.
Under Federal
Rule of
Evidence
401-403,
701-702, and
other
applicable
law, Mr.
Fowler brings
this motion to
preclude Dr.
Rocchio from
testifying at
trial about
opinions or
information
that would
invade the
province of
the jury and
are otherwise
inappropriate
for expert
opinion. Dr.
Rocchio’s
report
includes
opinions and
conclusions
that purport
to opine on
the
credibility of
Plaintiff and
his
allegations,
as well as the
purported
corroboration
of other
evidence. This
is plainly
improper. Dr.
Rocchio also
provides
impermissible
expert
opinions
constituting
legal
conclusions
and a
narrative
description of
hearsay
statements of
which she has
no personal
knowledge.
Relatedly,
Plaintiff’s
counsel should
be precluded
from asking
questions of
Mr. Fowler’s
rebuttal
witness,
Alexander
Bardey, M.D.,
about
credibility
issues,
including
without
limitation
allegations of
unrelated
alleged
misconduct of
Mr. Fowler.
Dr. Bardey was
not designated
to opine about
credibility
issues or
anything to do
with a
psychological
evaluation of
Mr. Fowler.
Nor was Dr.
Rocchio. And
other
allegations of
sexual
misconduct are
entirely
irrelevant to
either
expert’s
opinion.
Finally, Mr.
Fowler seeks
an order
precluding Dr.
Rocchio from
testifying at
trial about
any opinions
not stated by
her in her
report or at
her
deposition."
Full letter
on Patreon here.
On
September 9,
in the run up
to the October
6 trial,
Spacey through
counsel
indicated he
wants to make
public Rapp's sexual
history. From
his filing:
"I write
to inform Your
Honor that Mr.
Fowler will be
filing a
motion in
limine that
bears on the
Court’s
consideration
of Plaintiff’s
objections to
transcript
designations
submitted on
September 8,
2022." Complete
filing on
Patreon here.
Back
on June 6, Judge Kaplan issued
two orders: one dismissing
Rapp's first cause of action
but not the rest of the
complaint, the second denying
his motion for remand (argued
below). The first order
recounts Rapp's allegation
that when he was 14, Spacey
put him back down on a bed,
"grazing" his buttocks. Order
on Patreon here.
On August 25,
this: "TRIAL ORDER: The Clerks
Office is scheduled to provide
the Court a jury panel for
this case on Thursday. October
6, 2022. On that day, the
parties must be present in
Courtroom 21B by 9:30 AM ready
to begin jury selection and
proceed immediately to trial.
You are instructed to take the
following steps in connection
with the trial as further set
forth in this Order.
( Jury Selection set for
10/6/2022 at 09:30 AM in
Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007
before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.)
(Signed by Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan on 8/25/22)."
As to jury
selection, Judge Kaplan on
September 7 ordered, "ORDER.
Consistent with the Rule, the
Court will examine prospective
jurors, as it does in all
cases, and will take the
parties' helpful joint
questionnaire into
consideration in formulating
its own examination. Upon
conclusion of the Court's
examination, it will afford
counsel adequate opportunity
to suggest additional
questions and ask any that the
Court considers proper. The
request to have prospective
jurors complete a written
questionnaire in writing is
denied. Among other reasons,
it agrees that "jurors tend[]
to understand written
questions differently from
those who draft[] the
questions, leading to
substantial difficulty in
parsing their responses."
United States v. Treacy, 639
F.3d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 2011). SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/7/22)."
Back on August 9,
Judge Kaplan ruled: "Fowler's
motion to compel is GRANTED to
the extent that it seeks (a)
production of Vary's pre-2017
communications with Rapp, 2021
communications with Darlow
Smithson Productions, and
documents regarding any
interactions between Vary and
Fowler and (b) a supplemental
deposition. Vary shall sit for
a supplemental deposition not
to exceed four hours and
answer, to the extent
consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion, all
questions he refused to answer
at his initial deposition and
all reasonable follow up
questions and questions about
or relating to the newly
produced documents and matters
disclosed therein. The
documents shall be produced no
later than August 15, 2022.
The supplemental deposition
shall take place on a date
mutually acceptable to Vary
and the parties, which shall
be on or before September 9,
2022."
Back on September
9, 2021, Judge Kaplan held a
proceeding about 60 new names,
and sealed affidavits. Inner
City Press live tweeted it here
and below.
On
October 4 Spacey asked to seal the UK High
Court's Order which, he says, orders him to
destroy material by October 7. Full letter on
Patreon here.
On
December 9 at 4:30 pm, six hours after the US v.
Ghislaine Maxwell trial was paused at
least for one day due to an ill prosecutor,
Judge Kaplan held another proceeding
in Rapp v. Spacey (or Fowler)
and Inner City Press
live tweeted it here,
podcast (including on
Maxwell and UN) here.
On December
10, Rapp's
lawyer
wrote to Judge
Kaplan and asked
that his forthcoming
protective order
including an order
prohibiting
disclosure of names
of those alleging
abuse by Spacey -
full letter on
Patreon here.
On
March 10, 2022 a
trial date was
set: "ORDER,
This case is set
for trial on
October 4, 2022
at 9:30 a.m.
subject to any
changes
warranted by
pandemic
circumstances."
On March
14, digging in
Miscellaneous
cases, Inner
City Press
came upon satellite
litigation
between Spacey
and Adam Vary,
who citing
the First Amendment
and shield
laws declined
to answer
questions at a
deposition.
Judge
Kaplan ordered
Vary to answer
the subpoena by
May 31. On May 23,
Vary's counsel
asked for
reconsideration
or a two week
stay in order
to appeal.
On May 27
Vary's counsel
filed another
letter,
including
"nearly all of
the materials
contain
unpublished
newsgathering
information
that we
maintain is
privileged and
shielded from
production,
but we
acknowledge
was not
provided
or
obtained
subject to
promises of
confidentiality.
However, there
are a handful
of source
names
and
information
that was
provided
pursuant to
promises of
confidentiality.
Our
understanding
is that the
confidential
sources
corroborate
Mr. Rapp’s
account, but
do not want to
have
their
information
exposed.
Although we
maintain that
both
non-confidential
and
confidential
unpublished
newsgathering
materials are
privileged and
shielded from
disclosure,
there
are
special
protections
and
considerations
for
confidential
source
materials."
Full letter
on Patreon here.
On June 7,
Judge Kaplan
offered this secord
clarification:
"ORDER denying
[23 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery;
denying [24 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery.
On May 19,
2022, this
Court ordered
that Mr. Vary
submit, under
seal, for in
camera review
various
materials that
he may be
withholding
from
production in
order to
inform its
analysis of
whether he has
satisfied his
burden of
showing that
the materials,
if indeed
there are any,
should be
produced to
the defendant.
On June I,
2022 it
granted in
part Mr.
Vary's request
for additional
time within
which to
comply. (The
May 19 and
June I orders
are referred
to
collectively
as the
"Orders.") Mr.
Vary now seeks
a stay of the
Orders insofar
as they (I)
require the
submission for
in camera
review of any
withheld
materials that
contain what
he calls
"confidential
source
information"
and (2)
supposedly
require such
submission of
"post-subpoena
attorney-client
communications."
Dkt. 23. The
proposed stay,
if granted,
would remain
in effect for
"14 days after
the later of
the following
events: (a)
the Court's
ruling on Mr.
Fowler's
motion for
summary
judgment; and
(b) the
Court's ruling
on Mr. Rapp's
renewed motion
to remand. Dkt
159, 172,
20-cv-09586."
Id. The
ostensible
justification
for this
relief is to
afford Mr.
Vary's counsel
additional
time to
"consider and
possibly seek
appellate
review of
those portions
of the Court's
Orders, and
then, if Mr.
Vary does seek
appellate
review, stay
[the Orders]
until the
outcome of
such review."
That
case is Fowler
v. Vary,
22-mc-63
(Kaplan)
Inner
City Press
will continue
to follow these
cases.
From back on Dec 9: now in
Rapp v. Kevin Spacey (for
rape of 14 year-old), a
proceeding in SDNY by
phone, in a case which
Inner City Press has been
reporting on and will, in
haitus from #MaxwellTrial
which has no call-in line,
live tweet:
Spacey, defending himself
from claim he raped Rapp,
wanted get discovery into
all of his past
relationships.
Spacey's lawyer: He's only
alleging that Mr Fowler
[that is, Kevin Spacey]
picked him up and dropped
him. It's essentially
child abuse, not sexual
assault.
On January
10, 2021 Spacey's lawyer wrote
to Judge Kaplan to preclude
Rapp from calling
Justin Dawes as a
witness,
including
portions
of his
December 28, 2021 deposition.
They argue
that Dawes
withheld
information, the name of
an "unnamed
friend."
On January 12,
Rapp's lawyers
filed a 5 page
letter
including that
"Mr. Dawes, he
agreed to
voluntarily,
without a
subpoena,
testify about
how Spacey
made an
inappropriate
sexual advance
on him when he
was a minor...
" at one point
his hand was
on my leg. You
know, I
thought it was
mildly
uncomfortable.
I did not, you
know, feel
threatened,
but I thought
it was a kind
of, you know,
probing of a
sexual nature
to see how
comfortable I
was with
that.'" Full
letter on
Patreon here.
Watch this
site. Inner
City Press will stay on it
- podcast
Watch this site.
From February 23:
Lawyers for Kevin Spacey are
arguing to strike testimony of
Doctor Seymour H. Block.
Spacey is being sued civilly
for sex abuse.
Judge
Kaplan: You are asking me to
make an important decision, in
a country that values public
trials as much as we do, in
the unique circumstance of a
person who sued and also went
to the press with it. In
advance.
Plaintiffs
lawyer: When my client gave
the interview before this
case. So there was no attempt
to influence the jury. In
fact, when my client spoke to
the press this case would have
been barred by the statute of
limitations.
Judge
Kaplan: But if disclosure
would harm him, why did he go
to the press? Plaintiff's
lawyer: They did not reveal
his name. Judge Kaplan: But he
couldn't know it would work.
The publication checked his
account with others. There was
a chance he would be ID-ed
Judge Kaplan:
What's that case you're
citing? Defense: Doe, 241 FRD
154, 159 (SDNY, 2006). And
another one by Justice
Brennan, about how public
trials bring in more
witnesses. CD made his
decision. We have our due
process rights. [He calls
Spacey "Mr. Fowler"]
Judge Kaplan: On
a proper showing, the
pleadings need not contain the
name of a party, no? Defense:
They have to meet the Doe
factors. And CD has not met
his burden. Plaintiff: Doe v.
Colgate, the plaintiff went to
the press and was still
anonymous.
Judge
Kaplan: I'm going to wait
until you make your expert
disclosure. Plaintiff's
lawyer: There is a person
beyond Mr Rapp who is aware of
this. And Mr Rapp is not
seeking to withhold his name.
Judge Kaplan: You
need to file the relevant
piece of the deposition.
The proceeding ends, just like
that.
From February 2:
Spacey's lawyer says it is
unfair for C.D. to proceeding
anonymously. "While it is true
we have C.D.'s name, only if
we make it public can others
come forward with evidence
about him... this is the right
to due process."
C.D.'s lawyer:
The sealed plaintiff versus
sealed defendant factors weigh
in our favor. We are talking
about the rape of a minor. The
declaration by his therapist
shows he would suffer harm if
his name is made public.
Judge: If
it happened it's abhorrent.
But I don't have to be
reminded of what Mr Spacey is
accused of in every sentence.
CD's lawyer: Spacey said, as
to Rapp, that if it happened
he was sorry. But here he is
denying it entirely.
Judge: You're not
getting anywhere.
Judge Kaplan: Get
me your papers, and you'll get
a decision promptly. Until
then, don't disclose the name
to third parties - except to
Mr. Rapp, subject to sealing.
Spacey's lawyer:
Every day is lost time.
So Rapp's
deposition will go forward,
with C.D.'s real name said at
it but reported in the
transcript as C.D..
Inner City Press will continue
to report on this case. More
on Patreon here.
The case is
Rapp et al v. Fowler,
20-cv-9586 (Kaplan)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
