Advanced search

To be horrified by the Geoffrey Rush ruling?

(26 Posts)
profumoaffair Thu 11-Apr-19 06:18:02

Is anyone else following this? I think it's obscene. Someone on Twitter called the judges conclusions 'a masterclass in gaslighting' and that sums it up pretty perfectly.

HBStowe Thu 11-Apr-19 06:29:49

I feel so sorry for Norville. She never wanted her allegations made public and didn’t want to testify, but obviously felt she had to once the defamation proceedings were raised. Neither party was anywhere near being on the side of the victim in this whole situation.

WatershedMoment Thu 11-Apr-19 06:51:14

Yael Stone alleges Geoffrey Rush acted inappropriately towards her in dressing room, a claim he denies

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 06:59:06

Eryn Norville has my complete sympathy, she has been fucked over by all parties. Including the court, which makes me furious.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 07:04:38

Sorry, Norvill not sure where the rogue E came from.

isabellerossignol Thu 11-Apr-19 07:05:10

The judge says he was an impressive witness. Well, he's an Oscar winning actor, so his impressiveness should really not be playing a part here, should it? It's not really fair comparing the demeanor of someone like that against the ordinary person in the street.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 07:14:07

It is just fucking typical.

JanesKettle Thu 11-Apr-19 07:38:43

I was expecting this ruling.

This is despite hearing multiple allegations regarding behaviour similar to that alleged by EJ, some of which I heard about at the time of the Lear production.

I've also heard that the theatre company involved was alleged to have covered up a sexual harrassment scandal, with the alleged victim paid to leave the show.

I believe E.J. I never in a million years thought the court would weigh her evidence fairly against GR's 'great man' reputation.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 07:47:53

Agree, it was expected.

The infuriating thing is that people will think that this means that EJ was lying.

This ruling means nothing of the sort, it only means that the Daily Telegraph have not been able to prove the truth of their allegations.

In my honest opinion EJ was not lying, she was assaulted and she is the goddamn victim here. As always the woman gets screwed and the rich white men are the ones doing the screwing.

For fucks sake. Fuck Rush and Fuck the Daily Telegraph.

I am a bit cross about this.

JanesKettle Thu 11-Apr-19 07:51:10

I heard directly from someone at a photo shoot for Lear that they were incredibly uncomfortable with the amount of sleaze directed at the 'daughters' by GR.

JanesKettle Thu 11-Apr-19 07:52:04

The behaviour hasn't been hidden; it's just called 'artistic expression.'

Acis Thu 11-Apr-19 12:47:02

Unless anyone on this thread was in court and saw and heard the witnesses, I really don't see how they can possibly claim to know better than the judge.

Chloemol Thu 11-Apr-19 16:38:46

Why is it automatically assumed she is telling the truth? There was a trail, evidence was produced. It’s like all the other posts on here about similar episodes, we are not there, we are not party to both sides of the story, a judge and jury make that decision as they hear the evidence

profumoaffair Thu 11-Apr-19 20:32:39

The text messages he sent her were pretty conclusive. She had nothing to gain from lying.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 20:55:14

Again. This has not been properly investigated. It was left to the Daily Telegraph to prove. It will now never be properly investigated.

Rush has not been found "not guilty". The Daily Telegraph have not been able to assert the truth of their story. These are very different things.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 20:55:49

*She had nothing to gain from lying.

IAmNotAWitch Thu 11-Apr-19 21:01:37

Sorry, that should have said:

She had nothing to gain from lying. and everything to lose, like all women assaulted and humiliated by those in positions of power.

I remember the skin crawling fear when I was younger and some creep was pulling this shit. Women are smart you know, we know that saying anything will end badly for us. So we don't. EJ didn't, she told a trusted friend. And look where that got her. Dragged over the coals, degraded by a Judge in front of international media.

What happens to Rush? Well he is clearly a victim, poor thing and will receive milllions for his hurt.

Just fucking typical.

profumoaffair Thu 11-Apr-19 21:12:09

This describes something of what she went through. I absolutely believe her.

WatershedMoment Thu 11-Apr-19 22:25:28

"This describes something of what she went through. I absolutely believe her.".

This is subscriber only link. You can't read it.

profumoaffair Fri 12-Apr-19 02:26:31

When Sydney Theatre Company manager Annelies Crowe found actor Eryn Jean Norvill in distress at a party, she "assumed" that Oscar winner Geoffrey Rush was the reason, "knowing Geoffrey's reputation".
A memo released as part of the Federal Court file on Mr Rush's defamation claim against The Daily Telegraph details concerns raised by Ms Norvill, who acted with Mr Rush in a 2015-16 production of King Lear.
It was written by Ms Crowe, then Sydney Theatre Company's casting manager, who noticed Ms Norvill was distressed at a closing-night party and followed up her concerns with a meeting in April 2016.
It was addressed to STC executive director Patrick McIntyre and started: "The matter involves Eryn Jean Norvill and Geoffrey Rush. EJ asked me to meet her yesterday where she revealed that she was sexually harassed on multiple occasions by Geoffrey Rush during rehearsals and the season of King Lear."
It says that at a party after King Lear ended, she noticed Ms Norvill was upset.
Ms Crowe asked Ms Norvill "if she wanted to talk, and she said not tonight but soon".
"Knowing Geoffrey's reputation I'm afraid I'd assumed he may have been the cause but didn't want to push her at the time," Ms Crowe wrote.
Mr Rush is suing News Corp, publisher of Sydney's The Daily Telegraph, over a poster and two articles in late 2017 that said the Sydney Theatre Company had received a complaint accusing him of "inappropriate behaviour" towards a cast member, who was later identified as Ms Norvill.
Mr Rush says the articles accused him of being a "pervert, a sexual predator and of inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature".
Ms Norvill testified on Wednesday that she told Ms Crowe at the party that she was "not doing okay".
"I had had a bad time with Geoffrey and I think I need some mental health support," Ms Norvill said she told Ms Crowe.
She denied telling Ms Crowe that Mr Rush followed her into a toilet at the party, but said he was "behind her at one stage".
Mr McClintock asked if an email from Ms Crowe to STC management – sent after she met Ms Norvill in April – suggested she "told him to f--k off".
No. I can't remember what I said, but I do remember yelling."
'Tried a few different strategies'
The email says: "At this point EJ broke down, fell to the floor, told him to leave, he said nothing and left. This was the first time she saw some recognition in his face that he realised he had crossed a line."
It says Ms Norvill tried "a few different strategies in the beginning, laughing it off, ignoring him, and trying to dissuade him".
"Once she felt uncomfortable, she directly said to him that his behaviour and comments were making her feel uncomfortable and she would like him to stop, which he didn't.
"As they went into the theatre, things progressively got worse to where she felt quite afraid when she was backstage. Other members of the cast would have seen him touching her back stage, but didn't do anything.
"At it's worse, when he had to carry her on as a dead body, he would grope her as he picked her up, and when she was lying on the stage 'dead', he would grope her with the hand that was upstage of the audience."
Mr McClintock bristled at Ms Norvill: "You told Ms Crowe a whole pack of disgusting lies about my client. Do you agree with that or not?
Ms Norvill: "No, I don't."
The trial continues.

araiwa Fri 12-Apr-19 03:40:29

*She had nothing to gain from lying


I have no idea what happened either way but its not inconceivable that someone could lie for money and fame

PotatoScallop Fri 12-Apr-19 03:56:13

But she wasn't being paid by the Tele. She didn't leak the story to them. Eryn didn't want Rush to know about her complaints and she didn't want the media involved either. She truly had nothing to gain and she also had fuck all to do with it coming to light. There was no $$$$ in it for her and she'll struggle to work again after this shit verdict.

Eryn didn't consent to be sexually harassed at work. Eryn didn't consent to media coverage of the harrassment. No one respected wishes her in this case.

I believe Eryn.

IAmNotAWitch Fri 12-Apr-19 04:02:33

araiwa what $$$$?

isabellerossignol Fri 12-Apr-19 04:09:35

I have no idea what happened either way but its not inconceivable that someone could lie for money and fame

That would really only make sense if victims of sexual assault were not viewed as being troublemakers. I have never ever seen a woman's career flourish as a result of speaking out about sexual assault, quite the opposite. She is viewed as manipulative/devious/unstable/greedy/dishonest/unable to take a joke (delete as appropriate) even in cases where the assault has gone to court and the man has been convicted.

trixiebelden77 Fri 12-Apr-19 05:09:07

She didn’t sue him. She didn’t seek money from him or anybody else. Her private concern was made by public by others.

What ‘$$$$’ do you think you’re referring to?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »