If we want justice for Harvey Weinstein's victims, we need to presume innocence until he's proven guilty

In the flurry of constant developments surrounding this case, we seem to have forgotten that in the eyes of the law he is still innocent

Presuming his guilt could impact a prosecution’s chances at trial and discourage women from reporting sexual assaults (AFP)

Allegedly: a word you’ll often see and hear in the media when they report on crimes. Alleged crimes.

“Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein allegedly raped and sexually assaulted...” looks wishy-washy, clunky and clumsy in headlines. But that careful insertion of the word before the verb is more than just three-syllable guarantor against a lawsuit: it leaves room for the alleged perpetrator to defend themselves – and for the prosecution to mount a case against them.

It’s a word that’s been missing from a lot of the news – and discussion – about Harvey Weinstein. Celebrities are lining up to condemn him; commentators are baying for blood; comedians are using him as a punchline.

So much noise, it seems, that the assumption of guilt now goes beyond discourse and has taken on an institutional element. He has just been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences board: only the second expulsion in its 90-year history, after actor Carmine Caridi shared unauthorised copies of a movie, violating the body’s rules.

The reasoning for Weinstein’s removal? “To send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behaviour and workplace harassment in our industry is over.”

Actually, the message received is: he’s guilty. He’s a rapist and a sexual offender, they imply.

I confess this is making me extremely uncomfortable.

Not half as uncomfortable, mind you, as listening to the excruciating recording obtained by The New Yorker, in which he is heard subjecting Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez to a tirade of textbook casting-couch culture, steering well into sexual assault territory.

Made all the more uncomfortable given the personal slant – every single woman I know has been subjected to an unrelenting and intimidating advance at least once, although admittedly few of that severity.

But what’s really worrying me is the way he’s being referred to as guilty. Legally, he isn’t. Yet.

Of course, he’s heard in the recording admitting to groping Gutierrez in the past – not quite pussy-grabbing territory, but not far behind. But that wouldn’t necessarily hold up in court.

And yes, he himself wrote in a desperate email to Hollywood CEOs that “a lot of the allegations are false” – subtext: at least some are true. But admission isn’t legal proof of guilt, either.

He has yet to be convicted – or indeed even charged with – any crime, actually, despite the rumblings of a police investigation on both sides of the Atlantic.

Yet he’s currently being subjected to an astonishing trial by public that blithely assumes his guilt. And we should all be more careful, because assuming his guilt before he goes to court could, conversely, imperil the case.

I appreciate that the story is being used as a valuable start point for vitally important discussions about the casting couch culture, wilful silence in the face of sexual harassment and sexual predators in the working environment.

But consider the astonishingly low conviction rate of sexual assault cases – the ones that actually make it to trial, that is, which in themselves are few and far between.

For the sake of the women involved, and women in similar situations everywhere, I want the legal case to be as strong as possible. The defence could use this prejudice to dismiss a jury – or indeed a case.

This case must go to trial. While the police should operate on a believe-the-victim basis, I want a jury to examine all allegations with the assumption of his innocence until proven guilty. If he is found guilty, I want him convicted. I want them to throw the book at him. But he hasn’t been. Yet.

Consider also the reluctance of women to come forward with accusations of rape or sexual assault – statistically, most of which are committed by someone already known to the victim. There is fear of how the public will treat you, certainly, but also, at times, fear of how the public will treat the accused. If he’s your boss, will your company be ruined? If he’s your cousin, will your family be torn apart?

This goes for all alleged criminals, but is unparalleled in the case of sexual offences. An accusation can utterly decimate a career, a reputation – a life. Weinstein, Polanski, Assange – they’ll never shake this stain.

And while the overwhelming public support has, I believe, encouraged other actresses known to Weinstein to come forward, and for women to speak up in general, it could also go the other way. The level of frothing frenzy and public vilification that we’re seeing now might, perversely, put a woman off reporting an already heartbreakingly underreported issue.

Is the case the emblematic tip of a toxic iceberg in Hollywood – and most industries, come to that? Yes. Do I believe most of the accusations against him? Yes.

But has it been proven true in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt? No.

So we should all continue to shine a light on the issue, calling out hypocrisy in the responses (Ben Affleck, I’m looking at you), encourage women to share their stories and work towards tackling working cultures of sexual harassment and surrounding silence. But let’s have a care not to imperil any legal cases in the works against him – that hinders the cause.

Remember that our legal system is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. Allegedly.