A woman claimed music exec “sexually abused, forcibly touched, and subjected [her] to sexual harassment and retaliation.” Iovine says that “no one has ever made a claim like this”
That’s a suspicious defence. There’s always a first time right?
To be fair the full quote is:
“No one has ever made a claim like this against Jimmy Iovine, nor have we been contacted or made aware of any complaint by anyone, including this unknown plaintiff prior to now.”
Also the complainant filled anonymously, which is her right, and “the legal filing contained little additional information regarding the woman’s specific claims.” So there isn’t much he could specifically respond to. There will most certainly be at least a civil suit and I’m sure more details will emerge then.
The full quote doesn’t make it any better IMO. The context you provide does provide some explanation, but an explanation to a response he didn’t give.
If he had said something along the lines of “I have received this complaint and while there are not enough details to specifically respond I look forward to defending myself in court” that would have been another matter entirely.
The response he actually gave just sounds suspicious. There’s not enough to claim any knowledge of wrongdoing but it also doesn’t give off an air of confidence in his innocence.
Different people respond differently to stress and just because someone acts differently than you think you might doesn’t mean that they’re automatically guilty or innocent. In my opinion only evidence can prove if someone did something or not. After all, we weren’t there so we can’t know. Christopher Jefferies was arrested for murder but released and his vilification was described as “a form of psychological torture” and “as in some Kafkaesque nightmare” article. Jay Cheshire killed himself in 2015 after being falsely accused of rape by a girl article. I’m not interested in the pitchforks and torches mentality. I’ll wait until there’s evidence and I’ll make my decision then.
I never said that they are automatically guilty or innocent. In fact I specifically avoided doing so. All I said was that I find it suspicious. A suspicion is not the same as a verdict. That’s an intrinsic part of the justice system and also of my beliefs.
Well the foundation is the presumption of innocence. You’re allowed to be suspicious if you want. Webster’s defines suspicion as “the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence : MISTRUST” The without proof part is what bothers me.
Exactly. That’s why I labelled it specifically as a suspicion and made a clear note it’s not enough to say there was any wrongdoing. It’s purely based on the “slight evidence” of his statement. We’ll have to wait and see where this leads to but I’m commenting on the information we have now. Based on the information we have now, in my opinion, the response was suspicious. The suspicion comes from the lack of denial.
You’re getting downvoted and while Internet points are silly I personally don’t think you’re acting inflammatory or maliciously. I think we agree on mostly everything here. I find it frustrating when people use downvotes to mean “I disagree with you.”
I’m glad you’re not on the jury
Why? I haven’t reached any conclusions either way because I haven’t heard the facts yet. I have an open mind towards all possibilities. Isn’t that what you would be looking for on a jury?
In your original post you called it a
suspicious defence.
To me (and seemingly to others) it is weird that you interpret anything at all in this blanket response by some spokesperson.
I know nothing about this Iovine guy.
If he did it he should be punished, if he didn’t he should be exonerated.
But this spokespersons PR statement doesn’t make him any more or less suspicious to me and I find it kind of weird that it would for anyone.Btw I am not one of the people that downvoted you, I’m just trying to clear up possible confusion.
Thanks for attempting to clear it up. I guess it’s up to everyone’s individual interpretation but to me, sometimes, the things someone doesn’t say are just as important as the things they do say. These are the things you pay a PR agency to think about. I know that’s reading a lot into it and again, I’m not saying that’s enough to make a verdict. It’s just the very slightest of evidence that would make me suspicious of someone.
Even considering that it’s a blanket response, it’s not a typical blanket response. Normally it’s either a denial or a no comment. This comment leaves open the interpretation that he did do it, and he does know about it, just that it’s the first time he’s heard a complaint about it. It is an interpretation, not saying it’s the correct interpretation. Just enough for a suspicion.
Like you, I’ve never heard anything about this guy before. I don’t have any strong opinions one way or the other. All I’m saying is if someone accuses you of stealing from the cookie jar and the reply is “well this is the first time I’m hearing this come from you”, it’s at least an odd reply.
Appreciate you comprehending and replying in good faith. Open to any intellectual discussion about this.
Having read your whole comment here, and the rest of the thread, I’m also glad you aren’t on the jury.
