Editor’s note: The following post was written by the Lovefraud reader who posts as “Jennifer.”
“Alec Baldwin can always be counted on to give a good performance, whether on television or on the witness stand, and his testimony in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Tuesday was no exception.” That’s a quote from the New York Times article about Alec Baldwin’s stalking case entitled, In Court, Baldwin Tells of a Stalker ‘Out of Hitchcock.’
According to the article, Mr. Baldwin alleges that he has been “harassed” and “stalked” by a woman he “painted” as “…both delusional and dangerous.” And, while it appears that the woman’s behavior has certainly been extreme since their “meeting” (i.e., sexual tryst) in 2010, it’s also clear that Mr. Baldwin’s behavior/”performance” (including on the witness stand) has been highly questionable, if not egregious and highly immoral/unethical. And yet, she’s the one on trial, facing “harassment” and “stalking” charges and he’s the one portrayed/”played” as deserving pity, protection, and justice… And given his “celebrity” (and therefore, his money, power, connections, and public favor) it’s clear that this woman “doesn’t stand a chance.” This woman (rightfully) rejected a plea bargain from a Manhattan district attorney and if convicted, she faces up to 90 days in jail.
In Woody Allen’s most recent and exceptionally brilliant film, “Blue Jasmine” (which is a fascinating and modern homage to Tennessee William’s “A Streetcar Named Desire,”) Baldwin plays the conning, cunning, corrupt, lying, philandering husband (aka, a socialized, white-collar psychopath) who is ultimately brought down/turned-in by his “delusional” (i.e., fully aware) wife, Jasmine, in a/her final act of vengeance. But another interesting “variation on the theme” of how “art imitates life” (and vice versa).
I (and anyone who has had the great misfortune of being traumatized and victimized by narcissistic and/or psychopathic personalities) am/are all-too-familiar with the scenario described in this very disturbing article. Among other critical imperatives, it underscores the dire need for (expert) mental health analysis and intervention, in the court room.
Woman found guilty
The title of the article in last week’s New York Times provides an encapsulation of the disturbing outcome of the “stalking” case: Woman, Guilty of Stalking Alec Baldwin, Gets 6-Month Term.
According to the article, Judge Robert Mandelbaum took only five minutes to determine that Genevieve Sabourin was guilty of several misdemeanors: two counts of stalking, and one count each of harassment and attempted aggravated harassment. “He sentenced her to six months in jail, the maximum allowed, on top of the month he gave her earlier this week for contempt of court (for her repeated “disruption” in the courtroom).”
In my opinion, the analysis provided by Ms. Sabourin’s (criminal defense) defense lawyer, Todd Spodek, is far more accurate: “He suggested Mr. Baldwin had called the police and had Ms. Sabourin arrested to avoid an uncomfortable conversation with her. ‘Mr. Baldwin does not have carte blanche to use the criminal justice system to sort out his relationship…'”
When questioned on the witness stand, Ms. Sabourin described Mr. Baldwin as “…a professional charmer. He’s the best in the world.” Additionally, his psychological profile includes sexual promiscuity/infidelity, a history of drug and alcohol abuse, episodic aggression and rage, and a notorious arrogance, egocentricity, and grandiosity. And, it appears that he lied “compulsively and pathologically” (i.e., he committed perjury) when he testified in court. Therefore, I would venture to say that this is a “textbook case study” of an acutely narcissistic/psychopathic (albeit “rich and famous”) personality.
Given my own horrendous experiences (and most recently, in Germany), I strongly identify with the terrible injustice that this woman is facing. Therefore, I thought that it was imperative to do the following:
1. I contacted the office of Ms. Sabourin’s lawyer and suggested that he acquire feedback from mental health professionals (and others) who have expertise in helping those who have been victimized (legally and otherwise) by narcissists and psychopaths and suggested that he begin with the websites like Lovefraud.
2. Ms. Sabourin was given the option of adhering to a court injunction and mandated therapy in lieu of a hearing (which she (rightfully) rejected). In response, I contacted the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and suggested that it was, in fact, Mr. Baldwin who warranted an extensive psychosocial assessment.
3. With respect to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, I reminded them that this was the same office that dropped the criminal charges against (but) another rich, famous, powerful and (notoriously) sexually-predatory and womanizing man, i.e., Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
4. I spoke with a supervisor in the office/chamber of Judge Robert Mandelbaum and told him that he should tell the judge to seriously reflect upon his sentencing statement to Ms. Sabourin, i.e., that “The rules of civil society apply to you as to everyone else…” His (wrongful) determination, i.e., that Ms. Sabourin is “guilty on all charges” is not only outrageous, but, entirely misdirected. In fact, it is Mr. Baldwin who has abused (and manipulated!) the justice system and who should not be (additionally) validated for doing so.
5. I also contacted the Member Services division of WNYC, the largest and most comprehensive public radio station in the United States, based in Manhattan. Mr. Baldwin produces and hosts the program, Here’s the Thing, via WNYC, a bi-monthly talk show, centered on interviewing “the movers and shakers” in the arts, culture, and the media. Throughout the one-hour format and despite the fact that his guests are always articulate, fascinating, and highly intelligent, (given his psychological profile) Mr. Baldwin consistently manages to monopolize all of the conversations…
I left a message for the Director of WNYC’s Member Services, yesterday, after reading about the sentencing of Mr. Baldwin’s (alleged) “stalker.” I made it clear that I could not, in all conscience, continue to support the station (I have been a contributing member, for years) if Mr. Baldwin and his program was retained on the programming schedule. (Approximately) one hour later, I received a message from Member Services. I was told that in response to the objection of “hundreds” of WNYC listeners/supporters, Mr. Baldwin/his program was formally “dropped.” I immediately called the station/department back and thanked them for honoring, via strong and swift action, the “wishes” (i.e., demands) of its members. I also made sure to say that in addition to discontinuing the production of the program, that it should also prohibit the airing of previously-produced shows.
When asked why she (relentlessly) sought to meet with Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Sabourin said that she sought an explanation for his “dropping” her after their one-night affair: “It’s not, because he’s rich and famous, that he can take advantage of women and throw them in the garbage. I am entitled to ask for closure.”
She was also entitled to a fair hearing, which she also didn’t receive.
Here is more information on this case: