Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Finlay Resigns, Catazaro and Ramasar Suspended -- Update: Catazaro and Ramasar Fired


Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2018 at 7:14 AM, KayDenmark said:

If it is just an external nutjob, I'm not quite sure why it is the lead in the Times story. Every public-facing business has to deal with crazy people. It's only really relevant if it reflects some kind of (vulgar) internal support for the fired dancers. 

The language quoted in the letter ("jilted whores") seems similar to the Jared Loghitano quotes from the texts in the Waterbury complaint. I wouldn't be surprised to find the stage door letter came from him. I was glad that he was included in her amended complaint.

Link to post
42 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

The language quoted in the letter ("jilted whores") seems similar to the Jared Loghitano quotes from the texts in the Waterbury complaint. I wouldn't be surprised to find the stage door letter came from him. I was glad that he was included in her amended complaint.

Lots of misogynists use that sort of language.

See Lindsey Graham's "Slut Whore Drunk" comment .

Not saying it isn't Longhitano, I have no idea (nor does anyone else here) just pointing out that this language is in no way specific to him.

Link to post

As aurora pointed out, the language in the letter can be found in many places on the internet, and, my add,including with reference to this case, although none from any official news sources (a side from the quote in the NYT, and the NYT did not post the whole letter.

Copycats are common in widely publicized cases in general.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

There is quite a bit of support for Waterbury, but there is also backlash that centers the concerns of the accused men. I think that most people agree that Finlay messed up, but there is a pernicious idea that Ramasar and Catazaro have been unfairly caught up in Waterbury's grievance against her ex, when in fact they are grown men who were active participants in the reprehensible communications. Ramsar could have elected not to participate in the nude sharing, and Catazaro could have told Finlay that his behavior was gross. While termination might seem severe to those who are used to dismissing similar behavior as private locker room talk, I am not going to cry any tears for these men. 

I agree that NYCB dancers should not be obligated to make statements, but the support for Ramasar at Carousel and Sterling Hyltin's defense of Ramasar in the comment section of her IG posts reveal that dancers are unafraid to do so.

And any person who makes sexual misconduct/assault claims understands that their claims will be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. However, there is a difference between fact-finding that is intended to uncover the truth vs bad faith questions that are intended to impugn the character of the survivor and place a smokescreen in front of the accused.

As for the 'snooping' - it seems that Waterbury was simply trying to check her email and had the misfortune of stumbling upon Finlay's communications. I see no reason to think otherwise.

 

I wouldn't  characterize the belief that Ramasar  and  Catazaro  have been caught up in somebody else's dispute as "pernicious".  You either believe it or you don't.  Considering that Catazaro did not receive or look at any photos of Waterbury,  and has no apparent connection to her dispute with Finlay,  it seems to be a reasonable position,  although obviously others disagree.  Everyone involved is an adult - Catazaro  has no obligation to chide Finlay about his language,  and the expectation that he would do so in a text message seems unrealistic.  

It appears from the complaint that Ms. Waterbury  did more than just stumble across a couple of messages.  She must have scrolled down and taken screenshots of numerous exchanges,  including those that did not refer to her.  She may not have intended to "snoop",  but one could argue that she did anyway.  A judge will decide whether she was justified in doing so.

Link to post
6 hours ago, On Pointe said:

It appears from the complaint that Ms. Waterbury  did more than just stumble across a couple of messages.  She must have scrolled down and taken screenshots of numerous exchanges,  including those that did not refer to her.  She may not have intended to "snoop",  but one could argue that she did anyway.  A judge will decide whether she was justified in doing so.

One could argue just about anything one wants, but no one has yet pointed to any relevant law or specific precedent from civil proceedings that would suggest Waterbury's using the laptop (one that she had permission to use) in this particular way might be problematic for her case. The repeated conjectures and insinuations on this point strike me as very curious.

Link to post
1 minute ago, KayDenmark said:

I don't think it's curious at all. Everybody has a right to privacy, even the highly disliked Mr. Finlay.

I wouldn't appreciate anyone going through my computer. 

The solution to that is not to give anyone the password. He did.

There is still no reason for some of the insinuations.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

I don't think it's curious at all. Everybody has a right to privacy, even the highly disliked Mr. Finlay.

I wouldn't appreciate anyone going through my computer. 

Oh I'm sure Finlay didn't "appreciate" it. That doesn't make it relevant to the case. I've yet to hear any sort of evidence-based argument that his "right to privacy" was infringed upon in any legally pertinent way. It's nothing but speculation.

Link to post
34 minutes ago, aurora said:

The solution to that is not to give anyone the password. He did.

 

Yes, according to Miss Waterbury (we still haven't heard from Finlay), he did, for the express purpose of checking her own email.

Not for the purpose scrolling through his text messages and making screenshots of his texts and the texts of others, which she then apparently forwarded to herself and others without his consent. 

Personally, I do see her actions as a violation of his privacy - the same way I'd see it if, for example, I told someone they could look up an address on Google Maps on my computer and I then found them going through my financial details. Whether or not the law will see it as a violation of privacy is unclear. 

Link to post

That analogy doesn’t really apply. If someone was looking at Google maps and a financial record popped onto the screen showing you were stealing from the person, then the analogy might fit. If I asked someone to borrow a pen, he directed me to a drawer, and there were clearly visible naked photos of me in the drawer, I wouldn’t just close the door and move along. Maybe I’m angrier, but I feel that your right to privacy ends the moment I discover you’ve violated mine. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, AB'sMom said:

Maybe I’m angrier, but I feel that your right to privacy ends the moment I discover you’ve violated mine. 

 

Could be, but then we end up in an ongoing eye-for-eye situation. Finlay (or Ramasar or Catazaro or  Jared Loghitano) could then argue that because Waterbury has now violated their privacy, they're in a position to dump all sorts of previously undisclosed personal information about her into the public domain.

I don't think anybody wants that. 

Link to post

It doesn't matter what anyone feels personally.  This isn't a review.  

Unless there is something factual or a precedent to cite, do not continue to repeat the same arguments and conjectures.

Link to post
30 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Could be, but then we end up in an ongoing eye-for-eye situation. Finlay (or Ramasar or Catazaro or  Jared Loghitano) could then argue that because Waterbury has now violated their privacy, they're in a position to dump all sorts of previously undisclosed personal information about her into the public domain.

I don't think anybody wants that. 

I think it's understandable that once Ms. Waterbury  fell into the email rabbit hole she would continue to read what she found.  But by including in her suit identifying, embarrassing information about other people,   including women who did nothing to harm her,  she exhibits animosity and a lack of respect for the privacy rights of others.  

 

Link to post
20 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I think it's understandable that once Ms. Waterbury  fell into the email rabbit hole she would continue to read what she found.  But by including in her suit identifying, embarrassing information about other people,   including women who did nothing to harm her,  she exhibits animosity and a lack of respect for the privacy rights of others.  

 

Many others see it differently.

She did not, with one exception, name any other women.

The people who brought the other women into it are the 3 men in question. It is their responsibility that any of this is happening, it is not Waterbury's to keep what they did to her and others quiet.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...