LA Opera investigation finds against Domingo
mainAn LA law firm investigating anonymous charges of sexual misconduct against Placido Domingo has issued a summary of its findings.
It rules that the womens’ allegations were ‘credible’ due ‘in part because of the similarities in their accounts’.
It added: ‘The level of discomfort reported by the women varied, ranging from some women stating they were not uncomfortable to others who described significant trauma.’
The full report will not be made public.
Scant details here.
Russia is now the only country where Domingo is still welcomed.
Most of it we knew already. But this is interesting:
“Despite accusations in the AP stories that Domingo inflicted damage on women’s careers if they weren’t receptive to his advances, the Gibson Dunn investigation did not find any evidence of retaliation.
“Based on those and other interviews, Gibson Dunn found no evidence that Mr. Domingo ever engaged in a quid pro quo or retaliated against any woman by not casting or otherwise hiring her at L.A. Opera,” the investigation summary said.”
Exactly. And it was not against the rules to have affairs at work back then. Remember Bill Clinton and Monica? Back then people thought it was no big deal except for the right wing conspirators out to destroy Clinton. Presentism is the word of the day.
Right wing conspirators were out to destroy Bill Clinton? He did a good enough job of that himself without anybody else’s help – including that of his enabling but still somehow feminist (??) wife!!
This sonata form lacks development but has lots of repeats
Oh, is that how facts are regarded these days?? Perhaps you can share your infinite wisdom about how enabling and tolerating philandering makes one a feminist – in the face of international derision of a husband?
Perhaps you just live in a fact-free environment.
Thanks for wittily saying what we’ve all been thinking!
This is cute. Karl and Sue Sonata Form, who usually agree on everything from their hate of women to their apology of sexual abuse, having a little disagreement about Bill Clinton. Never though I’d see the day.
You need to improve your reading comprehension.
Ssssh! You’ll spoil the fun!
The media would have you believe that Clinton’s troubles were merely about what occurred between he and Monica. But it was found that he committed three felonies in an effort to fix a court case against him. I imagine that ‘people’ might have thought it a ‘big deal’ had it happened to them.
And he was not removed from office. The Senate vote was not even close. Being a horn-dog wasn’t considered a big deal in the 90s when Clinton and Domingo were doing it.
Are you deaf, or blind? It was manifestly not about being a ‘horn-dog’ but being a president of the United States and a lawyer too, who subverted the law, 3 felonies worth, to save his sorry ass. He lost his law license and was fined 800k. Of course he wasn’t removed from office with a democrat senate. He was guilty as charged and it had very little to do with Monica. Facts.
I was referring to the affair. Clinton didn’t get into trouble for having sex with an underling, just trying to cover it up. Domingo has not tried to cover anything up. He flirted with women and had sex with women. It’s only in recent years that flirting and having sex are considered wrong.
Neither is considered wrong except when someone indicates that either is unwelcome.
And Gingrich, who led the charge against Clinton while cheating on his second wife with the lady who is now his third wife.
Not to mention the female from the Democratic party in Ark when Clinton was running for President who complained about being sexually assaulted by Bill and then HRC told her to be quiet because it would mar his election chances. But, please, do not let facts get in the way of zealotry and ideology.
You Democrats are hypocritical enough to complain about Trump. I guess you just need to get out more.
The article says the behavior was noted as late as 2019. Was that “back then”?
Which article? Nothing I have seen said anything of the kind.
Quelle surprise!
After interviewing 44 people, they concluded that TEN of the allegations were “credible”. They also indicated that Placido Domingo’s denials were “sincere” and noted, quite significantly, that they “found no evidence that Mr. Domingo ever engaged in a quid pro quo or retaliated against any woman by not casting or otherwise hiring her”. They are releasing no names and no details.
That they interviewed 44 people and it yielded ten allegations does not mean that 34 people made allegations deemed fraudulent. Some of the 34 probably were offering corroboration to the ten; others were asked about their interactions with him and did not make any allegation.
Also, the rest of the sentence about Domingo’s denials is that some of the denials were less credible or lacking in awareness. The link is right there. Anyone who reads it is going to see that it isn’t as exculpatory to Domingo as you try to make it appear. It’s certainly doesn’t contain much good news for him.
No one said “that 34 people made allegations deemed fraudulent”, so your argument about that is definitely of a straw man kind. Your interpretation of what those 34 “probably” said is nothing but pure speculation. The post above is exclusively negative which is the main reason why, precisely because “link is right there”, my comment mentioned those few positive points that were ignored by our host here. Describing PD’s denials as being “sincere” is certainly “good news” for him, but perhaps most important is the fact that the investigation “did not find any evidence of retaliation” or “quid pro quo”.
Why is “TEN” in capital letters?
Because it is a significant number.
The fans are going to cherry pick everything. They are desperate.
While haters, who are even more desperate because they have no factual arguments, will keep trying to attack those with whom they disagree, since that is what they always do.
this report reflects the facts, or is it “fake news” to you?
The report does, but many of the comments here do not.
And Domingo haters are too desoarate as they ar elosers now. Stop blame Domingo, he is innocent!
So sad that there are people who doesnt think themselfs, but believe liers and corrupted media.
I only see one loser here. And I have seen very little hate for Domingo, even in the most fervent arguments. There is a great deal of “more in sorrow than in anger” here.
One of the 44 was Domingo…
And rightly so.
Since when have law firms had the job of casting judgment?
Since they were engaged to investigate a situation. There was also a question of liability — a legal determination of LA Opera itself.
Who would you have preferred — a panel of tenors-cum-baritones of stature?
Criminal misconduct is the purview of the police.
There are legal ramifications that are not criminal. Grow up.
What ramifications? Be clear.
LA Opera’s liability over the protection of its employees and contractors. Libel.
People can be fired from their jobs for code of conduct violations (behavior you agree to when you are hired). It is called misconduct but is not necessarily criminal.
This was work place. No one has been charged with crime.
Exactly.
Per LA Opera statement (link at the end), the investigation:
1) Received 10 allegations of “inappropriate conduct” and found Domingo “sincere in his denials”;
2) Found NO abuse of power, NO evidence Domingo ever engaged in quid pro quo or retaliation against any woman.
The media manipulation, starting from the headlines of articles, is appalling.
LAO statement:
https://www.laopera.org/about-us/press-room/press-releases-and-statements/statement-summary-of-findings/
Good post. FAKE NEWS is out to destroy Domingo. History will view this as another form of yellow journalism.
“Found NO abuse of power.” Wrong. Your words, not the report’s. Sexual harassment by the top dog is the very definition of abuse of power.
However, the report does not use the term “sexual harassment”. It only talks about “improper conduct”.
How can you destroy what is already toast?
The full orinal text of the report is here
https://www.laopera.org/about-us/press-room/press-releases-and-statements/statement-summary-of-findings/
The report does not contain a single word “harasment” in relation to Domingo!!! Only “inappropriate conduct”.
“Gibson Dunn found no evidence that Mr. Domingo ever engaged in a quid pro quo or retaliated against any woman by not casting or otherwise hiring her at LA Opera, especially since casting and other hiring decisions are complex, performance-specific and determined by multiple people.”
“Mr. Domingo cooperated with the investigation and willingly met for an interview with the Gibson Dunn team. He denied all allegations of unwanted contact and maintained that all his interactions were consensual. Gibson Dunn often found him to be sincere in his denials but found some of them to be less credible or lacking in awareness.”
But of course, the great judge “press” delivered its verdict of “guilty” before the ink on the very first AP article had dried.
Crucify him!
“PD, have you ever been or are you now…….?”
HUAC lives. Only the names and dates have changed.
That is NOT the “original report.” It is LA Opera’s statement on the content of the report, phrased to stay within the law (of libel) and self-serving in its choice of words.
So the law firm has charged a fortune for telling everyone what they knew already!
Does anybody here know what is the annual budget of an average women’s shelter? LA opera spent hundreds of thousands of $$, most likely, to investigate decades old indiscretions. Meanwhile, victims of domestic violence have nowhere to go because the shelter are overcrowded and underfunded. The money should have been given to organizations that protect victims of domestic abuse instead of being given to lawyers for a PR/ PC driven investigation. It would have been a much better and more useful way to spend money and to put LA opera in the forefront as an organization truly committed to protecting women.
Read the summary first hand on LAO’s own site.
Debra Katz is “disappointed” in NYT.
Must rush …
PS. See Mr Domingo’s 2020 schedule on his site/Calendar.
The coup de grâce in his fall from grace.
Whether you are pro/contra Domingo, the German speaking agencies like dpa, APA and also AFP (Germany) are reporting very one sided, for example they are completely leaving out the fact that the investigation did not find any quid pro quo/retaliation – as renowned news agencies they are required to present the full picture and results.
It’s a good example that you have no chance at all, once false or incomplete news hit the internet to make any kind of correction.
“the investigation did not find any quid pro quo”
This misses the point: it is only necessary for the women to believe Domingo would retaliate, or might retaliate, for them to be coerced. This is why powerful people in organisations are not allowed to ask their staff out on dates.
You however seem to be missing another point: the fact that investigators “found no evidence that Mr. Domingo ever engaged in a quid pro quo or retaliated” is important indeed, because it indicates that his alleged behavior was significantly less “improper” than it would have been if he did.
Yes, PD was a womanizer. No more no less. This would not be acceptable nowadays. It used to be thoogh decades ago. Ruining a person’s life and career by retrospectively applying current (just and warranted) norms is despicable. It reflects the cruelty of the mediocre masses.
Nobody told men that women didn’t want to come up and look at their etchings – until Donald Trump was elected.
There were PLENTY of willing women with Carlos Kleiber, including one notable opera singer who left her pianist husband to be with him (when he refused to leave his wife).
“Willing” is the word – no one says something when all parties involved are willing. However, in PDs case at least 34 women weren’t “willing”.
The investigation found improper behavior as recently as 2019. Hardly “decades ago”
Where did you get that information?
In the report
Please quote from it – there is no such information there.
Investigators say 10 women accused the star of engaging in inappropriate conduct between 1986 and 2019. Investigators deemed the allegations credible, according to a summary released Tuesday by LA Opera, the Associated Press reports.
It says “BETWEEN 1986 and 2019” which indicates the time period that was investigated – simply dates of PD’s work with LA Opera. The word BETWEEN means later than 1986 and earlier than 2019. So, all of it could have happened in 1987, for example. We do not know exact dates of any alleged misconduct, so your statements about 2019 are all wrong.
No it doesn’t. It says the women accused him of inappropriate conduct between 1986 and 2019. Pretty clear.
It is very clear indeed: it says that the alleged conduct happened BETWEEN 1986 and 2019 – the years indicated there because that was the time period that was investigated since that was when PD was at the LA Opera. They do not give us exact dates of those alleged misdeeds. That means that they could have all happened in 1987 or maybe soon after that, yet still all of them in the last century: we simply don’t know.
They were found credible. That means means “believable”, but not necessarily true. Maybe Domingo threatened someone with a bowl of pasta – that’s what I was found guilty of once. That just shows you how any little thing can form the basis of a complaint these days. LOTS of men have faced false accusations. I know several men and one woman whose husband was accused falsely.
1. Did you threaten someone with a bowl of pasta? How?).
2. They are “credible” — but Karl opts not to believe them.Why? Are all women automatically liars and PD automatically honest?
The preponderance of the story — which is much more widespread than this report, as you well know — suggests a pattern of behaviour that has disturbed a LOT of people. Who have claimed similar experiences, without collusion. And institutions have chosen to believe their employees. IS this a worldwide conspiracy to damage a much-loved figure? Oh, well, at least he still has your love.
“They are “credible” — but Karl opts not to believe them.Why?” It”s he said – she said. And the one serious allegation is a definite lie that never should have been published. The 3rd person in the room would not confirm on the alleged breast grab.
“Did you threaten someone with a bowl of pasta? How?)”. If you really want to know I will explain. I was running a busy cafe and my boss sent one of her cronies to work for me. Cronie showed up late, left early, walked out when I was busy, and cheated on her payroll. One day when she was standing around doing NOTHING I asked her to get some pasta out of a refrigerator that I had cooked the night before and asked her to make some pasta salad. She insisted there was no pasta there even when I pointed it out to her. So I stopped what I was doing, got the pasta and put it down in front of her. She said I aggressively shoved it in her face. She was only trying to cut me down because I was reporting her payroll fraud. It worked – the boss liked her so I was the one who got suspended.
It’s impossible to be in a position of authority and not have any complaints. I ran only a small cafe with 6 employees and I had more complaints. There was one guy who would chug a gallon of coffee a day and put so much cream in it that I kept running out for the customers. I told him to stop using the cafe cream. Not far not fair! he cried. So I had make cream off limits for others who worked there and got yelled at by a cranky older woman. You can’t win when you supervise. You’re always wrong in someone’s eyes. And Domingo dealt with at least 1000 times more people than I did. That makes it easy to do character assassination on someone like that. Everyone with some kind of grudge can just call up the AP and be taken seriously by those muckrakers.
If you knew anything about the AP you would know they are not “muckrakers.” Those original stories were sober and documented.
And the absence of a confirmation by a third person in the room does not make the allegation “a definite lie.” If I am n a room with a couple of people and am turned away during an incident another alleges, I would not be able to confirm it either. The third person presumably had things to do in the room and may have been otherwise engaged. SHE did not accuse the accuser of lying, she simply declined to confirm something she had not seen.
God knows, half the posters on this site would deny that Domingo ever approached a woman inappropriately — something not even he has denied.
They’re muckrakers now. This feeding frenzy over Domingo is deplorable. You don’t publish serious allegations like a sexual assault without confirmation.
I led an editor’s office with 12 people and there was never a complaint. It’s possible – when you tread your people polite and decent. But with you I don’t wonder about complaints.
And I know hundreds of women who were harassed and never sued – I’m one among them.
The chance for a woman to become harassed is much higher as the chance for a man to become accused falsely.
No Lynne, look at the text. 2019 refers to when he resigned, not when he perpetrated the alleged offences. To summarize, the great artist has been destroyed, humiliated, dismissed and, in several cases, erased from programs he created.
And all this for several old misdemeanors.
He has been called a “pervert” on this blog. Yesterday someone questioned his right to be called “Maestro”. Pox on AP! La Callunia has never sounded more topical!
Apparently, some more, some less — the reactions cited (by LA Opera) range from not uncomfortable to traumatised. You okay with trauma?
Even back in the day, men knew if their behaviour was inappropriate. They also knew they could get away with it as, apparently, they still can with some of the neanderthals here.
The woman I ‘threatened’ with a bowl of pasta claimed trauma too. It’s all victimhood culture BS.
What “retrospectively”? LA was his latest position.
In this case, “retrospectively” referred to applying this century standard to last century behavior. Approximately speaking, of course.
10 amongst many thousands of women who worked with him over those 35 years? This makes ONE per 3,5 years who felt offended? No “harassement”, no findings of “damaging a career” as all media blatantly had reported? Will all those who accused him of that and put him on one level with rapists, criminals and child molesters, etc. now apologize and make up for the damage and pain they created? Will AP and accomplices apologize? If I were him I’d sue them all.
Really, 10 isn’t a high enough number for you? How about 20, 100? Do you have a cut off. He engaged in inappropriate behavior in a work place where he held a position of power. If that’s all they found (and it wasn’t), that is enough.
Lynne, has was presented almost as a “serial rapist” by media. These 10 in 35 years include those who stated (read LA’s document) “they did not feel uncomfortable”. I wonder why they are counted as “victims”, anyway. However, no matter who you are and where you work, you will always find somebody who complains about you, especially if asked particularly. And they found NO evidence that he misused his power. So what you you want. Shall everyone who is considered to have “power” now commit suicide, because it is possible that in 30 years someone will accuse him/her of having treated them badly?
I have only seen hysteria by fan-girls insisting that people are saying he’s rapist. I have seen no one accusing him of such. He has been accused of nothing more than inappropriate conduct at work, and he has been found guilty. Every employer has the right and responsibility to protect their workers, and every employee has the right to expect that they are protected. Even if he did not misuse his power (which I doubt, but I will go along with the investigations findings, unlike others), the women were obviously left with the fear that that would happen. That is unethical.
Not entirely correct. He has been accused by the media of sexual harassment and that is a lot more than “inappropriate conduct” – a term which would never make a headline because it is not strong enough. The accusations have cost him his entire career, although contractry to what Norman says above he’s not only welcome in Russia, So far there are still contracts in Germany and Austria that have not been cancelled and I really hope they ready the original results not what the press makes of them.
If he still has engagements in Russia, Germany and Austria (you could also add Italy), in what sense have the accusations cost him his entire career?
Apologies for any typos below, was writing from a cell phone.
Lynne, they even compared him to Hitler. I kept it.They called him “predator, molester, sex monster” and worse. I can prove that. I know you want to see him guilty and thus you do not believe the LA statement. But HOW on earth shall a person know that the individual opposite to him/her is “in fear” when the individual does not clearly state this? It is HIS fault that these few women (as you write) “were left with the fear” whatsover could happen? Do you know, if the person working next to you is “in fear of what you could probably do to her”? In 30 years that person could come “forward” and say she felt bullied by Lynne, because she was afraid Lynne could have done something to her. Are you REALLY serious?
Perhaps he didn’t misuse his power, but the women in question knew that he held this power and were afraid he’d use it against them. I’m pretty sure he didn’t tell them before: “Don’t you worry, dear – if you say no I won’t hold it against you professionally.”
Besides: Could the LA opera admit that he misused his power without looking really, really bad themself? To say “He used his power against the women who refused” would mean “he could do here what he wanted and we didn’t care.”
So this statement I don’t think highly believable.
First, you being “pretty sure” does not make it true. Second, the conclusion about absence of any evidence of misuse of power was reached not by LA Opera but by the investigators. Third, the fact that someone with your history of comments on this issue does not find any exculpatory findings in this case “highly believable” is surprising to absolutely no one.
And you deny those that were not exculpatory — so?
From what we have been told, by LA Opera, of this report, he did not abuse power (explicitly) but he did lack credibility in some of his denials (however sincere) of charges they DID find to be credible.
Please show me where do I “deny those that were not exculpatory”.
Not surprisingly for me, “V.Lind” is unable to show that I ever did any such thing (because I never did) which means that this accusation against me is pure slander.
AP published fake news that he sexually assaulted someone.
“Singer says opera’s Domingo harassed her, grabbed her breast”
https://apnews.com/3baf2ccc59144284b227f29eb7d44797
Read something escept yellow press and stop blaming innocent person!
The Los Angeles Opera, said its investigation “found no evidence that Mr. Domingo ever provided roles in exchange for a service or retaliated against any woman without firing her or hiring her to work at LA Opera, especially since casting and other hiring decisions are complex, performance-dependent, and determined by multiple people.”
Fair enough. But they did find some of the other complaints to be credible.
He probably knows about the Marquis of Queensbury/Oscar Wilde case and how those things can quickly turn toxic in court.
I recall reading that the politician (I forget his name) who introduced the bill that would require two years’ hard labor for conviction of sodomy, did so to point out the ridiculousness of such an idea. He was appalled when it was actually passed into law.
Quote from the Oscar Wilde trial:
Judge: Are you trying to show your contempt for this court?
Wilde: No, I’m trying to hide it.
(Real? Apocryphal? Brilliant, anyway)
Nobody’s stopping him. I have written here before that if he had sued, he would have strengthened his denial — but he would be risking questioning.
For God’s sake, the most respected musical institutions in the US, and now in Spain and England, have cancelled his appearances. This man meant both revenue and respect, whatever one thinks of the current state of his voice. Two investigations have supported the originally published allegations, and the fact that he was well known for his inappropriate behaviour. What does it take to convince you people that dozens of women have supported these allegations, and dozens of musical institutions have accepted that he presented a problem?
NOBODY has ever suggested he was a rapist or anything like it. He has been accused of making unwanted advances, sometimes continually, and making going to work a misery. That is NO LIGHT THING. If you had a wife, a sister, a daughter — a mother — or any women friends, you would get that. You and all the other deniers and make-lighters.
Who died and made Domingo some sort of saint?
Amen to that.
I really don’t understand why people still think they could present him as a Saint. And I do hate this victim blaming and the attempts to count the number down. No, it wasn’t only 10 in Los Angeles. There was 22 who came to the AP too and there were two in Germany, that makes 34 – and it’s only the tip of the iceberg! He didn’t rape, but he was nevertheless a pest who made women feel uncomfortable and afraid in their work environment.
What a ridiculous statement!
My boss makes me feel uncomfortable every time he askes me to prepare a sales report. Does it mean that he is a harasser? ))
My colleague spilled coffee on my leg today. And it is a trauma for me. And this is also uncomforbatle for me. Does it mean he is also a women harasser?
Domingo is innnocent. Stop posting a bull shit about him! Thats enought
If you don’t like the boss just accuse him of sexual harassment. It’s easy. And there’s no downside. False accusations CAN’T be punished because it’s retaliation. That’s what’s happening to Domingo and some other #metooed men like Benny Fredriksson.
Get real.
Now that is a really convincing argument.
Asking for a sales report, presumably part of your job, is not harassment. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, you sound as if you are neither use nor ornament.
If someone spills coffee on your leg, you ARE entitled to feel uncomfortable — I’m sure we all would. If he did it deliberately, sue him or get him sacked. I’m sure it was an accident.
And if you cannot differentiate between that and someone persistently seeking sexual dalliance with you, you have no place in a professional work environment.
Whatever your beefs with co-workers, they do not prove Domingo’s innocence. Your absence of the ability to reason from point A to point B does not speak well of your value as an employee, or colleague.
You know the difference. Don’t insult us.
Even he doesn’t believe himself “innocent”.
What would have to happen until you get it?
Right. Nobody gives Cosby credit for the women he didn’t drug, or Weinstein credit for the women he didn’t molest. Actual rapists* don’t get credit for the people they didn’t rape. It isn’t fair!!
(* Like Lynne, I haven’t seen any accounts accusing him of rape, only people accusing people/ the media of calling him a rapist… like you for example)
34, dear. 10 in L.A., 22 with the AP, 2 in Germany.
Domingo is only welcome in Russia? Here in cozy little Switzerland we’re happy to see him any time — for instance on March 30 in KKL Luzern.
At Wiener Staatsoper he is still on the roster for two performances as “Nabucco,” the conductor for three performances of “La traviata,” and one of several conductors for Dominique Meyer’s farewell gala. These dates are all in June, and hopefully our opera houses and concert halls will be open by then.
Pay attention, this is LA Opera’s own summary and wording of the report, it does not quote a single sentence from the report itself.
I bet $500,000 that the actual wording of the report is not as pretty as the way the LA Opera’s PR department is summarizing it.
Reminds me of Attorney General Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report. Nothing to see here, move along.
They may have made the wording a bit milder, but I am sure that they have not changed any substance because that would mean serious legal troubles for them.
Hear we go again, let’s find a headline where we can have a nasty jibe at Domingo.
If anyone can get past the headline of this post and bother to read the report properly they would find the investigation found 10 allegations of inappropriate behaviour, not 27 as the press have repeatedly quoted.
Domingo was found to be sincere in his denials. No abuse of power was found.
And the word harassment was not mentioned.
There is however quite a bit of criticism of the way LA Opera has handled complaints in the past. So that responsibility would rest on Domingo ‘s deputy, who everyone says really ran LA Opera in Domingo’s absence.
Newspapers and this forum are great at constructing events as they think they should be – after all it sells newspapers and leads to more comments on Slippedisc.
Domingo has been guilty of excessive flirting, not a criminal offence and a characteristic of Latin countries.
How many men and women who have made comments about this item can truthfully say they have never flirted? Those who say no, be careful you don’t fall off your pedestal. Those who admit yes, stop pointing fingers at others for what you have done yourself and fortunately not been found out by the politically correct or Me Too.
The headline says “INVESTIGATION FINDS AGAINST DOMINGO”, but what has it really found? It found that Placido Domingo apparently is guilty of not being as saintly as all of us certainly are, because during 33 years with LA Opera he probably behaved inappropriately in up to ten cases. Compared to what was said about his alleged crimes for the last seven or eight months, this looks to me like a finding that may actually qualify as being relatively speaking FOR DOMINGO.
That’s LA Opera. I don’t imagine the Met cancelled him because he misbehaved in LA. Or The Phillie Orchestra, or San Francisco, or Spain, or the rest of the places he is no longer welcome. LA Opera’s remit was LA Opera. There have been widespread stories of a pattern of behaviour, which is typical.
Your (or anyone else’s) inability to “imagine” something does not make it untrue. But you are right, “widespread stories” are typical. Which of course does not make them true.
Or false. They can’t ALL be making it up — use your reason.
Please show me where I stated or even implied that “ALL” of the allegations were made up.
Once again, “V.Lind” is unable to find any such statement in my comments (because I never did state any such thing) which means that this implication of my denial is pure slander as well.
And LA Opera found… NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.
But headlines look ridiculous. Like he is a serial killer. What a shame to such non-professional journalists!
How is LA Opera going to apologies before Domingo?
Women felt uncomfortable? I feel uncomfortable every time I see my accountant and several other colleagues. Does it mean that they harassed me? No. Does it mean that they are criminals? No.
The LA Opera investigation concluded that Domingo should not be invited back. Most of us would conclude this means that they found him guilty.
They just said it nicely since he agreed to leave quietly.
Of course he is “guilty”. Who isn’t? We are all sinners. Except for you perhaps… The difference is – guilty of what? They actually put a label on it: “improper behavior”. It can mean many different things, but in legal terms it is probably closest to “not quite perfect but not criminal either”. So, they found PD “guilty” of imperfect behavior. Apparently, it is now time to crucify him…