John Schmidt

John Schmidt was a former Miramax executive whose background account helped Megan Twohey substantiate the settlement of a former assistant after a troubling episode involving Harvey Weinstein. His information mattered to the reporting, but it could not override the woman’s clear refusal to participate or be cited.

Identity and Role in the Reporting

Earlier in the summer, Twohey had made an unannounced visit to Schmidt. He later agreed to speak with her, explaining that he had been impressed by her article about amfAR. By the time the reporters were assembling their account, the former assistant—whom Twohey had tracked down at her mother’s house—had become essential to the story, even though she did not want to speak publicly.

What Schmidt Confirmed

Schmidt confirmed on background that the former assistant had received a settlement after a troubling episode with Weinstein. That confirmation gave the reporters support for describing a young woman who had left the company abruptly after an encounter with Weinstein and later received a settlement, while withholding her name. The account was attributed to several former employees; the reporters also quoted the woman’s former boss, Kathy DeClesis, who said the matter was known within the company’s inner circle.

Schmidt later supplied a more specific account: he said Weinstein had confessed to him shortly after the encounter that he had done something terrible and that it would not happen again. The book reports this as Schmidt’s recollection, and notes that Weinstein denied making the statement. The distinction matters: Schmidt’s account added a reported admission to the story, but it remained attributed testimony, not an uncontested fact.

Limits and Significance

The former assistant expressly asked Twohey not to contact her again, directly or indirectly, and said she did not authorize anyone to speak for her or want to be named or cited anonymously. Because the account appeared to involve sexual assault, Twohey and Jodi Kantor chose not to identify her without permission. Schmidt’s confirmation therefore helped establish that a settlement had followed an episode, but it did not turn the woman’s private experience into a story she had agreed to tell.

Schmidt’s role was consequential precisely because it was bounded. His background confirmation and later recollection strengthened the reporters’ account, while the former assistant’s refusal set a separate ethical limit on how they could use it. The resulting report could describe the departure and settlement without naming her, preserving the difference between corroborating a claim and claiming to speak on someone else’s behalf.