Woody Allen Child Molester?

[skye]

When you have three baby sitters who all said under oath they witnessed disturbing behavior and obviously they had informed Ms. Farrow about the incidents at the time way before the court case, what was Mia to do.

Then couple this situation with finding pornographic pictures of her daughter on Woody's mantle piece and discovering her long time lover was having an affair with her daughter Woody Allen supporters tell me please what should Mia Farrow have done?

Mia Farrow should have taken Allen to court!


Who was stopping her? Lack of evidence perhaps?

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

 

[freedombecki]

"perps" have to be charged first.

he wasn't. move on.

perhaps you should let reality be your guide occasionally.

You simply can't follow a legal discussion because you and JoeB get your legal knowledge from tabloids. Oh, yea, sweetie.

She's a lawyer. You're not. That much is obvious.
You do realise you guys are coming across as the Pitchfork Brigade?

So you're an ace at identification of Juris Doctor in the USA? Keep yer day job, toots.

 

[tinydancer]

the people who pay me know otherwise.

and you're still sub literate and bitter.

also good to know.

Most of us do not take as kindly to child sexual abuse as you and Joe B do. Also good to know.

no. i don't take kindly to people slandering others with no evidence.

again, let reality be your guide… not your rage

I've put up the testimony of the three care givers. I've put up the court papers where the Justice in question just tore Woody Allen a new orifce over his behaviors.

His reprehensible behavior with Soon Yi is undisputed. Previn considers Soon Yi dead. This whole family was devastated by Woody's selfish and devious actions.

But let's take slander. Woody just has to launch a lawsuit to defend his name doesn't he now?

Dollars to donuts he won't.

 

[thanatos144]

Mia Farrow should have taken Allen to court!


Who was stopping her? Lack of evidence perhaps?

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

but enough so the rest of us can see the truth that he is a child molester that preys on family

 

[Dr Grump]

You simply can't follow a legal discussion because you and JoeB get your legal knowledge from tabloids. Oh, yea, sweetie.

She's a lawyer. You're not. That much is obvious.
You do realise you guys are coming across as the Pitchfork Brigade?

So you're an ace at identification of Juris Doctor in the USA? Keep yer day job, toots.

Huh???

 

[skye]

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

but enough so the rest of us can see the truth that he is a child molester that preys on family

That's a different Court you are talking about!

It's called the Court of Public Opinion..... everybody can be lynched with no problem there! No need of solid evidence, no need of nothing.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've put up the testimony of the three care givers. I've put up the court papers where the Justice in question just tore Woody Allen a new orifce over his behaviors.

His reprehensible behavior with Soon Yi is undisputed. Previn considers Soon Yi dead. This whole family was devastated by Woody's selfish and devious actions.

But let's take slander. Woody just has to launch a lawsuit to defend his name doesn't he now?

Dollars to donuts he won't.

You put up testimony from one care giver who didn't like what she saw. Whoop-dee-doo. And the judge did question his behaviour, but didn't convict him. You know that, right?

As stated, Allen isn't even following this latest piece of Mia drama

 

[tinydancer]

Mia Farrow should have taken Allen to court!


Who was stopping her? Lack of evidence perhaps?

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Miscarriages of justice occur frequently, do they not?

 

[Sunshine]

Mia Farrow should have taken Allen to court!


Who was stopping her? Lack of evidence perhaps?

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

It absolutely was. You clearly have not done your reading. The judge didn't want to put the child through a trial. But IMO that is a very flimsy excuse even for the times it happened in. Children confront and testify against their abusers all the time. The judge was star struck. OR he, like another I know, was an abuser himself. You are defending a perp and you know it.

 

[skye]

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

It absolutely was. You clearly have not done your reading. The judge didn't want to put the child through a trial. But IMO that is a very flimsy excuse even for the times it happened in. Children confront and testify against their abusers all the time. The judge was star struck. OR he, like another I know, was an abuser himself.

Oh my Lord!

Now the judge was an abuser himself!

 

[Sunshine]

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Miscarriages of justice occur frequently, do they not?

Definitely for celebs. OJ got his comeuppance. Allen will too.

 

[tinydancer]

I've put up the testimony of the three care givers. I've put up the court papers where the Justice in question just tore Woody Allen a new orifce over his behaviors.

His reprehensible behavior with Soon Yi is undisputed. Previn considers Soon Yi dead. This whole family was devastated by Woody's selfish and devious actions.

But let's take slander. Woody just has to launch a lawsuit to defend his name doesn't he now?

Dollars to donuts he won't.

You put up testimony from one care giver who didn't like what she saw. Whoop-dee-doo. And the judge did question his behaviour, but didn't convict him. You know that, right?

As stated, Allen isn't even following this latest piece of Mia drama

I put up the testimony of two others as well.

One who testified under oath that Dylan had gone missing on her on the day Dylan remembers getting "finger fucked" in the attic and the other was a care giver who witnessed Woody with Dylan on the couch with no underwear.

And by the way, this is Dylan's show. Not Mia's.

Her interview in Vanity Fair is a rarity. Extraordinary woman in her own right with all her humanitarian efforts.

ETA: Of course he was never convicted of anything. He wasn't charged.

 

[Dr Grump]

3 babysitters testifying under oath about his behavior is ...........EVIDENCE!

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

It absolutely was. You clearly have not done your reading. The judge didn't want to put the child through a trial. But IMO that is a very flimsy excuse even for the times it happened in. Children confront and testify against their abusers all the time. The judge was star struck. OR he, like another I know, was an abuser himself. You are defending a perp and you know it.

Of course the fact the psychiatrists didn't believe Dylan, the rabid DA didn't have enough evidence and there was no physical evidence had nothing to do with him not being charged... no, no, no ..

 

[freedombecki]

You simply can't follow a legal discussion because you and JoeB get your legal knowledge from tabloids. Oh, yea, sweetie.

She's a lawyer. You're not. That much is obvious.
You do realise you guys are coming across as the Pitchfork Brigade?

they think he's a new york liberal jew so they have to trash him.

if he shot an unarmed black kid, they'd be all about that.

"they think he's a new york liberal jew."

Actually, Woody Allen is an agnostic/atheist, and he is proud of it. You should read a page of his quotes sometime, sweetie.

Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.


If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.

To you, I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.

Woody Allen - Biography - IMDb

His own words tell it.

 

[tinydancer]

Re: Allen not following this? Try googling Woody Allen in the news. His lawyer is even out there freaking out about Mia.

And Hollywood is circling the wagons around Woody just like they did for Roman "it really wasn't a rape rape" Polanski.

 

[Connery]

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

but enough so the rest of us can see the truth that he is a child molester that preys on family

That's a different Court you are talking about!

It's called the Court of Public Opinion..... .

That is all that matters in the end. The issue for me is would a reasonably prudent member of the public allow this man near their child and/or would they allow him to be a role model such as a father, moral guide to their child?


That is the only issue I see that is worth thinking about after reading what has been said here and the statement issued by the prosecutor, the conduct of his family regarding this situation and how his "family" has progressed over time.


As a result, I would never let him near my child.

 

[tinydancer]

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

It absolutely was. You clearly have not done your reading. The judge didn't want to put the child through a trial. But IMO that is a very flimsy excuse even for the times it happened in. Children confront and testify against their abusers all the time. The judge was star struck. OR he, like another I know, was an abuser himself. You are defending a perp and you know it.

Of course the fact the psychiatrists didn't believe Dylan, the rabid DA didn't have enough evidence and there was no physical evidence had nothing to do with him not being charged... no, no, no ..

Where are you coming up with your fantasy that there was a rabid DA?

 

[Dr Grump]

I put up the testimony of two others as well.

One who testified under oath that Dylan had gone missing on her on the day Dylan remembers getting "finger fucked" in the attic and the other was a care giver who witnessed Woody with Dylan on the couch with no underwear.

And by the way, this is Dylan's show. Not Mia's.

Her interview in Vanity Fair is a rarity. Extraordinary woman in her own right with all her humanitarian efforts.

ETA: Of course he was never convicted of anything. He wasn't charged.

A kid going missing in a house of 9 kids for 20 minutes doesn't mean anything. And if you go to the link in the OP it addressing the missing underwear.

Well as long as Mia continues to shill...

 

[Sunshine]

Obviously it wasn't enough solid evidence to lynch Woody Allen!

It absolutely was. You clearly have not done your reading. The judge didn't want to put the child through a trial. But IMO that is a very flimsy excuse even for the times it happened in. Children confront and testify against their abusers all the time. The judge was star struck. OR he, like another I know, was an abuser himself. You are defending a perp and you know it.

Of course the fact the psychiatrists didn't believe Dylan, the rabid DA didn't have enough evidence and there was no physical evidence had nothing to do with him not being charged... no, no, no ..

So tell us how a psychiatrist decides if a patient is lying. Particularly a child who has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the story. I'd be real interested to know that.

Someone in psychiatry believes her. She is an anorexic self mutilator. She is getting psychiatric care. And that open letter thing is a therapeutic technique.

 

[skye]

but enough so the rest of us can see the truth that he is a child molester that preys on family

That's a different Court you are talking about!

It's called the Court of Public Opinion..... .

That is all that matters in the end. The issue for me is would a reasonably prudent member of the public allow this man near their child and/or would they allow him to be a role model such as a father, moral guide to their child?


That is the only issue I see that is worth thinking about after reading what has been said here and the statement issued by the prosecutor, the conduct of his family regarding this situation and how his "family" has progressed over time.


As a result, I would never let him near my child.

You know.... I could tell you to take your head out of your ass like you told me a few pages back.... but no way I would say that.

I will simply tell you that we are all entitled to have our opinions.