Woody Allen Child Molester?

[Dr Grump]

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

Oh, sorry, prosecutor (rolls eyes). From the link:

Woody’s ad-hoc press conference made for good television and was widely covered in the press. Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared in the New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment. Though the decision was quite damning, Maco got what amounted to a slap on the wrist

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

So if a psychiatrist said he or she did believe Dylan, you'd believe them, right? Unlike a psychologist a psychiatrist is a medically trained doctor, too. They have all sorts of tests and procedures that helps them draw conclusions. What, you think they just say "What happened?", the alleged victim goes "I was raped"...and the psychiatrist goes "I believe/don't believe you" ? Is that what you thinks happens?

A seven year old child has a lot to gain. Getting attention amongst a menagerie of 9 or 10 siblings. A dotting mother paying huge amounts of attention to her. She could have been psychologically damaged on birth, because some people are born with such genes. She might be damaged because Mia is a nutcase. Maybe Woody did molest her. Maybe she is upset that she was adopted and wasn't wanted by her birth parents. Who the **** knows...

 

[jillian]

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.

So if a psychiatrist said he or she did believe Dylan, you'd believe them, right? Unlike a psychologist a psychiatrist is a medically trained doctor, too. They have all sorts of tests and procedures that helps them draw conclusions. What, you think they just say "What happened?", the alleged victim goes "I was raped"...and the psychiatrist goes "I believe/don't believe you" ? Is that what you thinks happens?

A seven year old child has a lot to gain. Getting attention amongst a menagerie of 9 or 10 siblings. A dotting mother paying huge amounts of attention to her. She could have been psychologically damaged on birth, because some people are born with such genes. She might be damaged because Mia is a nutcase. Maybe Woody did molest her. Maybe she is upset that she was adopted and wasn't wanted by her birth parents. Who the **** knows...

a seven year old child can also be coached. and the conclusion drawn by the appellate division decision was not that she was abused. in fact, the issue didn't seem to be raised in the hearing. rather, they said dylan, in particular, was too angry about woody's relationship with soon yi to participate in therapeutic visitation, which is what woody was seeking. at that time there was no claim of abuse as far as i can see. she was, however, enraged with him. and i have no doubt, given a mother so spiteful that she changed his children's names, that her anger was fostered and fed.

 

[Connery]

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.

My apologies perhaps I was "jealous"...

What you stated wayyyyy back there was conclusory without any basis and tried to ram it down my throat. We all are entitled one way or another.

.....and then we each have our opinions to rest on.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

So if a psychiatrist said he or she did believe Dylan, you'd believe them, right? Unlike a psychologist a psychiatrist is a medically trained doctor, too. They have all sorts of tests and procedures that helps them draw conclusions. What, you think they just say "What happened?", the alleged victim goes "I was raped"...and the psychiatrist goes "I believe/don't believe you" ? Is that what you thinks happens?

A seven year old child has a lot to gain. Getting attention amongst a menagerie of 9 or 10 siblings. A dotting mother paying huge amounts of attention to her. She could have been psychologically damaged on birth, because some people are born with such genes. She might be damaged because Mia is a nutcase. Maybe Woody did molest her. Maybe she is upset that she was adopted and wasn't wanted by her birth parents. Who the **** knows...

Well, I am an NP and I practiced in psychiatry for 25 years. I never treated children, my specialty was adult and geriatric. But people who have an 'agenda' are pretty easy to spot. And they usually aren't children. They don't have to be tested out the wazoo. And besides, the tests are not to determine if they are lying about an occurrence, but to determine what their pathology is and the best way to treat it. I can tell you, if someone comes in saying they were raped, she is not a healthy person. I never treated a self mutilator who was not sexually abused. Those two things go hand in hand. And this girl is anorexic and a self mutilator. Self mutilators also dissociate, that is how they are able to cut without feeling pain. That dissociation is something they learned to do when they were being abused in order to escape it. Some even suppress the memories and don't recall the event until years later in their lives. Those are not things people do for attention.

Children the age this girl was when she reported it do not have a sexual vocabulary or repertoire. They have no idea what the genitalia are there for except to pee. When they start saying someone did something like touching them or penetrating them, or start perpetrating other children, that is a sure sign they have been perpetrated themselves. It is the only way they would get that knowledge. A child that age would be far more believable than would an adult who could be wanting money, disability, or a host of other secondary gains.

The girl was perpetrated and the system copped out on her.

 

[Sunshine]

I should have said I didn't care for very many children. I did work an adolescent unit when I was a staff nurse. Those kids were getting abused in real time. I simply couldn't take it. And I admire the ones who could, but I couldn't work there day in and day out. It was just too much. It is much easier to work with an adult who has a history of abuse than to work with a child who has the problem currently in their life.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Good for you!

 

[boedicca]

Woody is totally a child molester. And it is incredibly creepy how the mediatainment establishment has protected him.

 

[Sunshine]

As long as this has been around, adults still disbelieve little children who have been abused. That is just unfathomable.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, I am an NP and I practiced in psychiatry for 25 years. I never treated children, my specialty was adult and geriatric. But people who have an 'agenda' are pretty easy to spot. And they usually aren't children. They don't have to be tested out the wazoo. And besides, the tests are not to determine if they are lying about an occurrence, but to determine what their pathology is and the best way to treat it. I can tell you, if someone comes in saying they were raped, she is not a healthy person. I never treated a self mutilator who was not sexually abused. Those two things go hand in hand. And this girl is anorexic and a self mutilator. Self mutilators also dissociate, that is how they are able to cut without feeling pain. That dissociation is something they learned to do when they were being abused in order to escape it. Some even suppress the memories and don't recall the event until years later in their lives. Those are not things people do for attention.

Children the age this girl was when she reported it do not have a sexual vocabulary or repertoire. They have no idea what the genitalia are there for except to pee. When they start saying someone did something like touching them or penetrating them, or start perpetrating other children, that is a sure sign they have been perpetrated themselves. It is the only way they would get that knowledge. A child that age would be far more believable than would an adult who could be wanting money, disability, or a host of other secondary gains.

The girl was perpetrated and the system copped out on her.

When did the self mutilation start? As 7? At 15? If those problems started later in life who's to say Woody had anything to do with it..

 

[Dr Grump]

As long as this has been around, adults still disbelieve little children who have been abused. That is just unfathomable.

Well, it's not helped when nutjobs start talkign about naked ritua ls and kids being burned and satanism and crap like that. Stuff that nobody could have hidden. Like the McMartin case in California McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dr Grump]

Woody is totally a child molester. And it is incredibly creepy how the mediatainment establishment has protected him.

I dare you to say that publically, put your name to it...

 

[Connery]

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....

You deserve better than that. I said that publicly and it bothered you, therefore I will publicly apologize to you.

Moreover, for me, "the Court of Public Opinion" was the most important statement made in this thread.

[MENTION=40539]skye[/MENTION]

 

[freedombecki]

Woody is totally a child molester. And it is incredibly creepy how the mediatainment establishment has protected him.

$omething tell$ me $howbu$ine$$e$ have a $take in $omeone like Woody Allen who $oothe$ their $elfi$h $oul$ by being ju$t a little bit wor$e than the greedie$t among them who make$ them rich a$ Mida$.

 

[Plasmaball]

Methinks the loser here is the one defending a perv.

we live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty. Public opinion is not law, i suggest you understand how our nation works before throwing around verdicts.

Allen May have actually done this and if proven he should pay for it under the law. He also may not have done this and nothing should happen.

You would have already been excused from the jury had this gone to a trial. You are unfit and bias.

 

[Plasmaball]

Woody is totally a child molester. And it is incredibly creepy how the mediatainment establishment has protected him.

Proof being?

 

[tinydancer]

Woody is totally a child molester. And it is incredibly creepy how the mediatainment establishment has protected him.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Sunshine]

As long as this has been around, adults still disbelieve little children who have been abused. That is just unfathomable.

Well, it's not helped when nutjobs start talkign about naked ritua ls and kids being burned and satanism and crap like that. Stuff that nobody could have hidden. Like the McMartin case in California McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Some of the accusations were described as "bizarre",[5] overlapping with accusations that mirrored the just-starting Satanic ritual abuse panic.[4] It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.[4] When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis (the McMartins' lawyer), one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers.[20]

Psychiatric interviewing is a skill. Part of that skill in working with children is to distinguish fact from fantasy. It is with adults as well. People can be delusional and make accusations based on those delusions. When you are dealing with psych patients both children and adults it is of the utmost importance that you NOT put words in their mouths.

It should proceed: Tell me what happened? Did anything else happen?

Not: Did the person do this? Did the person do that?

Unskilled people can do a LOT of damage.

In the Allen case, I don't think the people working with the girl were unskilled. And in the current day, she certainly has the symptoms of a history of being sexually abused as a child. It was NOT the DA who was unwilling to pursue it. It was NOT for lack of witnesses or evidence. It was a JUDGE who was either star struck or for some personal reason didn't want the notoriety in his courtroom. He copped out saying it was for the benefit of the child.

 

[tinydancer]

Interesting time line at this link.

June 1993: In a scathing judgment against Allen, a Manhattan judge ruled that Farrow should receive custody of the children, and said he was not convinced “that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.”

He said the psychotherapists who interviewed Dylan Farrow had their judgement “colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen,” according to the Times.

The judge also blasted Allen for his relationship with Previn, saying his relationship with her harmed both her and her adoptive siblings.

“Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system,” Justice Elliott Wilk wrote.

September 1993: Connecticut state’s attorney Frank S. Maco announced that while he found “probable cause” to prosecute Allen, he was dropping the case because Dylan was too “fragile” to deal with a trial.

Mia Farrow agreed with the decision, he said, and Dylan Farrow provided a similar account in her statement Saturday:

“After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the ‘child victim,’” she wrote.

Maco recently told People that Dylan was “traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that’s a closed courtroom or an open courtroom.”

Woody Allen Timeline: What Happened to the 1992 Allegations - TheWrap

 

[Sunshine]

Methinks the loser here is the one defending a perv.

we live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty. Public opinion is not law, i suggest you understand how our nation works before throwing around verdicts.

Allen May have actually done this and if proven he should pay for it under the law. He also may not have done this and nothing should happen.

You would have already been excused from the jury had this gone to a trial. You are unfit and bias.

We also live in a society where a judge will crap out on an innocent child.