Woody Allen Child Molester?

[Sunshine]

I have no idea if Woody Allen is a molester or not.

All I know is that Mia Farrow is one snake of an ex wife.

Mia Farrow didn't write the open letter.

Her daughter did.


And it can only be one of 3 things.

1) Vindictiveness beyond comprehension. (just doesn't likely that a person would that intense of grudge all these years and go to such deceptive lengths to punish him for what he did to his mom + given the tone and nature of her letter, she'd have to be sociopath)

2) False memories (as in McMartin Preschool)

3) Truth.


Again, given the tone and nature of her letter, the details about being sickened every time she sees him in the media -- it doesn't seem made up -- only a sociopath could go to that length. She believes what she's saying -- IMO -- true or not.

I don't think the McMartin incident was 'false memories.' I think they had unskilled interviewers who put words in the mouths of the children. There are a lot of skill levels in every profession. But even a moderately skilled person can look at the symptomology of the adult in this case and recognize that she was sexually abused as a child.

I will add that it does happen from time to time that a vindictive mother will coach a child on making accusations. But those cases are easy for the skilled interviewer to spot. Once you deviate from what was coached, they can't keep up the tone.

 

[Plasmaball]

Are you a trial attorney/litigator?

nope

Thanks

you dont throw around the child toucher thing. May you never be on the end of something like that because you pissed off a woman. ( IF its not true )

Shame really.

 

[jillian]

No skye here is an excerpt, "Allen was investigated on child molestation claims for the 1992 accusation in Connecticut but prosecutors elected not to charge him.

The handling of the investigation was criticized after Litchfield County state attorney Frank S. Maco said in a press conference that he believed there was "probable cause'' to charge Allen but decided against prosecution partly to avoid a traumatic trial for the young girl".

The Australian

What do you have to say now or are you still dodging the issue.

uh thats rather lame...sake of the child? You never see that

Are you a trial attorney/litigator?

are you, hon?

 

[Connery]

uh thats rather lame...sake of the child? You never see that

Are you a trial attorney/litigator?

are you, hon?

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue


are you, hon?

 

[Plasmaball]

Are you a trial attorney/litigator?

are you, hon?

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue


are you, hon?

evidence that you are?

 

[Connery]

are you, hon?

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue


are you, hon?

evidence that you are?

that I am an attorney?

 

[BDBoop]

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue


are you, hon?

evidence that you are?

that I am an attorney?

Since you are, I'm rather wondering why you are ignoring the two adult survivors of sexual molestation in this thread, and their perceptions of this situation.

 

[jillian]

Are you a trial attorney/litigator?

are you, hon?

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue

are you, hon?

yes. and prosecutors who do sexual abuse cases know that their clients are always fragile. it is their job to walk their victim through the process… in the family case, they might not have even needed to put the child on the stand, but could have possibly used validators who advance the child's case. (since the visitation matter had no witness confrontation issues in that regard).

i've never seen an attorney not pursue a case because of a "fragile" witness.

and you know very well what the prosecutor being admonished for his behavior means.

what i'll also say is one doesn't need to be an attorney to understand how unreliable the complain is and how, given that the statute of limitations has run, the "open letter"i is only intended to malign… just like her mother did when she and he broke up.

 

[Connery]

evidence that you are?

that I am an attorney?

Since you are, I'm rather wondering why you are ignoring the two adult survivors of sexual molestation in this thread, and their perceptions of this situation.

Get there posts and present them here, more importantly, what relevancy does that have to do with my position (below)?

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.

 

[BDBoop]

The posts are by RosieS and I. You obviously already dismissed them, so I won't be dragging them to the forefront again.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Gracie]

I see skye is still frothing over Mia and not the issue of DYLAN claiming she was molested. Mia this, Mia that. Obviously Skye has issues with Mia Farrow.

 

[Connery]

are you, hon?

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue

are you, hon?

yes. and prosecutors who do sexual abuse cases know that their clients are always fragile. it is their job to walk their victim through the process… in the family case, they might not have even needed to put the child on the stand, but could have possibly used validators who advance the child's case. (since the visitation matter had no witness confrontation issues in that regard).

i've never seen an attorney not pursue a case because of a "fragile" witness.

and you know very well what the prosecutor being admonished for his behavior means.
.

I addressed your issues in a previous post. There are other mitigating factors involved here that neither you or I are privy to. Most importantly, the age of the victim is paramount. Nothing is plain vanilla, no two cases are the same and zealously protecting the legitimate the interests of the client carries a different and more cautious standard with a 7 year old or a child of similar age. I am not going to second guess the prosecutor or why he made his decision. It is a done deal.

I have not pursued cases and referred them out at least once because of this type of situation.

 

[Gracie]

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.

Good. Cuz I would say hang him by his balls.

 

[Connery]

The posts are by RosieS and I. You obviously already dismissed them, so I won't be dragging them to the forefront again.

Thank you for your time.

You have no idea what I have done ...you are looking for a fight, not an intelligent discussion...I suggest you go elsewhere.

I have set forth my position, you have dismissed it......

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think the McMartin incident was 'false memories.' I think they had unskilled interviewers who put words in the mouths of the children. There are a lot of skill levels in every profession. But even a moderately skilled person can look at the symptomology of the adult in this case and recognize that she was sexually abused as a child.

Re the McMartin case:

Judy Johnson, mother of one of the Manhattan Beach, California, preschool's young students, complained to the police that her son had been sodomized by her estranged husband and by McMartin teacher Ray Buckey.

<snip>

Johnson also made several more accusations, including that people at the daycare had sexual encounters with animals, that "Peggy drilled a child under the arms" and "Ray flew in the air."[1][5] Ray Buckey was questioned, but was not prosecuted due to lack of evidence.

Estranged husband, sexual encounters with animals, drilling kids, and Ray flying..

Lots to believe there....

This is why I find your opinion dangerous. People make shit up all the time with nothing to back it up and people like you run with it. It's beyond awful....

 

[jillian]

yea hon

I always discuss the emotional impact of a trial with the client and then ask them to rest on that knowledge before we continue

are you, hon?

yes. and prosecutors who do sexual abuse cases know that their clients are always fragile. it is their job to walk their victim through the process… in the family case, they might not have even needed to put the child on the stand, but could have possibly used validators who advance the child's case. (since the visitation matter had no witness confrontation issues in that regard).

i've never seen an attorney not pursue a case because of a "fragile" witness.

and you know very well what the prosecutor being admonished for his behavior means.
.

I addressed your issues in a previous post. There are other mitigating factors involved here that neither you or I are privy to. Most importantly, the age of the victim is paramount. Nothing is plain vanilla, no two cases are the same and zealously protecting the legitimate the interests of the client carries a different and more cautious standard with a 7 year old a child of similar age. I am not going to second guess the prosecutor or why he made his decision. It is a done deal.

I have not pursued cases and referred them out at least once because of this type of situation.

any mitigating factors, as you call them, would be the subject of speculation. and given the fact that the prosecutor was smacked on the wrist, i think we can agree that no one believed his excuse. if you also recall, the reason he got smacked down was talking about the case when he wasn't bringing charges. that was inappropriate and unethical.

i don't have to second guess him. that was done for me by the powers that be.

 

[Gracie]

I don't think the McMartin incident was 'false memories.' I think they had unskilled interviewers who put words in the mouths of the children. There are a lot of skill levels in every profession. But even a moderately skilled person can look at the symptomology of the adult in this case and recognize that she was sexually abused as a child.

Re the McMartin case:

Judy Johnson, mother of one of the Manhattan Beach, California, preschool's young students, complained to the police that her son had been sodomized by her estranged husband and by McMartin teacher Ray Buckey.

<snip>

Johnson also made several more accusations, including that people at the daycare had sexual encounters with animals, that "Peggy drilled a child under the arms" and "Ray flew in the air."[1][5] Ray Buckey was questioned, but was not prosecuted due to lack of evidence.

Estranged husband, sexual encounters with animals, drilling kids, and Ray flying..

Lots to believe there....

This is why I find your opinion dangerous. People make shit up all the time with nothing to back it up and people like you run with it. It's beyond awful....

You weren't speaking to me, but Allen marrying his daughter is enough to make the scales swing towards Perv rather than Innocent.

 

[skye]

I see skye is still frothing over Mia and not the issue of DYLAN claiming she was molested. Mia this, Mia that. Obviously Skye has issues with Mia Farrow.

still mumbling about skye? obviously somebody has issues with skye!

 

[BDBoop]

The posts are by RosieS and I. You obviously already dismissed them, so I won't be dragging them to the forefront again.

Thank you for your time.

You have no idea what I have done ...you are looking for a fight, not an intelligent discussion...I suggest you go elsewhere.

I have set forth my position, you have dismissed it......

Did you address our posts when posted? No? Then I know what you did.

 

[Dr Grump]

You weren't speaking to me, but Allen marrying his daughter is enough to make the scales swing towards Perv rather than Innocent.

It is weird for sure. The jury is out.