Woody Allen Child Molester?

[Dr Grump]

Even with evidence, you think Allen is innocent because no charges were brought. Yet, I have not one shred of doubt that even though Paula Deen's case with was dismissed, you believe that she is guilty.

I believe OJ was guilty:
1) He ran
2) There was blood
3) There was evidence linking him to the scene
4) He had motive

With Dylan please list any evidence. Any will do...

There were babysitters who testified that they saw Allen in compromising position with the child.

She has classic symptoms of a survivor of child sexual abuse, she self mutilates and she is anorexic.

1) Alleged compromising position
2) They are signs of abuse, not just sexual...
3) And none of the above is of any evidential value in the sense that equates to Simpson...

 

[Sunshine]

An article for the person who claims to have had one experience with abuse. This is from a clinician who worked with abuse victims for 25 years and has the master's and post master's study to do so:

Self-Harm / Self-Injury

Deliberate self-harm, or self-injury, is when a person inflicts physical harm on himself or herself, usually in secret. Some victims of sexual assault may use self-harm to cope with the difficult or painful feelings, but it is only a temporary relief, not a healthy way to deal with the trauma of sexual assault. Self-harm can cause permanent damage to the body, as well as additional psychological problems that hinder the healing process, such as guilt, depression, low self-esteem or self-hatred, along with a tendency toward isolation.1

Note: Deliberate self-harm is not necessarily inflicted with suicidal intent, and engaging in self-harm does not necessarily mean that someone wants to die.

Those who inflict harm on themselves may believe it “helps” them cope with their experiences and their emotions. For sexual assault victims, self injury may:1
•Provide a way to express difficult or hidden feelings. •It’s common for victims to feel numb or empty as a result of sexual assault.
•Engaging in self-harm may provide a temporary sense of feeling again, as well as a way to express anger, sadness, grief or emotional pain.

•Provide a way of communicating to others that support is needed.
•Provide a distraction from emotional pain.
•Provide self-punishment for what they believe they deserve.
•Provide proof that they are not invisible.
•Provide a feeling of control: It’s not uncommon to feel that self-harm is the only way to have a sense of control over life, feelings, body, especially if other things in life are out of control.

Some common methods of self-harm include:1
•Cutting
•Burning
•Biting
•Hitting the body
•Pulling out hair
•Scratching and picking at sores on skin
•Eating Disorders
•Substance Abuse

Friends and family of sexual assault victims may be among the first to recognize the signs of self-injury. It may be helpful for a survivor to share their experiences and concerns with a qualified service provider who can help him or her find a healthier, positive alternative to alleviate the pain from sexual assault, such as a counselor or psychologist.1

Self-Harm / Self-Injury | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

Since they know everything and all.........

You are disgusting and you are star struck. You think anyone in 'the performing arts' is a god when in fact most of them think they walk above the expectations of human decency and are nothing but low life pukes. As you have so well demonstrated.

 

[Sunshine]

I believe OJ was guilty:
1) He ran
2) There was blood
3) There was evidence linking him to the scene
4) He had motive

With Dylan please list any evidence. Any will do...

There were babysitters who testified that they saw Allen in compromising position with the child.

She has classic symptoms of a survivor of child sexual abuse, she self mutilates and she is anorexic.

1) Alleged compromising position
2) They are signs of abuse, not just sexual...
3) And none of the above is of any evidential value in the sense that equates to Simpson...

In 25 years no one but sexual abuse survivors presented as self mutilators to my clinic. You are simply a celebrity worshiper who will not see what has happened to an innocent child.

 

[RosieS]

Only a lazy clinician lumps clients into only one category.

The reasons kids become cutters are myriad, many having nothing to do with sex and more to do with gender roles and bullying and stress, among other things:

Teens Cutting & Other Self Injurious Behavior in Children & Adolescents

And here is a short review of reasons Dylan Farrow was not believed at the time, in a very recent article which also describes in detail the vengeful females seen in this thread:

Brian Dickerson: In case against Woody Allen, emotion outruns the evidence | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

If you own a pipe, shove these sources in it.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Dr Grump]

In 25 years no one but sexual abuse survivors presented as self mutilators to my clinic. You are simply a celebrity worshiper who will not see what has happened to an innocent child.

I do not worship Woody Allen in any way, shape or form. I think he's a good director, average actor, and have seen about three of his 40 movies.

I just want evidence.

And as to your first sentence above? I simply don't believe you...

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay -- so you absolutely truly have nothing to do with the thread, and what's being discussed here? Your responses make much more sense in that light.

I have everything to do with this thread and discussed that which I felt interested me. We view things differently. I am at a stage in my life where I look at people who would be good for my son or bad for my son. This thread has been very enlightening in both the OP and responses. Which is why I have had meaningful and well thought out discussions with those who I enjoyed sharing thoughts with.


Are you suggesting I leave this thread, am posting in an inappropriate way, derailing or otherwise acting in an untoward manner?

I'm suggesting you re-read your first several posts in this thread and admit you came at it from the direction of him being guilty of child molestation on Dylan, and quit pretending that suddenly it's about his relationship with Soon-yi, and you really have nothing to say with regard to his guilt or innocence where Dylan is concerned.

Because we all know eww yuck-patooie on the Soon-yi front. But he is innocent until proven guilty on the Dylan front.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of the thread was to discuss whether or not he is guilty of child molestation, not to determine it. It would be quite futile to assume any one of us can determine or make some kind of final decision about the abuse. We don't, for one thing, have the evidence that one should have in making a determination, and, as well, any determination would have to be based on logical reasoning, not on hard evidence as there is no hard evidence.

We are here, imo, to express our ideas about whether he may have done what Dylan says he did or whether he may not have done it. No one can say if he did or didn't. It isn't a court. Saying he is innocent until proven guilty shuts down the purpose of the thread, which is to discuss the issue, not make a final determination.

 

[jillian]

If their celeb status (his) were not into play.....he would be sitting in a jail cell.

if you look at how he was treated by the prosecutor (the one who was found to have acted improperly), i'd suggest the opposite.

if he wasn't a celebrity the publicity hounds wouldn't have gone further once the allegations were unfounded.

but again… why rely on evidence when you can repeat unproven allegations, years after any statute of limitations ran, just to smear someone.

 

[JoeB131]

Ok people you Woody wankers all.

What was Mia Farrow supposed to do when her babysitter's employer called her and told her of what she witnessed the day before?

Baby Dylan on the couch, Woody on his knees in front of her with his head ion Dylan's lap?

This is testimony. And it was what this babysitter reported to her employer because she found it so disturbing that started this firestorm.

What was Mia Farrow supposed to do?

Who cares?

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Oh, is it up to three babysitters now?

Why would it take THREE babysitters?

Again, this really, really sounds like old Mia got upset that she got traded in.

Incidently, I think they are both kind of flakey. But last time I checked, being a flake wasn't a crime, or half of USMB would be posting from prison.

 

[JoeB131]

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 firmly believe she thinks it's the truth. But again, this was back in the 1990's, when the kinds of therapists who investigated these things were overzealous and oftem prompted children into false memories. (As you mentioned about the McMartin Pre-School Trial).

My reasons for being doubtful.

1) No physical evidence.

2) No other person has ever come forward to make these kinds of claims.

3) A court let him and Previn adopt children.

 

[Theowl32]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, lets get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Lets keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything, that is all I will need to know.

Oh thats right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, lets get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Lets keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything, that is all I will need to know.

Oh thats right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

you so clever.

not suing proves his guilt. sold.

 

[Theowl32]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, lets get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Lets keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything, that is all I will need to know.

Oh thats right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

you so clever.

not suing proves his guilt. sold.

Me so clever.

No no.

You so clever.

 

[Esmeralda]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, lets get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Lets keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything, that is all I will need to know.

Oh thats right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

One reason that seems very obvious why he doesn't sue: he would look like such a villian! It is something that would be very hurtful to Dylan, whether she was molested or whether it is a false memory: it would be shattering for her, but more important, he would look worse, a worse villian for putting her through more agony. I don't know if he cares about her at all, but he does care about himself, and his image.

 

[Theowl32]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, lets get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Lets keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything, that is all I will need to know.

Oh thats right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

One reason that seems very obvious why he doesn't sue: he would look like such a villian! It is something that would be very hurtful to Dylan, whether she was molested or whether it is a false memory: it would be shattering for her, but more important, he would look worse, a worse villian for putting her through more agony. I don't know if he cares about her at all, but he does care about himself, and his image.

Well, we can say there is no evidence. Sometimes the witness being abused is considered to be evidence. In fact, it is often used as evidence. I asked this before. I thought there was one witness, the nanny.

Also, if you need more evidence than that, then you are saying that the girl could be flat out lying. There is no other way to put it. She is emphatic and direct about it. Now, you can do the old liberal thing and take on both sides of the issue by claiming, "well, I believe she believes it happened."

That is just a pathetic attempt to obfuscate from the real contention. You either believe her, or you doubt her claims. Now, if you doubt her claims, that means she is LYING. She went into some real detail, and from the stand point of the EXPERTS who are either criminal forensic psychologists, or people who have experienced these things, they almost all believe her accounts.

Plus, when you consider the other things (marrying a young girl and reportedly taking nude photos of her when she was 18) all coincides with a man whose morals are skewed. At least their judgement is.

You and seemingly the entire left wants to turn this into an official court room. Which is where the notion of INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY belongs. Opinions on this can be expressed. Yes, even opinions of guilt. People can actually have an opinion of guilt or innocence.

I think he guilty as hell. I think he is creepy as hell.

Now, why don't you tell us your opinion. Don't give us this crap about evidence. What is your opinion? Is the girl lying or not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now watch folks. How liberals are totally incapable providing a simple yes or no. What is the definition of "is?"

Behold their double talk and bullshit.

 

[BDBoop]

In this thread, the left thinks he is innocent.

Dylan Farrow's Brother Moses Defends Woody Allen - Scandals & Feuds, Dylan Farrow, Mia Farrow, Ronan Farrow, Woody Allen : People.com

Moses Farrow weighs in.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty. And Allen hasn't even been charged with anything. This is just a lot of unproven claims about something from 22 years ago.

As the Youtube lesbian molestation incident shows, there's no statute of limitations in some instances. If Allen were really guilty of something Farrow'd file charges, and Allen would be on trial. She hasn't, and he isn't.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

For the record I hate Woody Allen movies. This is straight foward law and justice to me. Until he's actually charged with something and stands his trial, I'd defend him same as anyone else.

 

[Theowl32]

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty. And Allen hasn't even been charged with anything. This is just a lot of unproven claims about something from 22 years ago.

As the Youtube lesbian molestation incident shows, there's no statute of limitations in some instances. If Allen were really guilty of something Farrow'd file charges, and Allen would be on trial. She hasn't, and he isn't.

This is not a courtroom. That means you can express an opinion. I am sure you have when it came to.....oh, Bush lying about WMDs for example.

Now, it is not illegal for you to express what you think.

So, stop dodging and express whether or not you think he is guilty or not. Stop acting like expressing guilt or innocence is something we are not allowed to do outside of the courtroom.

Or are you going to continue to double talk?

 

[Esmeralda]

I wonder why he is not suing for defamation of character. If someone accused you publicly through the written word, would you file a lawsuit for libel?

No?

Of course you wouldn't.

Now, let’s get to the question.

Why isn't he suing? Is he suing? Let’s keep an eye on it. Cause if he does not file anything that is all I will need to know.

Oh that’s right. The girl "believes she is telling the truth."

Cause marrying their adapted daughter and taking nude of photos of her when he was a middle aged man, is not creepy enough. Yeah, nothing there.

Say, isn't there at least ONE WITNESS to this? The nanny?

One reason that seems very obvious why he doesn't sue: he would look like such a villain! It is something that would be very hurtful to Dylan, whether she was molested or whether it is a false memory: it would be shattering for her, but more important, he would look worse, a worse villain for putting her through more agony. I don't know if he cares about her at all, but he does care about himself, and his image.

Well, we can say there is no evidence. Sometimes the witness being abused is considered to be evidence. In fact, it is often used as evidence. I asked this before. I thought there was one witness, the nanny.

Also, if you need more evidence than that, then you are saying that the girl could be flat out lying. There is no other way to put it. She is emphatic and direct about it. Now, you can do the old liberal thing and take on both sides of the issue by claiming, "well, I believe she believes it happened."

That is just a pathetic attempt to obfuscate from the real contention. You either believe her, or you doubt her claims. Now, if you doubt her claims, that means she is LYING. She went into some real detail, and from the stand point of the EXPERTS who are either criminal forensic psychologists, or people who have experienced these things, they almost all believe her accounts.

Plus, when you consider the other things (marrying a young girl and reportedly taking nude photos of her when she was 18) all coincides with a man whose morals are skewed. At least their judgment is.

You and seemingly the entire left want to turn this into an official court room. Which is where the notion of INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY belongs. Opinions on this can be expressed. Yes, even opinions of guilt. People can actually have an opinion of guilt or innocence.

I think he guilty as hell. I think he is creepy as hell.

Now, why don't you tell us your opinion. Don't give us this crap about evidence. What is your opinion? Is the girl lying or not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now watch folks. How liberals are totally incapable providing a simple yes or no. What is the definition of "is?"

Behold their double talk and bullshit.

No one, NO ONE, speaks for me. I don't see how this has anything to do with a political leaning. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't, that's for sure. I did not in my post suggest he was innocent. When I referred to no evidence, I meant there is no hard, empirical evidence. We have Dylan's statements, but that is not hard, empirical evidence. Anyone can claim something happened. That is only proof as far as it is believable, and the believability is usually tested by logical reasoning. I am in no way suggesting she is lying. I don't know. None of us know; that is the point. I have said in earlier posts that the fact she is saying the same thing some 20 years later lends credence to the veracity of her statements. But you can't hang a man on a claim of abuse when there is no physical evidence.

Please don't make me out to be a 'liberal' who is supporting Allen no matter what. If you read my other posts in this thread, you would see I am doing just the opposite.

And no one, conservative or liberal has the right to speak for me. No one.