General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnyone who thinks an adult telling about being molested as a child is a liar --
Please check in here so I can put you on Ignore.
The stats on child sexual abuse -- one out of three women molested as children, one out of seven men molested as boys -- are such that "nobody went to jail" is an absolutely insane reason to disbelieve a child sexual assault survivor. (No, I am not going to provide the source for the stats - I've known them for a long time and you can google them yourself.)
The stats on ADULT rape victims who know their attackers and watch them go to jail is damn near zero. The stats on teenage girls with video evidence out on social media seeing the people who did it go to jail are outnumbered by the ones who commit suicide after being bullied about it (at least from what I see in the news).
Do I believe Woody Allen molested a seven year old girl? Yes. I find her credible.
And if you don't, and think the way our amazing criminal justice system treats victims of sexual abuse is the way to determine credibility NOW, let alone twenty or thirty years ago, speak up here, because so help me, I will fill up my ignore list with joy because seriously, it is a level of stupid I don't need to see.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She didn't make that up.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)It was real.
Healing thoughts to her and all other survivors.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The way she described it is how I would describe it. I still remember everything. Can't forget that unless you forced it out of your head. My sister is a blocker, she blocks stuff out so I feel like I have to be the elephant and remember everything for her.
I felt bad reading that. I'm so glad I was a little kid when he started going with his step daughter. My step dad, who never adopted me either but was still my dad, was a Woody Allen fan and he could not bring himself to watch one of his movies ever again. We weren't allowed to watch them either. He said that a man who raises a daughter, then has sex with her is a child molester. He assumed that if he raped one of his daughters he probably raped all of them and beat the sons, cause that's how child molesters operate. He had been molested himself as a child, so it made him mad.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I am so sorry.
Thank you for your courage and support!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)These grown ups around here judging the honesty of a little girl, who at that age had probably not learned how to lie very well, are disgusting human beings. The same people who doubt the veracity of this woman's tale are the very same people who believe Allen without a moments hesitation.
Is it because she's female? Cause he's famous? I mean any father figure who would marry his daughter figure is a sick person. And a molester.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Seven year olds don't make up things like that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I feel suspicious of people who accuse kids of making up sexual abuse.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)A couple recently got out of prison after 21 years with little evidence against them. As an adult man I am careful to never be alone with female children and rarely am around male children.
My wife was abused as a child by an adult so I have great sympathy for the situation, but allegations without evidence, especially ones from so long ago, are difficult to defend yourself from. It was not so long ago that black men were regularly lynched for "raping" white women without due process, and in many of those cases they were later found to not have done it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-disturbing-story-of-the-texas-couple-released-after-spending-21-years-in-prison-for-satanic-abuse-2013-12
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The child was three, three year olds are highly suggestable. The people involved were not her parental figures. There were strange religious connotations to the case involving satanic rituals, which should have sent of red flags to any reasonable person.
Dylan's story has nothing in common with this case in the link you provided.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)in his relationship with Farrow's adopted daughter. I am not saying he didn't do anything in this case, but I am saying that, especially in a family situation with complex dynamics, to be very careful about believing an unsubstantiated story. I have not watched one of his movies since he took up with Farrow's daughter (who I view as his step daughter even if she was not legally so).
Here is an apologist for Allen with his take on the situation.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That why I believe her. It fits his pattern.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)How many daughter figures do most men have sex with? Not many I hope. I would hope not even one.
My step dad raised me from six years old and never adopted me. We lived in different states for months at a time. He had sex with my mother. He never came on to me at any time and I'm 32 now.
When this happened with Soon Yi, he explained it to me from that perspective. After having given me baths, bought my clothes, cooking me breakfast, if he ever touched me in a sexual way he would have to kill himself.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)How many murders must I commit before I have a history of killing people?
One.
So let's go over the history.
One daughter figure that he had sex with.= Soon Yi . That begins his known history.
Then Dylan.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)As for his history of "sexualizing" "daughter figures," this is his know romantic history:
First wife: 16 to his 19.
2nd wife: 27 at marriage.
Diane Keaton: 24 at beginning of relationship.
Stacey Nelkin: 17 at beginning of relationship.
Mia Farrow: 35 at beginning of relationship.
Previn: 19 at beginning of relationship.
He's friends with all of them but Farrow, and none have ever suggested he was interested in toddlers in any way whatsoever.
If you know of any other history, feel free to post it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dylan was 7.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
In his history he is know to have had sex with at least one daughter figure whom he had met as a child. Then Dylan came forward at 7 and accused him of sexualizing her. She never recanted as far as I know. So that's 2. 2 daughter figures, one who he admits to having sex with and has married. The other who he calls liar.
I said nothing of his relationships with non daughter figures. One of whom was barely of the age to consent.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)a history of sexualizing daughter figures as evidence that Allen abused Previn.
One 19-year-old woman is not a "history" and is evidence for nothing about what happened with a 7 year old.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)in a case where certain issues are PC?
If a woman says it, why, then when considering the validity of that statement, the PC movement means you have to accept it or be guilty of misogony (if you are a man), or being an anti-feminist (if you are a woman).
Anyway it has been some 20 years since the original accusations. If Allen was a pedophile, you would think that even one other woman would have come forward with such charges and level even more accusations against Allen. But instead, Allen and Soon-Yi seem to have a working marriage, and he continues to create his movies and play clarinet in his band.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Kids that age don't know enough about that sort of thing to make up stories unless they themselves experienced it.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)It just doesn't make any sense for almost anyone to make up sexual abuse claims. Not with all the crap, the victim blaming and threats, that people get. I've seen people get death threats for coming forward FFS! It's no wonder that most rapes go unreported.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She does not stand to gain anything from this. I feel sorry for her.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Make me the first. We have nothing to discuss. Ever.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Welcome to my ignore list, currently only populated by people who don't support survivors of sexual assault.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)You don't even need to read a thread to know. Others I haven't been familiar with.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I knew this day would come.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Good luck
Cofitachequi
(112 posts)Pre-judgement is, by definition, prejudice. No useful interaction can take place between individuals when one goes into the interaction with prejudice.
Your post is incorrect. Your "ignore list" may include some who, for some unknown reason, don't support survivors of sexual assault, but it also includes a few who refuse to be blackmailed into a position by theatrics and hyperbole, choosing instead, to rationally gather information, and make informed decisions.
I cannot imagine the horror of being a sexual assault victim, particularly acute when the victim is a child, but I can also not imagine the horror of being unjustly accused. The tragedy of the subject matter is so important that it mandates careful consideration, not pre-determined verdicts and prejudiced, blanket pronouncements.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)I have no idea what happened, and for those to make judgements with the very same lack of knowledge, aren't being honest.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Means you have made a conscious decision to disbelieve Dylan.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That strategy seems helpful at times. Unless you just have to put your two cents in, or 1000 words.
How kind of you to make judgements about the knowledge and honesty of others.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Back in the day of The Well of the very early internet, I knew that Patsy Ramsey had killed her daughter Jon Benet.
Now of course, the police know that is not true. But the stuff that got circulated on the internet at the time let my mind go into full blown assumption mode. I mean so much data indicating that Patsy was guilty, with that much data, why it all had to be true! And why wouldn't I blame her?
Now I try to not do the same thing twice.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)You have Dylan's own account of her molestation. Either you believe her or not.
The cases are not comparable. This is a case of believing a victim or discrediting her as a liar. The latter is of course the more common response, which is why only 3 percent of rapes result in jail time. Even then that jail time can be as short as 30 days.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To keep the kids out of Woody Allen's custody. So I believe that Dylan was coached.
There had to be a reason why she was not believed back then, and that Allen was not indicted back then. (What is most important: If the authorities, and original social workers were competent. Many social workers are in that business to stop human suffering, and are not going to let a little child be abused just on account of celebrity worship.) Since I don't have any knowledge of what did or did not go on in Mia Farrow's household back then, I really have no more information than I had with the Ramsey case. Neither do you.
I have been on the sidelines of two separate divorce cases. In one of those cases, I was aware of how one little 3 year old girl was coached by Mommy to say that Daddy did some heinous things. The social workers had to figure out whether it was true or false. Their questioning let them realize it was a pack of lies. This was a relief to me, as since Mommy hated me as well as the daddy in the case, I would have been the next person on the chopping block.
Oh and two years later, crazy Mommy said the little boy in the case had been abused. It floors me that some parents are willing to damage their children in that especially awful way, just so they get their way!
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)Sadly, I've seen the same thing.
I've seen divorces turn nasty with accusations of molestations. Fortunately I was too far removed (friend of a friend) to be dragged into it.
I've also seen too many cases of "recovered memories" being used to accuse people who are innocent. I know how mailable memories can be. I read about a cause of a woman who was raped and her rapists was convicted and sent to prison. He maintained his innocence and eventually a DNA test was done and it proved he was innocent. The DNA test also led to the arrest and incarceration of the actual rapist. However, even after the DNA exonerated the innocent man, the woman still remembered him as her rapist, even thought the two men didn't look alike. (They were both black, but that's about the only similarity.) Why? Because she was told that was the case over and over again. Being told over and over again affected her memory of the events of that night. I believe this is what has happened to Dylan. The evidence points to her being coached and Mia Farrow effectively brainwasher her into believe Woody Allen molested her.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)In the case I mentioned, the little girl was three and a half. Just old enough to remember almost word for word the atrocities that Mommy had told her to tell the social workers about.
But the little girl was too young to be coached about answers for the "real questions." No little girl who has been a victim of deviant and torturous incest tells a social worker, "You wanna know if I wanna spend this weekend with my Daddy? Well, he's so much fun - I wanna spend my life with him!"
A seven year old can probably be coached to not "slip up" in terms of the answers to questions.
And it is not surprising if many of the members of the Farrow clan "remember" Dylan's version of things. If you have been one of many children adopted, and you know Mommy is angry at Daddy, you certainly don't wanna lose your only support by saying anything other than what Mommy is saying.
Glad to hear that DNA got the innocent man freed from the false memory indictment and imprisonment.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I think it may have been the single lowest thing ever done by someone I actually know. In this case, the woman sort of slyly admitted after the fact that her accusations were BS, but had served their purpose.
Poisoning a relationship like that-- particularly one so fundamental as the parent/child relationship... it's just unconscionable.
Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
juxtaposed This message was self-deleted by its author.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)alittlelark
(18,890 posts)......which affords them virtual immunity in our current sound-byte culture.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)nt
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)There will be no trial. The statue of limitations has expired. It would be nice if you granted victims the same level of respect you do to alleged perpetrators. If more people did, we might see more than 3 percent of rapes result in jail time.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)I don't know what happened in this case. All I know is that we have conflicting stories and that alleged perpetrators shouldn't get sentenced to prison unless their guilt is proven.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)You have an open letter from Dylan and silence from Allen. His apologist in the Daily Beast interviewed him since Dylan's letter and while that guy used every piece of distraction he could conjure up to discredit Dylan, he didn't recount a denial by Allen or even concern for his daughter's well being.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)It will count. He chose not to deny it when talking to his friend who wrote the piece in the Daily Beast. Having a publicist release a statement is weak. If a person doesn't have the courage to say something himself, I doubt his sincerity. That is the same reason I never believed (or disbelieved) rumors of Dylan's assault and didn't know whether Mia's allegations in the custody case were true. But when a credible victim herself speaks, I believe her. But by all means, people are free to believe a man who married the teenage daughter of his girlfriend. After all, the accused is a woman. The default position is that makes her a congenital liar. Allen is no different from any other accused rapist. They are always highly valued and "innocent until proven guilty" while their victims are liars. I've seen it dozens of times before. Only the names of perpetrator and victim change. It's rape culture at work. That is precisely why only 3 percent of rapes result in jail time, if only for thirty days, while 25% of women are raped at some point in their lives. To me, this is no different from any other sexual assault case. It's always the same story, and that is what enables rapists to operate with virtual impunity in this country.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)I do not know if she is correct. Those are two different propositions. As I noted in another post I was a victim of abuse myself and spent years constructing memories around the event to mitigate its awfulness, or put it in alternate contexts. Not even consciously. It doesn't mean I was crazy, or lying. It's just how the brain works.
So yes I believe that Dylan was molested. And it may have been Allen that did it.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)and I am very sorry you had to endure that awful experience.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)yeah, Woody we all want to be in the attic with you and Dylan and you show us exactly WTF happened OK.
oh fuck me running that is some fucking funny stuff right there.
he said.
she said.
and HE KNOWS IT. HE KNOWS THERE WILL NEVER BE PROOF.
What a chicken shit piece of a -man-
RedRoses323
(199 posts)Happened to me as well..
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)talk about how they were molested, how it messed them up, and how they still have trauma from it.
Ignore and thank you.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and things like lifetime achievement awards.
What happened in this case is typical. By the time the victim is strong enough to come forward, the statute of limitations has passed. And it doesn't really matter because child molestation typically happens in secret -- with no witnesses and no physical evidence.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)he's got a "thing" for very, very young women. Always has.
Creeps me out.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)There was no trial because the investigators saw clear signs Dylan was coached.
Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensville_satanic_sex_scandal
More than a dozen people were charged and someone went to jail, even though some of the charges were beyond belief. The kids claimed they were forced to eat fetuses. Why did they do this? Because they wanted to please an authority figure (the cops in this case).
On the other hand, Roman Polanski admitted to raping an underaged girl and Mia Farrow testified on his behalf at a 2005 trial. If you want to go after someone for perpetuating rape culture, go after Mia Farrow.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)She gave her testimony in the NYTimes. I find is fascinating that you all continually ignore her statement as thought it doesn't exist. The CT prosecutor also said he believed she was molested but didn't think she would hold up on the stand. Some will always stand up for a rapist. It happens ever single time there is a trial or allegation of rape. I grow tired of the games.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)I'm not ignoring her statement, but you seem to be ignoring the facts. When Dylan first interviewed by a doctor, she said she wasn't molested. The next day, Mia Farrow took her to another doctor and she said she was molested. Mia Farrow pressured a nanny to go along with the charges and one quit as a result. The investigators found clear evidence that she was coached.
Why do you keep ignoring this?
whathehell
(29,090 posts)For the star-struck stupid.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)This leaves "innocent until PROVEN guilty" in a dilemma - either the alleged victim is lying, or the accused perpetrator is lying.
Since there was no court case, you probably assume the victim is lying.
If not, please clarify. If no reply by morning, I will assume you wish to join the Ignore list, and just joined in to insult any victim who never saw a trial.
Nitram
(22,877 posts)What about Allen being convicted by you without a trial? You apparently know who is guilty without one. I for one don't believe there is a way to know which one of them is lying.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is a concept based in law, not personal feelings.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)I believe that people shouldn't rush to judgement, all sides of a story be heard, and relevant facts be presented.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)are innocent until proven guilty. Many people believe it is fundamental in the construct of a fair legal system, and it is. It has nothing to do with the individual.
So many people don't understand the fundamental importance of it in the judicial system, yet the inability of individuals to maintain the same construct. Kind of like the complete lack of understanding when it comes to the first amendment.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)I fully believe he committed that armed robbery
Igel
(35,356 posts)It's more complicated.
Back in the '00s when there were all the priest/abuse scandals breaking there was a rather loud one. It dealt with a high-ranking official in, IIRC, Los Angeles.
She was very specific. Where. What. When. How many times. It was a Big Deal for a couple of days.
Until the photographs and records started to surface. He wasn't in the same state as her when these things happened. On the specific days he was even photographed being in other states. There was no evidence he'd been in California for the year she claimed he abused her. And there was something funny about it--she wasn't in the state or in the city for the years he *was* there. Until recently.
She didn't consciously make the story up. She wasn't lying--she believed it, with absolute confidence. Said this had ruined her life. Human memory is very fallible. Sometimes you remember things as they happened. But every time you remember something, you have the chance to embellish it, to change it. It's easy to plant false memories.
So there was a school in the '90s that was shut down because the adults and teachers had mass-abused so many of the students. Except that it turned out that the kids weren't remembering what happened. They were prompted, prodded, and asked so many times that they finally gave the answers that the investigators wanted. Then they remembered these as though they were their own personal memories.
I was railroaded at a job once. I was playing bridge over a friends and as we talked during a break I said that there was no backup for the computers. If something happened, we'd lose years of data. We needed to get a backup system.
Three days later I was yelled at and told I was planning to erase years of data. When I finally talked to the people, there were three witnesses. This was strange, because one guy that had been there wasn't a witness and we only had 4 people for bridge--him, me, and three witnesses made 5. I asked one of them for details, and finally she and her sister started to fight--until the one woman remembered that her sister was in the bathroom, the reason for the break, and so couldn't have been a witness. To confirm this, they called over their brother, who said that they were all three present when I threatened sabotage. This worked until the brother's sister asked when this was--and said they had spent that night setting up for *her* brother's anniversary party, and pulled out her planner to prove that he hadn't been anywhere near the bridge game.
Three people swore they were eyewitnesses and provided blow-by-blow details. One wasn't present, but taking a leak. Another was 15 miles away in a different town.
It's the same with a lot of eyewitness testimony in courts. Two or three witnesses ID a person. Only to find that the person couldn't have been the perp. They're not lying. They're simply mistaken.
Survivors of sexual abuse aren't liars. They typically believe exactly what they say is true. In some cases--and for this there are no stats, so it may be very rare or it may be more common--their memories are fallible. This means a single witness shouldn't be enough to convict.
As for the stats on how frequent sex abuse of minors is, this results from surveys where they ask the population to recall their past. Some will have blocked out the events and underreport. Some will have created events and that makes for overreporting. But there's no independent confirmation so I think most people assume it's a wash and the stats are fairly reliable. In any event, no more reliable stats are forthcoming.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)going to do something wrong.
Parsing sexual molestation as memory problems -- ICK.
Not even going to discuss it.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)A huge scandal in California that ended up being entirely concocted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
The McMartin preschool trial was a day care sexual abuse case of the 1980s. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.[1] The case was part of day care sex abuse hysteria, a moral panic over alleged Satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s.
......................................................
Several hundred children were then interviewed by the Children's Institute International (CII), a Los Angeles abuse therapy clinic run by Kee MacFarlane. The interviewing techniques used during investigations of the allegations were highly suggestive and invited children to pretend or speculate about supposed events.[12][13] By spring of 1984, it was claimed that 360 children had been abused.[1][7][14] Astrid Heppenstall Heger performed medical examinations and took photos of what she believed to be minute scarring, which she stated was caused by anal penetration. Journalist John Earl believed that her findings were based on unsubstantiated medical histories.[15] Later research demonstrated that the methods of questioning used on the children were extremely suggestive, leading to false accusations.[12] Others believe that the questioning itself may have led to false memory syndrome among the children who were questioned.[2][4] Ultimately only 41 of the original 360 children testified during the grand jury and pre-trial hearings, and fewer than a dozen testified during the actual trial.[16]
Videotapes of the interviews with children were reviewed by Dr. Michael Maloney, a British clinical psychologist and professor of psychiatry, as an expert witness regarding the interviewing of children. Maloney was highly critical of the interviewing techniques used, referring to them as improper, coercive, directive, problematic, adult-directed in a way that forced the children to follow a rigid script and that "many of the kids' statements in the interviews were generated by the examiner."[17] Transcripts and recordings of the interviews contained far more speech from adults than children and demonstrated that, despite the highly coercive interviewing techniques used, initially the children were resistant to interviewers' attempts to elicit disclosures. Recordings of these interviews were instrumental in the jury's refusal to convict, by demonstrating how children could be coerced to giving vivid and dramatic testimonies without having experienced the abuse.[18] The techniques used were contrary to the existing guidelines in California for the investigation of cases involving children and child witnesses.[19]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Welcome to ignore. Thank you for your honesty.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and how does ignoring anyone help you?
Simply cutting you off from information, that's all.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)and I'm a guy.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)When confronted by facts they choose to ignore you...
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)That is what you are ignoring. No one but Dylan has provided evidence. Calling a woman a liar is not a fact. The McMartin case is not evidence in the Allen case. It's the typical shit that goes on each and every time a rape case is made public. One time, someone made up a false allegation, and that is used as an excuse for why rapist a, b,c, d, e, f, g , all the way to z is supposedly innocent. Some things are clockwork, whether Allen, Assange, the Heisman trophy guy, or any other accused rapist. It's the same fucking story every time from the same people who always use the legal standing of innocent until proven guilty to insist women keep their mouths shut about sexual assault. Yet when a woman is charged with a false rape allegation, they never mention innocent until proven guilty. They wish her in prison for the rest of her life or even death. The only facts here are Dylan Farrow's statement that you and others are ignoring in order to excuse yet another accused rapist.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)insisting that women keep their mouths shut. There is no connection between those two ideas. Talk, women, talk!
I haven't the slightest interest in excusing Woody Allen either. I thought his marriage to his stepdaughter totally creepy, too. "Manhatten" was creepy, as well. I've seen very few of his movies in subsequent years. Aside from everything else, I think he is overrated as a filmmaker.
Dylan's statement is evidence, it is not necessarily a factual account of what happened. There is much other evidence in terms of statements and examinations and such from back when the charges were originally made, and much of it contradicts itself, depending on the source.
I am not willing to believe Dylan's statement is true simply because she says it is true. She might genuinely believe it to be true, and it may have never happened. It is possible to implant ideas into the minds of small children; that was the point of the McMartin example. Mia seemed to be working very hard at it at the time.
Woody will take another big blow to his reputation now that Dylan and Ronan are after him. The ball is in his court, and the news says he will respond, soon. There is no way to prove either version of the facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. Each person will make their own choice about what they believe happened, and that is where it will end.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)...this is attention-seeking behavior. Don't even sweat it.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)you try to be a fair person and look at all sides of an issue and for the thanks, you are told your as supposed to be judgmental to be a good person there is only one side to this issue.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)This has nothing to do with Dylan, but with your ego. He brought up an example of kids being coached into making horrible accusations and instead of admitting that perhaps Dylan was coached and her memories as an adult are clouded by years of coaching from Mia Farrow, you will ignore him.
There is a serious problem with rape culture today, but you are not part of the solution. When parents use accusations of child molestation as part of a divorce proceeding, it makes it harder for real victims to find justice.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Welcome to DU!
As you can see we need more reasonable people on here.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If I used the ignore function you certainly would be on it.
You can't even think critically or keep an open mind. You dismissed all the facts in that post, most likely because you have made your mind up and no facts will ever change it. Incredible.
I hope you are never on a jury. And I'm not talking about here on DU.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Dylan's recent statement. Your Postiivist game is transparent. Facts my ass. You willfully and purposefully avoid facts while invoking the "fact" trope as a transparent excuse, Wasn't it you who used the innuendo that Mia Farrow might have cheated on a husband as some sort of excuse that Allen is innocent? The sins of the mother extend to the child because why exactly? Then you invoked the offensive dig that "rape victims react emotionally." You're pretty emotional yourself here. Why exactly is that? Why are you so invested in making sure no even think that Dylan is telling the truth and Allen guilty. The man is walking around free. He doesn't face jail time. He just got a lifetime achievement award from the Golden Globes. But the idea that someone might actually believe a victim rather than siding with an accused perpetrator is so unacceptable to you, you will insult and malign anyone who commits the thought crime of believing Dylan Farrow. "Rational" people believe rapists over victims. There are no facts in that assumption. There is a blatant and willful dismissal of the key fact of Dylan's testimony. There is a willful refusal to consider FBI evidence showing false allegations are extremely rare. He married his children's teenage sister for fuck's sake. That alone should tell you the guy is a seriously twisted piece of trash.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)When Dylan first interviewed by a doctor, she said she wasn't molested. The next day, Mia Farrow took her to another doctor and she said she was molested.
Got that? How about again?
When Dylan first interviewed by a doctor, she said she wasn't molested. The next day, Mia Farrow took her to another doctor and she said she was molested.
"He married his children's teenage sister for fuck's sake."
She was 27 when they got married. She was 20 when they began a relationship.
You don't know what you are talking about. You yell at people for ignoring facts, but you refuse to look at the facts yourself.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Day-care sex-abuse hysteria was a panic that occurred primarily in the 1980s and early 1990s featuring claims against daycare providers of Satanic ritual abuse and several forms of child abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
The Allen/Farrow accusations were made in 1992.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)and, yes, her father was out of the country on some of the dates, for months at a time.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Except for lying about being molested, of course. (Pause for obligatory story about how she self medicated with drugs, exhibited self destructive behavior, and did bad things that made her completely non-credible, because she certainly couldn't be messed up from having been molested, right?)
Ignore, and thank you.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)She is a dean of a college, but her husband divorced her after she spent years with a psychologist who "helped" her recover these memories through hypnotism when it was the rage. He could not deal with her obsession with it, she was writing a book and confronted everyone in her family for not saving her from her father. Look, I am high strung and tend to be depressed. Mostly after a lifetime of fighting for respect in the work environment and also because I am a hyper concentrater due to ADHD - My cousin was a happy kid, we grew up together, she had 2 younger sisters who are happy and well adjusted and a bother who was born with a serious heart defect that is living well and happy with his family, she was very pretty and popular in school as were her sisters.
My Uncle was the only one in his family to be educated, all his brothers chipped in and put him through college and he tried to help those he could but it was a big family and he had 4 kids as well. He worked for an oil company and spent most of his life traveling to trouble spots around the world, If it was a good place, he tool his family, if it was not so good, he left them in their lovely 3 bedroom home. One bedroom for the parents, one for the boy and one for the three girls. Some times I slept over there. Now I have had handsy relatives, one aunt's husband for a short marriage, my uncle was not one of them and I had a lot of uncles now all dead - we are old (14) not to mention second uncles and friends of the family that I did not like touching me. and some icky slobbering kissing aunts as well. The other cousins in the family say did not happen, and they seem happy.
Right now, mu cousin is still estranged from her family, even though her mother is very old and quite ill, her father has been dead for 15 years. She is bitter and angry and insists recovered memories are valid. It may be for some, but for others they could be symbolic of something else.
So please, you know less about this than I do, I have been aware of all the contortions of this situation for over 20 years as she contacts me to complain about her family being unsupportive and her sisters contact me about how disturbed she is. Her father was out of the country for a lot of the dates she accuses him of molesting her. I think it might be a resentment of abandonment that he left his family for work. But I do not claim that is the answer, it is just a random guess.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)You notice how we are saying Dylan was coached into lying by Mia Farrow and years and years of being told these lies she now believes them. We see Dylan as the ultimate victim in this case.
On the other hand, you tell a story about your cousin, and IdaBriggs immediately asks if your cousin is a drug addict.
Despite this, IdaBriggs thinks we are disrespectful to the victims of child molestation.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)For someone who pretends to be so concerned about victims you are pretty damn rude.
I'd be honored for you to add me to your stupid McCarthy-esque list.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)i have no idea of the veracity of this victims claims, but every day accusations are made that turn out to be false not intentionally but rather through memory issues or misunderstanding or many other reasons.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)MY COUSIN is my example, and she has recovered memory that ruined her life and are not real. I don't know the Farrows I don't know the Allens so I don't know what happened. I am not a professional and don't claim to be one, although some of the people who claim to be are not in reality (Laura Ingraham). People say things that are true in their mind, they just are not facts, I used my cousin as an example, You do know what an example is. I am tired of the whole questioning me about this family problem.
What happened in Dylan's case, although I understand she uses another name now, may be true or it may be remembered after talking to her distraught mother for a period of time. We don't know
I know crazy from people who married into my immediate family like the SIL who got a restraining order against me although I never came to her house unless invited and I never touched anyone there, except to hug them hello and good bye, just one day she said I was dangerous and she got a restraining order against me and my 83 year old mother. I got it dropped and off the record but that is another story, anyway, I know that some people believe that stuff they say is true even if it is not. Sometimes they are manipulated into beliefs - like my cousin, and sometimes they get there on their own, like my SIL.
Do I believe most people are telling the factual truth, yes, I would never reject someone who complains of abuse. Every one should be investigated. People should be questioned. Even years later.
Do I think Dylan may be wrong, only because of that stupid video her mother released questioning her on film , edited film. I was just very odd. But them that might mean nothing.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)he had the evidence to prosecute her, but was worried that the 7 year old was too fragile to go through a trial, and they wanted to do the best thing for her.
There was at least one employee who had come across Woody with his face in Dylan's lap, and other witnesses, including a mental health therapist for an older child, who had witnessed disturbing behavior.
And this case does not involve recovered memories. I remember reading about this long ago, and thinking: well, someday this girl will be an adult and she can tell us what really happened.
And now she has, and it's the same thing she was saying back then.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)"We have the prosecutor from when she was 7, saying that he had the evidence to prosecute..."
And was later reprimanded for saying that.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)violated the ethics code. And whether or not the prosecutor should have said, he did have evidence. It wasn't just the child's word.
Everyone will have to make up their own minds as to who seems more credible, because there will never be a trial, just as in most child molestation cases.
Read more: Woody Allen-Mia Farrow Custody Trial: 1993 - The Custody Trial Begins - Dylan, Testified, Maco, and Connecticut - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/3557/Woody-Allen-Mia-Farrow-Custody-Trial-1993-Custody-Trial-Begins.html#ixzz2sEQHXxZJ
In November, the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission voted unanimously to dismiss Allen's complaint against Maco. It said that after four hours of deliberation it could find no evidence that Prosecutor Maco had violated the canon of ethics for lawyers in his remarks during the September news conference in which he announced that he was dropping the charges against Allen. In January 1994, the Connecticut bar's disciplinary panel criticized Maco's handling of the case and found that he might have prejudiced the celebrities' custody battle, but that he did not violate the state's code of conduct for lawyers.
"Yes, the prosecutor was accused by Allen."
Nope. He as officially reprimanded for his statements. That was later revoked, but it is not just an accusation from Woody Allen.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And Woody, with his lawyers, was the one who filed the complaint.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)and the fact that investigators in the case stated that there was no reason to believe there was any molestation. That Dylan appeared to have been coached and changed her story numerous times. That the nanny quit her job because Farrow was pressuring her to support the molestation claims when she hadn't witnessed anything.
And you left out that the prosecutor was reprimanded for saying that there should have been an indictment.
I believe Dylan most likely believes this happened to her, but I also can see that she could have been coached into believing it. But you have to look at the evidence from all the investigations that happened if you are going to make a call one way or another.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The Yale doctors who wrote the report had people examine Dylan who were on Woody's payroll.
The babysitter who reported the incident to Mia was employed by a friend of Mia's who was visiting that day.
And YOU left out the part that the State Bar ruled that there had been NO ethics violations.
Have you read both articles from Vanity Fair yet, by a writer who interviewed dozens of people? Or are you getting all your information from Woody's friend, the one who made the documentary about him? The fact that he left out the part about the State Bar ruling that the prosecutor had violated no ethics laws is pretty telling. The November 2013 Vanity Fair article also included a quote saying that if the Yale doctor who wrote the report had been aware that Mia kept in her attic a trunk full of wigs on head blocks, he wouldn't have written that Dylan was fantasying about "dead heads" in a box in the attic. That was why he thought she was imagining things.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)I find it amazing that while the FBI points out that false allegations are exceedingly rare, on this site people always point to a single false accusation to excuse every single accused rapist. Your post contains a host of outdated and blatantly false information about suppressed memory that might have been valid in the 1980s but is no longer. Then your story about work means fuck all. That means what? No person should ever be convicted of a crime? Does that apply to George Zimmerman and Chris Christie, or is it just child molesters and rapists who deserve to have entirely irrelevant anecdotes count as special evidence in their defense? Every case of sexual assault is the same story around here: Each and every rapist is innocent; the women always liars. Why is that I wonder? I wonder why some are so determined to ensure that accused rapists not only not face jail, but that no one dare question whether they might be guilty?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Farrow case in an indirect way, & there were lots more cases than just the McMartin one.
1 Significant cases
1.1 Kern County child-abuse cases
1.2 McMartin Preschool
1.3 Country Walk
1.4 Fells Acres Day Care Center
1.5 Bernard Baran
1.6 The Bronx Five
1.7 Praca Day Care
1.8 Wee Care Nursery School
1.9 Glendale Montessori
1.10 Little Rascals
1.11 Dale Akiki
1.12 Oak Hill satanic ritual abuse trial
1.13 Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions
1.14 Christchurch Civic Crèche
1.15 Martensville satanic sex scandal
1.16 Escola Base
1.17 Maternal schools Asilo Abba, Sorelli, Carboni and San Filippo Neri
1.18 Outreau child abuse prosecutions
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)NO. DOUBT.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Been there. Done that. It was in no way a lie. It happened.
Democat
(11,617 posts)I didn't cheat in my marriage, so no one else has ever cheated.
Does that sound logical to you?
Triana
(22,666 posts)Because I know that the incidence and likelihood of a child or adult lying about having been sexually abused as a child is a WHOLE LOT less than the incidence and likelihood of someone cheating in their marriage. You can check that fact. In fact some (many, most likely) child molesters ARE cheating in their marriages because these types of perverts don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
HOW. DARE. YOU. mock and minimize what happened to me and others like me in that way in order to defend your point of view.
Well done, the point went completely over your head. Or maybe you just deliberately ignored it, so you could attack straw men and go on another self-righteous rant.
Fact is, some adults DO lie about sexual abuse.
Logical
(22,457 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... in all of history.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)doesn't it make you feel dirty? I mean, seriously, you have to pretend you don't know how much pain someone is in so you can think he is an innocent man, and she is a liar.
I realize I am a nobody on the Internet, and I am proud to be judged by the company I don't keep - the minds so intent on "staying open" that their brains fall out.
As requested, IGNORE.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)untill this happens it`s just media trial.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)It doesn't happen. In the rare cases where there is a trial, the victims are the ones who end up re-traumatized. The stats are clear - one out of three and one out of seven. I *personally* know over twenty adult survivors, and ZERO who served jail time.
ON EDIT: I forgot - I know one guy who served TEN DAYS after getting caught/confessing to molesting his thirteen-year-old step-daughter. He was "depressed" and his family has forgiven him (but his wife divorced him, thank God). He has remarried, and his brother regularly has him over. His niece is eleven now. No one seems worried except us; we choose not to socialize with him.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to go through a trial. And why bother, when you know there is only a small chance of proving the molestation in court? It's not like molesters do their thing in the open. And they don't usually leave physical marks, either.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Her molester used to put a gun in her mouth and promise to kill her and her family if she ever told. He got caught, and was in more trouble for the gun than for the molestation.
I know another child who was ten when she was raped. The police actively discouraged her family from prosecuting because they felt it would be more traumatic for her to go through a trial and stated that she had "suffered enough." She was eleven the first time she attempted suicide, but fortunately she didn't succeed. Her abuser agreed to counseling; he attended one session, and was "too busy" to attend another.
I know one boy who was repeatedly molested by his father. His parents divorced over it, and his mom got the house in exchange for her silence. When he was a teenager, he started acting out what had been done to him on other children. His brother doesn't speak to him thirty years later. He still lives in the house his father paid for.
I knew one girl who told me about her grandfather molesting her. She told her mother. Her mother didn't believe her. Later she found out he used to molest her mother and aunt, and had been able to molest ALL of his granddaughters because no one talked about it / protected them; the older generation really didn't believe he would do it to their daughters. The girl I knew started cutting herself. It was the first time I learned that survivors would do that; she said it made her feel like she was in control. She stressed that she wasn't suicidal; suicidal would get you locked up. She planned on celebrating when the bastard died, but in the meantime, if she didn't want to be around him, she was considered to be a trouble maker.
I know way too much about this stuff.
Screw the presumption of innocence; I've read the letter. She's telling the truth.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Years ago, when all this happened, I reserved judgement, thinking: someday she'll be an adult and she can tell us. Well, she's an adult now and she's telling us.
And I hear her.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)God knows I would prefer to believe they all just had overactive imaginations, but it is such classic survivor stuff....
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Woody Allen, the celebrated film-maker, can still face criminal prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting his step-daughter Dylan Farrow, even though the crimes occurred more than 20 years ago, according to legal sources.
Investigations into the allegations were sparked in New York and Connecticut. But eventually both were dropped.
Now that Dylan has come to grips with the abuse and can clearly articulate what happened to her, she could provide crucial testimony establishing probable cause for Allens renewed prosecution.
Her haunting first-person account of her sexual abuse at the hands of Allen, published today in The New York Times, could conceivably lead to a new criminal investigation in either jurisdiction, according to legal sources.
The federal government could also bring criminal charges against Allen based on several statutes, including civil rights violations. The federal government has relentlessly pursued film director Roman Polanski for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s.
It could do the same with Allen.
http://www.theimproper.com/98810/woody-allen-prosecuted-child-sexual-assault/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)is that much harder than putting together a case at the time.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Despite a thorough investigation, there was nothing to even begin building a case on.
BTW, Allen took a lie detector. Farrow refused.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)among other witnesses. And there was the testimony of the 7 year old, who the prosecutor said was too fragile. But he said he did have the probable cause to file a case. Allen objected to his statement, and the dispute went before the State Bar, which vindicated the prosecutor, saying he hadn't violated ethics laws by speaking out against the case.
There's more to this than you think. The judge in the case refused visitation between Allen and Dylan, based on the evidence that came to him.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)which seems credible to me.
I doubt that there will be a trial, twenty years later. These kind of allegations are extremely hard to prove, even very soon after an assault.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)was pressured by the actress to support charges that the filmmaker molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter.
The nanny, Monica Thompson, resigned from the Farrow household on Jan. 25 after being subpoenaed in the bitter custody battle between the actress and Allen. She told Allen's lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple's other adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation.
"I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days," Thompson said. "I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, 'Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?'
"Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue."
Thompson, who had worked for Farrow for seven years, said she was not present in Connecticut the day last August the incident now under scrutiny by authorities allegedly occurred.
Thompson said the day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, the actress took Dylan to the doctor.
"When they arrived home, Farrow said Dylan had been 'afraid to talk to the doctor.' On Thursday, she took Dylan back to the doctor. When they arrived home, Farrow told me that 'everything is OK now--everything is set.' "
Thompson told Allen's lawyers that Farrow, upon returning from the second doctor's visit, seemed "very happy and excited for herself."
Thompson said that the next day Kristie Groteke, Dylan's baby-sitter, drove her to the bus, and her fellow employee was "very upset."
"She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear."
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19930125&id=_s5YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XvADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6678,2628640
1993
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Casey Pascal, not by one of Mia's employees.
vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
Calling attention to someones birthday-party behavior may seem trivial at best. However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mias
apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woodys agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didnt know that, according to several sources, Woody, wearing just underwear, would take Dylan to bed with him and entwine his body around hers; or that he would have her suck his thumb; or that often when Dylan went over to his apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play. He called Mia a spoilsport when she objected to what she referred to as wooing. Mia has told people that he said that her concerns were her own sickness, and that he was just being warm. For a long time, Mia backed down. Her love for Woody had always been mixed with fear. He could reduce her to a pulp when he gave vent to his temper, but she was also in awe of him, because he always presented himself as a morally superior person.
One summer day in Connecticut, when Dylan was four and Woody was applying suntan lotion to her nude body, he alarmed Mias mother, actress Maureen OSullivan, and sister Tisa Farrow when he began rubbing his finger in the crack between her buttocks. Mia grabbed the lotion out of his hand, and OSullivan asked, How do you want to be remembered by your children? As a good father, Woody answered. Well, thats interesting, OSullivan replied. It only lasted a few seconds, but it was definitely weird, says Tisa Farrow.
Woodys own mother was heard to remark on his fawning behavior with Dylan when Woody and Mia would take the children over for visits. Shes the Wicked Witch of the West, Dylan, Woody, who seemed to have intense negative feelings for his mother, once said to the little girl. Twist her nose off.
SNIP
That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Caseys baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it a fatherly pose, but more like something youd say Oops, excuse me to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There was also a report from medical investigators which concluded no abuse had taken place and that Dylan had trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. I'm not convinced that can be so easily dismissed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/nyregion/farrow-testifies-that-daughter-accused-allen-of-molestation.html
The prosecutor was convinced abuse had taken place but did not charge Allen. A judge thought Allen's conduct was inappropriate.
A 7 year old is too young to even understand what happened and could easily be manipulated by a parent into believing something that wasn't true, so I'm not convinced that what Dylan says is the end all to the matter. I think the only two people who really know what happened are Farrow and Allen. Both had motivations to lie. The evidence for each lying goes both ways. I'm not convinced either way. I think Allen is a wormy creep and never liked him. I don't think Farrow's behavior is defensible. I don't think we will ever know the truth, but whichever way it goes wouldn't surprise me.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the Pascal children.
The medical team was paid by Woody. They concluded she had trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy because she talked about the dead heads in the attic. It turned out she was referring to Farrow's wigs that were on head-shaped blocks in the attic.
A seven year old is old enough to know what happened to her, and to have retained those memories over the years.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow
In a 1997 Connecticut Magazine article, investigative reporter Andy Thibault quoted a deposition given in April 1993 by Leventhal: Regardless of what the Connecticut police wanted from us, we werent necessarily beholden to them. We did not assess whether shed be a good witness in court. Thats what Mr. Maco may have been interested in, but thats not necessarily what we were interested in.
The clinic cited Dylans loose associations and her active imagination as thought disorder. Dylan, for example, had told them she had seen dead heads in a trunk in the attic. When he was informed that Mia had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Thibault wrote, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or thought disorder.
Thibault cited a litany of practices employed by the YaleNew Haven clinic that at least one expert put into question. Based on an examination of court documents and the report, he wrote, The Yale team used psychologists on Allens payroll to make mental health conclusions. He reported that the team had destroyed all of its notes, and that Leventhal did not interview Dylan, although she was called in nine times for questioning. They did not interview anyone who would corroborate her molestation claims. Judge Elliott Wilk, who presided over the custody hearing brought by Allen, wrote in his decision that he had reservations about the reliability of the report.
vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Caseys baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it a fatherly pose, but more like something youd say Oops, excuse me to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)quick to claim bias whenever someone has ties to Allen (even spurious ones, such as your suggestion that the Yale sex abuse clinic was hired by Allen, when it was hired by Connecticut police and the Connecticut state prosecutor), but you don't acknowledge it when the reverse is true, instead you tout these people as independent.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and that's why they are witnesses in the first place.
You are right that people on BOTH sides have connections to either Mia or Allen. You are wrong in believing only the ones tied to Allen are credible.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)1. No physical evidence of molestation or penetration.
2. No evidence of Allen being sexually interested in pre-pubescent children before or after the incident; no Hollywood rumors, etc., no other "molested" coming forward.
3. Allen's romantic history:
- First wife 16 to Allen's 19.
- Second wife 27 at marriage.
- Diane Keaton, 24 at beginning of relationship.
- Stacey Nelkin, 17 at beginning of relationship.
- Mia Farrow, 35 at beginning of relationship.
- Soon-Yi Previn, 19 at beginning of (sexual) relationship.
4. Allen's cordial relationship with all his ex's but Farrow. None have made accusations of interest in young children.
5. Farrow allowing Allen to adopt her children immediately before the accusations.
6. The fact that the accusation was only made after Farrow found the pictures of Previn.
7. Moses Farrow's defection from Mia's camp; he was 14 at the time of the split, as opposed to Ronan (5) and Dylan (7), and likely has much clearer memories of the atmosphere during the period.
8. The fact that the Farrow clan chose to rehash the drama publically in what has all the earmarks of a planned media blitz, using family friends in the media. The author of the VF piece is a friend of Farrow's, as is Nicholas Kristof, who gave Dylan his column.
9. The fact that Farrow's defenders here at DU have repeatedly misrepresented items of fact.
When all this started, my opinion was that Allen was clearly morally guilty and creepy for beginning a sexual relationship with Farrow's daughter. I had no particular opinion on the molestation except that it seemed unlikely since pedophiles like children, not post-pubescent women, and Allen obviously liked post-pubescent women.
I now have the opinion that Farrow's team is equally creepy and am more convinced that there was no molestation.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Rape would leave traces, but there are many other forms -- like his having his face in her lap, or applying sunscreen in places it didn't belong -- that would not.
And not all molesters are serial molesters. He was obsessed with her, by all accounts. That doesn't mean he'd be obsessed with every 7 year old, though I don't think he should have access to any.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)one's face on a child's lap "abuse" either.
The context of those acts is what would make them abusive, the details and the intent.
We know none of it, just innuendo from the Farrow camp.
He was "obsessed" with her, per Farrow, as Farrow was reportedly (per Allen) "obsessed with" Satchel/Ronan.
This is he said/she said & it's basically useless bullshit.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)doesn't it?
Speaking of disgusting.
I'm a woman btw. I've changed diapers which involved wiping privates, put suntan lotion on naked kids' buttocks, laid my head in their laps and theirs in mine, head-butted them in the general vicinity of the crotch playing "monster" and probably other things you find suspicious. I've been a surrogate auntie to my cousins' kids and a real auntie as well.
Your dirty innuendo is what's disgusting and out of bounds.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the house that day saw Allen with his face in Dylan's lap.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Along with that of the babysitter she employed.
But there won't be a trial at this point. It's always very hard to prosecute these cases, since the offenders usually are alone with their victims and rarely leave marks. 20 years later it's probably almost impossible.
When I first read about this in Vanity Fair in the 90's, I reserved judgement, telling myself we wouldn't know till the 7 year old was an adult and could speak for herself. Now she has, and I believe her.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Farrow was pressuring her. Plus the others.
The long-time nanny didn't see anything, but Mia's friend's babysitter did. OK.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)proves nothing. Both the prosecutor at the time and the family court judge believed the girl.
Pretend Allen's a Catholic priest. Would you tend to believe the woman's statement then?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)with divorce and custody proceedings in the works -- the babysitter just happened to walk by the TV room and see them, through an open door. I guess it was before or after Allen had taken Dylan to the attic during the same visit in the 15 minutes his movements are unaccounted for.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)with one of the boys had seen Woody with Dylan and had told Mia that his behavior was very inappropriate. So at the time of the Soon-Yi incident, Woody and Dylan had been working with the therapist on this for more than a year.
I think the real problem is that people should have sent up an alarm much earlier, and that Mia had been ignoring a lot of very questionable behavior. Once the thing with Soon-Yi happened, she stopped ignoring.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)and another child. And when I say recently, I mean within a month of the Soon-Yi incident.
As for therapy, Allen was a well-known therapy junkie so I discount the fact that he and the kids were "in therapy". I imagine they were all in therapy, it was called "the family hobby" in one report.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)thought Woody's behavior with the girl with very problematic.
Also, the Vanity fair reporter disagrees about the "glowing endorsement." It was just an endorsement, as is required in these proceedings.
I don't think Mia should be nominated for sainthood. I think she stuck with Woody far too long, and that she shouldn't have been going ahead with the adoption, with all the red flags that had been occurring.
But the article someone posted here recently, written by the guy who did the documentary with Woody, seemed very slanted toward Woody. If you read that, you should read both Vanity Fair articles, containing information from many interviews and a different set of "facts," before you decide that the young woman isn't credible.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)the claim that "molesters don't do such things in front of people", Farrow's friend's babysitter claimed she saw Allen & Dylan in the TV room, through an open door, while Allen was having a visitation in the middle of a divorce/custody dispute -- though in all the years Allen & Farrow had been together, no one had stumbled on such an incident, and Allen had no prior (or later) history of being interested in 7-year-olds.
And this on the same day that Allen also supposedly took Dylan up to the attic to do something -- both the TV room & attic supposedly happening in the same unaccounted-for 15 minutes.
I personally find it unbelievable that Allen was so overcome by lust (and by this time Soon-Yi was with him, not Farrow) that he chose to molest a child during a visitation at his partner's house in the middle of a custody dispute with the ex & multiple staff on site -- and that he'd do so in a TV room with a door open.
If you read the article a little more carefully, you find the supposed "inappropriate" behavior isn't behavior the therapist witnessed, but behavior reported by Farrow, her friends and family.
Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged inappropriate fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist. In more than two dozen interviews conducted for this article, most of them with individuals who are on intimate terms with the Mia Farrow household, Allen was described over and over as being completely obsessed with the bright little blonde girl.
Mia, who never sought to make the allegations public, also told Dr. Coates...
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)with his face in Dylans lap is an exception to the general rule that molesters like to molest in secret. Woody apparently slipped up.
If you read more carefully, youd see that Dr. Coates made the recommendation for therapy after she personally observed his behavior with Dylan when she was there to work with one of Dylans siblings.
Also, youd have noticed that many of those interviewed were critical of Mia but not for making the accusations. They were critical of her for putting up with him as long as she did, and putting the children at risk. There were many people interviewed who personally observed very inappropriate behavior on Woodys part.
So, you want to posit a conspiracy of more than two dozen people, all falsely implicating Woody, with a brainwashed 7 year old at the center. I think its very likely that the young womans story is much closer to the truth than his, but well never know. Hes lucked out.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mias apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woodys agreeing to address the issue through counseling.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/10/mia-farrow-children-family-scandal
In the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the shocking photographs, in January 1992, Mia did not bar Allen from her house. She allowed him to visit his adopted children, and she finished the film they were working on, Husbands and Wives. The kids have a right to be somewhat angryshe didnt protect them, says a legal observer. She let it go on; she didnt want to rock the boat. He was in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan when he adopted her! Tell me that makes sense. Gilman explains, Mia didnt want the media to know. She didnt want Woodys name tarnishe
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Allen "agree to address it" through counseling if "the issue," the "inappropriate behavior," was sexual?
The article is a tissue of juxtaposition and innuendo. Why don't they tell us what the problem was with "the greeting"? Instead, they juxtapose that vague statement with Farrow's mom seeing Allen put suntan lotion on the child's buttcrack and other suggestive stuff; and an unnamed legal observer saying Allen was in therapy for "inappropriate behavior" with the kiddie.
Farrow supposedly thought Allen's "inappropriate" behavior was sexual, but she wanted to address it through counseling to spare his good name?
It's laughable.
"He was in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan when he adopted her! Tell me that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense, & that's why I tend to disbelieve it.
"So, you want to posit a conspiracy of more than two dozen people, all falsely implicating Woody, with a brainwashed 7 year old at the center."
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
You claimed molesters molest in secret, but Allen reportedly molested in the TV room with the door open. Just a "slip up" though he was on a visitation at his ex's with the ex and multiple staff in attendance.
Whatever Allen is, he's not a stupid or crazy person.
BTW, Casey Paschal is Dylan's godmother, as well as being Farrow's long-time friend.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And that prosecutor was reprimanded for saying that.
The investigation showed no evidence of molestation, and that includes medical examination results. The report also stated that Dylan seemed rehearsed and that she changed her story several times.
There is more to this than everyone on DU thinks. We don't know what happened. But you have to look at the evidence and the investigation that happened at the time as well as Dylan's letter.
And anyone who doesn't really think that Allen did it doesn't necessarily believe that Dylan is lying. I think she believes it happened.
It's not so cut and dry.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)for probable cause, but that the young victim was too fragile to put her through a trial. The State Bar ruled that he did NOT violate state ethics laws.
And Allen paid for the psychologists that issued the report about Dylan.
Read more: Woody Allen-Mia Farrow Custody Trial: 1993 - The Custody Trial Begins - Dylan, Testified, Maco, and Connecticut - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/3557/Woody-Allen-Mia-Farrow-Custody-Trial-1993-Custody-Trial-Begins.html#ixzz2sEQHXxZJ
In November, the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission voted unanimously to dismiss Allen's complaint against Maco. It said that after four hours of deliberation it could find no evidence that Prosecutor Maco had violated the canon of ethics for lawyers in his remarks during the September news conference in which he announced that he was dropping the charges against Allen. In January 1994, the Connecticut bar's disciplinary panel criticized Maco's handling of the case and found that he might have prejudiced the celebrities' custody battle, but that he did not violate the state's code of conduct for lawyers.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow
In a 1997 Connecticut Magazine article, investigative reporter Andy Thibault quoted a deposition given in April 1993 by Leventhal: Regardless of what the Connecticut police wanted from us, we werent necessarily beholden to them. We did not assess whether shed be a good witness in court. Thats what Mr. Maco may have been interested in, but thats not necessarily what we were interested in.
The clinic cited Dylans loose associations and her active imagination as thought disorder. Dylan, for example, had told them she had seen dead heads in a trunk in the attic. When he was informed that Mia had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Thibault wrote, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or thought disorder.
Thibault cited a litany of practices employed by the YaleNew Haven clinic that at least one expert put into question. Based on an examination of court documents and the report, he wrote, The Yale team used psychologists on Allens payroll to make mental health conclusions. He reported that the team had destroyed all of its notes, and that Leventhal did not interview Dylan, although she was called in nine times for questioning. They did not interview anyone who would corroborate her molestation claims. Judge Elliott Wilk, who presided over the custody hearing brought by Allen, wrote in his decision that he had reservations about the reliability of the report.
vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Caseys baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it a fatherly pose, but more like something youd say Oops, excuse me to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)didn't "use" psychologists on Allen's payroll, they *interviewed* them.
"A team of investigators from Yale-New Haven Hospital that was retained by the Connecticut State Police subsequently concluded Dylan had not been abused," according to an account in the Times, which covered the custody proceedings.
Mias allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested. Ive since read a recurring canard that Woody chose the investigative team. Yet nobody has suggested how or why Mias team would ever outsource the investigation to a team chosen by Woody. Others have said that the investigators talked to psychiatrists on Allens payroll before letting him off the hook. The only way I can explain this is that the investigators, naturally, would have spoken with Woodys shrinks before giving him a clean bill of health. So technically, yeah, Woodys shrinks would have been paid a lot of money by Woody over the years. (Lets even call it an annuity.) The same would be true of his dentist, his eye doctor, and his internist.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html
http://medicine.yale.edu/pediatrics/general/childabuse/clinic.aspx
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The Yale guy who wrote the report never even interviewed her, so he was relying on people who had a conflict of interest.
Nine
(1,741 posts)That makes no sense. Why would the prosecutor hire someone on Allen's payroll?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow
In a 1997 Connecticut Magazine article, investigative reporter Andy Thibault quoted a deposition given in April 1993 by Leventhal: Regardless of what the Connecticut police wanted from us, we werent necessarily beholden to them. We did not assess whether shed be a good witness in court. Thats what Mr. Maco may have been interested in, but thats not necessarily what we were interested in.
The clinic cited Dylans loose associations and her active imagination as thought disorder. Dylan, for example, had told them she had seen dead heads in a trunk in the attic. When he was informed that Mia had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Thibault wrote, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or thought disorder.
Thibault cited a litany of practices employed by the YaleNew Haven clinic that at least one expert put into question. Based on an examination of court documents and the report, he wrote, The Yale team used psychologists on Allens payroll to make mental health conclusions. He reported that the team had destroyed all of its notes, and that Leventhal did not interview Dylan, although she was called in nine times for questioning. They did not interview anyone who would corroborate her molestation claims. Judge Elliott Wilk, who presided over the custody hearing brought by Allen, wrote in his decision that he had reservations about the reliability of the report.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)doesn't mean that other investigators at the clinic didn't interview Dylan.
I've seen that charge repeated: Leventhal didn't interview Dylan, but nowhere have I seen it stated that other members of the *clinic team* didn't interview Dylan.
Correction, Feb. 3, 2014: This article also originally misstated that the YaleNew Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic never interviewed Dylan Farrow; it should have said that the head of the hospital's investigating team, John Leventhal, never interviewed Dylan. (Return.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2014/01/did_woody_allen_molest_his_adopted_daughter_22_years_ago_reviewing_the_evidence.html#correction
The same kind of juxtaposition and innuendo used to draw inferences out of readers that don't stand up to scrutiny.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And why, when the family court decision was still ongoing, did they destroy their notes?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)
in fact interview her. There would be no retraction otherwise. I've seen very little about the Yale-New Haven investigation except the repeated assertion that Leventhal didn't interview her.
I presume that's because child abuse investigations are PRIVILEGED and not a matter of public record.
I have no idea why they destroyed their notes and neither do you. That is another issue of *innuendo*.
BTW, FYI, Coates was brought into the household to work with Ronan on gender issues -- not for Dylan and sexually inappropriate behavior from Allen, as the tissue of innuendo and juxtaposition in the VF article would lead one to believe.
And here's what Coates said about all that:
The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen's relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be "inappropriately intense," the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily "would be taken over by fantasy" when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.
Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow's behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on Aug. 1 of last year Ms. Farrow called her after having learned that the affair with Ms. Previn was continuing. Ms. Farrow described Mr. Allen as "satanic and evil," Dr. Coates said, adding that Ms. Farrow pleaded with her to "find a way to stop him."
Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Ms. Farrow mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Mr. Allen had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married.
The psychologist testified that she first met with Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow in 1990, as part of her preliminary evaluation of Satchel, whom she said was alienated from Mr. Allen at the time. She said the parents' own relationship was "in considerable trouble," with the two of them unable to agree on issues as small as whether or not Ms. Farrow should keep a child's thermometer in the house.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said Allen violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.
The nine interviews were "excessive," Schetky says. "The danger is the child feels like she's not believed if she's asked the same questions over and over."
SNIP
In the Yale report, Leventhal cited what he called "loose associations" by the child. He said she talked about looking in a trunk and seeing "dead heads." When advised that Mia Farrow had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or a thought disorder.
SNIP
"This guy Leventhal never left his office, never talked to the child, but he gave a wonderful account and said, 'I exonerate you, Woody,'" D'Amico says. "Boy, I wouldn't want to carry that flag around - 'Leventhal says I'm OK.'"
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Now you substitute a new claim -- no medical doctor from the team interviewed her.
I have no idea whether that's true, but if it is true, I don't see that it's important: child psychologists, nurses, social workers, etc could all be perfectly qualified to interview her depending on their specializations.
She was given a physical exam by someone at the Yale hospital, presumably someone with the medical qualifications to do so, which found no evidence of molestation or penetration. This was during the police investigation immediately following the revelation.
Other than that, I see no reason why there was a need for a doctor to interview Dylan.
It's also common practice for the head of a research team to write the summary of findings; I see nothing wrong with Leventhal doing so.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)including the doctor who prepared the report.
The investigative reporter, Andy Thibault, shared the Yale-New Haven report and court documents with Dr. Diane Schetky. She is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, and co-author of the textbook, Child Sexual Abuse, and co-editor of Clinical Handbook of Child Psychiatry and the Law.
http://www.andythibault.com/columns/CT%20Magazine%20-%20Apr%2097.htm
· The Yale team used psychologists on Allen's payroll to make mental health conclusions. "That seems like a blatant conflict of interest; they should have excluded themselves," Schetky says.
·
Custody recommendations were made even though the team never saw Allen and any of the children together. "I'd sure want that information," Schetky says.
·
The team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims.
·
The team destroyed its notes. "I don't know why they would," Schetky says. "They shouldn't have anything to hide, unless there's disagreement."
·
Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan. "How can you write about someone you've never seen?" Schetky asks.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)120....Allen paid for the psychologists that issued the report about Dylan.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4435143
FALSE. The Yale-New Haven team that issued the report was neither hired nor paid by Allen, and the cite you give doesn't say that. What it does say is:
The Yale team used psychologists on Allens payroll to make mental health conclusions.
Another use of innuendo, since by interviewing Allen's personal docs, they're getting information to be used in their report. But it's a far cry from Allen's docs issuing the report or Allen paying for the report, both of which are FALSE.
pnwmom (50,292 posts)
303. That's splitting hairs. The psychologists who "interviewed" the girl were on Woody's payroll.
The Yale guy who wrote the report never even interviewed her, so he was relying on people who had a conflict of interest.
FALSE: As you now acknowledge, as the article that you yourself cited specifically says, the Yale team interviewed Dylan SIX (not nine) times. Leventhal did not interview her, he wrote up the report, which is not atypical practice: so what?
The Yale team didn't "RELY ON" Allen's personal docs; his personal psychs were among many people interviewed in a SIX-MONTH INVESTIGATION. They didn't conduct the investigation, they didn't draw the findings or write or issue the report, nor did Allen commission it or pay for it.
You did indeed say that the Yale team "relied on" Allen's personal docs for their findings, so your most recent claim that you never said that is also FALSE.
By Farrow's own testimony, she took the girl to a doctor the same day she found out about the allegation. Nothing. She took the girl for a medical exam shortly after. Nothing.
Then she was given a physical exam as part of the Yale investigation, presumably by medical personnel at Yale Hospital, the hospital the clinic is connected to. Nothing.
I don't find it worth debating with you any longer. You misrepresent facts and rely on juxtaposition of vague allegations and misrepresent your own statements.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and I backed that up.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)You backed up nothing. Each statement of yours is false.
I'll not respond to you again as it's clear you have no respect for facts or civility, but will say anything and accuse others of anything in your pursuit of whatever you are pursuing.
pnwmom (50,292 posts)
120....Allen paid for the psychologists that issued the report about Dylan.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4435143
No, he didn't, as I've documented.
pnwmom (50,292 posts)
303. That's splitting hairs. The psychologists who "interviewed" the girl were on Woody's payroll.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4443410
No, they weren't, as I've documented.
Nine
(1,741 posts)He doesn't seem very unbiased to me https://twitter.com/cooljustice and I don't know how reliable his information is. All I know is that the experts selected by the prosecution came up with a conclusion the Farrow side didn't like and since then they've done all they can to undermine those experts. If these professionals were so unethical, did the prosecutor launch a complaint against them? Were they sanctioned?
Nope, looks like those bastards are still in the business of aiding and abetting child molesters:
http://people.yale.edu/about/article.aspx?id=2502
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)court documents.
That doesn't mean he had a PRE-EXISTING bias that would affect his credibility.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)They are inadmissible because they are unreliable.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)"Anyone who thinks an adult telling about being molested as a child is a liar--"
Anyone who thinks a parent has never lied about the other parent molesting their kids, especially during a bitter divorce, is naive.
"Do I believe Woody Allen molested a seven year old girl? Yes. I find her credible."
Have you don't any reading on the subject? When Dylan was first interviewed about these charges, she said Woody Allen didn't molest her. When asked where he touched her, she pointed to her shoulders. The video Mia Farrow recorded of Dylan's accusations is full of starts and stops and has the signs of Dylan being coached into what to say. The nanny quit her job, because Mia Farrow was pressuring her to lie. The team investigating the allegations thought Dylan had been coached, most likely by Mia Farrow. I don't think Woody Allen is innocent because he never went to jail. I believe he is innocent because of the evidence.
Dylan is now an adult and believes she was molested, but if you have one parent telling you that you were for years and years and year, you will believe it. This is a tragedy. But I don't think ignoring the evidence is healthy.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Welcome to Ignore.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)It's sad that you won't even consider the evidence. When Dylan Farrow was first interviewed by the doctors, she said she wasn't molested. When asked where Woody Allen touched her, she pointed to her shoulders. The video Mia Farrow recorded where Dylan made the accusations was full of starts and stops and signs of coaching.
Look up the Martensville satanic sex scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensville_satanic_sex_scandal
It is easy to get a child to tell stories against another person. That's why people who deal with these crimes have to be trained to spot the signs of coaching. The investigators took six months to look at the evidence and saw clear signs of coaching.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)DeShawn
(14 posts)Personally, I've never used the ignore function. I always thought putting people on ignore was a bit childish, to be honest. If I don't like or agree with something I see, I just skip over it. Then again, I'm confident enough in my own facts and reasoning to be able to debate these issues. However, if you're unable to do the same and accept the fact that sometimes adults DO lie about sexual abuse, then you're completely irrational and you might as well put me on ignore too, because talking to you would only be a waste of time.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)TheMathieu
(456 posts)Precisely because of the heartless folks calling her a liar.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Except knowing she was able to publicly stand up for herself FINALLY.
The thread looks small to me (because sub threads disappear when someone goes on Ignore), but I am glad people are chiming in with support.
I managed to get through the "woo wars" without hitting Ignore, but slandering sexual assault victims as liars just sent me over the Tolerance Bridge.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)It's incredibly disturbing and painful to see. Wish I were surprised.
sybylla
(8,526 posts)Can always count on Ida Briggs to cut to the chase.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)My ignore list (which was practically nil) has ballooned the last few days. I will clean it up again after a bit, I'm sure, but omg, this had been ugly.
flvegan
(64,414 posts)an adult who speaks about being molested as a child cannot, in fact, be a liar? To further state that anyone, upon the age of 18, can state that someone molested them in the past, is beyond reproach and cross examination during trial of that person accused?
If I've missed something in the translation, or if I'm not read in on the latest shiny thing we're on about, my apologies in advance.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)She did an open letter providing details. She has nothing to gain. We have a bunch of people who have zero real world experience with how the criminal justice system treats these cases, who have apparently never watched television shows like "Law & Order: SVU" who think she is lying.
Extrapolate from there, and welcome to why these types of problems aren't getting better.
Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #66)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)IdaBriggs, you said it. Perfectly.
The people desperate to defend perpetrators, and COMPLETELY HAPPY CALLING WOMEN LIARS, perfectly glad to be BLIND to the devasted lives of the women and holding up our justice system as the proof of their opinion..........
Should be shunned.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)I believe Dylan has these memories. There is no advantage to her lying about them, it gains her nothing.
I believe it is possible that her memories are correct. It is also possible that they have been manipulated. I do not know and lacking a time machine I cannot know or even assign probabilities to these things, as is my wont. Having been molested myself, and having walked myself through all kinds of alternate scenarios as to what might have happened, I know that memory can be pliable. Indeed I worked very hard for many years to keep that memory pliable.
Whatever the case, it is clear that she has been damaged. I hope she finds some peace.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Thank you for sharing.
NOT Ignored - where is the "ADMIRE" button?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)the reason molesting kids is so easy
is because of attitudes like we saw here
the predators know they have cover
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)And a quote from that article:
"Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of finally seeing the reality of Frog Hollow and used the term brainwashing without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi."
So, Ida, I'm happy to be on your iggy list.
I saw this happen in the 50's, the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and I'm seeing the same things happen in this century.
People are all too willing to get the tumbrils out and head for the Place de Revolution.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)I just keep hearing those tumbril wheels turning, that blade coming down and those knitting needles clicking.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Unfortunately, it is not uncommon.
As requested, Ignored.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You deserve the company you'll be left with.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Quite embarrassing to tell the truth.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I'll stand with the victims, thank you. You can defend the "maybe they didn't really perpetrate this terrible crime - sometimes victims lie; there was probably a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Woody Allen made her suck his finger in front of people, blew on her crotch without underwear, and other inappropriate things."
Sometimes people lie. You may choose to believe the women are doing it, but I'm going to trust them.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You can stand with those who convict people based entirely without evidence or even a credible claim but sure as Hell won't stand there with you.
You're attempting to persecute a man because you want him to be guilty. We've had enough of that kind of thing in history.
Put me on ignore like you promised.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)K&R
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)in whatever side provides facts, evidence, and proves their claims.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)from their own also personal experiences, I will save you the effort, you are now on ignore. Proceed as you wish.
For the record, I do remember the McMartin case like it was yesterday, and I know of a few local cases as well, False memory did become the rage and these days LAW ENFORCEMENT is far more careful of it.
For the record, I care about victims of sexual assault, but an honest discussion requires that others listen to the evidence and are not cocksure of facts.
So good bye.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)See you!
Logical
(22,457 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Why don't you just avoid the invitation to squabble and ignore at will instead of making your OP flame bate?
Have a nice life.
SmieGuy
(3 posts)He went on to become a family therapist, and commented on the "brainwashed" family environment.
I believe that Dylan believes what she is saying, but I also believe that a mother could eventually make her seven year-old believe whatever she wanted to. Memory is more fallible and malleable than we would like to believe (See Elizabeth Loftus, UCI researcher).
Is my position unreasonable? Then you should probably ignore me as well.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Elizabeth Loftus writes a lot about recovered memories. In this case, there is a great deal of information available about what the seven year old was saying at the time, in addition to the memories she's retained since then.
Silent3
(15,265 posts)If we aren't functioning as an actual jury, it's not like I expect people not to have opinions about what is or is not most likely in a given case. (If we're talking specific stories in the news, I'd say Woody Allen's guilt seems fairly likely). But don't confuse taking a type of crime seriously with lowering your standards of evidence for that crime.
At an emotional level I understand what's going on. Someone has been hurt, you want to be supportive, you want to stand up for the victim, and it seems like the best way to be supportive is to believe the person who is claiming to be hurt without question.
The converse of that is that you get angry with someone who wants to allow for the possible innocence of the accused as if merely allowing for that makes them an accomplice or an enabler, or at the very least insensitive to the plight of a victim.
Consider, however, the scary implications of this kind of thinking. This means the more serious the crime, the less evidence you require, the more you want the mere say-so of the accuser to be the be-all and end-all of determining guilt.
Even if there aren't actually that many false accusations, making this kind of presumed guilt thinking commonplace would be the best way to make sure false accusations become much more common.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Scooter Libby, Chris Christie, or George Zimmerman? I find it fascinating that the presumption of innocence is always used to defend accused sexual predators and denounce as liars women who dare to speak about their assaults.
Innocent until proven guilty is true for every accused person facing legal justice in this country, yet it is only for sexual predators that people insist on using that as excuse to silence any criticism of an accused predator. Evidently raping a woman or child elevates a man to a standing that other accused criminals do not benefit from. It is NEVER raised when it comes to charges against women for falsely accusing men of rape. The few women officially accused of such crimes are not considered innocent until proven guilty around here. Instead, they are denounced, wished to rot in hell, and invoked to protect every subsequent sexual predator, despite the fact the FBI says false allegations are exceedingly rare.
The one exception to this pattern is Catholic priests accused of pedophilia. Duers always see them as guilty. Whether that is because they are religious figures, they molested boys rather than the lowly female, or both, I don't know. The disconnect is obvious.
In this case, the entire argument is bullshit. There is no trial. The statue of limitations has long expired. People must know that, yet they continue to dissemble by saying "if it's true he should be brought to trial." They then go on to again accuse yet another woman of lying. I believe none of it. He could come out tomorrow and admit to raping that child repeatedly and nothing would happen to him. Dylan has given her public statement. Many insist she is lying. She is female and therefore incredible. Her alleged assailant is male, an overrated film director, who for some unfathomable reason some consider more worthy of respect than the woman who now recounts being repeatedly violated by him as a child. The man married the teenage daughter of his girlfriend, for God's sake. Someone who would do something like that is clearly vermin. That was enough to make me thoroughly repulsed at the thought of him. I did not know whether the child abuse charges were true until this week when I read Dylan's account.
The implication are very clear. Rapists and sexual predators are not only innocent until proven guilty, they are always innocent for many around here. Their victims are always liars. The implications are our present rape culture: only 3 percent of rapes result in prison terms, some as brief as thirty days, while 25 percent of women have been raped at some point in their lives, and a goodly percentage of men on top of that. A culture that allows that to continue does not happen by accident. It is carefully nurtured and defended. Rape victims are disbelieved, shamed, and threatened when they come forward. The implications are sexual assailants operate in this country with virtually impunity.
A legal concept of presumed innocence does not restrict my right to free speech and my right to form opinions about accused predators immune from justice. The OP and I have every right to denounce a sexual predator who will NEVER see justice. We have every right to not enrich him by attending his films, and we have every right to form clear impressions of the people that defend him and every other accused rapist, from Julian Assange to that Heisman trophy winner. A legal concept that governs the accused's legal standing in the justice system does not rob us of our right to form our own judgments, anymore than it restricts Allen's defenders from judging Dylan Farrow as a liar. Some will always see rape victims as liars and will always defend accused rapists. All I can do is speculate as to why. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands more abused children and raped women are denied justice because that is the rape culture that is and nurtured in incidents like this and in every other case of sexual assault that comes to light.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For child molestation.
There's other crimes Allen could be charged under that have no statute of limitations. Such as rape.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)The crime occurred 23 years ago. Dylan says the abuse stopped at that time. Some states have fairly generous statutes of limitations for child abuse, meaning they give a certain period of time after the person turns 18. They do not allow twelve years, however. If there is some NY law to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.
Edited to include NY law:
Five years.
Criminal law itself is in this document. Look alphabetically for NY. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndaa.org%2Fpdf%2FStatute%2520of%2520Limitations%2520for%2520Prosecution%2520of%2520Offenses%2520Against%2520Children%25202012.pdf&ei=M0LvUu_HDOm0yAG3qIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNHoWbqMuPSv4cxyXvfx-SM-UXLRIg&sig2=Kv84eUzogpXDAFvLO_br-Q
Civil Statutes.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx#N
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, the events were also investigated in CT.
For Connecticut:
http://rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/connecticut/statutes-of-limitations
Class A felony if victim is under sixteen and perpetrator uses force or threatens force, or if victim is under 13 and perpetrator is more than two years older than victim
(snip)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193 Limitation of prosecution for certain offenses
(a) No limit for Class A felonies
NY is rather more complicated, simply because of the laundry list of sexual assault laws.
http://rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/newyork/statutes-of-limitations
There are several that would apply to this situation. But at the bottom of the list you get
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation
(2) (a) No time limit for:
Any class A felony
Rape in the first degree (§ 130.35)
Criminal sexual act in the first degree (§ 130.50)
Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.70)
Course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (§ 130.75)
There's at least 2 or 3 laws that would appear to apply and have no statute of limitations.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)statute is five years.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If her claims are true, then "regular" sexual assault laws would seem to apply. Those have no statute of limitations.
ETA: You also linked civil law, not criminal law.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)The first link was criminal.
What determines if they prosecute under regular rape or child abuse? I don't understand why adult rape should have a longer statute of limitations than abuse of a minor. I would think it should be the opposite.
I would love to be wrong on my earlier point. If they can actually prosecute him, that would be fantastic. However, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. It does not restrict my right to form judgments. Frankly, marrying Soon Yi turned me off him back then. I haven't watched one of his movies since then. I can't even watch the ones that come on TV. It hasn't been a deliberate boycott but instead a visceral reaction of nausea.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Specifically:
Class A felony if victim is under sixteen and perpetrator uses force or threatens force, or if victim is under 13 and perpetrator is more than two years older than victim
(snip)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193 Limitation of prosecution for certain offenses
(a) No limit for Class A felonies
That 2nd clause would seem to fit quite well, and since it's "Class A" it has no statute of limitations.
The prosecutor.
AFAIK, most states have a more severe penalty for child molestation than for rape, so prosecutors tend to charge child molestation when they can.
It can also come down to the legal definition of "rape". If the law is very explicit about what constitutes rape, then they may not be able to charge for rape but can charge for more broadly-defined child molestation.
Not saying it does, just talking about the statute-of-limitations issue.
I'm cautious about believing the story, because of Mia Farrow's history - she was enraged about Soon Yi, yet testified for Polanski. It doesn't make sense to me that she would support Polanski with such a direct connection to another child rape, and there are many cases of a parent coaching a child to lie about a despised former "spouse". But that caution just means I'd prefer an investigation and trial before coming to a conclusion. It doesn't mean I believe Allen either.
As for his movies, I really didn't like the two or three I've stumbled into over the years, so I'll just continue to avoid them.
Silent3
(15,265 posts)To allow for innocence is not tantamount to calling an accuser a liar.
As for "A legal concept of presumed innocence does not restrict my right to free speech"... Didn't I cover that right in my first paragraph, when I also said that I think Woody Allen is probably guilty myself?
Knee-jerk much?
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)The legal concept doesn't hold here. If Allen is innocent, Dylan Farrow is lying. That is the way it is Now tell me why the legal standing of innocent until proven guilty is only held up for rapists around here? Why value them above others, like elected officials or those accused of other crimes? What is it about being accused of raping a woman or a child that makes someone so special? Have you once pointed out that Christ Christie is innocent until proven guilty, or Dick Cheney? No. No one around here does. But every single time a rape victim goes public, the man is innocent. The pattern is all too familiar. Pretending not to call a victim a liar is hollow. Either one believe a victims statement or one doesn't. Too many NEVER believe victims and ALWAYS speak out in defense of the accused, as long as he commits a crime of child abuse of sexual assault. Why do you suppose that is?
Silent3
(15,265 posts)...of abuse or lying.
Does leaving things in a state of indecision bother you? Do gray areas disturb you?
And, even though you repeat "the legal concept doesn't hold here", didn't I already say the same thing, and clearly allow for that?
As for Dick Cheney, he has proudly admitted to more than enough for me to greatly dislike the man, even before getting into issues of questionable guilt.
As for Christie, I don't think I've seen any posts that categorically insist the the very type of offense for which he has been accused makes him guilty until proven innocent, and no one has asserted that no one could or would possibly ever lie when accusing someone of abusing traffic control authority.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)They assume his guilt because he is Republican. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Why is being a Republican governor worse than being accused of child abuse or rape. It's the pattern that disturbs me. As I said, I see it in every single case of sexual assault.
I understand not knowing. That was my position before Dylan's letter. I never looked into the matter closely, but it seemed an ugly custody case. Dylan's own testimony changes that for me. Her letter sounds credible, and my default position--indeed my bias--is to believe a victim. At this point, I see no reason to disbelieve her. That Allen married the teenage sister of his children shows he has serious and pathological boundary issues, at the very least. He clearly decided the impact of that marriage on his children was of less importance than his own desire for a barely legal girl. That is nausea inducing and was enough to put me off his movies for good. That he would molest his own daughter doesn't seem a huge stretch after that.
Silent3
(15,265 posts)..and attract more attention. A simple thing like starting a flame fest so that a subject keeps popping up to the top of the forum is a self-reinforcing cycle that amplifies the flaming and the sensationalism.
Further, charges of sex crimes, particularly child abuse, cause more harm when false than, say, even accusing Dick Cheney of genocide. More than anything else, these kinds of accusations cause harm simply by being made.
We expect politicians to be accused of all sorts of crap, justified or not, and because of that the impact is often very blunted. Maybe all it takes is an accusation without proof sometimes to tilt a close election, but losing a close election for stupid reasons is an understood risk of the political game.
Still further, the people most vocal about someone like Christie were already against him -- the as-yet-to-be-fully-substantiated charges just add fuel to an existing fire. Charges like those against Woody Allen will ruin many more previously positive views.
You're reading way, WAY too much into if you think the number and types of responses indicate some secret support, or lack of concern, for child abuse.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)I follow rape threads closely. I am aware of patterns you clearly have not observed.
Silent3
(15,265 posts)I just don't trust your judgement about the extent of those patterns. Even the way you phrased that, "I follow rape threads closely" strongly suggests that you're likely to be biased by selective perception.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)You are making reasoned points, and in several of them, you are in the right.
Unfortunately, sexual abuse of children is one of those things we as a society can't seem to get right. Heck, we can't even deal with ADULT women being raped - completely credible, with DNA evidence, and sometimes video shared on social media - and put those folks in jail.
With the stats being what they are, and NOTHING IN IT FOR THE VICTIM except reliving traumatic memories, I am personally offended sixteen ways to Sunday about the "her mother made it up, blah, blah, blah" -- and bluntly, just like I don't want to play with Republicans on this message board, I am not going to argue about whether or not Dylan (or any other sexual assault victim) is telling the truth.
I am going to trust her. In my personal experience, victims of this type of crime rarely see justice, and I will be *DAMNED* if I let their name be slandered because it is a fun game on the internet.
Some things are just NOT acceptable, and "she's a liar" about this topic is one of them for me.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Some things are just NOT acceptable, and "she's a liar" about this topic is one of them for me.
..... just how, exactly, are you going to stop it? Oh, I know, by ignoring people. Brilliant! I think I'll try that on my favorite issues. Thanks for the tip.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)ALWAYS. I have my own reasons.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We should err on the side of believing the child, but it can not be an absolute.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I can't remember all the details since it has been so long since she told me the story a man was on trial accused of molesting or some sex crime against his ex-step daughter. She said it became apparent over the trial that she was coached by her mother to make these claims and they did a test that I don't know the name of it but I'd describe it as a virgin test and that was the clincher. She said it was a very short deliberation.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)(Within the logic of this thread)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)goes to the accuser, even if the allegations later turn out to be false - which, in the vast majority of cases, they don't.
Of course "innocent until proven guilty" is an important legal principle. But only judges and juries are bound to it, not private citizens merely expressing an opinion on a website.
I know there are questionable aspects to this case - allegations that Dylan was "coached" etc. - but still, people are way too quick to see victims as not-victims, especially if the accused is an important personality (politician, celebrity, archbishop).
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And I suspect the only people who really know are her and Woody. With that said, I would never call her a liar.
I don't know what to think and frankly, I don't think any of you do, either.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Might be better to log off the internet.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Adults discussing how they were sexually molested as children who are called liars / brainwashed victims, etc. because people "like" the perpetrator - Woody Allen or Michael Jackson - are not folks I wish to listen to on other topics because I do not find their opinions credible.
It is the old "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" - I don't play on a Republican discussion board because I find most of their basic premises morally repugnant, and I'm not going to play with misogynists / rape apologists, either.
Life is too short to deal with that level of stupid - as requested in your PM, you are on Ignore.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... even when you admit to letting emotion trump logic? Because it is one of your "push buttons" you totally dismiss the possibility that someone may lie?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I find it unsurprising that you're not willing to present a source for a claim as ridiculous as "one in three women is molested as a child".
And while I'm in no way certain that Allen's accuser is lying, I'm also in no way certain that she's telling the truth, and the suggestion that doubting her is immoral is, frankly, both stupid and wicked.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Since you don't know how to use "teh google" let me do it for you --
http://www.bracac.org/index.php?page=how-many-children-are-sexually-abused
How many children are sexually abused?
Nationally, it is estimated that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys will have experienced some form of sexual abuse by the time they reach adulthood. In Kentucky, 46,494 children were reported to and investigated by the Health & Families Services Cabinet for abuse, neglect and dependency in 2003. 3,968 of those children were reported as victims of sexual abuse. 278 lived in the Barren River Area Development District (Health & Families Services Cabinets 2003 TWIST Report). Unfortunately, those statistics only reflect the number of childrens cases that were investigated by social services and not necessarily those cases that were involved law enforcement only or a combination of the two agencies. That information is not available, so a complete and accurate figure of how many children are sexually abused in Kentucky is not known.
The Barren River Area Child Advocacy Center worked closely with the regions multidisciplinary team professionals to coordinate and provide services to more than 350 child victims and 250 non-offending parents and/or caregivers during its fiscal year 2004 (July 2003 June 2004). While the majority of the children are entering the system for the first time, roughly 20% of the Centers caseload will consist of cases involving children who are waiting for their case to go to trial. The Center follows each childs case through that process through regular attendance at each countys multidisciplinary team meetings.
The following are also considered common facts about child sexual abuse:
Almost one-third of victims are the children or step-children of the offender.
One in seven child victims are abused by a stranger.
Offenders typically prey on children they know not strangers.
One-third of offenders report they had committed crimes against multiple victims.
Three of four child victims are female.
One-third of child victims are abused by a biological parent.
Fifty percent of child victims are abused by someone with whom they have an established relationship such as a friend or a relative.
Three-fourths of violent crimes committed against a child are committed in his or her home or the home of the offender.
Four in ten children suffer either a forcible rape or another injury.
Here's a ticket to the clue train - I *personally* know over twenty victims of child sexual assault, and as specified in an earlier reply, only know ONE PERSON who spent any jail time - 10 days, after confessing to molesting his 13-year old step-daughter. My stats and knowledge are "pre-internet" from those old fashioned "book things."
Let me know if you'd like to join the Ignore patrol -- life is too short to deal with those who choose to be willfully ignorant of the pain inflicted on innocents.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If your figure of 4,000 children reported as abused in Kentucky in one year is typical for Kentucky, then a population of 4,000,000 means 1 person in 1000 is reported as abused per year, so a 70-year lifetime means about 1 person in 13 or 14 is reported as abused - which, I admit, is higher than I'd expected.
That obviously omits at least four things, though - reports of abuse that turn out not to be accurate, multiple reports of abuse of the same child, abuse that never gets reported, and the possibility that other states have more or less abuse per capita than Kentucky. But, as the report says, we don't have any data on at least two of those.
It's probably a safe assumption that there as the fraction of reports of child abuse that are not genuine is "very small" and the fraction of child abuse that gets reported is "not that large", but baldly presenting a number like "1 in 4" as fact, rather than "probably significantly worse than 1 in 13 in Kentucky, although we can't be certain" is not evidence-based discussion.
Willful ignorance is a bad thing, but in this case ignorance is the only option - the data simply isn't there. The choice is whether to admit that we are ignorant and leave it there, or to make guesses. But if you take the latter choice, they *must* be heavily fenced around with qualifiers and admissions that guesses are all they are, not simply presented as "common facts".
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but I don't accuse people of lying unless I can prove they are.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If you repeatedly tell a child something happened to them, especially very young children, they will generally believe it did (I had a professor that once managed to convince his child they went to Euro Disney by repeatedly telling the child they did and providing details, if the professor hadn't fessed up that child would have believed it until he was an old man.)
http://cogprints.org/599/1/199802009.html
I'm sorry if you find cognitive science offensive, but it is true. Just because someone believes something happened to them as a child does not at all mean that it actually happened to them. This has been demonstrated empirically over and over again.
I can't speak to the merits of this specific case, but what you're implying is frankly not in line with our scientific understanding of childhood memories.
Go ahead and put me on Ignore. All you're ignoring is your unwillingness to address scientific truths.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)That isn't science; that is misogyny. Ignore.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)What does it change considering you clearly didn't actually read my post before insulting me. I never said either of them was lying. You don't deserve information if you're going to ignore it.
I was talking only about science, which says false memories are incredibly common and easy to give to children.
Welcome to MY ignore list, first person I've ever done this too. You should be proud.
Misogyny - that's a word thrown around far too lightly by people like you. Where was any hatred of women expressed? Disagreeing with a woman is not hatred, and baseless accusations of misogyny only devalue the word and hurt real victims.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Allen has already shown behavior that is very close to what he is being accused of.
The man slept with his step-daughter. One that was barely legal.
Now...it is not that unreasonable to think that someone who could leap over that fence could leap over others..
Yeah, it was barely legal....BARELY. And I will acknowledge there is a difference between 7 and 21.
I will even allow that there are SOME cases where a charge is questionable. Sadly, some divorce cases do have that happen, but that is entirely due to parents that Coach or outright threaten, i.e. taking advantage of the power THEY have over a child.
But Woody set himself up for blame when he did something that, despite all the slicing and saucing you prepare the dish with, was very immoral, and outright disgusting. It showed that he was willing to let his libido crash through his morality.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Not to mention she was an ADULT. Not a CHILD. Saying someone sleeping with an ADULT makes them a pedophile is piss-ignorant as fuck.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)I don't know anything about the case that you are talking about, but I do believe that people accused of crimes should not be presumed guilty solely on the basis of an accusation. People sometimes do lie. People sometimes do make mistakes.
Remember the whole "recovered memories" craze? Remember Holly Ramona? Remember Fells Acres and the Amiraults? Remember Tawana Bawley?
It may be rare. It may be the exception.People sometimes do lie. In fact, if we had a society where someone could easily destroy the life of anyone that was ever alone with them when they were a child by making a mere accusation backed by no evidence, lying would become more common. Balancing the rights of victims with the rights of the accused is one of the most difficult challenges we face as a society. Just as I will not subscribe to the right wing theory that anyone a cop accuses of a crime must be guilty, I also cannot accept the notion that anyone that ever accused of molestation as a child must be guilty.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)category. I mean, grown women lie about this stuff ALL THE TIME because public humiliation is a good way to go.
Best to presume Dylan is a victim of evil brainwashing by a mom who didn't want child visitation, while the guy with his face in her lap wasn't really trying to perform oral sex on a seven year old, and when he put his fingers in her mouth and demanded she suck on them, it was obviously --
Screw it. Innocent until proven guilty, with a bonus pass because of rich and famous.
Ignore.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I remember the 1980's very well. There was a myth promoted by phony experts that children never lie about sexual abuse. Many innocent people had their lives ruined by this myth.
An infamous case was the McMartin Preschool child sexual abuse scandal and trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history. The adults were totally innocent of the child sexual abuse
Several hundred children were then interviewed by the Children's Institute International a Los Angeles abuse therapy clinic run by Kee MacFarlane. The interviewing techniques used during investigations of the allegations were highly suggestive and invited children to pretend or speculate about supposed events. By spring of 1984, it was claimed that 360 children had been abused.
Adults can make children claim anything, and over time the children will often even believe what they are saying: false memories.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Claiming that it is even POSSIBLE that the wife made it up is misogyny as OP helpfully explained before ignoring me.
You're wasting your time.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Ignore away oh prescient one.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Thank you for sharing your prejudice. And Ignore!
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)I, a male, am a victim of sexual abuse as a child. So, yes, I do SUPPORT true victims of sexual abuse. I hope you never fall of your fucking high horse as it would probably break your neck at that height.
cali
(114,904 posts)that's crazy.
Put me on ignore. I'm an adult who was sexually abused as a kid and teen. what would I know?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)If you want to be ignored because you automatically disbelieve adults recounting sexual abuse because their accusers didn't go to jail or there wasn't a trial, I will happily put you on ignore.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)(yes I'm being sincere, if there is any doubt)
riqster
(13,986 posts)Survivors of sexual abuse don't have that luxury. We have reality, and no choice but to accept it.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Iggo
(47,565 posts)I thought I took care of this crap by trashing "Woody" and "Farrow."
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)They know they will not be believed, and probably will be called liars
I've worked with abused kids.
I was groped by a godparent as a pre-teen, but didn't get up the nerve to tell my mother until I was in my early 20s. She refused to believe me at first. I would never have told my father because a) he had severe anger issues and b) I couldn't talk to him about anything, ever.
I kept quiet was because I didn't want to cause turmoil in my already dysfunctional family, and because I didn't want to damage my parents' friendship with this person. And I probably would have been accused of imagining things or making it up. Instead, I began avoiding this person -- refusing to accompany my parents on visits to their house, or making myself scarce when he and his wife visited us. Because of this avoidance, I was even admonished by my mother to be nice to him because they were childless and well off.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Thank you for working with abused children. You already know how common your experience is - and I am very sorry you went through it.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)I spent a year working for the Metropolitan Center for Assault Prevention in Montgomery County, Maryland about 15 years ago. I feel strongly about this issue, for obvious reasons.
CAP is a wonderful program that puts on programs at public and private schools -- including nursery schools and preschools -- to teach children strategies for avoiding abuse and disclosing it to a safe adult. It's been around for decades, is international, and at one time was offered in every public school system in NJ. http://internationalcap.org/
We worked in small teams that went to schools and did assemblies. After we put on our program in a school -- this involved doing role-plays that showed children better ways to respond to bullying or abuse -- we always stayed to talk to kids one on one and answer questions. Sometimes children got up the nerve to report being abused. We were intensively trained to listen and respond to these children, and to report their disclosures to principals as well as to the county's child protective services immediately. We had to remain on the spot, with the child, until CPS arrived and started an investigation. We never knew what became of these investigations, but I'd like to hope that some children were relieved of their burdens and helped.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)of the abused perpetuates abuse. When victims aren't believed, why would they speak up?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Guess you've never watched the Steve Wilkos show huh?
he's got well over a thousand episodes-
People do all kinds of fucked up shit, and the one thing that is almost as bad as raping a kid is sick fuckers who plant stories in a child's mind. Bad mental trauma---
Example #1, this ignorant woman---
PART 1
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Since yhou can't take me posting on your site, tombstone me right the fuck now.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Is that plain enough for you? Do I need to expound?
Please add me to your ignore list. I do not wish to discuss issues of law or logic with someone who thinks as you do. And I do not wish to offend you with my thoughts.
Thank you.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Bonx
(2,075 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)You and Joe Paterno have a lot in common; I believe that was his excuse, too.
As requested.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)Good day.
B2G
(9,766 posts)it does happen. Children have been used as pawns in ugly divorce proceedings. Do I specifically think that's what happened in this case? I honestly don't know.
This will probably earn me an ignore, but I guess I'll live.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)If you have read the open letter she shared, and want to be ignored because you find her "not credible," I will oblige.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow
By DYLAN FARROW
Whats your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brothers electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that wed go to Paris and Id be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.
For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didnt like. I didnt like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didnt like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didnt like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didnt like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldnt keep the secret anymore.
When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didnt know the firestorm it would trigger. I didnt know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didnt know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didnt know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if Id admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldnt possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldnt be in trouble if I was lying that I could take it all back. I couldnt. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.
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. Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, who can say what happened, to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abusers face on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.
(more at link)
I find her credible. I believe her.
B2G
(9,766 posts)And of course I'm not calling her a liar. I think there's a good chance it happened exactly as she says it did.
But in order to take the position that it's impossible for it to be a lie, you have to assume that young impressionable children are not capable of being brainwashed/coached into believing their memories are in fact accurate.
As pointed out earlier in the thread, the McMarten preschool case shows this is very possble.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)I think she believes what she says because I can't see any reason that she would intentionally lie about it now. I also believe that there is a good chance her memory is accurate. However, I also acknowledge the fact that what she remembers may not have actually happened.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... how a certain group of people around here will allow emotion to trump logic on certain issues. Yeah, that's really progressive. Great way to run a justice system. (Italy, anyone?)
(And this is not whining about DU. It's whining about a certain group of people on DU, which I will not oblige by naming.)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)With regard to the specific case at hand, I have no opinion. I haven't read Dylan Farrow's statement, or the Vanity Fair article that (I gather) lays out the defense side. In the replies to you there are links to other sources about the case, and I haven't clicked through to read any of them. There are detailed replies here, from both sides, and I've only skimmed them. I don't feel called upon to form a well-founded opinion on every particular case that makes the news. As a result, I have no sound basis for assessing Dylan Farrow's credibility.
In general, I believe that, when an adult makes a statement about having been abused as a child, some of those statements are true and some are false. When an accused denies having committed abuse, some of those denials are true and some are false.
The replies have expanded the discussion into the area of rape where no children were involved, so I'll add: Some people alleging they were raped are lying, and some are telling the truth. Some are telling the truth about having been raped, and of those, some have correctly identified the perpetrator, and some have mistakenly identified someone else. Some people who deny having committed rape are lying, and some are telling the truth.
In each of these cases, my statement that there are at least some people in each category does not imply that the numbers are equal. I don't know what percentage of such accusations and denials are true.
As to how the criminal justice system proceeds, I believe that most prosecutors act in good faith, but they're only human. Sometimes they bring cases that, in light of the evidence they have, shouldn't be brought. Sometimes the evidence justifies bringing the case but the defendant is nevertheless innocent. Sometimes prosecutors don't bring cases where the evidence is sufficient -- some of those times being for a good reason, such as the effect on the victim of being forced to testify, and some being for a bad reason, such as the prospective defendant's political influence. As a result of all this, the bringing of a case is not proof of guilt, and the failure to prosecute is not proof of innocence.
I guess you should ignore some of my posts, which is probably sound advice anyway.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)or that her mother brainwashed her, maybe I shouldn't ignore you?
Plus, you say this: "As a result of all this, the bringing of a case is not proof of guilt, and the failure to prosecute is not proof of innocence." Again, a reasonable opinion, and one not worthy of ignoring.
Now, if you start throwing in "see - she's just doing it because she has fake memories and her mother is evil and Woody Allen is a total victim of a crazy woman's refusal to let him have reasonable visitation!" - well, Ignore it is.
But you aren't, so I'm not.
The letter is a hard read. I find it credible. You can read it up a few posts. Warning: she got specific. (shudder)
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)was a liar.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I see what you did there!
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I will never assume a person is guilty based on nothing but one person's accusation-- sorry.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is lying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wee_Care_Nursery_School
Here's the thing...having had the experience of being close to family member who was victimized not by the person who went to jail, but by the system, and his parents, I am not so sure that "taint" has not become part of Dylan's experience.
I find it telling that the licensed family therapist of the family believes Allen, and has used the term 'brainwashing' to describe his own experience.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)and have no opinion on it.
Is there some other statement I could make that would earn me your "ignore"?
Oh, and could you get your dear friend BB to join the shunning, to?
Thanks...
Logical
(22,457 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)in the news. Why? Because all such accusations and defenses are made by people I do not know, and are about things I did not witness. I never know the truth of such matters, so I withhold judgment of who is telling the truth and who is not.
Children are often sexually abused by adults. That is a fact. But, in an individual case, with two individuals, I do not have enough information on which to base an opinion.
So, I have no idea in this case, nor am I likely to form an idea. It is simply another case where one person says one thing and another person says something else.
You appear to be certain who is telling the truth. I am not. I will never be, frankly, because I have no idea.
alp227
(32,052 posts)but I think it's quite telling that Woody Allen who denies molesting DF would go on to commit what could be INCEST in another set of circumstances. If Woody were really innocent, he wouldn't have married Soon-Yi. He wouldn't have been spending a boatload of money to discredit and intimidate Dylan. I even suspect special treatment by the state.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)And in what since would a child not related to you - his girlfriends daughter with another man - be considered incest? They didn't have a family relationship, Soon-Yi, Woody and Mia have all stated that.
I'm not saying that it isn't strange or even slightly creepy, but he was in no way related to her.
alp227
(32,052 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)You said marrying Soon-Yi proved to you he molested Dylan. How does a relationship with an adult prove he molested a child?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Depending on the report, she was between 18 and 20. He had been "step-dad" for 12 years.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)According to Mia, Woody, and Soon-Yi he was not any sort of father figure.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Twelve years in the role of "step-daddy" but when the nude pictures surfaced, apparently "who is your daddy?" took on an entirely different meaning!
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Again Mia, Woody and Soon-Yi have all said he played no fatherly role at all.
Regardless, my original question was how does his relationship with an adult prove he molested a child?
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)This is not how it should be. but growing up as a young girl I remember older men approaching me to be with them. So I told my girls that be careful because grown men have been after me since I was 10 (ten) years old. And if every girl would truly tell her story I know I am not the only one. I have talked to friends and relatives men and women and found that most were approached by the time they were twelve (12) years old. If you think this is some fabricated stat then Ladies and Gentlemen sign in with the truth. And if honesty prevails then you will see first hand that this isn't a stat its real life.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)but why is it so prevalent ??? I am not saying I am for it. I am just saying it is more common than people want to believe. And if it creeps you out, than good. because it creeps out the children even more.
CitizenLeft
(2,791 posts)That's more than good enough for me.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)and that plus all the other damned evidence is good enough for me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No 17 year old would spend his every waking moment with his 7 year old sister. How would he know what she was doing at all times?? His claims are not supportable. He can't say for sure that she was not molested by her father figure, since he does not live inside of her skin and never did.
Nobody knew I was molested until I said something, a few people did not believe me. Now that the guy just died in prison of aids they feel awkward around me. He was in prison for rape.
The fact that this father figure showed interest in and had sex with his daughter figure give insight into his behavior. Him showing interest in and making sexual advances towards another daughter figure is not outside of the realm of probability. It is probable that if he showed interest in one young Lady he had a nurturing fatherly type of relationship with, that when the other daughter person says he also showed interest in her and touched her inappropriately, then she is telling the truth.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)At 14 he would have been in high school, she would Have been in about second grade. Unlikely that they spent every moment together when not in school. Unless he had no friends or social life or after school activities. What teen ager do you know of that spends every waking moment with his little sister? I have never met one. Ever.
He can't say what happened to her in private with her father any more than I can. She said what happened to her and I believe her.
Her father has just said things like liar, and brainwashing. No explanation of why she would have said these things other than to accuse her mother of evil deeds. If I had accused my father he would have known something bad had happened to me and would want to know why I said those things. He would probably think it was someone else who hurt me and that I felt safer blaming him since he wouldn't hurt me. That's the only explanation that would make sense and Mr. Allen hasn't used it, and doesn't seem to worry that something bad happened to her.
His reactions make me think she's telling the truth, combine that with the marrying of another daughter figure and I feel sick inside.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)And very much involved in and aware of the custody case according to media accounts of the time.
Woody Allen listened quietly from the witness stand yesterday as Mia Farrow's lawyer read an angry and passionate letter from the couple's son, Moses, in which the teen-ager said he no longer considered Mr. Allen his father and hoped that he would kill himself.
"You have done a horrible, unforgivable, needy, ugly, stupid thing," Moses A. Farrow, now 15, wrote, referring to the affair between Mr. Allen and Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, the boy's older sister. "I hope you get so humiliated you commit suicide."
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/24/nyregion/a-son-s-anguished-letter-rivets-woody-allen-hearing.html
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He cannot tell what happened between her and her father behind closed doors.
I knew a girl who shared a room with her sister and her father would come in in the middle if the night and rape her. He sister never knew until her mother woke up night and went to see where her husband had gotten off to. She found him on top of their daughter. Nobody suspected a thing, bug in retrospect they said she did fall asleep at school, and had been acting out.
He would not know what happened unless she decided to tell him. Obviously she was right not to tell him in particular. Why should she have trusted him with this information. It's hard to talk about with people who DO believe you.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Abusers are usually manipulative and behave normally around others.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Let us just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the adult victim is "mistaken."
And...ignore.
classykaren
(769 posts)And when do you ever see a Doctor wanting to do that? He was his doctor for years. He is as guilty as sin it must have been horrible to see him or anyone in his place receive a reward.
cali
(114,904 posts)back in '93 found the allegations not to be credible.
<snip>
After a six-month investigation, a team from Yale-New Haven hospital concluded that Dylan Farrow had not been molested. Allen was not charged.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-allen-response-20140203,0,6345488.story#ixzz2sIHSUhkz
I have no idea what happened and neither do you.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)classykaren
(769 posts)letter to the judge
FloridaJudy
(9,465 posts)There are two indisputable facts:
1) child sexual abuse exists, and it is under-reported
2) false memories also exist, and are wholly believed by their victims
Jean Piaget, the great child psychologist, was himself a "survivor" of a kidnapping that never happened, but had vivid memories of the non-event in minute detail. Piaget later wrote: "I therefore must have heard, as a child, the account of this story...and projected it into the past in the form of a visual memory, which was a memory of a memory, but false"
Either Woody or Dylan may be lying. Both may also being telling the absolute truth, as they remember it. That's why eyewitness testimony, while it's more believable to courts and juries, is sometimes less accurate in describing what actually occurred than circumstantial evidence like DNA or blood spatter. People have even confessed to crimes and later been exonerated when new evidence became available. Put people in a room and have authorities repeatedly hammer at them that they must have done something they didn't and eventually they may come round to believing that they might have. It almost happened to me. Fortunately, what I was accused of wasn't a crime, just an error of judgment, but the experience was a harrowing one.
Failing the invention of a working time machine, we may never know the truth in this case. Coming down hard on one side or another isn't a sign of character. It's a sign that you've chosen sides.
I haven't.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Calling the victim a liar is.
Yes, I have picked sides - I believe the extremely credible account of the victim.
SunSeeker
(51,695 posts)I have refused to see a Woody Allen movie ever since he married his daughter.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and not attempt to try the defendant in the court of public opinion. Leave that to the Nancy Grace types.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Veteran detectives advised a family I am personally acquainted with NOT to "re-traumatize" an 11 year old rape victim by having her go through the system. She later attempted suicide, but fortunately was not successful.
Female sexual assault is ridiculously hard to prove. I am (again, personally) acquainted with one young woman who was having a drink at a bar with someone she considered a friend. He wanted more, and put a "date rape" drug in her drink. She woke up the next morning, went to the police, was blood tested/the drug was found in her system, he had left evidence behind, and there were witnesses he took her from the bar. He was never prosecuted, and her grandparents (her then landlords) told her the entire situation was her fault because she shouldn't have gone to the bar.
Because I am aware of this (and over twenty more such stories), I am beyond cynical when it comes to letting the criminal justice handle these sotuations.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)If possible, it is best not re-traumatize a child. I have a post later in this thread where I saw this concept in action. 30+ years later, this incident still makes me sick.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)My only point is that we don't have enough information and evidence to pronounce guilt OR innocence in this situation.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)saying that the rest of the family is wrong.
People seem to see this as proof of the falsehood of Dylan's words.
There are 11 other living children. They are all on the side of Dylan. I suppose their perspectives don't count, even though Moses's seems to be being put forth as the inviolable truth?
Also, people are citing the McMasters case. Most of those children recanted before they reached adulthood. Dylan hasn't. So the analogy doesn't really work.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)know enough to know they are uninformed fools.
The analogy works for this case, too, in my opinion.
Thank you for addressing the issue of 11-1, which means "the one" is credible, while everyone else is crazy.
Thirties Child
(543 posts)One of our children was molested at age five. Forgot about it, remembered at age 30.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...I believe HER. I know that it's a small and possibly meaningless gesture, but I've dumped any of his movies from my Netflix list. I don't have any of them on DVD, but if I did they'd be as gone as gone can be!
PEACE!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
Logical
(22,457 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)When I was a baby attorney, I was assigned to shadow the firm's family attorney/partner who was pregnant. One of the cases involved a parent seeking custody of one of his children who was in foster care. The older two daughters both came forward and discussed the abuse they suffered from their father. I was sick listening to these accounts and was happy that I did not have to be in the judge's chambers when he asked both girls about this abuse. These sisters were 12 and 14 when abused. The thought of a 7 year old suffering this treatment is hard for me to understand.
I read Dylan Farrow's account and it rang true to me. I have also read the rebuttal of Allen's attorney and I was not persuaded. As a father of two daughters, I believe Farrow's account.
I would like to point out that if Farrow is lying, then Allen can sue her for defamation. Of course, Allen would then be subject to discovery and subject to having his deposition taken under oath. I will be surprised if Allen files a defamation lawsuit.
I was not planning on practicing family law and that case made me happy with my decision to not pursue this field
Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
Post removed
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Also, I am fascinated to know what level of disagreement would trigger a verdict of ignore. Is the question I just posed a trigger for being placed on your ignore list?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Ignores only kicked in when people either asked (who am I to ignore being asked?), or insisted Dylan was a victim of brain washing/lying, or that since "false memories" had been known to happen, that was probably the case here, or insisted disrespectfully that they required evidence which would be impossible to produce, and him collecting naked pictures of a teenager who looked younger who called him "daddy" for twelve years didn't count, plus that letter wasn't enough - "he said/she said" after all...
You know - the type of people you really don't want to hang with at a dinner party.
I left the "we can't know for sure, but she seems to believe it so I wish her well" folk. I also got rid of a math challenged guy - let the FBI argue their numbers, because life is too short.
The entire topic was a tough one for me; I personally know way too many victims of child sexual assault. We also had an instance in our circle of friends with a guy coming in through the garage door while his best friend's wife was sleeping, and climbing into bed with her. Fortunately she woke up, and was able to talk him down, but "who believed who" was eye opening. The *immediate* response was that she had invited him, with more horror at her betrayal/sympathy for him/a total willingness to overlook him trying to sleep with his friend of over twenty years wife without invitation; fortunately he confessed to my husband so we ended the friendship and supported her. He was never prosecuted. He later showed up at her work and told her she had "ruined his life."
The automatic assumption that women are sluts / men can't help themselves when it comes to women and children offends me at a deep level. The details Dylan shared about her self loathing for not protecting other children and cutting behavior are details I have seen in person with other victims. Her sense that her pain is invisible when his crimes, well publicized, are ignored and he is honored instead of shunned - my heart goes out to her.
I have been on DU for nearly a decade, and I have managed to avoid using the Ignore People feature (with one major exception which fortunately we worked out) despite taking unpopular and sometimes controversial positions (Syria!). I have been honored to have received Recs to the Greatest Page several times. This thread being one of them was a surprise.
One of the participants in the thread refers to it as "rape culture" - the willingness to "look away" when these things happen. The demand for evidence - what kind of evidence is there for "simulating oral sex with a seven year old" by breathing into her lap when she isn't wearing underwear while kneeling in front of her? Or an adult man putting his fingers/thumbs into a child's mouth and demanding she suck? It is the stuff of nightmares. Toss in the accusation of a crazy mother (I would have been homicidal) engaged in a custody battle (because she can't be protective!), and sagely declare the accuser not credible because there might be the possibility of "false memories".
As I said, the stuff of nightmares.
Time for me to let the thread drop. Evil exists when good people ignore it, and this is an old problem. This thread has shown how they justify it, and Ignore is the best I can do at this time.
I wish Dylan healing, and all other survivors the same.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...undoing all those ignores could be a big job. An even bigger job might be dissecting the difference between lying and having been manipulated.
But not as large a job as actually investigating the various claims before reaching a conclusion.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I'm pretty smart that way. I am also comfortable with the level of investigation I did, which included reading Dylan's open letter, being familiar with standard behavior of survivors of sexual assault, and awareness of the perpetrators history, as well as other facts.
On the off chance he is exonerated -- seriously, like THAT is going to happen! Unfortunately, any denials are all "he said/she said" and given the choice, I believe her.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...I hope we tend toward caution in believing them...no matter the temptations.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)But I do think it's possible some of them are mistaken.
A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts. A misrepresentation that is not intentional is not a lie.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I think knowingly or unknowingly Mia Farrow planted the idea in Dylan's mind when Dylan was seven and Dylan still believes it to this day. I don't claim to be certain but that's my opinion of the most likely scenario after looking at all the facts.
1. The strongest point for me in all this is that the independent child abuse experts selected and employed by the prosecution gave their professional opinion that the incident never happened. I know Mia Farrow's side has criticized these experts and their investigation after the fact, but by all appearances this is a highly respected organization. To believe that these doctors and social workers who have dedicated their lives to fighting child abuse would let Allen get away with molesting his daughter because they were starstruck or some other such nonsense sounds like the craziest of conspiracy theories to me. I've read claims that they never interviewed Dylan directly, which is false. According to the New York Times, the lead doctor interviewed her nine times. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html Here is a 2012 interview with the doctor about what the Child Abuse Center does: http://medicine.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=2502
2. I don't think a man becomes a first-time pedophile at the age of 57. And if Allen had previous victims, I think we would have heard from at least one of them since the 1992 allegation. That's not discounting how difficult it is in general for victims of child sexual abuse to come forward, but I think it would be easier with a man who has already been publicly accused, especially considering that public opinion of Allen was quite low after the Soon-Yi stuff came out. Victims of child molestation by Catholic priests started coming out with their stories a lot more once the general problem was widely known and they knew they were more likely to be believed.
I know some people see parallels between a man dating a much younger woman and having sexual feelings for a seven-year old, but scientifically speaking there is no such parallel. I don't think any psychologist with expertise in pedophilia would think it likely that a 57-year-old man with no history of pedophilia would suddenly start molesting or suggest that a man who liked to date young but post-adolescent women was at risk for turning his attentions toward first-graders.
3. If Allen wanted to molest Dylan, I don't think he would have chosen to do it in Mia Farrow's house in the midst of an acrimonious breakup and with a house full of people. The Vanity Fair article from 1992 claims that "often when Dylan went over to (Allen's) apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play." http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211 Wouldn't one of these alleged occasions have provided an easier opportunity to molest Dylan than a closet-like attic in Mia Farrow's house? The allegation just doesn't make any logical sense. Why would Dylan's underpants be missing? Allen seems like the most incompetent child molester ever.
4. Mia Farrow's side has made a lot of claims and they just don't add up. They don't make sense. Not just about the alleged incident, but about everything. One of the reasons Allen lost his custody battle was the fact that he was not an involved father. The judge cited the fact that he didn't even know which kids shared which bedrooms. Yet Mia Farrow claims that he was a father figure to Soon-Yi and the other Previn kids? The idea that Allen was always weird and creepy with Dylan and that Mia was afraid to leave them alone together seems like after-the-fact rewriting to fit a narrative. I'm very familiar with people who do this. How does it fit with Dylan's recent claim that the abuse was done so "artfully" that Mia never had a chance to protect her? And the notion that Allen was Mr. Powerful and Mia Farrow was just a meek little nobody who was always afraid of him seems like malarkey as well. Farrow had plenty of power and status in her own right. Nothing about Mia Farrow and her contingent rings true to me. Her comment after the custody hearing that "I'm so proud of how (my children have) held themselves together, stood by one another and stood by me," strikes me as weird. I don't find her trustworthy and I don't think her personal history is any less bizarre than Allen's. That's just my gut instinct, far less important than the first three points, but there it is.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)While the "she was brainwashed" sounds better than "Woody Allen is a sick pervert" I find her credible.
Even in your answer, you seem to miss the obvious: for example, why were Dylan's underpants missing?
What part of CHILD MOLESTER are you missing?
Nine
(1,741 posts)It's a claim that has been disputed by at least one nanny. But my point was that it's a claim that doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. If Allen really molested Dylan, wouldn't it have been incredibly careless of him to have then sent her off without her underpants? That doesn't sound very "artful" to me.
"CHILD MOLESTER" is a claim as well. In your opinion, it is a credible claim. In my opinion, there are strong reasons to doubt it. What if Mia Farrow is a "sick pervert" who planted a false memory of abuse in her daughter's head? In that case, aren't you a terrible person for supporting Mia Farrow and insisting that there's no way she could have ever done that when Dylan has been so traumatized by it? Shouldn't you be supporting Dylan instead of standing by the person who put that terrible thought in her brain?
I know you don't believe Mia Farrow brainwashed Dylan but the above is the logical counterpart to your line of reasoning. "Brainwashing" isn't science fiction, by the way. Many actual cases have already been cited for you (e.g. McMartin preschool). They don't use that term however.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm exactly like you and everyone else in this thread--I don't know what the underlying truth is. But unlike you, I haven't decided that I do know the truth and that everyone who hasn't arrived at the same conclusion is to be ignored. You and a few others are acting as though it's been established that Woody Allen is a child molester. This has not been established, and apparently the people investigating it years ago concluded that there wasn't enough to go on. I don't respond well to threats (even those with meaningless payloads), so I'd rather you just go ahead and ignore me. Thank you.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I am sure our mutual disgust not being on display will help keep DU a better place.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And our completely inadequate "justice" system.
Seriously, blowing on her naked crotch/sucking his thumb - all sexual behaviors adults SHOULD NOT be doing with seven year olds - how do you get past the "he said/she is not credible" issues?
Nine
(1,741 posts)Actually, I don't think even they claimed anything about "blowing on her naked crotch."
It was said in the custody hearings that Allen was uninvolved with parenting tasks like bathing the children. I would think that would be the type of activity a child molester would be eager to get involved with.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)The comments section is a rich pageant of needless suffering.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)That's a sick kind of behavior.
I'm aghast at so many in Hollywood supporting the likes of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. I am a movie lover and collector and no way will anything of theirs ever be in my collection.