Why your childhood memories may not actually have happened.

[gollygee]

55. I see a few separate issues with this whole Woody Allen thing

1. Is there enough evidence for him to be convicted in court? My understanding is that it's too late to try him at this point, but would there be enough evidence? I don't know - I'd have to sit in court. I understand there was evidence but there was no trial when Dylan was 7. I guess seeing that evidence would be a good start. But I'd obviously have to see enough evidence to vote to convict him if I were seated on a jury.

2. Is he or is she more likely to be lying/confused? I am not a court, and I can make a determination about who I feel is more believable. I am not bound by the same requirements as a court. I think he has a great deal more to gain by lying than she does, and in fact it's probably worse for her to say what she's saying than to ignore it, regardless of what is true and what isn't. Also, he has shown poor judgement about boundaries in past relationships. The article that has been posted a trillion times as supposed evidence that he is not guilty actually tipped me more the other way. It sounded like it was written by a fanboy and brought up so much irrelevant stuff (what does Dylan's brother's paternity have to do with whether she was molested?) that I question the motive for writing it.

So I agree that he can't be found guilty in court unless he is proven guilty. I also know that I am capable of thought and can have an opinion on this, and my opinion need not have the same standard as a courtroom. Lots and lots of people are never brought to trial who are guilty. Lots and lots of people are found not guilty in court but are actually guilty. I don't have to assume she is lying unless I personally see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The evidence that exists isn't even available to me.

Our society has a very hard time taking victims seriously. We don't have to assume they're surely telling the truth, or assume they absolutely aren't confused, but we should really listen to them and consider what they say and not dismiss them because we haven't personally been given enough evidence to convict them. Their voices deserve to be heard.

I think she's more likely to be telling the truth than lying or confused, and I think he has a much greater motive to lie than she has. I know this happened during a custody case and when her mother was upset with him, but I still find the idea that this is a false memory less likely than that it is a plain old memory. I would have to see the evidence that was collected when she was 7 to know whether there is enough evidence to convict him. Without seeing the evidence, I'm at "more likely than not" and I'm aware that wouldn't be enough to convict.