What's really relevant in the Dylan Farrow molestation case

[Nine]

41. I don't know that no doctor would do that.

I don't claim to be an expert on what's standard procedure in these cases. All I know is that these are the experts the prosecutor selected and they seem to have very good credentials and I haven't seen any evidence that they performed unethically other than the vague assertions in the Andy Thibault article, so my default is to assume that they are honest and competent professionals. The fact that after a six-month investigation they concluded that the alleged abuse did not occur is, to my mind, an extremely strong point in support of Allen's innocence (as is the fact that he had never been accused of molestation in the first 57 years of his life or by anyone else other than the Farrows since the 1992 allegation). If convincing evidence comes out that this team performed unethically or incompetently, then I am prepared to revise my opinion. Is that really such an unreasonable stance?

I don't care if other people have different opinions about whether Allen is likely guilty or innocent of the allegation. What I object to is it being used as some kind of purity test. I object to those around here who say if you don't accept Allen's guilt unquestioningly, you're practically a pedophile yourself. I object to the notion that the only possible explanation for why someone might doubt the allegation is that they're either starstruck or a misogynist. Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bad feminist or a bad progressive.

And there are other values at play here that are important to me as a liberal. I don't like the fact that the prosecutor practically declared Allen guilty in a public statement when the truth is he didn't have a strong enough case to bring to trial. To this day, people are pointing to that statement by the prosecutor as proof of Allen's guilt. It likely affected the custody hearings and now the fact that Allen lost custody is also being used as "proof" of his guilt. This allegation has followed Allen for decades and he never even got his day in court. It all feels very McCarthyish and witchhunty to me. I also don't like that people are using statistics as an argument of guilt. That a high percentage of accused molesters turn out to be guilty shouldn't erode Allen's presumption of innocence. And the difficulty of getting a conviction in an abuse case shouldn't mean we throw Allen's rights out the window in some misguided attempt to balance things out.