>>>I also believe that anyone who states that every such claim must be unequivocally accepted without question is an idiot.>>>>

That's a little scary.

And yes it is.

There's already an example in in this thread.

Ironically while presenting an entirely false interpretation of the Salem Witch Trials.

However...

When any suggestion is made that an accusation of abuse might be false is interpreted through the amazing filter of black-and-white thinking as a screeching accusation that the accuser is a liar, what's left in that world view other than insisting that all accusations be unequivocally accepted?

When any suggestion is made that an accusation of abuse might be false is countered talking as if it's a given that the accuser must be telling the truth, and that casting doubt on the accuser is nothing more than a tool that the guilty use to get away with their crimes, what's left in that world view other than insisting that all accusations be unequivocally accepted?

Satanic Panic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

Rye Ergot

93% obviously is not enough!

Attitudes like that ruined the lives of families like the McMartins and other innocent people unjustly accused. But keep wearing that cloak o'righteousness, brave warrior.

they were innocent. I found out years later thanks to an HBO undercover special.

The Satanic Panic insanity, which at the time was even criticized by pro-child advocates, HURT children who had been abused as it meant that children with real stories of abuse might not be believed. Horrible. That nonsense was very destructive.

is that Marcia Clark was on the prosecution team.

and sticking to the story until adulthood, at which time she re-states what happened to her, is exactly the same as the witch hunts...

And because it is just the same as the witch hunts, she deserves this avalanche of "she's lying" and "she's deluded" and "she's just the stupid victim of her satanic mother" that is coming her way. Because everyone knows that if Woody were guilty he would have been convicted.

(None of which is believed by anyone with a brain.)

Ones certainty of the accuracy of a distant memory is not proportional to the accuracy of the memory.

I have a memory of a litter of puppies and where the puppies were kept in the house. I was less than two at the time. I verified that it is accurate with my mother. It's possible that I later saw a picture of the puppies and where they were kept, but I do think this is an accurate memory.

I have a memory of almost drowning and being saved by my grandfather. When I was young I'd tell my friends about it. I later realized that the memory is false. It never happened. If I had adults reinforcing this memory I'd surely believe with certainty that it was accurate.

Both the puppies and the drowning are just as vivid, but only one memory is likely accurate. I can't really be certain that I told any friends about the drowning either.

is NOT a distant memory, that she said this AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED and she is simply reiterating it now.

But let's tie ourselves in knots rather than give her a hearing and let her tell her story without being trampled. Because she must be lying or deluded. There is no other explanation. She can't POSSIBLY be telling the truth.

so I'll avoid making any claims about who is right or wrong.

A child can easily be made to make just about any claim if coached by an adult, which then becomes a false memory. It's happened many times in the past. In the often referenced McMartin Preschool sexual abuse case numerous children were coach into making many far-fetched claims against innocent adults. There were a number of other similar cases in that same time period.

There were some folks that claimed children don't lie in such matters. I heard that claim in the 1980's. Anyone that disagreed would be attacked for supporting child rapists. It led to numerous innocent adults facing imprisonment. We should learn from the past.

is to the nasty vilification of this woman, simply because she is reporting something that happened to her. Immediately after she said it, when she was just repeating what she said twenty years ago, the internet and DU erupted with people saying she was lying or deluded. A woman says she was molested, and we immediately decide she must be lying.

And yes, children have been known to lie, but it is much more common for them to tell the truth and not be believed, so how about we give that past some credence, too. If you read the details of the McMartin case, you will se that there is no resemblance to this case whatsoever.

Though you say you are avoiding claims about who is right or wrong, you are pretty much saying that your assumption is that she is lying or delusional, and we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the McMartin case.

If you were really avoiding claims about who is right or wrong, you would hear the woman out, and acknowledge that there is a tragic possibility that what she is saying happened did happen.

You think that to say something untrue means "to lie." Lying is generally considered a morale failing, esp. if in self-interest or vindictiveness. (I can imagine situations in which lying would be a morale virtue, but they're fairly limited in scope and duration.) DU is a highly moralistic place.

So if I say somebody may be making an accusation based upon a false memory the assumption is that I'm saying they may be lying. If I point out how some accusers rely on false memories I'm saying that those accusers are lying. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


There are numerous instances in which people say false things but aren't lying because they believe what they're saying. Recently I was told to look for somebody in the school library. The person wasn't there. The person had gone to the library then remembered she'd forgotten something in her room. The person who told me wasn't lying. The person was simply in error.

President Obama recently said that upward mobility had flatlined in the last decade. But days before a report came out saying it hadn't changed in the last 50 years. Was the President lying? No. The speech was probably prepared before the latest research was published, and nobody thought to update the speech--which would have weakened the point being made (so perhaps a bit of confirmation bias is at play--but that's also not lying).

In both cases the person involved believe s/he was telling the truth. That is the difference between lying and being wrong. At DU often we love assuming people have morale failings rather than insufficient or inaccurate knowledge. Morale failings go to character and provide the basis for judgment; insufficient or inaccurate knowledge is often a trivial failing that can be easily fixed.


Finally, I told my kid recently he had a Dr. Pepper in the fridge. I didn't know his mother had drunk it a few hours before. If he had been 4, he'd have accused me of lying. He's 10. He knew the difference, and instead of saying, "Daddy, you lied!" concluded, "Daddy, somebody must have drunk it!"

WHY is it so unthinkable to consider the possibility that what this woman is saying is TRUE, that it happened??? No one is even acknowledging the possibility. And while they refuse to even let the possibility cross their minds, they are insisting that they are holding a neutral view of this situation. NO, they are NOT.

Unless they are able to consider that the possibility that her words are TRUE and ACCURATE as easily as they can consider that her words are not true or not accurate, they have decided against her. As long as you begin with the assumption that her recollection is false, you have decided for Woody Allen. For no good reason.

This is ridiculous!

With young Dylan seeming to have no interest in what her mother was trying to get her to say. A few nannies quit rather than be dragged into Mia Farrow's lies and her own son refuses to have anything to do with her and views her as brainwashing his sister .

but go ahead and assume you know something about this case.

Because you heard that nannies quit. So she must be lying. There is no reason to even consider that she might be telling the truth. Because, hey, this is just a witch hunt against old Woody.

Now tell me about how you are neutral about this, and just wish others would be too.

Woody is a litigious man and this woman in no way benefits from this revelation.


Maybe the Sandusky victims just imagined their molestation too?

sometimes you think about them often.

Because i knew someday I'd need to talk and be believed. (My mother was a crazy violent gaslighting lunatic behind closed doors, but hid behind an angelic persona, which everyone believed.)

where people draw attention themselves by competing for most outlandish statement against the alleged perpetrator.

The whole "I'll put you on ignore if you don't believe the accuser" is the latest incarnation. Luckily these people have no power in society and with such poorly reasoned opinions, no one in a position of power takes them seriously anyway.

DU reminds us all, both intentionally and unintentionally, why a legal system (even if flawed) is so crucial to justice.

Would that include those who equate those who say they've survived sexual abuse to salem witch hunters? That would rate pretty highly on the hyperbole scale. And man, talk about reasoning skills. Yikes.

OP would probably not have come up with the Salem analogy. At least, I hope not. It's a pretty shitty analogy.

Yeah, it sucks when someone you admire is accused of something. That's no excuse to throw your common decency (and sense) out the window.

"anyone who states that every such claim must be unequivocally accepted without question is an idiot. "

You'll of course, link us to the the thread if not the post emphatically stating that as such, yes? Or is this yet more melodrama because someone put someone else on ignore?


I'm guessing the second...

I know because it happened to me. My ex wife accused me of abuse of her and my kids. Without any evidence except for her word alone I was arrested, jailed, and I spent over a year clearing my name. I lost my job, my home, all my savings, and had it not been for her mom who stood up for me in court I would have lost my family too...


I don't participate in these threads because obviously I am biased due to my situation but I can safely tell you that in many states, all it takes is the word of your spouse and your world can be destroyed.

One of the first replies is something like "I believe in innocence until guilt is proven". The OP replied that she would ignore him unless he clarified.

I can't link because I think it's against DU rules.

Since I'm the one who started that thread I think I can link to it without breaking DU rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024433726

I'm a mean person - I'm putting folks on Ignore (and drama queen for calling attention to it!).



It is all good.

Today:

Those facts are more relevant than your erroneous historical example of what is exceedingly rare. It is not enough that Allen will never see jail time, but now you feel compelled to insult those of us who dare to believe victims. Evidently "intelligence" means ignoring the data from the FBI that false accusations are exceedingly rare and using made-up interpretation of history to defend someone in an entirely unrelated case. Setting aside the fact you have no understanding of the Salem Witch Trials, one case of false accusation does not then serve as evidence that millions of other victims are lying or that predators don't prey on children. It has FUCK ALL to do with Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen.

All persons in the US are innocent until proven guilty in the legal system. That has ZERO bearing on discussion here. NONE. I also find it interesting how that defense is raised in every single case of rape and rarely if ever for other crimes. How about Chris Christie's innocence until proven guilty? George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Zimmerman? What about the cases of politicians being falsely accused? What is it about rapists and child abusers that gives them an elevated status above others, above others accused of crimes and far above their victims? What exactly makes a predator of girls and women so much better than an elected official or someone accused of any other crime? Why is it that when it comes to women accused of making false rape allegations, the same people suddenly show zero concern for "innocent until proven" guilty and insist she should spend the rest of her life in jail?

As for the Salem Witch Hunt, it should make some happy to learn that it was not men accused of child abuse who were the primary targets but women.



Child abuse was not among the charges. The term "molestation" referred to witchcraft, though women were accused of having sex with the devil. Children who manifested epileptic seizures were thought to have been cursed by witches. A child who stole linen from a cupboard was said to have had a spell cast on her. Historical interpretations center around gender and the development of capitalism, with a rift between the prosperous merchant community and the more traditional farming community. Classic works on the events include Carol Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman; Boyer and Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed; and John Demos, Entertaining Satan.

It really pisses me off when people distort history to support their personal agendas.

It's become so disgusting here it's starting to smell like fucking sulphur.

But you know that, oh and false allegations of satanic SEXUAL abuse have happened. Even fairly recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

them.

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You mean the one where rape and child abuse never happen and all men are innocent and all women liars? That bubble?

Your notion of a safe bubble that involves rape and pedophilia. I can't even imagine what kind of mind calls that safe.

Using rare instances to defend every single accused rapist and to denounce every single victim is to engage in willful and deliberate distortion for reasons we can only speculate about.

To the alerter and jurors who live in constant paranoia that someone might be calling another person a pedophile or rapist: The comment above that was alerted on does not refer to another poster as a rapist or pedophile. Let me break it down in English. "Your notion of a safe bubble (the one he accused me of living in) that involves rape and pedophilia," meaning it is one where I acknowledge the existence of rape and pedophilia. It is a bubble that includes examining evidence of the frequency of rape and child molestation rather than relying on a single example of false allegation from centuries past to defend an accused child molester in the 21st century. Got it? Granted, the sentence is poorly constructed and grammatically unsound, so I can understand a certain amount of confusion. But it does not come close to calling him a pedophile or rapist.

but i am done with you as its just like watching repeats of the A team, every episode is the same.

There is nothing I would like better. But that means you stop making snide comments about me. Just ignore me. Forget I exist, just as I give no thought to your existence until you make some rude comment about me to someone else.


You obviously don't read what I write anywhere or you wouldn't make the ludicrous point that I think all women are innocent and all men guilty. You are projecting. Whatever prompts it has nothing to do with me.

and your alert was lame. You don't even bother to read. I didn't accuse you of being a pedophile. I said your version of the safe bubble I live in includes one where rape and pedophilia exist, as opposed to pretending it never happens. Jesus. No wonder you make shit up about me. Time and time again you distort what I say because you can't be bothered to read, so just put me on ignore and be done with it.

Nobody is defending "every single accused rapist to denounce every single victim", but damned if you don't sound heroic railing against that non-existent claim. I made it a point to state that I believe that damned near every child who claims abuse either was a victim, or truly believes that they were. Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative, so you just pretend that it went unsaid.
My issue is, and remains with those who claim that EVERY accusation has merit, and that EVERY accused individual must be guilty. That's what I posted, and I stand by it. And you cannot deny that such a claim has been made right here on this message board.
But no matter, you have charged to the fore, making ridiculous claims about "all men" and "all women" that only the voices in your head have given voice to.
I'll leave you the last word. I have to admit, I'm actually curious as to what other unmade statement you will next ascribe to me.

Some of the same people DO defend every single accused rapist. That is a fact. There has not once been a named rapist on this board that some of the same characters didn't turn up to defend. You don't tell me something hasn't happened just because you never paid attention to this issue until some overrated movie director got accused.

Your issue is to call people idiots who believe a victim over their a perpetrator. I got it loud and clear.

Your issue is a straw man. Completely unbelievable, as is evident by the insulting way in which you presented it and the sad effort to use the Salem Witch trials as made up evidence.

You want to believe Allen, that's your business. I believe a credible victim. Not without question but because I read her account. Chances are far more likely I am right that you are. But I guess your superior intelligence means that probability doesn't apply to you, whereas I'm must a simple person who has to rely on the evidence put before me. I know the man married the teenager sister of his children. I know the man likes barely legal girls he watched grow up. I do not think it a leap to then believe a clear account by a victim, particularly when said pervert can't be bothered to even deny the allegations himself, even to his friend and rape apologist who published in the Daily Beast. There are lots of facts that you are choosing to ignore, and then you insult those of us who do pay attention.

that all claims of abuse should be believed. I won't do it, because it would be a call-out, but know damned good and well that I'm correct. But if you can find one fucking post where an individual defends "every single accused rapist" I will humbly beg your forgiveness.

And for you to accuse ANYONE of using a straw man argument is beyond funny. My original statement was that anyone who believed that every claim of abuse should be accepted without question is an idiot. You somehow translated that into a claim wherein I said that anyone who believes a victim over their perpetrator was an idiot.
Actually, I take it back. That's not a straw man. That's just another fucking lie.

I've been an elementary school teacher and child advocate for 40 years. Early in my career I had to testify in an abuse case in which I helped to send the abusive father of a 7 year old girl to jail. My only regret was that I couldn't put the sonofabitch under the jail.

But hey, you have a cool username and appear to be unparalleled in the art of making shit up, so let's call it a draw.

You need only read the threads where an accused rapist is named. Each and every time the same people turn up to invoke the specter of false accusation. They then invoke innocent until proven guilty, which applies to every single accused person in our justice system. No one disputes that. The question is why is it always in the case of rape that it is raised? Why is it so seldom raised in other crimes, and never for women accused of making false accusations?

You could have expressed your point in a lot of ways. You chose to insult those who disagree with you. You chose to distort history. Both of those make your claims specious at best. You chose to present the case as an absolute. Anyone who believes rape victims "without question." Without question doesn't exist. It never exists. We all have the evidence known to us from the press, namely Dylan's account. You choose to ignore that and instead continue to insult me here. Not only that, you haven't even addressed your distortion of the historical record to fit your personal agenda. You have no evidence, no facts, and have relied entirely on generalizations and Insults. I provided a clear case supported with evidence and sources, which you naturally ignored. You have no moral high ground here.

Many people default to believing the accused. Some have a bias toward victims instead. That doesn't make us stupid or unquestioning. It means that we know rape culture hinges on disbelieving rape victims as a matter of course. It happens many times a day in this country, which is why only 3 percent of rapes result in jail time, even as short as thirty days. That we tend to believe victims over accused predators, in your words, makes us "stupid." An ironic comment considering the complete paucity of evidence in your OP and your completely distorted interpretation of the Salem Witch trials.

There is nothing close to a draw. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4439238
I provided evidence and you provided generalizations and insults.

when you learn the meaning of "all" ...

when you learn to accurately say what you are attempting to convey ...

then it might be worthwhile to attempt a conversation with you.

Your avowal that "without question does not exist"" is untrue, and you know it. That claim exists on this message board at this very moment. Likewise, your statement that I have called those who believe victims over accused predators "stupid" is categorically untrue as anyone who scrolls through this thread can easily ascertain. I'm not going to re-post the salient issues in my OP again. I have done so repeatedly, and they have been repeatedly ignored or mischaracterized. But the fact that you would make two such patently false and easily disprovable claims is disquieting at best.

And unless you are the one who stated that all claims of abuse must be accepted without question, then I have not insulted you. If I wished to insult you, I would probably just call you a liar based on the numerous statements you have falsely attributed to me, yet I will not do so.

Your need to allege insult or injury makes you appear to be weaker than I suspect that you actually are, and it does nothing to advance your argument.

and provide no evidence for any of your assertions, That you claim I know what is in your head or what you think you have seen is not evidence. You have no evidence. You don't explain your points or your distortion of history, or why rapists deserve consideration not given to elected officials or other accused criminals. You are furious that anyone dares to think differently from you. I have never seen "without question." I do not know it exists. You want to interpret it as that to malign those who have the audacity to see the issue differently from you. I don't believe it exists. We all operate based on some information.

I have not lied about you. I have pointed out the inconsistencies and limitations of your argument and complete and absolute lack of evidence. You seem to think the fact you have some sort of grudge against me bolsters your position here. It does not. You dislike me, fine. That still doesn't support any of what you have claimed in this thread.

If it is only one person who made a comment, why feel compelled to create an entire OP presenting it as though there were numbers of people? I acknowledge a bias toward believing victims over accusers. If I were ever called as a juror in sexual assault case, I would declare that bias and be dismissed. What I don't do is hide behind some Postivist shield of objectivity to pretend a case you poorly understand form 1692 has anything to do with Dylan Farrow or any recent allegation of child abuse. I suggest you get honest with yourself an examine your own biases.

I have tried repeatedly to deal with issues, while you systematically avoid a discussion of evidence of the events of this case You clearly have nothing of substance to say and your only interest is in insulting those who disagree with you. Enjoy yourself. I am through wasting my time. Your obviously severely agitated over this. I am not responsible for whatever causes that. You began this thread furious and insulting and that has been your tone throughout.

I have provided no evidence for any of my assertions? I haven't made any assertions. The OP began with a statement of fact regarding the Salem Witch Trials. I followed up with two clearly labeled opinions, one stating my belief that almost all allegations of abuse are either true or believed to be true by those leveling them; and the second stating my belief that it is wrong to insist that every accusation should be automatically accepted without question ( a belief that HAS, despite your sputtering obfuscations, been voiced on this forum, and to which my post was in reply).

I have not mentioned the names "Allen" or "Farrow" anywhere in this thread (until right now).

My OP was in response to another poster claiming that a person who questions any allegation of childhood sexual abuse is a rape apologist and will be placed on ignore. It was to that sentiment I was attempting to respond. YOU decided that this thread needed to be about one specific case, so, as is your wont, you attempted to hi-jack it and make it all about your outrage du jour. When that failed you have now engaged in a laughable attempt to adopt some sort of "above it all" persona, while deciding that I must be "furious" and "severely agitated". I hate to break it to you and your overly-inflated opinion of your importance, but I don't "dislike" you. (There's that need to be victimized again.) I would have to care about you to summon up any dislike, and I'm pretty much indifferent to your very existence. And the day that I allow an anonymous internet nobody to cause me to suffer even slight agitation is the day I find another way to spend my time.

To the best of my recollection I have had three posts hidden in my 12 years at DU. So ask yourself, in your slightly less than a year and a half gracing us with your presence, which of us has revealed themself as more likely to be rude, insulting, agitated, and just plain unable to work and play well with others.

Have a lovely day.

I don't dispute they can happen. I made a factual statement: it is exceedingly rare. What is not rare is for a single case of false accusation to be used to excuse every single rapist who is ever accused.

But then you know that, yet for some reason, you simply do not seem to care.

Dylan Farrow made no allegation of Satanic cults or anything of the sort.


I'm looking forward to your heartfelt defense of Catholic clergy and talk about how a single case of false allegation in the McMartin cases means we should not judge them. No? You won't be doing that? Hmm. I can't imagine why.

Or deny that any have ever happened.

That is one hell of a false dilemma you're peddling.

I have no idea what Woody Allen did or did not do. Hell I don't think I've ever seen a Woody Allen movie (younger person this might not be so surprising).

I just don't think allegation is ever sufficient for guilt.

but by all means, continue your dialog with yourself. It's obviously far more fascinating to you than what I actually say.

However, your data beg the question: They're stats based on self-reporting.

If 1% of the people have false memories, they're 1% wrong.
If 90% of the people have false memories, they're 90% wrong.

Self-report studies to provide stats on how prevalent sexual abuse is can't be turned around to argue that self-reports are always valid. All you get out of it is that self-reports agree with self-reports.


That's why we require additional evidence. Physical, corroboration from other witnesses, etc. An accusation is just that.

It doesn't diminish the accusation; it provides perspective and makes us think seriously and rationally instead of emoting first and pondering justice second.

That is a much higher burden that forming an opinion as an outside observer. I require no absolute proof for that. I am not a court of law, and nor are you. Either you believe Dylan or you don't. Your choice.

Loved "The Devil in the Shape of a Woman" -- and thank you for addressing the Salem Witch Trials.

Because what you learned about the event and what I learned are two completely different things.

were overwhelmingly women who were considered problematic by their society. Most were women who had gone up against popular, wealthy, men. Others were women who were outspoken about wrongs that had been done to them by members of their community.

I would say that you have the situation backward. The woman in this case, Dylan, much better fits the profile of the accused witch than the popular wealthy man she says assaulted her.

I suspect if a girl had accused a wealthy and powerful man of molesting her during that time period, she would have been accused of being a witch or suffering from the effects of witchcraft.

with some kind of confusion about sexuality and morality that was very pointed.

Though there are studies that say it generally had to do with inheritance and keeping to a "woman's place" as defined by the society.

Now, would you like to take issue with anything that I actually said in the OP? Not what you think I meant, or what you believe was some sort of mendacious underlying motivation, but the actual fucking words that I posted?

If you're struggling, I'll say it again:

During the Salem Witch Trials some children lied about what had transpired.

I believe that damned near every child who claims abuse either was abused, or truly believes that they were.

Any one who insists that ALL such claims of abuse must be accepted without question is an idiot.

If you can dispute even one of those statements without flying off on some fanciful tangent wherein I have damned child victims everywhere, I would love to hear it.

it is more accurate to say that Dylan Farrow is the victim of a witch trial.

I would have thought you could have inferred that, but I guess not. So there it is in a nutshell.

Why you need to be so completely nasty about it is beyond me. The angry, insulting tone in your post is really quite overblown and out of proportion.

We supported her, our family was torn apart. Then the allegations became more outlandish, actually impossible and we realized was was mentally ill.

She finally received a diagnosis and is medicated. But she still believes everything she said.


I'm here to tell you, adults can recount abuse that did not happen.

As a caveat, I have no opinion on the Woody Allen case. I only hope the woman involved finds peace.

Usually, accusations of abuse are true, but sometimes they're not. In this case, the facts don't support it ever happening. There was an obvious motive for Mia Farrow to brainwash her children (something Moses Farrow now claims), the investigators who medical staff who dealt most closely with Dylan as a girl said it was probable that her story was not correct. The video accusing Allen was highly edited and there is testimony that it was taken over a couple of days and that Dylan was coached by Mia.

The only one who claimed there was enough evidence to prosecute was the prosecutor who declined to do so because of Dylan's fragile state. Obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever since letting a molester go free to abuse further children would be despicable.

I believe Dylan when she says she was abused and I believe her when she claims to believe that Woody Allen did it. I have no reason to doubt that part of the story. Unfortunately, I believe (based on the facts of the case) that her abuse came from Mia, not Woody.

They want revenge for Woody Allen dating, then marrying, a consenting adult and they're using this as their platform. You'll notice how every one of these arguments boils down to "HE MARRIED HIS STEP DAUGHTER11!!!!111!!!" by the second or third response. Of course none of that is true but they don't really care about facts, they want blood.

No one wants abuse to be true. We want to have abuse and rape taken seriously. We want to see people stop reflexively disbelieving rape victims and defending rapists. We want people to acknowledge that Dylan Farrow and others like her are HUMAN BEINGS who matter. They are not objects or toys for adults to violate at will. She deserves to have her case heard, something that infuriates you.

Allen married the sister of his children, a girl he watched grow up. His lust for that barely legal girl was more important to him than the well-being of his children. It's not a huge leap to think someone like that would abuse a child. The fact is, chances that Dylan is not telling the truth or is falsely remembering are very low, while chances of her telling exactly what happened are high. All the data available about the frequency of child abuse and the infrequency of false accusations makes that clear. None of that matters to you.

You have made no reference to facts. None. You are intent on ignoring facts. Justice is not blood. Allen will never face justice. The statue of limitations has expired. Like most of the accused and actual pedophiles on earth, he is free to continue to reoffend, while victims lives are destroyed. That is not accidental. That happens because of rape culture, because people insist on disbelieving rape victims because they do not want to see rapists and child molesters brought to justice.

of the 1980s were our most recent witch hunts, with alleged pedophiles as the witches. Before them it had been communists. Who knows who it will be next? Some things are fairly certain: Repressed memory therapy was about as accurate a yardstick of truth in the day care scandals as seeing if people floated or sank after being thrown off bridges in the Middle Age, or using associations from decades before to brand communists. Prosecuting attorneys with political ambitions, corrupt politicians and even ambitious careerists are always with us and frightened people are easily manipulated by cynical ones. Of all the hundreds and thousands of alleged witches who were ever hunted down and burned over the centuries, a handful probably deserved it, but most likely not for consorting with the devil.

a pig. The fact that he is having relations with his daughter, Soon Yi, proves it.

If you read this article in Vanity Fair - you will see that Mia Farrow won TWICE in court in her hearings against Allen. He lost visitation rights because of what he did to Dylan.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow#

He is a pig and I believe Dylan, especially after what she went through and has NEVER changed her story. and hope she can heal but it must hurt her to see her ugly father adulated in Hollywood the way he is.

She was an adult when they started their relationship.

What's Woody Allen's looks have to do with anything?

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

If marrying the teenager sister of one's children doesn't signal a serious and pathological issue with boundaries, nothing does. It shows his lust for a barely legal girl he watched grow up was more important than the well being of his own children. Given Dylan's clear statement this week, I do not find it improbable that he molested her. In fact, I'd rank him very highly in the guys most likely to be a pedophile category.

http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9712/24/woody.weds/

I'm just clarifying that she was not a teenager when they got married, she was 27. According to the article I linked to, she was 21 (1991) when Mia found the nude photos.

they would MARRY?

That is according to Mia, Woody and Soon-Yi. She had a father, Andre Previn.

For a man to take nude photos of a young girl who is the sister of his children, who he watched grow up, and with whose mother he had a multi-year relationship, to then go on and date and marry that girl? Is that okay as far as you're concerned? Is that the kind of mate you would wish for your own daughter?

I thank you in advance for not doing it again.

I have merely tried to clarify facts.

That is why there are question marks. Will you answer?

I think it's fine for two adults to date. I think it's fine if they choose to take nude photos of each other. Mia, Woody and Soon-Yi have all said he was not a father figure and had nothing to do with her growing up. Since that's something all three agree on, I believe them. He was not a father or stepfather to her.

I do think it's a bit skeevy, but ultimately it is a relationship that was formed between adults.

And since I cannot have children, no need to worry about my "daughter".

Obviously I disagree with much of that. If a boyfriend of mine took up with one of my adolescent children (though like you I have none), I might well be the one who wound up in prison.

Which would be why I said I think two adults in a relationship is fine.

No one here knows for sure what happened, or what didn't happen. We can all agree to respect rape and molestetion victims while also respecting the accused who have been found not guilty, or never been tried in court, by not dragging their names in the mud. I look down upon anyone who becomes so invested in either the guilt / innocence of the accused or the veracity (or lack thereof) of the victim that they passionately debate and argue about the case.

Back off. Take a deep breath.

where the kids rid the town of adults by claiming to have been 'molestered'.