So Woody Allen supporters would support pedophiles. I get it.

But then you add the sarcasm tag, so you are now saying that those who defend Woody would not support pedophile priests.

Which is it?

falsely accused would never dream of not believing a young man who accused a Catholic priest of the same thing.

And I think we should give the same credence to the young person in both situations. It isn't easy for a young person to make this kind of accusation and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Woody's not likely to be involved in a court case, twenty years after the fact. But we don't have to lionize him either, with things like lifetime achievement awards.

Welcome to DU, Geddy Ringo!

LEGALLY we are to presume innocence. None of us are obligated to do that personally.

Think about it. We all run into at least some less than savory people, and we form judgments about them. We decide who we will allow near our children and who we won't -- and we don't require people to have been convicted of something to give them a wide birth.

I mean I think that's the crux of it isn't it? If Woody Allen weren't a director who had made some movies many people love, a) we probably wouldn't have heard of him, and b) nobody would defend him (at best some people would say, there's no way to know).

If you don't like Woody Allen's movies or are lukewarm towards them, it doesn't matter; if you do like them than it's a more difficult choice.

Bryant

but I don't watch them anymore.

I also can't stand to watch any of Mel Gibson's movies since I realized what a creep he is. I don't know how Jody Foster can be friends with him.

Why the fuck does anyone believe these lies? Oh yeah, cause little girls never ever get convinced by their nasty vindictive mothers to say someone molested them. that just never ever ever fucking happens. Never. Never happened to no one ever. nope.

Before you discount everything she says, you should read the two long stories in Vanity Fair, by a writer who conducted dozens of interviews. The more recent article was in November 2013.

I don't feel comfortable with ANY strange men spending time alone with my daughter.

guilty of something without being proven so in a court of law. I am guilty of stealing a candybar as a kid, never went to court, no presumed innocence involved, wa guilty.

The hair-on-fire brigade always delivers!

I think we should give the young woman in this case the same benefit of the doubt we give to young men who accuse priests of having molested them in the past, recognizing how hard it is for young adults to bring these charges.

I'm not saying Woody should go to jail, but I wouldn't dismiss this woman's claims lightly.

And I wouldn't allow my own kids to be alone with anyone with his history, if I still had young children.

Which is generally not the soundest of arguments and it carries a lot of historical baggage.

Now, you can claim that the possibility of him being a child molester is higher because of the allegations. I would counter that with the fact that he was allowed to adopt two children. You can't just go pick up kids from an orphanage. It requires a lot of investigation and a lot of confirmation that the potential parents are stable emotionally, intellectually and financially.

a state-approved adoption.

You just need to find a willing mother and a lawyer to handle the paperwork, but no home studies are required.

And all adoptive parents are required to go through a background check.

So, your argument in this case is exactly the opposite of what is actually needed to adopt.

to be so god damned sure and smug about it too.

The odds of so many children manufacturing false memories very quickly approaches zero at such large numbers. Although, I will concede that it isn't technically impossible. Just highly unlikely.

The sheer number of corroborated molestations under Catholic priests vindicates the foundational argument behind most of the allegations. We are dealing with institutionalized abuse, not just one single case.

This isn't even mentioning the total difference in circumstance. Mia Farrow had more than one motivation for manufacturing the abuse allegations. Does that mean that she did? No. Does it bring into question the veracity of the allegations? Absent substantive evidence demonstrating that abuse took place, I'm inclined to say yes.

by a small number of repeat offenders, but that doesn't mean that most priest-molestors molested many children.

And any child who is saying she or he was molested should be taken seriously, no matter how powerful the person s/he is accusing -- whether a priest or a movie star.

The prosecutor in Allen's case had a press conference in which he said he had enough evidence to bring the case to trial, but had chosen not to for the sake of the girl's well-being. Also, the family court judge, based on the evidence he considered, decided to take away Allen's visitation rights.

So this isn't only about Mia.

That doesn't mean you believe them at face value. That would be absurd.

If the argument is that the allegations were made to sway the custody battle, then it is of no surprise that the judge denied visitation with Dylan. That alone does not prove the allegations.

As I've said, the fact that Allen was allowed to adopt two children is pretty strong validation of his character. And belief in his character is fundamental to this entire discussion.

Just his bank account.

Private adoptions are simply adoptions completed with the aid of an attorney instead of an adoption agency. All regulations regarding criminal background checks and home studies are still required.

On the other hand, what kind of unbiased home study would allow children to be adopted into the home of a man who had his visitation with his previously adopted daughter terminated by a family court judge?

http://www.adoptionready.com/independent.htm

Attorney-led adoptions do not necessarily prepare adoptive parents or birthparents for the feelings that accompany the adoption process or the lifelong issues associated with it. Some States do not require counseling or adoptive home studies before a child is placed through an independent adoption. Adoptive parents may consider this a positive aspect of the process because they would save on the cost of the home study or the birthparents' counseling. But it can become a negative aspect if they receive conflicting advice from friends or relatives on different questions that come up rather than solid advice from an experienced professional counselor. An adoption attorney knows the legal issues but not necessarily the psychological ones.the feelings that accompany the adoption process or the lifelong issues

Where allegation turns into confirmation of allegation. Apparently, every court or judge that ruled in favor of Mia Farrow was acting justly and intelligently and every court or judge or investigative body that ruled in favor of Woody Allen was stupid and dangerous.

Look at your argument.

of child abuse that were supported by a prosecutor, should have been enough of a reason to deny him access to further children.

No one is owed the right to adopt children, so this isn't about Woody's rights. If we're going to err, it should be on the side of keeping a child safe. Plenty of other people would have been happy to adopt healthy baby girls. A 60+ year old man with a history of losing custody of a previously adopted child is not your best candidate.

Probably because you realize that Allen was subject to state regulation while applying for adoption.

Your entire argument against his capacity to be an adoptive parent hinges on the belief that he is a child molester. Without that belief, it falls to pieces. Which is why, as someone who does not see evidence he is a child molester, I find your argument against his adoptions ridiculous.

The process potential adoptive parents go through is quite extensive regardless of the state you live in. Despite your statements to the contrary (the whole California vs New York issue), there are unified federal regulations in place for the adoptive process in any state in the union.

and that a family court judge after viewing the evidence decided to terminate visitation.

Given the situation, the cautious decision would not be to take a chance on him with more children.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. 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. He could not seem to keep his hands off her. He would monopolize her totally, to the exclusion of her brothers and sisters, and spend hours whispering to her. She was fond of her daddy, but if she tried to go off and play, he would follow her from room to room, or he would sit and stare at her. During the school year, Allen would arrive early at Mia Farrow’s West Side Manhattan apartment, sit on Dylan’s bed and watch her wake up, and take her to school. At her birthday party last July, at Farrow’s country house in Bridgewater, Connecticut, he promised that he would keep away from the children’s table so that Dylan could enjoy her birthday party with her friends, but he seemed unable to do that. Allen, who was a fearful figure to many in the household, was so needy where Dylan was concerned that he hovered over her through the whole party, and when the cake arrived, he was right behind her, helping to blow out the candles.

Calling attention to someone’s birthday-party behavior may seem trivial at best. However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia’s 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 Woody’s agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didn’t 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.”

SNIP

Was not a less than strict adoption process but that in the vetting of him as a potential parent the persons responsible for doing the vetting, you know not you or I (people who are immeasurably removed from the process), concluded that the allegations were too weak to merit a denial? Has that even crossed your mind? Or is the answer to any regulative body siding with Allen a quick dismissal as too absurd for your own conclusions?

You have to lay the track before you leave the station. Otherwise, there's going to be a derailment.

Hopefully these girls won't be speaking out someday, but if they do I won't be shocked.

Notice how the younger girl is clutching herself instead of hugging him back. Neither of the girls look like they're enjoying the hug. Hopefully, the photos don't mean anything more than the girls were uncomfortable for some other reason. But the girl on the right sure looks like she doesn't want to hug Woody back.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/XA_EXkgFrfU/Woody+Allen+Soon+Yi+Daughters+Beverly+Wilshire/G63MCPd60ng/Bechet+Dumaine+Allen

Maybe it was the case they knew more about the issue at hand than you or I do. After all, it's their job to do just that.

But now we're back to the "won't you think of the children" argument.

You're constructing and reconstructing your argument as you go along. You are saying or believing in whatever needs to be believed in to confirm the preconceived narrative. And that narrative is that Woody Allen is a child molester. First it was the accusation that it was a private adoption and therefore not subject to state regulation or investigation. Now that that argument has been debunked, you're simply dismissing the validity of the entire adoptive process. That's truly bogus.

they have acquired. And if the information includes a history involving accusations of child abuse and terminated visitation, then, all other things equal, that prospective parent shouldn't be preferred over someone without such a history.

Look at this picture. Yes, it's possible that the girls are both just uncomfortable at that moment for some other reason. But the girl on the right, who's clutching herself, putting a little barrier between her and Woody, sure doesn't look like she's happy with the hug.

Knowing what Dylan is saying now, and what people said about inappropriate behavior with her years ago, this photo (and others online) is more than a little creepy.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/XA_EXkgFrfU/Woody+Allen+Soon+Yi+Daughters+Beverly+Wilshire/G63MCPd60ng/Bechet+Dumaine+Allen

Using paparazzi photos, no less.

This entire situation is a perfect example of divisive debate. I hate both sides. It's all such utter lunacy.

and people who weren't.

Not only do I have immediate family members who were the victims of extensive molestation from parents (one of them is a 64 year old failed entrepreneur, drug and porn addict, habitual liar, who goes through marriages like sticks of gum), I myself am the child of parents who went through a vicious, despicable divorce and custody battle. My parents made it their objective to destroy the other at almost any cost. Which included weaponizing their own children.

This is why I do not doubt the capacity of a human being to be a child molester or a contemptuous seeker of vengeance against an unfaithful partner. I admit both sides could have done what they are being accused of doing. I lean only in one direction because of the evidence I've seen. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is almost nothing. I wasn't there during the divorce. I wasn't in that house when the molestation is said to have taken place. I don't know Woody Allen or Mia Farrow or Dylan Farrow or Ronan Farrow. I don't know any of these people.

I know almost nothing. And maybe I'm totally absolutely wrong in my conclusions. But grab a seat because you're standing right next to me. We are outsiders looking into a situation where the ambiguity is palpable even within the immediate participants. Now consider how far away we are from the center of affairs?

I refuse to cheerleader for either side.

decided the young woman was deluded.

That seems very unfair to me.

Most, including myself, are simply asking for an even hand. "GravityCollapse" just has the patience to wade through the "my way or the highway" tactics.

Let the legal system deal with these cases.

How about that?

Now, where is my popcorn? Care for some?

and neither of them has any interest in facing the legal system years after their molestation occurred.


The vast majority of child sexual assault cases never get to the authorities; even the ones that do are very difficult to prove, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Look, I have treated victims of sexual assault. I know the pressures not to testify. I am also familiar with cases like the McMartin case and locally a false confession. So yes, 20 years on, let the legal system deal with it and if there is enough evidence to file, by all means. No statue of limitation. I will wait for this to go to court.

Until then, all this, right now, fits the actual definition of hearsay, on both sides mind you.

(How did auto correct go from sides to sheds?)

That I'm going out of my way to avoid bringing my own baggage to the matter, and looking at the facts I DO KNOW.

I do know Dylan is a troubled young woman.

I do know the rage she's going through.

I DO NOT KNOW she was sexually abused by Woody Allen.

I DO KNOW that her mother has a very weird sense of who to support, when it comes to someone who forcibly raped and sodomized a child who was willing to go to court against her abuser.

And I think that's what Dylan needs to do - file a lawsuit in CT. Because failing to do anything else, right now, at this time, looks like an intentionally orchestrated plot to bring Woody down, just when Ronan is stepping onto the celebrity media stage.

And by the way, I also DO KNOW that abusers seek to exert control over circumstances and people, far more than non-abusers. And if that's not what Mia and company have been attempting, I'm the Queen of Innisfree.

Welcome to DU, Upward. DU needs a dose of reasonable.

If there is an allegation against a catholic priest by one person with no hard evidence and possible reason to doubt whether the incident actually happened or not I will be just as skeptical.

And if woody allen ends up with over a dozen unrelated kids making the same allegation of molestation at approximately the time period I would assume him just as guilty as I would a catholic priest.

If there is evidence of him doing the alleged abuse,why isnt he in Jail.