Well, it is more difficult to convict someone of a crime if there is no evidence one took place. You may not like Woody Allen, but at least in the United States he is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
Yes, of course. I just think it shows what’s wrong with this world. Everyone jumps to the “crazy mother” explanation and not the “abusive father” explanation. There’s no more evidence of one than the other, but people let him off scot-free while vilifying her.
I’m not vilifying Mia, unless you consider asking questions about her account of what would be, if true, a horrible crime to be “vilifying”. I also agree that him dumping his girlfriend for his girlfriend’s legally adult daughter to be a skeevy move but it’s not illegal and it’s not abuse.
Seems to me you’re painting anyone who doesn’t immediately take your side as someone sort of apologist for a child molester. Sorry, I just prefer to have actual proof before denouncing someone as a scumbag.
Whaddya mean, “jumps”? Allen was accused of child abuse, the accusation was declared to be groundless, no case was brought against him, and no similar accusations have been made in the decades since then.
Why, exactly, do you think it’s unreasonable or “wrong” for people to assume that the most likely explanation is that Allen wasn’t guilty and his accusers were a bit dissociated from reality?
Mind you, I think Allen is hardly a saintly or even likable person, and I recognize that just because somebody is officially found innocent doesn’t guarantee that he wasn’t really guilty.
But I don’t understand why you seem to think that fairness requires that people in general now ought to assume he’s a child molester. What fairness required was a scrupulous investigation when he was accused of being a child molester, and that AFAICT is what happened.
It’s not unfairly “jumping” to any conclusion to take the findings of that past investigation at face value. And if the findings of the investigation were correct (which, again, is not guaranteed beyond doubt, but is not an unreasonable supposition), then Allen’s accusers must have been confused or lying or some mixture of the two.
It is my not-a-lawyer understanding that people are misusing the word “evidence” here. If someone says “this happened” then that is EVIDENCE that it happened, without it being PROOF that it happened. The fact that they say it happened could be one of 12 pieces of evidence which, all together, add up to “beyond reasonable doubt”, and lead to a conviction. Similarly, a suspiciously unverifiable alibi could be “evidence”, but also, by itself, not PROOF.
This simply is not true. There is more evidence that Allen is innocent than there is that he is guilty. And considering the original accusation was made over twenty years ago, I think we’ve had time to think it over without being accused of jumping to a judgement.
How nice of you. Just because you think someone’s a jerk and/or you don’t like their personality most certainly does not mean that they have a tendency towards child molestation.
You know what would convince me? Actual evidence. That is absent in this case. More to the point, the evidence points to the man not being a molester.
And to Sarahfeena: Your posts in this thread show you to be just as crazy as those “truther” and “birther” nuts. “There’s no evidence! That’s proof right there!” You’re being a jerk, a jackass, a loon, stupid, and just plain mean.
Harsh, Monte, but I have to agree.
Sarahfeena, just because some of us are trying to take a somewhat balanced view of things, we’re not “apologists” or “accusing the victim.” Most everyone else seems to understand this; I’m sorry you don’t.
You mistyped your warped view of the world. What you obivously meant is:
“Anyone falsely accused of child molestation will have their lives ruined.”
And that BS itself is repugnant. What the heck? Did you miss the entire year of Civics class?
And anyone who is molested will have their lives ruined too. Also fairly repugnant, don’t you think? Also repugnant is the gaslighting and accusations of lying, but no one seems to thing there’s anything wrong with that stuff.
I was ready to proclaim Allen innocent, in the court of public opinion, until, I watched a video where he was talking about the whole event. He didn’t look guilty at all, he looked like the victim of a smear campaign. He was casual about it in fact. Then, however, he talked about his relationship with the step daughter in her late teens. He was just as casual about that topic, didn’t look as if he had an ounce of guilt. If he can be so casual about one, it seems to reason he could be as casual about the other.
The balanced view seems to be “she’s obviously lying and he’s innocent of these charges.” I think this is deeply problematic. Child molestation is something people get away with because they hold the power and they can easily manipulate the victim and the situation to make it seem like they are being falsely accused. I believe this is likely happening in this case, and even if we can’t know for sure if it isn’t, it disturbs me that on his say-so it’s case closed (in the minds of much of the public).
So what do you do about the people who genuinely are falsely accused? Do we just say, “fuck 'em,” because we’re too terrified that we might let an actual abuser escape?
Or is it your position that no one is ever falsely accused of abuse?
Based on what evidence?
No, not on his say-so. On the say-so of police, doctors, independent third parties who were present when several of the alleged events occurred, and one of her own children.
In point of fact, I’ve never actually heard Allen himself discuss the allegations.
Good grief! You can’t actually be this stupid without it being on purpose!
Yes, you dumbass, it’s repugnant that anyone, anyone at all, suffer child molestation.
What you’re obviously refusing to grasp is that there is no indication of Allen having done what he’s been accused of. Everyone posting here agrees that child molestation is wrong. Everyone else, you being the sole exception apparently, posting here also agrees that falsely accusing someone of child molestation is repugnant.
Now how about answering the question put to you? Did you miss Civics class or do you simply not give a fuck about truth? All it takes is the accusation of a crime you find abhorrent and that’s all it takes to ruin someone else’s life.
What other crimes fit this bill in your twisted version of justice? C’mon. I’m sure someone will be happy to accuse you of one of them for chuckles and grins. Your life should be ruined then, right? Unless, of course, you’re naught but a hypocrite.
And don’t worry. I’m into the idea of truth, so I won’t accuse you of anything other than what the actual evidence shows you to be guilty of. I already enumerated what that is in a post upthread.
You’re a jerk.
does the fact that the accusations came out right after she said she wanted a divorce not give you any doubt? basically, she told Allen she wanted a divorce, then, like a week later she claims he molested the child… three days previous.
They were never married, so whatever you’re talking about is a mystery to me.
Everyone should go back and read Shayna’s post. There IS/WAS evidence, enough to bring him up on charges in the opinion of the prosecutor. The fact that it didn’t happen isn’t evidence that the crime itself didn’t happen.
This is exactly why victims don’t come forward and predators get off scot-free.
Oh, and by the way, I DO in fact think falsely accusing someone is repugnant. I just don’t think it’s MORE repugnant than actually, you know, MOLESTING CHILDREN. If you didn’t get that from my posts, then you’re the dumbass, not me.
ok then, split up. she had already threatened to ruin him, to take a daughter away from him, lots of other crazy stuff, she was going to send someone to blind him, she said all this before the molestation accusation. he could be lying and she never said any of that of course. but you can’t listen to only one side of the debate.
In terms of the balanced view seems to be …
No the balanced view seems to be that the only evidence we have that Mr. Allen molested Dylan is her report of it which some find less than convincing under the particular circumstances. Absence of convincing evidence is not evidence that it did not occur. He seems capable of it. And Ms. Farrow seems capable of manipulating a daughter to say and even believe horrific things. Which is true? Only they know.
You seem to be in position of revealed knowledge as to what the true facts are. Others here seem to say that they don’t know and, like the courts, prefer to not label as guilty without evidence more convincing than what has been presented. That is not saying he is innocent or that she is lying.
When there is a single witness to an event that was years past it is hard to declare what really happened. Your position is that the default is to accept the alleged victim’s testimony 100% with no need for any other evidence. Others here are not willing to say that alone crosses the bar in this particular case. Maybe it is possibly true; but it is also possibly untrue and at labelling even an unsavory person guilty when not would be worse to many of us than labelling a guilty person not guilty. YMMV.
I’m not sure how anyone would be able to pick that up from your posts in this thread.