It is true that one of the worst things about abuse is when no one believes you. To this day my dad thinks my late mom is a saint even though I grew up fearing and hating her for her emotional and physical abuse. My problem with this case is the lack of collaboration by the authorities investigating the case and Farrow’s overall jerkish behavior. She’s trying Allen in the court of public opinion and then expecting us not to examine all the evidence – merely side with her without question.
[Moderating]
This is too close to wishing death on another poster. Dial it back, please.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Hey, Sarahfeena, you know (at least I hope you do) that I respect you a lot and that I think you’re a good, smart poster. But I’ll admit that your posts in this thread don’t make sense to me. For me, your certainty is a little odd based on the information we have. I can’t think of a time without some sort of physical evidence or corroboration where I would think “Well, there’s a small chance this person is innocent.”
I don’t want kids touched inappropriately and I don’t want to let the guilty off, but I think there’s more than a small chance almost anyone accused of child molestation is innocent of it. The nature of the offense means that there is usually a reasonable chance they are innocent. It sucks, but unless we start arming kids with dye packs like banks do with money to mark bank robbers, it’s really hard to know the precise truth all the time. (Yes, I realize dye packs wouldn’t even work. It’s a stupid analogy!)
Usually, if we only have one witness, we want other evidence that bolsters the witness. Heck, adult witnesses in absolutely perfect conditions still fuck up telling the story of what happened. We’re terrible at remembering things. I’ve reminisced with my brother about something from childhood, heard his version of it, and the next time I told the story, it was my brother’s. I’ve made jokes about things happening and then later couldn’t remember if the joke version was real. I might be worse about this than most people, but I’m not alone. We remember things all the time that never happened, never happened to us, didn’t happen the way we said, didn’t involve the people we thought, didn’t happen in 1994, were in a different room, happened before the event we said came first, were just a dream, were things we saw in a movie, etc. Our brains and memories are malleable and flexible and sometimes we want to remember things a particular way, or want to believe a particular thing, or want to please a particular person somehow, or want to make our story better and so we elaborate and stretch and suddenly we don’t know if that was the original truth or not.
So, what do you think?
I bet you’re regretting all of those “first post on the new page” posts you’ve made…
bienville’s been owning that shit too! It’s his thing, ya know what I’m saying’?
That tickled me so much, for no reason that I can discern. In celebration of your hilarious joke…
LET’S GO DOWN TO THE QUARRY AND THROW SHIT DOWN THERE!! SUCK IT HATERZZZZZZ!!!
Your main point is absolutely valid. But your first sentence’s leading phrase is not accurate. Children do, indeed, sometimes just make this stuff up.
Elizabeth Paige Coast, testified that when she was 10, she was in her grandmother’s yard when a 14-year-old boy from across the street named “John” pinned her against a garage, fondled her and forced her to perform a sex act.
The police had tracked down John after she made the initial accusation – John’s family had moved away. And they arrested him and brought him to trial based on Coast’s accusation, which she repeated under oath when the case came to trial when she was 18.
John was sent to prison, convicted of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and object sexual penetration.
Particularly compelling was the prosecutor’s argument: “Judge, she has no ax to grind. There’s no reason for her to make this up. . . . She is simply telling the court what happened; if there was some kind of motive to get him in trouble, maybe that is something that I could understand, but she comes in here with no motive.” In finding guilt, the judge cited that same reasoning.
Years later, Elizabeth – who as an adult worked for the local police department – told an officer that she had lied and sent a man to prison. An investigation was begun, and she was told that she’d be subject to a perjury conviction if she lied. She accepted the consequence willingly, was fired from her job, and convicted of perjury – but the falsely accused man was set free.
Why did she lie? Because her parents caught her on the Internet looking at sex stories. In an effort to explain to her strict parents why she’d do such a dirty thing as read about sex, she claimed she had been sexually assaulted. She named “John” as the attacker because he had lived across the street from her grandmother’s house but had moved away from the area. She did not believe police could find him and was stunned when police tracked him down, but believed she could not recant without getting in more trouble.
See also Montgomery v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2300-12-1, (Va Ct App 2013), granting a writ of actual innocence to the falsely accused.
‘Children don’t just make this stuff up’?
Doesn’t anybody remember the ‘satanic rituals’ child abuse scandals of the 80s?
This explains why I have yet to receive all the puppies I was supposed to have won as prizes.
First of all, folks, I put phrase in quotes for a reason, and that was because it was in direct response to a particular post by a particular poster. I should have put in some qualifier because yes, kids DO make stuff up.
However, the “make stuff up” usually doesn’t occur in a vacuum. The “satanic rituals” stuff was in the midst of adult panic over the topic. The Coast case involved a kid already reading some sort of porn on the internet. I could argue in both cases that the kids were on some level attempting to tell the adults something the adults wanted to hear. That doesn’t, in fact, mean it’s what the adults actually want, just that the kids are attempting to say the right thing (mommy, you want me to tell you about the satanic ritual?), or attempting to evade some sort of trouble (somehow thinking that it preferable to be thought of as an abuse victim rather than a kid who reads porn).
This is why it’s so important to NOT ask leading questions when interviewing a child.
Absolutely agree.
But in the Coast case, avoiding leading questions may not have helped. And in the Lanigan case, it certainly would not, since the Lanigan accuser deliberately fabricated her claim as retribution for Lanigan’s attempts to curb her bullying of younger students.
And these are perfect illustrations of why the accused deserves the benefit of the doubt absent a conviction, whether in law or society.
For his part, Dylan Farrow’s brother Moses thinks his mom is a scumbag.
The problem I have with that is that I can understand believing her more on that basis, but not finding his guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”. I don’t see how there can ever be no reasonable doubt in a case that rests entirely on the word of one person.
I myself ran into that in traffic court recently, where the only evidence was my word against a cop’s. The traffic judge said he “found beyond reasonable doubt” that the cop was right and I was wrong. This defies reason, IMHO.
I’m convinced that “beyond reasonable doubt” is honored in the breach, for the most part.
I’ve made this point in prior threads on related subjects, IIRC. People think there is security from false imprisonment based on the need for evidence that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but this is incorrect. If a judge or jury decide that they believe one side more, they will frequently just decide that this belief is “beyond reasonable doubt” too so that “justice” can be done and be able to deliver a verdict which enables this.
It reminds me of the McMartin Preschool fiasco.
From some reports, the kids initially denied being molested but the adults kept asking and asking until they kids gave the answers they thought the adults wanted to hear.
I can’t help but think the reason Mia Farrow so completely lost her shit over Woody and Soon-Yi isn’t really because he left her for her adopted daughter, but because he left her period. I wouldn’t be surprised to think that in her little world, she is always the one who leaves the man, not the other way around. But that’s just my armchair psychologist opinion. In any case, it’s clear the woman needs a hobby other than hatin’ on her ex.
“Mommie Dearest” Joan Crawford was a crazy, abusive mother.
Is that any reason not to watch her movies?
Yes. If anyone ever does anything bad, you should never view, listen or enjoy their art or work ever again.
Damn, I’d better put away my Burzum albums.