Woody Allen Is A Scumbag (rant)

The BBQ Pit
301

I didn’t leave it out, it wasn’t there.

First of all let’s take a step back - this text is from a decision made by an appellate court regarding a decision made earlier in a custody trial. It was not their goal to retry the abuse claims or review the criminal investigation into the allegation of abuse.

They relied 100% on what was given as testimony during the custody hearing. They didn’t interview witnesses, they didn’t view exhibits of evidence or talk to investigating detectives.

Immediately after the point where you stopped quoting, they went on to say more.

Let’s look at the whole quote so we see the complete thought they were trying to convey in context:

I’m not sure how you’re interpreting this to be these judges finding “other corroborating evidence of abuse”. What it is saying is that there was testimony in the custody hearing that suggested there was abuse. Of course there was. There was also testimony given that suggested there wasn’t. They concluded this train of thought with the line you left out of your quote: “While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected.”

So looking at the paragraph in it’s entirety, what they are saying is “We can’t discount the testimony given during the hearing that suggests Dylan made it all up. And we can’t discount the testimony given during the hearing that suggests it actually happened. What we can say is that, either way, this isn’t good for the kid. Simply having had the charges made against him, true or not, and the resulting investigation, and the impact this has had on the family, we agree with the previous court that it isn’t in the kid’s best interest to change the custody arrangements they decided on.”

There is no question that the appellate court made very clear they disapprove of his relationship with Sun-Yi and basically think he’s a horrible father and a self-centered prick. But the thing you’re quoting doesn’t say what you think it says about the allegation of sexual abuse.

And, back to the original point, it is and was the single, only, allegation ever made before or since. Your quote from the appellate court is talking about evidence that was given in regard to that single, only allegation, however you choose to (mis)interpret what it says about it.

302

Testimony is evidence.

So in sum, the court said that there is evidence that he molested the kid, and also evidence that he did not.

Which is pretty much my position, and one that you’re struggling to deny.

It says exactly what I said, which you yourself acknowledged earlier.

I’ve not at any point suggested that there were any other allegations made against Allen. In fact, in my first post to this thread I raised the point that there had never been any other allegations made against Allen.

What I did say - and pay close attention now - is that “his relationship with Dylan did include actions that struck people as crossing boundaries”. I supported that by citing the court’s statement that the consensus of the experts was that “his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense”.

[Note that this issue (whether Allen’s relationship with Dylan creeped out other people) is largely independent of the other issue (whether there is evidence of the abuse claim beyond Dylan’s statement). I’ve introduced evidence that supports each of these two claims but it’s not the same evidence, so you need to keep these separated in your mind when discussing them.]

303

Wait, what?

304

For some reason when quoting yourself you’ve chosen to edit part of your own words. What you said - and which I quoted and responded to - was (bold added):

In context, I believe your first sentence also meant there was nothing else at all beyond that one accusation, but even if that’s not what you meant with that particular sentence, you also said the second sentence as well. And that’s what contradicted my post (to which you were responding) which was about "actions that struck people as crossing boundaries"and “all sorts of strange actions and bad vibes”, and that’s what I meant when I rejoinded that you were wrong as to the facts.

305

I’m sorry I didn’t realize that English isn’t your first language. “Any other context in which his behavior…” means that, apart from the single allegation that he molested an adopted daughter, there have been no other such allegations before or since regarding her or any other child. It was to that statement that you replied “uh huh there sure were, look at what this appellate court said!” Whereupon you went on to misconstrue the statement that ‘evidence suggested abuse’ to mean the appellate court was supporting the claim that abuse had occurred. They weren’t.

What your are posting as evidence that my statement is incorrect is not evidence that the statement is incorrect. The appellate court was examining his fitness as a father and whether it would be in the child’s best interest to change the custody arrangements imposed by the previous court. They mentioned no other instance of alleged sexual abuse in that decision. When they examined things like him being a distant father, or paying too much attention to one kid at the expense of the other, etc. it was not presented as supporting evidence to that single, one, allegation of sexual abuse. It was a critique of his fitness to have custody and what would be in the kids best interest, and “oh by the way there were also allegations of sexual abuse which can’t be proven but overall we decided in favor of the previous court regardless.”

To date there has only been one, single, claim of sexual abuse. It came at a time the entire family was angry at Allen for taking up with Sun-Yi.

It allegedly happened on a day he visiting an ‘enemy camp’ where nobody was on his side and he knew anything he said or did could be used against him in a court of law. With nannies, other kids, and various domestic help all over the house, he was alleged to have sneaked upstairs and, for the first and only time ever, molested Dylan.

Before that, and after that, there was never another claim or even suggestion of such abuse, unlike Michael Jackson the brilliant analogy you came up with.

306

No, that’s not what it means.

And if you genuinely meant that when you wrote it (which I don’t believe) then you should not have offered that up as a contradiction to my post, in which I made no mention of any other allegations of abuse but instead talked of other manners in which his behavior was questioned.

307

Yes that is what it means.

However either of us may have misunderstood the other’s position here is what it boils down to.

You made a stupid analogy to Michael Jackson. I said it isn’t like that at all. For one thing because Michael Jackson had numerous, separate claims made against him over a period of years by totally unrelated people. Woody Allen had one, single, claim made against him. It was made in a vacuum with no other similar claims ever being made before or since - and his accuser had a clear motivation to exact revenge on him.

You countered this with a totally irrelevant quote from an appellate court custody hearing in which you tried to demonstrate the court cited numerous, questionable examples that supported the claim of abuse. It didn’t, but even if it had it was still just ONE claim of abuse.

The Woody Allen case has no similarly to the Michael Jackson case.

308

It was a limited claim of similarity to the MJ case. There are also a lot of differences. But there may also be a similarity.

Beyond the actual testimony against MJ there was also weird behaviour which contributed to some people’s sense that he was guilty but which may have been simply weirdness.

Beyond the actual testimony against WA there was also weird behaviour which contributed to some people’s sense that he was guilty but which may have been simply lack of experience with kids and the parenting role.

That is all. That doesn’t mean the MJ case is similar to the WA case in any way beyond that. All your babbling about numerous accusations against MJ etc. etc. have nothing to do with the dynamic that I described, which is the sole point of similarity that I raised.

309

Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick - Fotheringay-Phipps, could you possibly be any denser? Maybe if you tried just a little harder?

310

“I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.”
― Woody Allen

311

And this hopefully concludes tonights performance of the always masterly SDMB Misunderstanding Theater.

312

Woody Allen didn’t masturbate in a theater! That was Pee Wee Herman.

313

The fuck are you talking about? Pee Wee Reese was never an actor.

314

What in the hell does Reese Witherspoon have to do with anything? She was barely 15 years old at the time, and didn’t even know Woody Harrelson.

315

Um…

Satchel Paige?

316

Rebuttal to the Daily Beast piece:

So very confused…

317

Just
Fucking
Stop.

Or I’ll be forced to gather up every last one of these people, reporters, attorneys, Mia, Dylan and Woody included, lock them in a shipping container, and drop it in an active volcano before detonating a Tsar Bomba on top of it.

Just to be sure.

318

That’s an encouragement, not a threat! Please notify us when the Kickstarter campaign is up and running…I’m in.

319

If you read her links to stuff she is offering as cites for her info, you can find that not all her info is accurate either; she leaves a bit out if it contradicts her narrative, it seems.

For instance, she offers the link to this old NYTimes story about the prosecutor not bringing the case to trial, and she stresses that he made the decision in consultation with Mia Farrow and that the most important thing to him (and her) was not putting Dylan through anything more.

All that is true, but she doesn’t mention that the prosecutor, Frank Maco, was also the guy who commissioned the Yale study, which he then apparently ignored because it didn’t support the abuse allegations. And he seems to have made a kind of perverse attempt to disabuse the study as well (relevant bits helpfully bolded):

He seems a veritable paragon of perception and judgement.

To be fair, tho, I googled him and found that he had retired 13 years ago, after what seems like a fairly solid and respectable career working for the good people of the Garden State. And one of the guys who worked for him said this:

I think he fucked up royally with his announcement not to prosecute, but apparently other than that, he was a good guy.

[shrug]

320

I can’t wait to read this. That daily beast article had me SOLD. I gotta see if I will be swayed back.