The bold part is telling of your mindset.
Again, people are innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are just that. They are not evidence, they are not proof of guilt. If they did not actually DO the things they are accused of, there are no actions that they performed, and it is the false and damaging accusations that are repugnant.
But apparently, you would rather that innocent lives be ruined at every turn rather than risk one person getting away with a crime.
When there is such an enormous amount of doubt as there is in this case, it takes wilful blindness not to give the benefit of it.
Hmm, bit disturbing how people are prepared to dismiss accusations of child abuse out of hand. The kind of attitudes displayed on this thread are exactly how many abusers get away with abuse (or at least think they’ll get away).
Anyone who has any experience of criminal trials will know the witness statements and testimony from the victim are usually the key bits of evidence, even more so in historical child abuse cases.
I’m not advocating setting up a lynch mob as the accused has just as much right to be heard as the accuser, but if I’m honest I’m also a little surprised that anyone can find the idea that Woody Allen might have had inappropriate sexual interest in an adoptive child as completely outlandish.
I don’t think anyone has dismissed the accusation out of hand. Most of us looked at the facts of this specific case and did not find this particular accusation credible. You’re the one who seems to have difficulty accepting the idea that it’s possible for somebody to be falsely accused of child molestation.
I’m not dismissing it out of hand, I’m saying that a claim that was considered unprovable by the doctors, psychiatrists and police who examined it, and where there is evidence that the alleged victim was manipulated into giving the original evidence and brainwashed into believing it, should not be considered a reliable claim.
Child abuse destroys lives, so do false accusations of it. Neither should be acceptable, and in this case the evidence strongly suggests the claim is false, and that Mia Farrow is the “bad guy” here.
I didn’t dismiss it out of hand. I considered the age of the alleged victim and her susceptibility to adult suggestion, the possible motivations of her mother in bringing the accusation, the complete lack of physical evidence of abuse, and the statement by the two nannies that Allen had never been alone with the alleged victim and decided that this was NOT a slam dunk situation and there is some reason for doubting the veracity of the accusations. Barring more evidence in support of the accusation I don’t see where there’s enough to convict the man.
Allen marrying Soon-Yi was skeevy and ick to many people but it was not illegal or abusive. Their marriage is apparently quite stable and I’ve never heard any accusation of Allen mistreating his wife.
Hmm, what about posts that suggest any evidence from a victim of child abuse is inherently unreliable or even more broadly that the statement of a victim (I assume for any crime) shouldn’t be regarded as evidence. That’s what I specifically find disturbing.
I can’t see where you taking the idea I cannot accept false accusations exist and I’ve seen such cases. On a personal note not that long ago I was falsely accused of something (not anything on the scale of child abuse, but even the accusations had serious repercussions for me); initially this was done behind my back and I had no chance of defending myself. When it finally came out and was dealt with using the proper formal procedure and I was very lucky in that I had substantial evidence that contradicted what the person accusing me had said.
Obviously my view here differs from others as I do actually find these accusations completely incredible. If anything it seems to me that the whole issue seems inconclusive, which is worse in someways as everyone loses. Though maybe I’m biased against Allen because to be honest I think his relationship with Soon-Yi was highly inappropriate, even if it wasn’t technically illegal.
That said, that wasn’t my point anyway. My point is that people are being far too overzealous in their defence of Allen. There is nothing intrinsically unreliable about accusations of child abuse made by the victims. Also, from a factual point of view statements from the victim of any crime about the facts of the crime is regarded legally evidence and from a practical point view this very often is the key evidence in a criminal trial.
I’m going to go as far as agree that Woody Allen is a creepy scumbag. But what was going on in that household was way weirder and freakier than just the story that the young lady tells, even granting that every word of it is true.
People who have no actual evidence of committing a crime require the presumption of innocence. Children who bear no actual evidence of any kind of molestation require no one to be thrown in prison based solely on what they say.
If this ever changes, I will move out to the middle of the woods and I will shoot anyone who approaches my property, because at that point, society will have become the farcical South Park episode where children get all the adults locked up simply by suggesting they’ve been molested.
If presumption of innocence is not at all a concern of yours, it is my deepest hope that you never have anything to do with the criminal justice system.
Isabelle, may I redirect your (very laudable) concern to a related cause that is actually in great need of your efforts?
Maastricht, Isabelle hasn’t posted here in 10 yrs.
Just sayin’. 
Also, her brother is currently in prison for child molestation. Not sure what her relationship is with him, however. (He did take her side in condemning Allen’s supposed abuse back when it first broke.)
To my mind, the kicker is that this guy is in his late 70s and has never been accused of any other instance of pedophilia. The notion that he was a pedophile but managed to keep his urges in check except for this one instance when he was in the midst of a raging battle with his ex-girlfriend, and decided that abusing the kid at the embittered ex-girlfriend’s house was an idea whose time had finally come, seems incredible to me.
That said, I think it’s very possible that Mia believes the accusations. Psychologists said at the time that Dylan was a kid who had a hard time separating fantasy from reality, and Mia was predisposed to assume the worst about Woody. My best guess was that Mia’s rage at Woody grew and her opinion of him sank ever lower which caused her to suspect him of anything possible, and with that mindset she subconsciously coaxed that story out of the impressionable kid.
Of course, who knows for sure? Though you could say that about anyone.
When you think about it, it’s a sorry story all around. The kid/woman is a victim in this. She presumably believes she was victimized and her pain is probably not much different than had she actually been victimized. Woody is a big victim too - as above, I don’t think he was actually guilty of anything, and this can’t be pleasant. That said, he bears some degree of responsibility, since had he not taken up with Soon-Yi he would probably not have been in this mess (Mia sounds like a head-case in any event, but I imagine her fury at being scorned was made much greater by Woody’s choice of a replacement, and in any event, her charges were rendered much more believable by Woody’s own actions WRT S-Y). And it doesn’t sound like Mia’s too happy either.
Farrow adopted several babies and older children that had physical handicaps and were considered “unadoptable.” This makes her a hero in my book, bot a “freaking baby hoarder.”
Woody & Soon-Yi adopted two daughters. Are they baby hoarders?
Again, we are NOT talking about the criminal justice system, where proof behind a shadow of a doubt is of course required.
Does anyone remember the OJ Simpson case? He was acquitted in the criminal trial. Yet, most people believe he did it, plus he lost the civil trial where there merely has to be a preponderance of evidence. I’m not talking of any trial whatsoever, I’m talking about whether the general moviegoing public and the powers that be in Hollywood should continue to support this person. I’m talking about whether the victim should be the one who is called a liar.
I mean, think about it…who has more to lose by lying, the accuser or the accusesd? The accuser has very little to gain and much to lose by making these accusations, whereas the accused has nothing to lose by lying, whatsoever.
OJ & Woody both made one stupid, unforgivable move. They critized their children’s mother. This is an outrage, and puts them forever on my go to hell list.
I don’t care what she did, she is still your children’s mother. Keep your negative comments to yourself.
Yes, obviously the party making the accusations should have the burden of proof, both in court and on public opinion. And yes i believe it is better for society in general if abusers sometimes get away with it than to be able to ruin lives by simply making accusations with absolutely nothing backing them up.
All the physical and psychological evidence points to Woody’s innocence. So no, the general moviegoing public SHOULD NOT let this affect their feelings about Woody’s films. Remember, the public isn’t calling her a liar, the police who investigated her accusation 20 years ago are.
What has Mia Farrow lost by lying about Woody Allen?
She gains the destruction of her target. That is what the accuser gains, and that is why people make false accusations.
That is entirely why my ex-wife made false (abuse, not involving children) accusations about me. To hurt me, my reputation, and to drive people away from me.
It isn’t about rationality, or integrity or justice, it is about harming the other person at any cost. And people like you who believe any accusation are their best allies.