Barbara Walter's "View" today

I can offer some insight hereabout my opinion.

My reaction is also based on my experiences with Justice Elliot Wilk, the judge to whom the custody matter was assigned.

I appeared before Justice Wilk many times in the 1980's. I found him to be an extremely thorough, fair and conscientious jurist. When he ruled against Mia on the issue of the molestation, my personal opinion was that the molestation did not occur. Had there been credible evidence to support Mia's claim, Wilk's decision would have said so.

I find it darkly humourous that in a thread about people refusing to believe Woody Allen could have possibly done these things, because they just "know" he wouldn't, your position is (at least partly) based on your experience with a professional acquaintance from 30 years ago, because you just "know" he wouldn't be wrong. We NEVER know people the way we think they do.

Any regular person (not an lawyer) who has watched 2 episodes of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, knows that child molestation is the hardest to prove, unless there are pictures, video, or an eye witness to the molestation. They will also "know" what a judge would do in that case. A judge will have to rule in favor of the defendant simply because there is not enough credible evidence. That doesn't mean he believes it didn't happen. Just that the case as presented can't be proven.

Proving a case is far different than believing it did happen but there is not enough credible proof. A judge goes by the facts presented.


As I recall, there as suspicion in the media that Mia coached Dylan, to get back at Woody. Especially as there were no other eye witnesses who could corroborate Dylan's story. But, decades later, as an adult, Dylan is still maintaining that it has happened. I tend to side with Dylan since she is still standing by what she had originally said.
 
Agreed, how Woody is with his other children has no bearing on his relationship with Dylan.

But Mia would have us believe that in the middle of a custody dispute, in a house full of children and nannies, Woody snuck away and molested Dylan in an attic, despite the fact that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation, no medical evidence that the child had been molested.

There are a lot of research articles about this. Even in cases where the perp will come out and say they did it, the child's exam will be stone cold normal. Children heal very, very quickly. I believe the term thrown around about this is: "It is normal to be normal". Especially if there is a time lapse between the attack and the child telling about the incident. Many child sex abuse cases are non-penetrative and do not leave physical wounds (like Dylan talking about Woody Allen putting his face in her lap).

You do not have to have physical findings for a sexual abuse report to be credible.

I totally believe her. 100%. She never came forward for years and never talked about the issue. Her siblings support her 100% (Ronan, who is supposedly Woody's bio child, will have nothing to do with him over the whole deal).

Look at what he did with the older girl - Soon-Yi. And he is proud of it. He has said that he is glad he has had at least "one good scandal". If that isn't a red flag, nothing is.
 
Well, according to the unbiased, unemotional (to use another poster's words) article several people are dismissing, there was no physical evidence the seven-year-old was molested. No trauma.

Thank you for making clear exactly how much you know about the subject.
 

sookie said:
Look at what he did with the older girl - Soon-Yi. And he is proud of it. He has said that he is glad he has had at least "one good scandal". If that isn't a red flag, nothing is.

Woody Allen is a talented nerd. Nerds don't generally experience scandals (unlike, in this case, many of his peers). That's not a red flag.
 
I would haver pegged Philip Seymour Hoffman as a major junkie.
ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH!!!




I didn't think she was defending him (W.A.) I thought she was just not hopping on the typical news media wagon. Did she ever come out and say she didn't think he could ever do that? If so, I missed it.

She explained her knowledge from what she saw of his current family, also made fact of W.A. was not charged of anything previously because of unfounded proof.

Now, have I just defended B.W. and in turn W.A.?

I would say NO, I haven't;)
 
Now, have I just defended B.W. and in turn W.A.?

I would say NO, I haven't;)

No. :goodvibes Barbara's response was difficult because it seemed like she was trying to completely shut down a simple differing opinion. :confused3 Like it just couldn't be stated, which is absurd. It wasn't like Sherri was going on and on that he was guilty, well in my opinion anyway.
 
The Litchfield County state attorney found probable cause but didn't pursue it because he said he thought that Dylan was too fragile.

Woody Allen is a talented nerd. Nerds don't generally experience scandals (unlike, in this case, many of his peers). That's not a red flag.

Not generally but they are from time to time. Nerds abuse every day just like non nerds. I believe Dylan. Babara was not acting like a journalist. She was acting like a member of the club.

There's this story:
http://sexual-harassment.usattorney...c-american-facing-sexual-harassment-scandals/

What about Weiner?
 
"the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man's reputation."
There's a serious flaw with the logic in this thinking. Let's go with the author's argument and assume that 98% percent of the time such accusations are true. The problem is that you cannot then apply such an average to any given case. Why? Well, if you do, then you imply that each and every accused person is all but certainly guilty... even the 2% who are are innocent. Each case has to be decided on the facts and evidence independently.

As I recall, there as suspicion in the media that Mia coached Dylan, to get back at Woody. Especially as there were no other eye witnesses who could corroborate Dylan's story. But, decades later, as an adult, Dylan is still maintaining that it has happened. I tend to side with Dylan since she is still standing by what she had originally said.
As for those that assume that Dylan is right because she's stuck to her story as an adult, you may want to think about this. Don't be too quick to discount that such stories can be, and sometimes are, coached by over zealous adults. These memories can be quite "real" and, in many cases, still attested to by the grown children years later as genuine. These sorts of things were quite frequent in the 80's. The McMartin Preschool and Little Rascals Day Care were two of the most infamous examples. But there were a number of other cases too. Does this mean Dylan's memories are false too? No... but as compelling as they sound I know there can be other origins of them besides the actions of Allen that need to be considered.

Here's two particular cases that touch on this concept:
John Stoll, has been locked up for 20 years. He was one of three men and a woman accused of molesting children at group sex parties in Bakersfield, California.

In that area, 46 people were arrested, alleged to be participating in from four to eight separate child abuse rings. Thirty were convicted, but 22 of them had their convictions reversed for reasons ranging from technicalities to prosecutorial misconduct. Some who were vindicated settled successful lawsuits against the county to the tune of several million dollars.

Of the eight remaining people, one died in prison and the rest served their time. Some were later identified as victims of false allegations, but others were not, despite the fact that a 1986 attorney general's review of many of these cases criticized poorly trained personnel and flawed interrogation techniques. Among those singled out, say news reports, were lead investigators on John Stoll's case.

It was Stoll's contention that his former wife started the allegations as payback over their bitter custody dispute for their son, Jed. While Jed steadfastly maintained that his father abused him, and still does, he cannot offer actual details or names of other children that he allegedly witnessed being abused. He was apparently unavailable for comment to news sources.

According to the Associated Press reports in February 2004, most of the six witnesses against Stoll have come forward to admit that they had lied about him. They were children at the time, never examined by physicians. Now they are adults. When contacted by investigators for the Innocence Project of the California Western School of Law, they admitted their deception. Four of them said they had been manipulated by investigators who nagged them during long interviews until, weary, they fabricated tales that seemed to take the heat off. When questioned recently, they affirmed that there had been no such incidents. A fifth person, who had been in years of therapy for troubles stemming from his alleged abuse, said he simply had no memory of the events either way.
In 2009 John Stoll sued Kern County and was awarded $5M in damages.

This from the Fells Acres Day Care case:
In another case covered in Boston area papers, prosecutors in Boston announced that they would not extend the imprisonment of a man convicted in 1986 of molesting eight children (some sources say nine). Gerald Amirault, 50, was working at his family's Fells Acre daycare center in Malden, MA, with his mother, Violet Amirault, and sister, Cheryl Amirault LeFavre. They supervised as many as 70 children at a time and had been in business for 18 years without a complaint.

Then one day in April 1984, Gerald, who ran errands and did maintenance for the school, was asked to change the pants of a boy who had wet himself, and that was the source of the initial allegations of abuse. When the boy was later discovered in sex play with his cousin, according to an Internet site, he offered accusations against Gerald.

That triggered a wide scale investigation in which, similar to the McMartin case, the police told parents of children at the school to question their kids. They brought in social workers, therapists, prosecutors, and a nurse to assist. Also similar to the McMartin case, the questions were leading and coercive, and anatomically correct dolls were improperly used. No child made a spontaneous confession but parents were told that they had probably been abused anyway. As one source put it, yes meant yes and no meant yes, so any response was indicative of abuse.

An experiment done in 1990 using the same techniques in the Amirault investigation drew forth false confessions from 75% of three-year-olds and 50% of a group of children ages four to six. The possible implantation of false memories has also been demonstrated in subsequent research.

But no one knew that during the 1986 trial. In fact, the prosecutors against the Amiraults consulted with the McMartin prosecution team for ideas. Eventually the children produced accusations against the Amirault family and three teachers. They also accused an imaginary man and even the nurse who had been questioning them. Only the Amiraults were charged.

The prosecution maintained that the Amiraults were producing and selling child pornography. However no pornographic photos were found. The children said that they had rehearsed their stories, and in court they told about being threatened by robots, killing dogs, being slashed with knives, and swallowing frogs.

All three members of the family were convicted. Gerald received a sentence of 30 to 40 years in prison, while in a separate trial the two women received sentences of eight to 20 years.

Amirault's sister and mother won temporary freedom in 1995 on appeal, and two years later Violet Amirault died from stomach cancer. Then Cheryl's conviction was reinstated in 1999, but a judge ruled that the eight years she had served was sufficient. That gave impetus to the movement to free Gerald Amirault, saying that his extended prison term was unfair. He was granted parole in October 2003 after 19 years served and was released in 2004, but several former witnesses, now adults, claimed that their stories were true. They and their parents were disappointed to learn about his release.
 
I can offer some insight hereabout my opinion.

My reaction is also based on my experiences with Justice Elliot Wilk, the judge to whom the custody matter was assigned.

I appeared before Justice Wilk many times in the 1980's. I found him to be an extremely thorough, fair and conscientious jurist. When he ruled against Mia on the issue of the molestation, my personal opinion was that the molestation did not occur. Had there been credible evidence to support Mia's claim, Wilk's decision would have said so.


http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html
Describing Woody Allen as a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive" father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their mother, Mia Farrow.

In a scathing 33-page decision, Acting Justice Elliott Wilk of State Supreme Court denounced Mr. Allen for carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow's daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children's lives.

The judge also denied Mr. Allen immediate visiting rights with his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Last summer Ms. Farrow accused the 57-year-old film maker of molesting the child. Justice Wilk said it was unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.
 
As for those that assume that Dylan is right because she's stuck to her story as an adult, you may want to think about this. Don't be too quick to discount that such stories can be, and sometimes are, coached by over zealous adults. These memories can be quite "real" and, in many cases, still attested to by the grown children years later as genuine. These sorts of things were quite frequent in the 80's. The McMartin Preschool and Little Rascals Day Care were two of the most infamous examples. But there were a number of other cases too. Does this mean Dylan's memories are false too? No... but as compelling as they sound I know there can be other origins of them besides the actions of Allen that need to be considered.

Point taken. Good rebuttal here. I remember the McMartin Preschool case. :eek: That would be really sad if that is the situation with Dylan. :(
 
Bingo! I was sexually abused by a family member at that age. It stopped at 12 when I finally had the courage to tell him I'd scream if he ever touched me again. I did tell my father, who thank goodness believed me and did his best to keep this person away from me. We agreed not to tell my mother and other family members because we knew they'd never believe he would do it.

Why was it that I had to suffer all these years? Like so many victims do! I retreated into myself at family functions that he was at and was labeled a snob or stand offish.

When a family member had children the age I was when the abuse happened and they left them with this person in the house for child care I decided I had to warn them. How was I rewarded? Called a liar and told I was looking to break up the family - looking for attention. So I never told anyone else. Because I refused to let my children near this person and avoided him I was again acused of thinking I was better than other family members.

Never told my mom - but I think deep down she knows. Since he's dead I now attend family get togethers.

I don't shout it from the rooftops - but I have no problem letting people know I was the victim of sexual abuse by a family member. It's not my fault it happened. Had there been an investigation back then I'm sure they wound have cleared him and found no evidence of abuse. These people are slick and walk hidden among us! The more people I talk to the more stories I hear - just like mine and Dylan's. Why shouldn't we talk about it? Just because it's uncomfortable for you to hear???

I will talk about it - so people who gave been abused know they're not alone and that it's not their fault. That they can move forward - that although it will always be a part of you - you don't need to "get over it". That you can be happy and have normal relationships with your partner or husbands or wives!

I'm sorry that happened to you. I commend your willingness to speak openly about the abuse and I'm glad you realize it wasn't your fault.
 
Yeah, I saw the show.

Also saw Dylan's article and the articles of several of Woody Allen's defenders.

Also remember the original investigation.

I think Woody's conduct with Soon Yi was despicable and really wounded Mia. I haven't been able to watch a Woody Allen film the same way since all of that happened.

I think Dylan truly believes what she's saying about Woody. But I don't believe it really happened. All the investigations, all the neutral third parties, all the evidence, supports Woody.
Look at it from his son's point of view. His father is his brother in law. His sister is his step mother and his nieces are his half sisters. Woody Allen has no thought to anyone else but himself!
 
1976 - People Magazine from Woody Allen himself
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066950,00.html


He goes on: "I'm open-minded about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." Allen pauses. "Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone," he ventures helplessly. "I admit to it all."
 
Well...he's honest.

Not condoning what he's done but I don't know why anyone is surprised. He's always struck me as an oddball.
 
Today Barbara claims she was being attacked for no reason. "I never said"... blah, blah, blah. Err, yeah you said it, Barbara. Do you not understand how a video camera works? It all on video. She should at least own up and stand by her words.
 
Former teen girlfriend defends Woody

I had completely forgotten that the Movie Manhattan was based on 44-year old Woody's relationship with 17-year old Stacey Nelkin back in the 1976 (her DOB is 9/10/59, so it must have started right after she turned 17). She was a high school student at the time. I think it shows that he has been a prev with a taste for girls for a really long time.

What I find most disturbing about the interview is not just that she defends him, but that she defends her own actions. She said that at 17-years old she was not "unwittingly seduced" and that she very willingly dated him and was thrilled to be with him. I can't start to wrap my head around someone who is a self-proclaimed "relationship expert" and is frequently on Fox News discussing relationships but can't understand the power differential between a successful 44 year old man and a barely 17-year old high school student. SMH.
 
She was a high school student at the time. I think it shows that he has been a prev with a taste for girls for a really long time.
While it may be understandably offensive to your social norms, surely you'd say that a legal consensual relationship with a 17 year-old is a far cry from forcibly raping a seven year-old.... wouldn't you? Otherwise, that'd be like saying "When I saw him drinking alcohol, I just knew he was really craving cocaine all along!"
 
Former teen girlfriend defends Woody

I had completely forgotten that the Movie Manhattan was based on 44-year old Woody's relationship with 17-year old Stacey Nelkin back in the 1976 (her DOB is 9/10/59, so it must have started right after she turned 17). She was a high school student at the time. I think it shows that he has been a prev with a taste for girls for a really long time.

What I find most disturbing about the interview is not just that she defends him, but that she defends her own actions. She said that at 17-years old she was not "unwittingly seduced" and that she very willingly dated him and was thrilled to be with him. I can't start to wrap my head around someone who is a self-proclaimed "relationship expert" and is frequently on Fox News discussing relationships but can't understand the power differential between a successful 44 year old man and a barely 17-year old high school student. SMH.

I have no earthly idea if Woody Allen sexually assaulted Dylan. He certainly seems creepy, but, thankfully, people aren't put in jail for bbeing creepy looking. I think it is very wrong for a 44 y/o man to date a 17 y/o girl. However, there is a huge difference between a grown man being attracted to young adult or almost adult and a grown man being attracted to seven year old children. There are plenty of middle aged guys (and woman) out there who date people who are still in their teens, but they would never, ever go after a seven year old.
 






Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE


New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom