Imzadi
♥ Saved by an angel in a trench coat!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 40,305
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.