Barbara Walter's "View" today

[RadioNate]

http://rogercanaff.com/site/2014/02...-a-short-list-of-truly-unfair-considerations/

 

[cabanafrau]

http://rogercanaff.com/site/2014/02...-a-short-list-of-truly-unfair-considerations/

The writer of this piece absolutely has extensive experience with molestation cases. Every point he made about the general circumstances of these types of cases fits with my experience of what happens in courtrooms every day.

As for the denials of friends and family, I have seen it time and time again, including one case so beyond belief I would never have believed it if I hadn't watched the story come out with my own eyes. If the story came from my own husband I'd have a hard time thinking he didn't mix up something because the level of denial is literally that unbelievable.

I have dealt with multiple cases that involved incidents taking place with other, often times multiple, people in the same room -- most often other children. Although you'd be shocked to hear how many times adults have been present and entirely unaware something is amiss. People with these proclivities are amazing at achieving their goals.

 

[NaLisa]

http://rogercanaff.com/site/2014/02...-a-short-list-of-truly-unfair-considerations/

Good insight. Thanks for sharing.

 

[robinb]

What people don't remember is Mia has 13 children-biological and adopted in a large age span. I don't know if the older ones even lived with the younger ones as siblings.

According to the Vanity Fair article I posted previously, Soon-Yi lived at home and shared a room with her sisters Lark and Daisy when her relationship with Allen started.

 

[Geoff_M]

http://rogercanaff.com/site/2014/02...-a-short-list-of-truly-unfair-considerations/

Interesting thoughts, but I'd add the following to some of his points:

1. No physical evidence “proving” the case. Agreed, it's silly to suggest that since there was no physical evidence found that the allegations must be false. But I don't see many people citing this as the "smoking gun" that proves Allen is innocent. While it's true that lack of physical evidence isn't "everything" with regard to the case, it also isn't "nothing". It's one factor that should be considered along with the rest of the facts about the allegations. Canaff is attacking a "straw man" here.

2. The allegations arising in the context of a custody dispute. It's far from a "pernicious myth" that children can be knowingly or unintentionally "coached" about such testimony. There are reams of studies that resulted after the ritual child abuse trials of the 80's & 90's that clearly show that it's not hard to mess with the mind of a small child about such things (in the trails, some of the children testifying were as old as nine at the time of the alleged abuse). Investigative interview procedures for small kids were created or changed all over the country as a result of such findings. As for "low rate of false reporting" in custody battles, I'd like to see some data on that. While anecdotes aren't data, of the two friends of mine that have (or are) going through nasty divorces, one had the "child sex abuse" card played by his ex (found by the judge to be false), and the one still battling his wife has been told by his lawyer from what he's seen to expect it.

4. Most of what Robert Weide says in his 1/27 Daily Beast piece on the subject. While at times Weide engages in speculative thinking to suggest that the allegation may not be true (ex.: his statement that as a known claustrophobic, Allen would not likely enter an attic), the bottom line is that Weide remains indifferent to whether Allen is guilty or not. I quote: "Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair." Later: "I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did." Again: "For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question." None of those statements sound like a ringing endorsement for "Woody didn't do it!" Weide's stated goal in the piece was to try and correct a number of common pieces of misinformation about the situation (a number of them repeated by people in this thread, btw) and to try and get the full story out there so people can sift through it in a more informed manner.

 

[Disneychick75]

Allen did try to get both custody or visitation with Dylan. The judge in New York denied it in his scathing rebuke of Allen.

 

[HM]

I've only read a few pages of this thread.

But, I was wondering if anyone else thought that Woody Allen was just creepy, without even knowing any of this controversial stuff? Saw a couple of his early movies when I was young, and I just couldn't get past his general weirdness. I have not been interested in any of his work over the years.

 

[cabanafrau]

Interesting thoughts, but I'd add the following:

1. No physical evidence “proving” the case. Agreed, it's silly to suggest that since there was no physical evidence found that the allegations must be false. But I don't see many people citing this as the "smoking gun" that proves Allen is innocent. While it's true that lack of physical evidence isn't "everything" with regard to the case, it also isn't "nothing". It's one factor that should be considered along with the rest of the facts about the allegations. Canaff is attacking a "straw man" here.

2. The allegations arising in the context of a custody dispute. It's far from a "pernicious myth" that children can be knowingly or unintentionally "coached" about such testimony. There are reams of studies that resulted after the ritual child abuse trials of the 80's & 90's that clearly show that it's not hard to mess with the mind of a small child about such things (in the trails, some of the children testifying were as old as nine at the time of the alleged abuse). Investigative interview procedures for small kids were created or changed all over the country as a result of such findings. As for "low rate of false reporting" in custody battles, I'd like to see some data on that. While anecdotes aren't data, of the two friends of mine that have (or are) going through nasty divorces, one had the "child sex abuse" card played by his ex (found by the judge to be false), and the one still battling his wife has been told by his lawyer from what he's seen to expect it.

4. Most of what Robert Weide says in his 1/27 Daily Beast piece on the subject. While at times Weide engages in speculative thinking to suggest that the allegation may not be true (ex.: his statement that as a known claustrophobic, Allen would not likely enter an attic), the bottom line is that Weide remains indifferent to whether Allen is guilty or not. I quote: "Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair." Laster: "I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did." Again: "For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question." None of those statements sound like a ringing endorsement for "Woody didn't do it!" Weide's stated goal in the piece was to try and correct a number of common pieces of misinformation about the situation (a number of them repeated by people in this thread, btw) and to try and get the full story out there so people can sift through it in a more informed manner.

You would likely be horrified to know how those reams of studies and the forensic interviewing processes work in the real world application by defense attorneys. While both have their place in a reasoned, objective viewing of the facts, they are also a defense attorneys cudgel of choice against witnesses.

As the parent of a child who came to you with an allegation of abuse or what you suspected indicated abuse, a defense attorney will slice you open under cross examination for doing anything but sending your child to their room without further discussion and immediately contacting the police. Every. single, syllable. you even breathe in your child's direction after they indicate any abuse will be utilized by a defense attorney to claim you somehow distorted their memory or created the idea abuse occurred in the first place. I'd pay good money to see the cross examination of the parent who said, not now, sweetie, go to your room so mommy or daddy can call the police so you can be properly interviewed about that.

Not long ago I was involved in a discussion with some people at work about this subject, not the Woody Allen matter, but a broad discussion about molestation cases and the back and forth claims, etc. Those of us in the discussion have worked in or with the court system for anywhere from five to maybe about 20 years and all have experience with either the criminal and/or family court matters, ranging from prosecutorial, defense, divorce and custody, psychological consults, etc. One of the things that was brought up revealed none of the approximately nine of us involved in the discussion had been involved in a divorce or custody case with parents battling against one another over a molestation claim. What's very telling is several of us are very familiar with circumstances of parents losing custody of a child or children because of their refusal to protect their children from the other parent's abuse, or more frequently their live-in partner's abuse of their child. That's pretty amazing stats right there in my book, considering that some in the discussion handle well over 1,000 cases a year. (Not to suggest by any means that all cases involve molestation.)

 

[RadioNate]

Perspective of another abuse survivor.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/02/04/make-believe-survivor-childhood-sexual-abuse/

 

[Laura66]

Perspective of another abuse survivor.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/02/04/make-believe-survivor-childhood-sexual-abuse/

Very interesting and uplifting! As a victim myself I can identify with so many things in that article. My abuse also took place at the same age as the authors.

And maybe I'm super sensitive to the argument by a poster about "no evidence of physical trauma - but that argument makes my blood boil! I'm so sorry but it does! I don't want to get points or offend anyone - but I can tell you that an abuser can "rape" you with things that I imagine would not show evidence of "trauma"!

I'm very sorry if my sharing of my story offended anyone or made them uncomfortable. I just feel that my sharing my story, without any shame might help those who have suffered the same abuse.

 

[robinb]

I've only read a few pages of this thread.

But, I was wondering if anyone else thought that Woody Allen was just creepy, without even knowing any of this controversial stuff? Saw a couple of his early movies when I was young, and I just couldn't get past his general weirdness. I have not been interested in any of his work over the years.

Woody was always brilliant and eccentric. I really enjoyed his meshuggah public persona and his movies until he started his affair with (for all intents and purposes his step-daughter he helped raise) Soon-Yi.

 

[NFLDERS]

I've only read a few pages of this thread.

But, I was wondering if anyone else thought that Woody Allen was just creepy, without even knowing any of this controversial stuff? Saw a couple of his early movies when I was young, and I just couldn't get past his general weirdness. I have not been interested in any of his work over the years.

While I personally would not have found him attractive in appearance; I think his writing/acting skills are as funny as all get out! (old Canadian expression)

The women (Woody's Women) as they are called must have thought the same.

 

[Geoff_M]

Perspective of another abuse survivor.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/02/04/make-believe-survivor-childhood-sexual-abuse/

The problem with such articles is that they all involve projection. Case in point:

I believe 7-year-old Dylan just as I believe 5-year-old Andrea, not because our stories seem to have a couple of parallels, but because I listen to survivors, and because of that, I believe survivors.

Sadly, per this reasoning, all accusations are true and everyone accused is guilty if one is viewed as a "survivor". You cannot just take something from one case and in a defacto manner apply it to another.

She also falls back on the false dichotomy that Dylan must either be telling the truth, or is a willful liar.

 

[cabanafrau]

The problem with such articles is that they all involve projection. Case in point:Sadly, per this reasoning, all accusations are true and everyone accused is guilty if one is viewed as a "survivor". You cannot just take something from one case and in a defacto manner apply it to another.

She also falls back on the false dichotomy that Dylan must either be telling the truth, or is a willful liar.

There's absolutely no room in your mind to even consider the allegations made against your friends are remotely possible and not a custody tactic, is there?

 

[lisaviolet]

Interesting thoughts, but I'd add the following to some of his points:

1. No physical evidence “proving” the case. Agreed, it's silly to suggest that since there was no physical evidence found that the allegations must be false. But I don't see many people citing this as the "smoking gun" that proves Allen is innocent. While it's true that lack of physical evidence isn't "everything" with regard to the case, it also isn't "nothing". It's one factor that should be considered along with the rest of the facts about the allegations. Canaff is attacking a "straw man" here.

2. The allegations arising in the context of a custody dispute. It's far from a "pernicious myth" that children can be knowingly or unintentionally "coached" about such testimony. There are reams of studies that resulted after the ritual child abuse trials of the 80's & 90's that clearly show that it's not hard to mess with the mind of a small child about such things (in the trails, some of the children testifying were as old as nine at the time of the alleged abuse). Investigative interview procedures for small kids were created or changed all over the country as a result of such findings. As for "low rate of false reporting" in custody battles, I'd like to see some data on that. While anecdotes aren't data, of the two friends of mine that have (or are) going through nasty divorces, one had the "child sex abuse" card played by his ex (found by the judge to be false), and the one still battling his wife has been told by his lawyer from what he's seen to expect it.

4. Most of what Robert Weide says in his 1/27 Daily Beast piece on the subject. While at times Weide engages in speculative thinking to suggest that the allegation may not be true (ex.: his statement that as a known claustrophobic, Allen would not likely enter an attic), the bottom line is that Weide remains indifferent to whether Allen is guilty or not. I quote: "Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair." Later: "I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did." Again: "For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question." None of those statements sound like a ringing endorsement for "Woody didn't do it!" Weide's stated goal in the piece was to try and correct a number of common pieces of misinformation about the situation (a number of them repeated by people in this thread, btw) and to try and get the full story out there so people can sift through it in a more informed manner.

On the #1 - unfortunately the lack of physical evidence is nothing in any case. It just so rarely exists and that's what he's trying to say - even if it's caught right away. He's the professional in this area.

On the #2 - I'm so very sorry about your friends (for you I mean) And I am VERY sorry if they are innocent. And would produce such frustration and rage if one is falsely accused. But I am only stating facts here. Every day pedophiles have friends and family that would support them to the grave and are wrong about them (how would you know?) AND pedophiles are declared innocent by the courts as well. Innocence by the courts in this area just isn't like so many other crimes. And sometimes with multiple convictions. Once again, not inferring a thing to you with any of these statements. Just stating facts.

On the #3 - I personally had no issue with his article. I thought it had some important points. On this thread, I'm certainly not here to argue Dylan's situation, ie. Woody's guilt or not. I only am here to passionately argue some straight up misconceptions about sexual abuse, and how it's viewed and in a lesser way, the questioning of comments about her mother.

 

[RadioNate]

There's absolutely no room in your mind to even consider the allegations made against your friends are remotely possible and not a custody tactic, is there?

I agree. Because I have known several abuse victims, most of which didn't speak out until they were adults, I find it FAR easier to believe that he may be guilty than some bitter soon-to-be-ex wife is using it as a custody tactic.

I've been to family court as a child and as a divorced woman. I have LOT of divorced friends. People here have called me angry and bitter because I don't say "oh well" to my ex-husbands actions. But why on earth would I use that tactic? Seriously? I can't imagine why any woman would in a custody trial if it wasn't true! I've been though the process. Why would you subject your children to that?

Again, I say…THIS is exactly why victims do not come forward. Because people are so afraid of believing that it is true and that it happens FAR to frequently that they need to pick apart the story and find anything they can hold onto so they don't have to believe it.

 

[Geoff_M]

There's absolutely no room in your mind to even consider the allegations made against your friends are remotely possible and not a custody tactic, is there?

Go right ahead and paint me as some sort of abuse "denier" if you like. But no, I have no problem entertaining the thoughts that my friends might have done such things. I've had a friend that was a leader in my Scout troop as a youth be charged and plead to molesting two sons of his girlfriend years later. One of my first cousins is in jail now for molesting the 13 year-old daughter of his girlfriend. I have no problems with either prosecution.

And I'll say it again... I'm not saying that Dylan is wrong about what she believes happened to her and by whom. I'm not saying "Well because it was during a custody fight it makes me go 'hmmmmm'!" Nor am I saying that I think Allen is an innocent man.

 

[Geoff_M]

I can't imagine why any woman would in a custody trial if it wasn't true! I've been though the process. Why would you subject your children to that?

I cannot imagine either, but consider this timely case....

Two days ago, this guy just was awarded $9M in a lawsuit after spending 20 years in jail for supposedly molesting his kids. Think about that... an ex-cop and a convicted child molester in prison. I'm sure that was some fun time. The case initially involved Clyde “Ray” Spencer's 5 year-old daughter from a prior marriage. She said some things about what "Daddy" did to her. Spencer suspected abuse at the hands of his ex-wife's boyfriend and contacted his department. But to his surprise, he found that the two detectives that investigated the case for eight month had named Spencer himself as the culprit. Afterward this transpired:

Spencer’s department immediately fired him, and the charges broke up his marriage. Then, more charges: While he was staying at a motel, estranged wife Shirley asked if her son—Spencer’s stepson—could spend the night with him. He obliged. Days later, Shirley told sheriff’s detectives that her son had just been raped by Spencer. After an investigator met and interviewed the son 12 days after the stay, Spencer was charged with raping his stepson as well.

Spencer was also charged with raping his 9 year-old son. He entered an "Alford plea" in 1985 (admitting that he would convicted if tried, but not admitting guilt) given there were statements from all three children against him. He was sentenced to two life sentences plus 14 years.

In 1999, a private investigator was hired to look into the police handling of the case. Among the things the PI found was this:

...suspicious about the night Spencer’s second wife Shirley brought her son to his motel room, wondered if that was a setup. He found his answer: Shirley (Spencer's wife when the charge was made) was having an affair with Vancouver Police Sgt. Mike Davidson—the supervising detective on her husband’s case.

Beyond that, they also uncovered the all too common overzealous interviewing of the children (his son said he only said his father had raped him to get the police to leave him alone). Also, key evidence was withheld from Spencer that would have benefited the defense.

In 2009, Spencer was released from jail due to the findings made. Additionally, his two natural children recanted their statements against their father. However, the step-son still insists that he was raped by Spencer during the motel stay, and his mother (at last word) insists that her ex-husband is guilty and that the other two children have simply repressed their painful memories of that happened to them.

 

[flamingglobessigmund]

Did Woody ever try to get visitation or custody or joint custody through the courts during any time before Dylan turned 18? If he didn't do anything wrong, why not use his money, hire attorneys and go for it?

And if he did and was subsequently denied, that says something too.

 

[hereyago]

I have no idea why anyone watches BW, she is a hypocrite tart. Seriously. The woman who told Snooki she was old fashioned and felt that she should be married before having her son, but had admitted to having an affair back in the day. Sorry, you weren't that old fashioned to keep your mits off someone else.