Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Woody Allen responds   (nytimes.com) divider line 352
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11180 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



352 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 11:43:19 AM  
MY BOYFRIEND IS A CHILD MOLESTER BUT WE ARE TOGETHER SO MOLESTATION IS NOT BAD AND I HAVE
NOTHING TO SAY TO ANYONE......


MY BOYFRIEND DUMPED ME SO NOW MOLESTATION IS BAD AND I AM GOING TO TELL EVERYONE!!


MAKES SENSE TO ME.
 
2014-02-08 11:52:49 AM  

DoctorCal: DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

Pretty clearly the same person who operated the Indubitably account. By the time that one finally petered out, almost nobody ever responded to it (except for itself). Maybe this one will go the same way, and quickly.


It's being purged as we speak!
 
2014-02-08 11:56:04 AM  

ZeroCorpse: Moses Farrow says Mia abused him (and all the other kids) by hitting them, berating them, locking them in closets, and emotionally abusing them, and people don't seem to care.

Dylan Farrow says Woody stuck his finger in her once, in an attic, on a visitation day in the middle of a custody battle, with nannies and a dozen kids (included Moses) all bearing witness and not seeing anything of the sort, and a whole bunch of people believe her no matter what evidence is presented to disprove her account.

I think her older brother has the right of it: He was old enough to see what Mia was doing, and he was able to figure out that Mia was using her kids as weapons to harm Woody. He also happens to have grown up to become a professional in the field of psychology. That, plus his first-hand account of the day in question, makes it pretty clear that Dylan IS the victim of abuse... And the abuser was Mia Farrow.


This.  Sadly this is playing out in public.
 
2014-02-08 12:01:17 PM  

omeganuepsilon: abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down


What evidence do you expect from digital penetration? I'm afraid you're the one propagating misinformation here. This ain't CSI. "Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. (emphasis mine) The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities." http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html

Maco never said Dylan was the only evidence he would bring. But as the accuser, she would have been the crucial piece.

/Ask a cop how much 'evidence' molestation/fondling leaves. GTFO
 
2014-02-08 12:05:14 PM  
lolbot.net
 
2014-02-08 12:10:33 PM  
Meh...

I don't like his movies anyway.


Tried watching, can't sit through it for long.
 
2014-02-08 12:16:58 PM  
Seems clear to me she was molested but I suspect it was Mia's brother. Dylan's memory was manipulated, hence the "coaching" the cops suspected. Mia is the despicable human here... Her and her brother
 
2014-02-08 12:20:25 PM  

letrole: All that would do is give credence to the claim that a kid was abused.


I think it's pretty obvious that the kid was abused. We're just arguing about whether it was Woody, Mia, or both.
 
2014-02-08 12:21:21 PM  
Husband and wife.
www.bluelightlady.com

Nope. Not creepy at all.
 
2014-02-08 12:28:52 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


I guess it depends on what we read into these type of photos....

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:32:52 PM  

jonnya: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

I guess it depends on what we read into these type of photos....


Mr. T looks very uncomfortable. I pity him.
 
2014-02-08 12:36:37 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


While I admit the whole Soon-Yi thing farking creeps me out, that's not her. I believe that's their daughter Bechet.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:07 PM  
Feminazism  at its finest
 
2014-02-08 12:46:45 PM  

TwistedFark: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

While I admit the whole Soon-Yi thing farking creeps me out, that's not her. I believe that's their daughter Bechet.


I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.
 
2014-02-08 12:51:52 PM  

abfab: What evidence do you expect from digital penetration? I'm afraid you're the one propagating misinformation here. This ain't CSI. "Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. (emphasis mine) The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities." http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html

Maco never said Dylan was the only evidence he would bring. But as the accuser, she would have been the crucial piece.

/Ask a cop how much 'evidence' molestation/fondling leaves. GTFO


Can the cognitive dissonance get any thicker in here?

All they had was accusation.  What part of "Innocent until proven guilty" do you really not understand?  It's 4 words, not rocket surgery.  They had nothing to go on, whether she had testified or not.

Go crucify yourself somewhere else.
 
2014-02-08 12:53:00 PM  

ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.


It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.
 
2014-02-08 12:54:12 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg
 
2014-02-08 12:58:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.


This.  These people must either be blind, have issues with processing facial recognition, or absolute racists, or a combination thereof.
 
2014-02-08 12:59:25 PM  
Let's see:

Mia is a nut.
There's a bitter child-custody dispute.
There's also an implausible opportunity to molest the child.
A panel of sex-abuse experts concludes Allen didn't do it. Not just gives him the "reasonable doubt" pass, but the "we believe he didn't do it" conclusion.

The guy is certainly eccentric even on the edge of creepy, but the simplest and far most likely explanation is that he didn't molest the kid.

That's not to say the kid (now an adult) doesn't believe what they're saying, but that kid is probably the victim of Mia's lies instead.
 
2014-02-08 01:00:00 PM  

DamnYankees: ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.

It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.



Wait. Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo? It's their adopted daughter. I thought it was one of those 'That's the joke' posts. It has to be. Please tell me it is....
 
2014-02-08 01:02:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: DamnYankees: Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.

This.  These people must either be blind, have issues with processing facial recognition, or absolute racists, or a combination thereof.


Meh, I can cut some people a little slack as this is actually a thing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect

It's not really racist when it affects pretty much everyone equally. That being said, yes, if you know what Soon-Yi looks like, that girl is clearly not her.
 
2014-02-08 01:05:31 PM  

jonnya: DamnYankees: ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.

It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.


Wait. Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo? It's their adopted daughter. I thought it was one of those 'That's the joke' posts. It has to be. Please tell me it is....


Nope, some of them are completely serious.

Maybe a troll pretending to be one of those schlubs on occasion, but plenty of people actually believe exactly that.

It's a derivitave of Poe's Law.  You can't tell a sufficient troll from the real article, and that necessitates responding to them as if they're the real article(if you respond at all), because plenty of people do think that way.
 
2014-02-08 01:14:16 PM  

jonnya: Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo?


The exact same photo shows up in most of these threads. It's a good indicator of the quality of the anti-Allen arguments presented.
 
2014-02-08 01:14:57 PM  

lawboy87: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg


Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".
 
2014-02-08 01:17:21 PM  

Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".


It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?
 
2014-02-08 01:28:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?


Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?
 
2014-02-08 01:38:12 PM  

jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?


Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?
 
2014-02-08 01:47:17 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


Father and daughter.
Not creepy at all.

Here's another pic:
cdn03.cdn.justjared.com
 
2014-02-08 01:47:24 PM  

Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.


Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.
 
2014-02-08 01:58:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.


She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.
 
2014-02-08 02:01:06 PM  

Joe Peanut: jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?

Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?


"To think that Woody was in any way a father or stepfather to me is laughable. My parents are Andre Previn and Mia, but obviously they're not even my real parents,"    - Sun Yi Previn

If you're taking Dylan's words at face value, why not take Sun-Yi's as well?
There's anotherquote out there where Mia says pretty much the same thing.

And .....wait for it......this is about accusing him of molesting Dylan, not Sun-Yi. Let's stay on topic.
 
2014-02-08 02:01:46 PM  

Joe Peanut: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.

She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.


Again, Allen never moved in with Mia.
 
2014-02-08 02:17:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.

She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.

Again, Allen never moved in with Mia.


Desperate "buts" for desperate 'nuts.
 
2014-02-08 02:29:33 PM  
I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.
 
2014-02-08 02:39:20 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-08 02:47:10 PM  

Joe Peanut: jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?

Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?


Neither Woody or Soon Yi lived with Mia, Soon Yi lived with her father and Woody lived at his own place.  Woody and Soon Yi had very little contact until she was 17/18.
 
2014-02-08 04:07:32 PM  

DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.


i249.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-08 04:43:19 PM  

symptomoftheuniverse: Don't really know who is telling the truth, but sure am glad my parents weren't either of these farked up people.



They fark you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.
But they were farked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don't have any kids yourself.
 
2014-02-08 06:04:18 PM  

DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.


I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms of
favourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.
 
2014-02-08 08:24:26 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.

I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms offavourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.



Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious reasons) fondling doesn't leave physical evidence, and children tend to lack the vocabulary to describe what happened to them. The link I posted earlier said that behavioral changes in the child are often all the police have.


http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html
 
2014-02-08 08:50:21 PM  

abfab: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.

I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms offavourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.


Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious ...


This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-02-08 09:23:09 PM  

DamnYankees: Dylan Farrow has already responded:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-al le n-678552


I'm sure she actually believes she was molested. I'm sure she does, indeed, carry such memories.

But memories can be created wholly from repeated lies.

/So, we're left with he said, she said.
//And the "evidence" - examined by the authorities - showed that no molestation ever took place.
///So, of course, the default assumption must be innocence.
 
2014-02-08 09:34:33 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.

Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".


The best way to spot coached testimony is its consistency.

Really, no joke. Real memories are flawed as hell. You literally rewrite your memories every time you access them.

Perfectly consistent testimony with a complete lack of physical evidence? I'd say that's at least 80/20 odds on it being coached/not coached.
 
2014-02-08 09:53:18 PM  

abfab: Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious reasons) fondling doesn't leave physical evidence, and children tend to lack the vocabulary to describe what happened to them. The link I posted earlier said that behavioral changes in the child are often all the police have.


http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html


So, because it's difficult to prove, we should punish everyone who's accused just in case?

fark off.
 
2014-02-08 10:55:18 PM  

DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.



I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.
 
2014-02-09 12:18:57 AM  
What is with people who need to have or adopt kids with every single person they have a relationship with?
 
2014-02-09 12:24:13 AM  
Why doesnt allen sue mia and dylan for slander?
 
2014-02-09 12:56:34 AM  

Joe Peanut: lawboy87: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg

Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".


you get proven completely wrong and end up looking like a fool, and your only response is "u mad".

amazing
 
2014-02-09 01:14:55 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.


I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.


No, what's irrelevant is a bunch of general "oh rich people can get away with anyway if they want to" conjecture which does not in any way speak to the specifics of this particular case. If you have some inside knowledge of strings being pulled to facilitate these adoptions, do share them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Or if I'm wrong that in a typical case, similar charges would not set off any alarms if even if they were thought to have substance, then please set me straight.
 
2014-02-09 02:29:39 AM  

DrBenway: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.


I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.

No, what's irrelevant is a bunch of general "oh rich people can get away with anyway if they want to" conjecture which does not in any way speak to the specifics of this particular case. If you have some inside knowledge of strings being pulled to facilitate these adoptions, do share them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Or if I'm wrong that in a typical case, similar charges would not set off any alarms if even if they were thought to have substance, then please set me straight.



I've already set you straight.  You are trying this red herring of "if he were a creepy child molester that would keep him from adopting; therefore since he did adopt he must not be one."  What I have given you is an explanation of why your premise is ludicrous on its face, but your more fundamental problem is that you have not even begun to try to support it in any way.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report