ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Why? She, like everyone else, would know that most people side with the victim not the accused. The whole thing screams of vendetta and ill feeling from a spiteful and manipulative woman (Mia Farrow) who seems intent on ruining her ex-boyfriend's life (along with that of her kids). Because that's the society I want to live in - one where the default reaction to an abuse victim coming forward isn't skepticism (that varies depending on who the accused is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm pretty sure I could write a detailed letter about being abused by someone. That wouldn't make that person guilty though. Utterly missing the point i'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 But if her word is all you need for proof then surely you should have considered him guilty 20 years ago when she first made the allegation. (Or whenever you first found out about them). As Scottyboy said, the reasons for throwing the case out were a bit unclear - whether it was to spare the victim a court appearance or whatever. The result of it was he was innocent so I believed he was. Again, I'm happy to believe he's not guilty if that's what the evidence points to, but in my mind it doesn't yet. And yes, I probably would have considered him guilty 20 years ago if the letter was published then (and I was old enough to read) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Because that's the society I want to live in - one where the default reaction to an abuse victim coming forward isn't skepticism (that varies depending on who the accused is). I'd rather live in a society where the facts are presented and an outcome based on facts is reached and punishment dealt out appropriately. Your skewed view on this case doesn't allow for that. Utterly missing the point i'm afraid. I didn't, you don't seem to have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Milner Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 As Scottyboy said, the reasons for throwing the case out were a bit unclear - whether it was to spare the victim a court appearance or whatever. The result of it was he was innocent so I believed he was. Again, I'm happy to believe he's not guilty if that's what the evidence points to, but in my mind it doesn't yet. And yes, I probably would have considered him guilty 20 years ago if the letter was published then (and I was old enough to read) The letter is new, but they had video evidence previously, what makes this letter 22 years further on more concrete than her video evidence when the incident supposedly happened?From what i have read there is the very real possibility that this has been fabricated, and whilst she may believe in her head it happened, it may not have. The point is, there is no evidence at all that it happened, its one word against another, i wouldnt want to live in a society where one persons word over another was enough to convict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I'd rather live in a society where the facts are presented and an outcome based on facts is reached and punishment dealt out appropriately. This isn't a counter to what I just said. You're describing the legal system. Great. Your skewed view on this case doesn't allow for that. It totally does. I have an opinion on the whole affair right now, that may change and i'm fully prepared for it to change. I'm not saying 'throw him in jail without a trial because his daughter said she touched him', I'm saying that the information I have taken in recently has made me believe he was at some point guilty of sexual abuse. I didn't, you don't seem to have one. My point isn't that a letter accusing someone of abuse automatically makes them guilty. It's that I'd prefer to believe this specific example as the truth before I jump to any conclusion about it being a fabrication - because I believe that it's damaging to victims of abuse worldwide. If everyone jumps on this as a lie, what message does that send to little girls and boys currently getting abused, or those who were abused and want to do something about it? Now it's time for Woody Allen to clear his name and I'll take in any information I can. Edited February 4, 2014 by ca_gere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 One thing that I DO believe is that Ronan is Sinatra's son. Dead ringer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think the way that she's opted to try for the support of the public before pressing any formal charges is a bit weird. Have the police refused to do anything about her renewed accusations or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) This isn't a counter to what I just said. You're describing the legal system. Great. It totally does. I have an opinion on the whole affair right now, that may change and i'm fully prepared for it to change. I'm not saying 'throw him in jail without a trial because his daughter said she touched him', I'm saying that the information I have taken in recently has made me believe he was at some point guilty of sexual abuse. My point isn't that a letter accusing someone of abuse automatically makes them guilty. It's that I'd prefer to believe this specific example as the truth before I jump to any conclusion about it being a fabrication - because I believe that it's damaging to victims of abuse worldwide. If everyone jumps on this as a lie, what message does that send to little girls and boys currently getting abused, or those who were abused and want to do something about it? Now it's time for Woody Allen to clear his name and I'll take in any information I can. Yes, surely both sides accounts should be viewed with skepticism until evidence proves otherwise. I don't think it matters whether it's the victim of alleged abuse or a robbery, both should be able to present enough evidence to gain a conviction. All the information present isn't new though and I can't see how this letter has changed your standpoint on it. It's also very damaging to sufferers of abuse for people to publicly lie about being abused, horses for courses. I don't think anyone would jump on it as a lie, people want facts in a case like this before it irrepairably damages a potentially innocent man's reputation. There are no facts that suggest Woody Allen abused Dylan Farrow. There is personal testimony from an impressionable child who may or may not have been coerrced by her adoptive mother. Allegation is not fact and should never be treated as such in my opinion. Edited February 4, 2014 by Alkaline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 The letter is new, but they had video evidence previously, what makes this letter 22 years further on more concrete than her video evidence when the incident supposedly happened?From what i have read there is the very real possibility that this has been fabricated, and whilst she may believe in her head it happened, it may not have. The point is, there is no evidence at all that it happened, its one word against another, i wouldnt want to live in a society where one persons word over another was enough to convict. It isn't any more concrete. I was 6 when the original case played out. I have no idea how it went down (please link me to any articles). I've seen/read/heard bits and pieces here and there over the years but for all intents and purposes he was innocent in my eyes because that's what the legal system said. Of course there's a possibility that it's a fabrication and nobody would want to live in a society where one person's word over another is enough to convict. I'm talking from a personal point of view, not a legal one. I'm taking this letter as truth for now but am very impatiently waiting for it to be proven made up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colb Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 My point isn't that a letter accusing someone of abuse automatically makes them guilty. It's that I'd prefer to believe this specific example as the truth before I jump to any conclusion about it being a fabrication - because I believe that it's damaging to victims of abuse worldwide. If everyone jumps on this as a lie, what message does that send to little girls and boys currently getting abused, or those who were abused and want to do something about it? Now it's time for Woody Allen to clear his name and I'll take in any information I can.When the allegations were first made they were promptly investigated - isn't that quite a good message to send to little boys and girls?On the other hand, waiting 22 years until the statute of limitations has passed and making the same claims with no new evidence doesn't seem like a great way to go about things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colb Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 This is a bit glib, but makes some good points.http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/213078/isnt-it-just-a-little-weird-that-mia-farrow-is-still-friends-with-roman-polanski/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 According to the Weide article the alleged abuse took place AFTER the Soon Yi business. I would have thought he would have been persona non grata in the Farrow household, let alone given free reign to sexually abuse one of the kids without getting caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 This is great... some actual dissection of the situation. I've only really heard the Lena Dunham side and the staunch Woody defender side. Please link to any articles, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html As posted earlier, from an unapologetic Allen supporter but good to get a different side of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html As posted earlier, from an unapologetic Allen supporter but good to get a different side of the story. Aye, aside from that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJimF Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 There's a good response from Woody's lawyer here - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/uk-woodyallen-idUKBREA130UY20140204 while there's the prosecutor saying there wasn't enough evidence here http://news.sky.com/story/1205334/woody-allen-sex-abuse-accusations-expired which also highlights Mia and Ronan Farrow being classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colb Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-inc/201402/woody-guilty-or-not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stroopy121 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Good thread. Looking forward to looking over those articles. Since I'm in a position where I REALLY want Allen to be innocent, I think in a backwards kinda way I'm going to be extra-hard to convince that he's innocent since I don't want to fall into the trap of just siding automatically with the people making the argument that I want to be true. xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Zero Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Im not fussed either way as I'm not a Woody Allen buff. Actually obviously I don't want the lass to have been molested, that sounded bad. But that Daily Beast article I thought laid out some good logic.Mia Farrow seems like a total cunt. Hinting that her son may be Sinatra's? Would that be because he now looks the spit image of young Sinatra? Im sure Frank's widow must be overjoyed that her late husband was shagging his ex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladstone Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 The only thing I've heard about this so far is on the news a couple of days ago that Woody Allen had been accused of molesting is adoptive daughter, then reading this thread and reading that Daily Beast article. I know fuck all about Woody Allen - I hadn't heard of this allegation previously and I didn't even know he was married to his ex girlfriend's adoptive daughter. My immediate thought when I heard of the accusation on the radio was "oh fucking hell, not another one." I don't like the fact that there is so much of this in the news just now that my automatic reaction is to think that the accused is a child molester. That's fucking grim. I then read this thread and ca_gere, self-confessed Woody Allen fanboy is thinking that it's stuck on that Woody Allen is guilty. I then read that Daily Beast article and it now seems to me that it is more likely that this has all been fabricated by Mia Farrow and that her daughter probably does believe that it happened, but it actually didn't. That's based on about 2% of the facts though - I don't have time to read all of the articles etc. The timing of all of this coming out again is quite suspicious too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Zero Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 For some reason I remember the fuss about his going off with Soon Yi but not the abuse charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Milner Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 My immediate thought when I heard of the accusation on the radio was "oh fucking hell, not another one." I don't like the fact that there is so much of this in the news just now that my automatic reaction is to think that the accused is a child molester. That's fucking grim. I think thats what worries me right now. At the moment, as soon as you hear about it, your mind seems to drift towards, "oh he must have done it". Its very very dangerous ground. Yes we all want the victims to have the courage to come forward, but at the same time we still have to wait for the facts to come out before we decide. If you believed the papers that guy from Corrie was a raging pedo, turns out he didnt do anything wrong and it was fabricated by the girl and her mother, or at least thats what the evidence points too. That hasnt stopped his name being dragged through the mud, and his name has been tarnished for life. Is it fair that a person not guilty of a crime has had his name ruined by an accusation? As a society, we really need to be careful about where this kinda thing is heading and how we tackle the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stroopy121 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 As a society, we really need to be careful about where this kinda thing is heading and how we tackle the issue. I 100% agree with that - there's a balance to be struck between supporting victims of abuse and upholding the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy. Anonymity of the accused in particularly high-profile cases, especially in the early stages of investigation, might be a good idea. xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladstone Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 If you believed the papers that guy from Corrie was a raging pedo, turns out he didnt do anything wrong and it was fabricated by the girl and her mother, or at least thats what the evidence points too. That hasnt stopped his name being dragged through the mud, and his name has been tarnished for life. Aye - the guy who plays Kevin Webster? That's exactly who I was thinking of when I was writing that post. I was sure he was going to be guilty as there's no smoke without fire etc. etc. and just about everyone we've heard of recently since the Jimmy Saville story broke there has at least been something to it. I was astonished when it came out that this guy was innocent and ashamed of myself for automatically thinking the guy was guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.