Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
2. The judge's overall conclusion was that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Allen and that he could not conclusively say that Allen had not groped the child. So pretty much exactly what I said. That only Allen really knows what happened.
|
No, that's not exactly what you said at all. You went on to defend Allen by posting several reasons as to why it did not occur, including incorrect facts like he was found not guilty of it after a trial - that didn't occur. Or that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute when you were corrected, the lead prosecutor has said there was enough evidence for 'probable cause' just that Dylan was too fragile to go through trial.
If you wanted to leave it at Woody Allen was never found guilty of rape and that we may never know what happened as the case was a he said-she said situation, we would both be in agreement. We've both said as much.
But you went on to defend him as to suggest it couldn't have happened in this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
And yes, he wasn't tried, but only because there wasn't enough evidence in the pre-trial hearings to proceed with a trial. Dylan Farrow's own doctor, the head of the Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, gave sworn testimony evidence that Dylan likely invented the story. Dylan's older brother Moses gave evidence that there was no opportunity for Allen to molest Dylan, as they were surrounded by people the whole time of the dinner. It's also very strange that these allegations came to light only after Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi became public.
|
I was responding to those points with the actual facts, as presented in the court documents. The judge did not take the report as credible, no need to bring it up really. Moses discussed the event decades after it occurred, and was incorrect as the person responsible to baby sit left them unattended for 15-20 minutes as shown in her testimony. And finally, insinuating that they were simply making this up in response to Allen cheating, as the judge put it trying to stereotype the "woman scorned" is off-putting
Again, if you want to leave it at innocent until proven guilty, that's cool. No need to try and paint a person saying she was raped as a 7 year old as a liar though either by suggesting it didn't take place.
Pretty much you've taken the position of "We may never know what happened that night..but here's reason the rape didn't happen." Like come on.
And I don't really care. The facts, the uncontested facts, are Woody Allen began dating the daughter of his common-law wife, the sister of her brother, whom he had met when she was either 7 or 9, and began an affair with when she was 16 or 18 after being in her life as, at least Allen believes, as someone paternal. In that regard, to me, he's an immoral, reprehensible individual regardless of what happened with his other 7 year old daughter.