This is why Hollywood power are waiting with baited breath. I wonder when someone like Drew Barrymore or any of the other child actors really start flooding forward to telling their story.
I mean, frankly I can't imagine it will be long before we hear about Dana Plato's terrible experiences.
Assuming she told anyone before she died.
I wonder if Drew Barrymore was able to escape it at at all having come from an influential Hollywood family.
Who he met when she was 9. Mia Farrow and Woody Allen began dating in 1979. Soon-Yi Previn was born in 1970. Even if they did begin their sexual relationship when Soon-Yi was in her late teens, Woody Allen was still the common law husband of her mother, father of her siblings, for her formative years.
The biggest irony here is that Woody Allen contends that Dylan Farrow was an impressionable young woman when she was 'corrupted' by her bitter mother to believe she was sexually assaulted. Yet doesn't see the problem in "grooming" another suggestable 9 year old into becoming his lover when she is of age. He even concedes he was paternal to her. Sorry, it's gross and immoral to enter into a relationship of someone you helped raise from when they were 9 years old..regardless of the amount of which you helped raise them. Period.
Again, your point stands that Allen was never convicted and I concede that. But your mistaken in a lot of what you wrote. The Connective State Attorney did believe there was probably cause, but believed Dylan was too fragile to go through with the trial, not the same as saying there wasn't enough evidence.
The doctor that signed off on that report never examined Dylan, the report was not accepted as reliable evidence by Judge Wilk.
This is disputed by adults there that day. A babysitter present testified that Allen and Dylan went missing for 20 minutes. Another stated that Dylan was not wearing underwear under her dress that night afterwards.
Whether he did or did not rape Dylan we will never know, and you can certainly prescribe to the innocent until proven guilty mantra which I think is noble under most circumstances. I still find him despicable for grooming a 9 year old. And I don't really care for much debate, Allen himself said he was paternal to her, he was the partner to her mother, father of her half-brother. That's reprehensible to me.
Coincidentally, that half-brother, Ronan Farrow, did the investigation report on Harvey Weinstein's sexual assualt allegations.
There's no such thing as consensual statutory rape. By definition, you can't consent to rape. Call it non-forceful statutory rape if you need clarification, but let's not confuse consent with something else which the law says can never be given in a statutory rape situation.
I can understand the argument between rape and statutory rape though. I just think rape should be the standard, as you can use adjectives to describe it. Violent rape, date rape, statuary rape. Then if you have a preference for which one is worse, that's your prerogative.
Yeah, I hear you, but I'm not even sure there would be debate on the extremes of rape as to which one is worse.
Like a violent rape on a stranger in the bushes of Fish Creek Park seems insane whereas a 25 year-old banging a 17 year-old (consensual) two days shy of her 18th birthday doesn't seem that bad. I mean one of those relationships could end up in marriage and a happy family and one will leave horrific scars and trauma.
That's probably obvious, might be a straw man, and probably contributes nothing, though, so carry on.
I disagree. By definition he is accused of a sexual assault that would have turned into statutory rape if he had his way. He, allegedly, literally attempted to rape someone. He may not have resorted to violence, force or date-rape drugs, but his (alleged) intention was rape.
And I've said that before, but I think it's important because not all rape involves violence or force. A teacher sleeping with his 14 year old student, whether she/he physically forced them to do so, is rape. Saying that because no force is involved it was not rape, is a disservice to those being taken advantage of and may continue the mindset that "they were asking for it" or "they wanted it" just because they didn't say no to the advances of the adult didn't mean they weren't raped.
He attempted to sleep with a 14 year old.
Sleeping with a 14 year old is rape.
Ergo, he attempted to rape.
Allegedly.
I get all that. Even changing it to attempted statutory rape I would personally feel better about, but I'll drop it. Either way since it's rapidly turning into people posting general news of Hollywood abuse, maybe it should change to an "ongoing" thread. My guess is there is going to be a lot of coming forward in the next few months.
On another note, I've been reading a lot and thinking over the few days since this broke about these artists, especially older ones, and it can be hard to separate to be honest. I don't really expect artists to be models for society, we prop them up that way because we love their creative work, but artistry can often come from people with demons as well. I expect higher moral conduct from politicians and journalists moreso than entertainment stars. It is certainly sad to find out that someone you admire is a creep or worse. It's an odd feeling to deal with.
I heard about Woody Allen before I had a chance to see any of his films and now I actively don't watch them. Same with Cosby. I watched the show as a kid, but never connected with him as a figure the way an older generation would have. I had however seen a few of Polanski's films before I knew about his stuff and a couple of them are my favorites. Musicians like Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Chuck Berry, the list goes on, are all people whose work I would consider great inspirations of mine. That's an imprint on my personality that can't just be shoved aside. I can't stop listening to Led Zeppelin. I can't stop loving The Pianist as a film. Even the ending of Chinatown takes on a whole different and disturbing new meaning when you consider Polanski's allegations, and that almost makes it more compelling. Will I not watch Rush Hour? Jackie Chan isn't a rapist, but it sounds like Bret Ratner might be.
I think the larger lessons from these revelations and others recently should really be that it is not confined to the "untouchable" high society types. That it's happening in grocery stores and peoples own homes as well. I just hope people feel better coming forward and that we as a whole can support them more than has been in the past.
That's the odd part - why is it not considered statutory rape when it occurs between a 16 year old and 14 year old? A 14 year old's ability to give consent has not changed, has it? Is it the adult's ability to manipulate or control the situation more than the 16 year old would?
That's the odd part - why is it not considered statutory rape when it occurs between a 16 year old and 14 year old? A 14 year old's ability to give consent has not changed, has it? Is it the adult's ability to manipulate or control the situation more than the 16 year old would?
I would say yes. Teenagers are experimenting with each other. An adult can easily manipulate a 14 year old into thinking that something is normal that very much isn't.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
While not taking into consideration on how massively creepy it is...
30 years ago the age of consent was 14. (at least in Canada) So then it wouldn't be considered rape?
It didn't happen in Canada, so what the law was here doesn't really matter. Also, I believe the age of consent for sodomy was 18 at the time in Canada, so it still would have been illegal.
In New York it would be illegal today and I assume 30 years ago too.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I hear you, but I'm not even sure there would be debate on the extremes of rape as to which one is worse.
Like a violent rape on a stranger in the bushes of Fish Creek Park seems insane whereas a 25 year-old banging a 17 year-old (consensual) two days shy of her 18th birthday doesn't seem that bad. I mean one of those relationships could end up in marriage and a happy family and one will leave horrific scars and trauma.
That's probably obvious, might be a straw man, and probably contributes nothing, though, so carry on.
The second one isn’t statuatory rape though (unless he’s in a position of institutional power). She’d have to be 15 for it to be statuatory rape.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
By that reasoning, should we tolerate 18 year olds (or 16 year olds) sleeping with one another? If the justification is that they haven't fully developed psychologically yet and are prone to make unwise choices, then they're likely to make unwise choices with people their own age too.
At what age do we treat people as adults? And why are disparities in ages (assuming we're talking adults) more morally reprehensible than disparities in wealth, intelligence, attractiveness, or any of the other ways two people can differ?
That’s entirely beside the point I was making. The fact is that there’s a large disparity between 40 and 18. Age of consent is 16, so by all means, love who you love, but it’s odd (funny) that there’s a marked difference in the way we view a 40 year old who sleeps with an 18 year old or a 16 year old. Some countries have the consent higher, some lower.
The point I was making is that 16 and 18 aren’t different enough to explain why more people view one as high-five worthy and one as creepy. Similar to how statuatory rape of young men by female teachers is viewed differently by many than young women by male teachers.
Which in turn the facts from Dylan are coming from the court documents themselves. Is there any actual arguments you have with any of the points brought up? Like what a weird argument. Especially if you consider Dylan Farrow and New York Supreme court documents secondary sources.
It's seem like you took Woody Allen's defense as fact, but don't want the disputed information - backed by court documents - to count?
From all of the stories, it does paint the picture of Spacey as a predator. IF the story is true there is simply no excuse.
However, is no one else concerned that a person's career, and potentially their life, has been wrecked based on a single allegation of an incident that occurred 30 years ago? This seems wildly disproportionate. This seems like the ultimate He said/He said with Twitter as the courtroom and all of the public as jurors. That is not how the system should work.
I am not sure I have a solution or an alternative. This just does not seem right.
Having said this, the speed and complete buy-in of industry people may have been based on the underground rep that he has earned over the years. The stories I have read have been unsettling.
Which in turn the facts from Dylan are coming from the court documents themselves. Is there any actual arguments you have with any of the points brought up? Like what a weird argument. Especially if you consider Dylan Farrow and New York Supreme court documents secondary sources.
It's seem like you took Woody Allen's defense as fact, but don't want the disputed information - backed by court documents - to count?
From all of the stories, it does paint the picture of Spacey as a predator. IF the story is true there is simply no excuse.
However, is no one else concerned that a person's career, and potentially their life, has been wrecked based on a single allegation of an incident that occurred 30 years ago? This seems wildly disproportionate. This seems like the ultimate He said/He said with Twitter as the courtroom and all of the public as jurors. That is not how the system should work.
I am not sure I have a solution or an alternative. This just does not seem right.
Having said this, the speed and complete buy-in of industry people may have been based on the underground rep that he has earned over the years. The stories I have read have been unsettling.
Harvey Wienstein is clearly a rapey creepy bastard, that's said he hasn't been convicted of a thing yet but has had every award, membership and honour removed before he's even been charged!
Harvey Wienstein is clearly a rapey creepy bastard, that's said he hasn't been convicted of a thing yet but has had every award, membership and honour removed before he's even been charged!
Those awards were given with public sentiment so why is a higher standard required to remove them?
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I mean, you took what Allen said and without scrutiny pretty much posted his defense (ironically accusing me of doing the inverse). But we have the court documents http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.ca/2...documents.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
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.
What did Justice Wilk have to say about the Yale-New Haven documents?
Quote:
Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schultz has expertise in the field of child sexual abuse. I believe that the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen. I also believe that therapists would have a natural reluctance to accept the possibility that an act of sexual abuse occurred on their watch. I have considered their opinions, but do not find their testimony to be persuasive with respect to sexual abuse or visitation.
I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Leventhal. The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master's degree in social work. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team. The notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations. The unavailability of the notes, together with their unwillingness to testify at this trial except through the deposition of Dr. Leventhal, compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.
Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist who has extensive familiarity with child abuse cases, was called as a witness by Ms. Farrow to comment on the Yale-New Haven report. I share his reservations about the reliability of the report.
Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (1) for making visitation recommendations without seeing the parent interact with the child; (2) for failing to support adequately their conclusion that Dylan has a thought disorder; (3) for drawing any conclusions about Satchel, whom they never saw; (4) for finding that there was no abuse when the supporting data was inconclusive; and (5) for recommending that Ms. Farrow enter into therapy. In addition, I do not think that it was appropriate for Yale-New Haven, without notice to the parties or their counsel, to exceed its mandate and make observations and recommendations which might have an impact on existing litigation in another jurisdiction.
Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or of the child's fantasy.
I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992. The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.
As far as judge talk goes, that's pretty much tearing the doctor a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
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.
He said this literally decades after the event where he would now need to be accountable for not only his father's whereabouts but the other people as well. And yet the person who he argues would be surrounding Woody, actually testified opposite. While others testified other strange occurrences that day.
Quote:
After Ms. Farrow returned home, Ms. Berge noticed that Dylan was not wearing anything under her sundress. She told asked Ms. Groteke to put underpants on Dylan.
Ms. Stickland testified that during the evening of August 4, she told Ms. Pascal, “I had seen something at Mia’s that day that was bothering me.” She revealed what she had seen in the television room. On August 5, Ms. Pascal telephoned Ms. Farrow to tell her what Ms. Stickland had observed. Ms. Farrow testified that after she hung up the telephone, she asked Dylan, who was sitting next to her, "whether it was true that daddy had his face in her lap yesterday." Ms. Farrow testified:
Dylan said yes. And then she said that she didn't like it one bit, no, he was breathing into her, into her legs, she said. And that he was holding her around the waist and I said, why didn't you get up and she said she tried to but that he put his hands underneath her and touched her. And she showed me where . . . Her behind.
Because she was already uncomfortable with Mr. Allen's inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and because she believed that her concerns were not being taken seriously enough by Dr. Schultz and Dr. Coates, Ms. Farrow videotaped Dylan's statements. Over the next twenty-four hours, Dylan told Ms. Farrow that she had been with Mr. Allen in the attic and that he had touched her privates with his finger.
Quote:
s. Farrow's statement to Dr. Coates that she hoped that Dylan's statements were a fantasy is inconsistent with the notion of brainwashing. In this regard, I also credit the testimony of Ms. Groteke, who was charged with supervising Mr. Allen's August 4 visit with Dylan. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan's statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of having sexually molested her during a period in which Ms. Farrow believed they were in the presence of a babysitter. Moreover, I do not believe that Ms. Farrow would have exposed her daughter and her other children to the consequences of the Connecticut investigation and this litigation if she did not believe the possible truth of Dylan's accusation.
Pretty much Mia talked to the doctor about the incident that Dylan told her before finding out that the babysitter that was suppose to supervise the visit left Dylan and Allen unaccounted for. Mia Farrow coaching her daughter to say something, and then going to the police, doesn't make sense unless she knew that the witness tasked with watching Dylan was away...yet she didn't find out until the day after she reported the assault to the doctor.
Quote:
It's also very strange that these allegations came to light only after Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi became public.
If you read the document, you don't have to read into it to see that he believes Mia Farrow was telling the truth (not that what necessarily Dylan said was true, but that Mia never coached her). He clearly attacks Allen's accusation that Dylan was coached multiple times. So the idea that Soon-Yi's affair made Mia have Dylan lie to the doctors does not hold much, if any, weight:
Quote:
There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.
But this is just the judge who saw the evidence presented before him and was tasked to make a ruling. What does he know?
Again, you can prescribe to the "innocent until proven guilty" but if you're saying that the facts..as presented in the Supreme Court Document...are unfounded and "all incorrect", maybe a little backup to that incredibly insane accusation?
Also for another ick-factor. The court documents reveal that they don't know if Soon-Yi was born in 1970 or 1972. If she was born in 1972, her mother would have started dating Allen when she was 7. She would have started the affair not when she was around 18 but rather around 16.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 11-01-2017 at 10:07 PM.
Kevin Spacey made the set of Netflix's "House of Cards" into a "toxic" work environment through a pattern of sexual harassment, eight people who currently work on the show or worked on it in the past tell CNN. One former employee told CNN that Spacey sexually assaulted him.
The former production assistant, whose account has never previously been disclosed, told CNN that Spacey sexually assaulted him during one of the show's early seasons. All eight people, each of whom spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions for speaking out, described Spacey's behavior as "predatory," saying it included nonconsensual touching and crude comments and targeted production staffers who were typically young and male.
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
