The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah Tom, what is the perspective of repeatedly raping a drugged up 13 year old girl?
How does lack of virginity affect the facts that she was horribly abused after being drugged by
a middle aged man?

Does it change that she was 13, anally, orally and vaginally raped after being drugged Tom?

Explain this new perspective to us all Tom.
 
I wonder if you are aware that Samantha Geimer was not a virgin? There is this narrative that she was an innocent 13 year old when in actual fact she was anything but. Doesn't excuse what he did but it does put a fresh perspective on the events.


I'm not sure as to what perspective it would put on it, except to show that she had been victimized before
Polanski was part of the situation. :dunno:
 
Yeah Tom, what is the perspective of repeatedly raping a drugged up 13 year old girl?
How does lack of virginity affect the facts that she was horribly abused after being drugged by
a middle aged man?

Does it change that she was 13, anally, orally and vaginally raped after being drugged Tom?

Explain this new perspective to us all Tom.

I would love for anyone to tell me I was out of bounds for saying this animal reads like a rapist to me. And that I don't believe there is any "friend".
 
I wonder if you are aware that Samantha Geimer was not a virgin? There is this narrative that she was an innocent 13 year old when in actual fact she was anything but. Doesn't excuse what he did but it does put a fresh perspective on the events.

100% irrelevant. She was innocent in that she was 13. He was an adult. An adult that drugged her and repeatedly raped her. Fuck your 'perspective'.
 
I really don't get tom sometimes. Like, there have been some things he says a lot that I agree with on in broad strokes, but then he lets things slip like "and nobody died" which to him probably doesn't even seem like anything of merit in his sentence but stands out like a sore thumb to everyone else. Then he says that because a 13 year old isn't a virgin it somehow "puts a fresh perspective on things"...........


like.... because she had sex before . . . it's like, a point to consider when thinking about how she was drugged and raped?

:what:

It's just really fucking bizarre how someone can think like that. I don't see how it's possible to have that thought process. Really fucking weird. Even weirder how he can say it out loud so confidently and nonchalantly.
 
I started the fucking thread!!

Yeah to defend Allen from the charges of a then seven year old girl who at least three generations of her family say he molested. But that still isn't good enough is it ton! It wouldn't matter because she must have liked it and asked for it right tom and who can even say if she was a virgin at seven, we don't know that and Allen was only doing what anyone is his position would do right tom? Tell me tom would you do that to your step daughter if you had one? And would you think it proper if you did? I am not accusing you of anything so don't think you can go running anywhere and say I am accusing you of something because I am not, I am asking relevant questions based on all the bullshit you have posted here and elsewhere defending rape, pedophilia, and wife beaters everywhere. So step up and answer the questions and if not, why not? It is obvious you have absolutely no moral reasons preventing you from criminal activity so why wouldn't you act just like Allen did?
 
He is just being a dick I will ban him and Desh from all my future threads.

The real dick here is you tom, you are so fucked up it is hard to tell you are even human. If I were a woman I wouldn't let you con me into coming here to defend your rotten ass but that is just me not matter what you did. But that is just me. I think you stink to high heaven. I think there is a misogynistic stench all over England from you and that fucking rag of a woman hating newspaper you read tom. Don't you have any "stupid woman" posts to make tom. Your hatred of women is so obvious it might as well be printed on milk cartons. And we all know that exists are racists so you have that going for you too, don't you tom? You're just slime from top to bottom!
 
A very thoughtful article by a woman on this subject.

Woody Allen is innocent, until proven guilty. And that does not include being indicted by the media.

He may very well be guilty, but we have to be so careful about taking a public accusation and brandishing someone a child molester based on that accusation. These are serious charges that require legal intervention. I have heard of and known people who have been wrongly accused of serious crimes and it has had a drastic effect on their lives. One instance was a male teacher at my school who was accused of inappropriate touching. The entire school found out immediately and every parent and child instantly looked at him with fresh eyes~ eyes tainted by the accusation. The accuser soon admitted they had lied. Nothing had ever happened. And everything went back to normal… No, that is also a lie. It took much longer for word of his innocence to spread than his potential guilt and that teacher had to transfer to a new school.

There is a much more famous historical example; that of Fatty Arbuckle. He was a top actor in silent films until he was accused of rape and manslaughter. The stories of what he did became more and more obscene. People lied both in hopes of extorting money from Arbuckle and to sell papers. His misfortune of hosting a party where a woman died became a pay check for others. He and his reputation were dragged through the mud for 3 years until he was cleared of all charges. He was absolutely innocent and yet it still took a decade for his career to begin to recuperate. At which point he died. Arbuckle was, in fact, described by many to be very mild mannered and kind.

So what of Woody Allen’s case? His is different, I admit. He is married to his ex common-law wife’s daughter (virtually his step-daughter), who he has known since she was about 10. One of his adoptive children has accused him of abuse, and the police were initially involved to investigate those claims. His own, very well educated biological, son (his biology is now up for debate) refuses to speak with him at all and publicly disdains Allen. It all sums up to sound like he is a terrible person and is likely guilty of anything anyone accuses him.

But let us also add in a few more pieces of information:

- Soon-Yi was never his daughter. He never adopted her. He never lived with her. Their relationship started when she was of age, according to both of them.
She was 19 at the time.
- Soon-Yi and Allen are still together (15 years). They have remained a couple longer than he and Farrow were (12 years).
- Allen and Farrow did not share a house and many accounts say he did not ever stay over-night at Farrows’s, or was required to sleep in the guest house. No, I’m not saying abuse cannot occur during the day.
- The timing of the accusations are convenient. First accusation happens at the same time as custody proceedings between Farrow and Allen. The second wave is just as statute of limitations expires so a renewed investigation isn’t even possible. It also coincides with damaging Allen’s chances of winning a significant career award. (The flip side is that Dylan felt more able to talk about Allen in a negative way once she knew her mother did not love him any more, and that the public accolades pushed her to speak out once more.)
- There are some events that show Farrow is not entirely as innocent as she appears. After the separation Mia renamed the children she had/adopted with Allen (is this some vindictive way of using the children as pawns?) This, at the very least, seems like an excessive upheaval to add to the already tumultuous environment these kids were already living in.
Her son with Allen may actually be Sinatra’s because she was having an affair.
There is the possibility that she planted the abuse story to ensure she was given full custody of all the children (again, just as we should not assume Allen is guilty we should not assume Farrow committed this act either).
Farrow definitely hated Allen for his actions with Soon-Yi (completely understandable) and made no attempts to hide her feelings from her children or limit her negative remarks about him thus colouring their view of him. They also got to endure the media’s view of Allen as well~ and we know how kind those words were in their description of him.
- The abuse allegations were investigated in 1992 and charges were not laid. ["The head doctor of the police-appointed medical team gave sworn testimony that Dylan "either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother" because of the inconsistent presentation of the story by Dylan.[SUP][39][/SUP] In September 1993, Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco announced that, while he had “probable cause” to prosecute Allen on charges of sexual molestation of Dylan, he was dropping the case to spare her the trauma of appearing in court.[SUP][40][/SUP]] There was no physical evidence of abuse.
- There is a ton of accusations made by Mia Farrow about Allen’s behavior in the various court documents, articles and writings, but if he was so inappropriate and awful why did she stay with him for 12 years and continue to give him access to all of the children? This is a man whom she didn’t have an issue with cheating on, so why not kick him to the curb if you think he’s acting “oddly” with your daughter? Or if he’s a just plain mean guy? There is nothing I wouldn’t do to protect my child, and that includes getting to the truth immediately if I suspected abuse. I would never want to make assumptions but I certainly would address behaviors that I or anyone else felt were inappropriate, and there seems to be an awful lot of instances where Farrow and her supporters/family/staff claims made them uncomfortable.
- Every member of this family has been through an emotional roller-coaster since 1992. The break-up of their “parents” and the reasons behind that have scarred them all in different ways. Then add to this the allegations of abuse. Everyone is a mess. It does not sound like any of them have really dealt with the core issues. Some of the children talk only to Farrow, some only to Allen, some both. All of those divides must be hard.
- One side of this feud is making every attempt to try this in the media and not the courts.

In any instance, Dylan deserves our compassion because she was either abused by someone she trusted or she was tricked into thinking she was abused by her tumultuous environment or someone else she trusted. In either instance this girl is in pain and she has been betrayed.

All of the points I’ve brought up may seem like I’m trying to launch a defense of Woody Allen to prove his innocence, but it is actually just background information that is being over-shadowed by the “shocking” letter that is flying around the internet. We are all going to make judgements but we should at least look at more than one letter or one side of an argument. And in such a serious situation we really shouldn’t be condemning someone outside of a courtroom. I know that the courts can be blind and thus allow guilty to walk free, but this is not a clear case of a miscarriage of justice. This letter, if true, is shocking and abhorrent but Dylan’s words alone do not stand as proof of guilt. And the media’s role in all of this? It is not to bring the truth to light, but to make as much money as they can on the scandal.

http://jillianschaos.com/2014/02/03/woody-allen-is-innocent/



Oh, look tom found another woman who is defending Allen in this case. Good for you tom , how deep did you have dig through shit to come up with this? Do you think that finding some woman who hates women as much as you do makes your argument or all the stories you post every day that are just plain hateful of women, from your stupid women stories to the stories of criminal behavior by women. Face it tom,e you hate women and you always have. Too bad your wife hasn't realized how much you hate women and that includes her. When she finally gets smart she will leave your woman hating ass.
 
BM is not banned.

Tom still doesn't know that when a person is banned it says banned under their name. He still hasn't figured that out after posting over 24,000 posts, and he claims to be a college graduate in chemisty, working in technology and is a fake scientist but after over 24,000 posts he still hasn't figured out how to tell if someone has been banned. He may be one of the stupidest posters here, and I mean that sincerely. Doubtful he ever graduated from high school. Let alone ever got into college. He is just too damn stupid.
 
Doesn't seem like we have learnt a lot in the intervening years, if anything society is even more prurient and quick to judge than in those times. If Woody Allen was considered such a danger to children I wonder why he was allowed to adopt two daughters. I happen to believe that what triggered Mia Farrow's rage was finding out that he was having a relationship with her adopted daughter Soon Yi and that is behind it all.

Why couldn't he with all his money get either of two judges to so much as allow him visitation with Farrow's children to, do you wonder about that too?
 
Here is something from 1993 about the custody trial.

The next day, on March 19, 1993, the custody trial began before Acting Justice Wilk. Allen testified that after Farrow learned of his affair with Soon-Yi, she cut his head out of family pictures and that "she [Farrow] called me dozens of times a night, raging and screaming, threatening to kill me." He testified further that he once found a note she left by an open window saying, "I've jumped out the window because of what you've done to the children."

The nude photos of Soon-Yi were admitted as evidence in court. Farrow's attorney, Eleanor B. Alter, suggested they were pornographic. Allen testified they were a matter between consenting adults and were intended to be erotic. Attorney Alter read a letter from Moses Farrow, 15, to Allen that said, "You have done a horrible, unforgivable, ugly, stupid thing. I hope you get so humiliated you commit suicide.… Everyone knows not to have an affair with your son's sister, including that sister, but you have a special way to get that sister to think that that is O.K." Questioned by Elkan Abramowitz, his own lawyer, Allen responded that Moses was manipulated by his mother and used the same words and phrases that she had used only days earlier.

Farrow then testified that Dylan told her the preceding summer that her father had sexually molested her. Farrow conceded, however, that the child, in her shyness, would not tell doctors of the abuse and that a medical examination produced no signs of it. She explained that she had videotaped the girl's statement because, "I wanted this documented because it had happened before.… He would creep up in the morning and lay beside her bed and wait for her to wake up. I thought it was excessive. I was uncomfortable all along." Farrow added that when Allen came to visit, Dylan screamed, "Hide me! Hide me!" to her brothers and sisters.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Susan Coates, who had treated Satchel and met often with both parents, testified that she had been convinced by Farrow's behavior—including sending Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children—that she might harm herself or Allen.

More than two weeks went by in the stuffy, crowded New York City courtroom where the paint was peeling from the walls and ancient chairs creaked constantly. Dr. Coates testified that Allen should be allowed unsupervised visits with Satchel but was less certain about his seeing Dylan. The children's nanny testified that Farrow was not always a good mother and had once slapped an adopted son across the face for not finding a dog leash. Allen's sister testified that Farrow taught the children to hate him. Allen produced a surreptitious recording of a phone call from Farrow's Connecticut housekeeper that disparaged Farrow's abilities as a mother. Allen's lawyer, Abramowitz, accused the Connecticut State Police of aiding Farrow's case by allowing her lawyers to see the Dylan videotape but refusing his request to see it. A baby sitter testified that she saw Allen kneeling before Dylan "in a way that bothered" her. In a three-hour shouting match between Farrow's attorney, Alan M. Dershowitz, and Allen's attorney Abramowitz, Dershowitz denied allegations by Abramowitz that he had asked Allen to pay millions of dollars to get Farrow to call off the molestation charge. Justice Wilk criticized New York investigators for subjecting Dylan to the trauma of a second sex-abuse investigation. A doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation said that Dylan's story had "a rehearsed quality" and that Farrow might have encouraged the child to fabricate because she liked to perform.

On June 7, 1993, Justice Wilk, in a stinging 33-page decision, called Allen a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive father. It is clear," he continued, "that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow." The judge denied Allen immediate visitation rights with Dylan, ruling that a further review be held after Dylan received psychological therapy. Supervised visits, however, with Satchel would be allowed. The judge also acceded to Moses's request not to be forced to see his father and ordered Allen to pay Farrow's legal fees. Finally, the judge questioned the findings of the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigators, noting that whether or not molestation took place, "Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate."

In September 1993, Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco announced that, while he had "probable cause" to prosecute Allen on charges of sexual molestation of Dylan, he was dropping the case to spare her the trauma of appearing in court. Allen filed complaints asking the state bar counsel to disbar Maco and requesting that the State Criminal Justice Commission discipline Maco for making an accusation without producing an indictment. In October, the New York State Department of Social Services dropped its investigation into the child molestation charge. It concluded "that no credible evidence was found … that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated." In November, the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission voted unanimously to dismiss Allen's complaint against Maco. It said that after four hours of deliberation it could find no evidence that Prosecutor Maco had violated the canon of ethics for lawyers in his remarks during the September news conference in which he announced that he was dropping the charges against Allen. In January 1994, the Connecticut bar's disciplinary panel criticized Maco's handling of the case and found that he might have prejudiced the celebrities' custody battle, but that he did not violate the state's code of conduct for lawyers.




Gee tom did a woman hating woman write this as well, or did you find this to support your claim that the seven year old was coached and Allen never touched her no matter what three generations of woman who watched him do so have to say about it?
 
I really don't get tom sometimes. Like, there have been some things he says a lot that I agree with on in broad strokes, but then he lets things slip like "and nobody died" which to him probably doesn't even seem like anything of merit in his sentence but stands out like a sore thumb to everyone else. Then he says that because a 13 year old isn't a virgin it somehow "puts a fresh perspective on things"...........


like.... because she had sex before . . . it's like, a point to consider when thinking about how she was drugged and raped?


That's because tom is one of the most fucked up women hating men on this board. There is just no other explanation for it. He really is that fucked up!
 
Please remember everyone, this monster raised two sons, who are now on the streets.

And they probably don't know what the word "consent" or the word "no" means either, because tom taught them that if a woman is not a virgin it doesn't matter if she says "no"!
 
I really don't get tom sometimes. Like, there have been some things he says a lot that I agree with on in broad strokes, but then he lets things slip like "and nobody died" which to him probably doesn't even seem like anything of merit in his sentence but stands out like a sore thumb to everyone else. Then he says that because a 13 year old isn't a virgin it somehow "puts a fresh perspective on things"...........


like.... because she had sex before . . . it's like, a point to consider when thinking about how she was drugged and raped?



It's just really fucking bizarre how someone can think like that. I don't see how it's possible to have that thought process. Really fucking weird. Even weirder how he can say it out loud so confidently and nonchalantly.

Samantha Geimer forgave him and petitioned for all charges to be dropped in 1995. This case had been virtually forgotten about until the extradition request in 2009, then all of a sudden there is a media feeding frenzy and everybody is baying for his blood. I have never said that what he did was anything less than reprehensible but then again I find it pretty bizarre that you can say that you'd be happy for thousands of babies to be killed to save your precious right to bear arms. If you said that in England I can guarantee that you would be rightly castigated, shunned by decent people and likely get your arse kicked. I think you don't know how abhorrent that sounds to us over here. It wasn't that long ago that you thought it fucking hilarious to celebrate the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings by calling yourself Adam Lanza. So forgive me if I don't take any readings from your moral compass.
 
Last edited:
Samantha Geimer forgave him and petitioned for all charges to be dropped in 1995. This case had been virtually forgotten about until the extradition request in 2009, then all of a sudden there is a media feeding frenzy and everybody is baying for his blood. I have never said that what he did was anything less than reprehensible but then again I find it pretty bizarre that you can say that you'd be happy for thousands of babies to be killed to save your precious right to bear arms. If you said that in England I can guarantee that you would be rightly castigated, shunned by decent people and likely get your arse kicked. I think you don't know how abhorrent that sounds to us over here. It wasn't that long ago that you thought it fucking hilarious to celebrate the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings by calling yourself Adam Lanza. So forgive me if I don't take any readings from your moral compass.

Point of order, it was I who took the name Adam Lanza. And it was one of my favorite names so far. Right up there with Arab Spring and C'thulhu.
 
I suspect you would be more disappointed if they had nothing on you.
I'm a radical libertarian who has an FFL, tons of guns, military combat experience, a top secret security clearance (somehow), and my web search history shows an AWFUL lot of chemical and chemistry related shit. I've got a couple files.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top