1923: The Art of Charm

[TAFKAP]

So, Pat's stance is that a teenage girl has enough sense to have a relationship with her mother's ex-lover, but a grown woman doesn't have enough sense to know whether or not she was molested?

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by flerchin

Come on Pat, it's only slightly less fucked up that his paternal feelings towards his wife didn't start until after she turned 18.

"Come on" nothing. You guys want to talk about how he was a father figure before he started dating her, then when it's not true, then it's only "slightly less fucked up."

Originally Posted by flerchin

That said, I don't see how anyone can read that Washington Post article you posted along with the lack of a civil suit and come away thinking Woody Allen is a pedo.

Funny how information can be so INFORMATIVE. Thanks for your comment.

Here's the link: A look back at the allegations against Woody Allen - The Washington Post

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Keith

This where I can only shrug and go, "Okay..."

If you don't have a compelling argument, what else can you do? All the shrugging in the world can't change that what I'm saying is factual and documented.

Hate Woody but be an informed Woody-hater.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Hey Pat Dixon,

on your very hilarious and enjoyable NYC Crime Report podcast you often trash a newspaper for being salacious and misleading.

Is it the NY Times or Washington Post? I can't remember.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Curt

Yes Pat, you’re biased everyone is biased. I do like how you assume I’m assigning culpability in the incident with your ex. I said you have had an incident and that would make you biased.

If everyone is biased, why make a point of my history?

I didn't "have an incident." I was the victim of a violent crime, this makes me biased?

By your logic, if someone was the victim of sexual abuse, we can assume they're biased?

Should we gleefully point out their victimization as you have mine? and further use their victimization to discredit what they say?

Can you now see that you're an asshole?

Originally Posted by Curt

If you read the actual opinion from Judge Wilk in 1993 the tone is far different from your interpretation.

Allen v. Farrow Custody Ruling, June 7, 1993

YES, LET'S DISCUSS THIS DECISION

The tone of Judge Wilk's decision is very anti-Woody.

I agree completely. And if anyone hasn't read this decision, I recommend you do read it if you have any interest in the Woody Allen situation.

He does disregard the evidence of the discovery team.

Originally Posted by Curt

because they and their report are in his words “sanitized and , therefore, less credible.” This doesn’t mean Dylan was lying but that the team investigating her was inept at least and criminal bad at their job at worst.

The Connecticut state police conducted an investigation which included the team of child abuse specialists hired by the DA Frank Maco, the Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic.

Judge Wilk's reasons for calling their report "sanitized" are as follows:

"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."

After this team, again hired by the State to discover possible reasons to prosecute Woody Allen for sexually abusing Dylan, conducted an exhaustive 7-month investigation, including interviews with Dylan, Woody, Mia and all concerned:

They came back with a report detailing their findings, and provided a deposition through Dr. Leventhal. Their finding: WOODY ALLEN DID NOT MOLEST DYLAN FARROW.

But the judge says: No notes, no opportunity to question the findings in my courtroom: no value to this report. As a judge, he has the latitude to dismiss anything, and give weight to whatever he likes, at his whim.

Wilk blew it off. I'm not as quick to dismiss this report on the basis that they didn't provide notes or appear before this judge. I figure a pediatrician and a two social workers, one with a PhD, one with a masters, all who are committed employees of a Child Sex Abuse Clinic at a prestigious hospital; the kind of team that the state calls when they want something investigated; MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CASE THAT SOME GUY IN BROOKLYN DOESN'T KNOW.

You're free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but NOWHERE here does it state or even IMPLY that the team was INEPT or "criminally bad at their job." The conclusions you draw from information are just wildly inaccurate. If you think it says that, read it again. Circle the adjectives he uses.

QUESTION: If the Yale-New Haven Child Sex Abuse Clinic had presented Wilk with no notes, no appearance in court, BUT claimed Mr. Allen was guilty of molesting Dylan, do you think he would've been so quick to discredit it?

SPEAKING OF BIAS
Here's another quote from Judge Wilk's decision, in reference to Dr. Nancy Schultz and Dr. Susan Coates, psychologists hired by Mia to treat Dylan and Satchel and who had been seeing the family for therapy for a period of a couple of years before the accusations:

"Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan."

Okay, there's the opinion of two child psychologists hired by Mia to treat her children.

But then Judge Wilk quickly adds:

"Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schultz has expertise in the field of child sexual abuse."

Uh…okay. But they are pretty familiar with Dylan.

Judge Wilk continues:

"I believe the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen."

Judge Wilk asserts these two DOCTORS, child psychologists who were seeing Dylan on a regular basis, are too blinded by their affection for the ever-so-charming Woody Allen to recognize the needs of their patient(s).

And finally, in case Judge Wilk hadn't convinced you yet of the complete quackery of these two women:

"I also believe 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."

Well, there you go.
Even if all they WERE expert in the field of child sex abuse, even if they weren't firmly in the pocket of Mr. Allen, they STILL wouldn't be credible testifying that Dylan wasn't molested.

Judge Wilk, in presupposing "a natural reluctance to accept that an act of sexual abuse occurred on their watch," basically annuls any opinion the doctors have UNLESS it supports the story of the accused.

THINK ABOUT IT? Biased???? Just think about it for a minute.

QUESTION: If they had thought Mr. Allen guilty, do you believe Judge Wilk would've disregarded their testimony?

Dr. Susan Coates is the psychologist from Maureen Orth's anti-Woody article (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...use-10-factsin) about which, as one of her "10 Undeniable Facts about the Woody Allen Sex Allegation," it's stated:

2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public.

This Dr. Susan Coates is quoted at trial:

"I understood why she was worried, because it [Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan] was intense. . . I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgement that I felt should not be placed on a child."

Dr. Coates doesn't think Woody did it.
Dr. Shultz doesn't think Woody did it.
The Yale-New Have Child Sex Abuse Clinic doesn't think Woody did it.
But the Judge is writing the decision.

CONCLUSION OF THE JUDGE
“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.”

When Dr. Coates says something that sounds anti-Woody, suddenly she's credible.

Do you see a pattern here?

HOW DOES THE JUDGE TREAT MIA?

Originally Posted by Curt

Judge Wilk also blames Mia Farrow saying “Ironically, Ms. Farrow’s principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen.”

How about this for irony. Mia HITS her children, and the judge thinks her principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting is her continued relationship with Woody!!

From Judge Wilk's decision:

"When Soon-Yi referred to her sexual relationship with Mr. Allen, Ms. Farrow hit her on the side of the face and on the shoulders."

Big deal, right? She was understandably mad, right?

QUESTION: What if Woody would've hit Soon-Yi? or Mia. How quickly would Judge Wilk (or you) excuse that? But it's okay, because it's Mia, and she was hurting inside…(?)

From Judge Wilk's decision:

“In February 1992, Ms. Farrow gave Mr. Allen a family picture Valentine with skewers through the hearts of the children and a knife through the heart of Ms. Farrow. She also defaced and destroyed several photographs of Mr. Allen and of Soon-Yi.”

The "Valentine" if you haven't seen it is chilling. Judge Wilk fails to mention that the knife was wrapped with a photo of Soon-Yi.

He concludes about Mia:

“I do not view the Valentine’s Day card, the note affixed to the bathroom door in Connecticut, or the destruction of photographs as anything more than expressions of Mr. Farrows understandable anger and her ability to communicate her distress by word and symbol rather than by action."

She also communicated her distress by hitting her daughter, but theres no further mention of that here or anywhere else in the decision. Why exactly is this not relevant in a custody hearing?

And what's this note on the bathroom door? Very little has been said about it.
From Judge Wilk's decision:

“In July 1992, Ms. Farrow had a birthday party for Dylan at her Connecticut home. Mr. Allen came and monopolized Dylan’s time and attention. After Mr. Allen retired to the guest room for the night, Ms. Farrow affixed to his bathroom door, a note which called Mr. Allen a child molester. The reference was to his affair with Soon-Yi.”

The note isn't quoted verbatim in his decision.
the exact words of the note are here:

“Child molester at birthday party, molded and abused one sister, now focused on youngest sister, family disgusted.”

His summation of this bizarre note, EVEN in light of the molestation accusations which occurred within three weeks of her putting this note on his door. "…a note which called Mr. Allen a child molester. The reference was to his affair with Soon-Yi."

link to source:
Woody Allen Recalls Alleged Death Threats and Haunting Valentine from Mia Farrow in 1992 '60 Minutes' Interview

Judge Wilk considers this note calling Mr. Allen a child molester to be an "expression of her understandable anger and her ability to communicate her distress by word and symbol rather than action."

Mia left the note accusing him of being a child molester in July 1992.
That same month, Mia received a letter from a summer camp where Soon-Yi had been employed. It explained Soon-Yi been let go because she was preoccupied with phone calls and it was evident those calls were between her and Mr. Allen.

Woody had told her back in February the affair was over, and Mia accepted this and continued to date Woody Allen.

The letter from camp (which came in the third or fourth week of July) is how Mia found out that Woody was still seeing Soon-Yi.

Aug. 4 Was the day the alleged abuse occurred.

HOW THE ALLEGATION AGAINST WOODY ALLEN SURFACED

Present at Mia's country home:
Ms. Kristie Groteke (Mia's baby sitter)
Ms. Alison Stickland (Casey Pascal's baby sitter)
Ms. Sophie Berge (a French tutor)
Ms. Pascal's three children.
Mia and Woody's children Dylan and Satchel.

Aug. 4 Woody arrived at Mia's Connecticut home to visit his children.

FACT: It was agreed that Woody would visit the kids that day. With the full understanding that the "child molester" who was "focussed on the youngest sister" was coming, Mia went shopping the whole day, leaving Dylan and Satchel with a baby sitter.

FACT: Mia did instruct the baby sitter Ms. Kristie Groteke not to allow Mr. Allen to be alone with Dylan.

QUESTION: If Mia considered Woody to be a potential predator, and one who was focussed on her daughter…would her maternal instinct allow her to go shopping for an extended period of time leaving her threatened child with a baby sitter?

QUESTION: Could it be that when she called Woody a child molester, she didn't mean it literally. Perhaps she was just, kind of, throwing that word around…?

QUESTION: However if she didn't truly consider Woody a potential threat to Dylan, why would she so instruct a baby sitter?

QUESTION: What purpose could it serve to tell the baby sitter not to leave Dylan alone with Woody? unless you consider him to be a TRUE THREAT. In which case, how could you trot off shopping all day leaving the child in the hands of a baby sitter?

Does that makes sense to anyone?
I don't have kids, but from what I've gathered, mothers are EXTREMELY protective of their children. Mothers, if you knew a potential predator (a "child molester") was coming to your home, would you simply tell the baby sitter "I'm going shopping, now don't let anything happen when that 'child molester' who is 'focussed on the youngest sister' gets here"?

FACT: Mia was shopping that day with Ms. Casey Pascal. Ms. Pascal also left behind three young children.

QUESTION: Did Mia apprise Ms. Pascal of the risk? Did Mia explain that a child molester was coming to visit his children and would be there for hours?

QUESTION: Did Mia explain to Ms. Pascal that this was a man whom she didn't even trust to be alone with her daughter for a few minutes?

QUESTION: If Mia didn't share this information with Casey Pascal, do you think should she have?

QUESTION: Would a responsible mother share her concerns with another mother who happens to also be leaving 3 young children in the hands of a single baby sitter?

QUESTION: And if she did warn Ms. Pascal that the molester was coming to visit his children, would Ms. Pascal likewise leave her 3 young children in the hands of Ms. Strickland?

QUESTION: Would two seemingly responsible mothers spend the day shopping and leave their 5 young children all day in the presence of a potential child molester?

QUESTION: With a potential PREDATOR coming to visit, wouldn't most mothers remain behind, just in case?

FACT: In anticipation of the arrival of a man Mia considered a threat to her daughter -- who she referred to as a child molester and said was "focussed on" her defenseless daughter Dylan -- 5 YOUNG CHILDREN were left with two babysitters and a french tutor.

FACT: 5 children. 3 adults. + 1 supposed potential predator.

QUESTION: Although she freely called him a child molester and implied he was a threat with her instructions to the baby sitter, what do her actions imply about Mia's true feelings about the level of threat she felt from Woody Allen?

FACT: That day, while looking for one of Ms. Pascal's children, Ms. Stickland observed Mr. Allen in the television room.

from Judge Wilk's decision:

“During a different portion of the day, Ms. Stickland went to the television room in search of one of Ms. Pascal’s children. She observed Mr. Allen kneeling in front of Dylan with his head on her lap, facing her body. Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.”

QUESTION: Were they alone? It's significant, but for some reason omitted in Judge Wilk's account. If they were alone, why is this period of time not under heavier scrutiny, this alone time which Ms. Farrow ordered not to occur? If they weren't alone, this would imply that it was going on in the presence of others, presumably Ms. Groteke, the baby sitter, who had be instructed not to leave them alone.

FACT: During the night of Aug. 4, Ms. Stickland mentioned what she saw to Ms. Pascal, adding that had bothered her. Ms. Pascal phoned Ms. Farrow and told her what the baby sitter had told her. Mia asked Dylan if it was true that Daddy put his face in her lap.

Mia in court:
“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.”

When Dylan confirmed that Woody had put his head in her lap, Mia called her attorney. Her attorney advised her to take Dylan to a pediatrician, which Mia did immediately. Dylan said she wasn't molested. Mia agreed to bring her back the following day.

from Judge Wilk's decision, then:

"Because she was already uncomfortable with Mr. Allen's inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and because she believed her concerns were not being taken seriously enough by Dr. Schultz and Dr. Coates, Ms. Farrow videotaped Dylan's statements. Over the next 24-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."

On Aug. 6, after the 24-hour period of making the videotape with Mia accusing Woody, Dylan was returned to the pediatrician, where she promptly accused Woody Allen of molesting her.

Aug. 9 A medical exam concluded there was no evidence of sexual abuse.

The pediatrician immediately notified law enforcement, as they are legally bound to do.

Although Dr. Schultz was vacationing in Europe, Mia phoned her every day and they spoke about Dylan.

Mia also phoned Dr. Coates saying "It sounds very convincing to me, doesn't it to you?"

7 days later, Woody Allen filed for custody of Dylan, Satchel and Moses.

Originally Posted by Curt

So now let’s get into the victim and re-victimization of Dylan Farrow. You can defend Allen as much as you want but denying the charges is validity and possibility because of a lack of a conviction is ripping open the wounds of not only Dylan Farrow but everyone listening who has experienced the horror of childhood sexual abuse.

Curt, I'm not saying anything that isn't 100% factual. I'll document everything and I'll show my work. I continue to dismiss the idea that recounting factual information about a well-publicized case is an act of cruelty towards victims. The fact that you invoke the pain of victims in order to silence the detailing of factual information is frankly exploitive and pathetic. I never denied the validity of any charges. I presented information, and corrected some falsehoods which second-hand accusers with nothing to do with the victim have hurled around. If you draw from that that the charges are invalid, well there are. Enough hysteria.

Originally Posted by Curt

Isolating what you say to ‘hey, all I’m saying is the man is innocent until proven guilty’ is a tacit jab at the victim and says to all other victims that their credibility will be the most scrutinized and that feeling keeps a lot of them from ever coming forward.

Yes, potential accusers need to know that their claims of sexual abuse will be evaluated and if you say someone sexually abused you, you will have to substantiate that claim. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution. No one has to prove themselves innocent. I don't make the rules.

You say that a basic rule of law is a tacit jab at a victim, and then lay responsibility on me for ripping open wounds, when no one was discussing ANY of this before Ronan, Mia and, yes, Dylan publicized this abuse once again. Meanwhile, Dylan calls on actors not to appear in Woody's movies while Mia gives her full consent to have her clip included in the montage paying tribute to the Big BAD WOLF!

Your accusations are tiresome. I've never scrutinized ANY VICTIM'S CREDIBILITY.

Originally Posted by Curt

Dylan Farrow has not made any propositions for money and blaming a victim and their family for not pushing civil charges at the time or now is obfuscating the point and has nothing to do with whether Woody Allen is a creepy fucking old man.

I never blamed anyone for anything, Curt. I asked why they haven't filed civil charged. They don't have to "push" anything, they simply phone an attorney. Just like she did the first time in 1992.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Hey Pat Dixon,

It's interesting that you point out that unless a victim is substantiated; they remain simply an accuser.

Why do you, personally, guess as to why Dylan Farrow has accused Woody of molesting her?

I'm really curious. Hope you answer this. Thanks.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad

THAT POLYGRAPH COULD NEVER BE ADMITTED IN COURT and that bastard knew it when he bought his own test. And if the state police DID administer a polygraph annnnd he passed, defense council could most definitely get the result in the discovery. If the prosecution tried to bury that result that would be misconduct.

Of course he knew the test would be inadmissible in court.

The reason he refused the lie detector test from the state is because it would do nothing to clear him. He already has the presumption of innocence, so a state administered lie detector test just would not help him. If you were in the same position, you would refuse the test. We all would, because that's what literally any attorney would tell you to do.

Maureen Orth knows that, yet she presents this as some sort of shifty thing Woody did. One of the many misleading facts she presents.

Ask yourself, "Why would he take a lie detector test at all?"

I don't think it would occur to a child molester who knows himself to be guilty to run out and take a lie detector test. To me it reads as the act of an innocent man who will do ANYTHING he can to clear his name in the mind of the public.

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying, that's how that act makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad

Consistent does mean "the same" you asshole. What that line ment was she said the abuse happened at 4:00, or whatever, and three adults said that she and woody were alone together at that time.

Yeah, I know what consistent means, I'm smarter than you.

My question was consistent as to what? Just saying their stories are "consistent" doesn't provide specific points of consistency, so a blanket statement like that is useless as some kind of grand assertion.

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad

Abuse cases are difficult to Prosecuite under the best of circumstances and due to the high profile of the case and the best defense money could buy, there was no way that case would see a courtroom. They only true thing Dixon said was you can't assume info in Vanity Fair is evidence.

They didn't have the evidence to win the case, so he was never even charged.

What I proved is that Maureen Orth's article in Vanity Fair that indicts Woody Allen is intentionally misleading. If the facts are on your side, why do you need to do that?

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by TxMama

I was so frustrated listening to this episode. Pat kept just blowing off anything chemda said and im glad she didn't let him get away with it. I just can't believe that he really truly feels like he said he did about half the stuff he said. I really kept waiting for him to say he was just screwing around and being rediculous. He obviously has no idea what sexual abuse does to a child and how hard it is to prosecute the cases. Can you imagine sitting in a big scary court room in front of tons of people and explaining to someone that's accussing you of being a liar that the man who was supposed to love you above all others hurt you in the worst way possible? I'm grown and I couldn't do that much less could I do it at 7 years old. That's whar they meant by the child being too fucking fragile to testify.

I'd love to explain what I meant, but you're not really helping me out here. Without specific examples, I just don't know what you think is so ridiculous. If you can think of anything let me know.

The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. This team came back with the conclusion that Dylan wasn't molested, and that her story had a rehearsed quality to it.

On being told his witness would not be believable on the stand, Maco knew he couldn't win the case. Without Dylan as a witness, he had no case. He used the word "fragility" and obviously it would be traumatic for her, but this has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad

Oh yeah, I think he defiantly did it But due to all the muddy evidence he will not be convicted. I would also not let him alone with my kids. I think it was the great Kat Williams who said "don't nobody say the same shit about you for twenty fuckin years without it being true"

This is a pretty good example of the typical Rush-2-Judgmenteer!

Godspeed, my friend. You've obviously done your research.

[Scumhook]

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I googled "Pat", and this came back