1923: The Art of Charm

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

I'm asking you not to personally insult me or attack my character, as I don't intend to answer that kind of thing.

Can I insult you for not wearing your suit to the KATG trial/ episode? You looked like every douchebag comic in a hoody. How dare you, sir.

Also, Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors is an incredible interpretation of nihilism. Blue Jasmine was amazing and Pat Dixon's NYC Crime Report is a great podcast for comedy fans of dark humor.

Oh and Woody Allen is super creepy weirdo and after watching his films and hearing the facts; I can totally see him being a molester. I don't think neither he nor Soon Yi should be adopting kids/ victims, but that's me.

If nothing else, Woody Allen has really divided and fucked up KATG forums. So fuck him for that, (but only with well documented Asian pussy)
(E) (but w/ Creationist Museums cuz humans riding dinos is hilarious)

[Curt]

So, here are a few short points.

-Pat shouldn't bee seen as an unbiased observer. We have to remember that this is a guy who was confronted by an ex-wife with a gun, uses the phrase 'bitches be crazy' and named his album 'Goodbye Forever Fatty'. My guess is that exposes some bias he might have. That and no one is unbiased we all drag our experiences, privileges and disadvantages to the table.

-The presumption that Mia and Dylan are lying is just as wrong as assuming Woody Allen is telling the truth. False accusations of child abuse by children is rare, but this not known to the general public because in order to shield the child you must to a certain extent shield the perpetrator.

-U.S. rates were 7.5% for males and 25.3% for females who have suffered childhood sexual abuse. The male rate is most likely inaccurate due to the cultural stigma. Global prevalence of child sexual abuse Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

-Gathering evidence in these cases is extremely difficult. So most cases are made circumstantially.

-Someone doesn't have to be found criminally guilty to be held guilty by the public. So stop supporting this guy.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

tl;read it anyway

A journalist with integrity is like a prophet in his own country.

I'll skip the fuuuuuck you, as I feel there's been plenty of that already.

Welcome to the forums

[PatDixonNYC]

Almost nothing you said about me is accurate, and you have disputed NO FACTS of the case. You position is weak and you are a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Curt

So, here are a few short points.

-Pat shouldn't bee seen as an unbiased observer. We have to remember that this is a guy who was confronted by an ex-wife with a gun, uses the phrase 'bitches be crazy' and named his album 'Goodbye Forever Fatty'. My guess is that exposes some bias he might have. That and no one is unbiased we all drag our experiences, privileges and disadvantages to the table.

1. I was not confronted by an ex-wife with a gun. But it's interesting to note you presume MY culpability in being attacked. Where is your sympathy for the victim in a case of attempted murder? I would rather have my privates fondled than nearly get shot in the face by a jilted lover. I think that says more about you than it does me.

A woman I dated did attempt to kill me, and this woman was convicted of attempted second degree murder. Thanks for making it personal, but I fail to see how this changes the facts of the Woody Allen case, and those are all I'm presenting. Show me an instance in which I've been biased, we'll talk.

2. I do not commonly use the phrase "Bitches be Crazy." Can you site one use of this by me? Much less multiple usages which would justify what you said.

I did have a one-man show about my experiences with relationships including the gun girl, yes. That show was put up exactly once with the ironic title "Bitches be Stoopid (DAMN!)." Sue me, it struck me as a funny title. But those words are not in my everyday use.

Originally Posted by Curt

-The presumption that Mia and Dylan are lying is just as wrong as assuming Woody Allen is telling the truth. False accusations of child abuse by children is rare, but this not known to the general public because in order to shield the child you must to a certain extent shield the perpetrator.

Sorry, you have it backward. People who are accused of a crime are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. As to whether Mia and Dylan are lying has no place in this discussion. The burden of proof falls to the accuser and… Jesus, here's a link:

Legal burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to false accusations of child abuse being rare, that also isn't relevant. That has no bearing on the facts of the Woody Allen sexual abuse allegations.

Originally Posted by Curt

-Gathering evidence in these cases is extremely difficult. So most cases are made circumstantially.

Child sex abuse are prosecuted and won on a daily basis. Here's one from earlier this month.

Mia Farrow's Brother Sentenced for Child Sex Abuse | NBC4 Washington

It happens to be Mia Farrow's brother. He's doing 10 years. Here's a quote about Woody from Mia's brother from People Magazine in 1992:

"He's going to be indicted, and he's going to be ruined," says Farrow's irate brother, John, 45, a sometime screenwriter and boat salesman outside Annapolis, Md. "I think when all of it comes out, he's going to go to jail. I'd like to take his little flute [a reference to Allen's clarinet] and ram it..."

With DNA evidence, many cases can be made with certainty. Proliferation of cameras on phones and on the streets have helped bring abusers to justice. We can only hope the efforts of law enforcement continue to improve in this venue. But considering the Catholic Church even seems to be developing a conscience about it, there are signs of hope.

In Woody Allen's case, if there was enough evidence to prosecute, they would've done it. Judge Wilk stated in his decision: "The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse." That's a fancy way of saying "We've got nothing on him."

And if you still think there was enough evidence to prosecute but Dylan was too fragile, why haven't they taken it to civil court? The burden of proof is lower and then he would publicly held responsible, which seems to be what they want, since the criminal statute of limitations has passed.

Originally Posted by Curt

-Someone doesn't have to be found criminally guilty to be held guilty by the public. So stop supporting this guy.

You bring nothing to this. You don't even know the facts of this case. Guilty by the PUBLIC? Please. As of 2012, 17% of Americans thought Obama was a Muslim. I wonder what it's up to now.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by campy

13-16 whatever, he was a father figure to this girl.
You're a father SSGT, what's wrong with you? You MUST be able to say that even if Soon-Yi was at the age of consent when the relationship began, dating a girl who considered you a father from 7 years old ISn't NORMAL

Add to that that she was UNDERAGE when he took NUDE PHOTOS of her....

please.

Here's the article showing Soon-Yi was 21 when the photos were taken:
A look back at the allegations against Woody Allen - The Washington Post

From Judge Wilk's decision: The decision says that, up until 1985, Allen had “virtually a single person’s relationship” with Farrow and “viewed her children as an encumbrance,” having “no interest” in them. Allen lived in his apartment on the east side of Manhattan, while Farrow lived on the west side with her kids. In 1984, Farrow told Allen she wanted to have his child. He was reluctant, and only agreed after “Ms. Farrow promised that the child would live with her and that Mr. Allen need not be involved with the child’s care or upbringing.”

And more directly on Soon-Yi, the judge writes:

"Until 1990, although he had had little contact with any of the Previn children, Mr. Allen had the least to do with Soon-Yi."

In 1990, Soon-Yi was 18-20. (Having no birth certificate, her birth year was believed to be either 1970 or 1972.) Either way, Woody Allen was NOT in any way a father figure, according to Judge Wilk, who by the way, was strongly anti-Woody as is evidenced in this heavy-handed and sometimes misleading decision.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Can I insult you for not wearing your suit to the KATG trial/ episode? You looked like every douchebag comic in a hoody. How dare you, sir.

I didn't want to look too slick!

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

… Pat Dixon's NYC Crime Report is a great podcast for comedy fans of dark humor.

GUILTY as charged. Thanks for the mention.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

Woody Allen was NOT in any way a father figure...

Maybe in a little way?

[PatDixonNYC]

Nice try, Keith, on the father figure thing. But it's not relevant to the years prior to 1990. In other words, he wasn't a father figure to her until AFTER he started boning her. Which come on now...we all know about that, right?

[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.

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.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

Nice try, Keith, on the father figure thing. But it's not relevant to the years prior to 1990. In other words, he wasn't a father figure to her until AFTER he started boning her.

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