View Single Post
Old 02-12-2014, 02:07 PM   #75 (permalink)
campy
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
campy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,868
I'm listening to the show now...

Yes, there was a HUGE discrepancy of power between Woody and Soon-Yi that would most certainly have warped the dynamics between the couple. So no, a 50 year old man isn't automatically smarter then a 19 year old women or has better judgement. BUT a 56 year old man who was a father figure to a girl from the age of 7 will have an authority over her that wouldn't be normal or healthy.... DUH!

Frankly older people can date younger people, it happens. Older people who were a parental figure to the person they are dating is a big red flag, something is wrong with this adult.


So Pat Dixon, you clearly have not researched this story WHAT SO EVER for you to NOT know that those pictures of Soon-Yi were found. YET, you can say that for those of us who have decided he is guilty based on knowing he took nude pictures of his 13 year old daughter are wrong for jumping to conclusions? If all of this story happened to say a creepy neighbour or an ex coworker you would not be on KATG defending this dudes honour.

Keith, back in the late 50ties early 60ties 16 and 19 was young but not abnormal for marriage. Different times

You can be alone in a room with a kid Pat, as long as you aren't stripping them down and taking pictures of them...or nuzzling your head into their crotch.

Woody didn't get an attorney right away because he was hoping for the perception of innocence a la reverse psychology


YOU Pat Dixon, added the emphasis the phrase "SOMEONE from Allens team took the lie detector test". We, the listener, didn't read the article so can't tell if it was italicized or bolded out.

Polygraph tests today, in 2014, are not a perfect science so you can be sure that back in the 1990's they were even less reliable. I don't blame Woody Allen for not taking one with the state department and I don't blame the detectives for not bothering to test Mia Farrow.

That extra separate lie detector test was another smoke screen from Allen, goes along with the not hiring a lawyer mentality. Pretty Clever....

When the courts are saying CONSISTENT it means the stories matched.

The babysitter witnessed no panties, relevant to what MIGHT have happened. But the babysitter wasn't there so she could only say what she witnessed. Maybe Dylan took her panties off by herself and it wasn't Woody that took them off. That doesn't mean he didn't molest the child. Kids strip innocently...absentmindedly. That is normal. Nuzzling into your childs pantyless crotch (which was witnessed) is NOT innocent.

Woody Allen's professional life has NOTHING to do with ability to sexually abuse a child

EVERYTIME Keith and Chemda make a valid point Pat Dixon cries foul, claims "Hostile" says he doesn't want a fight. Pat Dixon's argument is weak because it's the devils advocate perspective and is not at all solid.

The prosecutor looked at the reality of putting a 7 year old through the media circus, intense investigator scrutiny and a long drawn out trial and decided to protect this child from any further abuse, BRAVO I say. Why would he put a child through the worst possible scenario at 7 years old if the process was futile because...after all...she was 7 YEARS OLD!!!

Imagine, for a moment, that this child was abused by her father...wouldn't you think she might be fragile?

This was a great podcast!
(Offline)   Reply With Quote