View Single Post
Old 02-12-2014, 06:27 PM   #84 (permalink)
PatDixonNYC
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queens
Posts: 73
PLEASE: SERIOUS QUESTIONS ONLY

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt View Post
-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 andů 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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt View Post
-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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt View Post
-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.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote