View Single Post
Old 02-13-2014, 11:29 PM   #117 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queens
Posts: 73
Response to this guy

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote