View Single Post
Old 02-14-2014, 03:46 AM   #144 (permalink)
PatDixonNYC
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queens
Posts: 73
One of the more dense KATG fans. Thanks for trying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
This was very difficult to listen to.

Pat ignores K&C when they say that the doctor said it was INCONCLUSIVE, not FALSE, that Dylan was molested.
Without knowing which doctor you're referring to, this is the best I can do.

Here is the entire 33-page decision written by Judge Wilk.

http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/0...stody-suit.pdf

Pg. 12 "A medical examination conducted on August 9 showed no physical evidence of sexual abuse."

Pg. 22 "Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan."

Pg. 2 "On March 17, 1993, Yale-New Haven issued a report which concluded that Mr. Allen had not sexually abused Dylan."

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
He says it's "irrational" to think he came on her. I really hate it when people use "reason" incorrectly, and only to discount the other side's point. What part about that is so irrational?
This is Woody's take on it, and, sue me, I think what he says makes sense. That's all for the rationality part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/op...peaks-out.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
Pat twisting around the reason why Woody wasn't prosecuted. The statement clearly said they that have probable cause, but they can't do it without Dylan's testimony, and she's too fragile to go on the stand and testify. Pat laughs off the fact that a 7 year old would be "too fragile" to testify against her molester. Because that's soooo fucking irrational.
I understand the statement. Frank Maco said he had enough evidence to more forward but wouldn't pursue the case because of the fragility of the victim. A disciplinary panel found that Maco may have prejudiced the ongoing custody fight between Allen and Mia Farrow by making an accusation without formal charges.

Maco simply knew he couldn't win the case, not without Dylan's testimony. From the Yale-New Haven team report, he also knew her story had a "rehearsed quality." In other words, not only was she "fragile" in that, yes it would be scary for any 7-year-old to testify about anything, but even worse for the case, Dylan's testimony would be unconvincing. I hate to break it to you, but this is just reality.

The Yale-New Haven team was hired by Frank Maco to determine if Dylan would be able to tell her story on the stand. This is their finding:

ďIt is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylanís statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylanís statements. First, that Dylanís statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylanís statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylanís allegations of sexual abuse.Ē

Okay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
Pat thinking that the police are only trying to get a conviction, and not to get to the bottom of things for the sake of the public (as WhiskeyApprentice points out).
Merely pointing out, prosecutors prosecute, and defenders defend. The police are tasked with gathering evidence to support the claims of accusers to build cases for the DA. This is how it works. I'm sorry you don't like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
Pat rationalizing Woody's decision not to take the police's lie detector test because "that [the police] would be a hostile environment for Woody". Poor, poor Woody. He's actually very sensitive to hostile environments.
The reason not to take the test is because it could only benefit the prosecution of the case against him. It would do Allen no good to take such a test, as he is already presumed innocent, and you would've done the same thing on the advice of an attorney because literally ANY attorney would say not to take that test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane View Post
Another point for Pat being a misogynist. People like him are the reason so many victims never speak out.
If I can silence just one victim of sexual abuse, I'll feel I've done my job here. I doubt your feeble brain will detect the sarcasm in that, so let me make it clear that I'm just kidding! But you guys need to lay off this whole "Pat makes rape victims cry" bullshit. It's insulting to me, and exploitive of actual victims you claim to advocate for.

People like you are the reason men turn gay. That, and because deep down they always wanted hot dick.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote