View Single Post
Old 02-16-2014, 04:18 PM   #218 (permalink)
Senior Member
EllaMacFarlane's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 957
Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC View Post
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.

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."
This is what you literally laughed off on the show, when Keith brought it up: like any other part of a healthy body, the vagina heals quickly from wounds, which makes it virtually impossible for doctors to detect child molestation if they don't conduct an examination in the right away in the following days.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC View Post
This is Woody's take on it, and, sue me, I think what he says makes sense. That's all for the rationality part.
Not evidence, your opinion. I think it's amazing that you think you have a monopoly on "speaking truths" and "looking at the evidence critically", when all you really go on is your thoughts and feelings. Luckily, K & C and most of the forums don't fall for that bullshit. The fact that you say you're calm and reasonable doesn't make you so.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC View Post
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

The show has covered this too, regarding victims and their ability to repeat their story over and over without breaking. Most child victims can't do that. Dylan was forced to talk about this over and over and over and she was examined multiple times. Most adult rape victims describe their experience with the police and trial as "a second rape", because they have to relive it over and over. Dylan was probably an emotional wreck by then. This is why the treatment of any rape victim, and especially child molestation victims, is radically different from what it was. They have to tell their story with a child psychiatry expert only once, and they have one examination with an expert on this issue.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC View Post
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.

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.
No, I wouldn't have. Of course his attorney would tell him not to take it if he thought he's guilty. I would take the test in a heartbeat to prove my innocence. It could only benefit the prosecution if he's caught in a lie, right? So taking the test would be what, just a silly waste of time, because he's totally innocent? Then why the fuck would he commission a test from a private company? It only makes sense if he's guilty.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC View Post
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.
Eat shit, I turn men straight
(Offline)   Reply With Quote