1923: The Art of Charm

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Hmm. I dunno man. Seemed like you were trying to punk Keith out pretty hard there, but - ok.

You know what's funny Piff Daddy? And I mean HILARIOUS. When I first banged out the post all I had was "(Hysterically)", thinking it was already clear enough from my other posts I'm not serious about the hysteria thing. But then I was all, "Nah, come on Bucho, peeps are losing their minds up in this shiznit, better really hammer it to make it OOOOOOOOBVIOUS."

[PatDixonNYC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Want to hear my Pat Dixon impression?

"Who wrote that in the Washington Post?! I never heard of them! So somebody wrote something and now we go off of that?!"

I told you what the babysitters in the house saw in regards to Dylan.

There's Pat: "What babysitters? What are their NAMES?"

Hugsy's babysitters, Pat. Those were the ones we were referring to.

I'm not saying this subject is now boring. I'm saying you and Bucho are being goofballs.

"Consistent doesn't mean the same!"

Admit you're fucking with us so that we can respect you.

---

1. The story comes from the Associated Press. I have heard of them and consider it a reputable source. It was published in the Washington Post Feb. 4 of this year, to my knowledge the facts of the story are not in dispute.

2. The babysitters were:

- Ms. Allison Stickland, who was employed by Casey Pascal to watch her 3 young children, while Pascal went shopping with Mia all day, knowing the feared predator Woody Allen was coming over.

- Ms. Kristie Groteke, who was a baby sitter Mia left her 7-year-old daughter Dylan and brother Satchel with during her all-day shopping trip, knowing that Woody, who she had already labeled a "child molester" in a note she scrawled and left on his bathroom door the previous month, was coming over to spend time with his children.

- Ms. Berge, who was not a babysitter, but French tutor.

3 adults were left to watch after 5 kids. Although Mia had voiced considerable concern about Woody's interest in Dylan, and even already accused him of being a child molester who was "now focussed on the youngest sister," she seemed perfectly comfortable leaving Dylan on the premises for an extended period of time with this potential predator.

3. Ms. Alison Stickland saw Woody with her head on Dylan's lap facing her body in the television room. By the judge's account in the custody decision, we cannot tell if they were alone or if Ms. Groteke, Mia's babysitter, was present.

This was during a different part of the day from the "missing time" when the two were unaccounted for. In all likelihood, Ms. Groteke was in the room and thought nothing of the positioning of father and daughter, but this is speculation on my part and not to be taken as an assertion of fact. If no one else was in the room, we're left to wonder why this hasn't also been documented as a certain period of time when the two of them were alone.

That night, Ms. Stickland told her boss Casey Pascal what she saw, saying that it had been bothering her. Pascal called Mia the following day, and this is how the abuse allegations began to unfold.

After confirming that daddy put his head in her lap, Mia called her attorney and the two of them had a conversation, after which Mia immediately took Dylan to a pediatrician. Dylan said she wasn't molested. Mia took Dylan home, set up a video camera, and placed Dylan in front of it and started asking questions. 24 hours and many stops and starts later, Dylan said she'd been in the attic and that Mr. Allen put his finger on her privates.

Mia then took her back to the pediatrician, and at that point Dylan made her allegation. An examination which followed Aug. 9 showed no physical signs of sexual abuse.

The only thing the baby sitter (singular) saw was Woody with his head on his daughter's lap.

4. Consistent does generally mean the same, you've got me there. But what I said is still accurate. Consistent doesn't mean "the same."

Here is what I meant by saying "'consistent' doesn't mean 'the same'":

TRY AND FOLLOW THIS, KEITH, THIS MIGHT NOT BE EASY FOR YOU:

* Dylan tells a story of being sexually abused.

* Ms. Groteke, AFTER the allegation was made by Dylan, said that there was a period of time that Dylan was missing.

* Their stories may be CONSISTENT in that the truth of one doesn't preclude the truth of the other.

* But their stories are not "the same" in that Dylan says she was sexually abused. Ms. Groteke says she saw nothing of the kind.

* Ms. Groteke at no time accused Mr. Allen of sexually assaulting Dylan. But Dylan did.

* So Dylan and the baby sitters stories are consistent, but they are most definitely not THE SAME!!!!

And if you say their stories are "the same" that's not accurate.

The only thing any baby sitter saw, was the positioning of Woody's head in his daughter's lap by a baby sitter (Allison Stickland) who was employed by Mia's friend, Casey Pascal.

So it's misleading to say that Dylan's story is consistent with that of three adults who were there that day. Because a statement like that can easily create the impression that 3 adults are claiming they saw Dylan getting molested by Allen, or that 3 adults who were there agree with Dylan's claims of sexual abuse.

None of that has been established, and NO BABY SITTER saw any sexual abuse occur.

Now, do you see the difference between "consistent" and "the same"?

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by ghauck

I'm pretty sure Danny would beat (pun intended) keet by 30 seconds if both used the alleged pictures for sperm donation. Irony is said sperm donation results in girl who marries Hugh Hefner on life support in 2030.

gauntlet: picked up for 5 yards and left for scummy

I disagree.

Keith, once the mental block of an arbitrary age limit imposed by a outdated religion has been removed and the same piece of meat is now "over age", would rub one out in no time (as long as he didn't look at that train wreck of a face AMIRITE???).



Danny is a different story.

Dark little Danny would need pics of said girl in pain, possibly being cut in the same way he cuts himself, albeit more brutally. He would need to see her viciously subjugated and debased before he could even get close to blowing his load.

Then once he was done and the wave of post-release euphoria passes, he would clean his seed off the picture with tears of shame, guilt and self-loathing.




EDIT: Not sure what I have to do with the gauntlet now. I'll head on down to Nordstrom Rack and see if I can find a matching one in the rejects bin. Then maybe I'll get a coffee & a piece of carrot cake with cream cheese icing.

[Scumhook]

Wasn't there something about a French tutor realising the kid had no panties on?

I would take a good long hard look at this pervert.

I did a couple of years of German, and I never had to reveal whether I was wearing undies.

Fortunately.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

TRY AND FOLLOW THIS, KEITH, THIS MIGHT NOT BE EASY FOR YOU:

NO BABY SITTER saw any sexual abuse occur.

Now, do you see the difference between "consistent" and "the same"

I'm busy thinking what the difference is between "dickhead" and "douche" so that I don't misspeak.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

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.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't laughing off the idea that the vagina heals quickly from wounds. I was laughing off the idea that Woody Allen "fucked" his daughter. Keith was saying he considered it a possibility that Woody put his penis into his 7-year-old daughter's vagina that day. That has never been alleged by Dylan. Her story, after the initial misfire at the pediatrician, and following the marathon videotaping session with Mia, was that he "put his finger on her privates."

Keith's assertion of his belief in the possibility of Woody Allen putting his penis into Dylan that day is laughable to me. Chemda's immediate defense of this assertion by melodramatically confirming that "Children sometimes BLACK OUT!" during their abuse seemed misplaced and irrelevant to this case to me. We have a claim from Dylan that her father touched her privates with her finger. Can we just roll with what the accuser is actually saying? why do we have to beef it up?

For the record, although she made her accusation on Aug. 6, the alleged abuse occurred on Aug. 4, and the examination, which concluded there was no evidence of abuse, occurred on Aug. 9.

Having no knowledge of how long it would take a vagina to sufficiently heal from having Mr. Allen's finger placed on it, I'll concede the point that, even if Woody did commit the crime of which he was accused, the medical examination was bound to show no signs of abuse.

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

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.

Obviously, I never claimed to have a monopoly on "speaking truths" and "looking at the evidence critically." That would be a stupid thing to say. Please don't assign statements to me which I haven't made, I haven't done this to you and it clouds the discussion. I'm treating you with respect, why do hurl falsehoods at me?

What I have noticed is that most of the people who rabidly assert Woody Allen's guilt give ample evidence that they are unaware of most of the pertinent facts in the case, by saying things like "he fucked his daughter," and referring to him as a "convicted child rapist" and the like. And when faced with that kind of ignorance of the facts of the case, aren't you troubled with the fact that most people who are commenting on this don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

You claim I go on my own thoughts and feelings, but I've actually extensively quoted the opinions of Judge Elliot Wilk, Dr. Susan Coates, Dr. Schultz, Yale-New Haven, family members, etc. and advanced very little in the way of personal opinion or extrapolation. I resent your implication that I haven't been presenting facts in this case, but merely opinions.

I've read a lot about this case from a wide variety of sources. From Dylan's letter, to Woody's response to feminist blogs, Robert Weide's defense of Woody and Maureen Orth's articles on the case, and on to Judge Elliot Wilk's 33-page decision in the Allen V. Farrow custody case.

Of all that things I've read about the case, I found the judge's decision to be probably the most informative. Although it comes from a distinctly anti-Woody standpoint, it humanizes Woody Allen considerably, as we are informed of some of the details in that custody fight. The abuse allegation is actually given less weight than you might imagine. And Mia wrote a glowing recommendation for Woody in his bid to adopt 3 of her children, including Dylan, not even a year before the accusation. Woody made breakfasts, played ball with Moses, attended family therapy with Dylan and Satchel. He occasionally helped the on with their coats, but never bathed the kids, and never dressed them.

There are many interesting things in there, if you haven't read it thoroughly, you should check it out since you seem very interested in the case.

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

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.

All I can say about this is that Dylan was treated and examined by dedicated professionals who investigate child sexual abuse for a living and furthermore as a calling. Dedicated medical professionals with advanced degrees and experience in the field of child sex abuse.

Every doctor and child sex abuse professional says it didn't happen. Considering they interviewed her and all the concerned parties, what makes you think you know better than ALL OF THEM? That's a real question. I'd like an answer.

Certainly if you and I are aware that children have emotional limits in recounting sex abuse, these highly trained professionals were also aware of this, and were able to take this into account and factor it in to their conclusion. I'm wiling to accept that awareness in the general public has probably changed since then, however doctors in 1992 would not have been unaware of the concept that children who are forced to tell and retell their stories may crack a little and show stress around the edges.

It's easy to say "Dylan was an emotional wreck" and in your mind let that explain every inconsistency in her story. It's not hard to imagine a little girl terrified by the situation and strained by an ongoing investigation as to whether or not a man committed a very serious crime of which he's accused.

However, the Yale-New Haven team didn't speak to her being "a wreck."

Their report says in part:

1. There were important inconsistencies in Dylan's statements in the videotape and in her statements to us.

2. She appeared to struggle with how to tell about the touching.

3. She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statements, and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke.

4. Her descriptions of the details surrounding the alleged events were unusual and were inconsistent.

Again, you haven't seen any of the evidence they saw, you have no medical training of which you've spoken, and to my knowledge you have no experience in the field and certainly you have no first-hand knowledge of the case, let alone the ability and authority to have interviewed everyone involved during the time of the incident in 1992, as they did.

So how to justify your claim that you know more about this case than this team, Dylan's child psychologist, and another family therapist familiar with the case, all of whom testified, without reservation, that Woody Allen didn't molest Dylan?

On what expertise of your own do you base this conclusion? I don't think you are in any way qualified to dispute the opinions of these medical professionals, let alone the opinions of her sister and brother, who also say, without reservation, that this incident did not occur.

Could it even be possible that all these doctors and professionals, ALL of them, as well as her brother and sister, are SO CALLOUS and inept and unqualified and to miss something that you can easily see and determine from your standpoint, never having met any of the people involved, interviewed anyone, or even studied the case in any depth?

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

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.

You don't understand, taking the test administered by the state would not prove your innocence. In fact, THE MAN WAS PRESUMED INNOCENT! THAT'S THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. If he took the test to "prove his innocence" and passed, in the eyes of the law he'd be right back where he was to begin with: INNOCENT! That's the presumption from which they begin. Because taking the test and passing and not taking the test at all have the same result, from a legal standpoint. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.

The only reason I can see to commission his own test would be as a desperate attempt to prove his innocence in the public eye.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

I thought your Chemda joke was hilarious, but it may have compromised your journalistic integrity.

Are you willing to concede that Chemda's vagina has no blood on it?

ARE YOU WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT CHEMDA'S VAGINA HAS NO BLOOD ON IT??

Well, then, you're just being argumentative

I have no firsthand knowledge of the vagina in question.

Sorry for trying to inject some humor, it won't happen again.

[ImStillToni]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Disagree.

The fact a disingenuous marriage, (one based on rape and the manipulation of child's mind) has or has not ended is irrelevant. It's like trying to argue that the effects of Stockholm Syndrome have a definite given length of time.

I'd argue you're confusing your healthy marriage with a marriage based on brainwashing and taking advantage.

Religious people take advantage of the young to steal their minds. Are you a proponent of this method?

I am not confusing the two at all Piff, I am merely stating that the length of time of the marriage, regardless if it is good or bad, does imply a positive connotation that you can handle long-term commitments whether the marriage is disingenuous or not. Lawd knows we've had some bad years, but when i tell you I've been with MrToni going on 15 years and that we will be married for 11 years this April, it does reflect on me on some level, no?

So i'm saying that as a woman who as looked into adoption and as a citizen married to a permanent resident - marriage, on paper, does count. It is indeed a reflection of both parties. So when i made that statement about Woody and Soon-Yi I was referring to the fact that
a) they have been in a relationship since 1991 and married since 1997 - a 20+ year relationship is our society is still a big deal & has implications regardless of the state of the marriage as a whole. Most of celebrity couples can't even get to 5 years married today
b) they have legally adopted two daughters throughout their marriage and for anyone who knows about home study and background checks, their marriage was a big factor on paper as far as home stability in addition to the fact of the previous accusations never go away
c) there were never an alleged charges from any other victims, including his own daughters/spouse

In no way would I equate a marriage committed under force/brainwashing (resulting in Stockholm) or coercion of a minor (like a religious cult, or more often than not the adult/guardian responsible for getting the kid in the cult in the first place) the same as Soon-Yi, an adult, entering a relationship and then marrying the man.

And just like marriage does count on paper, so does divorce. This can vary by a person's individual beliefs, geography, religious, etc....but on some level you (not you specifically buddy) do use someone's martial status as a measurement stick of the person. For example, due to my battles with infertility, I personally only dated one person who has kids because I am not the one to put up with a baby's mother (and i use the term "dated" loosely, more like a fuck buddy). I do judge a man's ability to use or not use protection and his past choices while at the same time considering the circumstances, it's not simply black and white. For example, I would date a man who ended up divorcing his ex-wife due to incompatibility or adultery before i ever dated a dude with just a baby's momma. If he don't give a shit about her ass, why would he care about mine? You do look at Keith & Chemda differently after 9+ years of this podcast compared to, for example, if this was year 1 or 2, do you not? Same principal IMHO

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

I have no firsthand knowledge of the vagina in question.

Sorry for trying to inject some humor, it won't happen again.

Who are these people who are walking towards you
Do you know them or will there be a fight ?
With their humorless smiles so easy to see through
Can they tell you what's wrong from what's right ?

-Bob Dylan, Don't fall apart on me tonight.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Keith

For the record, you're being a dickhead too.

I've already said, weirdo, that if the age of 15 is your picture hangup than dismiss that from my points …

My personal problem with the 15-year-old age picture thing, is that you used my refusal to respond to questions about that as some sort of evidence that I was being shifty during our discussion. Since it turned out I was right and that you were talking out of your ass, I think you owe me an apology for that.

Originally Posted by Keith

and address my many other points, like Woody meeting Soon Yi when she wasn't even at double digits in age...

Page 7 of Judge Wilk's decision in the custody case Allen V. Farrow:

“UNTIL 1990, ALTHOUGH HE HAD HAD LITTLE CONTACT WITH ANY OF THE PREVIN CHILDREN, MR. ALLEN HAD THE LEAST TO DO WITH SOON-YI. ‘SHE WAS SOMEONE WHO DIDN’T LIKE ME. I HAD NO INTEREST IN HER, NONE WHATSOEVER.’ 1990, MR. ALLEN, WHO HAD FOUR SEASON TICKETS TO THE NEW YORK KNICKS BASKETBALL GAMES WAS ASKED BY SOON-YI IF SHE COULD GO TO A GAME. MR. ALLEN AGREED.”

also concerning his own kids, Dylan and Satchel:

"HE DID NOT BATHE HIS CHILDREN. HE DID NOT DRESS THEM, EXCEPT FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THEN ONLY TO HELP THEM PUT ON THEIR SOCKS AND JACKETS."

I know that doesn't prove anything, just that if he was such a pedophile, you'd think he would've wanted to be around at bath time.

HERE'S THE LINK, AGAIN:
Allen v. Farrow Custody Ruling, June 7, 1993

Originally Posted by Keith

and the witnesses that saw Woody being highly inappropriate.

You mean "witness."
Ms. Alison Stickland, a baby sitter employed by Casey Pascal, a friend of Mia's with whom she had gone shopping the entire day, is the one who says she saw something here that had be been bothering her.

You're placing the opinion of a baby sitter who says she saw something that "had been bothering her" over the expert opinions of the Yale-New Haven Child Abuse Clinic, Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz, all of whom concluded and testified without reservation that Woody Allen didn't molest Dylan.

That's not a question, I'm saying that's what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Keith

You know I said this to you already. I won't fight you on it. But you'll hang onto this point because I don't know how to prove to you how wrong those pictures were, meanwhile you're ignoring everything else that is being said just to be right and not look dumb.

You can't prove those pictures were wrong, Keith. You just don't have any proof of that.

So let me get this straight. The fact that Woody Allen met Soon-Yi when she was 10, and then started dating her 10 years later.

And the fact that Casey Pascal's babysitter, was troubled by the fact that Woody Allen had his head in his daughter's lap.

In the face of the expert testimony of doctors, social workers, family members, the lack of any physical evidence, the lack of any criminal prosecution or civil case, the fact that Dylan's story was reportedly "rehearsed" and "inconsistent" and the conclusion of the research team (not hired by Woody, hired by the prosecution) that WOODY ALLEN DID NOT MOLEST HIS DAUGHTER: meeting Soon-Yi at 10 and what this babysitter says she saw, are the only points of evidence you need to substantiate a claim of sexual abuse.