A representative for Allen briefly commented today, and it seems a more complete response from him and his camp is forthcoming.



http://variety.com/2014/film/news/woody ... 201083173/

Just so we're clear (and I'm hardly a Woody Allen fan):

- The girl was examined by authorities who found no signs of sexual abuse.
- Allen passed a polygraph.
- Farrow refused to take one.

Justice is blind.



The good ol' court of personal opinion.

Not taking any sides here, but you do realize that polygraphs ar just bullshit, right?

I can't say which side is right, but I can say that the side against Woody Allen takes a hit against their credibility when they're posting on Twitter during his Golden Globe award to heckle him.

I think refusing to take one after investigators found no signs of abuse and thought it likely that you coached the child says a decent amount.

Maybe. Or maybe it is because it is quite widely known that polygraphs are responsible for a lot erroneous decisions - in both directions.

As I said, this is unrelated to the case because I haven't immersed myself into the details of the story to take either side. It just bugs me anytime the polygraphs is brought up as a proof of anything, guilty or innocent. Having done some polygraph research myself over time (and having worked with real and fake polygraphs), I cannot stress enough how unreliable and inconclusive they are.

It'snot proof of anything, but it's an aspect (along with things like the girl's story changing multiple times during the initial investigaion). And as someone who has vivid memories of abuse when I was five that never actually happened, I don't think it's terribly far fetched that Farrow could have hammered the idea into her daughter's head.

So? This happened with the Natascha Kampusch case here, she gave interviews, was featured a lot in magazines etc., had her own tv-show for a while and suddenly everyone was like "Nah it couldn't have been that bad. Those 8-years captivation were more like a vacation". I hate that. So a molested person has to act a certain way to show the world they've really been molested?

No, they need to prove it in a court of law.

It is unusual Mia granted the producers of the Golden Globes permission to use clips of her performances in the tribute montage, then feigned mortification and disgust at the very notion of a montage at the Golden Globes feting Woody Allen.

I'll side with neither side.

Woody Allen's a pedo. Plain and simple.

not taking sides, what a mess

Which is a fairly big difference considering he is going to host a show on MSNBC and signed a publishing deal with Penguin Press.

Sounds like she got brainwashed by Mia because Woody left her for younger asian pussy.

They were never married and they weren't even together at the time.

It can't be molestation if Woody and Mia were never married. In fact they both lived separately in different apartments. Soon is not even the adopted daughter of Mia. Plus she was 18 years old when the relationship began during her senior year in high school.

Well the rebuttal writer says she was 19 or 21 when it started.

Your spelling is adorable.

Woody responded: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opini ... .html?_r=0

Nothing is certain, but all signs point towards his innocence IMO.

Also, welp if this is true http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... ign=buffer

Dylan Farrow responded to Woody's response: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... rect=false

I think a victims memories should be considered reliable unless there is some good reason to doubt them. Woody's entire defence seems spurious. The sort of thing that can be used to cast doubt rather then indicate his innocence. I doubt it's likely that someone could completely invent memories like that. We can't choose what to remember. Even if Mia Farrow asked leading questions, the issue at question should have been unmistakable in Dylan's mind. Furthermore, she still sticks with her story and memories after all this time. The alternatives to Woody's guilt should be rare.

What a repugnant analysis of this situation.

Imagine if our legal system were based on DP07's "I doubt it's likely" standard of justice.