@didilydee I really appreciate you critically considering my discussion points and showing an interest in not spreading misinformation! OP blocked me so my post debunking their’s wouldn’t show up in their notes where other people could see it being criticized and to ensure I couldn’t respond to their reblog directly so it would look like I failed to offer a counter argument in order to give the illusion of them being in the right since it would apparently be too much of an effort for them to engage in an actual discussion where their claims could potentially be debunked. In any case, since their response involved you I felt as though you might be interested in considering giving it a look :)
Start Photos
End Photos
I used this particular article because it was a convenient compilation of facts from various certified legal sources that’s geared towards relaying those facts— not unsourced gossip. It contains links and references to the court documents and other certified sources within the article and the judge is not the sole source within each point that relays facts— not opinions. Therefore, it’s not clickbait unless you consider summaries of legal documents and testimonies clickbait. If you see something specific that’s not a fact outside of the closing statement that includes the author’s opinion, you’re more than welcome to say so.
I didn’t spam every single person who reblogged it with tags— I only brought this to the attention of those who had posted their own comments implying they were open to a discussion given their willingness to reconsider things when presented with facts. Even then, I didn’t tag everyone who commented— only a handful of people. You act like I was making a callout post towards them when I said, “This isn’t a callout post of course I just wanted to bring this information to the attention of individuals I noticed were reblogging with comments. Dylan Farrow and Soon-Yi are often mixed up with each other so I can see how this might be confusing in that sense. You’re not obligated to reblog my fact-checks of course but please consider at least deleting OPs misleading post from your dash to prevent spreading misleading information”, which can be found in my reblog. If they want to say something, let them say it— you don’t have to put words in their mouth akin to how you’re putting words in mine given the unwarranted accusations you attempted to make throughout your post.
It’s very telling of you to claim people who make an effort to be informative when encountering misleading information are “loony” while also acting as though my request for others to consider information you refrained from relaying was a callout rather than a request. I generally refrain from making unwarranted accusations towards people I discuss things with, but given your reaction it’s evident I’m not the one with issues here, so don’t try to project your own problems onto people who consider things critically just because you expect them to believe you with ease and without question on a public platform given how that would be rather loony. Everyone else I’ve had a discussion with on this matter thus far have at least been receptive regardless of where they stand agenda-wise. However, your decision to block me so that my post debunking your own wouldn’t show up in the replies along with your decision to attack my rhetoric without giving me a chance to defend it or criticize your own is another story entirely.
Again, you clearly care more about pushing an agenda here through being selective about the facts you choose to relay rather than addressing the fact that you purposefully left out legal information that didn’t align with your own. Your comments about the #MeToo movement make that evident given how you didn’t address the fact that I said, “Both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were horrible people and the abuse they committed should not be politicized for the sake of pushing a feminist nor anti-feminist agenda.” You’ve become so obsessed with spewing misleading information to push your own agenda that you’d rather jump through obstacles than acknowledge that your cherry-picking argument is based off of that very agenda rather than the facts that overshadow your personal bias.
It’s interesting that you said, “the words of the person known to have abused and manipulated”, in regard to Moses given how this is known because of his and his siblings allegations that didn’t result in Mia being imprisoned yet you still obviously believe these allegations— as people should given the evidence despite Mia trying to dispute as much. However, you’re dismissing the allegations of Dylan, her mother, three witnesses, and Woody’s therapist who saw him for inappropriate behavior towards Dylan before Woody was even caught cheating. Bringing attention to your hypocrisy isn’t idiotic but nice try.
It’s also odd but not unsurprising that you’re saying Moses should be trusted in regard to denying Dylan’s trauma since that evidently aligns with the agenda you’re trying to push here in favor of dismissing all the other witnesses and legal officials that conflicts with your argument— such as Dylan, Mia, the three witnesses whose timelines aligns with Dylan’s story, the judge, the state prosecutor, Woody’s therapist, Dylan’s pediatrician, investigating officers, and even the state attorney.
I want to reiterate what I said before: “I don’t doubt Moses Farrow was abused by Mia in the least, but the source also brings attention to how Dylan’s story aligns with [four] other peoples [accounts]— not just Mia’s. Moses likely wasn’t present during the assault [itself], so he can’t say she wasn’t assaulted anymore than Dylan can say he wasn’t abused.”
As for the New-Haven Sexual Abuse Clinic, if you actually bothered reading through the article’s legal sources, accounts, and testimonies then you’d know that the doctor who signed off on the legal report you’re referring to never actually met Dylan personally to make an in-person assessment, no psychologists or psychiatrists were assigned to her panel, the notes regarding her evaluation were destroyed, her confidentiality wasn’t respected, this institution welcomingly invited Woody to profess his innocence when they should have remained professionally unbiased, and the judge and state prosecutor deemed this claim as unacceptable given that.
As for your defense of how Woody being a pedophile and assaulting Dylan would have been irrational... yes— you’re right. That’s the point and yet you still missed it somehow. Pedophiles aren’t rational in the risks they take as pedophiles. Your rhetorical questions usually don’t bode well for defending people accused of pedophilia given how it relies on defending their character and the characters of pedophiles don’t have much worth defending since their judgements are skewered, impulsive, and dangerous.
As for inconsistencies, you fail to address the inconsistencies about Woody’s story changing and you honestly just dug a deeper hole for yourself in regard to the attic thing given how Woody’s story pertained to a police report in which he told them he’d never been in the attic before changing his story and saying he had gone up there before.
Oh, an on another note... demeaningly claiming that an issue as complex as this one is something people should “obvious[ly]” be able to make sense of in attempt to make people feel foolish for not unquestioningly agreeing with you is not a very good look at all. It’s dangerous to suggest people shouldn’t be critical of the concepts you push onto them.
I can quote things, too, but from multiple sources instead of just cherry picking ones that align with pushing a specific agenda.
Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”
In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
“You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”
Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements.
The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.”
