@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 theirâs wouldnât show up in their notes where other people could see it being criticized and to ensure I couldnât 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 thatâs geared towards relaying those factsâ 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 factsâ not opinions. Therefore, itâs not clickbait unless you consider summaries of legal documents and testimonies clickbait. If you see something specific thatâs not a fact outside of the closing statement that includes the authorâs opinion, youâre more than welcome to say so.
I didnât spam every single person who reblogged it with tagsâ 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 didnât tag everyone who commentedâ only a handful of people. You act like I was making a callout post towards them when I said, âThis isnât 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. Youâre 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 informationâ, which can be found in my reblog. If they want to say something, let them say itâ you donât have to put words in their mouth akin to how youâre putting words in mine given the unwarranted accusations you attempted to make throughout your post.
Itâs very telling of you to claim people who make an effort to be informative when encountering misleading information are âloonyâ 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 itâs evident Iâm not the one with issues here, so donât 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 Iâve 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 wouldnât 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 didnât align with your own. Your comments about the #MeToo movement make that evident given how you didnât address the fact that I said, âBoth 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.â Youâve become so obsessed with spewing misleading information to push your own agenda that youâd 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.
Itâs interesting that you said, âthe words of the person known to have abused and manipulatedâ, in regard to Moses given how this is known because of his and his siblings allegations that didnât result in Mia being imprisoned yet you still obviously believe these allegationsâ as people should given the evidence despite Mia trying to dispute as much. However, youâre dismissing the allegations of Dylan, her mother, three witnesses, and Woodyâs therapist who saw him for inappropriate behavior towards Dylan before Woody was even caught cheating. Bringing attention to your hypocrisy isnât idiotic but nice try.
Itâs also odd but not unsurprising that youâre saying Moses should be trusted in regard to denying Dylanâs trauma since that evidently aligns with the agenda youâre trying to push here in favor of dismissing all the other witnesses and legal officials that conflicts with your argumentâ such as Dylan, Mia, the three witnesses whose timelines aligns with Dylanâs story, the judge, the state prosecutor, Woodyâs therapist, Dylanâs pediatrician, investigating officers, and even the state attorney.
I want to reiterate what I said before: âI donât doubt Moses Farrow was abused by Mia in the least, but the source also brings attention to how Dylanâs story aligns with [four] other peoples [accounts]â not just Miaâs. Moses likely wasnât present during the assault [itself], so he canât say she wasnât assaulted anymore than Dylan can say he wasnât abused.â
As for the New-Haven Sexual Abuse Clinic, if you actually bothered reading through the articleâs legal sources, accounts, and testimonies then youâd know that the doctor who signed off on the legal report youâre 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 wasnât 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... yesâ youâre right. Thatâs the point and yet you still missed it somehow. Pedophiles arenât rational in the risks they take as pedophiles. Your rhetorical questions usually donât bode well for defending people accused of pedophilia given how it relies on defending their character and the characters of pedophiles donât have much worth defending since their judgements are skewered, impulsive, and dangerous.
As for inconsistencies, you fail to address the inconsistencies about Woodyâs story changing and you honestly just dug a deeper hole for yourself in regard to the attic thing given how Woodyâs story pertained to a police report in which he told them heâd 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 âobvious[ly]â 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. Itâs dangerous to suggest people shouldnât 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 Allenâs custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is âno credible evidence to support Mr. Allenâs contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.â
In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allenâs behavior toward Dylan was âgrossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.â
âYou look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You donât give her any breathing room. You look at her when sheâs naked.â
Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylanâs lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch âstaring vacantly in the direction of a television set.â 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 âchild victim.â
