The weight of child sexual abuse stories is all too fresh.
We’ve just watched a senior member of the Catholic church George Pell jailed for his crimes, and been left shocked by fresh allegations made against Michael Jackson.
The world watched on in horror as two men described on Finding Neverland what one of the most revered singers in the world allegedly did to them when they were children.
We couldn’t help but feel sickened by the fact that we watched Jackson with children, little boys, and thought it was strange. But brushed it off.
If Michael Jackson did what he’s been accused of, then it all happened in plain sight.
And he would hardly be the only celebrity to do so.
The trailer for the documentary Finding Neverland. Post continues after video.
Jimmy Savile
Sir Jimmy Savile was a DJ, TV presenter and charity fundraiser, and was one of the most famous names in the UK during the 60s, 70s and 80s.
A year after his 2011 death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, broken by an ITV documentary, and he was eventually labelled by British police as one of Britain’s most prolific sex offenders.
Top Comments
Out of genuine interest, what do people who are pro Allen people think of this? https://www.google.com.au/a...
The police, the judge, and the child psychologist assigned to the Dylan Farrow case all said they believed Dylan was abused. This is yet another case where the parents, police, child psychologist and Judge weigh up the trauma vs go to court argument, and shows that many cases don't go to court purely because the victim is deemed too traumatised to withstand a trial.
PS Your forgot Rolf Harris.
You have just published three total, verifiable falsehoods. Why did you publish them? Did you make them up yourself, or did you copy them from some stupid source?
"The police said they believed Dylan". The police said no such thing. You just made it up. Besides, the police NEVER say whether they believe one party or they other. It is not their job, too, to present 'beliefs'.
"The Judge said he believed Dylan". First, there NEVER was a Judge in this abuse case, since there never was a trial. Not even a charge was made. The only Judge you can refer to is the Judge in the custody case (Wilk), and he explicitly said that he did NOT believe Dylan, that the evidence fell short, and that Allen could NOT be succesfully tried for the abuse. So essentially you are LYING here.
"The child psychologist said she believed Dylan". Totally wrong again. Child therapist Susan Coates explicitly stated that Woody Allen's attention for his daughter Dylan was NOT sexual in nature. ALL OTHER child experts in the investigation of the assault concluded that Dylan was NOT abused: the experts at Yale-New Haven Hospital and the experts at New York State Child Welfare Dept.
Now ask yourself how you ever came to publish these three TOTAL FALSEHOODS. How come you invented them, and chose to publish them? Does, in your eyes, the importance of this case justify making up falsehoods?
Your explanation as to why this case did not go to trial is wrong. Had you read the prosecutor's (Frank Maco's) written statement, or Judge Wilk's written statement over the custody case, you would KNOW why the case never went to trial.
The real, and well-known reason, is that multiple, thorough, independent investigations into the case ALL CONCLUDED that the allegation was baseless, and the abuse did NOT take place. Dylan was declared non-credible as a witness, because she constantly changed her story. Indications were found that the child had been "coached" into telling the abuse narrative.
Both prosecutor Maco and Judge Wilk were aware of them standing 100% empty-handed, and both believed a trial for abuse would be unsuccesful. This is why Maco did not want to prosecute. We can only guess about his motive for his stupid, vicious reference to Dylan being 'too fragile' to take the stand.
Why stupid? Because Maco had just put the child through FOURTEEN MONTHS of investigations, interviews, inquiries, both mental and physical. And no suddenly ONE hearing would be 'too much' to put her rapist away? Crazy. Besides, it was Maco's job as a prosecutor to take REAL rapists off the streets of Connecticut. If he REALLY believed Allen was guilty, he had no choice but to prosecute him - which he chose not to.
Why vicious? Because by using this sad pretext, he essentially threw Allen under the bus. He portrayed him as guilty of a crime, while NOT prosecuting that crime, so depriving Allen of an opportunity to be declared NOT guilty and clearing his good name.
Prosecutor Maco was seriously reproached by his superiors for having made these unwarranted and reckless statements. And now you come here to rehash them? Counting on people not to rememeber? Sorry, you bet, you lose.