What? How DARE you insinuate that I am not a better judge than that... that... drooling set of jurors!?

That's the reaction I get whenever I point out that "evidence" is ONLY the set of facts and events presented to the jury.

I don't care what you thought of Judge Ito.

Mia Farrow calls Roman Polanski a close friend and flew to testify on his behalf years after it was confirmed he raped a girl.

She strikes me as a woman who adopted/had multiple kids for her own selfish fulfillment and didn't provide a safe environment for her kids but rather one where she got to live life on her terms without sacrificing her personal love and artistic life for their benefit.

I'm not defending Woody Allen he's made multiple statements and movies with /about teen girls.

But Hollywood people are on the same level of Catholic priests in my mind. Revered because they entertain you with fictional stories.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

"That's the reaction I get whenever I point out that "evidence" is ONLY the set of facts and events presented to the jury.

I don't care what you thought of Judge Ito.

Posted by: Radwaste at February 8, 2014 2:00 AM

Rules of evidence are structured so the judge gets to pick the evidence and the witnesses that the jury gets to hear.

This judge is not omnipotent. He is biased, and fallible just like all the jurors. Our criminal court system is designed with a standard of beyond reasonable doubt, so that quite a few of the guilty go free, in the hopes that we do not convict too many of the innocent.
The court of public opinion exists seperate from our legal system to decide, whatever the court of law says, whether Woody Allen is a trustworty baby sitter for your young female child.
Or maybe deciding whether someone who has beaten three dui charges is a good choice for being the driver for church trip bus.

In short we dont chuck our brains out the window, when the jury verdict comes in. (Or when something never gets to court in the first place)

In short we dont chuck our brains out the window, when the jury verdict comes in. (Or when something never gets to court in the first place) -- Isab at February 8, 2014 7:16 AM

I don't disagree about the bias that may exist in the legal court system.

The problem with the court of public opinion is the lawyers (reporters) many times have just as much bias and the jury (the public) won't look for more details beyond the surface facts as reported in a three minute blurb on the nightly news before passing judgement.

Look at the Zimmerman/Martin trial. How many facts were left out of the public reporting that would have exonerated Zimmerman. The blurring of the scrapes when Zimmerman was in the police custody. The personification of Martin as an innocent, small kid. The personification of Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic. The number black on white/Hispanic murders leading up to the trial. There is so much to it that a large chunk of public still thinks Zimmerman "got away with it."

You also see this in political reporting. The latest is the Texas Governor's race. Wendy Davis fudged her biography but somehow it is now the fault of the press that they picked up on it.

So whenever I see/hear about this I use this amazing thing called the internet to look for facts before passing judgement. It's called critical thinking an much of the public doesn't have it down.

Jim, The fact that the police declined to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, is the tell here, that this was a politically motivated prosecution.

People are always going to rewrite the facts to suit their biases. (Having been on a jury, I can tell you that jurors do this also)

The fact that Mia Farrow won every court battle with Allen, he paid all her legal fees, and was never allowed unsupervised visitation with the children is the evidence here, that despite the lack of a criminal charge and conviction, Mr. Allen is most likely a pedophile.

The court of public opinion, is an outgrowth of a democratic society. It is going to be wrong sometimes, and right sometimes, and guilty people as well as innocent people are going to attempt to hijack it for their own ends.

However, trying to shut down free speech and substitute the judgement of the legal system seems to be like the same argument mainstream journalists attempted to use against bloggers. That somehow their "rigorous layer of editors and fact checkers" made them the arbiter of "the Truth" with a capital T.

We know how well that argument stands up.

Isab, I see your comment is supporting the rule of the mob.

You conveniently left out the fact that there is an appeals system, to deal with such inequities as a biased judge, a hung jury, or any other troubles the court may have. You will not have a second chance if tried by the mob.

The mob also doesn't care very much whether or not the defendant committed a particular crime. Appearances are everything – as we saw with the Zimmerman trial. Hell, they don't even know what a crime is, preferring to make up some colloquial definition on the spot, typically equating to "something I don't like".

There is no way in hell you will tell me that you want the court of public opinion to try you, as opposed to the justice system. The mob conspicuously believes what it reads in the newspapers. How does that sound?

all anyone needs to point out on this case, is that the statute of limitations is 5 years for this in Connecticut... and that expired 15 years ago.

Beyond that there is no trial of public opinion per se... this is more shaming of a perp, by the victim.

There was enough evidence to prosecute, plus plenty of other evidence, that is all in the record... and plenty of shoddiness too.

Does any of that matter to us? Only in a sad tangential way. What prolly irks Dylan the most is that there are plenty of people willing to look the other way about what this guy has done, simply because they think he is some kind of auteur or something...

And this is all too common, among the rich and powerful... though we rarely hear of it, because most people can be paid to shut up.

The court of public opinion matters, IF there is a material effect, but there isn't in this case. Even if there was, it's not like you can legislate such things away. People are simply people, they will have an opinion.

So whenever I see/hear about this I use this amazing thing called the internet to look for facts before passing judgement. It's called critical thinking an much of the public doesn't have it down.

Posted by: Jim P. at February 8, 2014 8:23 AM

Also, the value of the internet as a fact checker, is directly proportional to the skill of the researcher to separate legitimate news, and historical sources from propaganda.

Example. I can find thousands of web sites stating, with the backing of government studies, that a high carb, low fat diet is good for you, and that a low carb diet is "bad" for you. Do you think that makes it true?

In the case of "studies" backed by statistics, it is even worse, as most people don't have the mathematical background to examine the data, and data collection methods.

The internet is not even close to fool proof. When you get several internet sources all repeating the same wrong primary source, the fact that you have ten sites all saying the same thing means very little.

People have way more confidence in their abilities to discern "the truth" than they actually possess. Scientific studies have documented this. People have very poor judgement, and poor ability to weigh conflicting evidence, especially when their emotions about an issue are involved.

The justice system does a slightly better job, but in criminal cases, the rules of evidence are tilted in favor of the criminal defendant for a reason.

"You conveniently left out the fact that there is an appeals system, to deal with such inequities as a biased judge, a hung jury, or any other troubles the court may have. You will not have a second chance if tried by the mob."

What is the penalty for being "tried by the mob? I.e. the court of public opinion?

Should I not be entitled to make a judgment about someone's trustworthiness or character in the absence of a conviction in a court of law?

How many vigilante lynchings were there is the US last year?

The appeals process is not as clean as you think it is. It exists to correct errors "in law". It does not exist to reexamine the facts or the original trial verdict.

In short, in spite of what you see in the movies, it mostly gets guilty people off on technicalities.

The fact that Mia Farrow won every court battle with Allen, he paid all her legal fees, and was never allowed unsupervised visitation with the children is the evidence here, that despite the lack of a criminal charge and conviction, Mr. Allen is most likely a pedophile. -- Isab at February 8, 2014 8:51 AM

From your own link:

3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. [Research shows he passed with flying colors.]

7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them.

But Mia has pretty much always a darling of the left and if you look at Allen's response you can see a bitter divorce case that went viral.

I was a relatively young guy when the McMartin Preschool case happened. I knew a nice guy that went from being a loving father and a hard working USAF SSGT to being a convicted felon for allegedly molesting one of two girls he was baby sitting along side his five boys while his wife was at work. But at the time there was a scare that there were rings of ritual child sexual abusers under every bed, and in every community. The judge and prosecutor said he would probably have win an appeal, but they didn't have the money to file one by the deadline.

That helped me make the decision never to have kids. But the problem with a mob making a decision and not the individual actually looking at facts you get statements like "that despite the lack of a criminal charge and conviction, Mr. Allen is most likely a pedophile."

"What is the penalty for being "tried by the mob? I.e. the court of public opinion?"

I can't believe you're so shallow about this.

In ID theft cases, lives are ruined by the simple diversion of credit. Imagine being shunned wherever you go.
Are you upset that men are generally assumed by some people to be rapists and/or child molesters? That Arabs are always bombers? That blacks are always criminals? That's the "court of public opinion" at work.

This doesn't deny that stereotypes don't exist for a reason. How does "public opinion" protect your rights? Simple. It doesn't.

Now, put your own, personal face on this. Tell me you want the raving about George Zimmerman or OJ to apply to you --- and to apply in court for sentencing, which is actually what you're backing!

That helped me make the decision never to have kids. But the problem with a mob making a decision and not the individual actually looking at facts you get statements like "that despite the lack of a criminal charge and conviction, Mr. Allen is most likely a pedophile."

Posted by: Jim P. at February 8, 2014 9:52 AM

Yes, Jim, you have proven your ability to selectively look at the links and believe they establish a basis for legal criminal guilt or innocence. Which was never the issue here.

Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a variety of reasons. Number one, they are too easy to game with drugs which is why, when they are used, as a screening device, the court wants to control the venue, and the administrator.

The purpose of my believing Mr Allen to be, very possibly, a pedophile is to prevent me from being idiotic enough to trust him alone with my five year old, not to set him up for some kind of extra legal vigilante justice crusade.

And if we are going to talk about "darlings of the left" include Woody Allen in that category.

If he was a republican, he would have been crucified already.

"I can't believe you're so shallow about this."

And I cant believe you are actually so stupid as to conflate the justice system with popular opinion, and to think that one can actually operate in the absence of the other.

And also to think that going around lecturing people to leave all personal judgements to courts of law, is somehow either productive, or intelligent.

What is your plan to prevent people from having opinions about other people?
Muzzle the press? Gag orders on all courts? Death penalty for perjury?

What, possible constitutional solution do you envision?

Yes, Jim, you have proven your ability to selectively look at the links and believe they establish a basis for legal criminal guilt or innocence. Which was never the issue here.

7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that DYLAN HAD NOT BEEN SEXUALLY MOLESTED, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them.

Just as you have done. Thank you for proving your point.

The purpose of my believing Mr Allen to be, very possibly, a pedophile is to prevent me from being idiotic enough to trust him alone with my five year old, not to set him up for some kind of extra legal vigilante justice crusade. -- Isab at February 8, 2014 10:57 AM

That's fine for your personal opinion and judgement. But at the same time if there is the talk around the "water cooler" do you help perpetuate the fallacies or look at things with a jaundiced eye?

Isab, the court of public opinion does not preserve your rights. Full stop.

It looks to me like you think that is okay. That I don't understand at all.

Basically, you are advocating for justice by gossip, nothing more. I cannot see how that is even remotely defensible.

I am not claiming the courts are infallible – I'm pointing out that the public's idea of justice is horrible. That's the entire reason the Constitution exists and the US justice system was built.

The court of public opinion does not preserve my rights, because it has no power to violate them in the first place. What other people think of me is purely up to them; it's not something I have a right to.

I believe that Woody Allen is a pedophile, and OJ Simpson is a murderer, regardless of what has or has not been proven in court against them. So long as I don't violate their rights, I'm entitled to those beliefs--and so are the millions who share them.

I've been reading about the whole sordid saga, and both Allen and Farrow are such disturbed people that it's impossible to tell who is lying when. Allen's track record really makes it look like he was into much younger, barely legal women, not kids. Yes, having an affair with your partner's barely legal daughter is deeply wrong, and Allen has always acted flabbergastingly oblivious to that and shown in many additional ways his twisted character, emotional manipulation, and unsuitability for parenthood, but that doesn't make him a child molester.

Farrow's actions--her compulsive acquiring of children who she then parented poorly, even "returning" at least one adopted child, her own dysfunctional romantic past and her violent, threatening reactions to the discovery of Allen and Soon-Yi's affair--show her to be just as fucked up, in my opinion. I can easily believe she coached 7-year-old Dylan to tell a story of abuse as an act of vengeance, and the experts whose job it was to investigate at the time suspected so as well. They also thought that Dylan herself could have made up the story as a reaction to the bewildering and bitter domestic turmoil that surrounded her, or perhaps a combination of the former and the latter. The power and persistence of false and / or implanted memories is scientifically documented, and would explain Dylan's insistence on her story, especially considering her and her brother Ronan's closeness with their mother, their continued bitterness toward Allen and Soon-Yi and the timing of the story's resurfacing (the awards season while Allen's career is at perhaps an all-time high, an opportune time for the Farrows to want to hurt him again).

Frankly, I really wish I could know the truth about Allen, but I know I never can so it's a good thing I'm not making any decisions that affect others' lives. I think Cate Blanchett said it well: "It's obviously been a long and painful situation for the family, and I hope they find some resolution and peace." Sadly, I doubt they will ever find much of that.

My own grandfather, who died before I was born, molested my aunt and damaged her entire life with his evil abuse. So I know both how common and how despicable sexual abuse is, and I believe accusations should be taken very seriously. If Dylan's story is true, I'm deeply sorry for what she has suffered and continues to suffer. But I also know that false accusations exist for all kinds of reasons and are incredibly damaging to everyone, from the falsely accused, to the real victims, to the misguided individuals who accuse the innocent. Hell, I feel almost as much sorrow for her if it's not true. People are so complicated.

I also know I will still see and love Allen's movies. I've been forced to realize in my own life that people's characters are often far surpassed by their creative works. And yes, it's a cliche, but often their most serious flaws are the very thing that add power and insight to their creations. It doesn't excuse their wrongdoing, but their works speak for themselves, and I choose to enjoy them.

The court of public opinion does not preserve my rights, because it has no power to violate them in the first place. What other people think of me is purely up to them; it's not something I have a right to.

And yet Martin Zimmerman was arrested and tried not because prosecutors thought they had enough to charge or convict, but because state and federal officials told them to to prevent rioting

damnit, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.

Hell it was so bad the CEO of Mens Warehouse was getting death threats

damnit, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.

Hell it was so bad the CEO of Mens Warehouse was getting death threats