Rob Lister wrote: Doctor X wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:Someone is being fooled here. Not sure it is me.
Which is progress from your previous certitude.
My degree of certainty has not changed.
Then you are, in a way, http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif
The bottom line is you have no basis
for certainty. Granted, what some slob thinks on the Interwebz do not matter in the Real World [Pat. Pend.--Ed.]. However, there is a reason we do not allow emotion to judge events.
Are we asking Dylan to prove she wasn't coached or brainwashed?
Those who make accusations have to establish they are telling the truth, yes.
Dylan maintains to this day that she was not.
Reread both your sentences and you may recognize the problem.
the judge certainly didn't think so then.
His reliability remains in question. He was not a "finder of fact." Do not elevate him to some sort of god.
You keep coming back to that as if it helps his case somehow. It doesn't.
It sinks her reliability. Not terribly complicated.
Personal opinion back by nothing?
If there was "something" he would have been and should have been charged.
I admire the judge for his constraint.
The ease of gaining your admiration has been noted previously.
Married to his children's sister. How romantic.
She was not their sister. Further you continue http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif
or anyone else "don't wike it"--yet tolerate Farrow's continued defense of a pedophile for some reason--is not a basis for concluding fact
anymore than "not wiking" homosexual sex is a basis for concluding homosexuals are pedophiles.
The bottom line is you have nothing but emotional opinions--which includes your Personal Lord and Savior the judge. He had and admitted he had no corroborating evidence. Custody and divorce trials are not conducted with the standard of evidence expected in a criminal case. Another "God" of a judge awarded children to a mother who promptly murdered them. This is not a science.
Absence of corroborating evidence we are left in that most heinous state of "he said" "she said." There is a reasonable
explanation for both sides: Allen raped her/she was influenced to believe he did. There are tons of examples of both. Worse, with the later, it is not simply a matter of a rotten kid trying to "get back" with a parent/teacher--they sincerely believe. I would recommend a review of some successful suits of psychiatrists who ruined a few families with "memories."
If there be "Cunts" here--as I noted previously--it would be Farrow for doing that or Allen for doing that.
You will, I am sure, note that I have not defended
Allen. I do not know--nor pretend to know--what happened. I also know that you
do not know. Oh you are "convinced" because your emotions convince you with understandable righteous indignation. I prefer not to hang a man based on what "convinces" you or anyone else absence of evidence. Your running about citing irrelevances which actually undercut your opinion: like he is still married to a rather now quite bloody adult woman and there are no other suspicions because, you know, pedophiles are just, you know, one-time criminals rather suggest you recognize the solidity of your convictions.
I have merely demonstrated that the "cut and dried" version you heralded is neither cut nor dried. Does not mean it is "wrong." Unlike you, I require evidences--thanks--for conviction.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... -Beach.jpg
"And that is all I have to say."