Posts by lisaBObeesa

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

"But he discounted its findings, saying his own review of investigative reports and medical evaluations had convinced him that he did have enough evidence to take to trial. He said there was nothing in the report from the Yale clinic "that would lead me to question the credibility of the child."

Oh, you mean aside from the entire conclusion of the report, which concluded that no sexual abuse actually took place, and the part where child psychiatrists noted "Dylan's difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality"?

The Connecticut prosecutor was not the only one who did not find the report credible.

The judge in the custody case also found the report to not be credible due to the fact that the authors destroyed their notes (making it impossible to review what their findings were actually based on), and they refused to testify at the custody trial:

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

This all come out in the early 90's...Dylan was 7 years old when this happened.

Maybe she speaking out now because he molested her, she TOLD the world what happened to her, and still everybody acts like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Maybe she wants to protect other little girls from him?

maybe she wants to empower other people who have gone through what she went through?

She has written about why she is speaking out now.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

But, if what Woody Alllen said in his response is true, his credibility is higher.

???

Are you saying if Woody Allen is credible then he is credible?

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

Lots of very powerful people tried to bury Woody Allen on these matters. Nothing stuck. Thank goodness rational fair minded people required something more before burying him. The facts.

See, that is not exactly how it was. 'Nothing stuck' because although Connecticut prosecutor had probable cause to prosecute Woody Allen, they decided it was in the interest of the child to keep her off the stand. You make it sound like they couldn't find any reason to charge him. In fact, they did have reason to believe he should be charged.

A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance.

I'm interested in what you all think of the points Dylan makes in this resonse to what Woody said in the NYT on the 7th:

Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me - but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.

His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here:

With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".

Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

Found 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. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

Just an FYI, Woody Allen took his own lie detector test that he paid for, and refused to take the lie detector test given by the police.

What do you guys think of the Dylan's response to Woody's response (posted earlier in this thread)?

60

Why JWs would commit murder if ordered to by the GB

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

psychology class is teaching me so much.

it's a core class, as i want to study medicine or biochemistry eventually.

we were assigned to read about obedience.

lisaBObeesa

I agree, there's a huge difference between martyring yourself and taking someone else's life.

When they let their childen die, they are taking someone else's life.

Yes, they are not shooting someone. But they have not been conditioned/ordered to do that. Nobody is saying the GB would do that.

People are saying IF the GB DID condition/order them to shoot someone in the same way they have conditioned/ordered with blood, saluting the flag, etc, many JWS would go along.

If the GB laid out a rediculous agrument that it is biblical to shoot police officers who try to stop a JW meeting in countries that oppose the JWs, used fear and conditioning in the literature and in talks for a while, I have absolutely no doubt that many JWs would do as instructed if the direction came from the "FDS". Again, NOT saying the GB would do this. Saying that if they did, many JWs would go along.

They do not evaluate right and wrong based on anything other than what the GB says is right or wrong.

I hope your father examines all his choices even under the WTS rules. Have his doctor contact the HLS and make his own research.

I'm afraid my Dad is too conditioned from many, many years in the Org. He is now well aware of the blood faction options, but his 'conscience' does not allow him to use them. I think the only way he would use them is if the GB TOLD him to use them/that the Bible said to use them. then maybe. But for now, in his mind, the old GB order is still in effect.

60

Why JWs would commit murder if ordered to by the GB

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

psychology class is teaching me so much.

it's a core class, as i want to study medicine or biochemistry eventually.

we were assigned to read about obedience.

lisaBObeesa

Lisa, choosing a temporary death instead of everlasting life, then temporary life would be convenient to a jw.

Of course, Blondie. But this belief is based on what the GB tells them. They believe it and will die for it.

The point is, the GB told them what to believe (they should die temporarily rather than take blood), and they do it, believing the temporary death/everlasting life thing based only on the authority of the GB, like to subjects in the experiment in the op believed they were doing the right thing, based on the authority of the 'doctor' present.

Just like some people in other religions who fear going to hell, make choices to go to heaven.

I don't think JW's scrificing their lives is anything like a non-cultist regular religious person making choices to go to heaven. Maybe you could compare it to Islamic terrorists who blow themselves up for God, but other than that, I don't see it.

Jws hope and pray that they never have to face such a choice.

Of course! My father doesn't want to die. But he has a serious heart problem and he has made it very clear that he will 'not violate his Bible trained conscience' and take blood when the time comes. He already has refused it and it is a miracle he is still alive. He already gave his life...he just happened to live...

But his conscience is NOT Bible trained, it is GB trained. If he researched the Bible he would see that. But he doesn't.

Whatever they teach him he believes. He does not check it out.WHATEVER they teach him, he believes. In his mind, the GB knows better than he does. They are like the doctors in the experiement. They have the white coats of authority, they are believed, so he tends to do what they say, espcially when it comes to life and death!

But! He is an irregular publisher and breaks numerous small rules. He even had a beard for a while! He believes he is a 'weak' JW, but he is a JW none the less. When it comes down to it, he WILL die because that is a biggie they have been preparing him for his whole life: You DIE rather than have blood. And he will.

Same with my sister, but she breaks NO JW rules at all. She is faithful in the smallest thing! She has signed the paperwork about blood. She doesn't want to die, but she will. Because the GB tells her to, not because of the Bible. Because of the GB and how they have conditioned her.

I watched my friend's aunt die from refusing blood. I've seen many many people here on this board share about people they know personally who died by refusing blood. There are uncountable posts here like that.

I guess the thing I took exception to is 'jws as a group are obedient when it is convenient.'

We just disagree on the 'as a group' part: As a group, I see them as obedient. There are some who break the small rules, and a very few who secretly break the big rules. But as a group, they will do as commanded by the GB, especially when it comes to life and death. It almost seems as if some rules are more unbreakable than others. Like saluting the US flag. That one is right up there with blood. ( maybe even more unbreakable than blood, these days.)

(I mean all of this to be in a friendly, respectful and conversational tone. Sorry if I get over excited.)

60

Why JWs would commit murder if ordered to by the GB

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

psychology class is teaching me so much.

it's a core class, as i want to study medicine or biochemistry eventually.

we were assigned to read about obedience.

lisaBObeesa

jws as a group and obedient when it is convenient. (45 years of observation)

Then why do the die and let their children die? Because it is 'convenient'? I don't think it is convenient to let your child die, or to let yourself die, especially if you have children... They let themselves or their children die because they have 100% unquestioning trust in what the GB tells them.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/25/nyregion/connecticut-prosecutor-won-t-file-charges-against-woody-allen.html

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

lisaBObeesa

In these kinds of "he said, she said" situations, most are only going with their pre-conceived biases, anyway, siding with Dylan if they're predisposed to do (dealing with anti-authoritarian issues of their own), and side with Woody if they accept the principle of 'presumption of innocence' (OR if they're someone who sides with abusers and authoritarian figures).

I accept the principle of 'presumtion of innocence' and yet I believe Dyan.

For me, it was a few things that swayed me. The lies he told (saying he had never been in the attic, ect), the twisting of the truth (like when he said agreed to a lie detector, but actually he refused a lie detector that could be admitted in court, only took one he paid for that could not be admitted into court...total JW-like twisting of things!), and the constant refusal to accept any responsibily for any of his actions...

Dylan's story on the other hand has not wavered.

Also, the fact that 'probable cause' was found to prosecute. That right there is a biggie for me. Doesn't mean he is guilty, but they had probable cause the prosecute.

I am not a jury and this is not a court and I don't have all the evidence before me. But based on the evidence I do have before me, I tend to believe Dylan and I tend to NOT believe Woody.

This has nothing to do with believing in the principle of 'presumption of innoncence', which of course I do believe in. If Woody had gone to trial he would be presumed innocent until he was proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, right now, he IS 'presumed innocent.'