It has nothing to do with Mia Farrow’s “legal fortitude to fight Woody Allen.” You are deliberately being obtuse on this, and that’s why I stated you are contorting the facts. The powers that be—the court—judged that Dylan Farrow was too fragile. The judge and the prosecutor are both on record to that effect. The…
andy604
andy604
What evidence would you like? He didn't film himself touching his daughter, but numerous people witnessed him acting inappropriately with her. In your eyes there needs to be semen inside her or it didn't happen? People like you are why so many people do not report assault or molestation.
Only because technically he was not married to her mother, but for many years he was in a relationship with her mother, with whom had other children. So essentially he was her step father, even if not by law.
Thanks, was going to post these. There’s a big difference between not prosecuting because of Dylan’s well-being and the power of the accused, and there not being overwhelming evidence that the man both has a taste for much, much younger women, as well as pedophilic tendencies. Mia Farrow and many others in the family…
Soon-Yi’s relationship to Allen has been underplayed by Allen, et al since the beginning. Facts are, she met him, as a child, as the boyfriend of her adopted mother. And he was a father figure to her and her siblings. It might possibly be legal, but it is in no way ethical and impacted all of those kids and their…
She was too fragile when she was a child-age 7/8 in 1992; as compared to when she wrote the essay as an adult, age 28, in 2014.
She wrote the essay DECADES LATER you dummy
She was a CHILD at the time she was deemed too fragile, in what was arguably the most public rape and child custody case in the world at the time. Coming to terms with it enough to write about 20 years later doesn’t change the fact that back then, she couldn’t face it. Jesus. What doesn’t make sense is that you’re…
See comments above. A prosecutor who says they have probable cause but isn’t going ahead with charges because the victim/key witness is too fragile, is so far from ‘hearsay and bitterness’ that I wouldn’t know where to begin explaining the difference.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/w…
The PDF is here
I know, I more meant that he has an established pattern of discounting rumors about his friends.
I don’t think he reacted any differently than when the stuff about his other friend, Weiner, came out.
Stewart is very familiar with the comedy scene; he knows about the rumors. Please. True or not, this is far from just a Gawker thing.
He definitely knows. The Louis CK rumors have been out there for years. Claim they’re not true. Say they’re bullshit. But don’t say you haven’t heard of them. That’s just dumb.
Are you really this gullible? If he hadn’t heard of this rumor before, why wasn’t he surprised by it? How did he know what question was coming?
If he seriously never heard of this, then his reaction would be shock, not contemptuous dismissiveness and evasion. He 100% absolutely had heard this before, that’s why he kept trying to cut off the question and assert that the questioner should know such a question was beneath him, instead of saying, WTF, people say…
I really don’t think this is a Jez secret. This is something the comedy community has bandied about for years. For Stewart to say that he has never heard anything about it is just not believable
I’m with you on this, I think he felt a little blind sided like “whoooaaaa...”, it’s very true (and sad) that this is the only site (well out of the ones I frequent) that really seemed to take these rumors seriously (which they should of been). Only one of my friends was even aware of it and they are all big fans of…
He's just caping for his friend. We all know none of us are friends with actual pervs. Other people are friends with pervs, never us.