Narrative? We have actual quotes from Woody and Moses (that Mia never, to my knowledge, denied) suggesting it's a possibility.
But lesser charges have resulted in condemnation already. Are you really surprised?
There is a big difference on quoting "he put his fingers in her asshole!" which can lead people to think he was fingering her asshole, and what actually happened. If your going to make argument using this event, at least represent it correctly is all I am saying.
I'm not surprised, but I feel it's important to provide all the evidence and try to stop the misinformation that is rampant. If people feel the need to condemn afterwards, that's on them.
I'm saying is your interest in preserving innocence, or upholding a bias?
I am just correcting the accusation is all. She was already naked, which apparently wasn't odd to anyone else at the house at the time (im guessing they were at the beach)?
Who rubs a finger in the crack between a children' buttocks??
My interest is in clearing up misconception, plain and simple.
He didn't have his hand down her pants.
That gif works on many levels given that Troy was scared of ass play.
Reading the full quote, the claim seems to be that they were on vacation, she was 4 years old, and was running naked on the beach. He proceeded to pull her aside and rub lotion all over her body, including on her butt. Mia's mom and sister brought it up as being weird.
There are people ITT splitting hairs about exactly how Allen molested his daughter on a specific incident, as though the way they're describing softens or mitigates the abuse.
He didn't molest her in this instance. She's running on the beach naked, and he put lotion on her body. What the fuck are you on about? Even the witnesses didn't refer to it as molestation.
For sure, but I can understand why a new father wouldn't understand proper social etiquette with regards to putting lotion on the body of his new daughter.
He's putting suntan lotion on her exposed skin so she doesn't burn.
I understand what you mean, but the other alternative is to allow misinformation to spread, for context to be lost, and people to just angrily agree that the accused should be jailed or executed without proof.
...as evidenced here, people keep parroting the same misinformation. Not his daughter, adopted or otherwise.
I know this sounds weird, but its not as weird as it sounds. I have a brother who lives a very "alternative" lifestyle down south (as in has a micro farm, gets most of his food from the farm, does cow sharing, homeschools, etc) and they have let their child run around naked when she was that young. And it would not surprise me that if it was sunny that they would apply suntan lotion to her entire body, yes including between her ass cheeks. Does that mean he molested her? Do I think my brother and sister in law molested my niece? Of course not.
Why do you care so much about what randos on internet say about a rich white man? It's not like he will be jailed or executed because people said so.
Some men want to keep stating false information, which has been proven over and over again to be a mischaracterization of what happened with her, I wonder why....
I like that you don't let actual facts get in the way of your rant.
This is the impetus for the trial, and was unproven. He has spent twenty five years denying this and other accusations entirely.
Using this logic, why do we discuss anuthing on here?
You just downplayed that quote so hard. "Including on her butt" isn't the same as a finger in her crack :/
From another account:
I had no idea she was responsible for the Central Park Five thing, wow. But speaking of reaching for lows, it's not really cool to completely twist the words and intent of my post. There isn't anything new to say other than what Moses wrote, and it felt gauche to respond to the sight of Dylan crying with a "spirited defense," which I did not and will not offer, as I said. Maybe you could try taking me at my word?
How many times do I need to say I am not and will not be doing that for you? Five? We're up to two.
What do you think "not doing it here" means? Did you read the post I am referring to where the conclusion was "that's what the other side is saying, I don't know what to think; it put a major stink on him?" Probably not since I didn't go through it here, as I said I wouldn't. And I don't want to. It's exhausting getting into the nuance of the old details and it doesn't feel relevant. You seem convinced I believe he is innocent. I do not. I'm a former fan who knows all these details because it was a huge news story at the time and remember where it left off was inconclusive.
I think you're confused because you're forgetting the post I was replying to. It was "hey people who posted on Woody's behalf, come in here and respond to this new bombshell!" My response was essentially: "Well, I posted what the other side is saying, not that I really came to conclusions about it, but if you're talking to me: I don't have anything new to offer; that's an intense interview and I feel bad for Dylan. The only news I know about since the old post is this Moses article."
right. He's married to the adopted daughter of his ex-partner.
I mean its better to be honest with your argument if your going to bring her up. "He started dating (and has now been married to for over 20 years) his ex gf's adopted daughter (whom he effectively no contact with until then) when she was 19/21.
