I understand your point. However, condemning someone to legal punishment has to be based on proven fact. Unless one was on the jury in that case, or were privy to all the details and information contained therein (as opposed to merely being someone who has watched biased accounts from both sides in documentaries, interviews, and the like), there is information which we are unaware of in any case.

Don't get me wrong - Woody Allen's behaviour concerning the stepdaugther he later married strikes me as odious, dishonourable, creepy, and yes, predatory. But it isn't, in terms of the letter of the law, illegal.

No matter how much intuition and expertise people think they have, they are still unable to say with absolute certainty that any crime was committed with regards to Dylan Farrow. He might be guilty. He might not be. But to say he definitely is without legal proof, that's one step away from lynch mob territory. I didn't see what happened. I wasn't there. Therefore, I cannot say with absolute certainty either way. Reading between the lines to form an opinion of guilt is one thing. Reading between the lines to state it as certain fact is quite another. Regardless of what instinct one may feel, one could still be gravely mistaken.

Regardless of all that, as I said in the first place, I'm still a strict believer in separating art from artist, and still love many of his films.