Skip to main content

I read Dylan Farrow's open letter about her abuse with heartache.  My heart got even heavier after reading defense after defense of Allen; on The Daily Beast (It was an awful article, I'm not going to link it), on numerous other "news sites" and even here on Daily Kos.  I was happy to find what I found to be a more thoughtful tome on whether or not it's ok to like Allen's moves at Think Progress.  Alyssa Rosenberg credited another article with influencing her thinking, and that turned out to be the article that really encapsulated the way I've been feeling about this story.

Aaron Rady wrote an article for The New Inquiry called Woody Allen's Good Name.

The article starts off talking about reasonable doubt.  Unless a man is proven guilty, which Allen never was, we must presume him to be innocent.  But there's a real problem with that outside of a courtroom:

If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody AllenHi, The Daily Beast!, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.
I can't tell you how many times I've read that very phrase over the past few days: "No one can know what happened." It is almost always followed by some defense of Woody Allen.  No one can know, and it was looked into by "Official People", so stop spreading vile rumors by speaking of this issue."

Rady points out that it is true in a court of law that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that we are not a court of law.  And that, in a court of law or in the general public, in a "he said, she said" kind of situation, someone has to be lying.  If you give Woody Allen his presumed innocence, then you are in essence presuming that Dylan Farrow is lying.

Should we not first presume that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth?  Why is it that the accused gets the benefit of the doubt but not the victim?

We hear a lot about how often men are falsely accused.  Inevitably in the comments section there is the story about someone who knows someone why was falsely accused, as if that automatically applies here.  Rady goes on to talk about those "chances" that Allen is among them:

The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right. Because I am not on Woody Allen’s jury, I can be swayed by the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man’s reputation. We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false rape charges, and that fact is important here. All things being equal, it’s more likely that the man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly); all things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one. It’s a good thing that juries can’t think this way, that they can’t take account of Occam’s Razor, because—in theory—the juridical system needs to get it right every single time (or at least hold tenaciously to that ambition). But you and I can recognize the bigger picture, because we aren’t holding a person’s life in our hands. Especially in situations like this one, the overwhelmingly more likely thing is that he did it. The overwhelmingly less likely thing is that a pair of bitter females—driven by jealousy or by the sheer malignity of the gender—have been lying about him for decades.
Woody Allen, no doubt has a lot of influence at his disposal, which he is accused of wielding to great effect in the Farrow profile in Vanity Fair.  After he was able to walk away from the 1992 debacle of his affair with his lover's daughter and accusations of abuse of his own daughter, he was able to marry his lover's daughter and adopt two other girls.

Who is watching out for those girls?  That's the question I was really left with.  Innocent or guilty, there are enough red flags in this story to justify the question.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not necessarily (13+ / 0-)
    And that, in a court of law or in the general public, in a "he said, she said" kind of situation, someone has to be lying.  If you give Woody Allen his presumed innocence, then you are in essence presuming that Dylan Farrow is lying.
    If Woody is innocent but Dylan genuinely believes otherwise, then there is no lie.
  •  I'm tired of everybody defending Woody Allen. (24+ / 0-)

    Defenders of him are no different than defenders of Joe Paterno in my book. I wish SwedishJewfish were here to do a Tree Climbers diary on this subject.

    Yours was equally good though. :)

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:22:53 PM PST

    •  That's a high compliment, thanks (13+ / 0-)

      I was kind of hoping the same thing, but it's been a few days now and I haven't seen anything here that didn't seem to be defending Allen.

      I'm sure someone else could have done the subject more justice, but I really wanted to link to the articles that I thought deserved some attention, rather than all the, "But aren't his movies great?" drivel.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:26:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here we go again. Joe Paterno was never accused (0+ / 0-)

      of molesting a child.  Please do not equate the two.  Also, if you want to demonize Paterno, please review all the information.  A lot has changed since the media convicted him 2 years ago.  He actually reported what he was told to his superiors, as the law requires.  He was never charged with any crimes.  I guess you still believe a 28 yr old assistant coach witnessed a boy being sexually molested and his immediate reaction was to do nothing.  Then we are to believe he reported this to his father and family friend (who was/is an MD).  Their immediate reaction was to do nothing.  He then reported this to Paterno (the next day).  Paterno, as required by law, reported whatever it was McQuery told him to his superiors and arranged a meeting btw his superiors and McQuery.  The superiors at Penn St, after hearing McQuery's account immediately did nothing.  Later they confronted Sandusky, who denied any wrong doing and also reported what was told to them to the head of Sandusky's foundation.  This head knows he is an immediate report of sexual abuse.  The fact that all of these men reacted almost identically to McQuery's story seems to indicate the McQuery never stated he saw anything other than horseplay and it made him uncomfortable.  None of these adults reacted in a way that would indicate any of them were told a child was sexually abused.  There is a ton more info, but I've already gone on too long.

      But continue to equate Allen, who has been accused of sexually abusing a child (by that now adult woman) and Paterno.  Here at DKos, we only question the media's reporting when it suits us.

  •  I read a lot of the pieces you mention and (18+ / 0-)

    end up torn about the whole thing. I haven't liked Woody Allen since the whole Soon Yi business. But last year we watched 2 of his more recent movies: Midnight in Paris, which we loved, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona which we started and I couldn't get through. I thought Vicky Cristina Barcelona showed a pretty poor view of women. And thinking about that -- I realized Midnight in Paris wasn't much better about women: the lead's fiance and mother were horrible. The woman he ends up with is really only a fantasy woman (you hardly get to know her).
    That turned me off to him.
    My husband still loves him though.
    The revelations about his daughter were not stories I heard much about when the accusations first came out. Reading about them now -- I'm left both sickened and confused.
    Overall, I think I'll avoid anything by him from now on. As someone in one of the posts you list says -- presumed innocent is a legal issue but is not the standard for our personal judgements. (and it should be noted -- if he sued for custody of Dylan Farrow, the fact that he wasn't convicted of anything wouldn't mean that they wouldn't have given the accusations a great deal of weight in deciding custody).

    While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

    by Tamar on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:24:11 PM PST

  •  All kinds of horrific tales, lies, (8+ / 0-)

    coaching, etc. can come out of a bitter, explosive divorce.  They can both write and talk a thousand pages on it, but at the end of the day all we have so far is he said, she said.

    That said, I've read very little on this.  Maybe there's evidence I don't know about.

    Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

    by dov12348 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:24:48 PM PST

    •  No divorce--no marriage (10+ / 0-)

      They weren't married, so the custody action was not part of a divorce.

      As I understand it, Woody Allen initiated the custody action. If it was a bitter proceeding, he was part and parcel of the bitterness.

      There is more than "he said, she said," because there were a good number of other people around the family, including psychotherapists for the kids and for Woody Allen.

      Mostly importantly, when the "she" of "she said" is a young child, I really take seriously what she says, as she is the vulnerable person, compared to an adult in his fifties.

      Judges and prosecutors should make the best decisions they can, but erring to protect a child is better than erring to protect the father.

      •  A lot of what you say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, zed

        ...could become very legitimate, relevant information in a trial.  But we're not there yet.

        I could offer a lay opinion just on what's out there, but there's an enormous amount of information I haven't read.

        See the Fells Acres/Gerald Amirault case on children being coached.

        Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

        by dov12348 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:13:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dylan was 8 years old and it was the *pain* (8+ / 0-)

        that she spoke of... from his vaginal propping of her 8 year old body... that a therapist said proved her story.

        But, for some reason, all of the records from Dylan's personal therapists and the police file are missing.

        The psychologist team used in the court proceedings were on Woody Allen's payroll.


        One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

        by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:06:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The whole family law/dissolution process (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, dov12348, jan4insight, kharma

      is another form of the rape of innocence.  And, remember, family dynamics is about power and position, particularly when it is not or is no longer about love.  Which, deep down, is what I suspect this is all about.

      "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

      by Publius2008 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:59:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  After Soon Yi (16+ / 0-)

    I stopped seeing Woody Allen movies. And I remembered all the kind of creepy jokes about underage girls.

  •  Having been on the receiving end of a parent (6+ / 0-)

    telling me what to think as a small child -- deliberately constructing events that were not the case -- I'm going to reserve judgement.  At this point, I have no doubt that Dylan thinks it happened.  Whether it did or not is an open question, but there are other creepy aspects to Woody Allen.

    Mrs. Polecat thinks Woody should come out and actually admit it so that healing can begin.  I simply don't know, but wish to protect my little polecats.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:29:52 PM PST

    •  I think the other creepy stuff is important (11+ / 0-)

      in isolation I'm sure your point is true.  I'm sure that some kids can be convinced that events happened or didn't happen by their parents.

      But there are so many other red flags here that what Dylan is saying can not be dismissed out of hand.

      Not that it matters in a legal sense, anyway.  As Rady points out in the article, the statute of limitations has long since run out.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:33:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Curious about one possible source of information (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        I followed the link to that Vanity Fair article from 1992. One thing that struck me is that Woody Allen thought psychotherapy was great, and insisted that the kids have therapists.

        I wondered if Woody Allen consented to his therapist testifying in the custody hearing, and fully disclosing what Allen had told him about his relationship with his children.

        The allegation was that there was a particularly serious incident, but that it had been preceded by a father-daughter relationship, over many months, that would raise some questions.

        For that matter, the child had a therapist, even at that young age. Did both parents consent to that therapist testifying as to what the child told her (or him)?

        I had no idea whether the therapists were brought into the custody case.

      •  red flags abound (5+ / 0-)

        To start an affair with the barely legal adopted daughter of one's lover might not be a crime from the point of view of the state but it sure is an emotional crime.  Utterly appalling behavior.  And then to compound that with a custody fight over the other kids.  The guy is lacking in the morals department.

        •  Sun Yi was not Allen's adopted daughter. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OldDragon, Zornorph

          She was Previn's adopted daughter.

          Personally, I thought that the comments made about her by the Farrow clan that is still in tact in the Vanity Fair article this past Fall were really cruel and heartless, if they really believed that she was a victim of Allen's manipulations.  They portrayed her as some sort of dangerous sociopath.  There was something about that part of the article in particular that really made me question the Farrow camp's credibility.  Especially since the article was written by a close friend and advocate of Farrow's.  If she had overstated their sentiments, I find it difficult to believe that that writer would not have pulled back or rewritten that part of their story had she been asked.  There were several aspects to the article that went in directions that were obviously intended to create sympathy for Farrow, but went just that much too far to read the story as being wholly credible.

          I am sure that there are facts to be found in Farrow's stories, but I am not sure that everything that her camp has put forth is entirely factual.

    •  He'll never admit it (8+ / 0-)

      even if other evidence were to appear.  In Connecticut, he would be indicted of a Class A felony for child sexual abuse.  There's no statute of limitations -- just like murder.  For other child sexual abuse cases the statute of limitations begins running when the victim is 18 and is 30 years from that date.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:23:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what I've read (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        susans, LilithGardener
        Maco, who retired in 2003, told the AP on Sunday that the statute of limitations on Dylan Farrow’s accusations ran out at least 15 years ago. He said he hopes Farrow was able to watch his news conference and read his statement about his decision not to prosecute Allen.
        link

        Maco was the Litchfield County state attorney.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:27:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maco obviously should (10+ / 0-)

          bone up on Connecticut law or shut up.  Here is the summary from the Office of Legal Research

          By law, there is no statute of limitations for Class A felonies (CGS § 54-193). The following Class A felonies involve child sexual abuse or related actions, and can be prosecuted at any time:

          1. first-degree sexual assault when force or the threat of force is used and the victim is under age 16 (CGS § 53a-70(a)(1));

          2. first-degree sexual assault with a victim under age 13 when the offender is more than two years older (CGS § 53a-70(a)(2));

          3. first-degree aggravated sexual assault when the victim is under age 16 (CGS § 53a-70a);

          4. aggravated sexual assault of a minor (CGS § 53a-70c); and

          5. employing a minor in an obscene performance (CGS § 53a-196a).

          Otherwise, the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse is generally 30 years after the victim reaches age 18, or up to five years from the date he or she notifies the police or a prosecutor of the crime, whichever is earlier. In cases of second-degree sexual assault where the victim is at least age 13 but under 16 and the offender is more than three years older, the case must be prosecuted within five years after the crime was committed (CGS § 54-193a). As described above, this statute was last amended in 2002 (PA 02-138), and that act specified that its changes to the statute of limitations applied only prospectively.

          2/25/2013 response for request for legal opinion on CT laws re: Statute of Limitations in Child Sexual Abuse Cases.

          I practice in Litchfield County.  I've practiced in the criminal court.  I'm glad he isn't there.

          " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:34:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gchaucer2, LilithGardener, sturunner

            Yikes.  That's kind of a big error for the Post to publish.

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:35:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, kind of. (7+ / 0-)

              I had looked this up for a client just a couple of weeks ago.  I thought it had been a 17 year statute of limitations so I was pretty surprised by the Class A no statute of limitations AND  the 18 plus 30.  I hope a bunch of criminal defense attorneys -- and prosecutors -- embarrass him publicly.  

              So, for me, anyone who thinks this case was fully and fairly examined by the State should think again.  Oh, and today, in the Courier Post there's

              The handling of the investigation was criticized after Litchfield County state attorney Frank S. Maco said in a news conference that he believed there was “probable cause” to charge Allen but decided against prosecution partly to avoid a traumatic trial for the young girl. A disciplinary panel found that Maco may have prejudiced the ongoing custody battle between Allen and Mia Farrow by making an accusation without formal charges.
              He's an embarrassment to my profession and to many prosecutors whom I respect.

              And finally, my town, Torrington which is in Litchfield County also, is the place where Tracey Thurman got the shite kicked out of her by repeated domestic violence while the police didn't feel like enforcing a protective order.  

              " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

              by gchaucer2 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:44:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Has that statute of limitations changed? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, gchaucer2

            The allegation is, what, 20 years ago?  The limitation statute could've been different and might've run out.  You'd think the prosecutor would know what it was.

            •  Here is a bit of research (6+ / 0-)

              from the same opinion using the Skakel case as an example.

              The criminal statute of limitations has likely run out for sexual abuse occurring in 1971. At that time, the general statute of limitations for felonies was five years. In 1976, the General Assembly passed a law (PA 76-35) specifying that there was no limitation for prosecuting Class A felonies, and the Connecticut Supreme Court later held that this applied to prior crimes for which the statute of limitations had not already expired when the 1976 law took effect (State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633 (2006)). However, sexual assault was not a Class A felony in 1971, so this extension of time to prosecute Class A felonies would not apply to sexual abuse from that year.
              This case certainly took place after 1976.  

              Excellent question and I should have checked that first.

              " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

              by gchaucer2 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:50:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'm completely confused by this: (7+ / 0-)
    Should we not first presume that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth?  Why is it that the accused gets the benefit of the doubt but not the victim?
    Why should we presume that either one of them is telling the truth?

    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:35:40 PM PST

  •  You might be right - but you can't be certain (13+ / 0-)

    There are multiple statements, from those involved at first hand, on both sides of the issue. The judicial and psychological investigators, who looked deeply into the evidence at the time, came out on different sides of the issue.

    Anybody on Daily Kos, reading multiple conflicting second and third-hand accounts decades after the fact, can't be certain what happened. The strong emotions, the pressure from the adults involved, and her age at the time mean we can't even rely on Dylan's own testimony as incontrovertible:

    Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.
    Coquiero, I know you hate that "awful article", and I'm not pointing to it as gospel truth. I'm saying this is a complicated, melodramatic mess, and those sworn statements from professionals introduce a reasonable doubt. Human memory, in emotional pressure-cookers, is not the same thing as video tape.

    Your final question, "Who is watching out for those girls?", is reasonable. On the other hand, serial child molesters usually have poor impulse control around children who attract them. If Woody was truly a dangerous man on this score - well, he's had millions of friends, colleagues and strangers looking at him a little warily since he married Soon-Yi. So if he was a serial molester, or even acted creepy around young girls, wouldn't someone have raised a hue and cry about it in the last two decades?

    You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said at first, you may be right. But any kossack who is 100% sure of what happened between Woody and Dylan, based on such a messy mass of opinions and conjecture, is making an emotional judgment, not a factual one.

    "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

    by Brecht on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:39:11 PM PST

    •  I absolutely agree with your final statement (13+ / 0-)
      any kossack who is 100% sure of what happened between Woody and Dylan, based on such a messy mass of opinions and conjecture, is making an emotional judgment, not a factual one.
      I don't presume to know the truth, and I know that the story is a messy one.  My main point is that it's easy to discredit a 7 year old's statements and testimony.  That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

      I'm not saying Allen is guilty, although my personal opinion is that he is guilty.  I'm not trying to sell myself as fair and balanced.

       

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (0+ / 0-)
        I don't presume to know the truth, and I know that the story is a messy one.  My main point is that it's easy to discredit a 7 year old's statements and testimony.  That's like shooting fish in a barrel.
        Which is why professionals are brought in to determine the veracity of the allegations at the time they are made.  Brecht's comment is spot on.

        This, from the findings of the professionals who investigated at the time, bears repeating:

        Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.
        Also noteworthy are Moses's statements regarding how he was treated as a child in that household, and the poisonous atmosphere in that house regarding Allen at the time he and Farrow's split.

        http://www.people.com/...

        I'm not saying Allen is guilty, although my personal opinion is that he is guilty.  I'm not trying to sell myself as fair and balanced.
        And those who are stepping up to defend Allen are not attacking Dylan, as a matter of fact, in several diaries I have participated in, I have repeatedly said that I do not doubt that Dylan has suffered a childhood trauma.  In spite of that constant caveat, my opinion of Allen's innocence is evidence of me being unfit to be alone with children.  
        No, sorry (1+ / 3-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero
        Hidden by:
        cville townie, Jarrayy, corvo
        Given your consistent defense of Woody Allen and, by implication, the creepy behavior witnessed by multiple adults, there is no way I would let you alone with any 7 year old for 2 minutes, much less 2 hours.

        This is not to say you're a child molester yourself, of course. But where the safety of a child is concerned, it's better to be safe than sorry.

        I only wish Mia Farrow had followed that principle

        .

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 11:45:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  First of all, Mia didn't need Woody Allen (9+ / 0-)

      to prop her up...  "poor, poor mother who lost a career in Mr Allen's films."

      And he only paid her $200k per film that she made.

      She stood on her own and raised her kids. She didn't take alimony from Sinatra. Nor Previn. And she sure didn't need Woody Allen handouts for her professional film career.

      As for Dylan making up the sexual abuse story because of her "intense relationship with her mother" that is horrendous to dismiss a child's plea for help so casually like that.

      Every child has the right to feel safe in their own home. And many of those children in that large family did not feel safe nor comfortable with Allen in their home.

      And it's not just the children from Woody Allen's personal family life that found him icky. A lot of people find him to be an icky person.


      One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

      by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:20:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you're making the "icky person" argument, (5+ / 0-)

        and calling sworn testimony that merely raises a possibility a "horrendous" dismissal, you're reacting emotionally and stating your opinions with more certainty than the evidence supports.

        Which doesn't refute my central argument, it demonstrates it.

        I don't mean to condescend here, just to analyze. This whole drama pushes everyone's emotional buttons, which is why millions of people are weighing in with their views all over the internet. But lots of opinions are all we've got here, in the end.

        "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

        by Brecht on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:38:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like this diary states... it's public opinion that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, poco, churchylafemme

          is weighing in right now.

          Woody Allen doesn't face jail time nor any government-sanctioned punishment for his transgressions. He won't lose his freedom of movement.

          What will weigh on him will be public opinion. People will avoid him. Avoid his films. He may lose a little freedom of association. Maybe. Or not.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:28:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is emotional to find a father molesting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, churchylafemme

          his daughter as "icky." And there is nothing wrong with emotional logic in a decision-making capacity. Our culture frowns heavily on incestuous relationships and the abuse of children.

          And you can bet the defense makes good use of emotion when sentencing comes down the pike. Or to sway a jury for human empathy to mitigate the crime.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:10:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I might have had a similar reaction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OldDragon

        as you have had, had I not read the most recent Vanity Fair article written by Farrow's friend whose objective was clearly to paint Farrow as a poor and victimized saint.

        Should you want to cast aspersions on people portraying Farrow as a powerless victim, you should really start by attacking her friend, the Vanity Fair article author.

        Now maybe it is wrong, but I really question the mental state of people who collect children and animals.  The story of Farrow's collecting is portrayed as some sort of saintly and generous act on her part, but a lot of it easily could be read as self-aggrandizing and irresponsible obsession with trying to make oneself relevant.

        Why did Farrow agree to be paid "only $200,000" per Allen film?  $200,000 doesn't go very far on CPW.  The author says "that's all" Allen paid her, but Farrow agreed to work for that fee.  AND what does that have to do with Farrow's accusations against Allen?  Would she have charged more had she known that he was a child sexual abuser?

        Then there is the totally confounding, confusing and contradictory Sinatra story.  Farrow married Sinatra when she was 21 and he was 50.  She, of all people, should understand how a romance between a very young woman and older man could occur.  Sun Yi and Allen, however, are both leaders of an evil empire as far as she is concerned - and that MIGHT make sense if she believed after all these years that her relationship with Frank Sinatra was wrong.  It might make sense if she had not basically admitted in the VF article that she continued to sleep with Sinatra for decades after they divorced and if she did not say that he was the love of her life.  I read a combination of self-loathing; holier-than-thou; and total disconnect in that part of her story.

        Prior to reading that VF profile, I figured that she was operating on fairly basic adult logic that a person that much older than another is going to hold such a great advantage over the younger party that it is unrealistic to think that the relationship is sound or really real.  But then Farrow goes on to say that Sinatra was real for her and hasn't a whit of self-reflection about how screwy her own experience was.

        None of what I've said above absolves Allen of "guilt", but I think this claim that Farrow is a saint who holds all of the truth in these stories is more than a stretch.  I think she is as responsible for this mess as anyone who could be considered adults as this stuff all played out.

        •  Wait... Farrow and Sinatra were *not not not* (5+ / 0-)

          father and daughter.

          BIG difference. You just cut that part right out and it's pretty important.

          AND Allen had taken pornographic photographs... disturbing pornographic photographs it is said... of Soon-Yi when she was HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER.

          AND his children found the disturbing pornographic photographs of their SISTER on THEIR FATHER'S mantle.

          Do you have any clue how incredibly shocking that was to those children?

          And, the Sinatra-Farrow relationship worked over the decades because something in each of them clicked with the other. Didn't click for living arrangements on a permanent day-to-day basis, but something clicked and they respected and liked each other.

          Farrow was an independent headstrong woman who lived her life to the fullest as she wanted. She owes no one an explanation for her intensities nor her loves. Nor her peccadilloes with whomever she choose because they were all adult grown men who were not her children.

          And I can't believe that you are holding it against her for sleeping with Sinatra after their divorce. That stuff happens all the time. Not everyone pulls out the daggers for each other when they go their separate ways. Some people stay friends and lovers over their lifetime. They just don't want to live together.

          As for the fees that she was paid from Allen's films... I mentioned it because she's accused of being a hanger-on who needed Allen's films. And she didn't need him nor his stupid films at all.

          Finally, the Vanity Fair piece understood her Catholicism (lapsed or not) without turning her into a saint. You obviously read it differently though.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:48:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allen and Sun Yi Previn were (0+ / 0-)

            "not not not" father and daughter, either.  

            You've got a lot of stuff that you are willing to accept from her that is not aligned with stuff you might accept from him.

            Sorry, but that is true.

            Personally, I think that they are probably both fucked up and that the collection of children that she has out together is unfortunately road kill in their emotional discontent.

            •  now you know that it isn't true that Allen was not (3+ / 0-)

              the father figure in that family during this period.

              Doesn't matter that Soon-Yi and Allen were not blood. He was the father figure for the Farrow household at that time.

              And our culture does not accept incestuous relationships. Whether by a blood or psychological context.


              One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

              by bronte17 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:56:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  And what is "collecting people and animals?" (4+ / 0-)

          wtf?

          Now maybe it is wrong, but I really question the mental state of people who collect children and animals.  The story of Farrow's collecting is portrayed as some sort of saintly and generous act on her part, but a lot of it easily could be read as self-aggrandizing and irresponsible obsession with trying to make oneself relevant.
          You are questioning her mental state because she adopted children whose lives had been difficult?

          As Ronan stated in some interview... what do you do when see these things? Do you walk away? Or do you actually try to do something?

          99% of the world walks away. Mia Farrow is in the 1% that doesn't.

          And she could have easily chosen the truly "self-aggrandizing" life of "irresponsible obsession" with trying to make herself relevant. She chose the more difficult path.

          We don't get to judge what is a relevant life (would that be the "perfect" life of Paula Deen or an Ann Romney life?).


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:02:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Don't get the issue. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, zed, susans, fladem, sturunner

    His movies "goodness" has nothing to do with his moral goodness.  In fact, while less than explicit, it is clear that Woody has serious moral issues.  Just watch Manhattan or Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Good films that reveal a creator and characters with serious problems.

    "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

    by Publius2008 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:43:16 PM PST

  •  Woody Allen can go fuck himself. (7+ / 1-)

    If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

    by kharma on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:46:47 PM PST

    •  Mia Farrow has no credibility whatsoever (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Island, cville townie

      A message from the Dory Previn fan club.

      •  Little girls don't lie about things like this. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, sturunner

        If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

        by kharma on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:50:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ever? (4+ / 0-)

          What about the McMartin case?

          Which is to say that a child may make statements that aren't factually true, depending upon how they're questioned.  No way to be sure what happened in this case, though.

        •  She does not have to be lying to be wrong (7+ / 0-)

          That is the problem. Memory researcher Carol Loftus has done experiments in which a teenaged girl's mother is told to talk with her daughter about that time they went to Disney World and then the daughter is interviewed about what she remembers. Several of the daughters repeated things the mother said and offered up their own memories of Disney World--a place they had never been to. When told they had never been there, some of the girls still did not believe it.

          It is very possible to create false memories in impressionable people, particulary by someone they trust. It does not even have to be intentional. If Farrow had misinterpreted something Dylan said or started questioning her about whether her father had done X or Y, it would not be impossible or even improbable that Dylan could create a memory of something that never happened and firmly believe it to her core.

          I am not saying that happened. I am just explaining that science does not support the idea that just because a seven-year-old says something serious it must be true. And seven-year-olds can and do lie. Whether any have willfully lied about sexual abuse is not something I have read up on, but kids will sometimes lie if their parents tell them to, and Mia had plenty of reason to want to hurt Woody and, perhaps in her view as a mother, to want to make sure he did not have access to her other daughter because she felt he had taken advantage of her daughter Soon-Yi.

          Not saying that happened either, but there are certainly other explanations that create reasonable doubt as to whether what Dylan says happened actually did.

          **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

          by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:14:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Elizabeth Loftus, sorry *nt* (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

            by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:16:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Loftus' attacks on victims & support for those (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, BlueDragon, kharma

            committing sexual violence on children has been largely discredited.  Rather than respond to misconduct complaints by victims, she resigned from the American Psychological Association.

            There is NO published research in refereed journals that shows that it is possible to implant false memories of sexual violence in children.

            "Get in the way. Create chaos. Cause trouble. " "On global warming there is no more time to change the Overton Window. We have to break it."

            by sturunner on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:38:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A couple of things (3+ / 0-)

              I certainly did not say there is research saying false memories of sexual abuse have been planted. However, we know they can be because young kids in very famous cases testified about experiencing some of the most bizarre forms of abuse at daycares that were later pretty clearly found to be not credible. These kids had been coached and believed what they were saying, and that had nothing to do with Loftus.

              I had not heard Loftus resigned or was the subject of skepticism. We studied her work pretty intensively in my psych classes in college. Thanks for letting me know, I will read up on that to see what the story is.

              **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

              by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:51:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You are not correct (4+ / 0-)

              Loftus' work has not been discredited. It has been attacked by a couple of researchers, who disagree that she extrapolated her findings on non-sexual abuse false memories to sexual abuse. Her experiments were not in sexual abuse victims because it would have been unethical.

              She was accused of ethics breaches in 1996, resigned from the APA, and was subsequently exonerated. In fact, the APA then awarded her a very respected award for her memory research in 2003.

              She was accused of violating one woman's privacy who was included in a case study that the most prominent skeptics of Loftus had reported as an example of a true recovered memory of sexual abuse. Lofrtus did further research into the woman's background and found things the other researches had concealed that contradicted their findings. She was cleared of the alleged ethics breach.

              Nothing I find suggests her work has been discredited, so you will have to show me something conclusive if you have it, but what I find suggests you are mistaken.

              **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

              by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:05:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  None of Loftus' research is relevant to sexual (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, kharma

                violence against children.

                Kids don't get severe complex PTSD from being "lost in the mall."  Violent assault by a trusted care-giver is another matter.

                "Get in the way. Create chaos. Cause trouble. " "On global warming there is no more time to change the Overton Window. We have to break it."

                by sturunner on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:16:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is your opinion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radical Moderate, melfunction

                  and the opinion of a few other researchers. But it does not mean her work was discredited. It was not. She is highly respected and regarded, and her work has been widely praised and awarded. It is not uncommon in science to extrapolate from findings in one situation to amother. It is a fact you can implant a false unpleasant memory in a child. It is a theory that if you can do this in some situations, you could also do this in regard to sexual abuse. I find no evidence that she has ever lied or said unequivocally that someone is lying about sexual abuse.

                  In court cases, she has been described as presenting the science impartially and without bias. She explains what her work has found and her theories on what it means, and on cross examination, the prosecutor tries to tear her work apart. She said she does not worry whether she is testifying on behalf of a defendant who migt be guilty because her testimony is a small part of the case and she is not opining as to whether the accuser or defendant is lying. She is just describing her findings that false memory is possible.

                  I do not see why that is a problem. It is up to the prosecutor to make the point that her conclusions have not been studied in sexual abuse victims, which I have no doubt she would readily admit.

                  **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                  by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:25:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Wanted to add (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melfunction

              I really take issue with the notion that her work on false memory represents support for child abusers. Not everyone who is accused is guilty, and her findings have largely been reproduced by others, affirming the likelihood of their legitimacy.

              **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

              by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:09:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, it doesn't help that any time a case (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sturunner, kharma

                comes up like this where the only witness is a child, and children are not good "witnesses", when people immediately go to the "false memory" meme.

                I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:16:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Accusations of false memory (5+ / 0-)

                  are far les likely if a parent does not talk to the child about the situation for several days in an effort to videotape it instead of turning it over to the police immediately so they can do so.

                  Her work has led to better interviewing techniques and police work at many precincts across the country that have likely helped many innocent people and even many victims. Her work has forced police to be much more careful to make sure they are not leading witnesses during interviews and to record statements so that when the jury sees or hears the transcript, the defense cannot convince them to dismiss it out of hand because it was clear the police steered the accusation in a certain direction (something juries can see for themselves when it is done). Recorded statements also help the falsely accused or people browbeaten into confessions.

                  When I transcribed interviews, we had one detective who was older and not newly trained who routinely led child witnesses, sometimes leading the prosecutor not to pursue the case. The other detectives had more recent training and college degrees in law enforcement and were far more careful and their cases had better results.

                  Loftus' work has also led to a recent push in some departments to have someone unfamiliar with the case present the lineup because she showed involved personnel could inadvertently give hints on who the accused was in the lineup.

                  Her work has encouraged less reliance on eyewitness testimony as a sole reason for convicting someone, which the Innocence Project has underscored her findings about its unreliability.

                  Defendants deserve a day in court and are innocent until proven guilty. It seems like you and a few others are essentially advocating for a system that forces jurors to treat the child's testimony as truth in a he said/she said sexual abuse case. I do not agree with that. Loftus does not argue that a child's testimony should be treated as an untrue false memory. She just states the fact that it is possible to create false memories in people because memory is not like a video camera.

                  She is a scientist, not a crusader against sexually abused children.

                  **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                  by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:39:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I haven't read most of the articles (10+ / 0-)

    I saw a bit about it on the news, but I can't stand to read stories about child abuse. I supposed I'm biased in my opinion because I don't like Woody Allen and I don't think he's deserved 99% of the praise he's received. I've always found him to be obnoxious and misogynistic.

    Because I think the way he treats women in his movies is gross, it's easy for me to believe he doesn't treat them any better in real life. Art imitates life, and Woody Allen is a rule more than an exception, IMO.

    I saw the allegations and didn't question them. Given everything the public knows about him, I don't find them to be much of a stretch.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:51:34 PM PST

  •  On a balance of probabilities, (3+ / 0-)

    the charge does not appear to be proven, which is not the same as making the impossible-to-prove claim that nothing happened. Robert Weide makes a number of points in The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast at the Daily Beast:

    1. An investigative team from Yale-New Haven Hospital conducted a six-month investigation, for the Connecticut State Police, that concluded that Dylan had not been molested. The investigation included a medical examination. The New York Times reported: "'"We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.'"

    2.  The videotape of young Dylan’s claims contained several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. According to the L.A. Times, a nanny, who resigned after being subpoenaed in the Farrow-Allen custody dispute, "told Allen's lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple's other adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation." "'I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,' Thompson said. 'I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, 'Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?'" (Farrow's attorney claimed that the nanny recanted.)

    3.A March 26, 1993, New York Times article reports Mia Farrow as conceding on cross-examination " that the girl would not tell a doctor of the abuse, and that a medical examination a few days later showed no sign of it."

    4. "Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of 'finally seeing the reality' of Frog Hollow [Mia Farrow's Connecticut home, site of the alleged incident] and used the term 'brainwashing' without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi."

    Weide concludes:

    As to the overall reliability or objectivity of Vanity Fair, I can’t really take a position. I do know that the publication was sued for libel in 2005 by director Roman Polanski who, in 1977, pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl in Los Angeles that year. The magazine published an article stating that in 1969, Polanski was seen fondling and hitting on a young model at Elaine’s restaurant in New York City on his way to the funeral of his late wife Sharon Tate, who had been brutally slain by the Manson family. One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter.

    Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

    by another American on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:53:16 PM PST

    •  Written by Woody Allen's friend and (7+ / 0-)

      biographer.

      Hardly an unbiased source.

      As I said, it's easy to discredit a seven year old.  

      I found that article to be wholly unconvincing and a bit simpering in it's attempt to be "unbiased".

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:57:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can't assume any source is unbiased (6+ / 0-)

        in a case like this.  However, Weide's article makes factual assertions, and cites to his sources for these assertions.  I've read a fair amount about this case in the last couple of days and I haven't seen anyone challenge the accuracy of his citations.

        •  No, but there are many omissions (4+ / 0-)

          of extremely damning evidence against Allen, the very evidence that let to Allen losing custody of his two children.  He wasn't even allowed visitation rights.  They don't do that without very good cause.

          The "points" copied above from the Daily Beast article were from the hospital team who concluded they couldn't conclude anything, and an estranged son who has cut off any communication with his entire family.

          The article was a mess.  It was embarrassing that Daily Beast even published it, although I'm not surprised given their reputation.

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:06:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is there a summary, or links, (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, zed, Island, FG, Radical Moderate

            to the omitted information?

            I have a bias here.  Haven't seen a Woody Allen movie since  Annie Hall, which did NOT deserve Best Picture, but I was a criminal defense lawyer for many years.  This guy wasn't prosecuted, and if the State had believed they had a case, he would've been.  Mia Farrow could've sued him, and didn't.  Dylan could've sued him, when she became an adult, and didn't.  Either case would've allowed for depositions, investigation, efforts to establish what really happened.  But there wasn't any such case.  Instead, they're trying these issues in the press 20 years later.  It doesn't strengthen the allegations.

            •  Read the Vanity Fair article I've linked above (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sturunner

              It's a pretty exhaustive review of the trial.  It sounds like it was a mess.  There were a lot of moving parts.

              I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

              by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:00:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The article was written by a friend (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, Radical Moderate

                of Farrow's and for me left me with many more questions about Farrow's credibility than it did to make me question Allen.  Ironic given that it was meant to help Farrow.

                The psychological profile that the author gave which was supposed to make the reader think of Farrow as some sort of Mother Theresa, made me really question the woman's mental disposition.

                I remember the white heat around Allen in the early 90s.  I am certain that if the State of Connecticut could have found a way to prosecute him, it would have happened.  I've always tended to believe that he was not prosecuted, not because he was powerful, but because there was no evidence with which he could credibly be prosecuted.  The VF article claimed that most people were on his side and that he pulled strings, but I remember that time totally differently.  People hated him and wanted his head.

      •  Not relevant (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        another American, coquiero

        Its not relevant to the facts that are presented if the writer is a friend of Woody Allen. Dispute the "facts" by all means if you can, but you cant just wave them off because you are biased against the author.

      •  FWIW, Weide addresses this in his article (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Buckeye Nut Schell, Island
        I considered whether to enter the fray, since my credentials were in order, so to speak. I had researched these events, I knew Woody—was friendly with him, but we weren’t so close that anyone could rightfully accuse me of being in his pocket. Quite the opposite in fact, as Woody had already advised me not to get involved. But as I came across more and more articles and blogs filled with misinformation, my wife said something to me that struck a chord: “You have just as much right to weigh in on this as anyone else, regardless of what Woody thinks.”
        But arguments from authority or ad hominem miss the point. Weide, as has been pointed out, makes factual claims. Deal with the claims, not the person making them.

        Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

        by another American on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:07:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Her story doesn't make sense. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, susans

    She said he told her to lay on her stomach and then abused her.  This would indicate he engaged in anal sex.  There should have been medical evidence of that.

    If you don't watch the news, you're uninformed. If you watch Fox news, you're mis-informed. (paraphrasing Mark Twain)

    by edg on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:57:50 PM PST

  •  Accusation is not evidence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    All it boils down to for me. Public opinion is its whole other thing, I'm just speaking personally. Likely or unlikely is a perception issue.

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

    by DAISHI on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:05:36 PM PST

  •  I feel bad for her (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Island, Qwisp

    I also do not think Allen sexually abused her but she was convinced he did and Mia may be the evil one. I think Mia lost her mind after Allen got involved with Soon-Yi and has dedicated her life to ruining him
    Allen is a person who lacks self control just based on  getting involved with his girlfriends child but it doesn't prove he is a pedophile

  •  I have a similar issue in the town where I live... (7+ / 0-)

    There is a small restaurant here that serves Persian food.  In a small, bible-belt town in western Kentucky, a Persian restaurant has enough challenges alone and it is incredible that he stays in business.  I always liked going there and he and I would have great conversations.  At leaset we used to.

    About three years ago, I heard a rumor.  It was from a very reliable source that this businessman was a pediphile.  At his daughter's sleep over at the restaurant owner's house, one of the girls woke up to see him in the room playing with himself watching them sleep.  I have never returned to the restaurant.

    I often wonder if I have done the right thing.  If this really happened, I do not want anything to do with this person but if did not, I have caused a person who has been nothing but very nice to me not only the loss of a customer but also somewhat of a friend.  Could this just be an awful rumor about this funny little Iranian man?  I have fallen for worse local legends before that have sounded very reliable.  I do not know.  I guess, if I heard it directly from the victim's own mouth (like in the case of Dylan Farrow) maybe I would have no reservations at all.  However, even with the reservations, I am some what embarrassed that I still find it almost better to treat him this way in case the allegations are correct than to err on his behalf.  

    I'm not sure that is the way we are supposed to do things in this country.  I think the presumption of innocence IS supposed to carry beyond the court of law.  Without a court of law where you have the opportunity to defend yourself, it is even more likely that all of the circumstances are not taken into account.  Assuming people are guilty and denying them the opportunity to make an honest living based on accusations without the ability to know all of the facts just does not seem like the America I want to live in.  And yet, I am guilty of that very thing.  I wouldn't want it done to me.  

    I obviously do not know what the right answer is but offered this up for discussion because I thought it was relevant.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:38:49 PM PST

  •  Wow. I just read the VF article (6+ / 0-)

    Lots to chew on, there.

    But the comments attached to stories like this (including some in this diary) never cease to amaze me.

    Apparently Mia Farrow is a piece of shit because her brother is a convicted pedophile. Got it.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:52:30 PM PST

    •  I can not believe he was allowed to adopt: (8+ / 0-)

      Fron the Vanity Fair article:

      While the complaints against Maco were proceeding, Allen brought another action before Judge Wilk in order to be able to see Dylan and to resume unsupervised visits with Ronan. He and the boy had never gotten along. As I reported in the 1992 Vanity Fair story, Ronan, at three, had kicked Allen, and Allen had twisted the child’s leg until he screamed. According to court testimony in the second trial, in June 1996, Ronan’s psychiatrist testified that on a supervised visit to Allen’s apartment in 1995, Ronan, then seven, reported that he had kicked Allen, who then grabbed him by the neck with both hands and threw him down on the couch. Shortly thereafter, the supervised visits were suspended.
      He did this WHILE BEING SUPERVISED.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:56:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the babysitter saw him kneeling in front (7+ / 0-)

        of Dylan with his head in her lap....

        That is what creeps me out. The smaller details of things he did, like putting his head in her lap the way she describes it, makes me believe her a bit more. Those are things that wouldn't be considered sexual assault, she does say it was only the one time in the attic, etc.

        Her story seems credible to me, and there is a lot more than "he said/she said, plus vindictive woman." His defenders seem to be stretching the truth quite a bit, but just to balance myself, I'll be sure to check the rebuttals.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:04:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It shouldn't suprise anyone (sadly) that he was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Carol in San Antonio

        able to adopt.  One of the points that continually get lost in the Penn St/Sandusky scandal, was that Sandusky was able to adopt 6 children and the state placed 20+ foster children in his care over the years. He was also granted permission to start a children's foundation (2nd mile) which would give him access to hundreds of "troubled" children.  Now, at the time he was never suspected of sexual abuse, so it is different.  But apparently we are to believe that all of the background checks, home visits and exit interviews never indicated any 'red flags' by the state.  However, a 70+ yr old football coach with 0 training in child abuse should have known everything.  These state agencies, throughout the country, are a mess and way too many children are falling through the cracks.

  •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Brecht, cassandracarolina

    At the outset, at the very least, both parties' statements deserved equal weight and consideration. At the most, she should have been presumed to have been telling the truth, which I think she was to an extent and that is why there was an extensive investigation. But if what I have read about that investigation are true, then I think the lack of evidence and evidence contradicting the claims tilt the balance slightly in Allen's favor. Farrow supposedly admitted physicians found no evidence of physical abuse and she said that Dylan pointed to her shoulders initially as where Allen touched her.

    The law enforcement and expert interviews produced inconsistent statements from Dylan and, in the experts' opinion, a lot of her mothers' feelings toward Allen came out of Dylan's mouth. The witnesses do not support the claims and the videotape's authenticity has several problems.

    None of that is a defense of Allen. It is an assessment of the evidence.

    I will tell you that until recently, I assumed Allen was guilty. After all, he is a weird, creepy guy who bedded and married his girlfriend's much, much younger adult daughter.

    And based on my experience in law enforcement, I will bet the cops initially leaned toward Dylan's story being true. Woody Allen has never been described as a likable guy. He gives off a weird vibe. He looks a bit odd. Busting Allen and proving his guilt would have turned some prosecutor into a celebrity of sorts and inevitable book deals. The case would not have been dropped if the evidence supported it.

    As for his creepy relationship with Soon-Yi, a lot of men have creepy relationships with women who could be their daughters or granddaughters but are not pedophiles. There is a huge difference beyween being attracted to young women vs. prepubescent children.

    Some male pedophiles date women with young daughters to gain access to the girls. It seems like Woody would have to know running off with Soon-Yi would jeopardize his access to Dylan.

    Now, when I heard he had adopted two daughters with Soon-Yi, I thought it could be viewed a few ways: he is a pedophile who adopted the girls to molest him and Soon-Yi is oblivious or does not care or he certainly did not molest Soon-Yi or she would not have agreed to adopt girls.

    Whether he molested Dylan, I just don't know but because it was investigated and those who investigated concluded it was unlikely, I do not think you can just say it is like we are at square one and they are equal or the victim deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    I also think, based on Carol Loftus' memory studies, that it is possible for someone to believe something happened that never did based on the power of suggestion. Maybe Dylan said something Mia interpreted as implicating Woody in sexual abuse, who she now clearly viewed as a slimebucket who seduced her other daughter, and through her untrained attempts to interview Dylan and her anger at Woody unintentionally created that false memory.

    Sadly, by interviewing her daughter as she did, Mia Farrow may have been the biggest obstacle to figuring out what happened because she tainted Dylan's ability to tell the story without evidence of any influence.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:57:29 PM PST

    •  A lot of people believed Dylan was telling the (7+ / 0-)

      truth.

      From the Vanity Fair article:

      In New York in March 1993, Paul Williams, who had been honored as Caseworker of the Year in 1991, and who was handling Dylan’s case for the city’s Child Welfare Administration, was suspended after being suspected of leaking to the media. According to a New York Observer article at the time, Williams claimed his office had faced pressure from City Hall to drop the case—a charge denied by then Mayor David Dinkins. Williams, who spoke twice to Dylan, is said to have “absolutely” believed her.
      That's just one.  There are several other mentions of people working for the state who found her story perfectly credible.  The "independent" study done by Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic was considered problematic by the judge.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:04:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But "is said to have" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        absolutely believed her?  Is said by whom?

        If the context makes it clear, please forgive me.   I'll read the article.

      •  Not sure which article you mean (0+ / 0-)

        There were two in Vamity Fair by the same author (a supposed friend of Farrow's) on this issue. I can read the older one, but it does not effectively make the case. It uses a lot of anonymous sources and friends of Farrow or Allen, who are clearly biased.

        I believe Dylan believes Allen molested her.  However, I do not believe we can say that view was not influenced by her mother, either inadvertently or deliberately.

        I find one of Dylan's supposed statements in the original Vanity Fair article very odd and not consistent with the firsthand accounts of abuse victims that I heard as a Sheriff's Department transcriber in the early 1990's. Supposedly she said Allen touched her privates, and she told him, "It hurts. I'm just a little girl." Don't you find that odd? Would a 7-year-old know it hurts because she is a little girl? That implies she knows this is something grownups do and it does not hurt grownups.

        The way your statement about Williams is presented sounds like another source that is not Williams or an actual report. Does any of the information come directly from legal docu,ents or reports? How do we know the judge found the Yale investigation problematic? I know he decided the allegation was inconclusive, but that could be because of other factors. Are any of these other law enforcement people who believed Dylan on record or is someone saying this was the case? I am not being skeptical, but I don't have that article and these are questions I need answered before I could weigh their value.

        I also find some of Mia's behaviors in the 1992 article troubling, like planning to adopt a child, having in her home, and giving him up because she found out he had CF, was "retarded," and cried a lot. I find it weird she let Allen pay for her psychotherapy and went to dinner with him after knowing about Soon-Yi. I don't agree with her slapping Soon-Yi in the face several times in the week after first finding out yet describing her as having a below average IQ to suggest Allen took advantage of her. Which is it? Do you slap someone you consider a vulnerable young adult who was taken advantage of? Do you have dinner with the person who did it? We know Soon-Yi does not have a below average IQ because she graduated from Columbia. She apparently had a learning disability. How did her mother not know this, and if she did know, why would she lie to the press about it?

        Mia Farrow was justifiably angry, and Woody Allen is a creep. But could she have been angry enough or distrusted him enough to want to turn the other kids against him? I have personally seen exes try to turn the kids against the other parent after a messy separation.

        Finding out that Farrow's brother, who was an adult at the time (the brother is a little older than Farrow), was convicted of pedophilia is also concerning. There are cases where kids are molested by someone but blame someone else for it for whatever reason. I don't think it is common, thoug, but it is another wrinkle in this story.

        I believe Dylan believes her accusation, which could in fact be true. But I think to judge her credibility, we would have to read what the seven year old Dylan said at the time because Mia Farrow clearly has not always handled this right.

        The first thing Mia should have done, before calling her lawyer, before taking her daughter to the doctor, and before talking to friends and therapists and before filming Dylan is to call the police so a proper, impartial investigation could be conducted that would produce more clear and convincing evidence of what happened. When my 14-year-old half-sister revealed that her uncle (my stepmother's sister's husband) had molested her a few years earlier, that is what my stepmother did, and despite the lack of physical evidence, he did get convicted.

        I also am sincerely curious as to what percentage of kids tell an adult about abuse right away the first time it occurs. In my experience, that is unusual when the abuser is not a stranger, but that in no way means it does not happen.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:44:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A difficult subject even for those of us (6+ / 0-)

    who lived our childhoods in the protection of loving parents who allowed us to grow up free from molestation or abuse.

    Out of the blue, my father and his two brothers were served with a lawsuit by their much younger half-sister. After years of therapy to access her repressed memories, she claimed that she was molested by the three of them. My father was in his 70's with a heart condition and this allegation hit him like a ton of bricks.

    I can't imagine that my father would have been guilty as charged (nor could anyone else who knew him). You could search a long time to find someone as sensitive to the possibility of offending anyone. Nothing that transpired in my childhood would suggest him capable of the behaviors laid out in this suit.

    His half-sister's financial woes could easily have prompted the claim, one from which her therapist could perhaps have profited. My parents were not wealthy by any means, and this suit would have ruined them financially. My father and his brothers fought the claims and had the suit dismissed.

    I can't offer any views on Dylan's situation. I find Woody Allen's behavior highly suspect based on his relationship with Soon Yi, and don't doubt that he's capable of the behaviors Dylan alleges.

    For all those people falsely accused, my hope is that the facts will emerge, and that they will find some peace. For those justly accused, my hope is that they find some way to assist in the healing of their victims rather than compounding their anguish with continued denial.

  •  It's too bad you are close minded (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    I found the Daily Beast article (located here for the people who would like to read it for themselves) to be a fair counter point to the allegations and accusations brought up by Mia Farrow and her children.  Most telling is the observation of why Woody would jeopardize his custody battle by going to a home where literally everyone is against him, and taking the time to sneak off with Dylan while everyone else was downstairs.  

    I won't presume to know why everyone is so obsessed with this story now.  The timing of this story is completely strange to me.  If this was such a slam-dunk case from the beginning, you'd think they would have been more public about it over the last 20 years.  I won't defend Woody Allen's actions over the years, but I also don't think he deserves to be accused of pedophilia when the case against him was closed 20 years ago, and he's been able to adopt twice since then.

    •  Perhaps you should address your ire at Dylan, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, poco

      his alleged victim, who chose the "timing of this story" and has made the accusation herself.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:11:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it was Mia and Ronan Farrow (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        during Woody's lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes, they made the accusation which started this whole re-hashing of the story.  Dylan's Vanity Fair article was largely ignored until they brought it back up again on twitter a few weeks ago.  I can understand if you get the creeps with Woody's relationships with women much younger than himself.  He's not the first, and certainly won't be the last, Hollywood celebrity to "trade in" for a younger partner.  But it is disingenuous to presume him guilty for something you were not only not a party to, but your only source comes from a few people who have openly hated him since Woody very publicly separated himself from them.  If you have new evidence, please share it with all of us.  If you're just taking the Farrow's side against Woody Allen because you find them more credible or believable, do us all a favor and keep this on the tabloid sites rather than here.

        •  Did you read Dylan's letter? (6+ / 0-)

          I linked to it in the diary.

          I don't believe that I'm "just taking Farrow's side".  I'm not really a "team this-and-that" kind of person.

          I happen to believe that if a child says for her whole life that she was abused by a parent as a child, we as a society should fucking listen to her.  And if an investigation occurs that later turns out to be less than ideal, then we should look into it, instead of going, "Oh, go ahead, you're free to marry your lovers daughter and adopt other children.  Hopefully you won't molest them."

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:48:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've read it and also the DB article (0+ / 0-)

            I've also read that one of the nannies has come out and said she saw Mia Farrow coaching Dylan on what to say to the camera when recording the tape which was presented as evidence against Woody.  Mia allegedly took "two to three days" to make the video, and even the judge in the case noticed that there were sharp edits to suggest that the tape was not done in one sitting as is usually required for evidence.  Everyone but the prosecutor closed the case, and that particular prosecutor was reprimanded for not closing the case when it turned out his reason for doing so was because he was involved with the adoption process of Dylan and Moses.  The NYT article is here because I know you probably refuse to believe it yourself.

            Look, child abuse -- and especially sexual abuse -- is one of the most abhorrent crimes a person can commit.  The book is literally closed on Woody Allen's innocence, and no amount of wishful thinking by people like yourself who keep dredging it up will change the fact that there were inconsistencies and problems with Mia and Dylan's actions and testimony resulting in no charges filed.  Again, the timing of the accusations are suspicious, but the truth seems to be that no matter what personal opinions we may have about Woody Allen's actions, he has been cleared of any abuse allegations through legal action.  You don't have to like it, but you really should learn to accept that decision.

            •  Now you are making suppositions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              As Allen was not found innocent, he was not charged because of the fragility of the witness.  That is not being cleared by legal action, as no legal action was taken.  The article you linked to says the prosecutor was reprimanded for sending this decision of his to the Judge of the custody/adoption case, not because he wouldn't drop the case.  The DA had 20 years of experience and a clear record before this reprimand.  Then the panel decided there would be no other punishment beyond that because Allen had criticized the DA and they thought the DA had a right to respond to the criticism.  Elsewhere I've seen that the reprimand might have been because of the wording in his official statement - he made the mistake of calling Dylan "the victim" instead of the "accuser" or "witness."  Every mention of the Yale Panel's finding that Dylan was not abused needs to followed with other fact that the Panel's findings were considered unreliable by the custody judge because they had lost their notes.  What kind of clown car of professionals lose their notes in a case with as much notoriety and publicity as this? The DA was also angry that the panel was releasing its opinions to Allen rather than to the court who had hired them, and accused them of having been influenced by Allen. We can go on and on - perhaps the panel felt the DA was hounding Allen and withholding their findings, perhaps the panel was incompetent and starstruck.  What I see are  facts being used selectively, especially in the Daily Beast article, written by an Allen biographer with a vested interest in defending his hero.

              •  And what I see... (0+ / 0-)

                are a bunch of people who are so willing to believe the worst about Woody Allen that they can't begin to fathom that he could be innocent.  If this case was so important to Mia Farrow, she should have pushed on with the charges at the time of the original accusations.  If there were truly enough evidence to convict Allen, he should have received a trial.  Rehashing the case 20 years later without any new evidence and seemingly out of nowhere casts a doubt on the whole scenario and it's frankly none of our business anyway.

        •  Speak for yourself (4+ / 0-)

          Since when has the subject of child sexual abuse on Daily Kos belonged only to defending poor girls in Ohio or young boys in Pennsylvania?

          I thought it shocking at the time when I heard that the Allens had adopted two girls, and more so when I think of the hoops people generally have to go through to be judged fit to be parents.  Missing files indeed.

  •  woody allen will go to his grave denying any (7+ / 0-)

    sexual impropriety of any kind

    i'm a 58 year old man, and i believe her

  •  Straw man (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, kenlac
    If you give Woody Allen his presumed innocence, then you are in essence presuming that Dylan Farrow is lying
    Why do you feel the need to make a hyperbolic, inflammatory, dishonest statement like this?

    I don't think I've heard a single person suggest that she is lying. I have heard many people say that childhood memories are unreliable. And that we know that adults, having agendas, fears and beliefs of their own, can coach kids, confuse them and induce them to believe that things happened that did not happen. They may do this deliberately or unconsciously. We know it can happen because we know it has happened.

    We don't have to presume Allen innocent or guilty. We don't have to presume Dylan is lying or mistaken or telling the truth. We don't have to presume we know what happened when we don't. All we have to do is say we don't know. How hard is that?

    Pretty damned hard, apparently, for lots of people. That's sad.

    I'm not even going to stick around for more of this. Anything that starts off this way isn't looking for honest discussion.

  •  Well he did marry his other adopted daughter. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    So I guess I'm not gonna court of law this whole event.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:44:22 PM PST

    •  nope (0+ / 0-)

      Allen never adopted Soon Yi. She was Farrow's -- and only Farrow's -- daughter.

      I'll always be UID:180, even if Markos tries to pry it away.

      by N in Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:45:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, well, that is different.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        Gross, and part of the reason I never re-married. My daughter was a knockout.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:43:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Allen was a father figure (3+ / 0-)

        Soon-Yi Previn was adopted by Mia Farrow and Andre Previn in 1978 when she was approx. 5-7 years old.  Mia and Woody's relationship lasted from 1980-92, so he was a father figure in Soon-Yi's home from the age of 8 to 20.   Exceedingly creepy and disturbing that he saw his partner's daughter as an object for sexual predation. Sick sick sick

        Look deep into nature, and you will understand everything better. Albert Einstein

        by Carol in San Antonio on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:46:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site