Allen Responds to Farrow's Abuse Claims in Letter

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Woody Allen is again denying he molested adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow and is calling ex-partner Mia Farrow vindictive, spiteful and malevolent in an open-letter published online Friday by The New York Times.

The 78-year-old filmmaker says Dylan Farrow's open letter published last week includes "creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement."

At the time of the breakup of their 12-year relationship more than two decades ago, Mia Farrow accused Allen of molesting Dylan. Allen has consistently denied the abuse allegation.

Allen claims in the letter 7-year-old Dylan was coached by Mia Farrow.

Dylan Farrow claimed in her open letter that Allen abused her in 1992 at the family's Connecticut home.

Allen said his letter will be the final word on the matter.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/allen-responds-farrows-abuse-claims-letter

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html

Woody Allen Speaks Out

By WOODY ALLEN
February 7, 2014

Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Mr. Allen has written the following response to the column and Dylan’s account.

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

REST AT LINK

[seabeyond]

1. judge says allens behavior grossly inappropriate and mia did not do all the stuff allen says she did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

[PoliticAverse]

2. People Mag: Dylan Farrow Speaks Out About Her Woody Allen Allegations – and the Backlash

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20784292,00.html

[Walk away]

3. And another woody Allen Pedophile thread goes in the trash....

[seabeyond]

4. here is so more from the judge... dylan accused, not mia, btw.

"After considering Ms. Farrow's position as the sole caretaker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that function and Mr. Allen's serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow," Justice Wilk wrote.

The judge, however, did not entirely close the door on any possible future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan, ruling that a therapist must be hired within six months to determine whether it would be harmful for Dylan to resume visits with Mr. Allen, whom she has not been permitted to see since August. "A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy," the judge said. In addition, while Justice Wilk denied Mr. Allen's request for unsupervised visits with his 5-year-old son, Satchel Farrow, he allowed him to increase the number of weekly supervised visits with the boy from two to three. As for Mr. Allen's third child, 15-year-old Moses Farrow, the justice said he would accede to the boy's wishes that he not be forced to see his father.

*

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote. On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

[JDPriestly]

11. And then, Mia named another one of her children after the judge (middle name of the child Wilks).

Is this a common practice? Because it seems utterly bizarre, maybe a little nuts to me.

Mia's sanity, of course, has no bearing on whether she and Dylan or, on the other hand, Woody and Moses are telling the truth. In any event, there is apparently no objective evidence either way unless you consider the opinions of the experts at Yale who conducted an inquiry in the course of the custody hearing and found that Woody Allen had not molested Dylan.

But who cares about expert opinions anyway?

I wasn't there. I did not have to hear or adjudicate the case. Any opinion I might have would be based on sheer prejudice and not fact. And what is more, why should I even have an opinion? The whole matter is none of my business. In fact, it is nobody's business other than the people involved.

But a lot of DUers seem to have opinions as if they had been eyewitnesses to the matter.

Child molestation is a serious problem. But so are angry divorces and custody cases.

I really have no opinion. I like both Mia Farrow and Woody Allen. They can't make me choose between them.

[CTyankee]

44. Your argument is a real reach...I must say you leave me practically speechless...reaching for

naming a child after a judge...really? That is evidence of NOTHING and you know it...c'mon, please stay within the limits of reason, if nothing else...

[JDPriestly]

49. I agree. It is evidence of nothing. But it is still very, very bizarre.

[polly7]

47. I agree with you on everything but your very last sentence.

After reading all of this about them these last few days ....... I don't like either one. Mia, because she reminds me of a manipulative, abusive person who would indeed use (and possibly abuse, according to some) her children without regard to how damaging that is, and Woody ...... just because, I don't know ... something about him. I don't see his and Soon-Yi's romance as the awful thing others do, especially in light of the longitude and apparent happiness of their marriage, so it's not that, I just have a problem with any hint of child abuse and can't help feeling a bit of suspicion that something might have happened. I do feel very sorry for Dylan and hope she can go on to live a happy, fulfilling life.

[JDPriestly]

50. Yes. I can understand. I just can't take sides.

[polly7]

52. And that's probably the best position, being that the 'facts' are contradicted from

article to article and it's impossible to know what to believe.

I understand how you feel!

[Bonobo]

13. The judge knows better than Soon-Yi and Moses what went on in the house?

Seems unlikely.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. I'm not sure how those who defend Mia and Dylan can reconcile this:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20783306,00.html

[bobGandolf]

22. Totally agree! n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. It happens all the time

Molestation occurs right under the noses of the other family members all the time. And the molesters are great at manipulating and diverting attention and blame, counting on the good hearts of others not to even think of such a thing. It kills me when they say, "she loved him and was excited to see him." Of course she loved her dad. I sure wish someone had focused their microscopic eyes on his actions rather than hers. Perhaps that young girl's life would have been better. How is a victim, a young child who is raised to love, obey, respect her parents, supposed to act?

[Fridays Child]

6. His letter will be the final word on the matter? That sounds unbelievably arrogant, doesn't it?

Except that it's not quite what he said.

[PoliticAverse]

7. His quote in the letter to the Times is:

(This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

[Fridays Child]

9. Right.

His final word, not the final word, as stated in the OP.

[Hissyspit]

10. Yes, bad writing on AP part.

[pacalo]

8. Mia Farrow has always seemed flakey to me.

After she found out about Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi, Farrow's imagination in regard to child abuse could have gone into overdrive. She might have obsessed about it, asking her daughters over & over if any of them had been abused, probably adding some scenarios of her own. A very young impressionable daughter who loved her mother more than anyone else in the world might have given her very distressed mother what she wanted to hear. As time went on, the accusation became very real to her.

We just don't know, but there have been no other accusations against Allen.

[Bonobo]

12. She has always seemed unhinged to me.

Once a 7 year old learns a memory, every time they "remember" afterwards is just them remembering their remembering in an infinite regression kind of way. They get further and further from their true memory.

Also, people often search for things in their past to "explain" their current unhappiness.

Look, I just don't believe it. What else can I say?

Woody may be many things, neurotic and even creepy (considering the Soon-Yi thing) but that doesn't make me suspect that he is attracted sexually to pre-pubescent 7 years olds.

Soon-Yi was a woman and many men are attracted to young sexually mature women. It is common. But that does not, in any way, suggest or connect with being attracted to small children. Sorry, it doesn't.

[PasadenaTrudy]

29. +1 n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. If my husband got away with ruining my daughter 's life...

I would be unhinged as well. How would you act if your daughter was raped and the rapist called her a liar? It would destroy me.

[wordpix]

82. and you know the daughter was raped, whereas the state of CT determined she wasn't---because...??

[Evergreen Emerald]

84. That is not what the state determined

There is a big difference between "innocent" and insufficient evidence to prove the crime. Adults are much more savvy than children in hiding evidence, in manipulation, in power and control. That is why child molestation cases are hard to prove.

In most cases, there is little or no physical evidence. In many cases, the perpetrators are friends, family. Who would want to believe that someone you love is capable of such a thing? And most perpetrators are excellent liars.

In our society, we focus on the actions of the child: why would she act like that if she were molested? Why would she continue to love her father? Why wouldn't she tell? Perhaps if we focused on his actions, rather than attempting to explain them away, we would do much better by our children.

[reddread]

14. Sinatra, Polanski, her brother...

she strikes me as a real peach, with serious character issues.
but the pile-on here shows whats really wrong with mob rule.
this is exactly why we need a decent form of government,
administering laws, and a reliable system of justice for all.
Maybe someday.

[Scairp]

16. Sorry, but

You don't have the foggiest idea. You judge HER? Sexist much?

[reddread]

24. Did I leave out Previn?

sorry about that.
I dont judge anyone, theres no need.
She has more ties to child molesters than the average schmoe.
I have none.
now, Im afraid youre going on ignore.
And all your judge mental anguish isnt going to impact Woody Allen, or me.

[Scairp]

15. She is NOT a flake

Quite the opposite. I read her book and she really has been through hell, both in her childhood and the family she has made with not too much help from partners/husbands, with perhaps the exception being Andre Previn. I think she's smart and has done a great job with her natural children and especially the adopted kids who had physical or mental problems, or both. Two have died, she lost one to her 56 year old boyfriend, whom she also personally caught lying together in bed with the then about 5 year old Dylan, and he had his thumb in the child's mouth (Allen defenders look up THAT behavior). She and Dylan are not lying. For some reason Allen became obsessed with both the little girl and the teenager. I think he wanted both of them under his control and not for reasons that were healthy. I totally believe her.

[pacalo]

17. From a 1992 "60 Minutes" interview...

Woody Allen: She's threatened my life many times. I mean, she called me and threatened my--she's threatened to have me killed and to kill me. And to--and to stick my eyes out, to stick my eyes out, to blind me because she became obsessed with Greek tragedy and--and felt that this--that that would be a fitting, you know, vengeance.

Steve Kroft: Did you take it seriously?

Woody Allen: I took it seriously in the middle of the night. When you get a phone call at 4 in the morning saying that you're going to be killed and that your eyes are going to be put out, you get scared because it's the middle of the night and your heart's beating, that's what--you know, when it got to be daytime, you know, I felt better, and I--moving around in New York City I always feel--you know, I always feel scared anyhow, so this was no worse.

Steve Kroft: Was there ever a time when you started to think, maybe she means some of this?

Woody Allen: Yeah. The--the--she--she sent me a Valentine card. She didn't send it to me; she gave it to me. And I said, "Oh, thanks," you know. And I went downstairs, I got into my car and I opened it up, and there...was a very, very, very chilling Valentine, meticulously worked on. I mean, I--one hesitates to say psychotically worked on--you know, a Victorian Valentine and photo of the family, and through all the kids was thrust needles and a steak knife stuck through the heart of the thing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woody-allen-defends-himself-on-60-minutes-in-92/



http://www.eonline.com/news/508586/mia-farrow-allegedly-gave-woody-allen-a-disturbing-knife-laden-valentine-s-day-card-in-1992

[Scairp]

18. Guess what?

People are emotional creatures and when a woman's children are under threat they do nutty things. That DOES NOT make them overall unstable, just angry and betrayed and needing to do something to express it. And I knew about this over two decades ago, it isn't "news" by any stretch. I'd threaten his life too, fucker.

[RBInMaine]

20. I hear extreme bias in you. (Read On)

Women are not automatically guilty of things. And NEITHER are men.

This is a complex matter in terms of the baggage between Farrow and Allen.

However, what we do have is the unbiased investigation and the unbiased polygraph. That polygraph and investigation concluded Allen did not do this. If you know ANYTHING about polygraphs, you know they are extremely reliable. He took one. She refused. This tells us a lot and are undeniable FACTS, not biased conjectures.

This is America, and in America accused people get a benefit of doubt unless PROVEN otherwise. There is no PROOF against Allen except the assertions of someone who was very young and, according to the expert investigators, was likely COACHED. In fact, there are now attorneys out there specializing in defending people from false accusations such as this as they occur fairly often in these messy relationship breakups and other situations too.

In cases such as this, when we ourselves are not direct witnesses, we must rely on unbiased EVIDENCE, and what we have in this matter says Allen did NOT do this. Case closed.

[WeekendWarrior]

34. You're Exactly RIGHT!!!

This is not evidence that Mia is or was unhinged.

Just as there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Allen molested Dylan.

So why don't we all just shut the hell up?

[Bonobo]

23. WOW! Now if that doesn't show what she is willing and capable of, I don't know what does.

That is psycho behavior. Abusive, domestic violence. Jail-worthy in fact.

[red dog 1]

60. I remember seeing that 1992 "60 Minutes" Interview

And I remember thinking at the time of the interview, "this guy Kroft doesn't seem to believe Woody Allen."

As your transcript shows, Woody did, indeed, take Mia's threats seriously, yet Kroft's questions
show that he, Kroft, did NOT seem to take the threats seriously.

Woody Allen:
."She threatened my life many times..she called me and threatened my -- she's threatened to have me killed and to kill me......and to stick my eyes out..."

Kroft: Did you take it seriously?

Allen:
"When you get a phone call at 4 in the morning saying that you're going to be killed and that your eyes are going to be put out.."

Kroft:
"Was there ever a time when you started to think, maybe she means some of these things?"

At this point in the interview, I remember thinking that Kroft didn't seem to be LISTENING to Woody Allen....and Kroft's kept asking the same question over & over
"Did you take it seriously?"...."Was there ever a time when you started to think, maybe she means some of these things?"

It reminded me of Bob & Ray's "Kimono Dragon" bit, where Ray Goulding asked questions but didn't listen to the answers Bob Elliot gave him.

Thanks for posting this.

[davidpdx]

19. I'm curious what you are referring to

For some reason Allen became obsessed with both the little girl and the teenager. I think he wanted both of them under his control and not for reasons that were healthy.

[CTyankee]

45. I love your "coulda," "mighta," "woulda" and then it "became." TA DA! QED!

[pacalo]

48. Actually, it seems to encompass the main theme here: *No one knows*.

Do you think I should have followed the know-it-all mentality here & said that Mia Farrow actually did what I supposed -- just because I think that's what happened?

[CTyankee]

54. What I see playing out here is, in the words of a poster who got their post hidden, a "psycho bitch

scenario, dripping venom, describing a vile, raging, off the wall woman, without offering a scintilla of actual evidence. And I have to wonder why that is.

Now you are saying "we don't really know" where you seem to suggest you DO. Perhaps we should stick with what we do know: Woody Allen, in his late 50s, had secretly entered into a sexual relationship with his 19 year old step daughter while still in his current relationship with the girl's mother and supposedly acting as a step father while having sex with her. Why don't you give me your scenario on the emotional makeup of a man doing that?

[pacalo]

57. And why do you bring that up as a response to me?

What I see playing out here is, in the words of a poster who got their post hidden, a "psycho bitch scenario, dripping venom, describing a vile, raging, off the wall woman, without offering a scintilla of actual evidence. And I have to wonder why that is.

Save your red-meat baiting material for someone who gives a hoot. I'm not joining your OTT torches-&-pitchforks marathon on this speculative issue or any other fool's errand. Happy hunting.

[CTyankee]

58. wow, now it's red meat baiting and torches and pitchforks...

way to avoid having a discussion...and who is being speculative? I am trying to stick with the facts we DO know and not make stuff up about Mia Farrow's supposed jihad against Woody Allen...

[pacalo]

59. There's nothing more to discuss.

I expressed what I think about this topic in post #8, then you stated your opinion. We disagree. That's the end of it for me.

Badgering isn't going to get you anywhere if you're looking for a discussion. You're looking for an argument, not a discussion. (And using your response to me as an opportunity to call out another DUer who got a post hidden was tacky.)

[red dog 1]

63. "Woody Allen, in his late 50s, had secretly entered into a sexual relationship with ...

...his 19 year old step daughter.."
Soon-Yi was not Woody Allen's step-daughter.
Soon-Yi was not Woody & Mia's adopted daughter.
Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia farrow and Andre Previn

Her full name was Soon-Yi farrow Previn

Robert B. Meade, the Emmy-Award winning producer & director, pointed these things out in his article in The Daily Beast on January 27, 2014.
n that article titled "Woody Allen Allegations: Not So fast", Meade also points out (Re: Dylan)
"If Mia's account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations,
during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious
ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they both were missing."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html/

[CTyankee]

66. OK, how else do you want to put it? He had a sexual relationship with his lover's adopted teenaged

daughter who was living with her mother. He did not meet her in a bar or while working on one of his movies or at a party.

I am unimpressed by a quote from another Hollywood producer/director. Really. If I were Woody I would look for someone outside of that shark tank to give me a character reference....

[pacalo]

73. Thanks for posting that. It's the most sensible commentary I've seen.

Robert Weide can see through the Farrow clan & provided some very good points.

Everyone should read that article.

[CTyankee]

75. Hollywood just loves them some Woody Allen!...Right...

[pacalo]

77. Afraid to read it, now that you've got your torches-&-pitchforks groove going on?

[CTyankee]

79. Oh,not mine at all! Hollywood has plenty of its own, don't worry, pacalo!

AFter all, Woody is one of their brethren and of course NO ONE there takes care of their brethren, do they?

I'm lovin' it...

[pacalo]

81. I think there are other "brethren" at work here who are "just lovin' it!1!" --

at the expense of the so-called victim.

[CTyankee]

85. Woody is a powerful guy in the Hollywood community.

For many people out there rocking the boat could cost you a livelihood. Not many folks would be wiling to take on Woody in such instances. I'm not talking about established stars (altho I could see how they would also want to be on Team Woody). I am talking about people who work as script writers, camera operators, sound operators, film editors. My daughter lives in that world and these people work incredibly hard under some difficult circumstances. I couldn't blame them for keeping their opinions about Woody Allen to themselves.

[noiretextatique]

103. he is a sick and twisted fucker

always thought so. i don't blame mia one bit for hating his rotten soul.

[Democat]

21. Why won't Mia Farrow take a lie detector test?

Apparently Woody Allen did and passed and then Mia refused to take one, is that what happened?

[7962]

28. Passing a lie detector test means nothing. Thats why they're not allowed in a trial.

I've know a few people over the years who passed them and were lying through their teeth. And if you REALLY BELIEVE you didnt do anything wrong, why would it show up as a lie?
Not passing judgement on Allen being guilty or not, just talking about these lie detector tests.

[WeekendWarrior]

35. Actually, that's not completely correct

They are used all the time in investigations as a tool to help the police and security specialists gauge the veracity of a suspect. While they are unreliable, they are still used quite frequently. Just not in court.

I think most investigators would find it quite telling that Allen was happy to take one (and did) and Mia refused. Whether true or not, the mere willingness of a suspect to take one suggests that he is not afraid of the results.

Polygraph tests are always voluntary, and believe me, if his attorneys thought he was guilty of ANYTHING, they would have stopped him from taking one.

[7962]

43. Also, he refused to take a test administered by the police. He passed one given by someone

picked by his attorneys

[Major Nikon]

87. Which is a self defeating argument for anyone who thinks Allen is guilty

Either lie detector tests are subjective, in which case he would be stupid to take one administered by police, or they are non-subjective and it wouldn't matter who administered it.

[7962]

88. For those who think they are reliable, they're only reliable when given by a 3rd party

I dont trust them based on experience. I was merely pointing out to a poster who mentioned the fact that he had passed one, that he had passed one of his choosing. I never said he was guilty. But the state's atty said he had probable cause to prosecute. And anyone who was NOT Woody Allen wouldve been in court.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

[Major Nikon]

89. the state's atty also got rebuked by a disciplinary panel for saying he had probable cause

Panel Criticizes Prosecutor In Inquiry on Woody Allen
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
Published: February 24, 1994

A Connecticut prosecutor's handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen was cause for "grave concern" and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, a disciplinary panel has found.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/nyregion/panel-criticizes-prosecutor-in-inquiry-on-woody-allen.html

Seeing as how the prosecutor's own investigation team concluded Dylan had not been sexually abused, it's hard to imagine of what his probable cause case consisted. Any anyone who was not Woody Allen probably wouldn't have been so scrutinized in the first place. The Vanity "Fair" article is actually more notable for the facts they conveniently left out.
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

[CTyankee]

55. from what I read, Woody refused an objective lie detector test and hired his own

tester which the court refused to admit as evidence. A lie detector test is pretty worthless unless it is done by a 3rd party. I can't even understand why Woody even THOUGHT he could get away with that shit...

[red dog 1]

64. Mia Farrow did refuse to take a lie detector test.....I wonder why?

n/t

[fasttense]

25. And now Allen has 2 more little girls, 14 and 15 years old, to play around with

Soon-Yi Previn and Allen have two adopted daughters, Bechet Dumaine (born c. 1999, China) and Manzie Tio (born 2000, Texas).

So lets all pretend nothing is going on and then we can feel like a great artist is being abused by a spiteful woman.

[WeekendWarrior]

38. You can't have it both ways

You assume that Allen abused one daughter, so now he must be dangerous and will probably abuse these girls. In other words, he would be showing a "pattern of abuse."

Yet in all the time before the Dylan accusation (initially made by her mother, not Dylan), Allen showed no pattern of abuse. And in the 22 years since this story broke, not a single person has come forward to claim abuse.

As we all know, in these high profile cases, the victims start coming out of the woodwork the moment it hits the media.

Unless, of course, there are no victims. So making the assumption that because Allen was once accused of child molestation in the middle of a nasty break-up, he must be guilty and is probably doing it to his daughters now, is ridiculous.

Of course, you completely ignore the fact that in order to adopt these girls, Allen would have been thoroughly investigated, especially after the previous allegation, and the investigation would have to show that the home he provided was safe.

"Logic" like yours is destructive.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Dylan Farrow's response to Allen's NY Times op-ed...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552

[Scairp]

33. Misogyny

Is running rampant here. Why is Mia the "psycho bitch from hell"? Because if he had done this crime he would have totally confessed, right? Are you high? This is what abusers do, they accuse the other party/parent of everything under the sun, all the while with their hand on their heart. And he didn't kick her anywhere. They each maintained their own residences and she dumped HIM after she found the naked photos of Soon-Yi. FUCK Woody Allen, he isn't fit to shine Mia's shoes. And neither are YOU.

[Nitram]

36. Scairp, disagreeing with you...

...and suspecting Mia farrow of lying to hurt the man who hurt her, is not misogyny. You are playing the gender card and stirring up a lot of emotion when we should be discussing what we know of the facts.

[Scairp]

41. Two females against the word of one male

Both are being disparaged here. I call that a classic case of misogyny. What are we Saudi Arabia now? You must have the testimony of at least 4 MALE witnesses before a woman can go to court if she has been raped? This line of comment is absurd. All abusers lie but only a tiny number of victims or their advocates make up abuse stories. It isn't worth making a false accusation, as you can plainly see. Do you seriously think this is what Mia and Dylan Farrow wished for? I promise you that digging this whole thing up again is not what either wanted. But they also never got their day in court, nor an admission from Allen so they go public, hoping he might at last say what he did. He could free this young woman from her torment if he would just do that. What harm could it do now? Statute of limitations has run out and he is not in legal jeopardy for anything, except maybe obstruction, but I doubt it. Just fucking unbelievable how anyone can defend that freak. That and the sexist comments. Mia is a psycho bitch and Dylan is a damaged young woman parroting lies her mother told her. It's such bullshit. He did it.

[Nitram]

106. Two females against one male are automatically telling the truth?

I get it that Allen deeply hurt Farrow. Now the child she had by Sinatra while she was with Allen is coming down hard against him.The odds that Allen could have carried out the abuse Farrow charges him with are extremely slim, given the circumstances that particular day at that particular place. Can't you see that Farrow was hurt and wanted to strike back?

[geek tragedy]

62. anyone who claims "psycho bitch from hell" and "a man's worst nightmare"

isn't misogynist fails the basic "rational person" test

[Nitram]

108. If he was falsely accused of sexually abusing a minor for spite...

I can forgive him for a bit of hyperbole. If he is guilty, you are absolutely correct.

[geek tragedy]

109. no, there's no jutification for calling her a "psycho b!tch"

any more than there's justification for calling Allen West a "psycho n-word."

[VA_Jill]

30. Molesters almost always

lie about what they've done. Look at Sandusky for a great example. And those who molest family or quasi-family members will frequently use language like Woody's…"I didn't molest Dylan, I loved her!" Yeah, right. Almost a double entendre there. And so what if the pediatrician found her "intact"? There are a lot of other ways to molest a young girl besides outright penetration.

[closeupready]

32. This thinking is paranoid and sick.

[Nitram]

37. The fact that molesters lie...

...does not make Allen a molester or a liar. Farrow had just as much motivation to lie. Why didn't she take a lie-detector test?

[Pale Blue Dot]

51. I don't know who to believe, but "lie detectors" prove nothing.

There's a reason they're inadmissible in a vast majority of jurisdictions. The fact that Allen passed the test proves nothing. If he had failed the test it would have proved nothing, too.

[Nitram]

107. It is only one piece of evidence among many.

But the fact that he willingly took the test and Farrow would not is suggestive.

[progressoid]

53. Huh?

Molesters almost always lie therefore Woody is a molester?

[pacalo]

80. "There are a lot of other ways to molest a young girl..."

According to Mia Farrow's 1993 testimony, that would include touching a young girl's shoulders:

The videotape and the medical exams weren’t the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter’s off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993, quotes from Mia’s own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, “I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen’s attorney asked Mia about the second doctor’s findings: “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Farrow answered, “Yes.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

[Sunlei]

31. That letter really covers the facts. I believe him,he says the letter is the last we hear from him.

[Robbins]

42. Look

I have tried to stay out of this debate on DU on this but I have always doudt that he was guilty and the only Woody Allen films I have
seen are the ones he did with Scarlett Johansson.

Too many here are willing to accept he did It.Yeah getting involved with Soon-Yi wasn't the best judgement since she was Mia farrow's adopted daughter even though despite what some thought he never lived with farrow.

If it was so clear he was guilty why didn't he get prosacuted.

Farrow has hinted recently Frank Sinatra was real father of her son with Allen.That means before Soon-Yi she cheated on him.Farrow
also didn't have any problems with Roman Polanski who drugged and forced himself on a 13 year old girl.That case Isn't In dispute.
Plus she has been the one dragging this out again.Allen by all accounts has been happy with Soon-Yi and has continued his film carrer.
While her's has surfered since breakup.

[CTyankee]

46. I'm just loving all this "evidence" against Mia...NOT...

good lord, how transparent...and flimsy

[CTyankee]

56. You know, I keep seeing the Polanski reference and yet never an actual quote from Mia

that would confirm it. I'd like to see it for myself.

It doesn't surprise me that Woody is "happy with Soon Yi." He is, after all, getting on in years when many men do slow down in their sexual activities and mellow out, altho some don't. And I would think having a younger wife to look after you is a real help to him and he appreciates it.

Aging is a real "gotcha" as I and my husband, both now with spinal problems, can certainly attest...on a daily basis...I keep telling him he needs a younger wife and I need a younger husband, just to keep up, LOL. It's a harsh reality.

[geek tragedy]

61. if this were Mel Gibson instead of Allen I doubt DU would have this many

apologists/victim-shamers out in force.

It's a lot easier to call the victim of abuse a lying nutjob when people are sympathetic to the perp.

[CTyankee]

67. I think it is because Woody was once a rather romantic figure because he WAS so

homely and gawky and lots of men (mostly leaning left politically) identified with his angst and his politics. Now older, they are hanging on to their earlier identification. That is entirely my opinion, tho.

But what is more interesting is what is actually happening on this supposedly progressive, liberal board. The feminist angle is completely thrown under the bus. Mia the Sociopath rages with some DUers. I'm pretty horrified. I never thought I would see such a betrayal on DU...

[geek tragedy]

68. this is completely unsurprising to me. community standards are such that misogyny

is pretty much okay unless it involves dropping the c-bomb.

the average corporate America workplace is much better than DU when it comes to discouraging misogyny and sexism

[CTyankee]

69. so much of this rage flies under the flag of free speech. I do not understand this sea change.

There was a time when feminism was a founding block of progressivism. What happened?

[geek tragedy]

70. i have to disagree that feminism was ever a founding block of progressivism.

the left movement has always been based on what is important to leftwing men, not the concerns of women.

"lifestyle liberalism" and "gonadal politics" etc.

SDS was horribly misogynistic.

The things that liberal men all agree on in terms of women's issues are those of convenience--typically those that make women more sexually available (birth control/abortion). If expanded abortion rights made it more difficult for men to get laid, the issue would look much different on the left.

[Comrade Grumpy]

71. You know, that's a pretty crappy line to take toward "liberal men."

Not that I would expect anything else from you.

Men's support of women having control over their sexuality is all about our prospects of getting laid? That is just plain offensive, and insulting.

I would posit that there is broad, near unanimous support among "liberal men" for equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity. Perhaps not so much support for what rad fem ultras like yourself insist on.

[geek tragedy]

72. "where people stand depends on where they sit"

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

so has it always been, so will it always be.

you really think impassioned defenses of prostitution and pornography are strictly ideological and expressions of belief in personal freedom?

It's been controversial--here!!!--as to whether a man should be forced to pay child support if he gets a woman pregnant and she decides to give birth against his wishes.

Conservatives and Republicans can spout platitudes about "equal rights/pay" etc, but the devil is in the details.

"rad fem ultras" is not a phrase used by men who are generally supportive of feminism

[Major Nikon]

86. Pffft, there's no shortage of self described feminists that take those positions

http://www.partisans.org/node/817
http://www.lmh.ox.ac.uk/IGS/home/IGS-Community-%281%29/People/Profiles/Kerry-Thornhill.aspx

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Shrage

http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Young

http://jezebel.com/5903985/critics-worry-that-feminist-porn-isnt-really-feminist

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451044

[geek tragedy]

90. Just like there are black Republicans, there's the odd woman who claims to

be a feminist and then turns around and supports male supremacy. Including the dimwits like Schrage and Young you quoted who believe men should be able to blackmail women into getting abortions by not helping feed and clothe their offspring. Child support is not a punishment, it is providing food and clothing and medicine and shelter for one's offspring. When men are able to bear the physical risks and costs of pregnancy, get back to me.

P.s. Young is a libertarian Paulbot crank, not a feminist, regardless of what she claims to be.
P.p.s. Shrage is something of a forced birther who questions whether women should have freedom over their own bodies.

[Major Nikon]

91. You have no idea what you are talking about

Shrage is an abortion advocate and a professor of women's studies. The idea that you don't consider her a real feminist and have to call her a dimwit is quite telling. Her position on abortion is for unrestricted access in the first trimester, restricting only elective abortions after that, and for doing away with all viability standards.

Cathy Young is a libertarian, but she's also a vocal critic of Ron Paul, so obviously you have no idea who she is or what she stands for and the idea that you get to decide who is and isn't a feminist is no less ridiculous than your liberal purity test. Whether you choose to admit it or not, there are feminists on the right and while some are of the pseudo-feminist Phyllis Schlafly or Sarah Palin stripe, not all are.

Interestingly you had no comment on Kerrie Thornhill. I guess your 30 second google research didn't turn up much, and it's not as if the three feminists I listed are the only ones who don't meet your feminist purity test on that issue.

[geek tragedy]

92. Feminists do disagree on porn.

They do not disagree on child support. No feminist believes children should go without food and clothing in order to avoid some imagined and trivial unfairness to men.

No feminist views child support--feeding and clothing a child one has created--as 'punishment' that should be done away with.

Young works for the fucking Cato institute. Quoting her on gender is like quoting Clarence Thomas on race.

Shrage's schtick is to peddle feminism as something that above all should worry about men and rightwingers' sensibilities. There's a reason only the MRA crowd pays any attention to her.

[Major Nikon]

94. Your argument is still no better than 'I don't agree with them, so they must not be feminists'

They do not disagree on child support. No feminist believes children should go without food and clothing in order to avoid some imagined and trivial unfairness to men.

Does not equal....

It's been controversial--here!!!--as to whether a man should be forced to pay child support if he gets a woman pregnant and she decides to give birth against his wishes.

I gave you three examples (there are many more) of feminists who disagree on that issue. Despite your latest strawman, you have yet to contradict this with anything better than 'they must not be feminists'.

Young works for the fucking Cato institute. Quoting her on gender is like quoting Clarence Thomas on race.

Which doesn't make her any less of a feminist, which is pretty much the whole point. To the fully literate, words have meanings. YMMV.

fem·i·nist
[fem-uh-nist]
adjective Sometimes, fem·i·nis·tic.
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.

Nothing in the definition requires them to be progressive, liberal, a Democrat or whatever else you are positing.

...only the MRA crowd pays any attention to her.

http://powderroom.jezebel.com/you-are-all-missing-the-point-of-forced-fatherhood-513298819

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/06/forced_fatherhood_laurie_shrage_new_york_times.php

http://www.bustle.com/articles/471-is-forced-fatherhood-a-problem-or-just-problematic

http://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/forced-fatherhood/

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/woman-magazine/Forced-Fatherhood-Fair-221860991.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/

[geek tragedy]

95. Again, those women are not feminists, but MRA attention-seekers whose schtick is to

promulgate "men first feminism" in order to gain readers and links from sexists and misogynists.

In this case, the hook is propose giving men EVERY advantage and saddle women with EVERY disadvantage in terms of pregnancy and childbirth.

The proper term for them is "assholes."
To put it in simple terms:

when there is a child, both biological parents have a duty to make sure the child is fed, clothed, sheltered, and given medical care.

The obligation of child support is not to the mother, it is to the CHILD.

The MRA crowd and their so-called 'feminist' poodles want to undo that such that a man take on ZERO risk and obligation and women take on 100% of the risk and burden. Women must not only face the health risks, pain, and economic consequences of pregnancy, but now they must take on 100% of the economic burden for the next 18 years if these anti-feminists were to get their way.

They are to feminism what Clarence Thomas is to racial equality.

There is room for disagreement on porn and sexuality. On child support, taking the wrong side means you don't believe in gender equality but support male supremacy.

MRAs and feminists are distinct groups, with zero overlap.

"Forced fatherhood" is a talking point in order to justify men being deadbeat dads. Paying child support and being a father are two separate functions. Signing a check is not being forced to be a father.

Notice also that every feminist you quoted above pretty much took Shrage's MRA screed to the woodshed, albeit more respectfully than I did.

[Major Nikon]

96. You are just repeating yourself

You don't agree with them, so they must not be feminists. I get that.

If you don't have anything original, I'm not particularly interested. It just seems more like an attempt to get the last word in, as if that somehow means something.

Cheers!

[geek tragedy]

97. No, they advocate against gender equality and in favor of men's conveniences

trumping women's autonomy and children's health and safety.

That makes them not feminists, quite the opposite really.

Just like being a forced birther is a disqualifier from being a feminist.

[Major Nikon]

98. ...

[geek tragedy]

99. hey, if you think Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson and Herman Cain are authentic

voice for racial equality, then sure you'll buy that the Cato Institute is harboring feminist activists.

[Major Nikon]

100. ...

[geek tragedy]

101. heh, go on listening to only those women who tell you what you want to hear nt

[Major Nikon]

102. Pot/Kettle

[CTyankee]

74. It was to me. There was a wing of it at least that subscribed to the idea of feminism...

nt

[geek tragedy]

83. there tends to be a focus on formalistic measures of feminist advocacy

equal rights under the law, equal pay, right to abortion etc.

but what people don't grasp about feminism is that it looks deeper than that. the embedded cultural stuff, etc referred to as patriarchy. stuff people haven't thought about and have to some extent internalized.

the same people who love to rail at "rad fems" like Catharine MacKinnon also, completely without irony, take for granted workplace protections against sexual harassment as something so necessary and obvious that it's hard to conceive society working without them.

[JI7]

76. i think this is exactly it, but we have seen that one can be liberal

on some issues yet still be bigoted concerning certain groups of people. especially women.

[Squinch]

78. That is a VERY interesting and true observation.

[noiretextatique]

105. marrying his step-daugther convinced me

that his is a creep molester.

[red dog 1]

65. K&R...Thanks, Hissyspit, for posting

[raven mad]

93. Aaaack........I'm almost scared of this thread -

was never an Allen fan, but quickly, isn't this a he said/she said issue? I'm not well versed in the law of the area where the suit was filed, but I'd like to see evidence one way or another. An accused or the accusers say-so doesn't quite hack it for me.

That said, I'm outta this thread! I despise molesters, and don't believe they can be rehabilitated or cured short of the final one. But this one's too much for little old me!

[noiretextatique]

104. frank sinatra wan not her stepfather

creep.