Dylan Farrow's Story (New York Times)

[barbee0715]

I'm very glad this was posted in this forum, because this is a preview of what is going to happen with the media and the court of public opinion when the Wade thing comes up. I remember this all too well-there are only 2 men that I loved and adored on my own (my other big crushes have been on Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly and Gregory Peck-and my mother had crushes on them when she was a kid) have been on Woody and Michael-Woody I would rate a 10 in my heart-Michael a million.
And when this happened in 92, I raised an eyebrow when he got with Soon-Yi, but then I had raised an eyebrow to his relationship with Mia too-I thought it was an odd pairing and he obviously saw something in her as an actress that nobody else did)
But before Mr. Weide's letter came out in the Daily Beast, I have been on Yahoo and several other sites staunchly defending Woody on these accusations and the falsehoods that everybody is just presuming to be absolutely true-not even knowing the facts of the case-that Woody was thoroughly investigated-the accusations didn't even happen until after they were in a custody battler, that Soon Yi was NOT his kid, that he and Mia didn't even live together, etc. etc. -Mr. Weide did a far better job than I have on the actual facts-but it goes along the same lines. And I have been called absolutely horrible names in the responses.


I just can't believe that people just jumped to the conclusion based on her letter and Ronan and Mia's tweets (that are pretty much timed with his new MSNBC show) that he's automatically guilty and he needs to be "killed" or "thrown in jail" or worse. I just don't understand what happened to the world-when we started believing Tabloid Trash as the gospel truth because it's reported in the news "media."
And it's been on every news outlet, and entertainment outlet since last week-every day. I even saw that despicable Maureen Orth giving a bunch of gruesome details that have been proven to be only allegations by Mia.

Right now, more people are comparing Woody to Roman Polanski (which are apples and oranges since Polanski was charged, tried and convicted) more than Michael, but because of this and the reaction, I just know that when the Wade thing starts up, we are going to be hearing about this every day, all day-and it's really going to get ugly.

It's just been making me physically sick and I'm just terrified that this is really going to destroy Michael's legacy-and I'm just worried. Thank you for letting me vent.

 

[barbee0715]

I don't think it was just the award. Months ago the Farrows were back in the news with Mia claiming Frank Sinatra might be the father of Ronan. Then on father's day Ronan wrote something also on his father being his brother in law or something. Ronan is going to start his own TV show soon with NBC, so no , they have been in the news for awhile now although they are claiming it was triggered by the award.:smilerolleyes:

I definitely agree-if it was awards they would have been doing this back when "Midnight in Paris" was up for best picture two years ago. I also think Dylan should be ashamed for dragging these Hollywood actors and actresses into something that is Woody and Mia's personal problem.

 

[HIStory]

It's just been making me physically sick and I'm just terrified that this is really going to destroy Michael's legacy-and I'm just worried. Thank you for letting me vent.

Well, Michael's been through a very public trial in 2005 and another allegation in 1993. Most people have made up their minds on him whether they think he was guilty or innocent. Wade was on TV when he came out with his allegations but it did not produce by far the attention and response that the Dylan allegations against Woody Allen are now producing. I'd like to believe that's because people find him less credible. I'm not saying such allegations aren't harmful for MJ's legacy. They always are. But if 1993 and 2005 did not destroy his legacy then Wade won't either. Obviously without such allegations MJ would be even more popular, and they are not useful.

Wade's allegations are a LOT different. His allegations come with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, after he had been defending and praising MJ for 20 years. Including testifying for him in a criminal trial. People do take issues with that turn-around and do side-eye that, IMO and it's hard to feel sympathy for Wade.

Money does not play a role in Dylan's case. Dylan says he's upset that WA was never brought to court. Wade did have the opportunity to testify against MJ when he was an adult. Instead he defended him. And his sudden turn-around comes when he files a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Dylan has always been consistent since 1992 that she's been molested. She did not just suddenly change her story like Wade. Dylan says she feel physically sick whenever she sees WA's picture on T-shirts, or whenever he's honored at award shows etc. Wade however himself staged tributes for MJ for 20 years and praised him voluntarily at any given opportunity in the media. So the two cases could not be any more different.

Obviously if Wade's case goes to court it will not be nice. There will be negative crappy articles on MJ. There will be negative comments in comment sections bashing and trashing him. But to me the very different public response to Wade's and Dylan's allegations tells that Wade isn't totally trusted even by the general public.

 

[HIStory]

Meanwhile Moses Farrow says it was Mia Farrow who was abusive, not Woody Allen:

The entire Farrow family isn't taking sides against Woody Allen.

After Dylan Farrow penned an open letter revealing details of the sexual abuse she claims happened 20 years ago at the hands of her adopted father Allen, her brother Ronan and mother Mia Farrow both are standing by her side.

One of her other brothers - Moses Farrow, a family therapist - is not. He says he is now able to see the other side of things, and it was Mia Farrow who was abusive, not Allen.

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses, 36, told People magazine.
He continued, "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi."

Woody Allen, 78, and Mia Farrow, 68, split in 1992, after the director began a relationship with Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Farrow Previn. Allen was never charged with any molestation and married Soon-Yi in 1997.

"It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces even though it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan's distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen," Allen's attorney Elkan Abramowitz said in a statement to CNN.

But Mia Farrow is asserting that Dylan's claims are true that when she was 7 years old, Allen led her to a "dim, closet-like attic" and "then he sexually assaulted me."

Moses doesn't believe this happened to his sister.

"[Dylan] looked forward to seeing [Allen] when he would visit," he said. "She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don't know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."

Moses added that his home with Mia Farrow at the helm was never a happy one. and in fact, she was the abusive one.

"From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child," he added. "She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do."
He even said that distancing himself from his mother "has led to a positive reunion with my father."

Dylan asserts to People magazine that she was "never coached."
"My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life," she said. "I can't stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me."

Defending Moses' claims against Mia, Dylan Farrow said, "My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies."

There is no additional comment from Woody Allen at this time. Allen has consistently denied the abuse allegation and Connecticut authorities two decades ago concluded there was no evidence to pursue charges.
Efforts to reach Mia Farrow were not successful, including calls to her home, calls to former lawyers and former agents. Farrow, who has been vocal about the alleged abuse, has been tweeting today, but not about Moses' interview with People.

http://gma.yahoo.com/dylan-farrow-3...a-farrow-200355316--abc-news-celebrities.html

 

[Bubs]

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses, 36, told People magazine.
He continued, "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi."

I don't know for sure, but I personally think what Moses says is true.
I read Mia's book ages ago, and impression I got from it was "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned".
It is not the first time when woman turns kids against the man when they break up.

"My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life," she said. "I can't stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me."

Sounds like Mia has taught some drama lessons to Dylan?
Interesting that last year Mia's own brother was jailed for child sexual abuse, but no word from Mia, Dylan or Ronan about/against him! If Dylan was abused, more likely candidate is Mia's brother than Woody.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...-to-Be-Sentenced-for-Sex-Abuse-229522321.html

 

[Sunwalker7]

Well, Michael's been through a very public trial in 2005 and another allegation in 1993. Most people have made up their minds on him whether they think he was guilty or innocent. Wade was on TV when he came out with his allegations but it did not produce by far the attention and response that the Dylan allegations against Woody Allen are now producing. I'd like to believe that's because people find him less credible. I'm not saying such allegations aren't harmful for MJ's legacy. They always are. But if 1993 and 2005 did not destroy his legacy then Wade won't either. Obviously without such allegations MJ would be even more popular, and they are not useful.

Wade's allegations are a LOT different. His allegations come with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, after he had been defending and praising MJ for 20 years. Including testifying for him in a criminal trial. People do take issues with that turn-around and do side-eye that, IMO and it's hard to feel sympathy for Wade.

Money does not play a role in Dylan's case. Dylan says he's upset that WA was never brought to court. Wade did have the opportunity to testify against MJ when he was an adult. Instead he defended him. And his sudden turn-around comes when he files a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Dylan has always been consistent since 1992 that she's been molested. She did not just suddenly change her story like Wade. Dylan says she feel physically sick whenever she sees WA's picture on T-shirts, or whenever he's honored at award shows etc. Wade however himself staged tributes for MJ for 20 years and praised him voluntarily at any given opportunity in the media. So the two cases could not be any more different.

Obviously if Wade's case goes to court it will not be nice. There will be negative crappy articles on MJ. There will be negative comments in comment sections bashing and trashing him. But to me the very different public response to Wade's and Dylan's allegations tells that Wade isn't totally trusted even by the general public.

Yes, the two cases really are very different. Which is why I’ve been I’ve been quite uncomfortable with the strong pro-Allen sentiment in this thread to be honest. I mean, I’m not saying that people should condemn Allen based on a tweet, but I can’t help but wonder if the tragedy that happened to Michael has made us MJ fans on some level to believe that false rape/molestation accusations are far more common than they actually are.

Obviously false accusations do happen, and they can have terrible, devastating, life-ruining consequences for the accused. However, only a small percentage of rape or molestation accusations are false. A far more common problem is rapists/molesters getting away with their crimes. Sometimes they are not convicted because it can be hard to find evidence for something like this, but often victims don’t even come forward with their accusations. And some of the reactions to this Allen scandal show exactly why many victims might choose not to say anything - because they know they won’t be believed anyway. And on top of that they might be called crazy, or vindictive, or bitter, or deluded - just like Dylan and her mother have been called.

I don’t really want to debate whether Allen is guilty or not, and I don’t think this is the right thread for it. I guess I just wish that people very carefully consider the accusations and the facts availabe before engaging in victim blaming.

But, to bring this back to Michael - I don’t think we can draw conclusions on how the Wade accusations will be treated in the media based on how these Allen accusations are handled. The facts of the cases are different, and so are the reactions towards Allen and Michael. I mean, people have known about the accusations against Allen for 20 years now, and they haven’t had any impact on his career or image. Actors keep tripping over each other in order to work with him, accolades are heaped on him and the accusations have been swept under the rug, until now. It’s been a totally different story with Michael. I am worried about the Wade story, but I hope even the media can see through his lies. It gives me some hope that at least so far his story hasn’t got that much attention.

 

[HIStory]

^ Yes, I agree that it's important to not to jump to conclusions on either side. I haven't seen anything yet which makes me reach a conclusion on it. It could be that WA really did molest Dylan, and it could be that it's some kind of vendetta by Mia.

Obviously we, as MJ fans, have experience with false child abuse allegations, so many of us are a bit distrustful of such allegations. Maybe it's a reverse of when people who were molested as children believe other child abuse allegations a lot more uncritically than they normally should. But it's important to treat each case individually.

I'm not sure if I will ever be able to reach a conclusion about the WA case. It's not like there will be a trial or any new info is expected to come out. It's just the same old story and a new media war at this moment with lots of he said/she saids and one can only take sides based on sympathies. So I'm not going to take sides in this.

The facts of the cases are different, and so are the reactions towards Allen and Michael. I mean, people have known about the accusations against Allen for 20 years now, and they haven’t had any impact on his career or image. Actors keep tripping over each other in order to work with him, accolades are heaped on him and the accusations have been swept under the rug, until now. It’s been a totally different story with Michael.

Yes, I agree. If there is one thing that we can conclude at this point is that the treatment of MJ by the media was simply unprecedented. No one really talked about this case with WA in the past 20 years, but when it came to MJ the media rarely ever missed the opportunity to mention the allegations against him in articles. They kept reminding the public all the time. That wasn't the case with Allen. I guess it helps if you are white and well-connected in the industry... (same with Polanski, who IS guilty).

Meanwhile they based their accusations on insinuations, on things like how weird MJ supposedly was etc., but totally ignored all the problems with the accusers and their stories. Regarding Woody Allen the only thing his defenders can bring up is the portrayal of Mia as a revengeful scorned woman (might be true or not true, who knows?). In MJ's case we have got so many lot stronger FACTS in his defense! Yet, the media tended to totally ignore those because it made a better story to portray MJ as a child molester.

Actually some of the media actively participated in the construction of the allegations against MJ by paying many people to make up allegations. (Many of the prosecution's witnesses were such people!) I don't think that has ever happened (or ever would happen) to someone like Woody Allen.

 

[IrishFaery]

Yes, the two cases really are very different. Which is why I’ve been I’ve been quite uncomfortable with the strong pro-Allen sentiment in this thread to be honest. I mean, I’m not saying that people should condemn Allen based on a tweet, but I can’t help but wonder if the tragedy that happened to Michael has made us MJ fans on some level to believe that false rape/molestation accusations are far more common than they actually are.

That may ring true for a very small percentage of fans, but I'm not one of them. I also do not believe that false allegations are rare. At least not anymore. I think it happens often because no one will reign it in and people keep doing it because they know no one will reign it in. And it has nothing to do with Michael and what happened to him. I saw the forest a long time ago.

I come from the hysteric eighties and I witnessed the McMartin family have their lives destroyed by false allegations concocted by unstable people looking to get famous. And they used children as young as five to do it. I saw the aftermath of women and men using children or sex or both to get over on someone they are angry with. Dave Dave was nearly killed by his father because he felt if he couldn't have full custody, this child had no right to live. People are capable of outrageous and disgusting things out of anger and have no qualms about using babies--impressionable, easily manipulated, and so eager to please--to do it. And they relish in it.

Sure, some people are afraid to come forward because they won't be believed, and it has everything to do with these liars and scorned lovers dominating the courthouses. Some people don't come forward because they are trying to protect themselves, or the perp. Some don't come forward because they don't want the attention that comes with being the victim du jour.

The world has this ridiculous assumption that when someone accuses someone else, the accuser is supposed to be automatically believed and not have their story checked. That is some BULL! Remember the movie Rosewood, based on a true event? No one bothered to check that liar's story before they ran out and massacred a whole town of innocent people. That was in the 1920s and it still happens now.

And it needs to stop because the ones actually being abused are getting lost.

 

[Soundmind]

Regarding Woody Allen the only thing his defenders can bring up is the portrayal of Mia as a revengeful scorned woman (might be true or not true, who knows?).

How about this guy was never accused in his whole life of something similar ? We used to say if MJ was indeed guilty he must have been the most selective predator out there ; mind you he had four accusers so far while no one but Dylan , during a bitter custody battle, came up with claims of "touches" similar to MJ's against Woody ;no sexual intercourse that can be refuted in court. How convenient!

Seriously, based on everything we have read about pedophilia does the guy really fit the category? where is the pattern? where are the victims? There are not even rumors inside Hollywood about him being a predator.

Look at Sandusky ? the victims came running, the same with Jamie Savile and catholic churches cases. Tens and hundreds of victims came forward in each case. This is a high profile case, like those mentioned before, not an obscure personality whose victims might not even know he is under investigation.

If Allen with one accuser is not given the benefit of the doubt, how could we expect people to give MJ with 4 claims , two multi million dollar settlements to be given the benefit of the doubt? how could you say Woody has no defense but a scorned wife while MJ has many?

 

[HIStory]

How about this guy was never accused in his whole life of something similar ? We used to say if MJ was indeed guilty he must have been the most selective predator out there ; mind you he had four accusers so far while no one but Dylan , during a bitter custody battle, came up with claims of "touches" similar to MJ's against Woody ;no sexual intercourse that can be refuted in court. How convenient!

Seriously, based on everything we have read about pedophilia does the guy really fit the category? where is the pattern? where are the victims? There are not even rumors inside Hollywood about him being a predator.

Look at Sandusky ? the victims came running, the same with Jamie Savile and catholic churches cases. Tens and hundreds of victims came forward in each case. This is a high profile case, like those mentioned before, not an obscure personality whose victims might not even know he is under investigation.

If Allen with one accuser is not given the benefit of the doubt, how could we expect people to give MJ with 4 claims , two multi million dollar settlements to be given the benefit of the doubt? how could you say Woody has no defense but a scorned wife while MJ has many?

Good point about the lack of other alleged victims.

What I rather meant was that in MJ's case we have definitive proof of the monetary motive of the accusers, in fact blackmail and extortion. We have the Chandlers' own book admitting to that for goodness sake! (Though they protest the use of the word "extortion" but that's just semantics.) And also that we have lots of facts coming out in a court case about MJ's case and his accusers, while WA was never on trial, so it's a lot more difficult to judge the details and the people involved. More accusers does not necessarily mean a stronger case if all of those accusers are questionable and have a motive to lie, as in MJ's case. The McMartin case had dozens of accusers yet the allegations were false.

I agree with you that only one alleged victim in a lifetime that comes out during an ugly divorce and custody battle is suspicious. That's a good argument for WA indeed. But just because MJ had four accusers it does not mean the cases against him were stronger - esp. when money is involved, like it was in his case.

I never said I do not give WA the benefit of doubt. What I said was I keep an open mind.

Mind you, to me it's also strange that back in the day Mia did not pursue charges. The reasoning was the "fragility" of Dylan, but was that not a convenient excuse? Maybe she knew their case would fall apart in Court?

 

[barbee0715]

I agree that the two cases are very, very different-Wade is obviously making his claim for lots and lots of money-and Dylan-probably to ruin her father, but who knows. I'm not defending Woody because I am a fan, but because I watched the case at the time and there was no evidence at all. The McMartin case proved to me that you should never ever jump to judgement.

But the one thing that has been amazing to me this week is the amount of press and media attention to her letter and the tweets-it's been on everything. I suppose it's titillating and scandalous and salacious, so they're really playing it up to attract the readership and the viewership.
But look at Woody's audience-it's actually very small. The New York and Hollywood intellects, actors and actresses, and some hard core fans. When I go to an opening of a Woody Allen film, I'm surprised to see another 10 people in the theatre.
Look at Michael's shows-there are THOUSANDS of fans-so he's always going to get THOUSANDS of hours more press-and I don't trust the press to assume Wade is a con and a liar and give Michael the benefit of the doubt here-it was obvious that the Gavizo thing was a con and it didn't happen then either. I expect the media to milk this for all it's worth and I hope the estate fights Wade to the point that he is completely and utterly destroyed.
I realized about a year after Michael died, when I woke up crying one morning-that even though he's in heaven and away from this nastiness, I wanted complete and total vindication for him. Guess I will be miserable until it's realized.

 

[HIStory]

.
I realized about a year after Michael died, when I woke up crying one morning-that even though he's in heaven and away from this nastiness, I wanted complete and total vindication for him. Guess I will be miserable until it's realized.

Yes, that's what I'm dreaming about too, a total vindication. His name does not deserve to be attached to this stigma. I kept dreaming about Jordan and/or Gavin manning-up and coming out with the truth, instead we have got Wade Robson going crazy and greedy now, so it sometimes feels like such an uphill battle. I really don't know how all these people can live with themselves.

 

[analogue]

when it came to MJ the media rarely ever missed the opportunity to mention the allegations against him in articles. They kept reminding the public all the time. That wasn't the case with Allen. I guess it helps if you are white and well-connected in the industry... (same with Polanski, who IS guilty).

Don't forget about Elvis Presley who was in a relationship with Priscilla when she was 14 and he was in his mid twenties, and Elvis is a media darling. I hate bringing up the race card but when you see stuff like this it's hard not to

 

[Sunwalker7]

^ Yes, I agree that it's important to not to jump to conclusions on either side. I haven't seen anything yet which makes me reach a conclusion on it. It could be that WA really did molest Dylan, and it could be that it's some kind of vendetta by Mia.

Obviously we, as MJ fans, have experience with false child abuse allegations, so many of us are a bit distrustful of such allegations. Maybe it's a reverse of when people who were molested as children believe other child abuse allegations a lot more uncritically than they normally should. But it's important to treat each case individually.

I'm not sure if I will ever be able to reach a conclusion about the WA case. It's not like there will be a trial or any new info is expected to come out. It's just the same old story and a new media war at this moment with lots of he said/she saids and one can only take sides based on sympathies. So I'm not going to take sides in this.
- - -
Yes, I agree. If there is one thing that we can conclude at this point is that the treatment of MJ by the media was simply unprecedented. No one really talked about this case with WA in the past 20 years, but when it came to MJ the media rarely ever missed the opportunity to mention the allegations against him in articles. They kept reminding the public all the time. That wasn't the case with Allen. I guess it helps if you are white and well-connected in the industry... (same with Polanski, who IS guilty).

Meanwhile they based their accusations on insinuations, on things like how weird MJ supposedly was etc., but totally ignored all the problems with the accusers and their stories. Regarding Woody Allen the only thing his defenders can bring up is the portrayal of Mia as a revengeful scorned woman (might be true or not true, who knows?). In MJ's case we have got so many lot stronger FACTS in his defense! Yet, the media tended to totally ignore those because it made a better story to portray MJ as a child molester.

Actually some of the media actively participated in the construction of the allegations against MJ by paying many people to make up allegations. (Many of the prosecution's witnesses were such people!) I don't think that has ever happened (or ever would happen) to someone like Woody Allen.

I totally understand what you mean by not wanting to take sides because there isn’t enough evidence. It seems like a reasonable and neutral stance, and yet… is it really that? I feel like not taking any sides is still kinda taking the side of the abuser. I mean, if people just go “oh, who knows what happened, it’s he said she said, we’ll never know”, then absolutely nothing happens to the abuser. He gets away with his crimes and has to face no consequences. From the victim’s point of view it’s absolutely no good if all people say is “well, maybe she was abused, or maybe she’s lying or crazy” and then keep working with and praising the abuser.

Of course, it is a really difficult thing because if you accept the victim’s story as truth, you take the risk that it isn’t true and you’re condemning an innocent person. But if you don’t accept the victim’s story, then you take the risk that you’re gaslighting and dismissing the victim and protecting the abuser. Either way, it’s possible that you’re being part of the problem. It’s really difficult, but I guess all you can do is try to find as much evidence as you can, and then draw your conclusions based on that.

But it really is interesting (and by interesting, I mean sad, maddening and depressing) to compare the Michael, Allen and Polanski cases. Polanski is an especially awful case - he has admitted to drugging and raping a child, and people still support him! I think there are many reasons why Michael is treated so differently, but I guess one factor is the gender of the victim or alleged victim.

In our society there is a tendency to blame female victims for sex crimes. It sounds crazy, but I think it’s true. It’s like everybody thinks rape and abuse are terrible things, but when presented with an actual rape case many people blame the victim anyway - maybe for dressing or acting a certain way, or being drunk, or being in X place at Y o’clock or whatever.

Another thing is that women are often seen as less credible, less trustworthy than men. When a man tells his story people are more willing to take his word for it, whereas with a woman I think people are often more suspicious of her motives, or her emotional state. Accusations of being too emotional and exaggerating things, or imagining things or straight-up lying come up more often with women than men, I think.

I think you see this dynamic in the Allen case. In my opinion he and his PR team are skillfully using these stereotypes about crazy, lying women to his advantage by trying to character assassinate Mia. So far their defence has mostly been to portray Mia as a revengeful scorned woman. As a defence, it’s not very impressive. They’re not even addressing Dylan and the actual accusations, they’re deflecting attention from the real issue by focusing on Mia and her possibly being crazy and vindictive. Of course, Mia being crazy is not the issue here. She could be the craziest person in the world and it wouldn’t mean that Allen couldn’t have molested Dylan. But I’ve seen many people say that they don’t believe the accusations because they think Mia comes across as a vindictive scorned woman. It was just a really different dynamic in the accusations against Michael.

 

[AliCat]

I totally agree with you about Elvis Presley and how he is a media darling, especially when it comes to sleeping with his groupies who just happen to be under age. Priscilla was just 14 years old when she met Elvis and their relationship never ceased. I think Elvis was forced to marry Priscilla because of this fact, that Elvis was in his mid 20's when he first seduced Priscilla and this would have been devastating to Elvis's career.

Priscilla reminds me of Rizzo from the movie, "Grease."

 

[HIStory]

@Sunwalker7

I feel like not taking any sides is still kinda taking the side of the abuser.

It's an ALLEGED abuser.

I mean, if people just go “oh, who knows what happened, it’s he said she said, we’ll never know”, then absolutely nothing happens to the abuser. He gets away with his crimes and has to face no consequences. From the victim’s point of view it’s absolutely no good if all people say is “well, maybe she was abused, or maybe she’s lying or crazy” and then keep working with and praising the abuser.

I don't think a neutral stance due to a lack of information or not enough information is a support of the alleged abuser. To me it's just fair that if you don't have enough knowledge of a case then you do not judge. I'm certainly influenced here by the fact that so many times in comment sections and in the media I can see so many ignorant, yet judgemental comments about MJ that I do not want to make the same mistake and do this to someone else, if I am critical of other people and the lynch mob mentality in MJ's case.

There are many real cases of child sexual abuse unfortunately. And there are also many cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse. People like Wade Robson or the Chandlers, the Arvizos, the Francias who use such allegations to get money do not only commit a sin against the person they accuse but also against real victims of child abuse. Exactly because of fraudsters like them who see it as nothing but a money making mechanism, is why people get sceptical of such allegations. They do harm real victims tremendously, besides harming the innocent man they accuse.

And not only abuse ruins a real victim's life but also a false allegation ruins the life of a person who is falsely accused. So to me it's both dangerous to immediately side with the accuser and to immediately side with the accused.

As for the alleged abuser getting away with the alleged crime, if we stay neutral due to lack of information. In this particular case, it was up to Mia to pursue criminal charges against Woody Allen back in the 90s. She did not. So what are we supposed to do? We have to look at the facts that we have and I think Soundmind is right, that the lack of other alleged victims coupled with the other circumstances (ie. allegations came out during an ugly divorce) makes it at least suspicious.

They’re not even addressing Dylan and the actual accusations, they’re deflecting attention from the real issue by focusing on Mia and her possibly being crazy and vindictive.

Well, other than saying it's not true how else he should address it? If it's not true then how do you prove a negative? When there is no physical, medical or DNA evidence then it's a he said/she said situation and then of course the credibility and possible motives of the accuser play a big part and that's what mainly will be discussed.

I agree with you about the fact that sex abuse allegations involving girls are treated pretty differently than boys and that it's a horrible thing and yes it has a sexist undertone. Just look at this horrible interview with the famous writer Gore Vidal in which he was asked about Polanski:

In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

I really don’t give a ****. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

What do you mean?

The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

Hollywood once provided protection for some of its people. For example, Rock Hudson was heterosexual to the public until 1985, when he announced he had AIDS.

Studios protect big moneymakers. The movies with Rock Hudson and Doris Day were profitable. Each star was given the Sheriff’s telephone number to say, “Lay off.” The Sheriff wasn’t going to go ****ing around with the talent. They were the income of Hollywood.

During the 1970s, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson, and producer Robert Evans were celebrated for lifestyles of sexual extravagance.

Well, they’re all virgins, every last one of them. I can testify to that. And the last one you mentioned, he’s a super virgin.

They’ve certainly never been criticized and condemned for their sexual excesses. But Polanski was condemned even before he pled guilty to raping a girl.

Well, believe it or not, anti-Semitism is very strong out here, even though this is a Jewish business. L.B. Mayer was the worst anti-Semite of all.

But he was Jewish.

Well, Mayer’s view was, “The public will turn on all of us if they know that one of us has done anything.”

You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/a-conversation-with-gore-vidal/307767

So he calls the victim, a 13-year-old girl, a "hooker"...
Absolutely horrible! And many people justify sex abuse crimes against girls like that, I agree.

And he blames the "treatment" of Polanski on anti-semitism, which is absolutely ridiculous. (In fact, Jewish celebs tend to get protected by the media more than others. And Polanski who really is guilty got away with it pretty lightly in the media compared to MJ who was innocent yet bashed and trashed at every single opportunity for 22 years.)

Even the interviewer seems kind of supportive of Polanski in the way of his questioning, comparing the alleged "sexual extravagance" of Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson and Robert Evans to what Polanski did. Did that "sexual extravagance" involve children? Because if it didn't then how can it be compared to Polanski raping a 13-year-old girl?

(Mind you, I have also read that Gore Vidal was supportive of NAMBLA so he seems very corrupt morally.)

So I agree with you about female alleged victims being taken less seriously than males.

 

[analogue]

Male victims can also not be taken seriously. Especially when the person raping or molesting him is female. The reaction to that is normally ''Oh he's a guy so he must have wanted it'' or ''Wow, I wish I could be that lucky''

 

[IrishFaery]

I totally understand what you mean by not wanting to take sides because there isn’t enough evidence. It seems like a reasonable and neutral stance, and yet… is it really that? I feel like not taking any sides is still kinda taking the side of the abuser. I mean, if people just go “oh, who knows what happened, it’s he said she said, we’ll never know”, then absolutely nothing happens to the abuser. He gets away with his crimes and has to face no consequences. From the victim’s point of view it’s absolutely no good if all people say is “well, maybe she was abused, or maybe she’s lying or crazy” and then keep working with and praising the abuser.

Of course, it is a really difficult thing because if you accept the victim’s story as truth, you take the risk that it isn’t true and you’re condemning an innocent person. But if you don’t accept the victim’s story, then you take the risk that you’re gaslighting and dismissing the victim and protecting the abuser. Either way, it’s possible that you’re being part of the problem. It’s really difficult, but I guess all you can do is try to find as much evidence as you can, and then draw your conclusions based on that.

But it really is interesting (and by interesting, I mean sad, maddening and depressing) to compare the Michael, Allen and Polanski cases. Polanski is an especially awful case - he has admitted to drugging and raping a child, and people still support him! I think there are many reasons why Michael is treated so differently, but I guess one factor is the gender of the victim or alleged victim.

In our society there is a tendency to blame female victims for sex crimes. It sounds crazy, but I think it’s true. It’s like everybody thinks rape and abuse are terrible things, but when presented with an actual rape case many people blame the victim anyway - maybe for dressing or acting a certain way, or being drunk, or being in X place at Y o’clock or whatever.

Another thing is that women are often seen as less credible, less trustworthy than men. When a man tells his story people are more willing to take his word for it, whereas with a woman I think people are often more suspicious of her motives, or her emotional state. Accusations of being too emotional and exaggerating things, or imagining things or straight-up lying come up more often with women than men, I think.

I think you see this dynamic in the Allen case. In my opinion he and his PR team are skillfully using these stereotypes about crazy, lying women to his advantage by trying to character assassinate Mia. So far their defence has mostly been to portray Mia as a revengeful scorned woman. As a defence, it’s not very impressive. They’re not even addressing Dylan and the actual accusations, they’re deflecting attention from the real issue by focusing on Mia and her possibly being crazy and vindictive. Of course, Mia being crazy is not the issue here. She could be the craziest person in the world and it wouldn’t mean that Allen couldn’t have molested Dylan. But I’ve seen many people say that they don’t believe the accusations because they think Mia comes across as a vindictive scorned woman. It was just a really different dynamic in the accusations against Michael.

Very valid points.

The trouble I have with this situation is people shaming someone into believing a victim without question when there is a STRONG possibility that the victim has been made to believe something happened to them when it didn't. That is also abuse. In this case, people seem to think that those questioning these allegations are somehow pro-child abuse; that the idea of calling out a mother for behaving vindictively and actively turning her children against not only her ex, but also their sister (and now their brother) is in some way deflecting attention from the victim. It is not when you wonder if the mother may be the one orchestrating all this.

The only thing the anti-Woody Allen crowd hang their certainty of his guilt on is his relationship with Soon Yi whom they keep falsely calling his step-daughter and father figure when he was neither. He was a father to his own children with Mia: Moses, Dylan, and Ronan. Andre Previn is Soon Yi's father. Even Mia has said all this. Yet to give Dylan's allegations more weight, anti-Woodys lie or create something that isn't there.

Sound familiar MJ FAM?

The tide has turned. We are now living in a world where we are not supposed to question a woman making a claim of abuse and we are shamed if we do. The trouble with this is women making false claims for themselves or on behalf of their children has increased. And how often has that questioning been a saving grace for someone who could have been ruined? Men falsely imprisoned for decades are having their cases reopened and are being given a second chance after being ruined by a LIE some woman told or coerced her child to tell. The few--and I mean very few--times that questioning an allegation has saved someone's life, people call it an injustice, break out the violins and carry on about how they hope "other victims won't be afraid to come forward." Right. So long as the charlatans are running things, they will be.

And when a woman is the perp? Oh the excuses for her come flooding in. Had Mary Kay LeTourneau been a Matthew, he would have been buried under the jail, not let out to create another child with the "victim" only to get a mere seven years after that. She basically got before that judge, cried and blamed how fragile and delicate her emotional state was at the time, and got away scot free. (Now personally, I don't believe MKL is a pedophile and I don't think her husband was a victim. I believe he seduced a vulnerable woman, something he admitted to.) There are many cases in which boys are victims of women and he is told he "got lucky." And there are many girls who lie and/or manipulate in order to win the affections of older men. And when she is caught, suddenly she was young and fragile and emotional and he should go to jail even if he has no history of chasing bobby soxers and was basically snowed.

Now how is a person accused NOT supposed to use a woman's unbalanced emotions when defending themselves when women perps use their unbalanced emotions as an excuse for when they act out of line?

It was discovered that the Arviso mother regularly coached her children in schemes to get money and attention. They were doing all this even before they met Michael Jackson. Remember the mantra? "Just because their mother is a petty criminal who uses her children to pull scams doesn't mean her son is lying." That's true. But it does make the possibility that he is lying THAT much stronger. And lo and behold, what did we find out? He was lying.

The McMartin fiasco was started by a schizophrenic, substance abusing woman who not only accused the McMartins of molesting her son, but her son's father and a whole host of other people. When decades later, those coached children came forward to reveal that they were coached, you barely heard about it. And the people who coached them were NEVER taken to task. I believe one of them even found his way into Michael's case.

This is the problem. NO ONE is dismissing Dylan. Many believe she has been abused. They are examining the possibility that her mother abused Dylan's sensitive nature out of anger. Moses just confirmed that possibility because he believes he was a victim of it.

Is he lying?

 

[HIStory]

The only thing the anti-Woody Allen crowd hang their certainty of his guilt on is his relationship with Soon Yi whom they keep falsely calling his step-daughter and father figure when he was neither. He was a father to his own children with Mia: Moses, Dylan, and Ronan. Andre Previn is Soon Yi's father. Even Mia has said all this. Yet to give Dylan's allegations more weight, anti-Woodys lie or create something that isn't there.

It was a horrible and selfish thing from WA to cheat on his wife with her adoptive daughter and it must have been horrible for Mia to find that out, but I just cannot see a connection between that and the Dylan allegation. To be attracted to a 19-20-year-old (Soon-Yi was that old when they started their affair) is very different than to be attracted to a 7-year-old. One does not follow from the other.

The McMartin fiasco was started by a schizophrenic, substance abusing woman who not only accused the McMartins of molesting her son, but her son's father and a whole host of other people. When decades later, those coached children came forward to reveal that they were coached, you barely heard about it. And the people who coached them were NEVER taken to task. I believe one of them even found his way into Michael's case.

Yes, Stanley Katz. From MJ's trial:

17 Q. And you didn’t just talk about divorce

18 cases, you talked about the McMartin Preschool case

19 in Manhattan Beach, California, true?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. And you mentioned that in the context of

22 false allegations of child molestation in a criminal

23 courtroom, true?

24 A. Well, I’m not sure if I said that in the

25 book or not. I didn’t memorize it. But I was

26 talking about the McMartin case, which ended up

27 being not only in the criminal court, it was in

28 dependency court because there were children of the 4269



1 teachers who were involved in dependency court, and

2 I think there were civil suits also.

3 Q. Were you involved in that case in any

4 professional way?

5 A. Yes, I was.

6 Q. How were you involved?

7 A. I was the director of training and

8 professional education at the Children’s Institute

9 International, and that’s the agency that initially

10 interviewed all the McMartin children.

11 Q. And were you involved in that case for a

12 number of years?

13 A. Well, my involvement was that I was director

14 of the program. And Kee McFarland, who was the

15 woman who interviewed the children, actually worked

16 under me. But I was not -- I did not directly

17 interview the children’s parents.

18 I did interview -- my involvement with the

19 McMartin case was, I did do assessments. I was

20 asked by the Department of Children & Family

21 Services to assess the children of the alleged

22 perpetrators to see if they had been molested.

23 Other than that, I had very little involvement

24 directly with the case.

25 Q. Is it your understanding that that was

26 perhaps the longest and largest criminal case in the

27 history of Los Angeles County?

28 A. I think it was. 4270

And then he was the one seeked out by Larry Feldman to "evaluate" Jordan and he was also the one who evaluated Gavin.

The McMartin fiasco was started by a schizophrenic, substance abusing woman who not only accused the McMartins of molesting her son, but her son's father and a whole host of other people.

I saw a movie about the McMartin case (the movie was called Indictment) and in that it was suggested it was actually the boy's father who molested the kid. Don't know if it's true.

This documentary by Sean Penn is another film showing how child abuse allegations can be used as a witch hunt:

[video=youtube;42Z_vDg81Ig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Z_vDg81Ig[/video]

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

I also think Dylan should be ashamed for dragging these Hollywood actors and actresses into something that is Woody and Mia's personal problem.

I agree. I don't know whether she's telling the truth or not about Woody. But either way, I think it's terrible that she's pulling outsiders into a personal family problem.

 

[IrishFaery]

It was a horrible and selfish thing from WA to cheat on his wife with her adoptive daughter and it must have been horrible for Mia to find that out, but I just cannot see a connection between that and the Dylan allegation. To be attracted to a 19-20-year-old (Soon-Yi was that old when they started their affair) is very different than to be attracted to a 7-year-old. One does not follow from the other.

Mia was not his wife. I'm sure you meant girlfriend, right?

 

[bluesky]

<iframe frameborder="0" class="ad-frame frame-for-article" style="border-width: 0px; margin: 0px; width: 728px; height: 90px;"></iframe>​

<article id="story" class="story theme-main" style="margin-top: 32px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 30.399999618530273px;"><header class="story-header" style="position: relative;">
SundayReview|OPINION

Woody Allen Speaks Out

By WOODY ALLEN<time class="dateline" datetime="2014-02-07" style="font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.75rem; font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 12px;">FEB. 7, 2014</time>



</header><figure class="media photo lede layout-large-horizontal" data-media-action="modal" itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemid="http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/02/09/sunday-review/09ALLEN/09ALLEN-master675.jpg" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" style="margin: 0px 15px 45px 0px; position: relative; width: 660px; float: left; clear: left; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px;">

Launch media viewer

<figcaption class="caption" itemprop="description" style="font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.0625rem; font-family: nyt-cheltenham-sh, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); width: auto; position: static; right: 0px; bottom: 23px;">Mia Farrow, Woody Allen, and their children Dylan and Ronan, January 1988. Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images</figcaption></figure>








Last Sunday, holas 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.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
<aside class="marginalia comments-marginalia selected-comment-marginalia" data-marginalia-type="sprinkled" style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: dotted; border-top-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); width: 300px; float: right; clear: right; margin: 0px 0px 45px 7px; padding-top: 10px;"><header></header><article class="comment" data-permid="11120631" style="margin-top: 15px;"><header>
</header></article><article class="comment" data-permid="11120350" style="margin-top: 15px;"><header>
</header></article>
</aside>I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (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.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?hp&rref=opinion
</article>

 

[Soundmind]

Could you believe some left comments on his letter still insiting he married his daughter so that's enough for them. I mean the legistlative bodies should consider listing stupidity and ignorance as crimes punishable by law.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Could you believe some left comments on his letter still insiting he married his daughter so that's enough for them. I mean the legistlative bodies should consider listing stupidity and ignorance as crimes punishable by law.

Sadly that's just the stupid world we live in. When people do nothing more than hunt someone down like a dog, even when they're innocent. And what does him marrying a 19-20 year old woman have to do with supposedly molesting a 7 year old? From my big picture, it looks like Mia is using Dylan to get revenge on the man...but I am not jumping to anything just yet.

 

[HIStory]

Two videos in which Woody Allen speaks about the allegations against him in 1992:

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/allen-calls-allegations-spectacular-embellishment/

 

[marebear]

I don't know what is true but I don't get why this has to be the public's business. Everyday it's there. Can she do something legally if she says he molested her or something? I don't get why its happening now when this was brought up 20 years ago. I don't want to sound insensitive. I think they should deal with it as a family and not in public letters in newspapers and tv interviews.

 

[Petrarose]

Great letter from Woody and he makes some valid points.

&#8220;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&#8217;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&#8217;d go on to marry &#8212; 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.&#8221;

^^Reminds me of the time Gavin places the abuse took place when all eyes were looking at Michael Jackson and Wade with his role play when all eyes were looking at Michael.

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, &#8220;we will probably never know what occurred.&#8221;

^^Sounds like Sneddon&#8217;s eagerness.

It is so sad to see all the years the children have lost not interacting with Woody.

 

[HIStory]

If what Woody says about the timeline is true (that he supposedly molested Dylan in the middle of the ugly divorce and custody battle) that kind of seals the deal for me and I don't believe Dylan, sorry. IF that's really their story. It's just as ridiculous as the Arvizo timeline.

So can someone who is more familiar with the case confirm or deny if that's indeed what Dylan and Mia claim?

 

[max000]

If what Woody says about the timeline is true (that he supposedly molested Dylan in the middle of the ugly divorce and custody battle) that kind of seals the deal for me and I don't believe Dylan, sorry. IF that's really their story. It's just as ridiculous as the Arvizo timeline.

So can someone who is more familiar with the case confirm or deny if that's indeed what Dylan and Mia claim?

What Woody said about the timeline is pretty much what i always heard. That's why many believe Mia used her children as pawns to punish Woody. And it's no secret parents turn to brain-washing children in custody battles.

 

[Petrarose]

Maxoo^^Yeah I remember at the time that people were not giving much credence to Mia because of the way the custody was connected to the allegations. Many people saw this as a big custody battle and fall out from the Soon Yi relationship, at least on the New York side. I don't know what the climate was in Connecticut. The thing is Mia never came out before and said Woody was having inappropriate behavior with Dylan or with any of the other children.

Maybe Dylan should see an ethical independent hypnotist to bring her back to that time so she could learn who planted that idea in her head.

What I find strange about Dylan's last letter is that if you have a 7 year old who was molested, you don't keep drumming it into the child's and all the other children's head in the house day after day and let it linger and fester. You take the child to therapy and work it out so that when the child is 20 something she is not cutting herself and hating men (if that if correct). By now the young woman would be able to talk about the issue with less trauma.