HBO's Allen V. Farrow trailer unmasks the family tragedy behind a public scandal
TV Features Allen V. Farrow
“It doesn’t matter what’s true. What matters is what’s believed,” Mia Farrow says in the newly released trailer for Allen V. Farrow. The four-part documentary series will cover the sexual abuse allegations against director Woody Allen involving his daughter Dylan Farrow, who was 7 at the time.
According to the trailer, the docuseries features a videotape from Dylan in the immediate aftermath of her sexual-abuse claims. Allen V. Farrow will feature interviews with Mia Farrow, Dylan Farrow, Ronan Farrow, Carly Simon, prosecutor Frank Maco as well as other witnesses, investigators, and relatives in an attempt to go beyond the headlines of this very public scandal.
It will also document the custody trial for Dylan and uncover Woody Allen’s relationship with Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, who was 21 at the time. The two got married in 1997 but they blew up the media with their romance a few years prior. This has been a notorious Hollywood scandal for almost three decades but the documentary offers an in-depth look at the family that faced the tragedy.
Created by award-winning investigative filmmakers Kirby Dick & Amy Ziering and Amy Herdy, Allen V. Farrow premieres Sunday at 9 PM on HBO and HBO Max.
284 Comments
Get him
Nothing to get.
He probably molested a child. That seems like something “to get,” unless you have a very weird and fucked up sense of morality.
Lol your boy is a pedo
I’ll be interested to see what the filmmakers do with the allegations made against Farrow. I honestly don’t know what to say about the allegations made by Dylan Farrow. I grew up in the area where they were prosecuted, and at the time, it certainly seemed like the events were taken seriously, investigated thoroughly, and didn’t end with Allen appearing guilty. That he had an interest in barely legal aged girls including his now-wife is true and gross, but not necessarily illegal or indicative of pedophilia. Moses Farrow has made some pretty bold statements that Mia coerced Dylan (and himself) to make allegations against Allen and that he experienced a great deal of emotional and physical abuse by Mia Farrow. That would not negate anything that Allen did, but I do hope the makes of this film air both sides of the family drama and abuse, not just the part of the family wanted to focus on.
FWIW: as a side effect of being married to a person (and thus friends with a few more) who went to expensive NYC private schools in the 70s/80s, I ended up knowing several people who were classmates with one or more of the assorted Allen/Farrow/Previn kids. The fairly consistent take from all of them was that neither of those narcissistic monsters should have been allowed near a single child never mind fifteen of them. All of the allegations against both Woody and Mia seem entirely credible to me.
I should know better than to open this can of worms and to be entirely clear, I’m not fan of Allen’s, I just find the whole thing odd – Most pedophiles don’t abuse one child and never do so ever again. The lack of other allegations is surprising.Both of them being poor parental figures, narcissists and garbage people, I’m fully on board with.
I mean… between Dylan and however you want to characterize what happened with Soon-Yi that’s at least two. And neither Tam nor Lark Previn are around to tell tales. 🙁
Soon-Yi and Moses Farrow have both accused Mia Farrow of physical and emotional abuse. Moses attributes Tam, Lark and Thaddeus’s deaths to Mia’s parenting and none of them died until adulthood – Suggesting they would have made allegations is baseless.Soon-Yi was not a child. It’s gross and I don’t understand it, but she was an adult and above the age of consent. Pedophilia is specifically attraction to prepubescent children. I would absolutely buy that Allen has ephebophilia which is attraction to older adolescents given Soon-Yi and the plots of some of his films, but that’s not the same as being a pedophile. At the same time, he’s still married to Soon-Yi and she’s 50 now. They also have two adopted children which means plenty of social worker visits and the like early on.
I’ve never understood why some people are so keen to make hard distinctions between pedophilia and ephebophilia. It’s still an unhealthy attraction to someone who is not an adult and is emotionally less developed than the adult. I guess truthfully I feel a greater instinctive revulsion to someone who lusts after a four year old than a 16 year old, but I actually despise them both and have no interest in differentiating them.
I have no interest in knowing or being friends with anyone in either group, but psychologically, professionals make a distinction because they are different. Why do we make a distinction between people who are into BDSM and people who are foot fetishists? Because they are different. They are defined by different types of desires and different impulses.Morally, they may be no better than one another, but someone with one set of impulses is unlikely to have the other set of impulses as well.
So they can feel less guilty about being attracted to underaged teens.
I’ve never understood why some people are so keen to make hard distinctions between pedophilia and ephebophilia. It’s still an unhealthy attraction to someone who is not an adult and is emotionally less developed than the adult.Or with ‘adopted daughter’ and ‘daughter’An adopted daughter is a daughter. Anyone trying to make some sort of distinction for parental figures “dating” adopted kids they raised is…. well… maybe some sort of list should be involved there.
Mking the distinction is not a defense of either thing but these are well-studied psychological matters where there is much evidence that there is little overlap, so when discussing a specific case like this it’s warranted. Allen can be revolting in one way without it being evidence of him being revolted in another.Ad for all of Allen’s apparent ephebophilia it seems odd that no one considers that he is still with his wife, a middle-aged woman, and had not moved on to another “target” regardless of whatever his predilections were.
Woody Allen’s PR gang is pushing lots of dangerous information. Possibly the worst is about numbers of victims for child molesters.Most child molesters abuse one child and never do so ever again. That is according to the FBI. The most common kind of child molester is called a situational child molester and that is precisely what they do: some situation arises when they decide to abuse a child and then they never do it again. It could be a matter of opportunity but it is most commonly done to hurt some third party who loves the child, like in a divorce case or a custody dispute. That’s why those sorts of allegations are taken so seriously by officials in those situations, because it is 100% a time when children are at increased risk.I really hate that Woody Allen and his defenders push this misinformation to defend him because these lies cause actual harm out in the real world by making actual violated children harder to believe when they have the courage to speak up about being molested. If nothing else, I hope this docuseries helps to curb that.
Are we really pretending Woody Allen doesn’t have a long history of creeping on underage women
Nope, we’re not – But creeping on girls who are 17 – 21 is gross and creepy, but not illegal and not the same as creeping on 7 year olds. They are different paraphilia and they exist in different legal terms.But Woody Allen at 56 dating a 21 year old is not dramatically different from Mia Farrow marrying 51 year old Frank Sinatra, a relationship that is not discussed by Farrow in the same ways.Dating your ex-partners child is also gross and creepy, but not illegal.
He wasn’t just dating a younger woman, he was dating someone he had parented since she was a child. “It’s not illegal” isn’t a defense, he’s still a creepy predator. I believe Dylan. Allen is a fucking monster, and the I dread the Allen apologists that come crawling out of the woodwork every time his name comes up.
All parties involved agree that he never parented Soon Yi. He was not her father, not her stepfather and they did not live in the same house. I said I agree that it’s creepy. It is not, however, the same thing as molesting a child and it seems very strange that no other child has come forward and that no other allegations were found during the adoption process of his other children. Creepy behavior with younger women is creepy. It’s also gross. I have no desire to be around Woody Allen and have no desire to watch his work. But the doesn’t make the allegations against him involving Dylan strangely anomalous. Adding in the choices that were made in how Dylan was interviewed and how her statement was taken also raises questions. Abuse allegations should always be taken seriously and should always be investigated, but in this instance, a great deal of doubt was cast on them. I do believe as I said elsewhere that Dylan believes her story and believes she is being truthful.
He was her mothers partner for years, which makes him a responsible adult in her life. There’s no way this isn’t sick and twisted. It’s amazing that he can make films for years that detail his gross obsession with children, marry the child of his former partner that he had known since she was a child, have credible accusations that he molested another child, and still have people who won’t acknowledge he’s a grotesque monster. It’s bonkers. I truly can’t fathom how deeply invested people are in this piece of shit. You like his films? Fine. You can enjoy them all you like without stanning for a abuser.
I don’t like his films. I’ve seen Annie Hall once. I saw half of Midnight in Paris. But I grew up in Connecticut when it all happened and remember it being on TV, and I’ve followed the story in the press since. The part that I don’t agree with is that the accusations are credible – partly because an investigation found that they were not and partly because Farrow has made a choice to say certain things that undermine the accusations.Suggesting there is reasonable doubt based on all of the details is not “stanning” for him.
How long did Cosby go before he was finally caught? How long did Weinstein? Has Marilyn Manson been charged with anything? You don’t have to be convicted in a court of law to be an abusive piece of shit. You don’t have to have a conviction to believe the victim when she speaks out. An body of work that sexualizes children, marrying your girlfriend’s child that you watched grow up, credible accusations from your adult child of abuse, supported by evidence from when it happens. … Jesus christ, how blind do you have to be? How many knots do you have to twist yourself into to avoid seeing what’s in front of you?
I don’t like Woody Allen. I think his relationship with Soon-Yi is weird. But I also am not convinced of these allegations just as the doctors involved.Weinstein, Cosby and Manson were not “finally caught.” Everyone knew for years. The biggest difference, however, is that Allen was investigated at the time. Dylan was seen by professionals. The outcome of the investigation was doubt. 2-10% of child abuse allegations are false and most of them happen during divorce proceedings.Dylan was believed. Her accusations were investigated. The investigation found what appeared to be coercion from her mother.
Cosby and Weinstein had been previously investigated, by your definition they had been “cleared.” It was certainly something Cosby defenders, nearly as zealous as Allen defenders, shouted from the rooftops for years. As you mention, their predatory behavior had been known for years, AS HAS ALLENS. For fuck sake, I simply can’t imagine knowing a someone IRL who spins fantasies about sex with girls, marries a girl who he’s known since she was a child and is a parent to her siblings, who is credibly accused by an adult survivor of his and thinking “You know what, Joe’s a pretty OK guy, shame the mother of his victims doesn’t like him anymore.”
Are we going to convict everyone who makes a movie about subject matter we don’t like of a crime? It also is not fair to deny Soon-Yi Previn her agency in this conversation – She denies that she and Allen had any kind of relationship when she was young. She’s 50 years old now and has never changed her story either. They’ve been together for over 25 years. If we’re going to say that consistency proves Dylan’s allegations then you havet to accept the accusations from the other side. Again, the credibility issue isn’t that Farrow doesn’t like Allen. I’m sure him not being around the kids was no great loss for everyone. But the other parent has specifically been accused of gaslighting the children into believing lies, has specifically been accused of physical and psychological abuse including allegations that it resulted in the psychological trauma of at least 3 of her children who are now dead, has been accused of forcing at least one of them to right a statement denouncing the other parent – also by adult survivors. So if we are going to listen to their voices as well – as we should – it raises doubts about this particular situation. Not every situation. Not all situations. This. Situation.And if we’re going to say well, Moses and Soon-Yi aren’t credible then why is Dylan more credible?It also is relevant that of the small percentage of false allegations, many occur during acrimonious divorce/break-up/custody battles.The situation with Dylan is also different from Cosby and Weinstein – 1) it involves a child which by default means the motives and behaviors of the adults around them come into play, 2) Dylan was seen by doctors almost immediately after the incident occurred, not a year or years later which was the primary reason that Andrea Constand’s criminal complaint did not move forward, 3) You only have 1 allegation which makes corroboration much harder than if you have many (Andrea Constand’s civil case gained strength with the addition of Jane Doe #2) and 4) Settlements, nondisclosure agreements and business deals had much more to do with the slowness on Cosby and Weinstein than the allegations themselves.
I’m not saying they are more credible. I am saying I trust Dylan to tell her own story. Allen married Soon-Yi, whom he had known since he was a child and is a parent to her siblings. Can you imagine any person who is not a piece of shit doing that? I certainly can’t. And certainly not someone who has previously spun out fantasies of romancing children, and whose daughter has told her own story of abuse at his hands. I’m not saying anything about convicting people for making movies. I’m saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a fucking duck.
If Dylan’s story was exactly the same, but two more of the Previn’s came forward and corroborated the gaslighting and psychological tactics that Moses and Soon-Yi claim Mia used on them to get them to tell certain stories, would that change your opinion? I have a hard time trusting Dylan to tell her story when there has been suggestion over a very long period of time that the other parent had a history of gaslighting her children to get them to say things she wanted them to say including some pretty upsetting allegations made by Moses that she would spank him and call him a liar until he said what she wanted and once made him stand naked in front of his siblings telling him he didn’t deserve clothes.Maybe I would feel differently if I personally knew Mia Farrow or Woody Allen, but the more she has talked publicly about it in recent years, the less comfortable I have felt with the situation. The more Soon-Yi, Woody Allen and Moses have talked about it, the more holes have shown in the story.
I am saying that after reading the tens of thousands of word vomit all over this thread and elsewhere that I am perfectly comfortable saying that Woody Allen is a predatory piece of shit. He’s a piece of shit no matter what I or anyone else thinks of Mia Farrow. His shittiness is entirely of his own making. I swear to dog that Q-anon heads and 9-11 truthers have nothing on Woody Allen apologists.
“I truly can’t fathom how deeply invested people are in this piece of shit.”I think this topic would make for the more intriguing documentary. As this thread demonstrates, no matter what Allen v. Farrow puts on the screen, I don’t think it will be anything more than a Rorschach test for everyone (myself included*). Of all the #metoo scenarios, I think Allen’s is factually the most difficult. There’s so many inconsistencies, contradicting witnesses, credibility issue, etc. It seems that the only thing people can agree on are that Allen and Farrow, at a minimum, are both a bit fucked in the head.So that being said, I’m not sure I care to see/hear any more evidence from the players. I’d rather see a documentary about everyone that worked/works with him. Interviews with the actors, with the fans and former fans. See what it is that gets people sucked in, or pushed out of his sphere of influence.*Full disclosure, I used to be a pretty big Allen fan. Not to the point where I’ve seen all of his films. But if I caught Annie Hall half way through on TCM, I’d stick around for the end. So there is a selfish part of me that would like confirmation that Dylan was coached and Mia was “psycho”… but even if I got that… there’s still all the other creepy/ crappy remaining issues that are confirmed; and I can’t get past those.
Most of us see it as an age-appropriate chore but Soon-Yi claims that one of the “abuses” she endured from Mia was having to put ironed sheets on the bed shared by her mom and Allen. If Soon-Yi was secretly sleeping with him too I guess that might seem like torture to a teenager. Imagine putting a vulnerable “lover” through that. Allen is a monster, for sure. I dread the Allen apologists that come crawling out of the woodwork every time his name comes up.They are just horrible, horrible people.
he was dating someone he had parented since she was a child.Not parented in the past, he was still actively parenting her and her siblings while carrying on a secret sexual relationship with her and a public relationship with her mother. According to the court documents and testimonies of witnesses, the timeline was Allen and Soon-Yi were sexually involved while she was in high school, throughout her senior year. Allen initiated adoption of her siblings at the end of her senior year and finalized those adoptions like days before Mia Farrow found his homemade porn of her daughter.The transgressions there are mindboggling.
Every article I’ve read about this doc has comment sections filled with Allen apologists. Cannot wrap my brain around that.
Ugh what is your deal
Oh, I’m sorry. Were you supposed to make statements and I was supposed to just fold because you feel you’re morally superior? Complex issues involve complex conversations. It’s reductive and detrimental to actual abuse investigations to ignore the inconsistencies and the role of outside forces on this entire incident. It’s very easy to say he got away with something because he’s Woody Allen, but having experienced an abuse investigation first hand before, if he weren’t Woody Allen, there would be far more people questioning the allegations and the DA never would have said it was a probable conviction.
There’s nothing complex about believing a woman who has been steadily insisting since she was 7 that her father abused her. And Jesus Christ, when will people drop the stupid, harmful argument that it’s somehow important to differentiate between sexual abuse of teenagers versus younger children. There’s literally no need to compare them and say one is not as bad. They’re all bad.
No one is saying one isn’t bad. They’re both awful. But they are also not the same type of acts and that does matter. Not from a moral standpoint, but from a psychological and legal standpoint. The circumstances around the situation do matter. Whether you like that or not. Whether you think it should or not. There are some key details that you don’t want to address:Investigators found that the videotaped statement made by Dylan lacked credibility due to starts and stops and the fact that it was videotaped and not done by a professionalA doctor who examined her 9 times believed that the story had grown out of an intense relationship with her mother, the stress of the divorce and coaching from her mother A therapist who was seeing Dylan was fired for suggesting that she had been coached A nanny suggested that she had been coached Two of her siblings have stated that Mia Farrow had a history of gaslighting them until they said what she wanted to hear The DA made bold statements about the ability to convict and claimed he simply chose not to. A huge red flag. The DA also claimed Farrow didn’t want to prosecute it. A second red flag.False accusations are more common during divorce and custody proceedings. If a woman has been gaslit since she was 7 to repeat her story and hold to her story, should we believe it simply because it is steady? We will likely never know what really happened, but ignoring the complexity of the situation is not an answer especially if we want to be able to do better in the future.
Lol so you’re a stan, got it
Lol because I care about the details of something that happened? I’ve seen Annie Hall once and I’ve seen half of Midnight in Paris. I am indifferent to Woody Allen. That doesn’t mean the situation is above scrutiny. That’s why we have a legal system. That’s why child abuse allegations have to be investigated in very specific ways.
I like that you’re sticking with your “just asking questions and I’m not really invested” persona when you know every single disingenuous talking point about the case that his stans have used to defend him since forever
That’s fine. You can think that all I want. As an abuse survivor, I do often follow cases like this. I’m sorry that’s inconvenient for you. But knowing how the process works, I also see some fair red flags around this.
This is from the docuseries and refer to the testimonies from the custody case:“Both Allen’s doorman and the building manager testified in court to having seen Soon-Yi visit Allen many times during her senior year of high school”and “Allen’s housekeeper testified she found what she believed to be semen stains on the sheets and condom wrappers in the wastebasket after Soon-Yi’s visits, while Soon-Yi was still in high school.”Allen started fucking her while she was in high school and presumably the relationship would have started long before that. Even as fucked up as Soon-Yi must have been, considering the severity of her traumatic childhood, I doubt some teen in the 80s is just going to jump into bed with her mom’s partner without some sort of formative buildup to assuage the transgressive nature of the relationship (grooming), not to mention the brazen nature of carrying the affair out in front of other people.
Oh, see this is the misinformation that pisses me off the most and is why I hate people like you and Woody Allen so damn much. Most child molesters absolutely abuse one child and never do so ever again. That is according to the FBI. The most common kind of child molester is called a situational child molester and that is precisely what they do. You pushing this misinformation to defend Woody Allen has hurt actual people out in the real world by making actual violated children harder to believe when they have the courage to speak up about being molested. Because you lie. To protect a shitty film director.Stop it.
That is not the definition of a situational abuser. Situational abusers are abusers who also engage in sexual activity within their peer group. Their interests are not solely pedophilic and their crimes are opportunistic, but it does not mean that they only abuse one person once. It does not mean it is not part of a pattern of behavior.
https://tv.avclub.com/1846284884situational child molesterI said “situational child molester.” Google it, you disingenuous piece of shit. Also, that’s not the definition of a situational abuser, either. You are just such a pestilence.
That is the actual definition of a situational child molester. You can go ahead and call me names all you want, but that is the actual definition.Situational child molesters are opportunistic predators who also engage in sexual activity with peers and may be looking for other needs to be met besides sexual needs as defined by Lanning’s typology first in 1987 and subsequently in 2010. It does not have anything to do with frequency.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=situational+child+molestorHow can you look at yourself in the mirror, you evil bottomfeeder.
I just used your little link and it did not turn up any different definition. I’m also not going to take a random google definition over actual psychology books.You can name call me all day every day. It is not good advocacy to encourage actions like those that Mia Farrow exhibited and continues to exhibit. At best, she is hurting her daughter’s credibility and made choices that undermine the accusations. At worst, she’s been gaslighting her daughter since she was 7. Given the fates of several of her other children, I worry about the latter. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are both garbage people who likely damaged their daughter, but the evidence doesn’t prove that was from molestation.
“it did not turn up any different definition.”It did, you lying sack of shit. People can use that handy link and see for themselves that you are a slimy turd made of lies.My tone is part of my message to you, which is: you suck, you lie, you intentionally hurt children by deliberately muddying the waters around child sexual abuse and you deserve absolutely no respect whatsoever.I hope bad things happen to you.
You are the problem with advocacy. Blind belief in things that may be made in bad faith does not help children. Childish name calling does not help children.The people who muddy the waters around child sexual abuse are those people like those involved in this case – If the DA had an airtight case, it should have been prosecuted. Then we might actually have some answers. I am not lying. I am looking directly the link you sent it does not provide a credible source that gives a different definition than Lanning’s typology. You hurt the cause when the best you can do is name calling.Also: for the record, I’m an actual abuse survivor. But please continue to lecture me on how I don’t know what I’m talking about and how I’m wrong and bad things should happen to me. That’s super duper classy.
Enjoy that check, scum of the earth. Hope you choke on it!Meanwhile, everyone else has since clicked that link and has seen the google page with the definition of situational child molester and the oodles of info there from sources like the FBI and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children; and they all know for a fact what a lying sack of shit you are. Goodnight.
MY OWN ABUSER WAS A SITUATIONAL ABUSER! I think I might know more than you as do all of his other abusers.
Of course you’re trying to act like victimhood is a shield. Because you are a shitstain.Funny you refuse to extend that to oh say Dylan though. Naw. That’s not funny at all. It is consistent with your shittyness and lying however.Hope you choke on that check, you couldn’t be more obvious shill!
I’m not using victimhood as a shield, but I certainly feel that I’m speaking from a place of personal knowledge. I do think Dylan is a victim. I’m not entirely sure whose victim because of the actual facts of the case. I wish her mother was a better advocate at the time and had let the trial go forward. Taking allegations of abuse seriously does not mean blindly agreeing with them. Every situation is unique and whether we like it or not, estimates put 2 – 10% of allegations as false. They are rare, but they exist and this particular case is murky. But I get it – You think advocacy means shouting into the void and calling people names. I’m glad you weren’t the one who had to protect me when I was getting raped.
“I’m not using victimhood as a shield”You are. A shield you pulled out of your ass when you realized people were not buying the Woody Allen bullshit you’re selling anymore.The docuseries airs in a couple of days. Guess you gotta try to get as much shilling-for-a-shitstain money as you can before then, you bottom-feeding sack of ass puss.
So let me get this straight – I tell you I’m an abuse survivor which I am which is why I have strong feelings about abuse allegations and which is why I’m going around and around on this whole thing and you’re saying it’s because Woody Allen is paying me to post on the AV Club defending him? Good to know you’re delusional.
Your hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. After 100s of comments from you treating abuse survivor, Dylan Farrow, like a dehumanized prop with which to bash her mom on behalf an infamous shitbag, I, personally, am delighted to see your little ruse fall into tatters.Choke on your bloodmoney, scumsack!
I am an abuse survivor and you can think whatever you want about that. I lived through it and I am an advocate now. Being an advocate does not mean that you turn a blind eye to inconsistencies, red flags and other signs of abuse.You’re delusional if you think I’m making money doing this.
Your hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.
Am I hypocrite or a paid shill? Or are you just looking for more names to call people?
why-not-both-animated-gif-7.gif (338×209) (gifimage.net)
Calm down.
Muddying the water around sexual abuse, like defending Woody Allen? number of hairs you’ve split defending this predator is mind-boggling. It does not help abuse victims to deny their ability to tell their own stories or tell them they are liars when they do.
First link: Non-pedophilic child molesters are sometimes referred to as situational sex offenders because it may be particular circumstance that triggers their offending, rather than their sexual orientation. There are different types of situational offenders. For example, some situational offenders lack adequate relationships with adult partners. Consequently, they turn to children to fulfill their unmet emotional needs and, in the process, transgress into sexual activity. Others are hypersexual, opportunistic individuals for whom children are just another sexual outlet. Still others may molest children in times of great emotional distress when their thinking and judgment have become severely distorted and their normal coping skills overwhelmed.Second link: Situational child molesters might engage in sexual activity with children under a certain set of varied circumstances. These include adults who turn to children as sexual substitutes under various stressful conditions, psychopaths whose general behavior is morally indiscriminate, adults who are sexually indiscriminate but relatively normal in other behavioral areas, and adults who are socially inadequate.Third link:Situational Child MolesterThe situational-type child molester does not usually have compulsive-paraphilic sexual preferences including a preference for children. He may, however, engage in sex with children for varied and sometimes complex reasons. For such a child molester, sex with children may range from “once-in-a-lifetime” act to a long term pattern of behavior. The more long-term the pattern, the further down the continuum he may move. He will exhibit more and more of the behavior patterns of the preferential-type offender. The situational-type molester usually has fewer child victims. Other vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly, sick, or disabled, may also be at a risk of sexual victimization by him. For example the situational-type child molester who sexually abuses children in a daycare center might leave that job and begin to sexually abuse elderly people in a nursing home. Situational offenders are neither “better” nor as “bad” as preferential offenders; are they just different.That wasn’t difficult to do.
“That wasn’t difficult to do.”I know. That was my point.
Take a deep breath.
You seem a bit unhinged.
I gotta say, if I was a victim of his and saw what Dylan went through, I wouldn’t come forward.Honestly, I think people who come forward and continue the fight are really brave considering how we treat most sexual assault victims as liars, especially if the perpetrator is famous.
Bullshit.
Dude, Fieldston has an average class size of 1700 a year, and Farrow had 15 kids. Knowing people who were classmates with a couple of them is the opposite of unusual if you know anyone who grew up in NYC in the 80s. Hell, Ronan went to the same weird little college I did, although we didn’t overlap.And I believe Allen molested Dylan, so kindly take your high dudgeon and cram it up your ass followed by a square meter of sand.
Farrow never had 15 kids. The kids she did have all seem to have attended different schools and their ages were spread out over decades. What bullshit trying to act like the student body was 15/1700 Farrows. It’s obvious bullshit. Try harder.
Pardon me, I was off by one. Courtesy of, you know, google: Mia Farrow’s fourteen children were Matthew Previn (b. February 26, 1970), Sascha Previn (b. February 26, 1970), Soon-Yi Previn (b. circa October 8, 1970; adopted 1977), Lark Previn (b. February 15, 1973; adopted 1973; died December 25, 2008), Fletcher Previn (b. March 14, 1974), Summer “Daisy” Previn (b. October 6, 1974; adopted 1976), Moses Farrow (b. January 27, 1978; adopted 1980), Tam Farrow (b. 1979; adopted 1992; died 2000), Dylan Farrow (b. July 11, 1985; adopted 1985), Ronan Farrow (b. December 19, 1987), Thaddeus Farrow (b. December 16, 1988; adopted 1994; died September 21, 2016), Frankie-Minh Farrow (b. February 4, 1989; adopted 1995), Isaiah Farrow (b. February 3, 1992; adopted 1992), Kaeli-Shea “Quincy” Farrow (b. January 19, 1994; adopted 1994) Fieldston is a small school. If you’re presently in your late 40s and went there, you overlapped with a couple of the Previn kids. You also overlapped with the kids of a bunch of other famous people because that’s the kind of school it is. I’m sorry you have trouble believing a frankly boring story but again: google exists, try to use it occasionally.
You’re arguing with one of recognitions’s sock puppets. They were given a warning for too many flags on their main account so now they reserve the more belligerent shit for accounts like blue’s clues. Same person, though.
Ahhhh, that explains a lot. Thank you.
Hannah Haddonfield, obvious-sock-puppet account opened yesterday. In here accusing obviously-not-sock-puppet accounts which have been around for years of being sock puppets. lol Wood Allen’s army of lame shills are such a hoot!Choke on your checks, shitstains!
Who went to Fieldston? I think they all went to different schools. Moses, for example, went to Dalton (where Jeffrey Epstein taught) and the girls went to all-girls schools. Are you talking about Fletcher?
Hannah Haddonfield, obvious-sock-puppet account opened yesterday. In here accusing obviously-not-sock-puppet accounts which have been around for years of being sock puppets. lolWood Allen’s army of lame shills are such a hoot!Choke on your checks, shitstains!
“Fletcher, 18, now a senior at the prestigious Collegiate School. As Vietnam crumbled, André and Mia were able to get their daughter Daisy, 18, out on the last plane. Daisy was so malnourished and her intestinal lining was so damaged that she had to be fed at first through a tube in her head. She is now an honor student who won a math prize at another posh New York prep school, Nightingale-Bamford. Soon-Yi came at around age seven, just as André and Mia were ending their marriage. Six of Mia’s 11 children, therefore, are quite grown-up.Moses, from Korea, who has made great strides in overcoming his cerebral palsy, is 15, in the ninth grade at the exclusive Dalton School. Dylan is at Brearley, considered one of the top girls’ schools academically in New York, and Satchel goes to a Montessori pre-school. Tam, who is still learning English, is in a special-education class at P.S. 6, one of the best public schools in the city” — Vanity Fair, 1992
Soon-Yi went to Marymount School.
Who are you claiming went to Fieldston?
Hi, not dismissing anything else you say (above or below), but Fieldston’s average class size (at least back then) was just over 100, not 1700, at least in the high school (it might reach 1700 total if you include both elementary and middle/high schools).
Yeah, you’re right. (I was a public school kid myself!) 1700 is the current total number including the upper west side campus.Point being: small school. Even smaller than I thought!
Do you know if Fieldston has any connection to the Farrow family at all?
Personally, not that I am aware of other than tangentially through students and parents being connected.
I don’t know why that commenter brought up Fieldston. I have never heard of anyone in that family attending that school. Probably one of Woody Allen’s PR bots trying to deflect and get people to argue about what school they went to rather than Woody Allen molesting his kids.It worked though because here I am how many comments later. lol
Oh no sure a bullshit claim from an anonymous account like ‘I know someone who knows someone who talked to someone who went to this school where I’m insinuating a family of kids with birthdates ranging from 1970-1994 attended all at the same time in the 1970s, without any proof the family has any association with the school in the first place, and the hearsay is that both parents were “narcissistic monsters” so that nulls both allegations and we should all just wash our hands and move on and forget about it’ should be swallowed without question. You are so right.Wait. No. Nope. I’m still calling bullshit.I do not believe you.
(a) dude, I helpfully listed their birthdates. Note how many of them are between 1970 and 1974.(b) it’s psychologically fascinating that you think I’m saying “move on and forget about it” but I’m not responsible for the voices in your head. (c) yes, recognitions I mean “blues clues”, your deep concerns about the credibility of pseudonymous accounts are duly noted.(d) in the end: I don’t care if you believe me. Piss off, sockpuppet.
“Fletcher, 18, now a senior at the prestigious Collegiate School. As Vietnam crumbled, André and Mia were able to get their daughter Daisy, 18, out on the last plane. Daisy was so malnourished and her intestinal lining was so damaged that she had to be fed at first through a tube in her head. She is now an honor student who won a math prize at another posh New York prep school, Nightingale-Bamford. Soon-Yi came at around age seven, just as André and Mia were ending their marriage. Six of Mia’s 11 children, therefore, are quite grown-up.Moses, from Korea, who has made great strides in overcoming his cerebral palsy, is 15, in the ninth grade at the exclusive Dalton School. Dylan is at Brearley, considered one of the top girls’ schools academically in New York, and Satchel goes to a Montessori pre-school. Tam, who is still learning English, is in a special-education class at P.S. 6, one of the best public schools in the city”Soon-Yi went to Marymount School.Who went to Fieldston?
I think that commenter was just one of Allen’s PR trolls trying to get people to argue about stupid things, like schools, to keep us from talking about how Woody Allen is a child-raping criminal.
I mean they ended with the DA dropping the case because he was afraid of putting Dylan through even more trauma than she’d already experienced
Or because they wasn’t sufficient evidence.
I’m dreading all the “separate the art from the artist” equivocating bullshit we’ll likely hear, so filmmakers can continue to wax rhapsodic about Manhattan and Annie Hall.Well fuck that noise. I can live without Allen’s films on my shelf, or in my life.
I live everyday without his films in my life so that to me is irrelevant. My only complaint here is that it seems like poor documentary making to rely on the participation of one half of the subjects to the point of dismissing all of those with a contrary story.
That’s an entirely fair personal decision, but there’s still the issue of what to do about those films in the context of their place in film history. Pretending Allen’s films never existed (at least, the ones from that era) leaves a pretty big lacuna when trying to study the evolution of American comedic filmmaking. Note that I’m not talking at all about praising those films, just discussing their place in history.
There was a Twitter thread some time ago about the best New York movies, and people were tying themselves in knots to avoid saying Annie Hall and Manhattan.
I might just be the wrong age or temperament but I haven’t particularly enjoyed most of Allen’s work. I liked Bullets Over Broadway and Midnight in Paris but I tried watching Annie Hall once and was just bored. Like I said, his films’ importance to film history can’t be ignored, but we don’t have to like his work or give him money.
But for millions of people of a different age or temperament it was absolutely formative—especially his 70’s and 80’s stuff. What Fellini was for Rome, or Godard for Paris, he was for NYC.
“What Fellini was for Rome, or Godard for Paris, he was for NYC.”Oh god no. Speaking as New Yorker, we hate him. He’s more like what McCandless did for Alaska, with less starvation but with more misogyny.
I’m a New Yorker too, and that’s very much not my experience. There’s plenty to criticize in his provincial vision of NYC as the connective tissue between Zabars, Elaines and the Met, but the Manhattan poster and its romantic view of the city is as iconic as Steinberg’s “View of the World From 9th Avenue.” When Allen fell, he fell hard—and I have to assume well-deservedly— but he made some great movies.
Lemme guess. You’re an old white guy.He copied foreign films for Americans too lazy to read subtitles. That’s all he did. I don’t need his films to enjoy “great movies” because he’s never done anything new or original. I can skip the middleman and just watch Bergman or Fellini. He’s always been a hack that only a certain type of person fawns over. Your emperor never had clothes.I am absolutely thrilled, btw, that he’s lived long enough to see his legacy to turn to ash.
I’m a 49 year old from Queens. I disagree with your take on his films, but that’s neither here nor there; I’m trying to deal with the likelihood of his being a monster. When someone’s work was important to you, and there’s even a drop of ambiguity about an accusation, you cling to that ambiguity for a way out, but from what I’ve been reading, there really isn’t a lot of ambiguity.There’s a place for separating the work from the artist, as most Wagner fans can attest to; even Buffy is the creation of a writer’s room. But Allen’s art is inextricably tied up with his persona and it has been hard for me to stop reflexively ducking a very ugly truth.
“What Fellini was for Rome, or Godard for Paris, he was for NYC.”Oh god no. Speaking as New Yorker, we hate him. He’s more like what McCandless did for Alaska, with less starvation but with more misogyny.
Exactly. And Allen’s movies are a great argument for why that separation is (in my view) fundamentally impossible, as he has an unusually obvious footprint of identity on pretty much every movie he’s ever made.
Fuck what noise? The noise you’re making about a person who may be entirely innocent?
The older I get the less interest I have in separating terrible artists from their work. It’s not a position I expect to be adopted on a societal level, it’s entirely personal; I just can’t enjoy watching stuff I know was made by arseholes. I loved ‘I Heart Huckabees’ when I first saw it, but David O. Russell is an abusive creep and no film is good enough to excuse him terrorising the people around him to make it.
so filmmakers can continue to wax rhapsodic about Manhattan and Annie Hall. And you wouldn’t mind, but if I’m ever theoretically going to bat for a creepy nebbish based on their output, I’ma pick one who doesn’t insist on writing a creepy nebbish into most of his fucking flicks.
I was reading the THR review this morning and according to that, on Moses’ claims, “family members here call him a liar, and move on. Any claims made by Soon-Yi are even more critically dismissed.”
I’d even just like to see someone touch on the fact that Mia claims that Ronan is possibly Frank Sinatra’s kid because she was still sleeping with him during the entirety of her marriage to Andre Previn and relationship with Woody Allen, but kept that a secret and collected child support from Allen throughout Ronan’s childhood. Not because that automatically disproves any allegations, but it certainly does add some credence to those who question Mia’s integrity.For the record – I absolutely believe that Dylan believes she is telling the truth. I absolutely believe that Ronan Farrow believes everything he is saying. I question Mia’s role in all of that.
I mean, when Moses and Soon-Yi ever get around to making credible allegations, maybe people will give them more credence. Right now, that sounds like exactly as much attention as they deserve.Let them subject themselves to proper scrutiny like Dylan Farrow always has and which both of them have abundant resources to do – not a shady post on his own shady blog (that was immediately debunked, btw) and not a fawning fluff piece from one of Woody Allen’s oldest friends while Allen creeped around in the background the whole time. Moses claims to be some sort of counselor, you’d think he must be well acquainted with the process.
“I honestly don’t know what to say about the allegations made by Dylan Farrow.”lol You always have plenty to say about that! Don’t play coy.“and didn’t end with Allen appearing guilty”That’s a weird way for a “local” to interpret the CT police requesting an arrest warrant for Woody Allen and the years of stuff like this from the Connecticut DA:“[The DA] called Allen’s behavior — on Aug. 4, 1992, in Bridgewater — toward his young, adopted daughter “grossly inappropriate.” And he said he could “arguably” prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Allen was guilty.” I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what you claim. lol
The DA did not bring a case against it and while he said that he could arguably prove it, the evidence suggests otherwise given the doctor testimony that she was coerced and the lack of all physical evidence. Allegedly, Maco said that he “had drawn up an arrest warrant” but then decided not to pursue it.So the DA had such a tight case that he — didn’t prosecute it? The police also didn’t request the warrant the DA claims he was preparing one. No one besides Maco has ever corroborated that.I’m sorry you don’t understand how investigations work. “I could have maybe definitely gotten him found guilty” is not proof or evidence of anything.
None of that is true. You’re just pushing more misinformation again.“The Connecticut State Police investigation, meanwhile, discovered that Allen was inconsistent about whether he’d ever been in the attic with Dylan, and three childcare specialists from separate agencies found that Dylan’s testimony was “consistent,” “honest,” and believed “the victim was telling the truth.” The investigators concluded that “an arrest warrant be issued for the accused” on the charges of 1st- and 4th-degree sexual assault of a minor. But Maco declined to file charges against Allen out of a concern for young Dylan’s safety. “My concern was the further traumatization of the child,” Maco says in the film. “She had already been through so much. Was it truly in her best interest to put her on the stand?”” — Daily Beast
the evidence suggests
What evidence? What Woody Allen leaked to the press? The case is still open. The prosecution has never released their evidence. I’m sorry you don’t understand how prosecutions work. There is no “doctor testimony that she was coerced.” That’s a straight-up lie. As for physical evidence, again, the prosecution hasn’t released their evidence because the case is still open. We do know though that Allen’s prints and hair were found in the attic by the police investigation. And we know that Allen tried to lie about never having ever been in the attic because he is a famous claustrophobe and would just never ever go in… oh wait you have forensic evidence I was in there? okay yeah I may have gone in there sometimes… but not this last time when Dylan said I took her in there! I swear this time for real!We know he was in the attic because police gathered physical evidence of him being in the attic. And then they got him to lie on the record about it. That’s how police investigations work, btw.he — didn’t prosecute it?You want people to buy into some sort of Just World fallacy where police always catch bad guys and bad guys always go to jail. That’s not how the criminal justice system works. If you were arguing in good faith I might actually discuss it with you. But all you’re doing here is trying to obfuscate for a man that raped a kid that trusted him.The police requested an arrest warrant and that is a verified fact. Watch the docuseries. I’m sure they’ll explain it to you.
The police don’t always catch the bad guy, you’re right. But a District Attorney doesn’t usually hold a press conference to say that he could absolutely get a conviction, but is choosing not to go to trial. At a minimum, that should certainly put a red flag there.I’m a molestation survivor. I know exactly what the questioning and interviewing process. I know exactly how careful people are before suggesting the child is lying especially in the 90’s. No one would say that they had doubts unless they truly, truly had doubts.
Yeah it’s so unbelievable that anyone would want to avoid putting an already traumatized 7-year-old girl through yet more trauma. And I wanna know what world you live in where people hesitate for a second to claim an abuse victim is lying
I live in the same county where this all happened and I went through the exact same process. That’s why I know how this works. That’s how I know that when I was a small little girl and there was evidence of abuse that the district attorney discussed with my parents ways that there could be a trial with or without my testimony. Her testimony certainly would have helped, but if the DA truly had so much evidence, it would not have been required. And if the DA had so much evidence, they probably would have aimed for a deal.The actual people who investigate these things are very careful before they assert coaching or lying – I know how many interviews I had to go through especially in an early 90s world where assertions of coaching became more prominent.
That’s how I know that when I was a small little girl and there was evidence of abuse that the district attorney discussed with my parents ways that there could be a trial with or without my testimony.I’m curious how this would work? Defendants have a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them. How did the DA in your case think they would get a legitimate constitutional conviction without your testimony?
I can only speak to my own experience. It does vary state to state, but I am in Connecticut so the terms would have been the same as they would have been in this case. My abuser took a deal so we didn’t ultimately have to go through all of the steps.The prosecution would not have to list me as a witness or call me to the stand, though the defense could have called me. The prosecution would have relied on expert testimony, medical and psychological assessmentsIn the event that I was called, my guardians could petition the court that testifying would be detrimental to me because of fear and mental injury (i.e. reliving the trauma)If that was established and they still wanted me to testify, I would have the ability to speak in chambers with only the judge, my attorney, the prosecutor, a guardian ad litem, and the defense attorneyIf I did not want to testify in chambers, I could petition the court for a video-taped deposition that would be played in court. The defendant would not have to be present given the points in bullet point 2.My abuser took a deal, though, and the reason the DA and my attorney encouraged my parents to agree to the possibility of testifying because they believed that once a trial was on given the evidence they had, my abuser would take a deal and he did.That is why I find it odd for the DA to choose not to move forward if his evidence was that strong.
So a couple things. First, notice how the prosecutor could not guarantee that if they went to trial you would not have to testify. The defense could have called you as a witness, and you almost certainly would have had to testify in that instance, because the constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront the witnesses against them.Second, it’s actually difficult to believe that the prosecutor thought they could avoid having you testify in their case-in-chief in favor of relying on “medical testimony, medical and psychological assessments.” The prosecution bears the burden of presenting evidence from which a jury can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a crime was committed and (2) that the defendant committed that crime. If the prosecution hasn’t presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reach those two conclusions by the time they have finished presenting their case-in-chief, the case should be dismissed. Experts could possibly testify to whether a crime was committed, i.e. they could say whether you had been abused. But unless there were other direct witnesses to the abuse, or unless there was some literal recording of the abuse, I don’t see how the prosecution could have presented any evidence of abuse without your testimony being taken in some form.
“At a minimum, that should certainly put a red flag there.”The whole point of that was to put a big giant red flag there that Allen was a child molester. In retrospect, it was a brilliant move – which is why it pissed off Allen so much.Allen tried for years to have the DA sanctioned but, guess what, DA Frank Maco retired with a blemish-free record and he was always an admired and beloved public servant because he was a stand-up guy, unafraid to place himself in the crosshairs for the greater good. I cannot wait to hear everything Maco has to say in this docuseries – I’ll be riveted.As for the rest of your comment: LOL.
The Daily Beast’s review is a good read. ‘Allen v. Farrow’ Is a Horrifying Indictment of Woody Allen (thedailybeast.com)“The Connecticut State Police investigation, meanwhile, discovered that Allen was inconsistent about whether he’d ever been in the attic with Dylan, and three childcare specialists from separate agencies found that Dylan’s testimony was “consistent,” “honest,” and believed “the victim was telling the truth.” The investigators concluded that “an arrest warrant be issued for the accused” on the charges of 1st- and 4th-degree sexual assault of a minor. But Maco declined to file charges against Allen out of a concern for young Dylan’s safety. “My concern was the further traumatization of the child,” Maco says in the film. “She had already been through so much. Was it truly in her best interest to put her on the stand?””
Yes. Post that everywhere.
Yes. It’s in the Daily Beasy write up.“The Connecticut State Police investigation, meanwhile, discovered that Allen was inconsistent about whether he’d ever been in the attic with Dylan, and three childcare specialists from separate agencies found that Dylan’s testimony was “consistent,” “honest,” and believed “the victim was telling the truth.” The investigators concluded that “an arrest warrant be issued for the accused” on the charges of 1st- and 4th-degree sexual assault of a minor. But Maco declined to file charges against Allen out of a concern for young Dylan’s safety. “My concern was the further traumatization of the child,” Maco says in the film. “She had already been through so much. Was it truly in her best interest to put her on the stand?”” — Daily Beast
“Daily Beasy”
I’m fairly inclined to believe that Woody did the things he’s accused of (though not so inclined that I assume anything necessarily), but it has always bothered me that Mia is treated purely as a victim and the allegations against her are often ignored entirely.
It has always bothered me that Mia Farrow was discussed at all.But, you know, misogynists gonna misogynist. And apparently they couldn’t figure out how to slut-shame a 7 year old so they went after her mom instead.
Why wouldn’t you take the same approach to the allegations against Farrow that you do with the allegations against Allen?
That they aren’t true? If the allegations of abuse against Farrow aren’t true given the same amount of evidence then we can’t treat the allegations against Allen as true. If this documentary wanted to delve deeper, there are also a number of questions raised by the deaths of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus, three of her other children whose lives very much align with the claims made by Moses and Soon-Yi.But as a piece of investigation, this film does a disservice to not include Moses Farrow and to dismiss him as a liar according to THR when Mia Farrow has copped to at least 1 major lie/manipulation (the whole Frank Sinatra paternity thing – she was either lying then because she stood to profit or she’s lying now).I have no horse in this race in so much as I don’t particularly like or respect Woody Allen, but the allegations also done line up no matter how compelling they’re told.
That they aren’t true? What aren’t true? The allegations against Allen? If you have, somehow, come to that definitive of a conclusion regarding Allen, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t regarding Farrow. There’s not any more evidence that the allegations against Farrow are true than the allegations against Allen, and there isn’t any more exculpatory evidence for the allegations against Allen than the ones against Farrow.But as a piece of investigation, this film does a disservice to not include Moses Farrow and to dismiss him as a liar according to THRI mean, they asked him to be in the film, but he refused. Not sure what they are supposed to do there.Anyways, this film focuses on Allen, because as between Allen and Farrow, Allen is the one who managed to have a successful career after the messiness of the whole divorce, while Farrow’s reputation ended up in shatters. This is despite the fact that Allen’s actual confirmed conduct was completely horrible and gross. As a reminder, he fucked and married the daughter of his partner and the sister to his own children, a person who he first met when she was 9. I have no horse in this race in so much as I don’t particularly like or respect Woody AllenYou obviously do! You’re definitively dismissing credible allegations against Allen (and they absolutely are credible) while wanting to focus on allegations against Farrow. You obviously favor Allen here, for whatever reason.
I have my doubts about the allegations against Allen – not because I particularly like him or his work, but because many of the pieces don’t line up. Someone does not decide to molest a 7 year old and never do it again. In 2021, if he had abused other children, we would surely know about it. Dating a 21 year old when you’re nearly 60 is creepy, but not illegal. That 21 year old being your partner’s daughter, also creepy but not illegal.But ignoring many, many credible allegations against Mia Farrow including accusations that she contributed to the deaths of 3 of her children, her own assertions that she lied for years about Ronan’s paternity while collecting child support, and her defense of other rapists does hurt her credibility in ways that warrant scrutiny given what Moses Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn and Woody Allen have said.
Or he does it again and gets away with it.
The idea that it would have been kept concealed is highly unlikely especially given he went through the adoption process twice since then, and parented 2 children.
“As for the NYC Child Welfare Administration, investigator Sheryl Harden assigned the case to Paul Williams, a star employee who’d been awarded “Caseworker of the Year” by the City of New York. Williams found Dylan to be credible, and per his contemporaneous notes—which were obtained by the filmmakers—concluded that there was sufficient evidence to open up a case of child sexual abuse against Woody Allen, and included an exchange with Sawyer where she told Williams that she “believes Dylan.” But then Williams was mysteriously fired for “insubordination,” causing the case to die. When Williams’ firing was contested, a judge determined that Williams shouldn’t have been fired, reinstated him, and awarded him backpay.“In the end, the result was that people with power were able to get the case removed,” Gloria Steinem, who supported Williams’ case, says in the film. “It just seemed to me, like everything I could glean as a reporter, to be a case of great injustice.”Harden, who appears in Allen v. Farrow, was so disgusted with the process that she quit the NYC Child Welfare Administration about a year after the Dylan case.” —Daily BeastAllen’s lawyer is infamous for bribing a DA to keep Weinstein from prosecution and for keeping the Trump kids from seeing a courtroom. Of course they bribed more people and obstructed more justice for other clients like Allen – that’s just a Tuesday for these evil sleazeballs.
You mean Mia Farrow’s lawyer?https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/nyregion/dershowitz-says-farrow-involved-him.html
No, I’m talking about someone even worse (yeah, really. that bad.) I’m talking about Elkan Abramowitz. https://lmgtfy.app/?q=elkan+abramowitz+harvey+weinstein https://lmgtfy.app/?q=elkan+abramowitz+trump+childrenHe’s an old old man now but I hope he’s spry enough to know his ‘legacy’ has turned to shit. That’s not a lot of justice there for all the bad he’s put into the world, but at least it is something.
The adoptive process is a foolproof process to prevent child abuse, especially by the powerful and wealthy. I have certainly known adopted children who were abused.
“The adoptive process is a foolproof process to prevent child abuse, especially by the powerful and wealthy. I have certainly known adopted children who were abused.”Only for Woody Allen though, according to that user. Somehow Farrow being able to adopt after all of this means the opposite for her. The contortions that commenter goes through to defend Allen are astounding.
Got it. So what has convinced you of Allen’s innocence is some weird “Well, no one would ever do the thing he’s accused of doing!” fallacy, but any and all wild speculation about Farrow makes sense to you.
No, that’s not what I said. I said that conflating Woody Allen’s apparent interest in young women who are 17 – 21 in films, his relationship with Soon Yi when she was 21 and pedophilia is not accurate. If he were a pedophile, it is unlikely that he would have only molested one person once and never done it again. It’s also unlikely that with this being so much in the fore of public discourse that no other children would have come forward. Look at other notable examples of pedophiles – Michael Jackson, Jimmy Savile – it’s not one allegation and it wasn’t even one rumor when they were alive.Even his now adult children with Soon Yi have nothing to add. Social workers who monitored the adoption never found anything. But there is an eye witness in Moses Farrow who has stated that he witnessed Dylan being coached and he witnessed the editing of her initial statement. There are doctors who confirm they found no evidence of abuse. That’s not “wild speculation.” Mia Farrow did have three children who died under tragic circumstances that has also led to accusations of her fitness as a mother. Soon Yi has made claims of physical and psychological abuse. Moses has claimed his siblings were kept from appropriate psychological help. Mia Farrow is either lying now or was lying in the 80s about Ronan’s paternity and her relationship with Frank Sinatra. When certain aspects of the case against Allen is predicated on Farrow’s actions and credibility, those details do matter.
I’m not conflating those two things. Even if it’s true that it’s unlikely for someone to commit this type of crime once and never again, so what? Unlikely things happen all the time. It might be the case, for example, that after one molestation unleashed an absolute shit storm he decided “Best not do that again.”I’m not sure, but I don’t think Moses has ever claimed he personally witnessed Dylan being coached. In any event, Dylan says she wasn’t coached, so not sure why you’d take his word over hers. And not all abuse leaves evidence that can be found by doctors. Also, Mia Farrow’s credibility doesn’t matter. She has never claimed to be a witness to the abuse. It is Dylan’s credibility that matters, she is the witness to event.
Her credibility does matter when the lynch pin of the entire conversation is whether or not she coached Dylan on the entire thing. There’s a reason why children’s allegations are investigated by professionals because children don’t always have the words or the means to articulate what happened. Interviews done poorly in the late 80’s and 90’s led to known instances of false allegations. The investigators found that Dylan had been coached.From Moses blog post:In her [Monica, the nanny’s] testimony she said, “I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.” I can vouch for this, having witnessed some of this process myself. When another one of Dylan’s therapists, Dr. Nancy Schultz, criticized the making of the video, and questioned the legitimacy of the content, she too, was fired immediately by Mia.Moses also said of life in general that Mia coached them repeatedly:That was the start of her coaching, drilling, scripting, and rehearsing – in essence, brainwashing. I became anxious and fearful. He and Soon Yi have both talked repeatedly about gaslighting behavior. I do think Dylan believes what she says. I’m not convinced Mia Farrow didn’t put it there based on the evidence and what other people have said.
The lynch pin is Dylan’s testimony! You can’t just discount her testimony by making up some shit about Mia (btw, that first quote, even if true, doesn’t even necessarily describe any wrongdoing).
If Dylan’s testimony was coerced and coached, it does matter! I get that you don’t believe that. But there’s a reason why allegations are investigated in these situations. In the late 80s and early 90’s, a lot was done around how we interview suspected child abuse victims. Children are highly susceptible to suggestion. A doctor who interviewed Dylan 9 times back in 1993 said in a sworn statement: “It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that she stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” An article from 1993 goes on to paraphrase the doctor: “Dr. Leventhal said it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films. He also said it was possible that Miss Farrow encouraged her child to fabricate simply by videotaping her telling the story, because Dylan liked to perform.”
That still goes to Dylan’s credibility though. Whether she is telling the truth. You are just making shit up about Mia as a side door to impugning Dylan’s credibility. I could say the same thing about Moses: What if he was coached by Woody to make those allegations against Mia? Now Woody’s credibility comes into play. Isn’t Woody Allen the same guy who had an affair with his partner’s daughter and his children’s sister behind all of their backs? We’re taking his word that Mia Farrow was abusive?I’m pretty sure Dr. Leventhal never actually interviewed Dylan. (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts). That report also has been ripped apart by other experts (https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/28/nyregion/yale-study-about-allen-flawed-expert-testifies.html). Think critically about the quote you just posted, if that’s possible for you. Leventhal claims Dylan isn’t credible because she always linked the abuse with Allen’s relationship to Soon Yi. But those are two extraordinarily traumatic things her father did to her (fucking her sister, molesting her) within a short period of time. It is not surprising they would be linked in her mind. Also, here Leventhal says Dylan was too rehearsed (whatever that means, and I’m not even sure why that would undermine someone’s credibility), but also says that her credibility is undermined because her story wasn’t consistent over the 9 (or more) separate times she told it. That doesn’t really fit with the assertion it was too rehearsed. (What were those inconsistencies? Who knows? The Yale team destroyed their notes!). Note also the wildly absurd speculation that Dylan might have been lying simply because Farrow set up a camera to record her! That’s insane. Also, a couple additional pieces of evidence, since we seem to be going full on into the details of this case. First, multiple adults present in the house testified that Dylan and Allen were missing for 10 or more minutes. Allen said he had never been in the part of the attic where the alleged abuse took place, but when his hair was found there had to admit he lied. Kind of undermines his credibility, doesn’t it? Those sorts of inconsistencies just don’t exist for Dylan’s side of the story, which is why you have to make Farrow out to be some vicious, horrible person.
The assertions made by Maureen Orth and others stating Levanthal never interviewed her have been called into question.Mia Farrow has multiple allegations of abuse against her – From Moses, from Soon-Yi. There are allegations around her parenting of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus. There are allegations about things Farrow and Allen said prior to this about taking his children away. She has also lied in regards to both the situation with Soon-Yi, Ronan’s paternity, and her relationship with Allen. Her lies and her choices may be extremely well intentioned and both thing might be true – Allen might have abused Dylan and Farrow may have abused them all. Mia Farrow may have even coached Dylan to make sure she was heard. But Mia Farrow’s credibility does matter when the other side of the story is that Mia may have at best misconstrued something and at worst made something up. There are scenarios where you’re right, her credibility wouldn’t matter, but this chain of events isn’t one. We’re either going to say all allegations are true – in which case we have to accept that Mia Farrow is abusive as well. Or we’re going to say abuse allegations need to be looked at critically and discussed. If we’re going with that latter then it is definitely fair to bring up some of the questions that surround this particular abuse allegation.But I do find it surprising and alarming the number of people who are willing to say Dylan must be believed full stop with no question, but Moses and Soon-Yi shouldn’t.
At the outset, you badly need to learn the difference between “evidence” and “speculation.” What Dylan Farrow says happened to her is evidence of what happened to her. What Woody Allen says he did or didn’t do is evidence of what he did or didn’t do. The Yale teams insinuation that Mia Farrow may have coached Dylan to lie is speculation, based only on their belief (itself based on dubious assertions) that Dylan Farrow was not credible. But that speculation is not evidence, and there is no actual evidence, direct, circumstantial or otherwise, that Mia coached Dylan to lie. Dylan denies that. Farrow denies that (although I’m not even sure the Yale team actually interviewed Farrow). No other person anywhere, ever, has come forward claiming to have witnessed Mia instructing Dylan to lie. You don’t get to claim that you care about evidence, and then conflate evidence and speculation.The assertions made by Maureen Orth and others stating Levanthal never interviewed her have been called into question.Called into question by who? The report didn’t say that Levanthal interviewed her. I’ve never seen Levanthal himself claim that he did, or any of the two social workers who actually did claim that Levanthal did. If he did, fine, but I’m not sure why it matters that others have called that claim into question. Four people have direct knowledge of whether Levanthal interviewed Farrow or not, I care about what those people say about it.Mia Farrow has multiple allegations of abuse against her – From Moses, from Soon-Yi. There are allegations around her parenting of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus. There are allegations about things Farrow and Allen said prior to this about taking his children away.
This is true, but I’m not sure what the relevance is? The allegations of abuse against Farrow are distinct from, and not related to, the allegation against Allen that he molested Dylan. I’m not sitting here arguing that Farrow was or was not a good parent, and I have no reason to doubt the recounted personal experiences of of Moses, Soon Yi of their own treatment at the hands of Mia Farrow (nor for that matter Dylan or Ronan). But even taking their claims at face value, what is the relevance to whether Dylan is telling the truth about what Woody Allen is alleged to have done to her?She has also lied in regards to both the situation with Soon-Yi, Ronan’s paternity, and her relationship with Allen.
I’m not sure what Farrow is supposed to have lied about “in regards to both the situation with Soon-Yi…and her relationship with Allen.” Ronan may or may not be Allen’s, but so what? That doesn’t have anything to do with Dylan’s allegations. First of all, Farrow’s credibility really isn’t at issue, because she’s not the one making the claim that Allen abused Dylan. Even if Farrow’s credibility matters (and it matters solely on the basis of evidence-free allegations that she coached Dylan to lie), at most the fact that she carried on an affair with Sinatra throughout her relationship with Allen, and that Ronan may not have in fact been Allen’s even though Allen’s paternity was presumed, only tangentially impacts her credibility. Everyone has lied or misled about something in their lives, that is not necessarily relevant to their credibility about some different, unrelated thing. At the same time, we know, for a fact, that Woody Allen lied about something directly relevant to the investigation—he claimed that he had never been in the crawlspace where the alleged molestation took place, and yet when he was informed that fingerprinting was done, admitted his prints might be there; his hair was later found there.But Mia Farrow’s credibility does matter when the other side of the story is that Mia may have at best misconstrued something and at worst made something up. Mia’s not making the allegation! Her credibility does not matter! Dylan is making the allegation, has consistently made the allegation, and has consistently denied any allegation that Farrow coached her to lie. Mia’s credibility just doesn’t matter in the absence of any actual evidence that she coached Dylan to lie, and there is no more actual evidence that Mia coached Dylan to lie than that you coached Dylan to lie. And again, if the approach we’re going to take is “Well, if I make a baseless accusation that an alleged victim was brainwashed to give a false version of events by someone else, and then that other person’s credibility matters,” I get to say that Moses was brainwashed by Allen, and therefore his history, which includes fucking his children’s sister behind their back, also impacts the credibility of Moses’s accusation.We’re either going to say all allegations are true – in which case we have to accept that Mia Farrow is abusive as well. Or we’re going to say abuse allegations need to be looked at critically and discussed. If we’re going with that latter then it is definitely fair to bring up some of the questions that surround this particular abuse allegation.I’m not saying all allegations are true. Frankly, I’m not particularly concerned with the veracity of the allegations against Farrow, except to say, as I said above, that I have no actual reason to doubt the personal experiences of any of Farrow’s children, including those children who say she was abusive towards them. Beyond that, you aren’t actually offering any critical analysis of the allegations against Allen. You are simply offering a bunch of red herrings and specious arguments that are, at best, only tangentially related to the actual allegation against Allen. You’re free to look at the evidence surrounding the actual allegation against Allen and come to any conclusion you want, but you don’t get to just insist that irrelevant things are relevant because you say so. Here are the most relevant facts about Dylan’s allegation:Dylan Farrow claims that Allen led her away from other adults, isolated her in the crawl space, and molested her. She has been consistent in this allegation since it (allegedly) took place.Woody Allen has consistently denied that any such thing ever took place.Multiple adults present stated that Allen went missing with Dylan for about 10-15 minutes, and have testified to that effect. One adult testified that she saw Allen’s head in Dylan’s lap in a way that looked improper in some way.Allen initially claimed that he had never been in the crawlspace where the abuse is alleged to have taken place. Then, when confronted with the possibility that police would fingerprint it, he admitted his fingerprints might be found there; later his hair was found there.One team (the Yale team) investigated Dylan’s accusations and found her story to not be credible. However, one basis for that assertion was that Dylan had an overactive imagination, but several things she said that led to that conclusion (the “magic hour,” “deadheads,”) actually had perfectly logical explanations grounded in the real world, and were not fabrications. Another basis for that assertion was supposed inconsistencies in multiple retellings of that story. But interviewing a child victim of abuse nine times is not considered best practice, for one thing because almost certainly inconsistencies will emerge between the various retellings, no matter how true (partly because when you’re constantly asking children the same thing over and over again, they may sense that you are looking for a different answer and so start giving you different answers). We also have no way of looking into these supposed inconsistencies for ourselves because the investigators destroyed their notes.Another investigator found that Dylan was credible, but was mysteriously terminated after making his observations known to his superiors, only for a court to later determine that his termination had been improper. Hmmmm!Dylan’s allegation actually didn’t come out of nowhere. There had been significant pre-existing concern about Allen’s level of affection for Dylan. That is why Farrow had instructed babysitter’s never to leave the two alone (which is, in turn, likely why multiple adults actually noticed they were missing for 10 minutes). Allen’s therapist described his relationship with Dylan as “inappropriate,” although he did stop short of saying it was sexual.Here’s what is tangential, at best, and at worst totally irrelevant, to Dylan’s accusation:That Mia Farrow was cheating on Woody throughout their relationship, and that he may not have actually fathered Ronan.That at the time of the accusation, Mia was still incensed with Allen for fucking her daughter.Moses claim that Farrow abused him.Soon-Yi’s claim that Farrow abused her.Moses belief that Farrow coached Dylan to lie (he did not personally witness anything of the sort).
Moses is not the only one who has claimed coaching – A therapist who was seeing Dylan asserted coaching. The Yale Team asserted coaching in a report and in a sworn statement that is legally binding. According to the Yale Team, Dylan’s statements did change repeatedly in initial interviews. Paul Williams – the caseworker in question – was temporarily fired for 7 months due to his choice to file reports that violated agency policy and for privately testifying on Mia Farrow’s defense during the custody hearing. He was reinstated and continues to work for the organization. He was also on the New York team, not the Connecticut team and the reason his reports were problematic was largely because there was no proof that anything had happened in New York which complicated the situation. Dylan does not assert abuse in New York to the best of my knowledge.When I was abused, I was interviewed 11 times, and you’re right small inconsistencies will come up. But not surprisingly, experts know how to handle those types of inconsistencies and can differentiate it from allegations that are coached. We can go another 20 rounds if you want, but my point and my opinion stands: The credibility of the allegations do rest in part on Mia Farrow’s credibility because of the choices she made during the investigation. It may truly only be that she managed to hamper a valid investigation with her choices and her other parenting skills, but had this case gone to trial and had Farrow’s other children been interviewed at the time, it may well have come into play that her history with her children played a role. That does muddy the waters whether you like that or not.
Moses is not the only one who has claimed coaching – A therapist who was seeing Dylan asserted coaching. The Yale Team asserted coaching in a report and in a sworn statement that is legally binding. According to the Yale Team, Dylan’s statements did change repeatedly in initial interviews.I’m not sure what therapist you’re referring to who claimed coaching. In any event, again, learn the difference between evidence and speculation. Moses’s claim that Mia coached Dylan to lie is not evidence. Neither is the Yale team’s speculation evidence (also worth noting they admitted that there was no firm evidence of any such dishonesty on Mia’s part). The judge in the custody case stated unequivocally there was no evidence that Mia coached Dylan to lie. There just isn’t any evidence to the effect that Mia did anything improper with regards to these allegations. It doesn’t exist. Paul Williams – the caseworker in question – was temporarily fired for 7 months due to his choice to file reports that violated agency policy and for privately testifying on Mia Farrow’s defense during the custody hearing. He was reinstated and continues to work for the organization. He was also on the New York team, not the Connecticut team and the reason his reports were problematic was largely because there was no proof that anything had happened in New York which complicated the situation. Dylan does not assert abuse in New York to the best of my knowledge.What is the point of this? None of this bears on the question of the reliability of his report or the veracity of his conclusions (I have no idea why the state where the abuse happened would matter at all). The point is, if you’re going to rely on the Yale team’s report to exonerate Allen (even ignoring the myriad other problems with that report), you have to acknowledge there is at least one other expert who came to the opposite conclusion. I can’t think of any reason to give any less weight to his report than to the Yale team’s.When I was abused, I was interviewed 11 times, and you’re right small inconsistencies will come up. But not surprisingly, experts know how to handle those types of inconsistencies and can differentiate it from allegations that are coached.In general experts may have ways to better separate truth from reality. But we have no way to evaluate that from Yale one way or another because they destroyed their contemporaneous notes. So we can’t assess how they dealt with inconsistencies, or what those supposed inconsistencies even were. What we do know is that Leventhal had to walk back one of the bases he asserted for Dylan’s supposed lack of credibility when it came out that some of her statements he attributed to some sort of thought disorder or inability to distinguish fantasy from reality turned out to have logical explanations that his team had failed to suss out (because, again, they didn’t even bother to interview Farrow or anyone else relevant to Dylan’s allegations).The credibility of the allegations do rest in part on Mia Farrow’s credibility because of the choices she made during the investigation.
What choices that Farrow made make her credibility relevant? Also, even assuming her credibility is relevant, what is it that makes you think she is not credible? What is it that makes you think any credibility problem Farrow may have is more damning than the fact that Allen clearly lied about a key fact, i.e. whether he had ever been in the part of the house where the abuse was alleged to have taken place?but had this case gone to trial and had Farrow’s other children been interviewed at the time, it may well have come into play that her history with her children played a role. That does muddy the waters whether you like that or not.This went to trial. If you’re going to go to bat for Allen like this, and drag Farrow through the mud like this, you ought to do yourself a favor and actually go read the opinion Judge Wilks issued in the custody case (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866). It’s a shocking indictment of Allen. Even ignoring Dylan’s allegation (Wilks says Allen’s behavior towards Dylan was “grossly inappropriate”) his behavior towards the children was absolutely horrible. Farrow doesn’t come across great in the opinion either (and I personally do not think she was a good mother), but it pales in comparison to the horribleness of Allen. By the time I got done reading that opinion for the first time, I almost didn’t care whether Dylan’s particular allegation was true because that opinion reveals Allen to have been such an absolutely vile, horrible person that he should have been blacklisted on the basis of the events detailed in that opinion alone.
The choices that Mia Farrow made during the time of the allegations are:Calling her lawyer instead of the police when the allegations were madeFilming Dylan’s statement with starts and stops instead of taking her to the police Allegedly making statements to the children about Allen prior to and after the investigations (and yes, this is hearsay and speculation)According to the DA, agreeing not to bring it to trial even after Allen filed a complaint that it should go to trialI wholly agree that Woody Allen never should have had custody of Dylan or Ronan, that everything suggests he had little knowledge of or interest in parenting them, and that he is not a person I would want to be friends or companions with.However, the custody case did not have to and did not investigate the abuse allegations in the same way a criminal case would have to, and there was no burden of proof need. The judge even goes on to say that the decision was not predicated on the abuse allegations, but far more on the relationship with Soon-Yi and the lack of knowledge he had about his children’s interests. Moses’s allegations do come in to play here because he claims the statement he wrote for the custody case which did have a bearing on the outcome was coached by Mia Farrow. It’s also relevant that Mia Farrow did perjury herself during the custody trial if her assertions that Ronan could reasonably be Frank Sinatra’s son since Woody Allen paid both child support and college costs on the basis that he was definitively his child. If she did perjury herself then it does bear weight on her credibility in other cases.
“Calling her lawyer instead of the police when the allegations were madeFilming Dylan’s statement with starts and stops instead of taking her to the policeAllegedly making statements to the children about Allen prior to and after the investigations (and yes, this is hearsay and speculation)According to the DA, agreeing not to bring it to trial even after Allen filed a complaint that it should go to trial”None of this has anything to do with her credibility though? In none of these is she alleged to have lied or been dishonest. These are just things you think she should have done differently for some reason (although I’m not even clear why you think she should have done any of this differently? except maybe the police thing?).I also think you’re missing the point about the custody trial. First of all, the custody trial is the most thorough examination of whether Mia coached Dylan to lie, and the judge unequivocally states there is no evidence of that (which, again, is 100% accurate, there is just literally no evidence she did anything of the sort). Also, the judge found that Allen’s behavior towards Dylan was “grossly inappropriate,” about Soon-Yi and Allen’s disinterest. He was actually too interested in Dylan.Mia Farrow did perjury herself during the custody trial if her assertions that Ronan could reasonably be Frank Sinatra’s son since Woody Allen paid both child support and college costs on the basis that he was definitively his child. If she did perjury herself then it does bear weight on her credibility in other cases.So, I kind of doubt she even perjured herself. She would only have perjured herself if she denied, under oath, that she was having an affair with Sinatra, or claimed, under oath, that Ronan was 100% Allen’s, or something like that. I don’t think she did. Second, even if she did, so what? That’s, at most, marginally relevant to Dylan’s accusations (again, because DYLAN’S CREDIBILITY is the issue, not Mia’s, because the accusation is based on Dylan’s claim, not Mia’s). It’s certainly not more relevant than the fact that WOODY ACTUALLY ALMOST CERTAINLY LIED ABOUT A KEY DETAIL DIRECTLY RELATED TO DYLAN’S ALLEGATION, i.e. whether he had ever been in the space where the alleged abuse took place. It’s pretty telling you keep ignoring that fact while trying to impugn Farrow’s credibility.
When children make allegations to one person and then fail to repeat those allegations to another (which is what happened when Dylan went to see her pediatrician the first time) and then are taken away and have only contact with that same initial person then have a different story, the witness to the allegation’s matters particularly when there are assertions that Mia Farrow had threatened Woody Allen prior to the allegation and she called her lawyer over the police to find out what to do. Her credibility matters because Dylan was 7 the chain of events is very much mediated by the actions of her mother. The credibility of the video has been called into question multiple times including by a therapist who viewed it prior to the police being involved and the video notably was filmed between the 1st and 2nd doctor’s visit, the 1st visit where Dylan denied the abuse.Everything you bring forward as sacrosanct evidence, but brush off as conjecture when it is in Allen’s defense has been refuted by other experts. Forensic evidence linking Allen to the attic was not definitive. She asserted in the custody trial in sworn statements that Woody Allen was responsible for Ronan, Dylan and Moses on the grounds that he was Ronan’s biological father and that he had adopted Dylan and Moses. She has now said it’s more likely that Ronan is Frank Sinatra’s son which means either she is lying now as Nancy Sinatra believes or she was lying then. That is a problem given that she is the filter through which the allegations were first presented.There is reasonable doubt in this situation because of the various accusations against Mia Farrow BECAUSE SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT SHE HAD A PATTERN OF ABUSE WITH HER CHILDREN THAT INCLUDED GASLIGHTING.
When children make allegations to one person and then fail to repeat those allegations to another (which is what happened when Dylan went to see her pediatrician the first time) and then are taken away and have only contact with that same initial person then have a different story, the witness to the allegation’s mattersThis is not an unusual thing that happens in cases of abuse, and Farrow was not a “witness to the allegation.”the witness to the allegation’s matters particularly when there are assertions that Mia Farrow had threatened Woody Allen prior to the allegation and she called her lawyer over the police to find out what to do.Threatened Allen how? Also, not sure why it’s improper or somehow suspect to call a lawyer for advice over the police. Literally a lawyer’s job is to provide advice. (Also, I believe Farrow’s first move was to take Dylan to the doctor).Everything you bring forward as sacrosanct evidence, but brush off as conjecture when it is in Allen’s defense has been refuted by other experts. Forensic evidence linking Allen to the attic was not definitive.I brought forward Allen’s denial as evidence, so this characterization is false. The point, though, is there is literally no evidence that Mia Farrow coached Dylan. None whatsoever. It just doesn’t exist.As to whether the evidence about the attic is “conclusive,” Allen’s hair, I suppose, could have simply gotten there some other way, I guess. The bigger point is in his police interview he denied that he had ever been in that space, and then when police mentioned it was being fingerprinted, admitted they might find his fingerprints. That itself is basically an admission of dishonesty, whether you want to discount the hair or not.She asserted in the custody trial in sworn statements that Woody Allen was responsible for Ronan, Dylan and Moses on the grounds that he was Ronan’s biological father and that he had adopted Dylan and Moses.He had adopted Dylan and Moses. You’d have to point me to what those sworn statements actually said to evaluate whether what she said about Dylan’s parentage (which may simply have been assumed) was perjury. In any event, again, who cares? Allen lied about something much more central to the case!There is reasonable doubt in this situation because of the various accusations against Mia Farrow BECAUSE SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT SHE HAD A PATTERN OF ABUSE WITH HER CHILDREN THAT INCLUDED GASLIGHTING.Gaslighting how? What were the allegations of gaslighting?
According to Mia Farrow, Dylan told her about the abuse. She called her attorney who said go see the pediatrician. At the pediatrician’s office Dylan denied abuse and no physical evidence of abuse was found. Farrow took her home, recorded the video (the style of which has been called into question) and took her back to the pediatrician at which point she repeated the story. The pediatrician was the one to call the police, but stated they only did so because they are required to, not because of overwhelming evidence.Prior to the allegations, it is claimed that Farrow stated that she would take the kids away from him, and shortly after the allegations were made.I didn’t say anything about Dylan’s parentage – But as part of the custody trial where the abuse allegations were used, it was asserted that he was Ronan’s biological father and as a result, he was required to pay child support and pay for his college. If Mia Farrow did know at the time that she was actively sleeping with Frank Sinatra and that he may have been Ronan’s father (something she now asserts strongly), then she was lying. If she lied once in the case, the possibility of lying twice seems far more likely.Dr. Henry Lee stated that while the hair is not dissimilar to Allen’s, it is not definitively proven to be his hair. Hair evidence is weak and not definitive.Moses Farrow has stated repeatedly that Mia Farrow would coerce and coach them into saying things that she wanted to hear and that in his experience it involved physical abuse and psychological trauma: When I didn’t give the answer she wanted, she slapped my face, knocking off my glasses. She told me I was lying and directed me to tell my brothers and sisters that I had taken the tape measure. Through my tears I listened to her as she explained that we would rehearse what should have happened. She would walk into the room and I would tell her I was sorry for taking the tape measure, that I had taken it to play with and that I would never do it again. She made me rehearse it at least a half-dozen times. That was the start of her coaching, drilling, scripting, and rehearsing – in essence, brainwashing. I became anxious and fearful.Shortly after on twitter, Moses stated:So many times I saw my mother try to convince her that she was abused – and it has worked. Some day, I hope Dylan can escape from my mother, confront the truth and begin her own healing.
According to Mia Farrow, Dylan told her about the abuse. She called her attorney who said go see the pediatrician. At the pediatrician’s office Dylan denied abuse and no physical evidence of abuse was found. Farrow took her home, recorded the video (the style of which has been called into question) and took her back to the pediatrician at which point she repeated the story. The pediatrician was the one to call the police, but stated they only did so because they are required to, not because of overwhelming evidence.
Not sure what you think this shows one way or another? All you’ve done is describe sequence of events (with one or two pointless aspersions thrown in, like “the style of which has been called into question,” whatever that is supposed to even mean).’But as part of the custody trial where the abuse allegations were used, it was asserted that he was Ronan’s biological father and as a result, he was required to pay child support and pay for his college. If Mia Farrow did know at the time that she was actively sleeping with Frank Sinatra and that he may have been Ronan’s father (something she now asserts strongly), then she was lying.Again, you’d have to point me to what the actual statements are. But, again, who cares? ALLEN LIED ABOUT SOMETHING DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. He also lied (and continues to lie) about a lot of other stuff.Dr. Henry Lee stated that while the hair is not dissimilar to Allen’s, it is not definitively proven to be his hair. Hair evidence is weak and not definitive.This is not the point. The point is that in a police interview Allen denied having ever been in the place where the alleged abuse took place. Then when confronted with the possibility that they might be taking fingerprints, admitted that they might find his fingerprints there. I don’t think both of those things can be true at the same time. The police caught him in a lie. The hair being found only confirms it.As far as what Moses had to say, what Moses is describing is materially different from the allegation that Mia coached Dylan to lie about Allen abusing her. Beyond that, I’m more than willing to give Moses the same benefit of the doubt about his own experiences as I am to Dylan. If that’s what Moses says happened to him, I have no reason to doubt his credibility. But there is no evidence whatsoever that Dylan experienced the same thing from Mia. She has categorically denied experiencing anything like that, and I have no idea why I would think that Moses can more credibly talk about Dylan’s experience with either Mia or Woody than Dylan can. Why do you think Moses is a more credible narrator of DYLAN’S OWN EXPERIENCE than Dylan herself? Can I just say that Woody is gaslighting Moses, point to all the other documented instances of gaslighting and abuse by Allen, and then say that therefore I’m categorically dismissing his denial of abusing Dylan?
If Dylan has been gaslighted for all these years as her brother claims – her brother who was there, who has said he saw it, and who was old enough to know what he was witnessing at the time – it does call into question her narrative.I’m not saying you categorically dismiss anything, but it does raise red flags which you refuse to see and that’s fine you don’t have to. But to insist that Dylan is the most reliable narrator when the question is literally “Or was she made to tell a story?” is a problem. If she has been psychologically abused since she was 7 by her mother to tell the same story over and over again as her brother claims then she is not a reliable narrator of anything.There is probably no way to prove or disprove it at this point. But ignoring the role that her mother may have played in what she does and doesn’t remember is relevant.
How the fuck would Moses know whether Dylan was abused in any way or gaslighted by Mia Farrow? Just like Dylan and Ronan don’t get to say whether Moses or Soon-Yi were or were not abused or gaslighted by Mia, neither do Soon-Yi or Moses get to say that Dylan and Ronan were or were not abused by Mia. What an absolutely bizarre stance you are taking. Dylan says that (1) Woody Allen abused her and (2) that Mia didn’t. Why are you so adamant that the literal opposite of both of those things is the truth? Why is Moses a better narrator of Dylan’s life than Dylan? Why don’t I get to just say that Woody has gaslit Moses (and Soon-Yi, for that matter) and have that be the definitive word that Moses isn’t actually credible?I’m not ignoring anything. I care about actual evidence. If there is any evidence, direct or circumstantial, that Mia coached Dylan to lie, I’ll pay attention to it and deal with it. That evidence just does not exist. It’s not there. There is none. It is that simple. I’m not sure what else to say about this. I’m going to engage with the actual evidence. Sorry, but I’m not going to engage with speculation that has no evidence behind it! If you’d rather engage with speculation than actual evidence, feel free.
Moses lived in the same house with her! He claims that he witnessed it first hand. He said he was a victim of it as well and that it contributed to the deaths of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus.You can absolutely say all of those things. You can absolutely feel that way. But if we’re looking at the validity of allegations – any allegations – the things other people said and witnessed matter.There may never be a definitive answer, but to act like having doubts is completely outlandish is also not a fair review of the situation.There are plenty of points on each side that raise questions. That is relevant to any discussion about allegations.
Moses lived in the same house with her! He claims that he witnessed it first hand. He said he was a victim of it as well and that it contributed to the deaths of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus.Lol, yes, Moses lived in the same house as Dylan. But Dylan lives in the same body and brain as Dylan. Dylan is Dylan. I think Dylan is a *tad* closer to the abuse Dylan suffered (or didn’t suffer) at the hands of Mia than Moses is. I’m also not sure what it is he is supposed to have “witnessed first hand.” I have not seen anything from him that he personally witnessed Mia coaching Dylan to lie. I haven’t even seen anything from him that he witnessed Mia abusing Dylan. But even if he did claim that, so what? I’m not going to take his word about the abuse Dylan allegedly suffered at the hands of Mia over the word of the actual victim of the abuse! That’s fucking insane! What reason is there to say “I trust what Moses says about Dylan having been a victim of abuse by Mia over Dylan herself, who vehemently denies that she was ever abused by Mia”?But if we’re looking at the validity of allegations – any allegations – the things other people said and witnessed matter.But no one else witnessed Allen abusing Dylan besides Allen and Dylan, (except *maybe* the person who says they saw Allen’s head in Dylan’s lap in an “adult” situation, if what they saw is what Dylan is recounting and not just some other time he had his head in her lap). The only other contemporaneous witnesses to anything are the caretakers who said they noticed Allen and Dylan were missing. That’s the primary evidence in this case: What Dylan says happened, what Allen says didn’t happen, and what the other adults who were present at the time saw or didn’t see.
We can keep going in circles about this if you would like, but I’m clearly not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me.Trusting the mind of someone who may be manipulated is not as easy as you would like it to be. Someone who was manipulated saying they weren’t manipulated doesn’t hold a lot of water. And I wholly agree there is no way to definitively prove that. But it does complicate things.
Trusting the mind of someone who may be manipulated is not as easy as you would like it to be. Someone who was manipulated saying they weren’t manipulated doesn’t hold a lot of water.You can say that about literally any story anyone tells about anything. You can say “I don’t believe them, they must have been manipulated by someone else.” Why can’t I just say the same thing about Moses and Soon-Yi? Why can’t I say they are being manipulated by Woody to making their abuse allegations against Mia? Why do you think Dylan is more susceptible to manipulation than either of Soon-Yi or Moses? If we’re going to speculate about manipulation and brainwashing, why doesn’t everyone in the family making abuse allegations come in for the same scrutiny you are subjecting Dylan too? After all, Woody Allen has a much longer trail of actually documented abuse and manipulation than Mia Farrow has (again, read the fucking opinion of the judge in the custody case).It is difficult to put into words how truly bizarre and fucked up your position is here. You are not willing to give credence to the notion that Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow, even though Dylan Farrow has consistently, for nearly 30 years, said he did, and is supported by a fair amount of corroborating evidence, and yet you are willing to all but convict Mia Farrow of abusing and gaslighting Dylan and getting her to lie even though Dylan, who would have been the victim of that, adamantly denies any of that taking place, and even though there is no evidence of it having taken place! How bizarre and how fucked up to cast doubt on a victim’s own experiences like that. You are proof positive that having been a victim of abuse does not insulate you from being a horribly shitty persona about abuse.
Yes, it can be true about many different situations. That’s why we usually leave it to the professionals to decide.But if you suspect that your friend is being abused by loved one and you ask them about it and they say oh, no, I wasn’t abused even if you saw evidence they had been, you’d probably have some questions. “Oh, no, my husband didn’t hit me. I walked into a door.” Would you take that at face value? If there was no one claiming coercion, gaslighting and emotional abuse in the family, it probably would be easier to accept the allegations with no questions. But that isn’t the actual case.Maybe there’s manipulation on all sides. Maybe there is abuse on all sides. But to suggest that the questions in this case have no credence at all ignores a great many things.
But if you suspect that your friend is being abused by loved one and you ask them about it and they say oh, no, I wasn’t abused even if you saw evidence they had been, you’d probably have some questions. “Oh, no, my husband didn’t hit me. I walked into a door.” Would you take that at face value?So, the thing about this is that there actually isn’t any evidence that Dylan was abused by Farrow, that she was gaslit by Farrow, or that she was coached to lie by Farrow! There aren’t unexplained or poorly explained bruises. It is Moses, saying now, that he thinks Dylan was coached to lie and Dylan was abused, two things that he does not actually have personal knowledge of, because he’s not Dylan! So whatever I might think about your inapposite hypothetical, it just isn’t relevant here. I’m not being confronted with deciding between apparent evidence of abuse and a would-be victim’s claims that they are not being abused, but with a would-be victim’s claims that they have not been abused by the alleged abuser in question, and ZERO EVIDENCE that they were abused by the alleged abuser in question. You are taking an insane position. There isn’t enough evidence for you to think that Woody Allen is guilty of abusing Dylan, even though Dylan herself says it happened (and is supported by corroborating evidence). Yet there is plenty enough evidence for you to think that Mia Farrow abused Dylan even though Dylan herself says that never happened and there is no other evidence that it did! What an absolutely bizarre position to take.Again, I care about actual evidence, not speculation. I don’t have any inherent desire to condemn or defend Woody Allen, or Mia Farrow, or Dylan or Moses or Soon-Yi. But the evidence is what it is. We know what Dylan says Allen did. We know what Allen says he didn’t do. We know that multiple other adults present corroborate an important part of Dylan’s story, that she went missing with Allen for 10 minutes or so. We know that Allen was duplicitous about whether he had ever been in the part of the house where the alleged abuse took place. That’s the actual evidence in this case, and is what I’m basing my evaluation on. I can’t know what actually happened, but the best I can do for my own purposes is look at the evidence and come to my conclusion based on that. If you prefer to look at that damning evidence and come to the conclusion that nothing untoward happened, that’s up to you. If you prefer to look at evidence-free speculation rather than grappling with the actual evidence that’s up to you. I’m not doing either of those things. The only other thing I can say is, as a victim yourself, you should know how shitty it feels for people to cast doubt on your experience, and I’m not sure why you’d do that, on the basis of speculation, to someone else.
Moses says that he witnessed it. He has stated this repeatedly. He has also provided additional details about experiences that suggest it was a pattern of abuse in the household. That cannot be ignored.Being a victim myself, having lived through the process, having been through recovery and having worked in advocacy now, I absolutely believe that Dylan believes what she is saying. I also know that there is a reason a number of procedures are in place, a reason why other siblings would and should be questioned in these cases, and a reason that allegations of coaching and coercion are taken very seriously.I feel badly for Dylan Farrow. I am not convinced that she isn’t being used by her mother based on the details we know about the case. Allegations are scrutinized closely and every possible hole is looked at in every case including my own. In this particular case, it doesn’t appear that those holes were sufficiently filled and unfortunately, the ability to go back and do that now is nearly impossible especially with the current statute of limitations. Experts are far better than you or I, and without additional investigation at the time all we are left with is he said, she said, the others said.
Moses says that he witnessed it. He has stated this repeatedly. He has also provided additional details about experiences that suggest it was a pattern of abuse in the household. That cannot be ignored.Moses has said he witnessed what? Where did he say that?Being a victim myself, having lived through the process, having been through recovery and having worked in advocacy now, I absolutely believe that Dylan believes what she is saying. I also know that there is a reason a number of procedures are in place, a reason why other siblings would and should be questioned in these cases, and a reason that allegations of coaching and coercion are taken very seriously.So, just so you know, the Yale team didn’t follow any of the procedures that would have helped determine whether Dylan was coached or coerced. They didn’t talk to Mia. I don’t think they even talked to the other kids. They didn’t see Allen interacting with any of the other kids.I feel badly for Dylan Farrow.
You don’t feel badly enough for Dylan to stop doing the thing she has been begging people to stop doing, which is speculate that she has somehow been brainwashed into making these allegations! Stop doing that! She has said it is just as insulting for people to speculate she is being brainwashed as to speculate she is lying. So stop doing it! There is no reason for you to be doing this! You’ve said you don’t even particularly like Woody Allen, so why are engaging in such harmful behavior to defend him? Like, you keep saying this should be left to experts, but you aren’t doing that! You started this thread, and you are the one continuing to insist that basically none of Dylan’s OWN RECOUNTED LIVED EXPERIENCE deserves to be treated as valid based on no evidence whatsoever! Stop doing that! You are engaging in unbelievably harmful behavior.
Moses stated it on twitter on Jan. 18, 2018:So many times I saw my mother try to convince her that she was abused – and it has worked. Some day, I hope Dylan can escape from my mother, confront the truth and begin her own healing. #truthislouderA trial would have allowed for additional interviews by other teams, other investigators and questions of the other children.I do feel badly for her. But just because I feel bad for someone is not enough to make me believe something blindly given the accusations against her mother. And we can go in another 20 circles about how you feel that shouldn’t matter. To me, it does.I have been saying since the beginning that we can only trust Dylan’s recounted lived experience if it was her lived experience and there circumstances around this situation that create a very real possibility that her lived experience has been manipulated by outside forces.Again – we’re going in circles so I’m sure this isn’t going to be useful. Your assertion is that if Dylan says she wasn’t manipulated it must be true. My point is that if Dylan was manipulated, her saying she wasn’t is questionable. Neither of us can prove that definitively.The best way to stop speculation is probably not producing a documentary.
What is that supposed to be evidence of? It’s certainly not evidence that Mia abused Dylan. It’s not even evidence that Mia coached Dylan to lie.I do feel badly for her. But just because I feel bad for someone is not enough to make me believe something blindly given the accusations against her mother.No one’s asking you to believe anything blindly! First of all, Dylan herself says Allen abused her. That right there is evidence he abused her. You are allowed, if you want, to just take her word for it, the same way you are expecting everyone here to take your word for it that you were abused. Second, there is corroborating evidence to Dylan’s allegations.Beyond that, you can believe whatever you want. But Dylan herself has said it is just as harmful for people to assume she was brainwashed than to just say she is lying. If you actually cared about Dylan, you would stop doing that! You would stop unnecessarily casting doubt on her story and infantilizing her and trying to rob her of her own agency to tell her story. There is no reason for you to do that. You aren’t a juror on this case. You claim not to even like Woody Allen movies! So stop doing this thing where you sit here and try to undermine Dylan’s credibility! I really hope you aren’t actually a victim’s advocate, because what a shitty one you would be if you were. I feel sorry for anyone you’ve “advocated” for. What does that look like? “No, what you said happened didn’t. You just don’t realize it because you’re being manipulated. What’s that? You say you weren’t manipulated? Just more proof you’re being manipulated.”Your assertion is that if Dylan says she wasn’t manipulated it must be true.That’s not my assertion. My assertion is there is no evidence that Dylan was manipulated, and my position on this is based on evidence.My point is that if Dylan was manipulated, her saying she wasn’t is questionable.This is crappy circular logic. If Dylan was manipulated (no actual evidence she was, mind you), then you can’t trust what she says when she says she wasn’t manipulated. I mean, how do I know you weren’t manipulated by Mia Farrow? How do you know I wasn’t?
We can keep going in circles, but it’s pretty clear that I’m not going to change my mind and you aren’t going to change mine. I look at the details around this situation and see one thing and you see another. You want to claim no evidence that’s fine. There have been plenty of suggestions in 1993 and now that Mia Farrow may have impacted Dylan’s thought process. Mia Farrow’s track record with her other children certainly should be scrutinized just as much as anything on the other side.I hope that this documentary brings Dylan peace. I don’t know how it will when it is likely to only bring up plenty of speculation again, but it is what it is at this point.
I’m not “claiming” no evidence, the fact is there is no evidence of Mia coaching Dylan, because that is the state of things. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence (necessarily), so just because there isn’t evidence that it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. But, for the life of me, I won’t pretend to understand what the possible point is of taking a position on whether something happened, that you cannot possibly definitively know one way or another whether it happened, and basing that position on evidence-free speculation rather than the actual evidence at hand. I mean:There have been plenty of suggestions in 1993 and now that Mia Farrow may have impacted Dylan’s thought process.Yes, plenty of suggestions and ZERO EVIDENCE! I hope that this documentary brings Dylan peace.If you want peace for Dylan, stop contributing to the thing that she has said hurts her. You won’t grant Dylan the dignity of accepting her allegations against Allen without trying to find a reason they must be false (despite their being no evidence, besides Allen’s denial, they are false). You won’t grant Dylan the dignity of accepting her non-allegations against Farrow without trying to find a reason she must have been abused by Farrow. Since you claim to have no dog in this fight, since you claim you don’t even like Allen are his films, since you aren’t obligated in any way to cast a judgment on this case one way or another, will you at least give Dylan the dignity of not infantilizing her and insisting that she is some weak-willed, brainwashed victim of her mother’s, since, you know, there is no evidence whatsoever that is true?
What evidence would you like? There was no trial so we can’t go back to that well. 2 of her siblings have spoken out about abuse they experienced, but that is discounted. 3 of her siblings are dead and their deaths have long raised questions about Farrow’s parenting and adoption processes. I agree that proving someone is brainwashed is almost impossible. But that doesn’t eliminate the possibility that she was in this particular situation given what other people have brought to the forefront.For me, enough doubt has been raised from 1993 to today to question whether or not Dylan may have been coerced and manipulated into believing what she believes. It’s not because I think she’s weak-willed. It’s because she was 7 and because her mother may have had a history of coercing and gaslighting her children.There is reasonable doubt in this situation that makes me not sure that the allegations are true. I have said from the outset that I believe that Dylan believes absolutely everything she is saying. I believe she is acting in good faith. I’m less confident about why anyone in the family wants to make a documentary about it, but that’s their choice.I’m not going to change your mind. You’re not going to change my mind. For me, it does hinge on Mia Farrow’s role in all of it. That’s not going to change and I recognize that there is likely no chance that Dylan will say anything that will change my mind on that at this point. Maybe the documentary will have new information in it that will sway me, but the trailer hasn’t. The things that have been said in recent years hasn’t.
What evidence would you like?Of what? Of Mia abusing Dylan? Of Mia coaching Dylan to lie? In either case, before I convict Mia in my mind of either one of those things, I would like there to be some evidence that I can assess. That is how I make decisions. I assess actual evidence. You know how you look at Dylan’s accusation against Allen and come to the conclusion that, even though there is evidence of its veracity (Dylan’s own testimony, the testimony of multiple adult caretakers, Allen’s dissembling about whether he had ever been in that crawlspace), it isn’t enough evidence to convince you? That’s where I am with the accusations Mia abused Dylan or coached her to lie, except that in this case, instead of there being some evidence the accusations are true, in this case there is no evidence.There was no trial so we can’t go back to that well. 2 of her siblings have spoken out about abuse they experienced, but that is discounted.
There was a trial, specifically one that actually addressed (1) accusations of abuse, generally, against Mia, and (2) accusations that Mia coached Dylan to lie about Woody molesting her. Go read the opinion! I’ve linked it multiple times in this thread.I’m not discounting Soon-Yi or Moses! They say they were abused by Mia, and I believe them, fully and unequivocally. I have no reason to doubt their credibility. The only thing I’m “discounting” is their ability to speak to the experiences of another person, Dylan, who says she wasn’t abused by Mia. I’m granting every child of Mia’s their own agency to tell their own story.There is reasonable doubt in this situation that makes me not sure that the allegations are true.So fucking what? You’re not sitting on a jury in a criminal trial. There isn’t any reason for you to try to resolve these allegations in your mind, much less for you to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.I have said from the outset that I believe that Dylan believes absolutely everything she is saying. I believe she is acting in good faith.Again, this does Dylan no good. This is not what she asked for. She did not ask for people to assume she is telling the truth but that she has been brainwashed. To the contrary, she has been clear this is just as bad as calling her a liar. So why do you insist on continuing to do it?
There was not a criminal abuse trial. There was a custody trial. They did not have to meet the same burden of evidence that you would have to in a criminal trial. None of the evidence Maco claims to have had was released to the custody trial. Again – We’re not going to agree. You can keep writing long responses about why I should change my mind. But short of something different coming out, I see doubt in this particular situation.I’m sorry my opinion does Dylan no good. I’m sorry she feels that she is being called a liar. That doesn’t change that there are reasonable suggestions from her siblings that she was manipulated. And I know what your response is going to be, but my response will be the same – It is hard to gauge what the reality of the situation is when most of the discourse around it is “This person is lying” … “No, that person is lying.” Neither side can be proven.As I said, I hope the documentary will present something more that clarifies the accusations that suggest Mia Farrow played in active role in manipulating Dylan, but I’m not holding my breath for it based on other reviews.
There was not a criminal abuse trial. There was a custody trial. They did not have to meet the same burden of evidence that you would have to in a criminal trial.Who cares? There was a trial where allegations of abuse and fabrication against Mia Farrow were presented. This isn’t a criminal trial either.That doesn’t change that there are reasonable suggestions from her siblings that she was manipulated.
Reasonable based on what? They literally have presented no evidence she was manipulated! It is hard to gauge what the reality of the situation is when most of the discourse around it is “This person is lying” … “No, that person is lying.” Neither side can be proven.The person you’re accusing of lying didn’t make the accusation! The person I’m accusing of lying is the accused! What are you talking about?
I’m not going to repeat the same tings that I’ve said over and over and over again. If you want to keep debating it, please feel free to just re-read all of my previous answers. There are plenty of ethical questions around the DA, the custody trial judge and what was presented at the custody case. I don’t have the energy to get into that and go another 40 rounds with you. Everything around this particular case comes down to different people saying the other person is lying: Mia Farrow is saying Woody Allen is lying. Soon-Yi Previn is saying Mia Farrow is lying. Moses Farrow is saying Mia Farrow is lying and manipulated Dylan. The Farrows come back and say no Moses is lying. Moses Farrow says there was abuse in the household. The Farrows say he’s lying. The Yale Team says there was no signs of abuse. The Farrows come back and say they were lying. Dylan’s pediatrician said there was no sign of abuse. Mia Farrow came back with a video tape claiming they were lying. A therapist said there was no sign of abuse. Mia Farrow said she was lying and fired her. The DA says that he had enough evidence to convict. The Defenses says that he was lying.There is no way to prove or disprove any of it at this point. It is a tragedy that Dylan is in the middle of this. But you cannot tell people that they have to believe someone simply because they say so. That is absolutely grounds for an investigation, for a trial, for a thorough look at all sides. But it does not discount that there are questions here – questions around possible motives her mother might have had at the time, questions around what might have been going on in the household, questions around the fact that this all did come out during an extremely acrimonious breakup. 2-10% of allegations are false. An extremely small percentage, but not a non-existent one. To say that there is absolutely no way that this falls into that percentage doesn’t show in everything that has been said and done. False allegations hurt survivors so questioning these allegations is the duty all advocates have.If the family is going to choose to put this out in the public forum to be tried in the court of public opinion then yes, Dylan needs to be prepared for people to question it. Is that probably fun for her? No. My family chose to let it play out in the legal system and I was able to heal as a result. If Dylan does not want speculation then why make a documentary? What is the outcome supposed to be for this? To stop his career? He has no films in production as far as I can see. Most of the actors who worked for him have already denounced him. They keep saying that people talking about it revictimizes her, yet the entire family is making a documentary? The statute of limitations is up on the criminal case, but she could sue Allen for saying she is lying in his autobiography. She could file any manner of civil suits against those who have said she isn’t telling the truth if there is evidence otherwise.
Do you think “Based on the actual evidence that is publicly available, I think it is more likely than not that Dylan is telling the truth and that Woody Allen did what he is accused of doing” is an unreasonable position to take?
It’s not unreasonable if that’s what you believe. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable based on everything that is publicly available to say, “Based on what is publicly available and the extraneous circumstances around the situation, I can see where there are doubts about Woody Allen’s guilt in this situation. Beginning a relationship with Soon-Yi Previn is not proof of wrong-doing with Dylan and medical professionals and other family members have brought up enough details to create some doubt around the situation. Saying I’m not sure of his guilt is a perfectly reasonable stance to take in this situation.” I also assume that the family recognizes that there are questions and complexity around the situation or we probably wouldn’t need a 4-hour documentary.
Okay, so if you think “Based on the evidence, I think it’s more likely than not that Dylan is telling the truth” is a reasonable position why are you so invested in defending Woody Allen and trying to find reasons to doubt Dylan’s story? As a victim yourself and a victim advocate, surely you understand the damage that comes with publicly doubting an abuse survivor’s story, especially publicly doubting her story because she was a child when it happened, and since you admit that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that she is just telling the truth (also happens to be the Occam’s Razor position), why would you do something so potentially damaging to victims? And beyond that, when so much of the “reasons” you cite for casting doubt on Dylan’s story are actually the result of longstanding, misogynistic tropes against Mia Farrow, seeking to smear Dylan by proxy to Mia, even though literally no evidence exists to support the allegations of wrongdoing against Mia?Like, none of us has to be “sure” of his guilt. We aren’t serving on a jury that’s deciding whether he’ll be subject to years in prison. Most of us are just deciding whether we can watch and enjoy Woody Allen films without feeling weird (that’s my only real stake in this). And for you, who claims not to even particularly like Allen, what is your reason for digging your heels in defending him?
Saying something is not unreasonable and saying something is definitively truthful are not the same thing. I get where you’re coming from. But I don’t see it as definitive.I also know the very real damage that comes from false allegations – False allegations are rare, but not non-existent and the majority come out of situations where parents are splitting up and there is a likely custody battle. If Dylan does not want people publicly doubting her story – a story that is part of a case that falls into murky territory whether you want to accept that or not, then perhaps this venue was not the best avenue. Do you believe that this absolutely could not be one of those instances simply because it involves famous people? It is not unreasonable in this particular scenario to question whether or not Mia Farrow’s own actions which are documented to include lying by her own admission may not have influenced Dylan. I get that you feel differently. You have made that very clear. But Mia’s track record with her adopted children is not great. And I get that you don’t believe that is evidence. Totally, fine, you can feel that way. But for me, as a victim and as someone who is watching this story play out, I’m not convinced that Mia Farrow is not an abuser in some form or another, and I am not convinced that doesn’t carry some weight here. I understand that you want Mia Farrow’s actions to have no bearing on the case, but that’s a problem if they do. And as I’ve said repeatedly at this point, I don’t know that it is possible to determine that without a trial that would require everyone to testify under oath.We can keep going back and forth about that, but there is nothing you are going to say to change that. Maybe the documentary will, but I have doubts based on some of the reviews I’ve read. If an abuse survivor chooses to grant interviews and participate in a documentary, they have to be prepared for questions. I hope that the documentary can answer some of those questions.
Do you believe that this absolutely could not be one of those instances simply because it involves famous people?Anything COULD be a false allegation. Again, I care about actual evidence, and the primary argument from Woody Allen’s defenders—that Mia has successfully brainwashed Dylan into repeating a false allegation—has zero evidence behind it. If you care so much about the harm caused by false allegations, then why are you so cavalier about repeating and supporting allegations of wrongdoing by Mia Farrow in this situation that have zero evidence behind them? It’s just weird to me that someone claiming to be a victim and victim advocate is so invested in casting doubt about a victim’s allegation despite acknowledging that it’s perfectly reasonable to deem the victim credible here. It’s doubly bizarre for you to do so by claiming concern about “false allegations,” even while you are willing to credulously accept and support evidence-free allegations against Mia.Put another way, either (1) Dylan’s allegations against Woody Allen are false or (2) the accusations of Woody Allen’s camp against Mia Farrow that she coached/brainwashed Dylan to lie, are false. If you believe one side is credible, then the other side must be false. Why are you more concerned with Woody Allen being the victim of false allegations than Mia Farrow?I’m not convinced that Mia Farrow is not an abuser in some form or another
I never said this. As a matter of fact, I have said that I believe both Moses and Soon-Yi when they say they were abused. Maybe part of the problem with this argument is that you keep attributing reductive, weak arguments to me that I am not making?If an abuse survivor chooses to grant interviews and participate in a documentary, they have to be prepared for questions.She is! She has answered every question asked of her! The problem is it’s never, ever, going to be good enough for pieces of shit like you because you are robbing her of her agency to tell her own story by claiming she cannot possibly be a reliable narrator, that the story she has told consistently over the course of nearly three decades is nothing more than the result of her mother’s manipulation. That’s a completely unfalsifiable assertion! It’s fair to expect her to be able to answer questions about her claims if she is going to publicly discuss the claims. It’s not fair to box her in with claims that everything she said could have been subject to manipulation, and so should be discounted, when there is no evidence to support those claims of manipulation and no way she could possibly disprove those claims. What is it you could possibly hear from Dylan that would convince you that she is just as capable of recounting her own experiences as Moses and Soon-Yi are? Because the following isn’t enough for you:That her story of being molested is corroborated by the testimony of at least three adults, two of whom noted that she and Woody were missing for 10 minutes, one of whom said she saw Woody’s head in Dylan’s lap in what appeared to be an inappropriate gesture.That Woody initially claimed that he had never been in the crawlspace where the alleged abuse occurred, only to have to reverse course and admit his fingerprints might be found there; in fact, his hair was found there.That Woody Allen had a pre-existing history of trampling all over pretty clear age- and family-boundaries, not only with Soon-Yi (again, Woody Allen’s children’s sister, whom he fucked and married) but with DYLAN herself, serious enough that the judge in the custody case specifically called it out as “grossly inappropriate” and that Dylan had to be protected from Allen.So what would be enough? I already know the answer, and it is nothing, because you have chosen to grant credibility to specious arguments, red herrings, and evidence-free speculation, than to assess the actual evidence.Can we turn your own standards onto you? Are you lying about your alleged abuse? Or were you manipulated?
I was not lying about my alleged abuse, but I was submitted to a battery of testing by professionals to determine that. My parents were questioned. The accused was questioned. The result of all of that questioning was a series of experts who unanimously agreed that it happened and legal action taken by the DA to put my abuser behind bars. Not a single person thought I might have been coached because I wasn’t interviewed in ways that are prone to coaching – that is not true of Dylan.We can keep doing this all day but you just keep repeating the same things and so do I. There is no point in you continuing to repeat yourself. As I just said, you are not going to change my mind. I am not going to change yours.
Why should I believe any of that? Anyway, I guess it’s pretty fortunate for you that your abuser was not one of the most powerful people in entertainment able to summon an army of defenders and with the means to fight the accusations tooth and nail.Not a single person thought I might have been coached because I wasn’t interviewed in ways that are prone to coaching – that is not true of Dylan.What does this mean? What does it mean to be “interviewed in ways that are prone to coaching”? Every interview is “prone to coaching.”
You might want to do more research into suggestible interviewing techniques with abuse victims – Videotaping is largely discredited and largely frowned upon. Videotaping in a way that is not a continuous, real time recording is seen as a less valid form of interviewing. Whether you want to see it or not – Mia Farrow choosing to make that video is a major problem for those who view it as a questionable technique.Interviewing techniques that incentivize making claims are also problematic and their are accusations from Moses that Dylan was promised things in exchange for saying certain things during the making of the video. Mia Farrow may have been well-intentioned, but it is medically frowned upon.
Interesting. I’m surprised Mia Farrow, who is not an abuse investigator, wasn’t aware that videotaping was “largely discredited and largely frowned upon” (which I’m sure is true and you aren’t just making up, even though Google is turning up nothing…cite?) at the time she made this tape in 1992.What do the experts say about claiming victimhood, on the internet, anonymously, in the middle of an argument, and using that claimed victimhood as a weapon to try to discredit another victim of abuse despite a complete lack of evidence to support the primary theory of why that other victim lacks credibility? Is that considered a “favored” and “smiled upon” way to establish the veracity of abuse allegations, anonymously making them so you can wield them in bad faith to win an online argument?
Which all comes back to the fact that she should probably have called the police instead of trying to do it on her own days after the allegations were made.If you’d like more detail on the Dylan Farrow tape: Stephen Herman told the court that the video ““set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child. I don’t think it helps matters, I think it complicates matters.” This was stated during his testimony. He was hired and paid by Mia Farrow.Anne Meltzer hired and paid by Woody Allen stated she had never been involved in a case where a parent was the first person to produce such a tape rather than an expertLinda Fairstein, an outside sex crimes expert not involved in the custody trial stated: “When the story came out that Mia had videotaped Dylan”—in eleven segments shot at different times in different places, one nude in a bathtub, others outside showing her topless—“it sounded to me like one of the craziest things I’d ever heard. On every level, it’s the last thing you would do. First of all, videotaping her naked while asking again and again about what happened. Why are you exposing your child to these videos that someday will possibly be in the hands of the public or in the courtroom? That fact alone set off every alarm.”Jonathan Levanthal from the Yale Team also stated that videotaping Dylan opened up the notion of performance and encouraged her to perform.You don’t have to believe a thing I say. I fully accept that you don’t have to accept that. We don’t all make public declarations of our victimhood right off the bat. None of us are guaranteed belief. But I have every right to question these allegations if the family chooses to debate them in the public square. As do you.You know what I’m not going to do? Tell you that you have to believe me or else.
Tell you that you have to believe me or else.Again, you are making up shit that I never said. You appear to be quite the fabulist, which makes me wonder what else you are lying about if you’re willing to lie about the arguments I’m making….And of course you have a “right” to do anything you want. That doesn’t mean you’re not a nasty fucking asshole.Anyway, is this where you’re at now? We now don’t believe Dylan because Mia asked her what happened on videotape? (Also, note that you didn’t actually cite anything saying that videotaping an interview All the points you brought up about the tape explain either (1) why it’s not a particularly good idea to videotape a child in these circumstances (something Mia would have had no way of knowing) and (2) why that tape should not be admissible evidence in any sort of trial. I can agree that taping Dylan was problematic for a host of reasons, including those cited by your experts (incidentally, do you now believe that Stephen Herman is a reliable expert? because you should see what he says about the Yale team that you love so much), although I understand why Mia did it at the time. I can also agree that it should not be admissible in court (and would not be) for a variety of different reasons.It doesn’t, in the least, make me doubt Dylan’s credibility. Why would it? My assessment of the credibility of the story has nothing to do with the tape, which I’ve never seen. What is even your argument with regard to the tape? It’s certainly not evidence of, like, brainwashing. Beyond that, I’m struggling to understand why the mere existence of a tape, problematic as it may have been to make, makes it more likely to you that Dylan’s account is not credible. What does one have to do with another?The reality is you’re just looking for reasons to discredit Dylan’s testimony, which is weird (and pathetic) since you claim not to be a Woody Allen fan. But everything you’re trying to make into some big, smoking gun evidence that Dylan isn’t credible is tangential. Does it matter to you that Woody Allen was caught lying about whether he’d ever been in the place the abuse took place? Nope, because Mia was cheating on him throughout their relationship (so what?). Does it matter to you that, even without making a determination about whether Dylan’s allegation of molestation was true, the Judge in the custody case held that Allen’s behavior towards Dylan (his own daughter, mind you) was “grossly inappropriate” and that Dylan needed to protected from him? Nope, because two of Mia’s children (not Dylan) accused her of abuse. Does it matter to you that, with the exception of her initial visit to the doctor (which she has explained), Dylan has been broadly consistent in the story she has told about the abuse she suffered at the hands of Allen, and that her story is corroborated in key details by multiple adult eyewitnesses who were present at the time? Nope, because Mia made a fucking tape.Like, I’m sure Mia’s sorry that she didn’t follow the well-established guide on what to do when your partner of a decade, who is currently fucking one of your children (the sister to your other children), and is now accused of molesting another one of your children who is also his daughter.
Great! It doesn’t make you doubt her credibility. That is fantastic for you. You have made your point very clear. You’ve made your position very clear. You’ve fallen back on name calling – not surprised. I understand that you don’t feel that things that happened matter. For me, they do. The videotape doesn’t matter for you. Great! For me, it’s highly problematic. The statements of Moses and Soon-Yi as well as the sad, short lives of Tam, Lark and Thaddeus don’t matter to you. That’s fine. Mia Farrow is a saint in your eyes who can do no wrong. You have made your point very, very, very clear. I am not a Woody Allen fan. I have seen Annie Hall once and half of Midnight in Paris. But as an abuse survivor, as someone who worked in the field as a result of being an abuse survivor, as someone who is active in abuse survivor support groups and as someone who has read up on the story, there are inconsistencies. We can rehash them again, but you repeating the same things is not going to change my stance on it.If you record someone telling 1 story and stop the tape over and over and over again, you raise questions about what happened and what was said in all of those stops. The suggestions that she incentivized Dylan to say certain things during those stops matter. Maybe not to you and that’s fine.You have made it clear that you feel everything is tangential to the main event. That’s not how reality works, but I’m glad it works for you.
Why should the tape matter to assessing the credibility of Dylan’s story? Seriously, it’s not that I just want to dismiss the tape, but I honestly do not understand what bearing you think the existence of the tape has on whether Dylan’s story is true. Like, I just don’t see how the fact that Mia made a tape (as ill-advised as that may have been) makes it more or less likely that Dylan is telling the truth? Can you explain why the fact that Mia made a tape (???) matters more to you than the fact that Dylan’s consistent story has been corroborated by multiple adults who were present? Can you explain to me why possible deception on Mia’s part surrounding Ronan’s paternity matters more in assessing the credibility of DYLAN’S story than Woody Allen having been caught in a lie concerning a key fact in the actual case at hand? Can you explain why you’re willing to trot out Herman when he agrees with a (tangential) point you think supports you, but unwilling to credit his explanation of why the Yale report you love so much is seriously flawed?
I think I’ve explained it about 30 times at this point. I get that you do not agree with my stance. You don’t have to. I’m going to watch the docuseries. I hope something is brought up that changes my mind.There are plenty of instances of young children especially those under 10 who are coerced in initial interviews and made to repeat their stories so many times that they internalize it and continue to repeat it into adulthood.Let’s look at another example just to take Dylan, Mia and Woody out of the equation:Not long before this, you had the McMartin trial where children were interviewed using coercive and suggestive interviewing techniquesThose children made abuse claims that were discredited and which to many seem outlandish – stories about underground tunnels, stories about hot air balloon rides, stories about kids being cut up and flushed down toilets. Their claims have all been discredited and the majority of the children now say that they were told to say those things based on the type of questioning and the interview along with the fact that they were incentivized to five specific answers.Despite that, some of the children still claim their stories were 100% true despite that the fact that those stories defy reality. This is a much more extreme example, but it highlights the fact that how a child is questioned, how they are interviewed, and how they are taught to discuss their allegations can impact the long-term memory of the child and become internalized to no fault of the child. I understand that you feel that Dylan as an adult would be able to distinguish between what she was told and what she remembers. But in cases where someone has been coerced like that, they may genuinely not know.What happened during those breaks in the tape matters. And all of the tangential details about Mia’s history of questionable parenting, allegations of abuse that specifically took the form of encouraging the children to lie, and lies she herself might have said in the course of the investigation matters because we cannot rule out that she was not a driving force behind the story. And “Well, Dylan says no…” is not enough for me to believe. I get that it is for you.And before you start another massively long response, I get that you disagree with that statement. I already know. You don’t have to tell me. You’ve made it very, very, very clear.
Let’s look at another example just to take Dylan, Mia and Woody out of the equation:This is the problem. Why would we do this? Why would we discuss this at an even further remove from the actual situation. Like, to be clear, I 100% believe that anyone, including children, can make up a story, and that anyone, especially children, can be coerced/gaslight/otherwise influenced into repeating, and possibly even believing themselves, false stories. I can even agree that it is possible in this case, just like it is possible in your case. But what I personally make decisions on is EVIDENCE, and in this actual case there is no EVIDENCE that Mia engaged in any sort of improper behavior along those lines. It just doesn’t exist. There is more evidence that Dylan is knowingly lying, or initially knowingly lied (Woody’s denial, her initial story to her pediatrician that he had touched her shoulder) than there is evidence that Mia coerced her.But to take your comparison to the McMartin case (which involved much more systematic suggestive and coercive interview techniques), Dylan’s story hasn’t been discredited. There is nothing about her story that is outlandish. Her story (1) IS CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE ADULTS WHO WERE PRESENT, (2) fits with a pre-existing pattern of Allen displaying “grossly inappropriate” behavior towards her, (3) fits with a pre-existing pattern of Allen otherwise ignoring normal boundaries in pursuing sexual pleasure, including FUCKING HIS CHILDREN’S LITERAL SISTER. This just isn’t comparable to the McMartin case, at all! These are not allegations that came out of the blue. These are not allegations that fall apart under scrutiny.And “Well, Dylan says no…”This is “enough” for me because there is absolutely no other evidence from which I could possibly form a different opinion. I’m not willing to risk that I would be falsely accusing Mia Farrow of abuse on the basis of literally no evidence that she abused or coerced Dylan! If you claim to care about the harm of false accusations, you should stop doing that!
You have made your point exceedingly clear. I do not agree with it. There is nothing you are going to say that will change that because you just keep repeating yourself. I understand that you do not want to look at anything the other side of this conversation has to say. That is your right. But you and I going back and forth on and on is probably not going to change your mind and it’s not going to change mine. I understand that for you the allegations don’t fall apart under scrutiny. I do not agree with that statement. I have laid out all of the reasons that I do not feel that it holds up to scrutiny. You have made it clear you disagree with that assertion. I got it. You keep pointing out Allen’s “pattern of behavior,” but then when someone points to Farrow’s pattern of behavior that’s irrelevant to you.But that’s not going to make me agree with you. I hope the docuseries will address the questions that many people have.
They’re not going to address your “questions,” because you are being swayed by something other than actual evidence.
Then I guess I’ll be disappointed by the documentary. It’s a shame to not use the time to fully address the outstanding claims. But that’s their choice.
I mean, there’s literally nothing Dylan can say to convince you of anything, because you’re already convinced (without evidence) that she’s been manipulated. Once you’ve decided that everything she says is the result of manipulation, then you’ll just dismiss anything she says that doesn’t agree with what you think happened as the result of her manipulation. Like, it’s fine that you think that (it’s actually not fine if you’re really an advocate for victims of abuse, but whatever), but don’t pretend you’re approaching this documentary with an open mind, willing to be swayed by anything Dylan says, since you have concocted a set of facts to make that literally impossible.
Woody Allen’s PR gang is pushing lots of dangerous information. Possibly the worst is about numbers of victims for child molesters. Most child molesters abuse one child and never do so ever again. That is according to the FBI. The most common kind of child molester is called a situational child molester and that is precisely what they do: some situation arises when they decide to abuse a child and then they never do it again. It could be a matter of opportunity but it is most commonly done to hurt some third party who loves the child, like in a divorce case or a custody dispute. That’s why those sorts of allegations are taken so seriously by officials in those situations, because it is 100% a time when children are at increased risk.I really hate that Woody Allen and his defenders push this misinformation to defend him because these lies cause actual harm out in the real world by making actual violated children harder to believe when they have the courage to speak up about being molested.If nothing else, I hope this docuseries helps to curb that. I’m grey and I’m hoping someone will bring this comment out of the greys for me so people can see it.
“That he had an interest in barely legal aged girls including his
now-wife is true and gross, but not necessarily illegal or indicative of
pedophilia.”No, it means that he has a things for barely legal girls in public and we have no idea what he’s into privately. But I’ve never heard anyone Soon-Yi say that the first thing Woody said BEFORE they fucked was “I’m going to need to see some I.D.”
Soon-Yi’s age is not really in question, though. She was believed to be 21 at the time. Even taking into account that her birth certificate is a little sketchy, medical records placed it within 2 years so she would have been at least 19. But you’re right – We don’t know what he is like privately, but if Soon-Yi is your proof that he abused a child, it doesn’t line up.
Why do I feel like this documentary is going to be 2 hours too long? 4 hours is a LOT.
Shouldn’t this be called Farrow V. Allen?Allen doesn’t seem to be versing.
It’s about the custody court case. Allen sued Farrow, not the other way around.
Allen v. Farrow is the actual designation of the custody case where he petitioned for increased custody of Dylan, Moses and Ronan immediately prior to the allegations.
Allen filed AFTER Dylan accused him of molesting her. There was no custody dispute prior to Allen filing. I’m sure the docuseries will be very clear about that; maybe then Allen’s sycophants will stop posting all this misinformation all of the time. You shitbags are exhausting.If the only way you can defend Allen is with lies, then he’s indefensible.
Allen sued Farrow after the Dylan accusation. Clearly an attempt to muddy the water. Which worked because he’s got an army of people like you repeating misinformation for him anytime the issue comes up.
Isn’t it wild how obvious Woody Allen’s PR goons are on any of these stories about him? I guess they haven’t figured out that Woody Allen has already lost the PR war with entire generations. He’s got a handful of old men defending him here and there and the rest is all very obvious bots and plants. lol
This is sure to be a dispassionate account of all sides, free of vitriol and innuendo.
Woody Allen’s PR firm doesn’t seem to be involved, so it appears it will be free of vitriol and innuendo, actually.
Hi, recognitions!
What does that mean, weird person that created a new account just to post that at me?
What does that mean, weird person that created a new account just to post that at me?That sock puppet is calling you a sock puppet.
I know. I wanted them to have the balls to reply. But they didn’t. Shocker.
Obviously Hachette’s behavior is unethical. That’s why it was hidden like the shameful little deal it was. But it’s also very stupid! One reason: there is more reporting (not from Ronan) coming on Woody Allen. Hachette is aware of this. — Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) March 5, 2020This is, I believe, what that “more reporting (not from Ronan)“ talked about before. This is why Allen was so desperate to get his memoir published last year. How did that sell, btw? I’m guessing not well. lol
I see that picture of Frank Sinatra’s son and I want to correct the Washington Post photo caption to say, “Ronan Farrow dumps publisher over its book deal with his “father”, Woody Allen.”
Listen, we’re all *possibly* Frank Sinatra’s son.
This is why Allen was so desperate to get his memoir published last year. Ohhhh…. Makes sense.
I guess he had some other attempts at a PR crisis-management campaign last year too but it was so pathetic that no one really paid attention. I am sososososo happy that people are FINALLY refusing to swallow every single thing that comes out of Allen’s PR firm. The Age of Internet is what finally did him in. There’s no way to control the narrative anymore.
The filmmakers have been working on this for 3 years. I wonder when he got wind of it.It’s kind of amusing in a sense how lame his PR push has been on this. It’s like they are a few decades behind how this all works.
I wonder when he got wind of it.Moments before deciding to write his memoirs. lol It’s kind of amusing in a sense how lame his PR push has been on this. It’s like they are a few decades behind how this all works.It stinks of desperation.
When you’re accused of something you claim you didn’t do, go ahead and do nothing. Don’t hire a lawyer, don’t defend yourself and don’t say anything. Keep it pure man. Let us know how that goes.
“Don’t hire a lawyer”I didn’t say Lawyer. I said PR firm.And, man, Allen must be paying out mounds of cash right now. Wow, his PR people are working overtime!
Should be a documentary about the public having super strong opinions because because.
Best take.
Misread the title as “Alien v Farrow.” No longer interested.
Ha! So did I.But unlike you I’m still interested.
Isn’t it wild how many comments this post has? For all of these people claiming not to be interested. lol
Well, would it be better than Prometheus?
“It’s Ronan’s toughest investigating article yet— a perfectly-bred killing machine with acid for blood. Will he get the scoop, or will he end up eviscerated? Find out in, Alien V Farrow!”
“I admire it’s purity.”
Same. After Alien Vs Predator, what more is there to say?
I’m still really disturbed by the ending of Farrow vs. (Sexual) Predator, I’m not sure I’m ready for the Alien spin-off.
Whoever wins, we lose.
I came here for the exact same reason.
so did i, lol.
I think you just wrote the next Asylum mockbuster movie.
Me too! I’m semi-interested.
https://tv.avclub.com/1846283273This is here because the Woody Allen PR team always dismisses comments. This is a response to Lindsay Maureen :“I honestly don’t know what to say about the allegations made by Dylan Farrow.”lol You always have plenty to say about that! Don’t play coy.“and didn’t end with Allen appearing guilty”That’s a weird way for a “local” to interpret the CT police requesting an arrest warrant for Woody Allen and the years of stuff like this from the Connecticut DA:“[The DA] called Allen’s behavior — on Aug. 4, 1992, in Bridgewater — toward his young, adopted daughter “grossly inappropriate.” And he said he could “arguably” prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Allen was guilty.”I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what you claim. lol
Note overnight at some point, Lindsay Maureen changed their username to Lindsay M.H. apparently. lol
Wowz. Good call. I thought you were being a jerk but, man. Were you ever right about that commenter. That thread is a long (way too long) carnival ride of sea-lioning, misogyny and victim-blaming very thinly veiled as “just asking questions” bullshit. What the fuck is up with that person?
JAQing off, is what we call it.That commenter does the same thing in every Allen or Farrow post. Obviously on the payroll. There are so many of them.
“It doesn’t matter what’s true. What matters is what’s believed.”
– The A.V. Club
https://tv.avclub.com/1846283419This is here because the Woody Allen PR team always dismisses comments. This is also response to Lindsay Maureen :Allen filed AFTER Dylan accused him of molesting her.There was no custody dispute prior to Allen filing.I’m sure the docuseries will be very clear about that; maybe then Allen’s sycophants will stop posting all this misinformation all of the time. You shitbags are exhausting.If the only way you can defend Allen is with lies, then he’s indefensible.
Note Lindsay Maureen changed their username to Lindsay M.H. in the last 12 hours apparently. Weird, huh?
Are you trying to dox someone?
It looks great.My biggest hope for this is that the PR spin Allen was able to cloud everything with in the 90s will be dismantled. Just like Weinstein (using the same PR/law team as Allen used here) was able to get people in the 90s to buy that all of the women speaking up about him were “crazy” and “difficult” and “scorned” and whatever, but now we know better. I hope that happens here. What Allen did to this family, not even considering Dylan’s case, was despicable and monstrous. He ripped that family apart, without a second thought.
What Allen did to this family, not even considering Dylan’s case, was
despicable and monstrous. He ripped that family apart, without a second
thought.
I hope you don’t confuse Allen with Mia Farrow’s brother sentenced to 25 years in jail for sexually abusing two young boys over a period of eight years.Any idea why neither Mia nor Ronan Farrow talk about John Villers-Farrow? Was he ever in Mia’s household with the kids?
And the reaction of the real pedo’s wife?
Villiers-Farrow’s wife has stood by
her husband since he was arrested and called the victims – who are now
20-years-old ‘vipers’. (…)
In 1992, the real pedo famously told ‘People’
mag about Woody Allen:‘[He’s] going to be indicted, and he’s going to be ruined. I
think when all of it comes out, he’s going to jail.’
With all the work Ronan Farrow has done and his involvement with this mother and sister Dylan to write their story about Woody Allen it’s a bit strange that they never addressed the pedo in their family who is in jail.
This horrible story isn’t even mentioned when the Allen-Farrow story is reported again and again but somehow the “same PR/ law team” – what exactly, you don’t know? – that Allen and almost 30 years later Weinstein shared IS an important info for you. As a survivor of sexual abuse I know when I’m gaslighted by convenient arguments that are one-sided and don’t touch the horror that jump right into the eyes where the brother of Mia Farrow is a convicted pedo and two of her kids have spoken out about their traumatic childhood experiences with the mother.
And any people who don’t share your view are defamed as ‘the Woody Allen PR team’/ ‘Allen’s sycophants’/ ‘shitbags’. [Quotes from this thread not the numerous other Anti-Allen tirades you published at this site.] Trump’s fascist rhetoric, spread the mud and something will stick isn’t very original when done by people who are allegedly on the side of victims of sexual abuse.
Actually that, the amount and content of comments you wrote appear more being written by a professional person than any other. So in the worst Trump manner you call out other people for something you are – right?
I know you think bringing up Mia’s brother is some sort of gotcha but it’s not. Predators seek out damaged people. Mia coming from a damaged home just makes a stronger case for Allen being a predator. Normal people don’t walk into a fucked up home and set up shop for 13 years. it’s a bit strange that they never addressedWhy would they talk about him? He entered a plea deal and did his time. What more is there to say? That’s how it is supposed to work. Justice served.What’s not supposed to happen is rich men avoiding justice by hiring fancy lawyers to bribe DAs or hiring ex-Mossad agents to intimidate witnesses or hiring PR firms to control the narrative with obfuscation and blatant lies. People don’t have to share my views – that’s some bullshit you’re trying to spread. It’s known that Woody Allen does these things. It’s not a conspiracy. I know for decades it worked for him to just call everyone crazy but that doesn’t work anymore. It hasn’t worked since Dylan wrote her open letter and the court documents were published on the internet and are at the public’s fingertips with a quick little search.“For decades, Allen has used the same defense-through-intimidation techniques that Weinstein allegedly did. In 1997, Connecticut Magazine reported that Allen’s legal team had hired private investigators, including ones assigned to find damaging information on law enforcement officials working the sex-abuse case. As my brother Ronan Farrow documented in the Hollywood Reporter last year, Allen’s public relations team, led by Leslee Dart of the firm 42 West, jumps into action whenever allegations resurface.” “Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?” By DYLAN FARROW, DEC. 7, 2017eta: why are these quotes all jumbled? They look fine before I hit publish then they get all mixed up. Weird.Go to Dylan’s op-ed and read the original if the quote is messed up in my post and you’re interested. It’s a good solid read with lots of good info.
It hasn’t worked since Dylan wrote her open letter and the court documents were published on the internet and are at the public’s fingertips with a quick little search.Leaving this here to save people the search:
“Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night.” February 24, 1991https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/magazine/woody-and-mia-a-new-york-story.htmlhttps://www.scribd.com/document/204662575/Statement-of-Decision-9-24-1993“Here’s The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety”https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-farrowhttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/02/dylan-farrow-open-letter-woody-allenhttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-father-woody-allen-danger-892572https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/05/moses-farrow-pens-essay-defending-woody-allenhttps://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Former-Connecticut-prosecutor-Kidnapping-charges-12033220.phphttps://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Prosecutor-outraged-by-Woody-Allen-letter-5222424.phphttps://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/i-believe-dylan-farrow
Thank you! Just like that.
What is the relevance you think this has, at all?
I don’t know about the relevance. I think it’s curious that people who discussed for years in public a child abuse case in their family didn’t discuss the case where another one of them was actually jailed for sexual abuse. They made everything else public but no word about Mia Farrow’s brother?
This is at least as weird as Allen’s affair with young Soon-Yi which in the discussions is used to confirm him as a real creep. Why didn’t anyone call Sinatra (then 51) a creep when he married 21-year old Mia Farrow? I assume it’s because Allen doesn’t look like Sinatra. You’re willing to believe anything if someone looks like Allen. He’s the background extra in every 70’s -90’s cop show where irritating guys with mustaches and guns in subways were needed. On the other side is a very handsome Ronan Farrow who is convincing with his work.There’s something in that family (including former members as Allen)…, their more-than-general knowledge in dealing with the media and the extent of public releases… where I can’t trust anyone.
Well, the answer is, it’s not relevant, at all, to Dylan’s allegations. Beyond the fact that it’s not relevant, but Mia Farrow’s brother was actually convicted. He also, as far as I know, didn’t abuse any of them. So I’m not sure why you’d expect them to talk about that the same way they talk about something that actually impacted them directly?
Also, I don’t think not talking about a relative’s legal troubles “is at least as weird” as Woody Allen fucking and marrying his children’s sister. Are you nuts? Frank Sinatra marrying Mia Farrow at 21 years old is creepy, but what makes it not as creepy as what Allen did is that Mia Farrow was not, like, Nancy Sinatra’s sister, Mia Farrow was not, like, Ava Gardner’s or Angie Dickinson’s daughter, and he didn’t meet Mia Farrow, as a child and serve, as the long-time partner to Farrow’s mother, as the primary adult male figure in her life
And it is such a self-own. Predators seek out damaged mothers and damaged kids and broken families. Anyone with a history of sexual abuse in the homes or families are going to be prime targets for child molesters and abusers. They keep trying to point out that there is something wrong with Mia Farrow or her family like that will exonerate Allen but it just makes Allen look more guilty. It’s like when people tried to defend priests or Boy Scout leaders from accusations of sexually abusing kids by claiming people who volunteer to work with little boys must be good, selfless people so the accusations can’t be true. The reality is that child abusers/child molesters are drawn to situations where they can get away with child abuse and child molestation.
Mia Farrow defended Roman Polanski in public. So yes it’s very weird that she decided to keep silent about her own pedo brother. The Farrows are a family that is using the public to speak for decades about an alleged child abuse.You know it’s suspicious but it doesn’t help your argument and that’s why your answer was foreseeable.
Your obsession with the creep’s marriage to Soon-Yi, who isn’t his daughter and with whom he didn’t share a household when he was with Farrow doesn’t affect what really happened with Dylan (the part you believe to know all about and I don’t).BTW The primary adult male figure in Soon-Yi’s life when growing up was her adoptive father Andre Previn. The man who left his wife for the adulteress Mia Farrow. Better be careful if you use moral or ethic. Because neither Woody Allen nor Mia Farrow display much of them.
Mia Farrow defended Roman Polanski in public. So yes it’s very weird that she decided to keep silent about her own pedo brother. The Farrows are a family that is using the public to speak for decades about an alleged child abuse.They spoke “for decades about an alleged child abuse” that happened directly to them, in which one of their children/siblings was the victim. I still don’t know why you think this matters to the credibility of Dylan’s story.Your obsession with the creep’s marriage to Soon-Yi, who isn’t his daughter and with whom he didn’t share a household when he was with Farrow doesn’t affect what really happened with Dylan (the part you believe to know all about and I don’t).
He met Soon-Yi when she was a child, around 10 years old. He knew her as the child of his long time romantic partner. She is the sister of his own literal children. There is no way, shape, or form in which his fucking and marrying her is not a massive violation of very clear, well-established boundaries. If you think the Farrows’s comment or lack of comment about other abusers is somehow relevant to Dylan’s credibility, surely Woody Allen’s massive transgression in fucking Dylan’s own sister, literally a generation his junior, is relevant. Oh, and not to mention that Woody’s behavior towards Dylan, even absent the molestation allegation, was concerning enough that there was a rule that he was not to be left alone with her and that the judge in the custody case called “grossly inappropriate.”The man who left his wife for the adulteress Mia Farrow. Better be careful if you use moral or ethic. Because neither Woody Allen nor Mia Farrow display much of them.
I’m not really concerned about Mia Farrow’s “moral or ethic,” because Mia Farrow doesn’t really figure into this at all. It comes down to whether I believe Dylan or Woody, not whether I believe Mia, because Mia was not present at the time and has never claimed to be a witness to what did or did not happen.
Doesn’t seem fair to have a documentary that doesn’t show the other side of the story at all.
They may have asked Woody Allen to be a part of it only to have him decline.
This is why Allen was so desperate to get that memoir published last year. He was trying to get in front of this and keep control of the narrative. Too bad for him no one bought his book. lol
I’m amused how in February 2021, all at once, Allen’s defenders suddenly don’t understand what documentaries are. (But then a few posts down they’ll tell you to watch some pro-Allen documentary. lol)
Allen’s story has been out there for decades, with plenty of willing sycophants offering to bolster it (in their defense, they usually get something out of the deal…you’re doing this all for free). The filmmakers asked Allen and his defender in the family, Moses, to be in the film, and they refused.
Which doesn’t in any way alleviate the fact that this may be a one-sided investigation of a subject that needs objective clarity.
That Allen is not in the film, because he refused to be interviewed for it, does not mean the film lacks “objective clarity.” In most criminal trials the defendant does not testify on their own behalf. And yet that is the official way we determine criminal liability (and most criminal trials result in conviction). Would you say most criminal trials are one-sided presentations that lack any sort of claim to objective clarity?Also, note how convenient your position is for Allen. You set up a rule that any investigation can only be fair and objective if Allen participates. Yet Allen can unilaterally decide not to participate. So when, of course, he refuses, because of the rule you have set up, he gets to declare this damning investigation unfairly one-sided and biased against him. I don’t think this is a good way to go about assessing the film!
This isn’t a trial, it’s a publicly consumed documentary. As such, I question it’s perspective and fairness to all subjects.
What a weird thing to say. Shouldn’t it be trials that have the absolute highest standards of fairness? Why would you expect more from a documentary than a criminal trial?
What nonsense.
Im doing what? I’m not defending or condemning anyone. What a knew jerk reaction on your part.
What was the point of your comment then?
Exactly what I said. Show both sides of the story and let people decide for themselves. It’s not likely we’ll ever know for sure what happened. What was the point of your pissy ass comment?
They do. From what I’ve read about the documentary, much of it is concerned with refuting the various defenses Allen and his defenders have erected. So your original comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding about this documentary.
I have no particular opinion on this subject *but* I did read a recent interview with the documentary filmmakers in the NY Times. They were clearly predisposed to believe Mia. They started from the premise that Allen was guilty. Given that starting point, it is not hard to understand why the Allen camp did not participate.
“to believe Mia.” Who cares? Mia is not the one making the accusation.
“Who cares? Mia is not the one making the accusation.”Thank you!
“They were clearly predisposed to believe Mia Dylan.”Dylan. The accuser is named Dylan.And, yeah, that happens when people look at the evidence rather than listen to Woody Allen’s PR team. You should try it.It’s why lots of documentaries get made. Someone gets a look at the evidence rather than the popular belief crafted through PR or misinformation, realize people have been duped and then they want to expose the truth. You know, sorta like I just did in this very comment, by correcting a popular false narrative which ignores Dylan completely and tries to cast Mia as the villain.
I think we’ve heard the other side for almost 30 years now.
Looking forward to a corrective to the Allen PR machine that has been in operation for decades. Like, the thing he actually did, i.e. fuck and marry the daughter of his long-term romantic partner, the sister to his children, who he met when she 9 years old daughter, and for whom he was the primary adult male figure during her formative years, should have been enough for people not to want to be associated with him. Also, all the horrible shit that came out on the record during the custody battle, and he’s a disgusting person before you even get to him having probably sexually assaulted a child.
I hate that every time I see the title I read it as “ALIEN V. Farrow” because I am an idiot
“It doesn’t matter what’s true. What matters is what’s believed,” That’s very troubling to me. Shouldn’t the truth matter? (Not saying that I support Woody Allen; he’s a total creep.)
The point seems to be that, even when you’re telling the truth, that doesn’t help you if no one believes you. That idea isn’t really new either. Myth of Cassandra and all that.
It should matter. It sounds like Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham.
Isn’t the point that a victim telling the truth doesn’t help them if no one believes the victim? It’s not enough to be “right” if no one will admit you’re right.
The truth does matter to victims!
I think “no one” believed it isn’t exactly what happened to the victim Mia Farrow spoke about in her quote.
“It doesn’t matter what’s true. What matters is what it’s believed” is as true for someone destroying the image of another person for an ulterior motive. But the quoted sentences may be out of context and could have been just reflective about other victim’s common experiences.
Yeah… But, if you’re, say, speaking to a prosecutor who is considering pursuing you’re case, simply saying, “But I’m telling the truth,” isn’t going to get you anywhere. The prosecutor has to believe you and has to believe that others will believe you as well. That is one of the cruelties victims have to face.
That’s true. You learn very early as a child how it feels when you’re telling the truth but no one seems to believe you because you have lied once before. This doesn’t affect just victims of abuse. But we don’t know what’s the truth in this drama. What we know is that both sides, Farrows and Allens, are professionals in using media. As director, actor/ actress and writers (including Ronan and Dylan). They either grew up in showbiz families or their careers started early in the business. They all use the media to their advantage.
Nothing what comes from them is “the truth”. It may be part of a truth but never “the” truth. We are played by the media savvy players from both sides.I’m well aware that Allen still has supporters among some of the rather intellectual journalists and film people who never thought his filmed fantasies with younger women (as Mariel Hemingway) were inappropriate. But I’m also aware that other journalists forget how much Mia Farrow used traditional moral values to hurt Allen beneath the allegation of child abuse. But she was the adulteress in two marriages, defended Roman Polanski in public while keeping her mouth shut about the pedo brother in her family. So I have a problem when Mia Farrow talks about the truth – and the quote about truth was hers and not from Dylan.
But Mia’s statement about being believed is accurate whether or not she herself is lying. It isn’t enough in life for something to be true if no one believes you. That’s, frankly, quite true.
I was disturbed by that too. I wonder if what it is trying to say is: Unfortunately, the truth isn’t enough and people only care about what they believe?
I read the judge’s report from the case years ago. You can find it online. There is plenty of detail in there that is super creepy to say the least.
I can’t understand anyone defending Allen after reading that. I don’t know if he should have been imprisoned, but I definitely think he should never be near any children ever again.
“I read the judge’s report from the case years ago. You can find it online. There is plenty of detail in there that is super creepy to say the least.I can’t understand anyone defending Allen after reading that.”I hope the docuseries goes into how Allen was able to so thoroughly control the narrative for so long. Because when you do read the documents, it can be quite jarring how the actual facts differ from what you thought you knew about the case.
https://www.scribd.com/document/204662575/Statement-of-Decision-9-24-1993“Here’s The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety”https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-farrow
And I’ll probably enjoy this more than any Woody Allen movie that isn’t Match Point.
Honestly, I’m just glad I don’t know these people and don’t have to make personal decisions regarding them. There’s a lot of weirdness on both sides of that family and i continue to be hung up on the fact that in all these years no one else has ever accused Allen of molesting an actual child (the fact that he’s drawn to much younger women is disturbing in its own way but it is a different thing from actual pedophilia and i don’t like how it’s somehow used as “evidence” in this case). The fact that there are adopted children who disavow Farrow and her own history with her molester-brother and accusations that she was at the very least emotionally abusive to the non-white children she adopted just makes the whole situation extremely complicated. Not defending Allen nor ignoring his daughter’s own testimony here—at the very least he’s not a Nice Person and I have no interest in his work anymore. But I don’t necessarily feel I’m required to have an opinion on their whole psychodrama. I hope everyone involved gets the help and clean sure they need.
Wrote this before reading the other comments below and now even more convinced that I want nothing else to do with this conversation. Counting the minutes until someone tells me I’m a Woody Allen stan or that I am a disgusting monster.