Allen v. Farrow

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

It does break my heart that for almost thirty years Dylan has been called at best confused or at worst a liar.  

Agreed and what makes it even more infuriating is that even though she has been living her own life for years, higher education, travel, work, marriage, children of her own she is still even now according to the Allen apologists being brainwashed and manipulated by Evil Mia.  They refuse to even consider the possibility that Dylan Farrow is more than capable of speaking for herself.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

We could blame the patriarchy. But I think a big part of it is in show business Woody was a much bigger player.  The celebrity apologists didn't want to burn a bridge with Woody. He might hire them for one of his movies.  And let's not forget this whole thing broke not that long after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill confirmation hearing.  A lot of people believed "scorned" women made up lies to "get" the man who scorned them.

 

Yeah, it's also always bugged me that it often gets played as if Mia's having pretty logical emotional reactions makes her nuts while Woody coldly unbothered by absolutely everything means he must be the good guy. Like in that article where it brings up that when Woody attended Dylan's birthday party before the attic incident but after the Soon-Yi pictures were found, Mia wrote a note calling him a child molester. And this is taken as proof that she was already planning on accusing him of molesting Dylan. Where to me it seems a pretty obvious reaction to what she's learned he's been doing with/to Soon-Yi, who even as a college student, she would still see as her child and a child compared to him.

[WinnieWinkle]

11 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Where to me it seems a pretty obvious reaction to what she's learned he's been doing with/to Soon-Yi, who even as a college student, she would still see as her child and a child compared to him.

This stood out for me back when all this first came out.  That Mia Farrow  being angry and hurt and acting like someone who was angry and hurt was "evidence" that she was unbalanced.  I think had Soon-Yi been her biological daughter that there would certainly have been less of this but I suspect those who will never find fault with Allen would still have felt that Farrow should have accepted it gracefully and faded into the background.

[ifionlyknew]

10 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

This stood out for me back when all this first came out.  That Mia Farrow  being angry and hurt and acting like someone who was angry and hurt was "evidence" that she was unbalanced.  I think had Soon-Yi been her biological daughter that there would certainly have been less of this but I suspect those who will never find fault with Allen would still have felt that Farrow should have accepted it gracefully and faded into the background.

One tact his apologists used was Mia was upset by being replaced with someone younger. That this was simply a May December romance. People that defended Woody ignored the fact Soon Yi was Mia's daughter.  They portrayed her as woman scorned when in reality she was a woman upset and heartbroken this man was destroying her family. It's not like what happened between Woody and Soon Yi only affected them and Mia. It affected all the children.  How were they supposed to react to their sister now being the romantic partner of for Ronan and Dylan their father and for the other children the man who had been their mother's partner for several years? The fact neither Woody or Soon Yi has ever shown any remorse for any pain they caused shows how selfish they are.   I know some people cut Soon Yi some slack but I am not one of those people. She was old enough to know what she was doing was wrong and people she should have cared about were going to be  hurt.  

[WinnieWinkle]

6 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

She was old enough to know what she was doing was wrong and people she should have cared about were going to be  hurt.  

I have always felt that Soon-Yi got involved with Allen precisely because she knew how much it would hurt her mother.  Nothing she has said in the years since then have changed my mind on this.  It's like, at least where her mother is concerned, she is still a resentful teenager.  A woman in her 50s, one would think, would be better able to look back and have some sympathy for a woman betrayed by her partner with her own daughter. That would probably come too close to admitting that she was not one half of the Love Match of the Century but rather part of a tawdry affair that hurt a lot of people though.

Edited March 30, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[sistermagpie]

54 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I have always felt that Soon-Yi got involved with Allen precisely because she knew how much it would hurt her mother.  Nothing she has said in the years since then have changed my mind on this.  It's like, at least where her mother is concerned, she is still a resentful teenager.  A woman in her 50s, one would think, would be better able to look back and have some sympathy for a woman betrayed by her partner with her own daughter. That would probably come too close to admitting that she was not one half of the Love Match of the Century but rather part of a tawdry affair that hurt a lot of people though.

It definitely feels like that to me as well, that whatever issues Soon-Yi had, she centered them on Mia. She might have worked through them or she might not have, but Woody took advantage of them. I'm sure he started off claiming she might become the star of his movies as well, but he wasn't going to ruin the movies for her. (Which people should remember when trying to claim that Mia brought nothing to the projects.)

Wouldn't be surprised if living with him just made her even more indifferent to the feelings of others than she might have been otherwise. She's more financially secure with him than she might have been and probably answers to nobody but him.

Edited March 30, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Cheezwiz]

57 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Wouldn't be surprised if living with him just made her even more indifferent to the feelings of others than she might have been otherwise. She's more financially secure with him than she might have been and probably answers to nobody but him.

Yep this. She's been in a secure bubble ever since he took up with her. No need to consider anyone else's feelings - she can be totally immune. I'm under no illusion that it was a love match - it wound up being an arrangement that benefited both of them. Perhaps two people with sociopathic tendencies found each other and made it work.

[Guest]

Was anyone else really bothered by the magical thinking argument about Dylan? That has been stuck in my craw for awhile. For one thing every person who believes in superstition, prayers or does any number of ordinary things can be accused of magical thinking to some extent. Even more than that, society encourages magical thinking in children. We tell them elaborate lies about Santa and the tooth fairy and go to great lengths to perpetuate those lies in an effort to infuse their world with magic and wonder. So to see that Dylan’s normal 7-year old imagination was used to discredit and make her seem like someone who can’t tell fantasy from reality pisses me off. Half the stuff my 6-year niece says is pure imagination. 

The documentary tried to rationalize the things Dylan said and critics point out the absurdity and lack of logic in what she said but I wanted someone to point out that it’s completely normal for a child to talk like that. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Guest

[sistermagpie]

56 minutes ago, Dani said:

The documentary tried to rationalize the things Dylan said and critics point out the absurdity and lack of logic in what she said but I wanted someone to point out that it’s completely normal for a child to talk like that. 

That is exactly what I thought--they were describing her being questioned over and over and then complained when she launched into a long story with Ronan on the roof etc. I read that and thought...isn't that what you'd expect a 7-year-old to do/say? Especially given how long they were talking to her? 

[DarkMark]

It is certainly true that if you want to find a nice lovely person in Woody Allen then  his "defense" might sound like his own worst enemy. He does not sound like someone most of us would want as a friend or even an aquaintance, but the point is that he is not defending himself from what he is, he doesn't care as long as it's legal, but from what he says he is not, which is an incestuous pedophile. The enraged / scorned woman theory was completely ignored by both custody judges. Neither bought it for a minute. Wilk, the judge in the first custody trial excoriated Allen. The judge in the second basically agreed. Yet both the prosecutor and the two judges from the custody trials knew there was little to no chance that a prosecution could be won, despite the requirements for evidence being lower for a case regarding a minor. And for good reason. Even the expert witness hired by Farrow, Herman, despite criticizing some aspects of the Yale New Haven report never outright dismissed it. Apart from him, the only experts who claim the report was flawed are ones  who did not interview or even know or talk to 7yo Dylan. Oh, and Maco, despite having ordered it. Interestingly, Maco had previously won a case regarding sexual abuse of a minor without putting the victim on the stand but... "Allen's case was different" he said...

By the way, the panel who investigated Maco, did vote 12-1 to not "indict" him (what a surprise, a bunch of judges who don't punish one of their own), yet 7 out of 12 DID vote to let the original censorship of his behaviour regarding his statements on Allen stand.

The documentary never interviews the same expert who they (falsely) claim Allen had to go to therapy to for his inappropriate behaviour to Dylan and who had Dylan under therapy, this despite her causing the start of the New York investigation when Farrow took Dylan to her and her having to report it. The reason being, obviously, that she did not believe Dylan had been sexually abused by Allen.

It is ridicolous to trumpet the testimony of the nanny who saw Allen in the girl's lap as "another testimony" when the producers were obviously well aware that, had it not been for her talking to her employer about what she'd witnessed that same day, leading to Mia's questioning of Dylan on the events of the day before,  perhaps Mia and Woody might still be together today, (assuming the fling with Soon Yi had progressed differently).

 The day when Allen allegedly sexually abused his daughter, no one reported anything wrong. Allen sleeps over and the kids see him off the next morning, picking out presents for him to buy for them from a catalog. Nothing is amiss. No one notices anything particularly wrong or different. Dylan does not talk to her mother about anything having occurred. When her friend (Pascal) tells Farrow what her nanny told her, she then asks Dylan if it's true. Then Dylan supposedly starts telling about the abuse in attic. And supposedly  she keeps talking about it.

I don't know anything about quillette, but the article does contain information, not hearsay, that many of the people who have written here, many, not all, who seem to have gained all their "facts" on this case from the documentary, should read to get a little more context on the documentarians' spin.

Woody Allen sounds like a creep, or at any rate someone who cares little about others feelings, certainly none for their opinions on his ethics. He supposedly draws the line at being accused of being an incestuous pedophile. None of us know if he did what Dylan alleges. But to somehow deduce that he must be sexually actracted to a child because he (also) liked teenagers/young women is, frankly, hogwash. And the fact that one of these young women was his partner's daughter makes it perhaps reprehensible, but is proof of his callousness, nothing else.

[Lady Whistleup]

Mia released this tweet tonight:

 

[Miss February]

NM...

Edited April 1, 2021 by Miss February

[MsTree]

7 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Mia released this tweet tonight:

 

Why did she cut out certain parts? It doesn't make sense as is.

[Lady Whistleup]

She didn't. You have to click on the inidividual images to see the full text.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

“Predatory Men With a Taste for Teenagers” - Joyce Maynard on the Chilling Parallels Between Woody Allen and J.D. Salinger

Some excerpts:

Quote

What chilled me most was the level of something close to violence—an almost toxic rage—in the way many Allen loyalists spoke about Farrow. (“I’d like to smash her face in,” wrote one.) You could almost think, reading the words of some of them, that they must be confusing Mia with the first woman who broke their heart, or a sadistic kindergarten teacher, or maybe their mother, if they hated their mother a whole lot. Some of them, weighing in on the documentary—and more on the Woody Allen fan page—chose to quote the old saw “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The scariest brand of fury I have ever witnessed is that of men confronted by a woman’s story of abuse at the hands of a man they idolize.

 

Quote

Sometimes the shamed and hated women remain faceless. Sometimes we know them well. Moving beyond the particular brand of trouble that each woman has endured (racism, misogyny, harassment, financial exploitation, sexual abuse, and the subsequent effects on their mental health), one theme runs through all of their stories—from Meghan Markle to Monica Lewinsky to Andrea Constand. It’s not simply about how our culture continues to shame, dismiss, humiliate, devalue, and demonize women. It’s the injury—sometimes overt counterattack, often gaslighting—that an abused woman is virtually certain to endure when she breaks her silence to tell what happened to her. Call it a one-two punch.

For me, the attacks I experienced when I published At Home in the World did not simply seek to invalidate a piece of work of which I felt deeply proud. They did not simply decimate my career for a long time (the same thing that happened to Mia Farrow, after she leveled her charges against Woody Allen). At the age of 44, I found my identity effectively reduced to that of a woman about whom only one pertinent fact remained: When I was very young, I had slept with a famous man. When I was no longer young, I told about it. Vagina dentata. Big mouth.

I have thought a lot over the years about why that memoir I wrote—but more so its author—became the object of such personal and uniquely sexual vitriol. It’s a tone I recognize now among many of Woody Allen’s most staunch defenders, many of whom are male, many of whom are highly educated, intellectual, urbane, enlightened types (classic Woody Allen fans) who would be horrified by the suggestion that their position qualified as misogyny. In pre-MeToo 1998, when I published the book that told the story of what happened between J.D. Salinger and me, I might as well have murdered Holden Caulfield. Many have never forgiven me. I got on with my life, wrote many more books, but not without great cost.

For a lover of Woody Allen movies, confronted with the story in the HBO documentary, it is as if Dylan Farrow ran into the theater at the very best part of the movie and threw a bucket of paint on the screen. As for Mia Farrow: In the classic gaslighting style, they call her crazy, launching a new round of attacks involving the deaths of three of her children to which she has recently responded. Here it comes: the Bad Mother defense.

 

Quote

Last week, among those angry Facebook messages to me from Woody Allen loyalists, there was one from someone citing, yet again, the story of how I sold my “love letters.” Hearing that a 53-year-old man wrote letters to an 18-year-old college freshman, some still condemn me for selling the letters rather than considering the motives of the man who wrote them in the first place.

Consider the irony of suggesting it’s the woman herself at fault for sharing her story, not the fault of the man, for having made the story happen. Call him out, and he may conveniently invoke cancel culture. Flip the narrative. Make the perpetrator the victim. The victim, the perpetrator.

 

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

As for Mia Farrow: In the classic gaslighting style, they call her crazy, launching a new round of attacks involving the deaths of three of her children to which she has recently responded. Here it comes: the Bad Mother defense.

To me this is the worst thing that has happened - that people, even people supportive of Farrow - feel the need to say she was a bad mother and point to the deaths  as the ultimate proof.  An article I read about this made it clear that at least part of this messaging is coming from Moses who really seems to need to make it clear where his loyalty lies.  I'd say he should be ashamed of himself but there's no point - he is either too blinded by hatred or to desperate for Allen's approval to care how hurtful he's being.

[sistermagpie]

Btw, the last ep of the podcast is up where they talk a bit to some of the other kids among other things. They also explain how "parental alienation syndome" works--i.e., anything anybody says or does in response to an accusation of parental alienation syndrome is a symptom of parental alienation syndrome. They talk to Sasha, Ronan (who gets into the payment for schooling) and Quincy, the youngest, about Mia as a parent. Also they note that while there were accusations of abuse on Woody's part at the time of the custody hearing (including the spaghetti face incident) there were none towards Mia until recently. They also read part of the judge's ruling on custody. He says that Woody comes across to him as such a sociopathic narcissist that he doesn't trust him to have unsupervised visits with Ronan, because he's sure he would use them to try to turn Ronan against the rest of the family.

[peachmangosteen]

15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

They also read part of the judge's ruling on custody. He says that Woody comes across to him as such a sociopathic narcissist that he doesn't trust him to have unsupervised visits with Ronan, because he's sure he would use them to try to turn Ronan against the rest of the family.

Wow, that judge had Woody Allen completely figured out lol.

[DarkMark]

Yes, despite it being well established that Farrow spoke of Allen as the Antichrist to her kids, and Allen was never once quoted as doing the same to Ronan and Dylan.

Mia Farrow passed the nude photos of Sun Yi to her kids to show around. Apart from the grossness of deliberately showing stolen nude erotic  photos of one of your daughters to one (or more) of your sons, how is that not abuse of Sun Yi? This is stated in a very Team Mia article by Orth entitled, appropriately , Momma Mia (https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2013/11/momma-mia)

Wilk just hated Allen's guts. Any judge would have granted custody to Mia Farrow, that is nearly certain, but Wilk was pretty unrelenting. He gave very little credit to the Yale report, to the doctors treating Dylan and Satchel, but accepted as truth the "spaghetti incident" without apparently any witnesses other than Mia and Dylan to the point of including it in the ruling. It was probably the only act of abuse which Farrow was willing to testify as having witnessed.

[WinnieWinkle]

If You Still Don’t Believe Dylan Farrow in 'Allen v. Farrow', It’s Time to Ask Yourself Why

Allen v. Farrow put a lump in my throat. As I sat there next to my partner, her guffawing in a rage to scene after tragic scene, something rose up to the surface for me. It was an old reflex, one I hadn’t felt in years. While Dylan and Mia Farrow recounted the traumas they suffered at the hands of this powerful and manipulative man with such horrifying frankness, I felt an inclination not to believe their stories. Something from within my gut was saying these women are not telling the truth. They seem vindictive. Unhinged. Crazy. I know better than to listen to this voice. Through therapy, through growth, I stopped wrestling with it a long time ago. But I was disappointed to feel its presence again. And I began to understand that whether it be by the media, my role models, or the way that so many of us–men in general–speak about women when they’re not around, that it’s been programmed in me not to believe Dylan and Mia Farrow.

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Wilk just hated Allen's guts.

Relatable lol.

[WinnieWinkle]

4 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Wilk just hated Allen's guts. Any judge would have granted custody to Mia Farrow, that is nearly certain, but Wilk was pretty unrelenting.

If in fact he made his decisions out of hatred for Allen was there a history of this hatred prior to this case?  If hatred was the motivating factor one would have to assume, otherwise, that the hatred developed because he saw the evidence and he saw the demeanour Allen was presenting and he decided "yeah hate him, screw him".  Or, it's possible there was no hatred but instead he saw Allen for what he was.

 

[DarkMark]

I don't mean to imply there was a preconceived idea of Woody Allen per se coming into the trial, but possibly of his behaviour. He came to abhor Allen, in my opinion, foremost as a result of the Soon Yi affair. His decision was understable, considering  Allen's lack of apparent parenting skills and his performance in court, but the ruling exhudes disdain, almost disgust. You may well approve, but his distaste for his affair with his partner's ADULT daughter is transparent from his ruling. In that sense he appears to take into very little account opinions favorable to Allen, even by experts, while considering it important to include in the ruling the description of an event apparently solely related by Mia.  But the reason I mentioned this disgust was to reinforce the point that despite this disapproval and his probable, in my opinion, desire for Allen's further punishment,  Wilk nonetheless felt the need to state that there was little to no chance that Allen could successfully be tried for abuse, despite what Maco has allowed all these years to believe with his hypocritical "probable cause" .

[sistermagpie]

59 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I don't mean to imply there was a preconceived idea of Woody Allen per se coming into the trial, but possibly of his behaviour. He came to abhor Allen, in my opinion, foremost as a result of the Soon Yi affair. His decision was understable, considering  Allen's lack of apparent parenting skills and his performance in court, but the ruling exhudes disdain, almost disgust. You may well approve, but his distaste for his affair with his partner's ADULT daughter is transparent from his ruling. In that sense he appears to take into very little account opinions favorable to Allen, even by experts, while considering it important to include in the ruling the description of an event apparently solely related by Mia.  But the reason I mentioned this disgust was to reinforce the point that despite this disapproval and his probable, in my opinion, desire for Allen's further punishment,  Wilk nonetheless felt the need to state that there was little to no chance that Allen could successfully be tried for abuse, despite what Maco has allowed all these years to believe with his hypocritical "probable cause" 

Soon Yi being a legal adult when the sex was discovered doesn't make Allen's behavior regarding it irrelevant to a family custody hearing. 

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Soon Yi being a legal adult when the sex was discovered doesn't make Allen's behavior regarding it irrelevant to a family custody hearing. 

Certainly not.

Just as an aside, Mia Farrow in court testified that she had set Soon Yi's birth year as 1970. I cannot see a reason why Allen might have considered that not true. That would make her legally adult even if their relationship had begun 6 months before the time they claimed it had.

I would rather believe Woddy Allen did mot molest his daughter, but certainly I cannot rule it out. Rationally it makes no sense to me: a one time occurrence, during a brief visit when he has all eyes on him, in a necessarily pretty brief amount of time.

This issue of the "20 minutes" of "simultaneous disappearance" of Allen and Dylan leads me to the topic of the one person whose absence from the documentary appears glaring and quite inexplicable. Perhaps I was fast forwarding when they explained why Kristi Groteke, who was Dylan, Satchel and Moses' nanny  in the period before the discovery of Sun Yi's photos until well after the end of the custody trial and Maco's failure to indict, did not appear. I am a little intrigued. Anyone can help me with that one?

[DangerousMinds]

8 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Yes, despite it being well established that Farrow spoke of Allen as the Antichrist to her kids, and Allen was never once quoted as doing the same to Ronan and Dylan.

Mia Farrow passed the nude photos of Sun Yi to her kids to show around. Apart from the grossness of deliberately showing stolen nude erotic  photos of one of your daughters to one (or more) of your sons, how is that not abuse of Sun Yi? This is stated in a very Team Mia article by Orth entitled, appropriately , Momma Mia (https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2013/11/momma-mia)

Wilk just hated Allen's guts. Any judge would have granted custody to Mia Farrow, that is nearly certain, but Wilk was pretty unrelenting. He gave very little credit to the Yale report, to the doctors treating Dylan and Satchel, but accepted as truth the "spaghetti incident" without apparently any witnesses other than Mia and Dylan to the point of including it in the ruling. It was probably the only act of abuse which Farrow was willing to testify as having witnessed.

Well established where???

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

Certainly not.

Just as an aside, Mia Farrow in court testified that she had set Soon Yi's birth year as 1970. I cannot see a reason why Allen might have considered that not true. That would make her legally adult even if their relationship had begun 6 months before the time they claimed it had.

I would rather believe Woddy Allen did mot molest his daughter, but certainly I cannot rule it out. Rationally it makes no sense to me: a one time occurrence, during a brief visit when he has all eyes on him, in a necessarily pretty brief amount of time.

This issue of the "20 minutes" of "simultaneous disappearance" of Allen and Dylan leads me to the topic of the one person whose absence from the documentary appears glaring and quite inexplicable. Perhaps I was fast forwarding when they explained why Kristi Groteke, who was Dylan, Satchel and Moses' nanny  in the period before the discovery of Sun Yi's photos until well after the end of the custody trial and Maco's failure to indict, did not appear. I am a little intrigued. Anyone can help me with that one?

Dylan is now a 35 year old woman. Do you really think she’s lying ? She doesn’t seem like someone who would want the attention.

[DangerousMinds]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

Certainly not.

Just as an aside, Mia Farrow in court testified that she had set Soon Yi's birth year as 1970. I cannot see a reason why Allen might have considered that not true. That would make her legally adult even if their relationship had begun 6 months before the time they claimed it had.

I would rather believe Woddy Allen did mot molest his daughter, but certainly I cannot rule it out. Rationally it makes no sense to me: a one time occurrence, during a brief visit when he has all eyes on him, in a necessarily pretty brief amount of time.

This issue of the "20 minutes" of "simultaneous disappearance" of Allen and Dylan leads me to the topic of the one person whose absence from the documentary appears glaring and quite inexplicable. Perhaps I was fast forwarding when they explained why Kristi Groteke, who was Dylan, Satchel and Moses' nanny  in the period before the discovery of Sun Yi's photos until well after the end of the custody trial and Maco's failure to indict, did not appear. I am a little intrigued. Anyone can help me with that one?

I thought that nanny was living overseas.

[WinnieWinkle]

7 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

I thought that nanny was living overseas.

I don't know about the Nanny referenced above but the Nanny who saw one incident involving Allen and Dylan and spoke out at the time was living overseas and was located too late for her interview to be included in the documentary but it was included in the subsequent podcast.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/allen-v-farrow-amy-stickland-nanny-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-incident-1138556/

Edited April 5, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[sistermagpie]

19 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I don't know about the Nanny referenced above but the Nanny who saw one incident involving Allen and Dylan and spoke out at the time was living overseas and was located too late for her interview to be included in the documentary but it was included in the subsequent podcast.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/allen-v-farrow-amy-stickland-nanny-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-incident-1138556/

i think that was a babysitter that was visiting the house that day with someone else's children. A friend of Mia's. . They had a regular nanny who wasn't there the day of the incident. They must have tried to contact her.

[DarkMark]

6 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Well established where???

Dylan is now a 35 year old woman. Do you really think she’s lying ? She doesn’t seem like someone who would want the attention.

For the difference in how Farrow and Allen talked about each other to or around the kids just read the ruling on the appeal https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-farrow

Do i think she is lying? As with Allen I want to believe she's not lying but not sure, but as to whether she wants attention, I hope you are being facetious, because since 2013, the only people who have brought attention to this are Dylan and Ronan.

 Please keep in mind that she had ample time once grown up to make a charge, but didn't, and still can get him disgraced once and for all (as well as take a chunk of his money to then give to RAINN, for example) by suing him in civil court but hasn't. 

Don't you have any contention about someone who accuses another of a crime, for which he was investigated at length but not prosecuted, knows there is still recourse to the law open to them, but chooses to instead try his abuser on TV? How is that not looking for attention?

[DarkMark]

6 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

I thought that nanny was living overseas.

Alison strickland, nanny of Mia's friend's children, witnessed the "head in the lap" episode.

The nannies of Ronan, Dylan and Moses were mostly two: Monica Thompson , a middle aged woman 7 years in Farrow's employ, and Kristi Groteke, a high school/college student.

Monica Thompson turned on Farrow in court, was not present the day of the alleged abuse but let's say she cannot be trusted as she was on team Allen.

Kristi Groteke was present that day. She was supposed to watch Allen like a hawk. Apparently she did not.

Thompson left some time during or after the custody trial. Groteke stayed on for quite some time.

It is odd that at least the nanny who was on Mia's side would have been interviewed. In 1994 Groteke wrote a book on Mia and Allen and her experience there before, during and after the custody trial.

I wondered if Groteke was mentioned and I'd missed it. Thompson I knew would not be mentioned.

[Miss February]

11 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I don't mean to imply there was a preconceived idea of Woody Allen per se coming into the trial, but possibly of his behaviour. He came to abhor Allen, in my opinion, foremost as a result of the Soon Yi affair. His decision was understable, considering  Allen's lack of apparent parenting skills and his performance in court, but the ruling exhudes disdain, almost disgust. You may well approve, but his distaste for his affair with his partner's ADULT daughter is transparent from his ruling. In that sense he appears to take into very little account opinions favorable to Allen, even by experts, while considering it important to include in the ruling the description of an event apparently solely related by Mia.  But the reason I mentioned this disgust was to reinforce the point that despite this disapproval and his probable, in my opinion, desire for Allen's further punishment,  Wilk nonetheless felt the need to state that there was little to no chance that Allen could successfully be tried for abuse, despite what Maco has allowed all these years to believe with his hypocritical "probable cause" .

I questioned the caliber of at least one of the "experts" (Allen's therapist) after hearing she had assured Mia that even though Woody's attention to Dylan was far too intense, it was not sexual, even if it seemed sexual to Dylan and Mia. If behavior seems sexual to a 7-year-old, isn't that all that really matters? How could a therapist consider a father's (supposed) intentions to be more important than the fact that his behavior makes his child feel sexualized? I would guess the judge had to look beyond some the the expert testimony and use common sense (and common decency) to determine what was best for the kids.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, Miss February said:

I questioned the caliber of at least one of the "experts" (Allen's therapist) after hearing she had assured Mia that even though Woody's attention to Dylan was far too intense, it was not sexual, even if it seemed sexual to Dylan and Mia. If behavior seems sexual to a 7-year-old, isn't that all that really matters? How could a therapist consider a father's (supposed) intentions to be more important than the fact that his behavior makes his child feel sexualized? I would guess the judge had to look beyond some the the expert testimony and use common sense (and common decency) to determine what was best for the kids.

This is exactly what sexual harassers say in their defense.  They didn't mean to  harass the person. That wasn't their intent. The person misunderstood.  If a seven year old child says her father's behavior bothered her and made her  feel uncomfortable then you listen to them.  You don't dismiss it as the father didn't mean any harm.  The father's intent is less important than the child's reaction.  

[vibeology]

11 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I would rather believe Woddy Allen did mot molest his daughter, but certainly I cannot rule it out. Rationally it makes no sense to me: a one time occurrence, during a brief visit when he has all eyes on him, in a necessarily pretty brief amount of time.

I would argue it was not a one time occurrence but the last event in a string of escalating behaviour. And it could just as easily have not been the last event; it only became that because he no longer had access to Dylan. From constantly holding her and trying to be alone with her, to the thumb sucking incident to being in bed with her in just underwear, his behaviour, that other people witnesses and raised concerns about, had been sexually inappropriate with Dylan for years. 

[WinnieWinkle]

26 minutes ago, vibeology said:

I would argue it was not a one time occurrence but the last event in a string of escalating behaviour. And it could just as easily have not been the last event; it only became that because he no longer had access to Dylan. From constantly holding her and trying to be alone with her, to the thumb sucking incident to being in bed with her in just underwear, his behaviour, that other people witnesses and raised concerns about, had been sexually inappropriate with Dylan for years. 

This is the aspect of this whole mess that should really make Allen's defenders think twice - but it won't.  For years this has been known to anyone who wanted to read up on this but it's always been swept aside in the flood of  accusations that have been levelled at Mia Farrow.   Mia Farrow not being perfect does not exonerate Allen in any way, shape or form and it's disgusting to me that this is still going on. 

[bosawks]

7 hours ago, DarkMark said:

For the difference in how Farrow and Allen talked about each other to or around the kids just read the ruling on the appeal https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-farrow

Do i think she is lying? As with Allen I want to believe she's not lying but not sure, but as to whether she wants attention, I hope you are being facetious, because since 2013, the only people who have brought attention to this are Dylan and Ronan.

 Please keep in mind that she had ample time once grown up to make a charge, but didn't, and still can get him disgraced once and for all (as well as take a chunk of his money to then give to RAINN, for example) by suing him in civil court but hasn't. 

Don't you have any contention about someone who accuses another of a crime, for which he was investigated at length but not prosecuted, knows there is still recourse to the law open to them, but chooses to instead try his abuser on TV? How is that not looking for attention?

Maybe she just wanted to be heard and take control of her own narrative?

[DarkMark]

3 hours ago, vibeology said:

I would argue it was not a one time occurrence but the last event in a string of escalating behaviour. And it could just as easily have not been the last event; it only became that because he no longer had access to Dylan. From constantly holding her and trying to be alone with her, to the thumb sucking incident to being in bed with her in just underwear, his behaviour, that other people witnesses and raised concerns about, had been sexually inappropriate with Dylan for years. 

Excuse me , but the fact that it was a one time occurrence is Dylan's own story. What you might argue about claims she herself does not make is irrelevant. You seem to accept as fact that Allen's inappropriate behaviour kept increasing once Farrow pointed it out well before any of this happened. There is no court ruling that states this. In fact most testimony of the supposed change in behaviour of Dylan relates to a time  subsequent to the discovery of the Soon Yi photos. Except for Mia's claims, that is,  which would however have to coincide with her going forward with Allen's adoption of Dylan and Moses. I would like to know how you reconcile this excerpt from the appeal trial with your "arguments":

"It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS Court structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further review of Allen's visitation with Dylan would be considered after an evaluation of Dylan's progress." 

[vibeology]

12 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

Excuse me , but the fact that it was a one time occurrence is Dylan's own story. What you might argue about claims she herself does not make is irrelevant. You seem to accept as fact that Allen's inappropriate behaviour kept increasing once Farrow pointed it out well before any of this happened. There is no court ruling that states this. In fact most testimony of the supposed change in behaviour of Dylan relates to a time  subsequent to the discovery of the Soon Yi photos. Except for Mia's claims, that is,  which would however have to coincide with her going forward with Allen's adoption of Dylan and Moses. I would like to know how you reconcile this excerpt from the appeal trial with your "arguments":

"It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS Court structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further review of Allen's visitation with Dylan would be considered after an evaluation of Dylan's progress." 

Dylan talked about the thumb sucking in the documentary and how gross it made her feel. Dylan talked about the fact that Woody was always around her and holding her and she wanted to get away from him in the documentary. I am taking her at her word and at the word of several people who corroborate her stories in the documentary.

I honestly couldn't give one flying fuck about the trials. We have come a long way in our understanding of childhood sexual abuse in the past 30 years. And we still don't do a great job of protecting children. I'm not looking to make a legal determination. I'm just looking at the two sides of this story and making my own judgment call. One side is Dylan, who has been telling basically the same story since she was 7. The other side is Woody, a man so transgressive that he is father and brother-in-law to several of his children. 

The courts made determinations and that's done. I'm just saying today, based on the story Dylan told over the course of the documentary, what I see is that Woody Allen's inappropriate behaviour escalated until he molested her.

[DarkMark]

34 minutes ago, vibeology said:

Dylan talked about the thumb sucking in the documentary and how gross it made her feel. Dylan talked about the fact that Woody was always around her and holding her and she wanted to get away from him in the documentary. I am taking her at her word and at the word of several people who corroborate her stories in the documentary.

I honestly couldn't give one flying fuck about the trials. We have come a long way in our understanding of childhood sexual abuse in the past 30 years. And we still don't do a great job of protecting children. I'm not looking to make a legal determination. I'm just looking at the two sides of this story and making my own judgment call. One side is Dylan, who has been telling basically the same story since she was 7. The other side is Woody, a man so transgressive that he is father and brother-in-law to several of his children. 

The courts made determinations and that's done. I'm just saying today, based on the story Dylan told over the course of the documentary, what I see is that Woody Allen's inappropriate behaviour escalated until he molested her.

You lost me at:"I honestly couldn't give one flying fuck about the trials."

Trust Dylan's factual memory of events that took place over 20 years ago, whose mother, at the very least, was telling a 7 year old Dylan (god knows how often) that Woody Allen had done "something" TO her sister Soon Yi, (and god knows what else she was telling her), over sworn court testimony of court appointed impartial experts who talked to her at the time and had her well being as their priority

Not much I can say there, is there?

[Rlb8031]

Here is my takeaway from all of this - giving Woody the best benefit of the doubt.

• He was having sex with a young girl - cheating on his long-time girlfriend, and wanted the girlfriend to deny his infidelity
• He was sleeping with the daughter of his long time girlfriend
• He loved his adopted daughter immensely and still chose to have sex with a young lady who that child considered to be her sister
• His answer to his long-time girlfriend being upset about all of this was that he sued for custody of three small children - after having stated repeatedly since before they were born/joined the family that he had zero interest in being a full-time father
• If he had gotten custody, he would have lived with his three small children and their sister with her standing in as their mother figure in the house

Again, all of these are things that he has admitted to and are factual based upon Woody's words. I don't know how anyone looks at any of this in totality and says "this is all his girlfriend's fault" nor do I look at what Woody said and did and think "this was all just a horrible misunderstanding". Woody has some very clear issues around appropriate sexual behavior (even between consenting adults). Best way to see this is assume that bullets 1, 4, 5 were a relationship with another adult not related to Mia - I might say they were okay, but now assume it was an adult related to Mia (a sister, her mother, a former sister-in-law, etc.) no way is that acceptable. And now move to the girlfriend's child??? No way any of this passes the smell test, May/December romance be dammed. There is no example where your sister now is your mom is reasonable. So if I give Woody absolutely ever bit of consideration, I still end up at "this is crazy".

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, DarkMark said:

For the difference in how Farrow and Allen talked about each other to or around the kids just read the ruling on the appeal https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-farrow

But how that's relevant is hard to say. Woody is the one who did something to hurt Mia, so she was the one expressing that hurt and anger about him. It's not surprising that the older kids, especially, at the time would hear that from her. She was a mother who'd discovered her boyfriend had taken porno pictures of her daughter, with whom he'd been secretly having sex with for a while. He was a guy who saw no reason he shouldn't be doing that and seemed pretty unemotional about the whole thing--he actually seemed confused as to why it should be emotional. It doesn't seem like a great thing that he can be on the phone after the sex with Soon-Yi is discovered coldly telling Mia that she's blown her chance for the two of them (Woody and Mia) to get back together because she refuses to publicly deny that the pictures existed or the sex happened.  Even in the statement you linked the judge says that yes, Mia's anger at the situation (which he seems to find well-founded) added to the stress on the kids, but that he finds Woody's claims to be acting out of concern for the kids in response completely unbelievable.

The experience of the younger children (meaning post-Ronan) was that Woody was never spoken about at all to them by Mia, while Woody didn't have much interaction with any of the kids to talk to them about Mia once it came out. However, he did have a PR effort to paint her as a scorned woman who brainwashed her kids, and the two kids he does have contact with--Son-Yi and Moses--say terrible things about her. According to Ronan, defending him was required for him paying for his schooling. The two situations seem pretty apples and oranges.

Quote

Do i think she is lying? As with Allen I want to believe she's not lying but not sure, but as to whether she wants attention, I hope you are being facetious, because since 2013, the only people who have brought attention to this are Dylan and Ronan.

But again, depends on what "wants attention" means here. It sounds like it means she just loves the idea of people knowing her name or getting to be on TV or in the newspaper. But since Woody already has attention and has consistently said Dylan was lying or confused, she has a reason to want to give her own story besides just wanting a camera in her face. Ironically, if she really just wanted attention so much she'd probably get more of it if she decided to denounce Mia. If she really has been lying all this time, that would even be easier since she'd be telling the truth. She'd also immediately get the support of Allen fans, some of whom are ready to attack on his behalf for sticking to her story. 

Woody, otoh, has every reason to not want attention paid to this aspect of his life. He just wants to be famous the way he was famous before. However, he doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses or Soon-Yi saying it's Mia who was the terrible one and his relationship with Soon-Yi is great and always was. He even requested it of Ronan. So maybe it's not exactly true that Dylan and Ronan are the only ones bringing it up in public, and maybe Woody encourages more strategic negative talk about Mia with Soon-Yi and Moses.

Quote

 Please keep in mind that she had ample time once grown up to make a charge, but didn't, and still can get him disgraced once and for all (as well as take a chunk of his money to then give to RAINN, for example) by suing him in civil court but hasn't. 

Don't you have any contention about someone who accuses another of a crime, for which he was investigated at length but not prosecuted, knows there is still recourse to the law open to them, but chooses to instead try his abuser on TV? How is that not looking for attention?

Given this particular crime is notoriously hard to prosecute, no, I've definitely never thought of holding Dylan to that kind of standard, where she needs to bring charges or bring a civil case for which she donates any money she gets for purity, in order to not think she's not acting our of narcissism. Woody himself went on TV falsely claiming he'd been exonerated, after all. He's tried the case on TV plenty. (He's also on tape telling Mia not to talk in the press right before his big Newsweek article came out.)

39 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

Trust Dylan's factual memory of events that took place over 20 years ago, whose mother, at the very least, was telling a 7 year old Dylan (god knows how often) that Woody Allen had done "something" TO her sister Soon Yi, (and god knows what else she was telling her), over sworn court testimony of court appointed impartial experts who talked to her at the time and had her well being as their priority

You make it sound like there was clear conflict between Dylan's memories now, Dylan's testimony at the time and what court appointed impartial experts believed when that's not the impression I got at all. And that we should imagine Mia telling her god knows what to neatly explain that conflict. 

Edited April 5, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Lady Whistleup]

Let's not forget that often, medical "experts" are notoriously bad at judging child sexual abuse. Especially if a revered figure is accused of abuse. The idea that children could be "sexually precocious" was accepted for a long time, as was the idea that homosexuality could be cured. I wouldn't take the Yale Institute judgment as gospel truth.

[DarkMark]

2 hours ago, Rlb8031 said:

Here is my takeaway from all of this - giving Woody the best benefit of the doubt.

• He was having sex with a young girl - cheating on his long-time girlfriend, and wanted the girlfriend to deny his infidelity
• He was sleeping with the daughter of his long time girlfriend
• He loved his adopted daughter immensely and still chose to have sex with a young lady who that child considered to be her sister
• His answer to his long-time girlfriend being upset about all of this was that he sued for custody of three small children - after having stated repeatedly since before they were born/joined the family that he had zero interest in being a full-time father
• If he had gotten custody, he would have lived with his three small children and their sister with her standing in as their mother figure in the house

Again, all of these are things that he has admitted to and are factual based upon Woody's words. I don't know how anyone looks at any of this in totality and says "this is all his girlfriend's fault" nor do I look at what Woody said and did and think "this was all just a horrible misunderstanding". Woody has some very clear issues around appropriate sexual behavior (even between consenting adults). Best way to see this is assume that bullets 1, 4, 5 were a relationship with another adult not related to Mia - I might say they were okay, but now assume it was an adult related to Mia (a sister, her mother, a former sister-in-law, etc.) no way is that acceptable. And now move to the girlfriend's child??? No way any of this passes the smell test, May/December romance be dammed. There is no example where your sister now is your mom is reasonable. So if I give Woody absolutely ever bit of consideration, I still end up at this is crazy

Fine, other than apparently his outlook on being a father had changed somewhat after Dylan. I believe I wrote that his behavoiur was despicable and that any judge would have ruled likewise on the custody.

Nonetheless all this is has no bearing on his likelihood of being a child molestor.

I am not aware of a smell test that relates being a hound in personal relations and being also (but clearly not excusively from his track record with Keaton and others) into young women, to being automatically capable of anything, including incestuous pedophilia.

This very very complicated episode aside, his track record is pretty good.

Woody is, in the public eye, very much "down" and has been for years. He can't get his movies distributed over in the U.S., has had his memories cancelled by a major publisher through pressure originating from Ronan, his contract with Amazon rescinded. Sure, he's still respected as an auteur in some quarters but his "pull" is certainly extremely week nowadays. Dylan has Ronan the chastizer, whose influence is now far far greater than Allen's, to support her. Yet despite being down, despite the prospect of support from Ronan and the general abhorrence of abusers in this MeToo era , as far as I'm aware not one of the many, many, many women who have worked with him in a career spanning 50 years has come forward with an allegation of impropriety. Maybe starting tomorrow they'll come crawling out of the woodwork. But until then, I'm sorry, but I will dispute that Allen has , "  some very clear issues around appropriate sexual behavior (even between consenting adults)."

[Rlb8031]

3 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I am not aware of a smell test that relates being a hound in personal relations and being also (but clearly not excusively from his track record with Keaton and others) into young women, to being automatically capable of anything, including incestuous pedophilia.

You are correct, that being a "hound" who is "into young women" doesn't mean that you are capable of incestuous pedophilia, however, if  Woody was right and he never touched Dylan, then you have to concede that he absolutely was prepared to have Dylan live with him and her siblings while he carried on a sexual relationship with their sister. *It's okay for Dad to have sex with your sister* screams boundary issues to me. 

[DarkMark]

26 minutes ago, Rlb8031 said:

You are correct, that being a "hound" who is "into young women" doesn't mean that you are capable of incestuous pedophilia, however, if  Woody was right and he never touched Dylan, then you have to concede that he absolutely was prepared to have Dylan live with him and her siblings while he carried on a sexual relationship with their sister. *It's okay for Dad to have sex with your sister* screams boundary issues to me. 

I' m not sure it screams boundary issues exactly, but yes, that is what Allen's miserable attempt at getting custody  entailed. Who could condemn anyone not wishing to have their name associated with Woody Allen solely on the basis of this? I certainly wouldn't. Frankly, I'm almost surprised one of the older Previn kids did't have a go at Woody Allen at the time. But the emphasis of the show was on the spin and the abuse. There was no spin on the Soon Yi affair, as there could be none; it was admitted, and how do you "spin" this? How do you spin "my father is my sister's boyfriend"? So anyone and everyone who worked with him was well aware. But can you shame someone for choosing to work with or for Allen despite knowing about the Soon Yi affair? Should he be prevented from working purely on the basis of his extremely poor personal choices? I don't believe so. So, since he was investigated, was not prosecuted, I think he should be allowed to work in peace till he is found guilty of a crime or at least prosecuted, without having to answer, for the upteenth time that, no, he did not molest his daughter.  Most of all, no actor should be cowed into rejecting to work with him because of an old allegation, especially one that, like it or not, was investigated, and not pursued.

[Lady Whistleup]

Something to keep in mind: the judge in the case was ruling on Woody Allen's custody suit. The judgment was not on Mia's merits as a parent, it was not about Allen's relationship with SoonYi. No matter what you think, I don't think anyone can think that the judge didn't make the correct decision that the kids were better off with Mia than Allen. His ruling's harsh language was about Allen as a parent. 

I mean, how could any responsible judge NOT rule that Allen was a miserable excuse as a parent?

[DarkMark]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But how that's relevant is hard to say. Woody is the one who did something to hurt Mia, so she was the one expressing that hurt and anger about him. It's not surprising that the older kids, especially, at the time would hear that from her. She was a mother who'd discovered her boyfriend had taken porno pictures of her daughter, with whom he'd been secretly having sex with for a while. He was a guy who saw no reason he shouldn't be doing that and seemed pretty unemotional about the whole thing--he actually seemed confused as to why it should be emotional. It doesn't seem like a great thing that he can be on the phone after the sex with Soon-Yi is discovered coldly telling Mia that she's blown her chance for the two of them (Woody and Mia) to get back together because she refuses to publicly deny that the pictures existed or the sex happened.  Even in the statement you linked the judge says that yes, Mia's anger at the situation (which he seems to find well-founded) added to the stress on the kids, but that he finds Woody's claims to be acting out of concern for the kids in response completely unbelievable.

The experience of the younger children (meaning post-Ronan) was that Woody was never spoken about at all to them by Mia, while Woody didn't have much interaction with any of the kids to talk to them about Mia once it came out. However, he did have a PR effort to paint her as a scorned woman who brainwashed her kids, and the two kids he does have contact with--Son-Yi and Moses--say terrible things about her. According to Ronan, defending him was required for him paying for his schooling. The two situations seem pretty apples and oranges.

But again, depends on what "wants attention" means here. It sounds like it means she just loves the idea of people knowing her name or getting to be on TV or in the newspaper. But since Woody already has attention and has consistently said Dylan was lying or confused, she has a reason to want to give her own story besides just wanting a camera in her face. Ironically, if she really just wanted attention so much she'd probably get more of it if she decided to denounce Mia. If she really has been lying all this time, that would even be easier since she'd be telling the truth. She'd also immediately get the support of Allen fans, some of whom are ready to attack on his behalf for sticking to her story. 

Woody, otoh, has every reason to not want attention paid to this aspect of his life. He just wants to be famous the way he was famous before. However, he doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses or Soon-Yi saying it's Mia who was the terrible one and his relationship with Soon-Yi is great and always was. He even requested it of Ronan. So maybe it's not exactly true that Dylan and Ronan are the only ones bringing it up in public, and maybe Woody encourages more strategic negative talk about Mia with Soon-Yi and Moses.

Given this particular crime is notoriously hard to prosecute, no, I've definitely never thought of holding Dylan to that kind of standard, where she needs to bring charges or bring a civil case for which she donates any money she gets for purity, in order to not think she's not acting our of narcissism. Woody himself went on TV falsely claiming he'd been exonerated, after all. He's tried the case on TV plenty. (He's also on tape telling Mia not to talk in the press right before his big Newsweek article came out.)

You make it sound like there was clear conflict between Dylan's memories now, Dylan's testimony at the time and what court appointed impartial experts believed when that's not the impression I got at all. And that we should imagine Mia telling her god knows what to neatly explain that conflict. 

Some fair points, granted.

Moses' reasons may well be murky and tainted and perhaps his outspokenness not even all that spontaneous,  but the recent turnaround by Farrow on the reason of Tam Farrows death, from heart failure as the Farrows had always stated, to drug overdose as Moses had claimed years ago, may lead one to consider that despite his motives possibly being mercenary, what he says may partially be true.

We do not know to what extent Dylan's testimony has been consistent; records were sealed, although the documentarians somehow were able to recover some, but we are shown only cherry picked samples. The Yale New Haven report was 40 pages long. Only the first and last pages are widely available. It would be interesting to read if and how the report details the inconsistencies they reported about in their summary. 

Am I really expected to believe that  Ronan remembers what he saw or felt when he was 3 years old? 

That Farrow was talking ill of Allen to or around Dylan, and that it was to some or a great degree influencing Dylan is frankly obvious by some of the things we do know she told the Yale New Haven team:

"Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, he [Leventhal] said, "The view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household."

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.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Please keep in mind that she had ample time once grown up to make a charge, but didn't, and still can get him disgraced once and for all (as well as take a chunk of his money to then give to RAINN, for example) by suing him in civil court but hasn't. 

She only had until she was 20 to try and bring criminal charges. Plus that path would have required a DA being willing to charge him. Since they already went down the route and nothing came of it I can’t blame her for not raising that issue again. 

I can’t agree that winning a civil suit would lead to him being disgraced once and for all. The information is out there and people have formed opinions. A civil trial isn’t going to change that. The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard lawsuit is a good example. The ruling could not have been harsher to Depp and many people still view him as the victim. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Guest

[DarkMark]

19 minutes ago, Dani said:

She only had until she was 20 to try and bring criminal charges. Plus that path would have required a DA being willing to charge him. Since they already went down the route and nothing came of it I can’t blame her for not raising that issue again. 

I can’t agree that winning a civil suit would led to him being disgraced once and for all. The information is out there and people have formed opinions. A civil trial isn’t going to change that. The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard lawsuit is a good example. The ruling could not have been harsher to Depp and many people still view him as the victim. 

I get your point on the civil suit and the example you make is rather pertinent. 

With regards to bringing criminal charges, however, perhaps there was another reason because, as we have been reminded by the show, Maco, the State Attorney,  had "probable cause" (according to him) and an arrest warrant ready, but, after sharing his decision with Mia and Dylan decided not to prosecute only to spare 7 yo Dylan further traumas. So Dylan knew she could count on Maco when she was older, (if we believe that Maco did actually have probable cause, that is).

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

With regards to bringing criminal charges, however, perhaps there was another reason because, as we have been reminded by the show, Maco, the State Attorney,  had "probable cause" (according to him) and an arrest warrant ready, but, after sharing his decision with Mia and Dylan decided not to prosecute only to spare 7 yo Dylan further traumas. So Dylan knew she could count on Maco when she was older, (if we believe that Maco did actually have probable cause, that is).

Not really. When there was renewed interest in the case after Dylan spoke out in 2014 the discussion of the statute of limitations came up a lot. Maco was interviewed at the time. He had this to say:

Quote

Maco said that he examined the question before he retired and did not believe then a criminal case was still possible. "When I left office, I was satisfied that the statute of limitations had long run in that case," he said.

He retired in 2003 when Dylan was 18. I have seen some articles say she had until she was 20 and there is a Wrap article that says a Connecticut Assistant State’s Attorney said that statute of limitations would have been 7 years. If she had wanted to pursue it with Maco she would have found that door closed by the time she was an adult.

Watching the documentary my impression was that Maco would be available to answer her questions and not that she could bring the case back up.