Allen v. Farrow

[WinnieWinkle]

44 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 lead to him being disgraced once and for all. The information is out there and people have formed opinions.

Minds have long been made up on this and nothing short of a deathbed confession from Allen will change his supporters opinion - and I strongly suspect not even that.  Anyway what I don't understand is why the decision not to go forward in court even matters.   Mia and Dylan Farrow used to be pilloried because of what it was perceived that they had done - now they are being questioned because of what they chose not to do.  This same scrutiny does not seem to happen with Allen.  Which I have always found very telling.

[DarkMark]

9 minutes ago, Dani said:

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:

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. 

So she had until she was 18 to bring charges with Maco and 2 more years to bring charges with his successor. Had the story of what Allen did on that occasion not changed compared to other versions she gave, she could still bring charges today.

[Miss February]

7 hours ago, vibeology said:

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. 

And he's the son-in-law to the mother of his three children. Or, another way to describe it...Mia ended up being his mother-in-law. Yet Woody pretends his affair/marriage to Soon-Yi was a wonderful love story with no strangeness and that shouldn't have hurt anyone.

[DarkMark]

28 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Minds have long been made up on this and nothing short of a deathbed confession from Allen will change his supporters opinion - and I strongly suspect not even that.  Anyway what I don't understand is why the decision not to go forward in court even matters.   Mia and Dylan Farrow used to be pilloried because of what it was perceived that they had done - now they are being questioned because of what they chose not to do.  This same scrutiny does not seem to happen with Allen.  Which I have always found very telling.

There is a simple reason why it matters: the requirement for sworn testimony and the level of the standard of proof.

[Lady Whistleup]

Something to consider: Ronan Farrow's investigations on famous people have generally been extremely accurate. He has a reputation to protect as an investigative journalist of the highest standard. If he felt doubt about Dylan's story I don't think he would put himself out there as much about this case. Have any of his #metoo investigations been disputed?

 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

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. 

I'm not sure exactly what the point is here--is it just that we, having not been there, can never know the truth? I mean, Woody Allen has also contradicted himself and lied, Moses has also said untrue things. The doc listened to Dylan tell the story now and found some same details in earlier reports. They checked out details that were possible to be checked out. The Yale report was the one that destroyed the notes that were contemporaneous themselves after asking a kid about the same incident in 9 interviews. 

Of course nobody can prove a negative, that there aren't piles of notes somewhere where Dylan told multiple stories. Woody says he didn't do it, Dylan says he did. If Mia being angry at Woody is enough of a reason to consider Dylan unreliable, surely Woody's desire to not publicly admit to child molesting is also a reason to consider him unreliable. Of course Dylan can't prove it happened. But if it did happen, should she not talk about it because of that? A crime like this is notoriously difficult to prove. What proof would there be of it? It's hard to believe Dylan could ever produce enough proof to make it indisputable. Nobody could. 

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

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

I'm not sure where this comes into it? There are no specific memories from Ronan at 3 that are being examned afaik.

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

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.

But since this incident, if it happened, took place after the Soon-Yi photos were found, there was never any possibility that that subject wouldn't be front and center regardless. We know the Soon-Yi affair has always been a handy defense for the issues with Dylan. That's been Allen's version of events from the start that has been widely accepted, that Mia simply brainwashed Dylan in retaliation for what he did with Soon-Yi. Fewer people know, for instance, that there were issues with Allen and Dylan before that.

Likewise, the fact that Allen is clearly not the familiar serial child molester type is used in his defense, but nobody's really claiming he is that, just that he had a history of dominance re: Dylan.

Both parents are being accused of doing something terrible to Dylan. But "Mia was really angry at Woody about Soon-Yi" seems to weigh against her far more than Woody's history of behavior with Dylan does for him, and that seems odd to me. As if it's just a given that a woman being angry at her ex means she'll use a child to make false sex abuse accusations for decades, but a man having a history of inappropriate domination of a child could never connect to a sexual assault on her.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DarkMark said:

So she had until she was 18 to bring charges with Maco and 2 more years to bring charges with his successor. Had the story of what Allen did on that occasion not changed compared to other versions she gave, she could still bring charges today.

That’s not what my post said. Maco said the statue of limitations had long run by the time she was 18. A Connecticut State’s Attorney said 7 years which would have been when she was 14.  Those are the people Dylan would have gone to and they felt there was nothing to be done well before she was 18.

What are you talking about her story changing preventing her from doing anything now? I haven’t seen anything to indicate that.

One important point, Dylan can’t bring charges against anyone. That’s not how the law works. A prosecutor would have to bring charges and sexual assault cases are so difficult to prove even very strong cases never see a trial. It’s really not an indication of how good the evidence is but how much benefit of the doubt defendants in these cases are given. Most of them boil down to he said, she said and victims are held to a nearly impossible standard. 

3 hours ago, DarkMark said:

There is a simple reason why it matters: the requirement for sworn testimony and the level of the standard of proof.

The sworn testimony is a non-factor because it already happened in the custody hearing. As far as the standard of proof it’s also a non-factor because no one is arresting Allen. People are simply deciding if they want to support him or not. Whether or not what he did was illegal really isn’t a sticking point. The court of public opinion can decide to withdraw support for any number of completely legal things.

Personally, whether or not he crossed that legal line on that particular day doesn’t really matter at all. He crossed an ethical line with Dylan long before that day. He touched his little girl in ways that made her feel uncomfortable. To me that’s abuse regardless of what the law or a jury would say. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Guest

[DangerousMinds]

3 hours ago, Miss February said:

And he's the son-in-law to the mother of his three children. Or, another way to describe it...Mia ended up being his mother-in-law. Yet Woody pretends his affair/marriage to Soon-Yi was a wonderful love story with no strangeness and that shouldn't have hurt anyone.

And was never able to simply say he was sorry about the pain he caused Mia and the rest of the family because of his affair with Soon-Yi. He didn’t have to think the relationship was wrong in order to simply say he was sorry for the pain he knows he caused.

[DarkMark]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

That’s not what my post said. Maco said the statue of limitations had long run by the time she was 18. A Connecticut State’s Attorney said 7 years which would have been when she was 14.  Those are the people Dylan would have gone to and they felt there was nothing to be done well before she was 18.

What are you talking about her story changing preventing her from doing anything now? I haven’t seen anything to indicate that.

One important point, Dylan can’t bring charges against anyone. That’s not how the law works. A prosecutor would have to bring charges and sexual assault cases are so difficult to prove even very strong cases never see a trial. It’s really not an indication of how good the evidence is but how much benefit of the doubt defendants in these cases are given. Most of them boil down to he said, she said and victims are held to a nearly impossible standard. 

The sworn testimony is a non-factor because it already happened in the custody hearing. As far as the standard of proof it’s also a non-factor because no one is arresting Allen. People are simply deciding if they want to support him or not. Whether or not what he did was illegal really isn’t a sticking point. The court of public opinion can decide to withdraw support for any number of completely legal things.

Personally, whether or not he crossed that legal line on that particular day doesn’t really matter at all. He crossed an ethical line with Dylan long before that day. He touched his little girl in ways that made her feel uncomfortable. To me that’s abuse regardless of what the law or a jury would say. 

What I'm referring to is that Dylan told Police that Allen had done more to her in the attic than the action she alleges now. If she reported a more serious crime than the one she now alleges, on the basis of the things she said then, it is my understanding that the statute of limitations would be different. So yes, there are inconsistencies in what she alleges now and said then, the latter actually being more serious.

The issue of sworn testimony is different, because in reality we do not know much of the sworn testimony during the trial, nor do we know much of the Yale New Haven full report. There are no notes, but presumably in 40 pages they go to some depth as to what occurred and was said during the interviews and sessions. It is quite one thing to say that Allen was creepy or inappropriate for a tv show, quite another when you have to give sworn testimony on the subject and provide evidence. It is by no means a fact that Dylan would "run scared" from Allen until well after the Soon Yi thing, and even then is it not just as likely that she was afraid Allen would take her away as she plausibly thought he had done with Soon Yi?

My point is that there are two very different and totally separate issues at play, Allen's relationship with Soon Yi and an alleged sexual molestation of a minor, and there is a concerted effort of somehow using the former to prove he is capable of the latter, creating a narrative that it is undisputed that Allen's behaviour was becoming increasingly inappropriate. I do not think in a criminal court of law this would be proven.

[ifionlyknew]

14 hours ago, DarkMark said:

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

This "complicated episode" is enough for me to think Woody Allen is gross.

[ifionlyknew]

7 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

And was never able to simply say he was sorry about the pain he caused Mia and the rest of the family because of his affair with Soon-Yi. He didn’t have to think the relationship was wrong in order to simply say he was sorry for the pain he knows he caused.

Well clearly he is not sorry.

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

Well clearly he is not sorry.

As far as I can tell, and this is based on everything he himself has said, the only thing he is sorry about is that there are actually a few people in this world who aren't buying his version of his life and aren't giving him the praise and adulation he feels he's earned.  Regret for causing pain to others doesn't seem to have ever been a consideration for him.

[peachmangosteen]

Quote

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. 

I didn't know all this. That's awesome!

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Well clearly he is not sorry.

Most people would have known that it was the right thing to say, at least for the optics. He couldn’t even do that.

[WinnieWinkle]

5 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Most people would have known that it was the right thing to say, at least for the optics. He couldn’t even do that.

The problem for Allen is that his "the heart wants what the heart wants" attitude actually worked for decades.  Many people were more than willing to believe his version of events, to put aside any concerns they might have had about his relationship with Soon-Yi and to feel that Mia Farrow was indeed a woman scorned who was out to destroy him.  When Dylan Farrow reclaimed her voice a few years ago coupled with the Metoo movement things suddenly stopped going his way.   His most ardent supporters (overwhelmingly white men) will never believe he did anything wrong but even so it must be incredibly galling to him that he isn't as able to control the narrative anymore and that finally there are critics looking back on his body of work and saying "jeeze, it was all right there,  why didn't we see it before."

[ifionlyknew]

4 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

The problem for Allen is that his "the heart wants what the heart wants" attitude actually worked for decades

 

5 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

it must be incredibly galling to him that he isn't as able to control the narrative anymore

With that one line he did control the narrative for almost 30 years.  He was a 50something man who had sex with his long time girlfriend's much younger daughter who just so happened to be the sister of three of his children. If that story had been presented to people without anyone knowing who they were I think the vast majority of people would have been horrified.  But Woody Allen being a long time film director knew he could frame the picture so to speak.   He wasn't some gross old pervert. He was a man in love. And once the allegations concerning Dylan happened  he needed to be a happily married man.   I do get some pleasure knowing he has paid a price (no matter how small it may be) for what he has done.

[sistermagpie]

15 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

And was never able to simply say he was sorry about the pain he caused Mia and the rest of the family because of his affair with Soon-Yi. He didn’t have to think the relationship was wrong in order to simply say he was sorry for the pain he knows he caused.

I'm not even clear what his answer was regarding where he was the day this incident was supposed to have happened. I'm sure that must be in the trial transcripts, since they went over it, but I keep remembering that weird call where Mia asked where he was for 20 minutes when no one could find either of them and he just kept saying she'd know when the time came.

10 hours ago, DarkMark said:

 It is by no means a fact that Dylan would "run scared" from Allen until well after the Soon Yi thing, and even then is it not just as likely that she was afraid Allen would take her away as she plausibly thought he had done with Soon Yi?

I don't understand what you're saying would make it a fact here. If you don't believe people who were there at the time saying Dylan had started running from Woody and becoming withdrawn to the point where Woody went to therapy over his inappropriate behavior before the Soon-Yi thing, why would them saying the same thing in court make if a fact where it wasn't before, if they haven't said it in court before. (I'm not sure they haven't.) And if people are just lying about her running from him, why would it become a fact after the Soon-Yi incident, when it can be blamed on Mia and linked to Dylan misunderstanding what happened there? Is it only a reliable fact starting from when it was noted by investigators after the attic incident?

Quote

My point is that there are two very different and totally separate issues at play, Allen's relationship with Soon Yi and an alleged sexual molestation of a minor, and there is a concerted effort of somehow using the former to prove he is capable of the latter, creating a narrative that it is undisputed that Allen's behaviour was becoming increasingly inappropriate. I do not think in a criminal court of law this would be proven.

I don't think that's always the point people are making with it, though. In fact, the relationship with Soon-Yi is used just as often as it is here, to suggest the accusations about Dylan are false since 1) it gives Mia a motive for making them up and 2) It proves that he's into pubescent/post-pubescent female bodies like a normal, non-pedophile man.

The Soon-Yi thing doesn't prove whether or not Woody molested Dylan one way or the other and of course would never be used to try to prove it in a court of law. Things he's done and said regarding Soon-Yi just do, imo, show that he lies easily, is very controlling, doesn't respect or value relationships and doesn't feel guilt about hurting people that trusted him. He could be all those things without ever touching Dylan. So, too, could Mia have been deeply and openly angry and betrayed by him without being the real source of Dylan's story. As the whole "parental alienation syndrome" success shows, people are very willing to believe a parent is making up abuse allegations by default.

 

5 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

The problem for Allen is that his "the heart wants what the heart wants" attitude actually worked for decades.  

And that wasn't even really his attitude. One thing I still remember standing out for me about that Newsweek article years ago was that while he claimed his "heart" just wanted Soon-Yi and they fell in love and he was never anything but completely open about that, he also said he was never planning to tell or break up with Mia. Iow, while he doesn't seem to have ever been ashamed of sleeping with Soon-Yi, he never wanted to have to make any sort of public commitment about it or have it interfere with his relationship with Mia. "The heart wants was it wants" implies a sort of 70s free-love, no hang-ups, love is love thing, not lying and sneaking around.

Edited April 6, 2021 by sistermagpie

[ifionlyknew]

39 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

And that wasn't even really his attitude

 

39 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

The heart wants was it wants" implies a sort of 70s free-love, no hang-ups, love is love thing, not lying and sneaking around.

For Woody I think "the heart wants what the heart wants" just means he wants to do whatever the fuck he wants to do.  

[Lady Whistleup]

Once again, the judge's ruling was only about Allen's merits and flaws as a parent. It was not to discuss the child molestation charge except as something to consider while granting or not granting custody. The judge was not passing judgment on the relationship with SoonYi.

So the harsh language of the judge is telling -- Allen presented as a very poor, disinterested parent during the entire custody trial. 

[WinnieWinkle]

1 minute ago, Lady Whistleup said:

So the harsh language of the judge is telling -- Allen presented as a very poor, disinterested parent during the entire custody trial. 

And when you consider the way Allen attempted to frame the narrative to paint Mia Farrow as a terrible person it's also telling that the judge chose to condemn her principally for allowing Allen to remain around as long as she did!  

[Guest]

14 hours ago, DarkMark said:

What I'm referring to is that Dylan told Police that Allen had done more to her in the attic than the action she alleges now. If she reported a more serious crime than the one she now alleges, on the basis of the things she said then, it is my understanding that the statute of limitations would be different. So yes, there are inconsistencies in what she alleges now and said then, the latter actually being more serious.

Can you provide a link with more details? From what I’ve read I can’t find anything consistent with what your saying. 
 

14 hours ago, DarkMark said:

The issue of sworn testimony is different, because in reality we do not know much of the sworn testimony during the trial, nor do we know much of the Yale New Haven full report. There are no notes, but presumably in 40 pages they go to some depth as to what occurred and was said during the interviews and sessions. It is quite one thing to say that Allen was creepy or inappropriate for a tv show, quite another when you have to give sworn testimony on the subject and provide evidence. It is by no means a fact that Dylan would "run scared" from Allen until well after the Soon Yi thing, and even then is it not just as likely that she was afraid Allen would take her away as she plausibly thought he had done with Soon Yi?

We have the ruling by the judge who saw all of the sworn testimony. It feels like there is a neverending series of hoops to be jumped through. If someone doesn’t want to believe an assault happened there will never be enough proof to convince. 

 

14 hours ago, DarkMark said:

My point is that there are two very different and totally separate issues at play, Allen's relationship with Soon Yi and an alleged sexual molestation of a minor, and there is a concerted effort of somehow using the former to prove he is capable of the latter, creating a narrative that it is undisputed that Allen's behaviour was becoming increasingly inappropriate. I do not think in a criminal court of law this would be proven.

I don’t agree. I do believe there are a lot of people who feel that Allen’s behavior with Soon Yi and other young women to proves he is a predator whether or not he molested Dylan. That is completely separate from people feeling uncomfortable with a father teaching his daughter to suck his thumb and feeling like there is an escalation of behavior. All of that does get does get rolled together in discussions but I don’t think people are ignoring that it is two separate accusations.

I also feel that people who argue in favor of Allen generally hyperfocus on Mia and Soon Yi to the exclusion of other evidence. Soon Yi is just the most prominent example of his predatory behavior and therefore is the one most mentioned. It is also the easiest to defend since she was over 18 and says it wasn’t abuse. I rarely see his defenders address the other girls who clearly were under 18 when he was in a relationship with him or that he perused a relationship with. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Guest

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

Can you provide a link with more details? From what I’ve read I can’t find anything consistent with what your saying. 
 

 

We have the ruling by the judge who saw all of the sworn testimony. It feels like there is a neverending series of hoops to be jumped through. If someone doesn’t want to believe an assault happened there will never be enough proof to convince. 

 

I don’t agree. I do believe there are a lot of people who feel that Allen’s behavior with Soon Yi and other young women to proves he is a predator whether or not he molested Dylan. That is completely separate from people feeling uncomfortable with a father teaching his daughter to suck his thumb and feeling like there is an escalation of behavior. All of that does get does get rolled together in discussions but I don’t think people are ignoring that it is two separate accusations.

I also feel that people who argue in favor of Allen generally hyperfocus on Mia and Soon Yi to the exclusion of other evidence. Soon Yi is just the most prominent example of his predatory behavior and therefore is the one most mentioned. It is also the easiest to defend since she was over 18 and says it wasn’t abuse. I rarely see is defends address the other girls who clearly were under 18 when he was in a relationship with him or he perused a relationship with him. 

This is an article by Andy Thibault, who collaborated on the documentary and is and has always been as anti Allen as they get. Scroll down for dylan's police testimony: http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2018/01/dylan-farrow-profile-in-courage-i-want.html?m=1 (in this article the author, upset at Allen's failure to be charged, even postulates as late as 2014 that Allen could still perhaps be charged for kidnapping)

The author had originally reported the same police testimony in 1997 in an article for a local Connecticut magazine: https://www.connecticutmag.com/the-connecticut-story/mia-farrow-s-vanity-fair-interview-references-connecticut-magazine-article/article_4327cac7-ffef-5eb5-9c19-fdaf70e84855.html

I believe Mia Farrow's  own memoir has the same description of a more severe abuse of Dylan on Allen's part.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I believe Mia Farrow's  own memoir has the same description of a more severe abuse of Dylan on Allen's part.

Sorry to be dense, but more severe abuse than what? What is she saying now that's different from what it says there?

Edited April 7, 2021 by sistermagpie

[DarkMark]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Sorry to be dense, but more severe abuse than what? What is she saying now that's different from what it says there?

  'For three consecutive weeks, she said Woody Allen violated her sexually. Among her statements to investigators: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” '

There is no exact timeline of that day. Since it was not a trial to determine if a crime was committed, there was not that attention to detail. Allen said he was mostly in the tv room, may have gone to the bathroom a few minutes or to the kitchen. It is not even clear when the head in the lap incident happened. In a criminal case there would have been sworn testimony as to where everyone was, at what time, what and if the 3 nannies said to each other that day, if there really was a concerted effort to look for allen and Dylan as Mia claims in that phone call  "people scoured the house".

Not much point going into all the inconsistencies here, since my impression is that for many here the abuse isn't even necessary to condemn Allen. However he seems still today to not be bothered by censure on his behaviour to Mia and her kids, but very much so for the accusation of abuse.

As to statutes of limitations I will quote again the article above: 

Former Connecticut prosecutor:
Kidnapping charges still possible for Woody Allen

Feb. 3, 2014

NEW HAVEN – A former Connecticut prosecutor says the act of taking a minor to a secluded area for a sexual assault constitutes Class A felony kidnapping – a charge famed actor-director Woody Allen could still potentially face.

“The act of taking the minor victim to the attic for the purpose of committing a sexual assault would be a kidnapping in the first degree for which there is no statute of limitations,” attorney Proloy K. Das, a former state appellate prosecutor now with the Hartford firm Rome McGuigan, told the New Haven Register Monday.

Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shepack, who succeeded Frank Maco, declined to comment. However, Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken.” Dupuis declined to respond to questions regarding the viability of potential kidnapping charges.
 

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, DarkMark said:

  'For three consecutive weeks, she said Woody Allen violated her sexually. Among her statements to investigators: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” '

 

So you were referring to the finger in the vagina part? I don't get the impression she's claiming differently now.

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

So you were referring to the finger in the vagina part? I don't get the impression she's claiming differently 

I am quite sure she is.

Sorry, but I am unwilling to spell out for you the one specific difference, I already put it in bold.

[sistermagpie]

17 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I am quite sure she is.

Sorry, but I am unwilling to spell out for you the one specific difference, I already put it in bold.

Okay, so I looked it up. So you mean that at 7 she said he put his finger "in my vagina" and 32 she says she would describe it by saying he "touched my labia and my vulva with his finger." So may not have been intentionally saying he did "more" to her, but just not putting the same weight on the distinction at 7.

[WinnieWinkle]

On 4/6/2021 at 5:02 PM, Dani said:

We have the ruling by the judge who saw all of the sworn testimony. It feels like there is a neverending series of hoops to be jumped through. If someone doesn’t want to believe an assault happened there will never be enough proof to convince. 

 

I've long since given up discussing this with Allen supporters.  It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

ETA:  I just read an article talking about this documentary where the writer says she believes Dylan Farrow but also says she and her family "need to move on".  Does she really believe they've spent the last 30 years only discussing this aspect of their lives to the exclusion of all else?   How breathtakingly dismissive this attitude is - and yet another reason victims so rarely speak out.  Even when they are believed they are told the one correct way to behave, as if there is only one way to handle things.

Edited April 7, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[Lady Whistleup]

Welp. I found out a longtime friend (like over 10 years) defriended me because I posted something negative about Woody Allen. He defended him with the fierceness of 1000 suns on my page and when I pushed back (politely, I thought) I was defriended and blocked. 

Oh well 😞 

[DiabLOL]

10 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Welp. I found out a longtime friend (like over 10 years) defriended me because I posted something negative about Woody Allen. He defended him with the fierceness of 1000 suns on my page and when I pushed back (politely, I thought) I was defriended and blocked. 

Oh well 😞 

I’m sorry. This has been extremely divisive and volatile in my social circles as well.

[DarkMark]

17 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I've long since given up discussing this with Allen supporters.  It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

ETA:  I just read an article talking about this documentary where the writer says she believes Dylan Farrow but also says she and her family "need to move on".  Does she really believe they've spent the last 30 years only discussing this aspect of their lives to the exclusion of all else?   How breathtakingly dismissive this attitude is - and yet another reason victims so rarely speak out.  Even when they are believed they are told the one correct way to behave, as if there is only one way to handle things.

Rationally, the episode to me does not sound logistically and timeframe-wise very plausible.

Nonetheless a little jello always sticks to the wall.

Edited April 8, 2021 by DarkMark
Misspelt jello

[Writing Wrongs]

I started watching this because I thought it would be interesting. I finished it feeling angry and disgusted. 

I hate phoniness. I can't believe Allen's Hollywood enablers and sycophants praising him and giving standing ovations, then having now hopped on the #MeToo train to (probably) save their own careers by distancing themselves from him. If I had been Dylan, I would have told them to fuck off. Where have they been all this time?

I'm glad they brought up the Art vs. Artist thing because that is something I was thinking about. Was I a big Woody Allen fan? No, I could take his movies or leave them. I do enjoy some, with Midnight in Paris being a favorite. Will I be able to watch it again or watch it with the same joy I had before? Probably not and there's the thing with revelations like these that come out about actors and directors and such. Sigh.

 

[ifionlyknew]

2 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I'm glad they brought up the Art vs. Artist thing because that is something I was thinking about. Was I a big Woody Allen fan? No, I could take his movies or leave them. I do enjoy some, with Midnight in Paris being a favorite. Will I be able to watch it again or watch it with the same joy I had before? Probably not and there's the thing with revelations like these that come out about actors and directors and such. Sigh.

I was never a Woody Allen fan but after the story broke about him and Soon Yi and later the Dylan allegations I actively disliked him.   When someone I am a fan of is accused of something horrific it is so much more disappointing.  Over the past 15 or so years there are so many people I can no longer enjoy watching their movies/tv shows or listening to their music.   I know in the grand scheme of things my boycotting them matters little but it makes me feel better.  

[kathe5133]

I followed this saga sporadically at the time.  There was no internet back in the day, but I would hear new stories and read the newspapers.  I didn't know what to believe at that time about Dylan.  After watching this doc, I believe her.  I just do.  But, regarding that whack job Allen.  He had an affair with a woman for over ten years but felt no compulsion to marry her or even live with her.  "To each it's own".  No.  If you have a mature love affair with someone, you marry them, or live with them. You find a way to blend your lives.  Strike one (on both of them.  She put up with his shit).  But then, you begin an affair with your "lover's" daughter.  Was she 17 when it started or 21?  Who cares.  He had an affair with his lover's daughter!  They say he makes "brilliant" films.  I wouldn't say that, but "they" do.  I don't care how long he's been married to the child of his lover who he was boffing.  I don't care how many "little girls" he's adopted with her.  He's a weirdo.  He's amoral.  And shame on anyone who allowed him to bring more little girls into his home.  I have a feeling to avoid publicity, he simply decided to "grow his own" little love interests.  Since I never watched his films, I can't say I'll stop.  But I'm glad some are abstaining and he's feeling the difficulty.  He deserves that! In my youth I aspired to have an acting career.  The weirdos that I found my self surrounded with forced me to rethink that career.  I am so over the excuse "he's a brilliant artist" used to describe folks who flaunt all conventions.  They are not brilliant.  They are sick.  Ok, rant over.......

[Whimsy]

On 4/7/2021 at 3:06 AM, DarkMark said:

  'For three consecutive weeks, she said Woody Allen violated her sexually. Among her statements to investigators: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” '

There is no exact timeline of that day. Since it was not a trial to determine if a crime was committed, there was not that attention to detail. Allen said he was mostly in the tv room, may have gone to the bathroom a few minutes or to the kitchen. It is not even clear when the head in the lap incident happened. In a criminal case there would have been sworn testimony as to where everyone was, at what time, what and if the 3 nannies said to each other that day, if there really was a concerted effort to look for allen and Dylan as Mia claims in that phone call  "people scoured the house".

Not much point going into all the inconsistencies here, since my impression is that for many here the abuse isn't even necessary to condemn Allen. However he seems still today to not be bothered by censure on his behaviour to Mia and her kids, but very much so for the accusation of abuse.

As to statutes of limitations I will quote again the article above: 

Former Connecticut prosecutor:
Kidnapping charges still possible for Woody Allen

Feb. 3, 2014

NEW HAVEN – A former Connecticut prosecutor says the act of taking a minor to a secluded area for a sexual assault constitutes Class A felony kidnapping – a charge famed actor-director Woody Allen could still potentially face.

“The act of taking the minor victim to the attic for the purpose of committing a sexual assault would be a kidnapping in the first degree for which there is no statute of limitations,” attorney Proloy K. Das, a former state appellate prosecutor now with the Hartford firm Rome McGuigan, told the New Haven Register Monday.

Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shepack, who succeeded Frank Maco, declined to comment. However, Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken.” Dupuis declined to respond to questions regarding the viability of potential kidnapping charges.
 

 

23 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

So you were referring to the finger in the vagina part? I don't get the impression she's claiming differently now.

So, you're saying that because a 7-year old just used the term "vagina" vs the adult woman who knows the correct terminology and further detailed what happened is proof she's lying? 

I believe Dylan 100%.  There is not one iota of me that thinks she is lying.  Woody pushed boundaries with her from practically the beginning.  Strangers saw the hyper-fixation and  commented on it.  He was seen by a therapist (a terrible one, IMO, but still).  A lot of these concerning behaviors would've occurred before the whole Soon Yi thing came out, I believe, so I don't understand why the argument keeps being made that it was a lie that Mia coached Dylan to say. 

Obviously, there is no convincing Woody Allen supporters.  It just makes me so sad that victims are treated as liars. Still, in this day and age.  This is why there are so many offenders and this is why so many cases are still unreported.  The statistics of reported cases of abuse are staggering.  Even though it is 100% not the fault of the victim, there is a level of guilt that comes with abuse and victims should feel safe to come forward instead of being called liars and/or having to go through so much more trauma to get their abusers convicted. 

 

[sistermagpie]

8 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Rationally, the episode to me does not sound logistically and timeframe-wise very plausible.

 

We'll never know, of course, but I don't understand why it's somehow logistically or time-wise implausible. There's multiple people saying that they lost track of both Woody and Dylan for about 20 minutes and were actively looking for them. They didn't look in the attic. They seem to have told Mia this when she got home that day. The next day (I think?) Dylan said Woody took her to the attic and did something that didn't take all that long. Why would it be impossible logically? Of course there's plenty of reasons one would ask why the hell he would do any of this, but the opportunity seems to be there.

4 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I was never a Woody Allen fan but after the story broke about him and Soon Yi and later the Dylan allegations I actively disliked him.   When someone I am a fan of is accused of something horrific it is so much more disappointing.  Over the past 15 or so years there are so many people I can no longer enjoy watching their movies/tv shows or listening to their music.   I know in the grand scheme of things my boycotting them matters little but it makes me feel better.  

For me, I totally followed the Soon-Yi story and was more fuzzy on Dylan's story. The thing that really made an impression on me at the time and still does was the interviews Woody gave about it. He just seemed so stunningly unfeeling about it--like sociopathic in the way he seemed so mildly annoyed at being expected to care about any of these people. That's what seems to come out again and again. Which is interesting since his movies often deal with morality. I always think of his character in Manhattan saying that when he "thins out" (gestures to skeleton) he wants to have been a moral pesron!

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by sistermagpie

[ifionlyknew]

4 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

He just seemed so stunningly unfeeling about it--like sociopathic in the way he seemed so mildly annoyed at being expected to care about any of these people.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

One could argue Woody is a just bad at being interviewed but we heard the phone call he had with Mia after she found out about Soon Yi.  This is a man who is used to getting what he wants and doesn't care if you don't like it or not.  

[WinnieWinkle]

1 minute ago, ifionlyknew said:

This is a man who is used to getting what he wants and doesn't care if you don't like it or not.  

I think this is what most Allen supporters don't want to know - that he is playing a character - on screen and off.  This mild mannered nebbish that they seem to identify with very strongly.  But that's not the real Woody Allen anymore than most actors are truly the characters they portray on screen.  If you can't get past this I guess it's not surprising that you can never see the cold and controlling person the rest of us see,

[DarkMark]

I thought I'd let it go, but I've decided I needed to substantiate my references to the importance of sworn testimony compared to statements in media.

I have taken these from this article: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/the-rise-and-fail-of-ronan-farrow/; it is a very PRO Allen piece ;  I include it because it would not be correct not to reference the source, not because I encourage you to read it.

I would like you to consider what you have come to understand about Allen's behaviour, and then compare it to what is said when you have to give sworn testimony; perhaps this may clarify why some of us are still not so convinced that it isn't primarily Allen who is/was "spinning" the documents. The author may well have cherry picked the portions that corroborate his viewpoint, but, in my opinion, the documentary would likely have done the same if it had any to strengthen theirs.

 

About him being in treatment for grossly inappropriate behaviour towards Dylan:

Excerpt from courtroom testimony of child therapist, Dr. Susan Coates. (Allen vs Farrow, March 30, 1993.)

 

About being in bed in his underwear with Dylan:Excerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.)

About forcing Dylan to suck her thumbExcerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.)

About trying to say Soon Yi may have been underage when she started "seeing" AllenExcerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow, viewing her own sworn affidavit that Soon-Yi Previn’s birth year was 1970, making her 21 when she became involved with Woody Allen. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.)

 

[Lady Whistleup]

That testimony is from a disgustingly pro-Allen anti-Mia website. I don't trust anything from that site.

[sistermagpie]

5 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I would like you to consider what you have come to understand about Allen's behaviour, and then compare it to what is said when you have to give sworn testimony; perhaps this may clarify why some of us are still not so convinced that it isn't primarily Allen who is/was "spinning" the documents. The author may well have cherry picked the portions that corroborate his viewpoint, but, in my opinion, the documentary would likely have done the same if it had any to strengthen theirs.

 

I don't see how any of these things are so different from things people were saying in the doc. The one thing that iirc contradicted something was that I think I had the impression that when Allen was in bed with Dylan he wasn't fully clothed-which is certainly a lot better, but I don't remember if there were other people who said anything about that. 

But the rest is in there just as it says. They established that Allen's therapist when he was seeing him about Dylan said that the behavior was not sexual. The testimony there has her grabbing his thumb herself and him putting his thumb in her mouth himself, which doesn't contradict anything anybody said. The main issue with his behavior towards Dylan in the doc and here wasn't that he was inappropriately sexual but that he was inappropriately intense and possessive.

Finally, the point about the sex with Soon-Yi starting earlier was not just about putting her on the wrong side of the legal border. It was that he for obvious reasons may have lied about starting the sex when she was in college because college is connected with a more independent, adult time of life, while it seems she was actually coming over for sex when she was in high school, even if she was a 21-year-old high school student. 

The only time Allen seems to have even referred to documents in order to spin them was when he held a press conference declaring himself exonerated when he wasn't. Usually he doesn't seem to get into the testimony much, he just says it's sad that Mia brainwashed his daughter etc. Or recently, I think, he claimed that Dylan only recently made up the train in the attic, which the records contradict.

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, Lady Whistleup said:

That testimony is from a disgustingly pro-Allen anti-Mia website. I don't trust anything from that site.

It's certainly possible that these transcripts are fake. I doubt it, though.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I would like you to consider what you have come to understand about Allen's behaviour, and then compare it to what is said when you have to give sworn testimony; perhaps this may clarify why some of us are still not so convinced that it isn't primarily Allen who is/was "spinning" the documents. The author may well have cherry picked the portions that corroborate his viewpoint, but, in my opinion, the documentary would likely have done the same if it had any to strengthen theirs.

 

About him being in treatment for grossly inappropriate behaviour towards Dylan:

If those are the sections picked to bolster Allen’s defense none of them are effective to me. It doesn’t matter what the therapist was treating Allen for. Even the judge said Allen’s inappropriate behavior wasn’t sexual. This is a really weird legal line and something that our understanding of has significantly changed in the last 20 years. We narrow down “sexual” to two distinct portions of female human body when everyone knows other parts can be sexual. There are lots of things that can be abusive without crossing over into illegal territory but that doesn’t make them any less abusive. 

The thumb sucking doesn’t say who started it. At least one time Mia said Allen stuck is thumb in Dylan’s mouth. That’s not normal. It interesting people feel Dylan can be conditioned to lie by Mia but don’t seem to realize she also can be conditioned by Woody. 

Soon Yi age doesn’t matter to me at all. There are others who were under 18 when he was involved with them that establishes a pattern of grooming. Many red flags are there with Soon Yi but it just the last in a long line of evidence. 

9 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

It's certainly possible that these transcripts are fake. I doubt it, though.

It’s more the need for context I have a problem with. You can easily pick small sections from the testimony to support either side but that doesn’t mean you get the whole picture. 

 

On 4/7/2021 at 12:06 AM, DarkMark said:

As to statutes of limitations I will quote again the article above: 

Former Connecticut prosecutor:
Kidnapping charges still possible for Woody Allen

Clearly there are many different legal opinions about if charges could be filed. I can’t look at one legal opinion and say they could and ignore the others that say they couldn’t.

Most importantly all of that depends on prosecutors and not Dylan. She told what happened and cooperated. The rest is out of her hands. It is not the victims fault if prosecutors choose not to pursue charges. 

[peachmangosteen]

Even if they're real documents, they don't contain any revelations in the least that make me go 'yea, it sounds like Dylan has been lying for over 20 years and that Mia is a world-class brainwasher.'

At this point, if you don't believe Dylan, you never will. And in my case, I believe Dylan, and the only way I'd stop is if she herself comes out and says, yea I was lying. Because there is no way to actually 'prove' these things, especially now.

[DarkMark]

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't see how any of these things are so different from things people were saying in the doc. The one thing that iirc contradicted something was that I think I had the impression that when Allen was in bed with Dylan he wasn't fully clothed-which is certainly a lot better, but I don't remember if there were other people who said anything about that. 

But the rest is in there just as it says. They established that Allen's therapist when he was seeing him about Dylan said that the behavior was not sexual. The testimony there has her grabbing his thumb herself and him putting his thumb in her mouth himself, which doesn't contradict anything anybody said. The main issue with his behavior towards Dylan in the doc and here wasn't that he was inappropriately sexual but that he was inappropriately intense and possessive.

Finally, the point about the sex with Soon-Yi starting earlier was not just about putting her on the wrong side of the legal border. It was that he for obvious reasons may have lied about starting the sex when she was in college because college is connected with a more independent, adult time of life, while it seems she was actually coming over for sex when she was in high school, even if she was a 21-year-old high school student. 

The only time Allen seems to have even referred to documents in order to spin them was when he held a press conference declaring himself exonerated when he wasn't. Usually he doesn't seem to get into the testimony much, he just says it's sad that Mia brainwashed his daughter etc. Or recently, I think, he claimed that Dylan only recently made up the train in the attic, which the records contradict.

"I didn’t like when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear.”

Farrow said she was 4 at the time. Perhaps it happened other times, who knows, but I find it a little difficult to believe she remebers this herself from when she was 4.

The only difference is he was full clothed. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly is wrong about a parent fully clothed playing with his kid on the bed. There was never any mention of inappropriate behaviour in the bed: in this quoted example the inappropriareness clearly was the state of undress.

If i can find it, there is another transcript from the trial where under questioning Mia Farrow also backpedals  from claiming she had said Allen's behaviour was somehow sexual.

And I'm sorry but Mia Farrow repeatedly said Allen had molested Soon Yi and there was a concerted effort to prove they had begun sexual relations before the time to imply she was a minor.

[DarkMark]

Ronan Farrow: "This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father’s strange behaviour around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behaviour that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations,’ his letter states."

Now for starters Ronan was 4 when Dylan LAST saw Allen. And do you actually believe he rembers something that happened when he was 4 if not younger?

[DarkMark]

11 minutes ago, Dani said:

If those are the sections picked to bolster Allen’s defense none of them are effective to me. It doesn’t matter what the therapist was treating Allen for. Even the judge said Allen’s inappropriate behavior wasn’t sexual. This is a really weird legal line and something that our understanding of has significantly changed in the last 20 years. We narrow down “sexual” to two distinct portions of female human body when everyone knows other parts can be sexual. There are lots of things that can be abusive without crossing over into illegal territory but that doesn’t make them any less abusive. 

The thumb sucking doesn’t say who started it. At least one time Mia said Allen stuck is thumb in Dylan’s mouth. That’s not normal. It interesting people feel Dylan can be conditioned to lie by Mia but don’t seem to realize she also can be conditioned by Woody. 

Soon Yi age doesn’t matter to me at all. There are others who were under 18 when he was involved with them that establishes a pattern of grooming. Many red flags are there with Soon Yi but it just the last in a long line of evidence. 

It’s more the need for context I have a problem with. You can easily pick small sections from the testimony to support either side but that doesn’t mean you get the whole picture. 

 

Clearly there are many different legal opinions about if charges could be filed. I can’t look at one legal opinion and say they could and ignore the others that say they couldn’t.

Most importantly all of that depends on prosecutors and not Dylan. She told what happened and cooperated. The rest is out of her hands. It is not the victims fault if prosecutors choose not to pursue charges. 

As someone pointed out to me here, a person doesn't bring charges, the prosecutor does, on the basis of a complaint. Allen was never charged or tried, and Maco once said he believed the statute of limitations had expired, implying that before then it would have been possible to charge him had there been a complaint.

So, yes, it could have been and could perhaps still be in Dylan's hands.

[WinnieWinkle]

38 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Even if they're real documents, they don't contain any revelations in the least that make me go 'yea, it sounds like Dylan has been lying for over 20 years and that Mia is a world-class brainwasher.'

Honestly if you believe the Mia haters she really missed her calling and should have been in the CIA.  Hmm, maybe that's the next thing she'll be accused of - being a member of some super secret spy organization dedicated to cruelly ruining the lives of succesful rich white men.  I see a movie of the week in the offing!

[vibeology]

42 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

The only difference is he was full clothed. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly is wrong about a parent fully clothed playing with his kid on the bed. There was never any mention of inappropriate behaviour in the bed: in this quoted example the inappropriareness clearly was the state of undress.

There's a difference in what a third party saw and what Dylan saw. Just because a third party only ever say Woody in bed while dressed doesn't mean that Dylan doesn't have a different experience. The time it was witnessed he was dressed and possibly another time where there were no witnesses, he wasn't. And that alone wouldn't even be strange. As a kid, I crawled into bed with my parents who weren't always fully dressed.

And yes, I remember things very clearly from when I was four. A four year old is a school aged child where I live. Not every single moment of my life at four, even three clear memories that I trust to be accurate. Absolutely. Even at two, I remember a few things. I wouldn't testify to those memories because they're vague but they are in there.

I don't want to speak for you but I get the sense that you were looking for definitive legal proof out of this documentary. That's just never going to happen with a crime like this.

I was looking for space for Dylan to tell her story, apart from the Woody and Mia of it all, which I got. And when I hear and see her, I believe her. I can't prove it legally, but I'm using my judgment to form an opinion.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

As someone pointed out to me here, a person doesn't bring charges, the prosecutor does, on the basis of a complaint. Allen was never charged or tried, and Maco once said he believed the statute of limitations had expired, implying that before then it would have been possible to charge him had there been a complaint.

So, yes, it could have been and could perhaps still be in Dylan's hands.

That was me and that’s not how it works. The complaint was made years ago. Maco could have chosen to charge him at any point. If a prosecutor felt it was still within the statute of limitations now they could reopen the case.  Dylan wouldn’t have had to do anything. It’s not Dylan’s responsibility to keep filing complaints in the hopes someone will decide to charge him. 

 

41 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

"I didn’t like when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear.”

Farrow said she was 4 at the time. Perhaps it happened other times, who knows, but I find it a little difficult to believe she remebers this herself from when she was 4.

The only difference is he was full clothed. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly is wrong about a parent fully clothed playing with his kid on the bed. There was never any mention of inappropriate behaviour in the bed: in this quoted example the inappropriareness clearly was the state of undress.

If i can find it, there is another transcript from the trial where under questioning Mia Farrow also backpedals  from claiming she had said Allen's behaviour was somehow sexual.

And I'm sorry but Mia Farrow repeatedly said Allen had molested Soon Yi and there was a concerted effort to prove they had begun sexual relations before the time to imply she was a minor.

There is no smoking gun in this case. It is all open to interpretation. Each side minimizes some aspects and focuses on others based on what they believe happened. That doesn’t mean either side is uniformed or even ignoring evidence. What some important others find irrelevant. 

Most people remember things from when they were 4. There are studies that find the average first memory is from 3-3.5. Trauma frequently enhances those memories. You can’t dismiss everything just because the person was young. Based on what I’ve read Ronan is a genius which usually means a much better memory than average. He started college at 11 so remember what happened when he was almost 5 isn’t a stretch.