Allen v. Farrow

[ifionlyknew]

11 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

The main thing I remember is an interview that Allen gave where he made it clear that he was basically mildly annoyed at best at the idea he was expected to consider anyone else's feelings or respect anyone else when he wanted something.

Selfish and self centered doesn't even begin to describe him.  Most people when caught doing something absolutely reprehensible (and I think having sex with your girlfriend's daughter no matter her age qualifies) would at the very least show some contrition.  But nope not Woody. Mia was and is a to put it politely a little odd but she didn't deserve to have her boyfriend have an affair with her daughter.  

5 hours ago, MsTree said:

...and Michael Jackson continued his lucrative music career after being accused of molesting pre-teen boys....

And R Kelly. Look how long it took to bring him down.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

21 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

This is what has always bothered me about Woody Allen.  Even if he  wasn't guilty of molesting Dylan (which I think he is guilty as hell) he still had a thing for teenage girls.  One of whom was his girlfriend's daughter.   I had only seen one Allen film at that point but after that I made it a point to never see another one.   A list stars still continued to work with him.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Roman Polanski won an Oscar after he was accused of rape.

What I don't get about the Woody apologists is the Soon-Yi aspect. Let's just disregard everything else (Dylan's accusations, the other 17 year old girls who he slept with, the repeated theme in his movies of older men sleeping with girls half their age or younger, whether or not he was a parental figure to Soon-Yi at any point) and look at what he has admitted to: he cheated on his girlfriend with her daughter, who is 35 years younger than he is. That's considered totally acceptable? If his version of the story is true (they didn't sleep together until she was in college), sure, technically it's not illegal but it's still a pretty fucked up thing to do, yet so many people seem totally fine with it. How would you feel if that was your mother or sister he cheated on/slept with? You would still be okay with that kind of violation of trust and disrespect of boundaries? Sadly, for many people, the answer is yes because "his movies changed my life!"

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

What I don't get about the Woody apologists is the Soon-Yi aspect. Let's just disregard everything else (Dylan's accusations, the other 17 year old girls who he slept with, the repeated theme in his movies of older men sleeping with girls half their age or younger, whether or not he was a parental figure to Soon-Yi at any point) and look at what he has admitted to: he cheated on his girlfriend with her daughter, who is 35 years younger than he is. That's considered totally acceptable? If his version of the story is true (they didn't sleep together until she was in college), sure, technically it's not illegal but it's still a pretty fucked up thing to do, yet so many people seem totally fine with it. How would you feel if that was your mother or sister he cheated on/slept with? You would still be okay with that kind of violation of trust and disrespect of boundaries? Sadly, for many people, the answer is yes because "his movies changed my life!"

I think if all this was solely about Allen sleeping with the adult daughter of his girlfriend, then it's a crass and nasty thing to do, but it's really not the business of anyone outside of the people it directly effects.     

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think if all this was solely about Allen sleeping with the adult daughter of his girlfriend, then it's a crass and nasty thing to do, but it's really not the business of anyone outside of the people it directly effects.     

Truth be told, I don't consider most of it my business anyway! I mean, alleged abuse makes it something the victims deserve justice for, of course. And Dylan is the only alleged victim asking for any. Soon-Yi says she's just happily married to a guy who happens to be older than she is, so that's not an issue.

But despite it not being my business, it's always been a story that fascinated me, and it's mostly because I'm just amazed at how entitled and selfish Allen is about the stuff that he's publicly admitted to and spoken about. Like literally claiming that Mia would react no differently to him sleeping with his secretary than with her daughter. Her daughter young enough that Allen, too, describes as being someone becoming an adult and molded and guided by him, the wiser older man. 

I'm glad to listen to Dylan tell her story--I have a lot of sympathy for her, since if she's telling the truth, not only does she have people calling her a liar but other people claiming to be "on her side" by saying she doesn't know what she experienced because her mother brainwashed her. Especially since I knew from before there was already a lot of evidence of him being so weirdly possessive of her before the Soon-Yi thing. I don't know that he's a classic pedophile since, as has been noted, he doesn't seem to have a string of child victims. But he's just something different.

But also, the family dynamics are so interesting too, I admit. Particularly with Moses now being so publicly on Allen's side. I hadn't known he was so hostile to his siblings--I do remember reading one thing where it claimed he'd proved that Dylan's story was false, but it seemed to be just him, a man in his 40s, claiming that he somehow had perfect recall of a day when he was 14 and nothing out of the ordinary happened so his sister had to be lying about it. Which is just not how human memory works.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

I think if all this was solely about Allen sleeping with the adult daughter of his girlfriend, then it's a crass and nasty thing to do, but it's really not the business of anyone outside of the people it directly effects.     

It might not be our business but celebrities have been cancelled for a lot less than this. I just don't understand why he got a pass for so long.  It's just fairly recently that other celebrities are saying they won't work with him.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

it's mostly because I'm just amazed at how entitled and selfish Allen is about the stuff that he's publicly admitted to and spoken about.

He really does seem like such an asshole.  Even before all this I simply did not see his appeal.  Not even talking about his looks (although if he wasn't a famous movie director I doubt he would have gotten any female attention) but his personality just seems so grating.  

 

[txhorns79]

2 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

It might not be our business but celebrities have been cancelled for a lot less than this. I just don't understand why he got a pass for so long.  It's just fairly recently that other celebrities are saying they won't work with him.

I don't think he did get a pass.  These accusations were investigated by law enforcement and considered during the custody hearing he lost back in '93.  They were a media sensation at the time.   

[Growsonwalls]

9 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't think he did get a pass.  These accusations were investigated by law enforcement and considered during the custody hearing he lost back in '93.  They were a media sensation at the time.   

He lost custody. Big deal. He's a sexual predator and no better than Larry Nassar, and he should have been in jail and never allowed to work again. It's disgusting that the criminal justice system protects sexual predators so much.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[txhorns79]

7 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

He lost custody. Big deal.

I think one thing all parties would agree on was the scandal back in 1993 was a very big deal.  You can look up the media coverage and scrutiny given to all of them.  Obviously, along with the custody battle, Allen underwent a criminal investigation.  I understand not everyone is satisfied with the conclusion, but it was a huge spectacle. 

[Growsonwalls]

6 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think one thing all parties would agree on was the scandal back in 1993 was a very big deal.  You can look up the media coverage and scrutiny given to all of them.  Obviously, along with the custody battle, Allen underwent a criminal investigation.  I understand not everyone is satisfied with the conclusion, but it was a huge spectacle. 

It wasn't big enough of a deal. He got away with this narrative that he just "fell in love" and he got to marry and adopt kids. Dylan's story was ignored for the tabloid sensation that was Woody and SoonYi. We never even heard about all the stuff with Dylan until 20 years later. The only rightful conclusion was him going to jail.

[txhorns79]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

It wasn't big enough of a deal. He got away with this narrative that he just "fell in love" and he got to marry and adopt kids. Dylan's story was ignored for the tabloid sensation that was Woody and SoonYi. We never even heard about all the stuff with Dylan until 20 years later.

Dylan's story was not ignored.  You can look up the coverage from the time period.  Dozens of stories were written about the allegations concerning Dylan, and the custody trial, where those allegations played out, was written about on a near daily basis by the big New York dailies, i.e. the Times, Post and News.       

[Growsonwalls]

10 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

Dylan's story was not ignored.  You can look up the coverage from the time period.  Dozens of stories were written about the allegations concerning Dylan, and the custody trial, where those allegations played out, was written about on a near daily basis by the big New York dailies, i.e. the Times, Post and News.       

I found an article in the NYTimes from the trial.

What a disgusting hatchet job that smeared Dylan's testimony as "inconsistent." Like a traumatized 7 year old is supposed to have every detail the same every time. That was how sexual abuse was covered back in the day -- as something that "precocious" or "coached" little girls made up.

Here's one stomach-churning excerpt:

Quote

Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality." At one point, he said she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories."

Dr. Leventhal said: "We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination."

The doctor acknowledged that "We don't have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this." 

Dylan's story was not heard at the time. People were determined to listen to Woody's side of the story.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[txhorns79]

48 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

What a disgusting hatchet job that smeared Dylan's testimony as "inconsistent." Like a traumatized 7 year old is supposed to have every detail the same every time. That was how sexual abuse was covered back in the day -- as something that "precocious" or "coached" little girls made up.

The story is about the testimony of a doctor who examined Dylan.  This is normal news coverage discussing his testimony.  There are also stories in the same paper about witnesses who testified in support of the allegations being made against Allen.  Even today, the news coverage of this kind of situation is going to present all sides.         

[Growsonwalls]

13 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

The story is about the testimony of a doctor who examined Dylan.  This is normal news coverage discussing his testimony.  There are also stories in the same paper about witnesses who testified in support of the allegations being made against Allen.  Even today, the news coverage of this kind of situation is going to present all sides.         

The testimony by the doctor is reflective of what a stacked deck victims of sexual molestation were up against back then. Doctors repeatedly believed that victims could be "coached" or "precocious" when time and again research has shown that false accusations of sexual abuse are extraordinarily rare and when they are false fall apart quickly. It gets me so angry I can barely breathe. People are garbage. 

[txhorns79]

4 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Doctors repeatedly believed that victims could be "coached" or "precocious" when time and again research has shown that false accusations of sexual abuse are extraordinarily rare and when they are false fall apart quickly.

What specific studies are you citing?

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

What specific studies are you citing?

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

Quote

Over the past 20 years, only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford's lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake, argue the authors of a 2010 US study.

Here is the actual study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21164210/

Quote

One of the most controversial disputes affecting the discourse related to violence against women is the dispute about the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault. In an effort to add clarity to the discourse, published research on false allegations is critiqued, and the results of a new study described. All cases (N = 136) of sexual assault reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%

 

[Growsonwalls]

9 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

This appears to be a study that reviewed sexual assault allegations made by adult women to a northeastern college over a ten year period.  Does this study actually discuss the veracity of sexual assault allegations made by young children against their parents?

There's this one:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477224?journalCode=wcsa20

and this one:

https://www.nationalcac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/False-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-by-children-and-adolescents.pdf

Quote

In one of the earliest of such investigations, Peters (1979) described a sample of 64 children who were originally examined in a hospital emergency room after allegations of sexual abuse or assault. After comprehensive psychiatric and medical evaluations, four ofthe allegations, or 6% ofthe total number of cases, were judged to be false.

 

[txhorns79]

Both studies appears to advocate for something of a middle ground when approaching claims of child abuse, i.e. that you approach the claims with an open mind, neither presuming the person making the allegation is credible by virtue of being a child, nor offering greater skepticism than you normally would because the person making an allegation is a child.  

It's certainly interesting reading when considering the Allen v. Farrow claims.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

9 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I found an article in the NYTimes from the trial.

What a disgusting hatchet job that smeared Dylan's testimony as "inconsistent." Like a traumatized 7 year old is supposed to have every detail the same every time. That was how sexual abuse was covered back in the day -- as something that "precocious" or "coached" little girls made up.

Here's one stomach-churning excerpt:

Quote

Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality." At one point, he said she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories."

Dr. Leventhal said: "We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination."

The doctor acknowledged that "We don't have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this." 

Dylan's story was not heard at the time. People were determined to listen to Woody's side of the story.

This article (which discusses the docuseries) had some info about Dylan being interviewed by the Yale–New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic. Apparently this is going to be covered on the show at some point so I'm putting it under a spoiler cut just in case anyone doesn't want to know before this info is shown in an episode:

Spoiler

The psychologists appointed to analyze Dylan delivered a suspicious report

In order to determine whether or not Dylan was fit to testify in court, Connecticut prosecutor Frank Maco commissioned the Yale–New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate her. Under the leadership of clinic director Dr. John Levanthal, social workers Dr. Julia Hamilton and Jennifer Sawyer interviewed Dylan nine times about her experience with Allen in the attic — a number the documentary’s three independent experts in child psychology consider ludicrously high. Upon reviewing the report, all of them, along with Maco, found her description of events to be consistent and credible. Unfortunately, the clinic destroyed the social workers’ notes on the interviews instead of turning them over to investigators — a practice that the documentary’s experts uniformly described as tantamount to destroying evidence.

Maco says the clinic called him to let him know that they found Dylan “unreliable, untrustworthy, and/or, that Mia Farrow was a fabricator of this incident” shortly after it delivered the news directly to Allen — the suspect in the case — and Mia. The clinic also allowed Allen to announce in a press conference on the clinic steps that he had been “cleared.” But clearing a suspect of charges is not a power the Yale–New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic holds; that power rests with the prosecutor’s office.

Other info from the article that hasn't been discussed on the show yet:

Spoiler

Allen’s sexual relationship with Soon-Yi may have started when she was still in high school

The official story on Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi, one of Mia’s adopted children, holds that their sexual relationship didn’t begin until she was 21 years old and in college. Allen v. Farrow proposes a different timeline: Mia says she found out about Soon-Yi and Allen in 1992, when she discovered a stack of sexually explicit Polaroids in his apartment. In an interview, Mia says she subsequently spoke with doormen in Woody’s building and his maid, who told her Soon-Yi had “been coming there for a long time,” previously arriving in her high school uniform.

“The maid would change the bed after she left,” Mia says. “The maid told me about the condoms in the wastebasket and the sheets that needed changing, all of that.” His doorman, building manager, and housekeeper reportedly confirmed all of this in court testimony.

For her part, Soon-Yi told Newsweek in 1992 that she wasn’t some “[r*******] little underage flower who was raped, molested, and spoiled by some evil stepfather.” She remains married to Allen: The couple have adopted two children together, and Soon-Yi has always stood behind Allen’s narrative. “What’s happened to Woody is so upsetting, so unjust,” she told New York in 2018, having granted a rare interview to a decades-long, sympathetic friend of her husband. “[Mia] has taken advantage of the #MeToo movement and paraded Dylan as a victim.”

 

Spoiler

As a prosecutor, Maco felt he had “probable cause” to charge Allen

Maco never wound up bringing charges against Allen but always felt he had probable cause to do so. Maco told the filmmakers about his own meeting with Dylan and how she became “totally unresponsive,” with “a glazed look over her eyes,” when he brought up “Daddy Woody.” Maco says he chose not to pursue charges because believed that putting Dylan on the stand — as the trial would require — would, as he put it at the time, risk “further traumatization” of a child “who had already been through so much.” In other words, Allen didn’t escape trial because Connecticut lacked evidence to charge him; Allen escaped trial because the state prosecutor feared for the victim.

 

Spoiler

NYC social workers investigating the case believed Dylan and thought she had “more to disclose”

Meanwhile, New York’s Child Welfare Administration was also investigating the claims against Allen. Within two weeks, case worker Paul Williams reportedly concluded that he had sufficient information to open a criminal investigation against Allen. He was reportedly told that “it is customary for the ‘big wigs’ to take over in high-profile cases.” Williams, who did not give an interview in the documentary, temporarily lost his job in what his attorney described as a “massive coverup attempt” by the mayor’s office to keep Williams from sharing his findings. That attorney claimed the city waged a campaign to “suffocate and silence” the case worker, who is seen in vintage news footage saying, “I believe the kid.” Williams subsequently (and successfully) sued the city to regain his post.

In reviewing the CWA files, however, filmmakers noticed a compelling detail: Williams had spoken directly with Jennifer Sawyer, one of the two social workers who evaluated Dylan at the Yale-New Haven clinic. In his notes — which, again, are the only ones available, as Yale–New Haven destroyed theirs — Williams wrote that Sawyer “indicated that she believes Dylan,” and was actually “of the opinion that the child has more to disclose.”

 

Spoiler

The judge in Allen’s custody lawsuit concluded that his behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate”

From the beginning, Allen’s defense — as he explained it on 60 Minutes — held that Mia became enraged over his relationship with Soon-Yi and poisoned Dylan against him. When he decided to sue her for custody of Dylan, Ronan, and Moses in 1992, he did so on the grounds that she had become an unfit mother — “emotionally disturbed,” heavily medicated, “unable to manage the rearing of her nine children,” whom Allen said she was also “brainwashing.” His argument aligned tidily with a controversial theory advanced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner: Parental Alienation Syndrome, which (according to Gardner’s personal experience; his self-published work on the subject had no scientific basis and was never peer-reviewed) occurs when one parent tries to win their children’s allegiance by disparaging and even lying about the other parent during divorce proceedings. Gardner believed this was particularly true where sex-abuse allegations were concerned and shared that opinion freely in the media during Allen and Farrow’s custody battle.

But during the actual hearing, one babysitter who’d been looking after Mia’s children on the day of the alleged assault recalled walking in on Allen with his face buried in Dylan’s crotch. Two others confirmed that he then disappeared with Dylan for 20 minutes. According to reporters who covered the hearing, Allen appeared meek in his defense; meanwhile, Mia’s video recordings of Dylan (also featured in the documentary) explaining what had happened to her contradicted the idea that she had coached or led her daughter to a particular narrative. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of Mia, stating that “Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate,” and that “measures must be taken to protect her.” He deemed the Yale–New Haven report “sanitized” and questioned whether or not Allen could ever become a fit parent to his daughter. Allen’s two subsequent appeals were denied.

Info from the article that's already been discussed on the show:

Quote

Dylan Farrow has been telling the same story since she was seven years old: One afternoon in 1992, she says her adoptive father, Woody Allen, brought her to the attic of her mother, Mia Farrow’s, Connecticut home and — out of sight of the rest of the family — molested her. In the intervening three decades, her account has not faltered. It has remained consistent since she first shared it with therapists, then police, as a child; when she aired it in a New York Times op-ed in 2014, and in the Los Angeles Times in 2017, in a televised interview with CBS in 2018, and now, in a four-part documentary from HBO: Allen v. Farrow, an exhaustively detailed investigation into the abuse allegations and subsequent custody battle that kneecapped Farrow’s career and have only recently begun to create consequences for Allen.

Allen has always adamantly denied Dylan’s allegations. He did not return interview requests for the documentary and described it after the fact as a “hatchet job riddled with falsehoods” and a “shoddy hit piece.” His public statements have followed the same formula since the early ’90s: He maintains that Farrow, his former partner of 12 years, orchestrated a smear campaign after discovering his affair with her 21-year-old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, and coached Dylan through a false allegation of sexual assault. “I never molested my daughter,” he said in the wake of Dylan’s 2018 interview with CBS, “as all investigations concluded a quarter of a century ago.”

All of this information has been public for decades; what Allen v. Farrow does is to present it in a way that centers Dylan’s perspective. Documentarians Amy Ziering and Kirby Dick — along with investigative journalist Amy Herdy — comb through a staggering mountain of evidence, much of which is new to the public. They undertook extensive interviews with Dylan, Mia, and Ronan Farrow (Dylan’s brother, and the Pulitzer Prize–winning New Yorker journalist who helped break the story of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein) along with a number of Mia’s biological and adoptive children, close friends of the family, the Connecticut prosecutor who oversaw the case, journalists, and a raft of psychological and legal experts. They surfaced home videos and covertly recorded calls between Farrow and Allen. They went through court documents, police files, and social workers’ case notes, all of which suggest a single conclusion: Money and power can silence a credible witness.

 

Quote

Allen’s behavior toward Dylan struck outside observers and family friends as inappropriate

According to Mia Farrow, Woody Allen had no interest in meeting her seven children (three biological, four adopted) when the pair began dating in 1980. Still, when she decided, a few years into their relationship, that she wanted to have children with Allen, both say (the documentary includes segments of his autobiography, Apropos of Nothing) he agreed — on the condition that he could involve himself as little as he wanted. But according to Mia, he also told her he “might be more kindly disposed if it was a little blonde girl,” and so she adopted Dylan in 1985. (Allen adopted Dylan in 1991.)

Quickly, Allen — by his own account and Mia’s — developed an unsettling interest in Dylan. According to Mia’s other children, people close to the family, and even one a psychiatrist who lived in Mia’s building and happened to spot Dylan and Allen one day, Allen’s doting bordered on obsession. He allegedly worked to silo her from the rest of the family, with a focus so single-minded that even a therapist of Allen’s deemed it “inappropriately intense.”

“I was always in his clutches,” Dylan recalls in an interview. “He was always hunting me.” She remembers instances in which Allen would “direct” her on how to suck his thumb, “telling [her] what to do with [her] tongue.” She says he would cuddle her in bed, envelope her with his whole body while wearing nothing but his underwear. One family friend, Priscilla Gilman, says she witnessed both of those moments, while other family members and acquaintances attested to Allen’s sexually suggestive handling of Dylan.

“I felt more like a policeman, coming in like, Am I going to see something that shouldn’t be happening?” Mia said, explaining how Dylan began to shut down or hide from Allen whenever he came around — a behavioral change numerous other people confirmed in interviews.

Allen, again, has repeatedly denied anything untoward. In a contemporaneous interview with 60 Minutes, a portion of which plays in the documentary, he posits that it simply wouldn’t make sense for pedophilic tendencies to suddenly surface in a 57-year-old man. “If I had wanted to be a child molester,” he notes, “I’ve had many opportunities in the past.”

 

[Dr.OO7]

https://www.thewrap.com/woody-allen-allen-v-farrow-soon-yi-mia-farrow/amp/

This article previews tomorrow's episode.

Talk about gaslighting--"I'm not going to say I had sex with Soon-Yi, but I did have an affair with her."?

I didn't know about the other teenage girls he'd pursued. So he IS a repeat offender. 

What's especially creepy about his behavior, as I mentioned in another post, is the age of the girls he pursues. Young enough to be vulnerable and naive enough to fall for his crap, but old enough to be of legal age so that no matter how outraged and disgusted others might be, he can't be arrested for what he's done.

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, Dr.OO7 said:

 

What's especially creepy about his behavior, as I mentioned in another post, is the age of the girls he pursues. Young enough to be vulnerable and naive enough to fall for his crap, but old enough to be of legal age so that no matter how outraged and disgusted others might be, he can't be arrested for what he's done.

It's a difficult issue.  After all, Mia Farrow met Frank Sinatra when she was 19 and he was 48.  They married when she was 21 and he was 50.  Mick Jagger, who is 77, had a child four years ago with his then 29/30 year old girlfriend.  Sometimes the younger adult is vulnerable, sometimes they know exactly what they are getting into.  

 

3 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Spoiler

 

As a prosecutor, Maco felt he had “probable cause” to charge Allen

Maco never wound up bringing charges against Allen but always felt he had probable cause to do so. Maco told the filmmakers about his own meeting with Dylan and how she became “totally unresponsive,” with “a glazed look over her eyes,” when he brought up “Daddy Woody.” Maco says he chose not to pursue charges because believed that putting Dylan on the stand — as the trial would require — would, as he put it at the time, risk “further traumatization” of a child “who had already been through so much.” In other words, Allen didn’t escape trial because Connecticut lacked evidence to charge him; Allen escaped trial because the state prosecutor feared for the victim.

 

 

Yes, and he was later reprimanded by a Connecticut state panel for making those claims.  The panel said they had "grave concerns" with his conduct.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Dr.OO7 said:

What's especially creepy about his behavior, as I mentioned in another post, is the age of the girls he pursues. Young enough to be vulnerable and naive enough to fall for his crap, but old enough to be of legal age so that no matter how outraged and disgusted others might be, he can't be arrested for what he's done.

 

18 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

It's a difficult issue.  After all, Mia Farrow met Frank Sinatra when she was 19 and he was 48.  They married when she was 21 and he was 50.  Mick Jagger, who is 77, had a child four years ago with his then 29/30 year old girlfriend.  Sometimes the younger adult is vulnerable, sometimes they know exactly what they are getting into.  

 

Yes, and he was later reprimanded by a Connecticut state panel for making those claims.  The panel said they had "grave concerns" with his conduct.

I can't know what actually happens, but I totally believe he was actually with Soon-Yi when she was in high school, as some evidence suggests.

I remember talking to a friend's mom who had adopted kids like Mia (though not so many!) and worked a lot with parents who do so. She was really practical and straightforward about a lot of issues that can come up in them. She didn't meet this family so of course she's got no authority to speak for them. But I remember her at the time saying that everything Soon-Yi was doing/saying at the time seemed totally unsurprising for a young woman in her situatiion. That is, she was older when adopted, had been living on the street having been abandoned/lost by her sex-worker mother. She said she'd be shocked if Soon-Yi hadn't been sexually molested at some point in her childhood. And it just made perfect sense she'd be open to a sexual relationship with her adopted mother's husband and talking about her as a competitor she had beaten. I remember when the news first broke there were some reports of Soon-Yi even taking acting classes--but Allen is not a director who's going to put a person in a movie just because he's sleeping with her.

She wasn't blaming Soon-Yi at all, but saying that Allen took advantage of that situation, which he himself seems to happily admit to doing, seeing himself as not only entitled to take charge of Soon-YI's development, but deserving of praise for doing so. Interesting that Soon-Yi suggests that if she had been taken advantage of she would have been some "r******* little underaged flower" when Woody pretty much never describes the relationship as one of two equals.

I do think it can be complicated when it comes to just looking at the age of a person since different teenagers at different times had different levels of maturity. Mia Farrow did marry Frank Sinatra at 20--but she also refused to quit Rosemary's Baby to work on a movie with him two years later, even though he dumped her fot it. The reason Soon-Yi always has to fight against the idea that she was manipulated by an evil stepfather is that he was pretty much a stepfather and did use that relationship to secretly sleep with her behind her mother's back and has shown he'll easily lie about it and contradict himself. He also doesn't seem to be able to talk about the start of their relationship in terms that don't describe an adult looking at an adolescent he can make into an adult...with sex. And her entire life has revolved around him ever since. 

[Growsonwalls]

I'm convinced Allen is guilty because if this were like a one-off out-of-nowhere charge then I could see it being something Mia cooked up out of spite. But he has a history of wildly inappropriate relationships. His relationship with Soon Yi might not have technically been illegal but it was wildly inappropriate. His movies specifically focus on him romancing much younger women. 

 

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'm convinced Allen is guilty because if this were like a one-off out-of-nowhere charge then I could see it being something Mia cooked up out of spite. But he has a history of wildly inappropriate relationships. His relationship with Soon Yi might not have technically been illegal but it was wildly inappropriate. His movies specifically focus on him romancing much younger women. 

I don't know.  I think there's a big difference between dating or having a relationship with a young adult woman and molesting a small child.  For me, that's always been the issue.  We see with other people, it's rarely a case of one and done, but with Allen, we've been told that he's almost brazen in going after Dylan, with everyone ringing warning bells about his conduct and being able to see what he is doing, but despite how open and brazen we've been told he is here, there's no history of him having behaved like this with anyone else. 

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't know.  I think there's a big difference between dating or having a relationship with a young adult woman and molesting a small child.  For me, that's always been the issue.  We see with other people, it's rarely a case of one and done, but with Allen, we've been told that he's almost brazen in going after Dylan, with everyone ringing warning bells about his conduct and being able to see what he is doing, but despite how open and brazen we've been told he is here, there's no history of him having behaved like this with anyone else. 

That's why it feel it's not a case of him being any sort of classic pedophile. It's not even just that he never went after any other child that way. Pedophiles tend to put themselves in situations where they have access to children for obvious reasons. Allen's claims about being totally uninterested in children seem pretty sincere. He had no contact with kids in his life. It's teenaged girls that seem to get his attention.

But he obviously did have an inappropriate focus on Dylan. Maybe he saw himself as starting early with her, grooming her for when she'd be older. Like she was someone he could totally possess starting from when she was very young. I mean, there was obviously something there even before he met her since he seems to have requested a little blonde girl beforehand, knowing that this was the kind of child that interested him, and then later again hoped for a little girl when Mia was pregnant. He and Soon-Yi did not adopt any boys either, just two daughters. It may be a thing about simply possessing a female person completely or something that he wouldn't have done by adopting a kid himself that he was going to have to be responsible for, but was easy enough to do with Mia taking care of her. Who knows? 

But it does complicate things the way the stuff with Soon-Yi both does and doesn't overlap with the stuff with Dylan--in some ways it's the perfect alibi. Obviously he's not a pedophile when he's sleeping with the daughter who's 21 now and will swear was of age when the whole thing started.

[Growsonwalls]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't know.  I think there's a big difference between dating or having a relationship with a young adult woman and molesting a small child.  For me, that's always been the issue.  We see with other people, it's rarely a case of one and done, but with Allen, we've been told that he's almost brazen in going after Dylan, with everyone ringing warning bells about his conduct and being able to see what he is doing, but despite how open and brazen we've been told he is here, there's no history of him having behaved like this with anyone else. 

Some people are serial offenders with a distinct pattern. Larry Nassar, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby. Some people do seem to be one and done. Like OJ Simpson -- there haven't been any reports that he was violent or obsessive with anyone but Nicole. 

I also am wondering if Woody started to use Soon Yi as an alibi eventually. Like he was fooling around with her but decided that she'd make a good alibi and so he got more serious with her. 

I still can't think of a single reason Dylan would insist on this story 30 years later if it wasn't true. I also don;t really believe in false memories.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Even though some criminals and abusers fit the classic profile of XYZ, not all perpetrators fit so neatly into the expected patterns. For example, it's common for creepy serial killers to have tortured or harmed animals in the past, but not all of them have. That doesn't negate their later actions though. They still did it despite not checking all the boxes. Just because Woody Allen didn't abuse multiple young children doesn't mean he didn't abuse Dylan.

If you look at abusers like Larry Nassar and his fellow abuser John Geddert, they abused girls as young as 6 as well as girls in their late teens who had more adult bodies. To me, it's less about them being pedophiles versus abusers of women who were legal adults. It's more about the fact that they abused who they had access to. What the victims had in common aside from proximity/accessibility was that they were vulnerable.

I don't know that Woody Allen is necessarily a pedophile, but I do believe that he abused Dylan because she was there and he could. I'm guessing she was selected for the same reason that he dated several teenage girls - they were young and easy to manipulate so he had all the power. Sexual abuse isn't always solely about the sex. It's about the control that the abusers have over their victims.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Allen v. Farrow Podcast, Part 1

Quote

Award-winning filmmakers Amy Ziering, Kirby Dick and Amy Herdy go deeper inside Part One of the HBO Original Allen v. Farrow, and set the scene for the making of the documentary series. They discuss how they carefully built the trust it took for Dylan to tell her story and share never-before-heard audio clips from Fletcher Previn, Daisy Previn and Casey Pascal that shine light on Mia as a mother and Woody’s role as a father figure. Clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Sheri Vanino, who specializes in adolescent sexual abuse, joins the conversation to examine the concept of grooming. Later, Priscilla Gilman reflects on Part One of the documentary.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Frisson]

5 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Even though some criminals and abusers fit the classic profile of XYZ, not all perpetrators fit so neatly into the expected patterns. For example, it's common for creepy serial killers to have tortured or harmed animals in the past, but not all of them have. That doesn't negate their later actions though. They still did it despite not checking all the boxes. Just because Woody Allen didn't abuse multiple young children doesn't mean he didn't abuse Dylan.

If you look at abusers like Larry Nassar and his fellow abuser John Geddert, they abused girls as young as 6 as well as girls in their late teens who had more adult bodies. To me, it's less about them being pedophiles versus abusers of women who were legal adults. It's more about the fact that they abused who they had access to. 

This is making me think of a similar way of thinking in “The Night Stalker” docuseries on Netflix, in which one of the detectives is brushed off. He suggests that the killer is targeting both old and young people. Other officers tell him they’ve never seen that before, so they don’t investigate if different cases could be linked because it doesn’t fit a profile. 
 

Allen doesn’t have to abuse anyone else for his abuse of Dylan to be real and true. While there are patterns and profiles, people are complicated and don’t have to commit crimes or violate others in a way that fits a textbook case or study findings. I don’t care what name is given to him-pedophile or whatever-I think being open to the evidence of this case doesn’t require it to align with what abusers usually do. He could be a statistical outlier; the documentary pointed out how he liked to be unusual and sees himself as special.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

S1.E2

Quote

Startling revelations surface about Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi. Dylan's allegations are explored in the context of Allen's work.

Promo:

Original air date: 2/28/21

Edited March 6, 2021 by ElectricBoogaloo

[blixie]

Quote

I find Dylan very believable and her story matches what people outside the family are saying. I remember when all of this happened and the thing that struck me was the reason they didn't pursue charges against Allen. It wasn't for a lack of evidence, it was because the prosecutor didn't want to put Dylan on the stand.

Yep and again the judge going out of his way to censure and deny Allen access to Dylan in the custody case alone is incredibly damning, that judge knows more of the evidence than anyone in this thread and he was like your gross  you can never have access to her again. Keeping families together even WITH sexual abuse is incredibly common ethos of social services/the courts, that they did this and did it to Woody Allen at the height of his fame and acclaim is again hugely indicative of just how much evidence there was against him. 
 

As for Mia I think her desire to help kids was both genuine and narcissistic, but 14 children is beyond most two parent households capacity, much less with several children with special needs,in a single parent household, which she was even when she was with Alan/Previn (I believe Previn was also largely an absentee parent, due to his career, though not an abuser). But money enables many a bad decision and almost certainly most adoption agencies are going to think a parent of means in the US is going to be a better outcome for the life of a child than if they stayed in a developing nation as a special need orphan.

I am eager to see the rest, and also LOATH to see the rest. This is a tough tough hang.

[blixie]

I would not call regional coverage by New York dailies to be major coverage. The Soon Yi aspect was covered by all of the entertainment press NATIONALLY precisely because it was "safe" she was an adult at the time, and so they could easily milk it for it's salaciousness especially given how much the film that he made at the same time (Husbands and Wives) echoed the scandal. The custody battle was covered but in a way hugely biased against Farrow and fully within the larger context of the Soon Yi story where her boyfriend dumped her for her daughter, thus scorned in the most brutal way possible. 

Also the McMartin case is an orange to the apple of parental/familial CSA, let's stop acting like it's the same  thing it is incredibly easy to get child to lie about a teacher and not so easy to get a child to avidly lie about sex with their FATHER.

I am someone who favors restorative justice to carceral justice, and wants to abolish both prisons and police,  so I'm not super hung up on our trash legal system and how it did or didn't deal with him, I'm just glad he was removed from Dylan's life on a daily basis, and I hope that this endeavor helped her achieve a greater level of reconciliation with what happened to her.

[txhorns79]

3 hours ago, blixie said:

Yep and again the judge going out of his way to censure and deny Allen access to Dylan in the custody case alone is incredibly damning, that judge knows more of the evidence than anyone in this thread and he was like your gross  you can never have access to her again. Keeping families together even WITH sexual abuse is incredibly common ethos of social services/the courts, that they did this and did it to Woody Allen at the height of his fame and acclaim is again hugely indicative of just how much evidence there was against him. 

In his ruling, the Judge said was that found the sex abuse allegations to be inconclusive, but would err on the side of caution since Allen had shown himself to be a lousy, uninvolved parent, at best, to the children for whom he was seeking custody. 

2 hours ago, blixie said:

I would not call regional coverage by New York dailies to be major coverage.

The Judge's decision in this matter was on the front page of the Times.  Whatever one thinks of the Post or Daily News, the Times is a national newspaper.

[blixie]

Pre internet 1991/92 the Times was absolutely not a national newspaper. Now Newsweek, a national periodical covered the custody case, which is why I did hear about it, but even there it was framed as a subset of the Soon Yi story. It's been re-visited nationally multiple times but during the actual case the average American thought Mia was pissed about Soon Yi and told Dylan and numerous other people in their sphere that she was abused until she and all the others conveniently also believed it to be true/did her megalomaniac bidding. And while it was little icky that he was in love with her teenage daughter NBD, its all terribly legal. 

Like, GTEFO.

[Dr.OO7]

Another good episode.

The details of his abuse of both Soon Yi and Dylan is chilling.

Mia coming from a large family explains why she wanted to build her own.

[TexasGal]

The readings from his autobiography about Soon Yi - yuck.  The way he describes her as needing attention, and seems to blame it on Mia for asking him to take her to basketball games.  Gross.

[Growsonwalls]

Ok that was heavy. Woody's autobiographical excerpts about SoonYi - gross. He seemed to think of her as a hot piece of ass. And she seems very troubled. That video with Dylan was chilling and can dispel the "coaching" accusations. Dylan did not look coached at all. And the fact that it was the babysitter that first reported it is further evidence that the "coaching" accusation is just another way to victim blame and deny sexual abuse survivors their voice.

Also: SoonYi is definitely Woody's type, When you look at his previous high school age girlfriend SoonYi is like the Asian version of that woman. SoonYi also is similar in build and expression to Mia.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, blixie said:

Pre internet 1991/92 the Times was absolutely not a national newspaper. Now Newsweek, a national periodical covered the custody case, which is why I did hear about it, but even there it was framed as a subset of the Soon Yi story. It's been re-visited nationally multiple times but during the actual case the average American thought Mia was pissed about Soon Yi and told Dylan and numerous other people in their sphere that she was abused until she and all the others conveniently also believed it to be true/did her megalomaniac bidding. And while it was little icky that he was in love with her teenage daughter NBD, its all terribly legal. 

Like, GTEFO.

The main headline I remember from the time, either the Post or the News was MIA FOUND NUDE PIX!

And I do agree, the main story was the one with Soon-Yi with the allegations about Dylan presented within that, suggesting that Mia had made them up after being "scorned" by Woody. Not that information wasn't out there-since I was interested I read a lot of stuff and do remember details about Dylan. But it was confusing to keep the timelines straight and I believe most people probably came away with that first impression, that he had an affair with her daughter who was just barely legal (her exact age is unknown with a 2 year span of possibility) and Mia was crazy angry over it and was maybe using Dylan to get back at him. It was very easy to miss that there was a whole history with Dylan before this all came out.

I remember a review of the show that scoffed at a lot of stuff in this ep, the focus on the themes of his movie and Carly Simon showing up "for some reason" as if it was just too much Hollywood stuff and trying to understand an artist through art, but that really does this ep a disservice. It's a very different thing to point out the constant themes of older men dating much younger women when there's also a woman talking about the affair she had with Woody when she was 17 that made her feel special and that she thought was put onscreen in Manhattan. 

Plus Carly Simon had something important to say when she talked about how Woody was constantly negging Mia about work etc. and gaining control over her. 

So now it seems like there's pretty damning evidence that he absolutely was already sleeping with Soon-Yi when she was in high school according to doormen and maids--his version of events where he shyly kissed Soon-Yi and she said she was wondering when he would "make his move" sounds like something out of a movie with Soon-Yi the wry, knowing Veronica Lake-type. Like she was more than ready for him to do it. Then Mia sent her to a job at a camp where she might have spent some time on her own and focused on herself, but Woody was happy to talk to her on the phone for hours until she was fired and then collected her. Made me think of that teen model he'd dated who now said it was a shame she didn't use the energy she directed at him on herself, but no changing the past. 

Love that whole detail about the taped phone calls too. I can completely believe in Mia getting suspicious with Soon-Yi lying on the phone and it was at least a little satisfying to hear Woody claim there was "no one to blame" in the situation and for Mia to say there certainly was someone to blame. Soon-Yi seems like she might have been a more interesting person if she'd grown up and become an independent person instead of getting collected by Woody at a young age. It must have been really hard for her being adopted older and having such trust issues--exactly what his other teen girlfriend said. (Note how in Manhattan Tracy is presented, iirc, as a completely healthy teenager with no such damage.) If Woody did start up with her when she was in high school she really never had an independent life where she was making her own friends and had a job etc. She was already with her husband as a senior in high school.

Edited March 1, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Dr.OO7]

50 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Note how in Manhattan Tracy is presented, iirc, as a completely healthy teenager with no such damage.) If Woody did start up with her when she was in high school she really never had an independent life where she was making her own friends and had a job etc. She was already with her husband as a senior in high school.

It's disturbing how what his character in Manhattan would frequently say to his teenage girlfriend is identical to what he supposedly told Soon Yi--"have your own boyfriend's", etc.

[txhorns79]

2 hours ago, blixie said:

Pre internet 1991/92 the Times was absolutely not a national newspaper.

I'll just note that much of modern libel law and the law concerning prior restraint is based upon cases brought against the New York Times concerning their national coverage.  These are cases from the 1960s and 70s.  I realize that I'm not going to convince anyone, but believe me when I say the Times was a national newspaper long before the internet came around.  

While I certainly can't speak for what the average reader may or may not have taken away from the coverage in the 90s, just reviewing the archives at the Times shows 20 or more stories concerning Dylan from the 93/94 period, including front page treatment given to the custody case verdict and what the Judge had to say about Allen.      

[Growsonwalls]

I'm a bit shocked Allen sued for full custody. How was that going to work? He admits he doesn't like kids and doesn't stay around for the diaper changing. He's dating his barely legal stepdaughter. But somehow he wants full custody of Dylan and Ronan? 

[sistermagpie]

5 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'm a bit shocked Allen sued for full custody. How was that going to work? He admits he doesn't like kids and doesn't stay around for the diaper changing. He's dating his barely legal stepdaughter. But somehow he wants full custody of Dylan and Ronan? 

Probably the logic was that a good offense makes the best defense. The main thing was to discredit Mia as an unfit mother and wildly jealous person. He could always hire nannies to take care of the kids.

 

[Growsonwalls]

Another shocking fact: between 1992 and 1995 Mia adopted five more children. Two of those children are now dead. I am shocked that amid all this dysfunction Mia thought it was a good idea to adopt MORE children. 

 

[ebk57]

2 hours ago, blixie said:

Pre internet 1991/92 the Times was absolutely not a national newspaper

I have no interest in discussing the subject of this series, but I can vouch for the fact that the Times was a national newspaper long before the internet.  I live 200+ miles from NYC and have had the actual paper Times delivered to my house every Sunday since the 70's. 

[Cheezwiz]

This was  a very disturbing episode to watch.

I't clear that even if Woody is no serial pedophile or perhaps more typically attracted to teenagers, it does not mean he never abused Dylan. Again, he was caught in questionable situations with Dylan by others outside the family unit well before his relationship with Soon Yi became known. He had been censured for his obsessive interest in his adoptive daughter. It's clear from his own words along with Mia's recollections, that he is a narcissist and a control freak. Not all people who harm others fit neatly into predictable behaviour patterns (the Nightstalker mentioned above is a good example of this). Woody's thing is clearly about POWER, and controlling others, not just sexual compulsion & gratification. It may be in a much more subtle manipulative way than what we might typically imagine, but he's a text-book abuser. His separation of Mia from other friends, her agent, and potential employers is a standard tactic, as is the gradual chipping away at her self-esteem. Whatever my feelings about Mia (and I do think she's got serious mental issues on her own), I found this almost as chilling as Dylan's testimony. As others have speculated above, I almost wonder if part of his motivation for affair with Soon Yi was to provide perfect cover for even worse impulses.

Something that wasn't shown in this episode (which surprised me) were the recollections of Mariel Hemingway, who played his teenaged paramour in Manhattan. She has stated in interviews that once Manhattan wrapped, Woody pursued her avidly, and wanted to take her on a trip to Paris. Although interested in travel, Hemingway was extremely wary, and rightly assumed that she would be expected to share a room with him if she went. When she questioned him on the room arrangements, Woody avoided answering. Mariel told her parents hoping they would back her up and refuse to allow her to go. To her horror, they rather than putting their feet down, they were mildly encouraging of the trip. She wound up saying no in the end.

Woody is a creep. Full stop.

[Cheezwiz]

21 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Another shocking fact: between 1992 and 1995 Mia adopted five more children. Two of those children are now dead. I am shocked that amid all this dysfunction Mia thought it was a good idea to adopt MORE children. 

I think Mia has serious mental problems that go far beyond simply wanting to have a large family like the one she grew up in. To me it almost seems similar to the compulsion that drives people to hoard animals. I can't imagine bringing even more kids into that maelstrom.

The thing is, I believe each of the children's recollections of their upbringing by Mia are probably true. I think some were neglected/abused and treated as the "help", while others had loving care.

[Miss Slay]

The more i hear, the more disturbed I am. With every detail that Mia told the audience I kept wanting to scream "call the police! call the police!" But let's be honest, would things have been any different? I think we underestimate how much progress has been made in terms of listening to victims.

Woody Allen is a grade A creep. He sounded like he was emotionally abusive to Mia. If she's nothing why cast her in THIRTEEN films? Clearly you like something she's doing. He clearly groomed Soon-Yi - she is obviously troubled and he took advantage. He's probably the only man she's ever been with...which is just sad. And I absolutely believe Dylan.

Perhaps there are some who might remember better - but I believe there was a period of 12 or so years that people didn't really watch Woody movies out of protest for his actions. But he had a resurgence in the late aughts - and his actresses started winning Oscars - so everyone began working with him again. But I might be remembering that incorrectly.

 

[Cheezwiz]

6 minutes ago, Miss Slay said:

Perhaps there are some who might remember better - but I believe there was a period of 12 or so years that people didn't really watch Woody movies out of protest for his actions. But he had a resurgence in the late aughts - and his actresses started winning Oscars - so everyone began working with him again. But I might be remembering that incorrectly.

Yeah, I think he had a bit of resurgence with "Blue Jasmine" which had Cate Blanchett in the lead (she won the Oscar for it). And people were eager to work with him again after that, but the Me Too movement sort of slowed things down once again - he hasn't been able to get US distributors for his films recently.

[Glade]

The context of Manhattan is so disturbing (this is the most I've ever seen of the film it--being of a similar age to Dylan I have barely seen any of his films.) How Allen consciously normalized and groomed the public to accept this behavior and ignore it does bring to mind Michael Jackson, R Kelly, and most recently, Marilyn Manson.  It's too bad that his therapist was an enabler--when YES I would say it is your job as a therapist to recognize and point out unhealthy patterns of behavior and blatant abuse.

And it's so deeply sad how vulnerable and inexperienced Soon-Yi was, having been abused and traumatized and never even having a boyfriend before being groomed by the middle aged father of her siblings/long-term partner of her mother (i.e. like a FATHER.) And Allen goes on about how she had so much potential, but if she did he consumed all of it for himself, and she wound up spending her youth in an extremely imbalanced relationship with a really old guy. And Allen got to live out his movie-fantasy of possessing a teenage girl by severing her from the already fragile relationships she had with her family. That one moment where Allen recounted the supposed dialogue between him and Soon-Yi when he kissed her was so preposterous—I don't believe for a second that she did or would have said anything like that.

Odd that the media propaganda was all about smearing Mia Farrow when the crucial testimony, in addition to Dylan, came from independent sources—Allen's housekeeper and doorman, babysitters and nanny's, etc. As if Mia Farrow had all the wealth and power behind her and could coerce these people into saying what she wanted, when obviously it was the other way around. It is so brave of Dylan to let those tapes be shown, as she detailed on her twitter post today. Woody Allen is really a predator who leapt at the opportunity of having access to orphan children in Mia's house. If he had realized that's what he wanted earlier, maybe he would have wound up like Jimmy Saville. And if you look at pictures of Allen, Soon-Yi and their adopted children, one of the girls looks just like Dylan and the other like Soon-Yi; I hope the next generation is not receiving the same treatment.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Glade

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Glade said:

Odd that the media propaganda was all about smearing Mia Farrow when the crucial testimony, in addition to Dylan, came from independent sources—Allen's housekeeper and doorman, babysitters and nanny's, etc. As if Mia Farrow had all the wealth and power behind her and could coerce these people into saying what she wanted, when obviously it was the other way around.

That’s been one of the more interesting aspects for me. I was too young to really follow any of this at the time or watch his films. The perception I had over the years was that it was all about Mia’s claims. A classic he said, she said. So seeing that it was other people who made the first accusations was surprising. You really see how the facts have been distorted to put the focus solely on Mia. 

It’s also disturbing to me that so much focus is on what he did or didn’t do on that one particular day when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that his relationship with Dylan was inappropriate. 

11 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

In his ruling, the Judge said was that found the sex abuse allegations to be inconclusive, but would err on the side of caution since Allen had shown himself to be a lousy, uninvolved parent, at best, to the children for whom he was seeking custody. 

He also said the Allen’s behavior towards Dylan was "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her". It is a really weird legal line where behavior tips over into illegal territory. A relationship can be (and usually is) abusive before the first assault. It’s just that it is the type of abuse the criminal justice system is not equipped to handle.  Ideally others will recognize the signs of abuse before that line is crossed but that means it’s never actually illegal. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Guest

[aghst]

On 2/22/2021 at 8:47 AM, Growsonwalls said:

If Soon Yi were to say she was abused by Allen ... who would she turn to? She's completely estranged from her family. She was borne to a prostitute who abandoned her in S. Korea who most likely is deceased. She chose to put her eggs in the Woody Allen basket and I imagine has very little in the way of job skills. 

This is what abusers do ... they isolate their victims until they have no one left. 

So does that mean she is aware of having been abused but won't say anything now?

It very well could be that he controls all the money and would be at his mercy even after his passing because he could kick her out of his will.

Otherwise, maybe after he passed, she would tell the story.

But if she decided to tell the story now, wouldn't she be able to get a huge book and movie deal?

The fact that she hasn't said she was abused or that she hasn't left him leaves some possibilities:

1.  Abuse didn't happen.

2.  She doesn't believe the abuse happened.

3.  She's completely reliant on him, not just financially but emotionally.  She can't leave her abuser.

 

I haven't watched the series, not sure I will.  But I can't see how it helps her in any way.  It makes money for the filmmakers and HBO but it just cements the perception of her as a victim, still to this day.

Unlikely she's going to turn on Allen and accuse him now or ever.  But she may have to deal with being seen as victim and captive, unless Allen has her locked up in their home, not allowed to go out for any reason.