Dylan Farrow Is Telling the Truth as She Believes It, But Is It the Truth as It Happened?

Photo: Frances Silver

If you haven’t read Dylan Farrow’s viscerally affecting open letter in yesterday’s New York Times, you should. As a matter of practicality it will help you to understand why Twitter has been on fire for the past 24-hours, with detractors and defenders of Woody Allen turning it into a virtual Battle of Pelennor Fields, and as a matter of conscience it’s important to know the version of events of 21 years ago as told by the woman who was once the little girl at the center of them. Dylan not only details her alleged abuse at the hands of Woody as a single act, she hints at what she believes is the pattern of inappropriate behavior that led up to it. It’s tough stuff, hard to read at times, whether you’re a fan of Woody Allen or not.

I have a five-year-old daughter, and if anyone ever did anything to her like what Dylan Farrow alleges Woody Allen did, he’d be dead ten minutes after I found out about it. I say this because I want everyone to know that I understand what’s at stake here and by no means take this subject lightly. There’s no doubt that Dylan Farrow believes she was a victim of abuse. There’s no doubt that Dylan Farrow was the victim of abuse. The doubt lies in exactly what kind of abuse she suffered and at whose hand.

Dylan’s story is as riveting as it is disturbing, but the fact is we’ll never know whether the events she recalls as searing memories really happened in the way she describes. This isn’t a case of “attacking the victim,” and to argue in good faith doesn’t make someone a monster or a child sex abuse apologist; it makes him or her a realist who accepts that the family politics at play in the Woody/Mia custody battle which was ripping their family apart in 1992 were so brutal and ugly that unless there’s evidence to back up that claim, every claim deserves to be questioned.

Yes, Woody Allen began dating Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, when she was approximately 19 years old and maybe you think that’s creepy. But the fact remains that it was completely legal. Contrary to popular belief among people who are sure they know everything about this case and are therefore qualified to rage about it on Twitter, Soon-Yi was not Woody’s daughter; Woody and Mia were never married nor did they even live together. What can’t be denied is that when the relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi was revealed, it detonated a nuclear bomb in the middle of Woody and Mia’s family and she was understandably furious about it. The members of that family then took sides and the battle lines have, for the most part, remained stable. There have occasionally been breaks in ranks, though, now that years have passed. Although he initially decried the relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi, Woody and Mia’s adopted son Moses Farrow, who went on to become a family therapist, now thinks that Mia brainwashed his seven-year-old sister into believing she was assaulted. And before you dismiss this possibility, you should at least be willing to read the facts of the case, the opinions of those who followed the developments in the relationship closely throughout the years, and those who’ve spent a lifetime doing experiments with memory implantation.

Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and researcher at UC Irvine, and she’s spent most of her career studying the power of suggestion, even self-suggestion, on our memories and what she’s found is both fascinating and really not the least bit surprising. Basically, especially at a young age, we’re highly susceptible to suggestion and memory manipulation, particularly by people we trust and wish to please, and the kind of story Dylan Farrow is telling isn’t unusual during the total warfare of a custody battle, especially one as public as Woody and Mia’s and concerning someone as volatile and demanding as Mia Farrow and with the mercurial and neurotic reputation of Woody Allen.

Here’s what it comes down to: There are only two people who know what really happened between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow. The former has consistently proclaimed his innocence and tells one story; the latter continues to tell another, much more harrowing story. The facts of the case have always favored Woody, from doctors saying that Dylan was inconsistent in her detailing of what happened 21 years ago and that her story had a rehearsed feel to it, to the actual amount of time witnesses say Woody was alone with Dylan at Mia Farrow’s home in Bridgewater, Connecticut on August 4th, 1992, a date which fell right in the middle of Woody and Mia’s vicious custody battle and a place where he was surrounded by people who didn’t much like him. He passed a lie detector test. He married Soon-Yi and they’ve been together for 17 years and now have a family of their own and there have been no other accusations of any impropriety from anyone. Dylan, meanwhile, sticks by her own version of events, and they may very well be true. Or, as difficult as it may be to accept, they could also be the product of severe manipulation at a very young age. Unfortunately, we’ll never know for sure.

So what this all means for the social media mob is simply whom you choose to believe: which side will confirm your already tightly held biases, fit your cultural ideology, potentially provide a rallying cry in a cause for which you advocate, or just help you sleep at night. Like the battle lines drawn two decades ago between Woody and Mia, the battle lines on Twitter are now drawn between those who’ve gathered behind the banner of Dylan Farrow’s column, which tells an indeed shocking personal story, or behind the banner of the Daily Beast article by Robert Weide, which lays out in detail the facts of Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi, motivations of Mia Farrow, and details of the case. It’s a case that was decided two decades ago and which was only reignited, coincidentally, by Mia and Ronan Farrow’s questionable shots across Twitter the night of the Golden Globes.

Understand something: I don’t think there’s an ounce of subterfuge in Dylan Farrow’s decision to write the open letter she did or to make the claim she did 21 years ago. I don’t think she’s doing it to blackmail anyone or to bring fame upon herself. Other than the malice she has for Woody Allen, I don’t think there’s any malice in her words at all. I believe that Dylan believes she was sexually assaulted by her adoptive father. I also understand that there are those out there for whom this case is a cause célèbre because, indeed, there are plenty of women and kids who’ve been abused who are put in a position of no one believing them because there isn’t enough physical evidence to back up their claim. These people argue in favor of Dylan from a place of emotion and as a show of solidarity, and maybe they should. But in this particular case, there’s simply too much bad blood and destructive family politics at play and too little proof to light the torches and raise the pitchforks, demanding that Woody Allen be tried in court or, screw it, just thrown in jail 21 years after the fact.

None of this is Dylan Farrow’s fault. I have no idea what really happened to her and neither do you. But she’s a victim and a survivor either way.

  • Kevin Davis

    Sigh…

    “The facts of the case have always favored Woody.” Nope. Or please do a rebuttal to this first:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

  • castingstones2

    I can’t belive that a piece like this was written in the name of journalism. And you have daughter. Shame on you!

  • jack2211

    This is probably the fairest piece I’ve read on this yet.

    • Tired of Misinformation

      Actually, this article is an irresponsible rant that misrepresents the facts. Please read some of the other comments below.

  • Jack

    One fact I haven’t seen anyone mention is that in addition to the custody suit, Mia Farrow tried to get Woody Allen’s adoptions of Dylan and Moses overturned. She lost that case. I don’t know what the legal significance is of that — presumably it’s hard to get an adoption overturned — but I wish someone with some actual legal knowledge would explain it.

    Personally, I’d like to know if Dr. John Leventhal stands behind his report. The judge did not accept it, I get that, but still, it would be interesting to know.

    The judge mentioned the “Child Molestor” note in his judgement, but he didn’t seem to think it was a big deal. I find that odd.

    • Lindstr7

      Dr. Leventhal never even saw Dylan, the subject of his report. How is that even ethical?

  • Tired of Misinformation

    This article is an irresponsible rant that misrepresents the facts:

    “The facts of the case have always favored Woody, from doctors saying that Dylan was inconsistent in her detailing of what happened 21 years ago and that her story had a rehearsed feel to it, to the actual amount of time witnesses say Woody was alone with Dylan at Mia Farrow’s home in Bridgewater, Connecticut on August 4th, 1992, a date which fell right in the middle of Woody and Mia’s vicious custody battle and a place where he was surrounded by people who didn’t much like him. He passed a lie detector test.”

    #1 – The only doctor that claimed Dylan’s story was inconsistent was the pediatrician that headed the Yale-New Haven team that investigated the allegations. Unfortunately, he never actually interviewed or saw Dylan, and the two sociologists that did interview her refused to testify (and all of their notes were destroyed and unavailable to the court). A psychiatrist specializing in child sexual abuse testified that the methods of the Yale-New Haven group were problematic, and that their conclusions were faulty. The judge called the testimony of the Yale-New Haven team unreliable and “sanitized”. Given the implication that “…doctors saying that Dylan was inconsistent in her detailing of what happened 21 years ago and that her story had a rehearsed” appears to exonerate Allen, it is worth noting that Allen was already being treated by a psychiatrist for inappropriate behavior toward Dylan long before the allegations, custody battle, or his affair with Soon-Yi. Mia had given her nannies explicit instructions not to leave Dylan alone with Allen for this reason.

    #2 – Dylan’s nanny testified that Dylan and Allen went missing for 15 or 20 minutes on the day in question, more than sufficient time for the abuse to occur. Another babysitter testified that she walked in on Allen kneeling in front of Dylan with his head in her lap in a way that made her very uncomfortable.

    #3 – The abuse allegations were made BEFORE the custody battle, not during. In fact, Allen sued for custody 7 days AFTER Mia took Dylan to her pediatrician to investigate Dylan’s accusations.

    #4 – Allen refused to take a lie detector test administered by the Connecticut State police and opted, instead, to take one administered by someone he paid. For this reason, the judge considered the results of the test unreliable. Given the implication that he should be exonerated on the basis of passing this lie detector test, it should also be pointed out that Allen initially lied about whether he had ever been in the attic, and initially refused to give hair samples to aid the investigation. When one of his hairs was found in the attack, he changed his story and claimed to have been in the attack on a few occasions at Mia’s request.

    The Daily Beast article is hardly objective and impartial. It misrepresents some facts and leaves out others in order to manipulate public opinion in Allen’s favor. Likewise, Moses opinion is completely irrelevant.

    So, no, the facts of the case have not always favored Allen. You write “…you should at least be willing to read the facts of the case” and I am left to wonder… did you?

    For more information, please read:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

    and the judges findings of facts here:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

    • ShootSeven

      “Undeniable Fact” #7: “The Yale-New Haven
      Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been
      sexually molested …. The panel consisted of two social workers and a
      pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who
      never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow.” Actually, they interviewed Dylan and Mia
      Farrow seven times. Here’s the report:
      http://amradaronline.files.wor

      If
      the writer of the piece got that wrong, what else did she get wrong?

      • Tired of Misinformation

        The writer of the Vanity Fair piece didn’t get that wrong; you simply did not understand the sentence. The clause “…who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow” refers to Dr. Leventhal, not the two social workers. If you read the judge’s report you will see that the only member of the team that testified was Dr. Leventhal, and he never interviewed Dylan. The social workers who did interview her refused to testify (or were not permitted?) and their notes were destroyed. Read the judge’s report.

        BTW, your link did not work.

      • Lindstr7

        Wrong. Dr. Leventhal Never Saw Dylan. Only the social workers did. Social workers. Not psychologists or psychiatrists. How is it possible that the only Dr. on the team never even saw the main subject of his report. Irresponsible at best. Not only that, but the social worker’s original notes were destroyed and Dr. Leventhal took it upon himself to speak for the Yale team even though he never saw Dylan himself.

  • mrjinks

    Just one thought: On July 11, Mia Farrow wrote a letter and posted it on the door when Woody Allen was there for Dylan’s birthday party. You can see the letter in the 60 Minutes interview on CBS’ website. It said “Child Molestor at birthday party. Molded and abused one daughter, now focused on youngest sister. Family disgusted.” The so-called abuse of Dylan didn’t even HAPPEN until August 4.

    Interesting that Mia labeled him a “child molester” who was “focused on” Dylan several weeks BEFORE the alleged attic incident.

    • Jack

      When I first heard about that note, I thought Woody made it up. But, nope, there it is. The judge mentions it in the briefest passing in his judgement but dismisses it; that seems really odd to me. Wonder how many of the kids saw that note — I’m sure some of them did!

    • Tired of Misinformation

      Mia was referring to Soon-Yi, who was 19 at the time the affair started, when she said “Molded and abused one daughter…”. Regardless of how others see Soon-Yi, to Mia she was her child. And, Mia had concerns that Allen’s overly intense attention toward Dylan was sexual in nature long before the affair with Soon-Yi. In fact, Allen was in therapy to learn more appropriate ways of interacting with Dylan.

  • Pluto Animus

    Finally, an article that discusses Elizabeth Loftus’ remarkable career of research into memory.

    Bravo.

    • Tired of Misinformation

      Elizabeth Loftus’ work, while voluminous and impressive, does not address children’s memory for traumatic events.The work of Stephen Cici (Cornell) or Jodi Quas (UC Davis) would be more relevant here.

  • Murphy888

    And don’t forget those of us who gathered behind the 4/4 banner of Jessica Winter at Slate who fact-checked what was behind Robert Weide’s 1/27 banner.

    • Eisenhower303

      Jessica Winter did zero fact checking.

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        Luckily, I’ve done some fact checking! Enough to call Weide’s article into question.

        Here is the 1993 NYT article on the custody trial, where Judge Wilk calls the evidence “inconclusive” because the Yale-New Haven Clinic destroyed its notes and impaired his ability to assess the evidence:
        http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

        Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as
        conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not
        been abused. “I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven
        team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual
        abuse,” Justice Wilk wrote.

        The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had
        been “colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen.” He added that the
        unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the
        trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the
        destruction of the team’s notes had “compromised my ability to
        scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized
        and, therefore, less credible.”

        And here is a 1997 Connecticut Magazine article that calmly and methodically recounts the circumstances of the investigation, and the ugly, vindictive tactics employed by Allen’s team against not Farrow, but the Connecticut prosecutor and his detectives:

        http://www.andythibault.com/columns/CT%20Magazine%20-%20Apr%2097.htm

        Mia Farrow is not without sin, to say the least, in the raising of her children, but Allen was more than willing to discredit his daughter by any means necessary, including repeated grilling by a team of psychiatrists on his payroll, and which formed the basis for his self-proclaimed “exoneration.” He was not exonerated. The prosecution found sufficient evidence to go to trial, but concluded it would not be in the best interest of the child.

  • Murphy888

    You would actually kill a family member who “did anything to” your five-year old daughter “like what Dylan Farrow alleges Woody Allen did”? minutes after you found out about it?

  • mrmcgurky

    Wonder why Allen had to pay Mia Farrows legal fees, topping a million bucks?

  • thinkB4UType

    I appreciate the balance in the article, save one point. Please stop throwing around the qualification of ‘adopted’ as if it negates in any way the heinous nature of any of Allens actions or supposed actions. Soon Yi was/is Mia Farrows daughter. Allen was having sex with the daughter of the woman he had children together with. Does it make any difference at all that they were not married given their shared progeny?

    Chez says he would murder any man who did such things to his own daughter as alleged by Dylan Farrow. I wager when that daughter is 19, were her mother dating an equally aged man and had children with him, and then Chez found out that same man was taking naked photos of his daughter and having sex with her, well, pervert would be the least of the things crossing his mind.

    My point being that the perversity of Allen to partake in a sexual relationship with the daughter of the woman he had sex with already and had children with already is nothing if not grossly perverse. One has only to look at the family photo of the Allen-Farrow clan in Russia on vacation to see how sick this is. There is Allen, with both mothers of his children, who are also mother and child. Willingness to cross such boundaries makes anything after that very easy indeed to believe. What a horrible person on this account alone.

    • will

      THANK YOU. As if 56 year old boyfriend starts sleeping with teenage adopted daughter is any less creepy.

  • Cristian Duran

    Many survivors of sexual abuse are triggered by this case, and project
    their own experiences onto the narrative, assuming that Woody Allen is
    the abuser. As a survivor of a relationship with someone with Borderline
    Personality Disorder, I am also triggered, and project my experience to
    assume Mia Farrow has been engaged in a distortion campaign. The way Mia seems to see herself, not Dylan, as the primary victim, is very BPD. His complete avoidance/ non-reactivity to her speaks volumes.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Yes, Woody Allen began dating Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, when she was approximately 19 years old and maybe you think that’s creepy.

    Yes, it is creepy. It didn’t violate any criminal laws, but dating your girlfriend’s daughter is a line most men would not cross. And I think that’s why so many find the allegations about him to be plausible. If he’d have sex with one of Farrow’s daughters, why not the other? Even though one was legally an adult, it still blurs the lines enough to get an “ick” reaction from most people.
    My take on Allen is that he’s a narcissist who never could grasp the concept that the can’t have whatever he wants whenever he wants it. But did he molest Dylan Farrow? I don’t know. It’s definitely possible, maybe it’s even likely that did something improper, but that’s still a far cry the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” All we do know for sure is that the DA didn’t think there was enough evidence to prosecute. That still leaves a lot of space between guilty and innocent though.
    This is one of the reasons why a I hate the court of public opinion.

    • BumpIt McCarthy

      The proscecutor, Frank Maco, did think there was enough evidence, but did not go forth with the trial because it would have been traumatic to Dylan, and announce so at the time. The Allen legal team then filed ethics complaints against him, which took years to fight off, but he was ultimately cleared.

  • Robespierre92

    The social media mob doesnt deal in facts and assigns guilt based on nothing but accusations.

  • Martha Magee

    Mental illness is at the root of this. It’s all there in Farrow’s track record. This is a toxic hall of mirrors. Sad for the children. Farrow’s neurotic personaity makes Woody look like Joe Normal. This recent public temper tantrum attempt to shame Woody on the eve of his Golden Globe Honors is simply childish acting out. Mia is the ringleader here, having groomed her children from birth to be equally unbalanced. Woody was cleared bybthe professionals of any wrongdoing long ago and I believe him. These unresolved issues belong in a shrink’s office. The very act of creating high drama spectacle as an attention seeking device tells you how crazy they are. I feel sorry for these kids.

    • Lady Willpower

      You seem awfully sure of yourself. I see you’ve put Mia Farrow on trial, but would you care to explain Dylan Farrow’s part in this?

      • Bubble Genius

        Why is it so hard for you to see that nobody here is blaming Dylan or calling her a liar, but that there exists the possibility, or even probability, that given Mia’s screwed-up family history, that Dylan’s story was fabricated by Mia, reinforced by Mia and the rest of her family, and most likely by everyone around Dylan all her life? Where would the challenge have come from for Dylan to even think of making an effort to delve into her memories?

        • Lady Willpower

          Because I think that your theory is possible, but not probable. How can you be so convinced that it never happened? I admit to my bias, freely. You must have some too, for you to be so willing to think the whole thing was made up by Mia and perpetuated by the family. That’s a gigantic, fantastic claim.

          Sexual abuse cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, even under the best of circumstances. When the accused is famous, and the alleged victim’s mother is a crazy harridan, that can’t possibly help.

          I just believe the woman who says she was assaulted. I have no reason to believe otherwise, unless I want to start inventing wild theories about brainwashing and implanted memories. Yeah, those things are possible. I just don’t find them to the most likely answer. Occam’s Razor is sadly the rule in cases of sexual assault.

          • Bubble Genius

            I have no bias. You are assuming my position is that Woody Allen is innocent of the charges. I am saying I don’t know – the evidence from both sides is confusing at best. You are the one declaring guilt and innocence. I am saying that with so many conflicting statements from people who are more informed than I, and the amount of time that has passed, Occam’s Razor is a tough row to hoe, and all rules have exceptions.

            I have to say, though, that Mia’s claims that she didn’t want to traumatize Dylan by dragging Woody through the courts sure don’t seem to apply, suddenly. Guess it’s okay to traumatize your 28-year-old daughter once the statute of limitations has expired and a court can’t actually weigh the evidence. Just her 389,000 Twitter followers, Vanity Fair’s million-plus readers, Ronan’s 226,000 Twitter followers, and the 23 MSNBC viewers who will be watching his show.

            And if you claim a bias is that I think Mia Farrow is a publicity-seeking narcissist with deep-seated psychological issues, I do. And I think Woody is, amongst other things, a glum cunt. They’ve both made brilliant movies that I am proud to have in my DVD collection.

            I’m saying that this here issue has turned into some fucking Shirley Jackson bullshit.

          • Lady Willpower

            “and the 23 MSNBC viewers who will be watching his show.”

            Hee hee. That’s more like it.

            Look, I’m sorry if I get emotional. This one cuts really close to the bone for me, and I have a really hard time staying objective.

          • Bubble Genius

            I understand. A story like this generates lots of emotion. I try to take a step back before I assess a situation. This is why I’m always recused from jury service. I’m the Henry Fonda, the pain in the ass that doesn’t rush to judgment.

          • Lindstr7

            “I have to say, though, that Mia’s claims that she didn’t want to
            traumatize Dylan by dragging Woody through the courts sure don’t seem to
            apply, suddenly.”

            Wrong. It was the prosecutor who made that decision, not Mia Farrow.

  • tanka

    the travesty here is if this is really true, why would Mia dredge it up again for her daughter, making her relive everything, the same goes for Ronan.

    • AskandTell

      Michael Wolff compares Mia to a stage mom. This is all part of a media blitz to lauch the public career of Ronan. The Vanity Fair article was the kickoff; the article wouldn’t have been published unless Mia discussed Woody Allen and gave them an attention-getting scoop. Hence the Frank Sinatra quote.

      It worked. Two weeks after the article, Ronan received his MSNBC show with the promise he’ll continue the media rating headlines about Woody Allen.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-abuse-allegations

      • Ranzou

        What? Why? Why do white women defend Woody Allen and his sick asianphilia?

        • Bubble Genius

          Asianphilia?

        • Lindstr7

          I have to wonder why anyone defends Woody Allen. Period.

      • Lindstr7

        Speculation Ask. People seem eager to accuse Farrow of manipulating the media while largely ignoring Allen doing the same both back when these accusations came out and now painting Mia as an insane shrew hell bent on revenge even though her daughter is old enough to speak for herself.

        After having read Judge Wilk’s ruling, its clear that he believed some inappropriate behavior was going on between Dylan and Allen to a degree that he denied Allen’s request for custody.

  • Larry Parsons

    In January of 1992, Mr. Allen took the photographs of Ms. Previn, which were discovered on the mantelpiece in his apartment by Ms. Farrow and were introduced into evidence at the IAS proceeding. Mr. Allen in his trial testimony stated that he took the photos at Ms. Previn’s suggestion and that he considered them erotic and not pornographic. We have viewed the photographs and do not share Mr. Allen’s characterization of them. We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of Ms. Previn’s siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr. Allen makes between Ms. Farrow’s other children and Dylan, Satchel and Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire family. Allen’s testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn “were taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do this” demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn’s relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn’s other siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen’s tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

    and the most pertinent part

    As we noted above, Mr. Allen maintains that Ms. Farrow’s allegations concerning the sexual abuse of Dylan were fabricated by Ms. Farrow both as a result of her rage over his relationship with Ms. Previn and as part of her continued plan to alienate him from his children. However, our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis. Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive. While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur. While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

  • ib313

    Actually, if the memory was implanted, there may only be one person who knows what happened.

  • ken

    This piece and the one in the Daily Beast are both interesting takes on the issue. I think child abuse of any kind is detestable and I think those who rightly and justly want to fight for the rights of these defenseless children and who want to do something about this horrendous type of crime are understandably predisposed to believe this girl and Ms. Farrow. And, perhaps its true. I, certainly, have no idea. I would not be surprised if it was, but I have not seen anything to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, as has been outlined in these two articles, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that these are false memories. Moreover, if, as the Daily Beast article suggests, Ronan is not really Allen’s biological child and Allen has managed to (before this at least) emotionally put this all behind him, and if these allegations are false, there is one victim. That’s Dylan. I’m inclined to believe the memories are not completely true. But, I don’t know, anymore than anyone other than Mr. Allen knows. If he’s telling the truth and if Ms. Farrow manipulated her daughter…..there is no limit to the shame due for Ms. Farrow. But, I think Ms. Farrow may have truly believed something happened, spurred on by the times (court battle, Allen having taken up with Soon Yi, etc), but that nothing did happen, but that she pushed Dylan in a way that reinforced something. I think events got out of control and Ms. Farrow believed she was righteous in pushing and doing what she did. Meaning, I think Ms. Farrow jumped to a conclusion she may have subconsciously wanted to…. What really happened to Dylan? I don’t know, but I wish her well….the only victim in all of this, no matter what.

  • laskjcfs

    Yeah, no. Here’s a post from a guy who actually investigates this for a living.
    http://quadcitypat.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-investigative-look-at-woody-allen.html?spref=tw

    Sexual abuse doesn’t always leave scars. Allen’s a powerful man with a lot of influence in Hollywood. He dated a 17 year old in his 40’s. There’s a horrifying quote going around in which he was quoted about being found with 12 year old girls. He married the adopted partner of his long-time partner. If all of this doesn’t establish some sort of pattern, I don’t know what does.

    The justice system, as you know, is very far from perfect. It is immensely disappointing to see pieces like this and to see Bob Cesca telling people to “think critically” about this.

    • ib313

      Which 17 yr old? Soon Yi was 19 or 20 by every official account.

      Spreading outright lies certainly doesn’t help Dylan.

    • Robgb

      Right. Because we should never think critically. We should just assume a man is guilty of pedophilia (a crime involving children) because he’s attracted to nineteen year olds. By that logic you’d be locking up half the male population of the planet.

      I’m sorry, but I prefer to think critically and look at an accusation that was vetted and dismissed twenty years ago by a panel of experts in the field, rather than base my opinions on erroneous assumptions fueled by emotion.

      • laskjcfs

        Nice cherry picking. The 19 year old happened to be the adopted daughter of his long-term partner. Coupled with the comments, the relationship with a 17 year old and the accusations by Dylan, it’s worth, at the very least, a side-eye.

        And the justice system is very far from perfect. Did you read the blog post I linked to? From a guy who ACTUALLY does this awful work for a living? It might help you to think critically.

        • Robgb

          Again, nothing you’ve said equates to pedophilia. None of it. Even the accusations by Dylan were disputed by a panel of doctors. There’s just no there there. And if you AREN’T thinking critically, you will fail to see that.

          • will

            Then perhaps you should actually read the testimony, “However, our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis. Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive. While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur. While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected.” http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

          • Lindstr7

            There were no Drs. who saw Dylan from the Yale team. The only Dr. on the team never even saw the subject of the report he signed off on.

      • will

        Im sorry- but given that comment- How are you thinking critically?

      • Lindstr7

        Right. Your response doesn’t sound “emotional” at all rme. Pardon me, but I don’t think you’ve done enough reading on the actual case to comment. That panel of “experts” consisted of two social workers, not psychiatrists or psychologists, but social workers. The actual Dr. on the team, Dr. Leventhal, never even saw Dylan yet signed off on the report. The original notes were destroyed and the social workers who actually did see Dylan were not allowed to testify because Dr. Leventhal decided to speak for them since they were not PhDs.

        Also, Allen refused to take a lie detector test with the CT police and hired his own team to do a polygraph. This report was rejected by the CT police because of its obvious bias. The prosecutor’s office DID find enough evidence to warrant prosecution but decided not to in order to spare the already traumatized 7 year old. Also, it was Dylan’s pediatrician who decided to contact the police, not Farrow.

  • feloniousgrammar

    The OJ trial was my first experience seeing a lot of people argue about the guilt or innocence of Simpson as if they KNEW the truth; and I thought, ‘Fuck me! Is this a jury of my peers?!’

    Whether or not Woody Allen sexually abused Dylan, and whether or not she remembers what happens or it’s a false memory, the truth is that the sexual abuse of children is a very real problem in our society. It’s also true that women often accuse their husbands of sexual abuse because their husbands are guilty of sexual abuse, and the discovery of that often leads to divorce court and efforts on the mother’s part to keep the child away from the abuser for the good of the child.

    Twenty years ago, there was a tendency for many in the fields of psychiatry and psychology to see abuse everywhere. In counseling groups there was always the women who said her counselor had told her she was sexually abused, but she couldn’t remember ever being sexually abused. So, in a group of women trying to forget, there was always that one woman who couldn’t remember, and she was always an alcoholic.

    There was also the Satanic ritual abuse panic— the most bizarre witch hunt of the 20th Century, in which most of those accused of sexual abuse were women. Gloria Steinhem jumped on that bandwagon. As a feminist, I was never that impressed with her, but since I found out about her involvement in this witch hunt, I think very little of her. Feminists should tread carefully with this issue. A fair counselor should not wish to see sexual abuse, and should not ask children leading questions.

    The sexual abuse of children is a difficult topic for most people. I think it behooves us not to lean reflexively toward prosecuting in order to protect children. It also behooves us not to lean reflexively toward blaming mothers for using the divorce court to protect their child(ren). Most of the time, we can’t know.

    • ib313

      Here is what I have found out since this story caught my eye this time around. Farrow’s family is full of whackjobs…including a brother who _has_ molested a kid.

      Child molesters don’t stop at 1 child. Where are the others?

      • feloniousgrammar

        “Child molesters don’t stop at 1 child”? Impressions aren’t evidence.

    • Schneibster

      But it does behoove us to find out as much of the truth as we can. The worst offenses actually turn out usually to have been telegraphed by smug psychopaths.

      OTOH Woody Allen is not exactly my first choice for “smug psychopath of the year.” Just sayin’. ;)

      As you say, no telling. Not any more.

      Howzit, FG? I been slummin’, I’m back in the cream now.

  • Schneibster

    I am surprised, as a childless man, at the rancor apparent in both sides of the discussion.

    Furthermore I am surprised at the insensitivity of both sides, each of whom believes they are right. There is, unfortunately, when it comes to potential abuse, a tendency in children to be led. Given the motives in this case and the documented prior behavior of both of the adults, it is, at this late date, hopeless to determine what happened. Certainly there is no reason to blame the child involved in these adult situations. Unfortunately, nor is there any reason to believe what she says has more than a nodding acquaintance with anything anyone rational might refer to as “the truth” or “reality” or anything like that. The best way is to put it behind her and move on, and help her do this with cognitive therapy.

    • Robgb

      I don’t think anyone has blamed the child. Maybe I’m mistaken. But even Allen himself has said that he AND Dylan are victims here.

      • Schneibster

        I was talking more about some of the partisan comments I have seen. I suspect the principals wish everybody would STFU and they could forget about it and get on with their lives. I suspect Dylan is rebelling more against that than anything else. And as you say, one can hardly blame her.

        • Robgb

          Yeah, I don’t blame her at all. I do, however, blame her mother and brother for dredging it up again. This public outburst on both sides—and in the middle—is purely their doing. Their Twitter comments were completely unnecessary and, to my mind, suspect. Why now and not the last time one of Allen’s films got critical acclaim? Why call out the actors who work with Allen? It just strikes me as very odd behavior.

          • Schneibster

            I have observed that it is a common practice to make up the worst story one can about an “enemy” (however one defines that). This is even more common after alienation; common statements “I thought I knew hir.” “It was like s/he changed into a different person.” They are then ready to believe the worst thing about this “different person” “I don’t know any more” and in fact latch onto it as a conspiracy theory explanation for hir “evil” “behavior.”

  • QuadCityPat

    Thanks for writing this Chez. You’re right to be skeptical. I’ve been a child abuse investigator and a forensic sexual abuse interviewer for 20 years. What the ‘system’ put Dylan through was just horrible. We’ve come so far in 21 years. Kids aren’t put through 6 months of interrogations by strangers. They’re not examined vaginally and anally unless there’s a damn good reason.

    There’s a method now, there’s Children’s Advocacy Centers to do the interviews, there’s cops and DCFS and prosecutors trained on how to speak to children without leading them. Still with all of that the prosecution rate is only around 30 %.

    I do have a great deal of compassion for those survivors whose stories weren’t believed, or were believed, but not prosecuted for whatever reason. Dylan’s story opened all kinds of old wounds.

    Unfortunately because the case was so poorly handled by the professionals, we’ll never know for certain what happened.

    • Sally

      Have you ever investigated a case and found the accusation was not true?

      • QuadCityPat

        All the time. Probably around 50/50 founded/unfounded.

        • Lady Willpower

          Do you see a lot of people still stick to their story after 20 years, or is mostly a case of confused kids who get pressured into making an accusation by a vindictive parent?
          Because this is the thing that’s gotten me convinced that Dylan is telling the truth. Not that she made the accusation as a child, but that she’s still steadfast at the age of 28 that this is what happened.
          I admit to not being 100% sure, because who can be sure of anything we’re not witness to? All I know is that if I’m wrong for believing her, she’s a crazy person with a nightmare for a mother. If I’m right, a whole lot of people are making a whole lot of excuses for a monster named Woody Allen.

          • QuadCityPat

            The confused kids getting pressured by a parent in a custody case are very easy to weed out. Their accounts of alleged abuse aren’t internally consistent.

            Also most often with custody cases, the parents put their kids up to alleging physical abuse or neglect (ie Dad doesn’t feed me, Mom locks me in my room),

            Only the truly monstrous get their kids to allege sex abuse when it doesn’t happen.

            In this case, either way Dylan is a victim.

  • AskandTell

    Michael Wolff makes the case this revisiting of the Allen Farrow case is a media blitz to launch the career of Ronan and put Mia back in the spotlight as a celebrity activist. It began in November with Vanity Fair; the magazine wouldn’t move forward with an article unless Farrow discussed Woody Allen and provided a splash. Hence, the “father might be Frank Sinatra” tag line was born.

    “The Vanity Fair piece effectively launched Ronan. Overnight he went from unknown to celebrity, shortly hired by MSNBC. Two weeks ago, he was given a permanent spot on the cable news network’s schedule. He has, I am reliably told, promised a grateful MSNBC that his public fight with Allen is far from over.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-abuse-allegations

    • Lindstr7

      And Woody Allen didn’t use “spin” by putting all the focus on Mia when it was clearly Allen who acted inappropriately? Woody is the one whose career has thrived since these allegations and yet there are still people who think Mia did all of this for publicity to boost a career? Here Dylan is opening herself up to public scrutiny — again and yet the focus is still on Mia.

      When examining the integrity of both Mia Farrow and Woody Allen in the context of this story, I’ll go with Mia Farrow. Allen’s involvement with Soon-Yi, the sister of his children, his defacto step child, taking nude photos of her, acting not as a father figure but as a lover) makes it plain to most people that Allen is clearly the one who does not respect boundries and is unclear on what is appropriate behavior, not Farrow.

  • Victor Laszlo

    Here we have another example of an essay pretending to be balanced on this subject but clearly promoting the notion that Woody is the victim and Mia and Dylan are nuts.

    • Badgerite

      And that is why we have a legal system to deal with such allegations. And the worst place imaginable to deal with them is in the press or online. And the people doing that, should stop doing that. Whatever residual problems they are experiencing from whatever happened should be dealt with some other way.

    • Lindstr7

      Exactly. Woody is a victim and I’m mother Theresa.

  • QQS

    Two things. I was caught between two parents engaged in a hideous custody battle over me, and sexual abuse is a card both of my parents pulled against each other at the suggestion of their respective lawyers because it’s SO effective even if untrue. Both of my parents later apologized to me for using this strategy. That said, just because Mia might have used the allegations to her advantage doesn’t mean they weren’t founded. It’s entirely possible that Mia is responsible for discrediting Dylan by coaching her on something that actually happened, because Mia needed to spin it a certain way. And it’s entirely possible for there to be zero discernible evidence of abuse if the abuse isn’t penetrative. Just because there is no physical evidence, that Dylan’s testimony was shaky, and that the “help” felt bullied by Mia doesn’t mean that Dylan wasn’t sexually abused by Woody Allen. It only means that Woody couldn’t be convicted. When a child claims to be abused, you take it very, very seriously, no matter what, but especially when the alleged perpetrator has a predisposition towards exceedingly young, symbolically incestuous attractions. I don’t think Woody would consider his actions as sexual abuse either. Based on everything I know, I would wager that Woody Allen — for whom the incest taboo isn’t strong enough to prevent him from marrying his “symbolic” daughter — abused his non-blood-related adoptive daughter, and that Mia Farrow selfishly co-opted her daughter’s experiences for her own purposes, inadvertently discrediting them both. I believe Dylan, Mia and Woody all believe their are right.

    • Guest

      I’m sorry that happened to you. However, your comment is postulating what could have happened and what often happens to victims. We have a legal system that does not allow us to convict people based on such things. I guess, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side you fall on this argument, public opinion and the media can and does convict people all the time on postulation. There is no way, anyone wondering about the exculpating evidence can be considered anything other than an abuse apologist, even with lie detector tests, medical and psychological reports, statements from employees in the household that Mia trumped this up, other family members contradictory statements, and the sheer impracticality of *opportunity*, in that the most he had was 10 minutes, while the maid said less than 5, and it only purportedly happened this one time counter to every known habit and profile of a typical molestor, in the middle of a house full of hostile people, during a heated custody battle. I give up. I do feel sorry for this woman. So sorry. Know she is a victim. I just don’t know of whom.

      • QQS

        I agree with you about our legal system, I don’t think it should change. I think you’re missing something important: just because there is little evidence to support allegations of abuse in a court of law and that there is evidence of coaching does not preclude the possibility of abuse. Innocent until proven guilty is an important criminal philosophy that seeks to protect innocent defendants from being wrongly accused, but it comes at the collateral cost of rightful victims who see their perpetrators go free when evidence is hard to come by. One mistake is deemed more devastating than the other, which is why this philosophy exists. But because of it our criminal justice system is limited. To protect those who are potentially victims of these limitations, when conducting these public debates, I feel it is important to give credence to alleged victims’ testimony until evidence surfaces that proves her allegations are IMPOSSIBLE. Even if this comes at the cost of innocents being suspected of abuse. Because, just as it’s worse to be incarcerated unjustly than to have your rightful perpetrator go unpunished (innocent until proven guilty philosophy), it is much more damaging to be victim of abuse and have nobody believe you than to be innocent of a crime you will not go to jail for, but that people suspect you to have committed.

        And I also want to add to this that I feel Dylan is a victim of Mia as well as Woody.

        • Badgerite

          At least it is clear what you are saying. The legal system is certainly not infallible and can leave a great deal of wreckage in its wake. But no defendant could, or nearly no defendant, could meet such a standard of evidence. The accusation alone, would be proof of guilt, in almost all cases. And we don’t try people in ‘public debates’ and all vote guilty or innocent on the internet. This isn’t American Idol and we don’t do that for a very good reason.

          • QQS

            Would you be comfortable with OJ Simpson dating your daughter (or your mother, depending on how old you are)? I’d assume not (though I suppose I could be wrong). As I repeatedly said above, I’m not challenging the prosecutor’s decision to drop charges. The purpose of this public debate is for each one of us to figure out how to approach Woody Allen’s oeuvre in light of Dylan Farrow’s troubling testimony. And there are no wrong answers! We’re all free to absorb the information available and act on it as we see fit. I personally have chosen to research as best I can and discuss with peers so as to make the most informed decision I can make. But it’s absurd of you to claim that Woody is innocent because there is no evidence. Woody is free because there is no evidence, as he should be if there is no evidence. But the US Supreme Court has observed that “child abuse is one of the most difficult crimes to detect and prosecute, in large part because there often are no witnesses except the victim”. if you are interested in making an informed decision about this matter, I’d recommend you do some basic research around child abuse and the evidence needed to justify actual charges.

          • Badgerite

            “When a child claims to be abused, you take it very, very seriously, no matter what, but especially when the alleged perpetrator has a predisposition towards exceedingly young, symbolically incestuous attractions.”

            ‘Incestuous attractions’? He was involved with a girl who was anywhere from 18 to 21 years old. She was adopted from Vietnam and her true age is not known for certain. They subsequently married, adopted children of their own and are together to this day. That is a whole world apart from being attracted sexually to a 7 year old.
            And from all I have read, the charges were taken very, very seriously indeed. But charges do not equal guilt.
            I’m sure Woody Allen was responsible for a great deal of upset and conflict in Dylan Farrow’s childhood. But that that actually involved sexual contact is something I am skeptical of because of the rather emotional and bitter feelings that had to have charged that household at that time. I think it entirely possible that a sensitive child might sympathize so much with the distress of the custodial parent that that child might absorb the parent’s own attitude toward her father. Her mother saw the relationship with her other daughter (Soon-yi) in a certain light. As incestuous and bordering on child abuse. Would it be such a stretch for a 7 year old to start reassessing any contacts she had had with her father in the light shed on it by her mother’s own attitude toward his relationship with her older daughter. I don’t think it is. What may actually have just been innocent touching turns into something else. That is reinforced by a hyper reaction from her custodial parent. And that suddenly becomes reality for a 7 year old child. Whether it happened or not. Given the bitterness and recriminations flying at the time of the breakup, I actually think that is a much more likely scenario. I believe the authorities did as well. You cannot just dismiss the discrepancies in the child’s story when told to different interviewers as a 7 year old being scared. That is one possibility.
            The other possibility is that the child was following cues from her mother and as time went on, absorbing the story that her mother believed, or wanted to believe, rather than what actually occurred.

          • Lady Willpower

            “The other possibility is that the child was following cues from her mother and as time went on, absorbing the story that her mother believed, or wanted to believe, rather than what actually occurred.”

            While I would agree that this is a possibility, I just can’t bring myself to conclude that this is the likely story. It involves way too many “what ifs?” and hypotheticals.

            I’m just going to have to politely disagree on this one and leave it at that.

          • Badgerite

            Works for me. Personally, I go the other way on it. But I don’t see that my opinion does or should matter to the people involved. I think the girl has the support of the family members she is close to, and frankly that should be the most important thing to her. Who cares what a bunch of strangers think.

          • QQS

            I agree that your theory is plausible, but it’s just statistically less likely that a child alleging sexual abuse is lying, even in the context of a custody battle. For what it’s worth, it’s also likely that you’d have this reaction to sordid allegations against a beloved icon, even if the accusations wound up being founded, because it creates cognitive dissonance for you. For me to disbelieve a child who is claiming sexual abuse, I need to be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that she is lying. Evidence against Dylan is absolutely inconclusive (evidence of coaching is as well, according to the transcripts). This is my personal moral stance, to err on the side of least psychological harm. Luckily, as you pointed out, it’s very unlikely that this debate will do much for Dylan at all. She has shared her experience so that we can be more mindful about how we engage with Woody Allen’s films.

          • Badgerite

            Woody Allen is not a ‘beloved icon’ to me. He is just a film maker. I like some of his movies but ‘beloved Icon’ status in my life, he has never achieved. And, as I said, the problem with your approach is that you ASSUME guilt. We do not convict people or, one would hope, tarnish their reputations, based on ‘statistical probability’. No one would submit to a judicial system or any system that determined personal guilt based on statistical probability. What’s more, what is the basis of that statistic. I remember being told in a class (taught by a professional with a lot of experience in the field) that 99% of the people found guilty in the justice system are guilty. And that wasn’t the only ‘professional’ I ever heard that from. That, of course, was before DNA testing and a finding that there was a 50% error rate on death row in Illinois. And those were capital cases where you would expect the greatest care and least likelihood of mistake.
            No one has ‘charged’ Dylan Farrow with anything. I’m sure she believes everything she says. That is not the test of what is true, in the legal system, in politics or in life. No one has even charged Mia Farrow with anything anymore than the parents in the McMartin Preschool were charged with anything.
            I personally think that what she did was a product of true concern. I think the relationship between Allen and her older daughter, that she had been totally unaware of and was informed of by finding ‘pictures’ in the apartment, and the fact that she had a younger daughter experiencing emotional difficulties such as self mutilation raised alarm bells in her mind. I think she added up 2 and 2 and got 12.
            But I find it instructive that the worst incident in Dylan’s memory happened just at the time that her mother started to focus on her as a victim of abuse. And not before.
            In short, I see this as one giant human fuck up. No monsters involved.
            And then there is Moses Farrow. He is a trained professional as well, I gather. And he has a totally different take on events. And he has close knowledge of the people and the events in question.

          • QQS

            Per 2006 studies, US juries wrongfully convict anywhere between 9% and 25% (it’s not possible to estimate which % of acquittals are wrongful). But as Blackstone put it, it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. As such, if I was a juror and this case had gone to trial, I too would acquit Woody Allen for lack of evidence.

            What I am fighting you on is your assumption that acquittal means innocence. Acquittal (or dropped charges) in this case means that they didn’t have enough proof to convict Woody Allen, though the prosecutor mentioned there was “probable cause”. And we do know that it is VERY difficult to prove sexual abuse of children.

            So as Blackstone did, knowing that both your theory and mine are both plausible truths, I am weighing the consequences of both possible errors: in other words, if I decide Woody is innocent when he actually did molest his daughter, and I continue to see his films, I have just put money in the pocket of a child molester. Alternately, if I decide Woody is guilty when he is in fact innocent, a wealthy man will forfeit a few movie ticket bucks from me. It’s a no brainer for me personally.

          • Badgerite

            Well, if we are talking about movie tickets, as opposed to trial by internet and crowds of villagers showing up with torches and pitchforks, sure. Do as your own feelings and moral sense tell you to do.

          • QQS

            Something tells me those internet villager pitchforks would be LED :)

    • Badgerite

      Woddy Allen was not only not convicted, he was not even charged. You are making all sorts of assumptions in your comment that have no evidence supporting them. “Based on everything I know”, isn’t really a standard of evidence or an objective standard of anything. Based on everything I know, JD Salinger was attracted to much younger women. That doesn’t mean he abused any of them.
      As I understand it the allegations were seriously investigated. These are people who it would not be wise for local officials to ignore, and they did not ignore them or the allegations.

    • Robgb

      And again, from the New York Times: “Last March, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested.”

    • KafeSociety

      you’re making a huge assumption and judgement based on incorrect info. Allen was in no way Soon-Yi’s “symbolic” father. She has a father, Andre Previn; Allen was never married to Mia, they never lived together, he claims he never even slept over at Mia’s apartment, and was in no way a father or authority figure to her. His romance with Soon-Yi, with whom he’d rarely spoken to up to that time, happened after he and Mia broke up. I admit I found the whole thing weird and disturbing at the time, but here they are 21 years later still happily married, so go figure.

  • diarrhea bride

    Cries of “innocent until proven guilty!” and “I don’t know what happened and neither do you” abound when we talk about sex crimes against women and girls, but they never seem to come up when someone is accused of, say, robbery or auto theft. In every other crime, the victim’s account isn’t subjected to this kind of intense scrutiny. I must have missed your column urging us to reserve judgment on Justin Bieber’s alleged crimes.

    • Sally

      Not true at all. Innocent until proven guilty is at the core of our social contract, be it charges of child abuse or robbery or cheating on your taxes. If a six month criminal investigation found Justin Bieber innocent of driving while intoxicated I’m pretty sure we’d accept it and move on – just as the public did 21 years ago.

      • Michael Cooney

        Actually, I think she has a point, Sally. Yes, innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our _legal_ philosophy, but it is not truly taken to heart by a lot of folks in public opinion. Where I disagree is her assertion that it is about the crime. Rather I think it’s about the accused. If the accused of a car theft is a black youth from the hood, no one blinks twice about him being thought of as guilty. However, if it’s a humble-seeming white man, then he couldn’t possibly have done it.

        • Sally

          Allen might not be humble-seeming, but he is a white guy, and the overwhelming public opinion is that he’s guilty. It may be 50-50 here, but this is not a true sample – take a peek elsewhere and you’ll find plenty of gallows poles.

          • Robgb

            Public opinion is shaped by mob mentality and a sensationalist press seeking ad dollars, and it’s very easy for most people to ignore the actual facts of the case and jump on the band-wagon. Most people let emotion drive them, not logic.

    • ib313

      Some of Bieber’s crimes aren’t really crimes to many.

      Also, Bieber has had 3 run-ins with the police in as many months.

      Where are Woody’s other vicitims? Pedophiles don’t stop at 1 child.

  • Badgerite

    We have legal systems for a reason. They are fairer. There is a chance of presentation of evidence and rebuttal of that evidence. I don’t think ‘twitter’ is the appropriate place for a trial.

    • Lady Willpower

      On that we can certainly agree. Twitter is useless.

  • Razor

    “The only people who know what happened are Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow…” Yet people are twisting themselves into pretzels to not believe the story of one of the “only people” who know.

    Here’s what I know: Woody Allen is gross. That may not make him a pedophile, but he’s definitely gross and has a weird sexual history with young women that makes me uncomfortable giving him any sort of praise. Hollywood should be distancing themselves from the Woody Allens and Roman Polanskis of the world, yet they’re handing out lifetime achievement awards and standing ovations at every turn.

    • Badgerite

      You might want to follow the link in paragraph 7 of the post which links to an article by Robert Weide. Read the whole thing. And read all the links in the article. And then tell me that the case is cut and dried and he is guilty. I can say one thing about this and that is that there is no way you would get a conviction in a court of law based on this kind of evidence. Reasonable doubt is not only present, but ever present. Weide makes some very good points and he relates some official reports that call into question any case against Woody Allen. And one of the points he makes is that Mia Farrow has always defended Roman Polanski. And we know that one IS true and proven in court.
      What’s more, I find the New York Times total rejection of the rights of the accused to be totally contradictory to their posturing as defenders of the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways.

      • Razor

        You might want to re-read my comment and tell me where I said he is “cut and dried” guilty.

        I said he’s gross and has a weird history with young women that makes me uncomfortable and it bugs me that Hollywood will circle their wagons around child rapists and accused child molesters when they’re supposed to be the smart people.

        • feloniousgrammar

          I have no idea whether Woody Allen abused Dylan, or not; but being attracted to 18 year old woman is not at all like being a pedophile. Dylan was a prepubescent girl at that time.

  • Hugo S LaVia

    Joe Paterno – New Yorker.



    Woody Allen – New Yorker.



    Joe Paterno – legend in his chosen field.



    Woody Allen – legend in his chosen field.



    Joe Paterno – implicated in sex scandal perpetrated by a guy
    who worked for him.



    Woody Allen – implicated in sexual misconduct by his
    stepdaughter.



    Joe Paterno – excoriated for eternity.



    Woody Allen – recent recipient of Golden Globe lifetime
    achievement award.

    • Badgerite

      Here’s the difference. Joe Paterno’s subordinate was FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. That is a rather big difference. No case was ever pursued with Allen because no case was present that would have allowed for a conviction. Under our system of justice. Under the internet system of justice, whose to say?

      • Bubble Genius

        Let us also not forget that Sandusky was charged with over 50 acts of molestation on multiple victims over a decade or more. Where are the others in Woody Allen’s case?

        • Lady Willpower

          Just the account from one was enough to convince me.

  • Frank

    This article is no different than the Daily Beast that you pulled your false ‘facts’ from, it is all conjecture not fact at all- where’s the lie detector test you mention, why didn’t you cite that, you cited everything that tried to defame Mia? Where is Moses’ statement, why not put a link to that?
    Dylan is a 28 year old woman, there is zero fact that a memory can be implanted in detail on a seven year old (who are pretty precocious) without her understanding the event as an autonomous adult- she has a husband and children of her own and she is very bright.
    These attempts to defend Allen are only proof of what influence he has. the article you ripped this info from was one penned by Allen’s doc writer= you fool!

    • Badgerite

      See comment above to Razor. Check out the link in paragraph 7 to the article by Robert Weide. Read whole article and all links to all official reports and reportage.
      This is not something that didn’t go beyond the investigation point because Mia Farrow dropped it. If there are allegations of child abuse, those must be pursued. Whether the mother supports them or not. They were pursued and found to have insufficient merit to go beyond the investigation stage. Period. They would never have gotten a conviction on this in a court of law. There are statements from nannies, present during the events in question, that do not support what was alleged. And allegations from one that she was pressured to support statements she could not. The Allens have subsequently adopted children (two girls) and went through the vetting process required to do so.
      Both Mia Farrow and Woody Allen were stars in their own right with supporters and resources to fight this out legally. No charges were brought because there was no case that could stand up in court. The internet is not court. And a ‘J’Accuse’ on the internet or in print is not court.

  • Steve Regis

    The guy passed a freaking lie detector test. It’s still possible he’s guilty, of course, but if you are convinced that a guy who passed a lie detector test is guilty, you’ve obviously got an agenda.

    If you’re a liberal, like I am, take a step back and imagine it’s a black teenager accused of murder. The physical evidence isn’t there. He passes a lie detector. Psychologists and doctors look at the evidence and don’t see enough, though others might maintain some suspicions. The only compelling evidence comes from the testimony of a seven year old. And the seven year old’s mother hates the accused with a passion. And some doctors think the seven year old was coached. And the mother is kind of nuts in general.

    What would you think of someone who was 100% convinced that the teenager was guilty and couldn’t wait to get his head on a stick? Particularly if they reasoned that blacks commit more crimes than other races and so it’s fair to assume they’re guilty until proven otherwise.

    • Lady Willpower

      Woody Allen is a privileged white male celebrity, not a poor black teenager. Privileged white celebrities don’t exactly get railroaded by the system all the time. Strange comparison.

      • Steve Regis

        I’m not saying he is being railroaded. I’m not talking about the legal system at all. I’m not saying I’m 100% sure he’s innocent, either.

        I’m talking about people who assume guilt based on who the person is, in this case a “privileged white male,” in the other case a black teenager. This, as opposed to looking at the evidence. If someone was ready to condemn the black teen on similar evidence, with similar reasoning, they would be considered a racist. And rightly so.

        Woody is “one of those types” so he must be guilty.

        You might think that white males are inherently bad or something along those lines, but do you really think they have a special ability to pass lie detectors?

        • Lady Willpower

          “You might think that white males are inherently bad or something along those lines”

          Wow. Yeah, because that’s really what I said. I don’t think Woody Allen is “one of those types.” I don’t even know what you’re implying by that. The only “type” I think he is is the type of man who molests children. The only evidence I have is the heartfelt testimony of the woman who said he did it to her. That’s all I got.

          I don’t know where you’re getting all this shit about my preconceived notions.

          And while we’re on the subject of black teenagers, George Zimmerman passed a lie detector test, too. I guess that means he didn’t do anything wrong.

          • Steve Regis

            Maybe I misinterpreted you. You mentioned he is a “privileged white male” and have said:

            “But as far as I’m concerned the burden of innocence in a case like this lies with the innocent victim.Maybe it’s harsh, but I’ve seen too many women marginalized and dismissed. Real women who really were raped, and no one cared. Plenty of them heard the same shit about “misremembering and exaggerating,” yet they really were raped.”

            That’s true, but it doesn’t have much to do with the evidence in THIS case. There is a lot of evidence suggesting Allen is innocent. Maybe it’s all misleading, and he is guilty. Maybe the evidence exists because he is innocent. We don’t know.

            Maybe the “black teenager” example is too inflammatory and a poor counterpoint to a rich white guy. Plug in “poor, white, teenage metal head,” if you like, as in the West Memphis 3 case.

            The basic point I’m trying to make is you can’t condemn someone for what similar people in similar situations have done (or in the WM3 case, are imagined to have done).

            If all you’re saying is that you’re gut reaction is that he’s guilty, fair enough. The majority of people are saying he should be regarded as guilty (or innocent) and simply disregarding evidence they don’t like. The point the article makes very well is we don’t have very good grounds for doing that, either way.

            I didn’t follow the Zimmerman case closely. My ill informed guess is that he was guilty of at least something, maybe the stuff he was charged with, but I don’t really know. Lie Detectors are not 100% obviously. However, for someone accused of a crime like molesting a child to freely come forward, take the test and pass it, points to, but does not prove, innocence.

          • Frank

            you seem to have an intense vested interest in the whole deal, you’re definitely not an objective party.
            BTW Moses and Mia are not estranged, she gushed up his wedding they attended a few months ago. There are no reports of him saying he was brainwashed but this and the Daily Beast that Allens fiction writer wrote.

          • Guest

            No, that was another Farrow. She is estranged from Moses. It also said so in the recent VF piece on her, her family and her work in Africa. Although in that article it said “Moses is separated from his wife and children [nice way to make him sound like a prick– pretty sue he is separated from his wife only] and does not stay in touch with the rest of the family” or something. In the Daily Beast piece, Bob Weide quotes Moses and says that Moses has been estranged from Mia for several years.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            There is no evidence suggesting Allen is innocent that’s not contradicted by a better source. And come to think of it…there’s precious little exculpatory I’m aware of at all.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            IF you’ll ACTUALLY RESEARCH the case, there is precious little evidence of any kind suggesting Allen’s innocence. Much of what we believe was put about by publicists over the ten years after the incidents–the ‘vengeful lover’ story, for example, is shockingly unsupported by any evidence.

            Your closing paragraph is further evidence: FACT–Allen refused to take the police lie detector test (he payed for a private lie detector, which the police refused to accept as evidence). If he were innocent, why refuse the polygraph the police demanded? Why? (answer: because private polygraphs return negatives much more frequently. Something about who’s paying the bill, perhaps? I don’t know the details further in this case)

          • Frank

            there doesn’t exist a real lie detector test

          • Guest

            It’s mentioned in a court transcript, according to one writer, and Allen refers to it in interviews over the years.

      • Sally

        Mia Farrow is also a privileged, white celebrity, with the backing of the Sinatras and the Previns. Power-wise, they’re on roughly equal footing, with slight advantage perhaps going to Farrow.

        • Jason

          You think i white female has the same powerbase and influence as a white male?
          Did a patriarchy get deposed while i was sleeping last night?

          • Sally

            Woody Allen – a niche intellectual film director – is about as close to the “patriarchy” as quinoa is to apple pie.

          • Jason

            Woody Allen is one of the more celebrated film directors of this past generation.
            I strongly suspect his patriarchal privilege is perfectly intact.

          • Sally

            Oh – how intact? Intact enough to protect him from unsubstantiated allegations? Allegations that 21 years ago were subjected to a six month criminal investigation which concluded no abuse had taken place? Intact enough to prevent people who don’t remember the context and who are not familiar with the case from casting aspersions on its veracity? Intact enough to prevent him from being publicly vilified for a crime that he was never charged with?

            Intact enough for you to see him as innocent until proven guilty?

          • Jason

            If he is innocent, he hasn’t served any time. If he is guilty then Dylan has served 21 years and counting.

          • Sally

            At least you’re willing to answer that you do in fact reject our social contract, that we are innocent until proven guilty, although the smarm was gratuitous.

          • Jason

            Nah….i don’t reject “innocent until proven guilty”.
            Everyone seems happy to pile on Allens side and provide context and mitigating facts. most of which vilify the mother of a clearly innocent girl and marginalise a now fully grown woman who is retelling her story as an adult.
            I don’t feel it out of place to restate some fairly obvious supporting context. And one piece of context i find fairly easy to imagine is that 21 years ago a celebrated white male film director at the apex of his career might be able to avoid repercussions for almost any actions.

          • Sally

            “Everyone is piling on Allen’s side”? You must not have a Twitter account. Defense of Allen is decidedly in the minority. This blog post is a rarity.

          • Jason

            It is not the first time i have been on the minority side of a discussion on this site.

          • Lady Willpower

            Exactly. It’s hard enough to make these charges stick when the accused isn’t famous. Is it really that hard to imagine that a rich filmmaker was able to make his case against a scared 7-year old go away?

          • Sally

            Allen didn’t “make this case go away” – there was a criminal investigation that lasted six months. Allen is no more famous than Farrow, and Farrow has always had the backing of the Sinatras and the Previns. Try as you might you can’t make this a David and Goliath match up.

            If you had been around during the original allegations you would understand the context. To frame this as a powerful Allen silencing a powerless Farrow is absurd. Mia Farrow was in the press every single day, airing a multitude of complaints against Allen, and public opinion was in her favor.

            What undid this particular accusation in the public’s eye was the context. Farrow claimed the incident happened during the custody negotiations, while Allen was visiting her home – a period which came after Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi was discovered and the subsequent bomb went off in the press. It is inconceivable that Farrow would have left Allen alone with Dylan or any of her children in this time period. This is the single alleged incident and the subject of a criminal investigation.

            At the time, no one defended Allen based on his reputation as a director or as a human being. The public was disgusted by him. The public moved on because Mia Farrow was not credible.

            False accusations of abuse happen during custody battles. Rarely do the accusers cite a singular incident that happened during the custody battle.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Woody Allen has successfully put around the idea that Mia was not a credible accuser–problem being, she was not his original accuser at all. This was no vengeful lover vendetta. This case came before the public because Dylan Farrow’s pediatrician found evidence of child abuse and informed Mia he was legally obligated to inform the authorities. Suspicion immediately fell on Woody.

          • rebeccagavin

            Everything I have read says the pediatrician did not find evidence. Doctors are mandated to report, whether they find evidence or not.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Correct on second point. Two doctors were consulted, though–one Dylan pointed at the vagina. In the other she pointed at the shoulder. People only know the latter story.

          • diarrhea bride

            Innocent until proven guilty applies to finding someone guilty in criminal court (as it should, since the stakes are so high.) It doesn’t apply to internet comments and it’s not a “social contract.”

          • Lady Willpower

            OK, why do YOU think Dylan insists that it happened? You think she’s lying, why do you think that?

          • Sally

            Read the post already! This is what we’re commenting on.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            There’s nothing at all unsubstantiated about the allegations against him–if you’d bother to check, in fact, there are reams of evidence, probably enough to put him behind bars twenty years ago. Try Vanity Fair’s summation of Allen’s lies and distortions used to shape public perception by portraying the case as a matter of great doubt.

          • Frank

            You’re out to lunch! Buy a brain before you comment on posts next time “Sally”/Sam

          • Lady Willpower

            The whole reason this is back in the news is that Woody received a lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes. This is not a story about Whit Stillman. It’s Woody Allen, one of the most celebrated and influential filmmakers of the past 40 years.

          • Sally

            The whole reason this is back in the news is because Mia and Ronan Farrow put it there. No one here is remotely suggesting that if these allegations are true Allen should be given a pass based on his talent and reputation. Again I remind you, when these allegations first surfaced, no one defended Allen based on his job. He was only defended by default, after Farrow ran out of credibility. Most people wanted Allen to just go away, finding his relationship with Soon-Yi too icky to contemplate.

            It is ironic that Mia Farrow supports Roman Polanski, who has been convicted of statutory rape and has never denied the charge, but simply disputes the sentence.

            I admit that says nothing about Dylan Farrow. It does, however, speak to her mother’s lack of moral credibility.

          • Lady Willpower

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/woody-allen-roman-polansk_n_578293.html

            Woody supports Roman Polanski, too.
            I’d call that one a push.

          • Sally

            That’s not actually ironic though, is it?

          • Lady Willpower

            I just fail to see how it’s a strike against Mia Farrow but not against Woody Allen. This case isn’t being decided based on what’s the most ironic twist.*

            * obviously it’s not a case at all anymore.

          • AskandTell

            As does Mia Farrow.

          • Lady Willpower

            That’s what I was responding to. They’re both nuts for supporting that creep, and it has nothing to do with Dylan’s open letter.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Could you describe a way, or an example, of how Mia ‘ran out of credibility’?

            I remember a few examples, myself–it’s just that they’re all lies put about by Allen’s lawyers and publicists.

          • Lady Willpower

            Wow, lot of Whit Stillman fans in the house.

          • Dawn R. Wolfe

            While I have no idea who has the most power in the Farrow/Allen dynamic, it doesn’t seem correct to me to assume she has less. Even in this patriarchy, a given woman may well have more power and influence than a particular man. To assume otherwise feels to me to be an overgeneralization *and* disempowering.

            Just a free opinion — Your Mileage May Vary and all other caveats apply.

          • Jason

            You can certainly dismiss the influence of patriarchy on a situation occurring 21 years ago involving a celebrated white male film director at the apex of his career if you like.

          • Lucas Ropek

            What is this? A senior term sociology paper on the war of the subalterns? You could go ON and ON. It’s absurd. Woody is also a Jew. Are we going to argue about who has been more persecuted: women or Jews? The point is NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, so why is everybody convinced they’re right?

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            You are wrong, sir. There is a large quantity of twenty year old documentary evidence implicating Woody Allen as an abuser. The man is guilty as sin.

          • Lucas Ropek

            Well great. Case closed. Can you supply the link to the documentary? Then we can all go home satisfied.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            You don’t even bother to read my comment accurately. There’s no documentary. Only ‘documentary evidence.’ Here’s a bit:
            Now, having challenged sarcastically, will you read it?

            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

          • Guest

            Did you mean to say “documented evidence”? I have no idea what “documentary evidence” is unless you’re talking about a film. I’ve already read this article, and the attached 33-pg. document–which is based largely on testimony from Mia Farrow, relatives of Mia Farrow, and the like. It could have basis, yes. But it could also be total BS.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Then you’re simply unaware of how English language is used in that regard, sir. ‘Documentary evidence’ is a longstanding term describing, you know, evidence in written form. I did not mean ‘documented evidence’ as that’s not the germane term in a legal context.

            Also, I fail utterly to see how this article could be the work of Farrow-partisan plants. Makes no sense whatsoever.

          • Lucas Ropek

            Great. Tomorrow, my vocabulary will be one legalese term richer, but you’ll be a presumptive moron forever.

          • Lucas Ropek

            Stunning use of “germane,” btw. What’d you think? “Ah, now that my opponent has shown his ignorance of an obscure legal term I can spring for the 2-dollar-and-50-cents word in a show of triumphant lexiconic excess!” Color me shocked and in awe. Bravo, you strapping young champion of the world of diction. Hat’s off.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Right. It’s totally impossible that someone might think that’s the most precise and appropriate word for the case. Apparently you think big words are impressive though (I don’t–and ‘germane’ is neither big nor rare), I’ll give you a tip, free of charge: the idiom you were searching for is ‘5 dollar word!’

            Ass-munch.

          • Lucas Ropek

            Therein lies the joke, as “germane” is neither big enough, nor impressive enough to be a 5 dollar word, yet it’s still pretentious enough to be awkward. Methinks no one ever taught you the importance of irony. I think you’re missing my overall point, which is that your dogmatic presumption that Woody Allen is guilty is stupid.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            So….you accused me of being pretentious by using a word you now admit was not actually very pretentious. Gotcha. I can’t believe I missed that irony. I’ll have to be more careful or limit all my words to under six letters to avoid your devastating irony.

            Re: Woody Allen, there’s no dogma, not of mine. Only obstinance: yours. And evidence, of which: your avoidance of it, your refusal to acknowledge it, is a waste of my time. So, you know. Piss off, whatever. I’m out. Not gonna read your reply.

          • Lucas Ropek

            Okay, genius. Good luck in your cave with all the other bears.

          • Lucas Ropek

            I have already read this article and the attached 33-pg. document. A lot of it is based on testimony from Mia Farrow and her relatives, and friends of the family. It could have basis, but it could also be total BS.

          • Louis

            Women have more power than men do today, especially in family court. Men almost always lose in family court… not only custody, but they’re made to pay child support, alimony, etc.

          • http://www.compulsivecollector.com/ Compulsive Collector

            Utter nonsense. Women only receive custody more often than men when the men make no attempt to win custody. When they challenge for it, they’re actually more likely to get it. The notion that women have more power than men is patently absurd, and you are a ridiculous little man for typing it.

    • Frank

      are you that gullible? Where is the proof that he ever took a test? What he does have is these obfuscaters trying to deny a ADULT married woman story b/c of Allen’s money.. The brother only knows what the father tells him, perps are very convincing. Moses was already out of Mia’s house when this all happened.

      • Steve Regis

        One source is the article above, which also discusses false memories. I know a lot of people are repeating the words “Adult woman!” but that doesn’t rebut any of the points in the article.

        Here’s another source for the lie detector test. 60 Minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mqyS36-n7U&noredirect=1

        • Frank

          The article above simply draw it’s material from a bogus artcle penned by Allens doc writer, and now you are expecting me to get the perps version- buy a brain and learn how to dicern LOGIC.
          Adults do NOT remain brainwashed from childhood.

          • Steve Regis

            In the 60 minutes piece I linked to, they suggest that they reviewed the test results and psychological evaluations. There’s also an AP article quoting Allen’s lawyer talking about the test. I guess you’ll say that’s all fabricated, just as you say adults can’t have false memories. Believe whatever you want.

          • Robgb

            From the New York Times, 2/4/1994:

            “Last March, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested.”

            As Alec Baldwin said, due process. These allegations have been thoroughly investigated and found to be false.

          • Jason

            There are plenty of examples where justice is failed even though due process is applied. I reserve the right to speak out against those instances as well.

          • Robgb

            Absolutely. As long as you aren’t making false accusations based solely on emotion and no factual information. It’s easy to make assumptions and much harder to prove them. So if we’re speaking out, perhaps we should do it responsibly.

          • Lady Willpower

            Lack of evidence does not equal lack of crime. It just makes it harder to prove. Smart pedophiles know what they’re doing.
            Dylan’s open letter is all the evidence I need. And no, I don’t think that’s enough for a court case. I’m saying it’s enough to convince me of her story.

          • Robgb

            So let’s condemn a possibly innocent man on a gut feeling? I’m glad I don’t live in your world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/brian.loysen MuscleBustedLabia

            Hey it’s what “girl” power is all about.
            You will find way more men against Woody than women against Dylan (or rather her claims, not herself. Like the author…i think she was manipulated)
            So which gender is more sexist?

          • Lady Willpower

            He’s not on trial.
            And I see you have no problem condemning the women in this case. Your world doesn’t sound so hot, either.

          • Robgb

            No he’s not on trial. And thank god you’re not on a jury. My world believes in logic and relying on the facts as we know them to exist. If those facts change, then my opinion will change.

            It’s a pretty damn good world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/brian.loysen MuscleBustedLabia

            Wow…..Lady Willpower…..Dylan’s open letter is all you need….
            If she was coached to make those statements by her mother….if her mother talked to her about it over and over and over she would have those memories. Did you not comprehend the article?

            I’ve seen a woman use her child to try and stop losing custody. I’ve seen how easy it is for a parent to use “love” to corrupt a child’s memories. So I can see it.

            Smart pedophiles know what they are doing? Where did you get that from. Smart people tend to know more about what they are doing than others. Pedophiles often have way more than one incident. There are often tells.

            I’m not saying Woody is innocent…but it seems like a lot of pro Dylan types are saying there is no way she wasn’t molested.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            That is a false statement. This article is about the egregious faults in methodology of the team you mention above.

            There has been no due process, and you are bizarrely ignorant for suggesting the allegations have been found false–though I fault you less for the truly impressive web of misinformation put about by Allen’s team over decades. In terms of actual investigated evidence, it heavily undermines Allen’s claims. The one legal procedure, the custody battle, found the judge considering Allen an untrustworthy person and awarding all custody rights to his opponent while forcing Allen to recoup their legal bills. That was the sole result of any ‘due process’ in this case.

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            It’s a quote. Read the quote. Then read the actual documents if it’s unclear.

            As for the custody battle, that’s a separate civil matter with different standards of proof and is one man’s—the judge’s—opinion that really has nothing to do with or have any bearing on Allen’s alleged criminality. A family court judge declaring that he feels the crime may have been committed does not mean the crime actually was committed.

            Allen was not charged criminally for one simple reason: the police and prosecutor did not have enough evidence against him and the child-abuse investigation team found that Dylan had not been abused.

            Anything after that is theater.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Allen’s defenders just can’t make a statement without mouthing falsehoods, can they? Allen was not charged criminally for one simple reason: Mia Farrow asked the police not to press charges. Both DA and judge thought it would be appropriate to do so. Get your facts right while you’re getting off your high horse.

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            Have you ever worked in law? I did for twenty years. The judge has nothing to do with a decision to prosecute, that’s all on the prosecutor. Prosecutors have a known bias against “suspects,” especially when it’s a high target suspect that can potentially further their career. The prosecutor in this case was initially reprimanded for making claims that he had proof that Allen was guilty.

            The bottom line is this: they didn’t prosecute because they didn’t have the evidence. Everything else was show.

            You seem to have invested yourself in Allen’s guilt. I merely go by the evidence and the belief in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Prosecutor then.
            And, yet, more disinformation! Allen used his contacts to create an investigation into this man’s career. He was NEVER disciplined, yet you continue to repeat the lie (the investigation, at length, was discontinued ‘due to a lack of evidence’ of misconduct).

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            He was reprimanded and the reprimand was later withdrawn. Which is why I said “initially.” And any lawyer worth his salt would want to find out if a prosecutor has a particular bias. They didn’t “investigate” his career. They simply looked at his record of cases. There’s nothing nefarious in that.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            PS – No, never worked in the law. Still retain my faculties to process information and make judgments, though.

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            Then what you have is a biased opinion and nothing more. You cannot judge a man without facts and you have no facts and obviously aren’t interested in listening to the facts. You confuse judges with prosecutors and reporters with actual police investigators and civil proceedings with criminal courts. No wonder you think he’s guilty.

          • Bubble Genius

            Good god, it’s not up to the parent of an allegedly abused child to make the decision whether to press charges against a suspected molester. If there is evidence of same, the onus is on the prosecutor. If they had found clear evidence of molestation, they would have been bound to press charges.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            And you just ignored the article starting this about how the investigation team’s methodologies were cripplingly flawed, didn’t you–a report written by a doctor who’d never interviewed the victim?!

            How, tell me, do you explain away the pediatrician’s initial referral which brought in the investigators–that is, the doctor’s initial findings which found evidence of abuse?

            Anyone with medical knowledge knows the vagina heals rapidly, so the lack of physical proof of abuse by the team, arriving (how much?) later, is not particularly convincing.

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            Because the guy who wrote the article was there? Sorry, I’ll take the word of the actual doctors who investigated, not some guy who wrote an article.

            As for the pediatrician, that doctor had no choice but to report once an accusation had been made.

            You really want to believe Allen is guilty—so believe it. That’s fine. That’s your particular bias.

            My particular bias is believing in innocent until proven guilty.

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            They didn’t do just physical examinations. They did interviews with Dylan and the parents and people in the household. They found that Dylan had not been abused and was either fabricating the story or had been coached by her mother.

            The flawed part of the investigation was that they allowed Mia to be present during some of the interviews with Dylan. That would be a bias against ALLEN.

            Of course, those going after Allen are going to claim the methodologies were flawed. They didn’t get the evidence they thought they would. So, hey, let’s completely ignore the actual facts because we have a “gut feeling” he committed the crime.

            You’d better hope and pray that if you’re ever accused of a crime, someone doesn’t have a gut feeling about you. Because it could ruin your life for no reason whatsoever.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I have read the quote, sir–written by a man who’d never actually met Dylan. Very good medicine, there. Then I read the critiques of said quote. Guess who wins in the ‘intellectual credibility’ department?

          • joeJoeJonesJones

            His team collected the information and evaluated. His findings were based on what his team reported to him. Try as you might, you can’t skew this to conform to your belief.

      • Thawed Cave Bear

        He did take a test, FYI, merely a privately administered one that the police did not find credible. He refused the police’s polygraph.

    • Jon Fox

      Polygraphs are easy to beat.

    • Melissa

      His Lawyer said he took and passed a lie detector test and we know lawyers would never lie for their client! I am also sick of hearing Soon Ye was legal age when they started up, what proof is there of that? That little Pedo sicko is disgusting and Hollywood needs to get a clue and MORALS!

      • Robgb

        The proof is in Mia Farrow’s autobiography.

        • KafeSociety

          That’s hardly proof, that’s spin. There is no “proof,” but its likely the truth is more in line with the conclusion of the six month investigation in 1992 where doctors and investigators concluded it likely those memories were planted there by Mia, which is child abuse on a whole different level. There’s also a matter of Farrow’s attorneys demanding a $7 million settlement from Allen not to pursue the allegations. Not to mention Mia’s brother is a convicted child molester; maybe *he* did it, which accounts for Dylan’s memories, and Mia decided to stick Allen with the charges. We just don’t know, but we do have the damning conclusions of the 1992 investigation.

    • DEADPOOL

      Thanks for putting this into perspective for all the self-professed progressives out there. It astonished me how for many of them, no miniscule amount of doubt or procedural errors is enough to throw out a criminal conviction, unless the crime is sexual in nature and the victim is a woman. In that case, it’s a race to see who can lynch the accused first.

    • Thawed Cave Bear

      Allen refused the even take the lie detector test the police demanded he do. Instead, he took an independent test, which the police did not accept as evidence.

  • Teresa Moore

    There are sadly many cases of molestation and many cases of coached false allegations. The timing of events here tends to point to the latter.

    • Lady Willpower

      You think she’s still lying now, 20 years later?

      • JK131660

        “Lying” is the wrong term. She believes what she is saying, whether it is true or not.

        • Lady Willpower

          But you think it’s untrue. You think this woman is not being truthful, intentionally or otherwise. You think she’s put herself out there with an open letter, telling a grotesque story of abuse, and that none of it is true.
          I’m not ready to say that about any woman who claims abuse. Sure, of course some of them lie. But as far as I’m concerned the burden of innocence in a case like this lies with the innocent victim.
          Maybe it’s harsh, but I’ve seen too many women marginalized and dismissed. Real women who really were raped, and no one cared. Plenty of them heard the same shit about “misremembering and exaggerating,” yet they really were raped.
          Look, I’m not saying Woody Allen should be thrown in jail. The legal system can do nothing about this. I just believe Dylan Farrow’s story. And I think a lot more people would believe her, if only they didn’t like Woody’s movies so much.

          • JozefAL

            Sorry, Lady W, but you “just believe Dylan Farrow’s story” based on WHAT? Evidence of OTHER women and children who’ve been raped and molested? The problem with doing that is that there’ve been dozens of cases where people were falsely accused of molestation (and worse) and were convicted, only to have their convictions overturned because those cases involved police and parents’ planting false memories in the children or wording their questions to the children in a way that would give the investigators what they wanted to hear (“Are you sure he/she didn’t touch you HERE instead of there?”).

            If you have any HARD evidence that supports Dylan Farrow’s claims, you need to present it. Otherwise, you’re merely stating an unfounded opinion (“if only they didn’t like Woody’s movies so much”). For the record, I can say that Woody’s movies make no difference on my opinion of this case. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever watched a Woody Allen film–certainly not one all the way through. As for Dylan’s claims, I don’t know whether they’re true or not. But as the timing of the alleged abuse just happens to coincide with a period in which her adoptive parents were splitting up (and custody battles are NOTORIOUS for having one parent using the child/ren to vilify the other parent–including abhorrent lies).

          • Lady Willpower

            “Sorry, Lady W, but you ‘just believe Dylan Farrow’s story’ based on WHAT?”
            Based on the fact that it sounds like she’s being honest. Based on the fact that there’s only two stories to choose from and this one sounds more likely to me. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was basing my belief on. As I already stated, I have no way of knowing for certain, and sometimes these allegations turn out to be false. I believe them to be true in this case. Is that SO hard to understand? You have a different opinion, OK.

            I never claim to have hard evidence of anything. What a ludicrous (and weirdly hostile) request on your part. I have no evidence of anything. All I’m presented with are two different accounts: the woman who claims she was assaulted and the man who says he didn’t do it. That’s all any of us have to work with. Some have chosen to believe Woody Allen, some believe Ms. Farrow.

            If this was just a story about a 7-year old who was used as a pawn in a custody dispute, I’d be a lot more skeptical of the story. She’s 28 years old and still sticks to the original claim. I find that very convincing. I can see you don’t. That’s your prerogative.

            “you’re merely stating an unfounded opinion”

            Yep, same thing you’re doing. Since neither of us knows what happened, all we have is he said/she said. I’m going with she.

          • Frank

            this article is ripped from the daily beast penned by Allen’s writer, many odd lies are just being shuffled around the web by someone who can afford damage control. All Mia’s kids are highly educated and successful…except Soon yi who dropped out

          • Robgb

            Again, I’ll point to this, from the New York Times: “Last March, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested.”

            That’s hard evidence.

          • Frank

            based on having a brain dolt! She’s 28, married, with children. All of Farrows kids are doctors or lawyers , Rhode scholars… This article makes false statements itself- Mia just went to Moses’ wedding a couple months ago, they are not estranged and there is zero citing on him saying negative things about Mia- try to find it outside of the daily beast that is penned by Allen’s writer. grow the fuck up and don’t let any stupid blog educated you! always seek sources,holy shit!

          • Guest

            You are wrong. Moses is separated from his wife and estranged from Mia. The wedding in question was for another Farrow.

          • Badgerite

            Raped? There was a physical exam of the child conducted and no evidence of any abuse, let alone rape, was found. Physical evidence matters. It does not support the allegations here.

          • Sally

            Not all sexual abuse does physical damage or leaves physical evidence. I’m not seeking to comment on this case, just stating a general fact that you don’t seem to allow for.

          • Badgerite

            At 7 years of age, rape certainly would leave physical damage.
            Rape is not what was alleged at the time, however. Yet what she has written recently seems to imply it.
            What I am saying is that this was brought before the appropriate authorities and investigated. Since neither one of the parents could be said to be powerless, I don’t think alleging his celebrity is what brought about the failure to bring any charges will wash. As a 7 year old child, her allegations were listened to, seriously, and investigated.
            The evidence produced did not support going further. As far as I’m concerned, the effort to bring about a ‘trial’ in the press and on the internet is appalling and serves no real purpose. What’s more, since the visitation in question occurred after the custody battle between both parents had commenced based on allegations put forth by her mother of child molestation, how credible is it that Mr. Allen would have chosen that time, with all those other people around, to engage in such abuse?

          • Sally

            I repeat that I’m not seeking to propose what happened in this case – I wasn’t there. I’m pointing out that some elements of your argument are less certain than you suggest. ‘Seems to imply’ sounds a rather vague basis for suggesting that a lack of physical evidence should, by itself, close the case.
            Also, I know of abusers who have abused in the most flagrant ways and circumstances. So it’s credible that one might do so in these circumstances. Again, I’m not saying that proves anyone did. But onlookers seem happy to speculate on a case they know little about even without having much useful knowledge of the field in general.

          • Badgerite

            When someone uses twitter, the New York Times and Vanity Fair to republish 20 year old allegations that were seriously investigated at the time, and then condemn the public for admiring that person’s work, doesn’t that rather invite comment and judgement from the general public? I mean, what movie of his do I like? Quite a lot of them.
            And something that no one seems to notice is that there are two families involved in this now. Mia Farrow’s daughter who married Woddy Allen now has a family and children of her own.

          • Sally

            I clearly remember when this case was in the tabloids. I’m curious why anyone who wasn’t around at that time doesn’t ask, “These allegations are so horrific – why did they slip out of the public eye for 20 years?” They went away because the charges were never credible – not even to a tabloid reading public. The alleged incident took place during custody negotiations. The incident wasn’t *surfaced* during the negotiations; Farrow alleged it *happened* during this period. It simply defies logic that Farrow would have left Dylan alone with Allen during this period, a period when she was publicly enraged about his relations with Soon-Yi a relationship which she characterized as “incestuous.” The public as whole was disgusted with Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi and yet found these accusations incredulous. Still, it wasn’t just public opinion – it was the conclusion of a six month criminal investigation. This context keeps getting lost. (Also – there seems to be two Sallys here…)

          • Lady Willpower

            Most women would certainly consider the forced insertion of fingers into their vagina to be rape. Rape doesn’t have to be penis into vagina to feel like rape. Lara Logan wasn’t penetrated by anyone’s penis, but I’m comfortable referring to what happened to her as a gang rape.

            If you’re a woman and a trusted male figure in your life inserts his fingers into your vagina and you felt raped by it, I’m not about to sit here and go “well it wasn’t technically rape.”

            Are we really going to parse this one to death?

          • Badgerite

            I’m afraid so. I would consider it to be sexual assault but not rape.
            Another words, rape, on a 7 year old, would likely leave physical damage that would show up in an exam. Sexual assault might not leave such damage. Ma’am.

          • Lady Willpower

            Whether it’s penis or fingers, the law considers it rape. So does the victim. It doesn’t matter what you’d consider it.

          • Bubble Genius

            Penetration by ANYTHING, whether digits, a penis, or a bottle of Pellegrino, will leave physical damage, especially on a child. Which I believe is Badgerite’s point. He’s talking about the technical difference between rape and sexual assault.

        • Frank

          children do not remain brainwashed after 20 years, try reading some real articles on neuroscience and psychology. This is Allen defense at it’s worst- most facts here are complete fabricate dand def unsubstantiated, don’t be so gullible!

          • Bubble Genius

            If a child’s implanted belief is never ever questioned by her family, her friends, and in all probability her therapists, why should she believe otherwise?

    • Frank

      Don’t be so ignorant! She’s 28 now,a grown woman with a husband and kids her mother doesn’t have a spell over her that would be unbreakable. If you read this crap all the time, you’ll never grow a brain- this whole article sources it’s material from an article written by Allen’s writer- it’s all nonsense.
      Mia just went to Moses’ wedding, they are not estranged and there is zero report from Moses that he made any statement against Mia.
      This is all the Woody damage control money can buy

      • Sally

        You do yourself no favors by getting the facts wrong.

      • Jasper Taylor

        Frank, will you please stop hurling insults at everyone. It’s unpleasant and unproductive.

  • scottrose

    Except that in her published letter, Dylan thanks her “amazing brothers and sisters” for their support, but doesn’t mention that her brother Moses Farrow, a family therapist, thinks that her story is not true. So, only those among Dylan’s brothers and sisters who don’t doubt her are “amazing” and the ones who do doubt her don’t get mentioned at all. That is not how to build credibility, especially in a story where you demand that actors shun a director on the basis of your hearsay allegations.

    • Jason

      I am fairly sure Moses wasn’t a family therapist 20 years ago when all this happened

      • KafeSociety

        No, but he was actually *there* and you were not.

    • Frank

      What is hearsay is that Moses is not included in her address, it’s actually a lie. They were all at his wedding not long ago. Mia is NOT estranged from Moses and you will not find any citing of him stating anything negative about his mom except in the article of this blog this material is ripped out of penned by Allen’s writer. If you can use simple logic you can see that Allen is doing some major damage control and this very bright, married with a family , woman, isn’t strung to her mom anymore and brainwashing of children doesn’t have the strength 20 years later in vivid memories. durrr…

      • scottrose

        A credible source publicly went on record saying that in a conversation he had with Moses Farrow, a family therapist, Moses Farrow told him he believes that Mia brainwashed Dylan. This has been widely reported, is all over the internet, et cetera. Do you actually believe that if Moses Farrow had not said that to the source, that Moses now would remain silent, and say nothing about it?

      • scottrose

        I suggest readers consult the scientific literature on brainwashing.

        • Robgb

          Or isn’t is possible that she was molested, but not by Allen, and she has confused the incident with what she’s been told? A look at the extended Farrow family raises some serious questions. The bottom line, however, is that Allen himself and this incident were investigated thoroughly at the time, and a panel of child-abuse experts found that there was no merit to the charges.

      • Guest

        That was another wedding of another child. You are mistaken. Easy mistake. Millions of Farrow children in that household.

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ RodneyWelch

    Glad to find at least one sane person who isn’t going to get bullied into jumping on the bandwagon. It’s a horrible story, but you’re right — none of us have any idea what happened. There are perfectly good reasons to remain skeptical about Dylan Farrow’s version of events.

    • Lady Willpower

      “bullied” really?

      • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ RodneyWelch

        Absolutely. The message has been that if you don’t blindly and totally accept Dylan Farrow’s story, then you are the problem, you are the reason rape and molestation victims never come forward, etc. It’s such an emotionally-charged issue that her defenders go out of their way to discourage skepticism or rationality or neutrality of any kind.

        • Lady Willpower

          You don’t sound like you’re being neutral.

          • Robgb

            I’ve seen a number of people accused of being pedophiles or, at the very least, morally corrupt, based solely on their belief that Allen should be presumed innocent. Emotion cannot and should not replace facts. And the facts, as recounted in the New York Times at the time of the incident are as follows:

            “Last March, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested.”

            Until that changes—and Dylan’s letter ads no new information or evidence to the case—then reasonable and rational people should accept this teams findings and move on.

    • Frank

      One good reason for you might be that you read blogs to get your education, this blog that got it’s material from the Beast article penned by Allens writer.Both have erroneous nonsence. Mia was just at Moses’ wedding with the whole clan- not Allen. There is not one citing of Moses stating anything negative about Farrow. This is broken telephone/Allen damage control 101

      • Badgerite

        You don’t dispute what someone says by virtue of the fact that they are “Allen’s writer”. His article brings up points raised by official law enforcement investigations into the allegations that occurred at the time. Those investigations raised some rather serious points of dispute with the story as told by the family. The writer’s relationship with Allen does not in any way make invalid the points of dispute found in the investigation. Does it?

      • rebeccagavin

        “”From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child,” he added. “She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do.” – You don’t consider that negative?

  • Lauren

    Good for you. Acknowledging that she was probably brainwashed by her crazy mother isn’t calling her a liar.

    Sexual assault is terrifying, but people know that. Brainwashing is also terrifying and very, very real, but people *don’t* know that.

  • Lady Willpower

    “I have no idea what really happened to her and neither do you.”

    I have a pretty good idea, because I believe what she wrote. I believe that’s what happened. Woody denies everything? Well, of course he does.

    If Woody Allen was just some guy who worked at the local Blockbuster, would anybody be contorting themselves into pretzels to find a way out for him? If he wasn’t Hollywood royalty would anyone but the creepiest “men’s rights” assholes be trying so hard to be objective?

    • Guest

      Maybe. If it got this kind of press. I have no allegiance to Woody whatsoever, and although I loved Annie Hall, there’s plenty of his movies that did nothing for me. He is weird enough and neurotic enough I’d be willing to believe he molested someone. However, the facts of this case (sworn testimony, the window of time in which this single incident was supposed to have happened (during a custody battel?) and staff members dispute Mia’s account that it was more than 5 minutes, the pattern of child molestors and how and when they molest, the psychological profile of Mia and her f**ked up family (yes, it speaks to motive and mitigating factors), and a criminal investigation that never found evidence to charge Allen let alone actually attempt to convict, and Yale medical doctors who gave sworn testimony that unequivocally said the medical and psychological evidence suggested that Mia hammered this into her). So, those things, although under different circumstances I would believe it, yeah, make me think that at your belief in Dylan’s earnest statement does not mean that he did it. Just that she is a convincing victim. And I do think she was a victim. Of a mother with histrionic personality disorder. I have more than a passing acquaintance with people on the Narcissistic/Histrionic/Borderline Personality Disorder spectrum. Coming from her insane family background with alcoholism, drug abuse, convicted child molestation, suicide, sexually precocious behavior from her own youth, etc. She seems to be a text book example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder And, I also care what Soon-Yi and Moses have said as well. They were both older when this all happened. And at least in Moses’ case, who is now a therapist himself. what ax does he have to grind?

      • Lady Willpower

        Girls with shitty mothers still get raped. Roman Polanski’s victim had a shitty mother, too.

        • Guest

          Of course they do, but that is not proof, Lady W. First of all, I realize this is a tinderbox, emotional issue for so many, but we *must* stipulate, if we are not to diminish people who have experienced these things what actually is claimed, and not expound on that.What Dylan herself said, is “sexual assault” and elsewhere indicated this meant fondling– Horrific, but important we are accurate and don’t change what even her charge was. It was not rape. This is not a statement about to diminish how horrible sexual assault is, it’s a request to honor what she has described and not change it. Second, just because victims have this happen all the time, and they are not heard or are often discounted (and I think we women all know, are related to, or maybe even ourselves had this happen to us, since statistics suggest sexual abuse happens to 1 in 3 women) this does not mean that in 100% of claims that are never brought to charges, the accused is guilty. I would guess in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are. I always choose to believe the serious charges of a woman or child (or man) who claims sexual abuse. However, there are cases, and this is one of them, where all the evidence including sworn testimony of respected ivy-leagu doctors, the sworn statements of empployees who where there that day, the expressed contradiction of other children from that family, the circumstantial evidence of the adoptive mother’s own disturbing family environment, the sheer impracticality of opportunity, the medical profile of molestors and the high high unlikelihood that the actual abuse would have occurred only once, and the fact that Mia has an actual confessed, convicted, and jailed child molestor in her family who molested children for years before he was caught (was he ever alone with the children for “10 minutes”? Just curious) suggest to me, that while Dylan is clearly 100% a victim of serious abuse, I am not convinced it played out in the way Mia intially charged.

          • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ RodneyWelch

            Guest, I fully sympathize with your argument except for three points.

            1.) “He is weird enough and neurotic enough I’d be willing to believe he molested someone.” Based on what? That he legally had sex with young women? That he sees a therapist? That he wears glasses? In the rest of your argument you sound so reasonable, yet you start out with this kind of puritanical line of thinking that doesn’t seem all that different from people who decide people are guilty based on how attractive they appear in a mug shot.

            2. You lost me in the end. Who is the “actual confessed, convicted, and jailed child molester in [Mia Farrow’s] family who molested children for years before he was caught”?

            3. “Dylan is clearly 100% a victim of serious abuse.” It is her serious contention, yes, but if it were 100 percent clear we wouldn’t be discussing it here.

          • Steve Regis

            The answer to your second question, her brother John. He was charged with 39 counts of abuse, made a deal and is serving 10 years.

            http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Mia-Farrows-Brother-to-Be-Sentenced-for-Sex-Abuse-229522321.html

          • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ RodneyWelch

            Thanks.

          • Guest

            1. Based on the fact that I have no ax to grind, I concede that he is a an extremely neurotic man, with a very vexed relationship with his mother that does fit a certain profile of a man with a strange relationship to women, a certain type of alienation and odd mannerisms that would allow me to accept that, yes, certainly, he could be one, and that I am willing to accept that *anyone* could be a pedophile and it’s important when talking to mobs of angry victim’s advocates on Twitter and on blogs that you establish you are not a slavish Woody fangirl not willing to listen to or read the evidence regardless of how damning it could be. So yes, I stand by that. Please read my post again. I am pointing out I love a film of his, but I am establishing credibility for women and victims who are skeptical of anyone who will not accept that moving admission at face value.

            2. Mia Farrow has a brother who is a convicted and jailed child molestor. He molested multiple victims over several years and was only recently caught. Obviously, if he has spent any time with Mia’s kids when they were little, this could be a problem. She has not come out and railed against him in public formats to talk about victim’s rights. I find this incongruous.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/mia-farrows-brother-john-charles-villiers-farrow-child-sex-abuse_n_2139583.html

            3. No. It is not only her contention. EIther she was abused as she says (serious abuse), or she was mind**cked into believing she was abused, which as far as her psychological well being would have been over the years, is effectively the same. So yes, she was abused either way.

        • Guest

          And as a side note: I assume you know that Mia Farrow testified on behalf of Roman Polanski in his court case against Vanity Fair? She has remained a steadfast supporter of this convicted child rapist.

          • Lady Willpower

            Mia Farrow sounds like a total nutjob. That doesn’t excuse Woody Allen.

          • Guest

            Excuse him from what? If Mia is, in fact a nut job, and it is possible she did or actually did, in fact, coach and implant these accusations, as a former employee (in sworn testimony) and Mia’s now estranged adult son, Moses, who is a family therapist, have alleged or implied, then the whole point is that SHE is the perpetrator of Dylan’s horror.

          • Lady Willpower

            Yes, if that’s true then Mia Farrow is a manipulative monster.
            IF it’s true. I’m saying I believe Dylan. Her words have the sickening ring of truth to them; they sound exactly like the stories I’ve heard many times before, from friends and sisters. They sound like the things I’d say about myself, if anyone had ever cared to listen to the stories about my own abuse.
            If it’s all a fabrication, Mia Farrow is a despicable person. She may be a despicable person regardless. I still believe the story her daughter tells.

          • Jasper Taylor

            Why do we have to believe anyone? Why can’t we acknowledge that we don’t have the fact to adjudicate other way? We simply are not qualified to make a judgment here.

          • Lady Willpower

            Because we’re people with opinions about things, and we’re being asked for our opinions.
            We’re not sitting on a Grand Jury. We’re not contemplating indictment. We’ve been presented with a story and asked for our opinion.
            What’s yours?

          • Jasper Taylor

            Ok, well there’s another case that involves child molestation — what’s your opinion? I won’t bother sharing the details, because since it’s just your opinion, and it isn’t a grand jury, who cares! Great to know you have so many opinions about things and that the internet is a forum for you to unleash them on humanity. But sometimes the best answer is IDK — I. Don’t. Know.

          • Lady Willpower

            Saying “I don’t know” when someone asks for your opinion is a politician’s trick. Of course you don’t know. The question is what do you think?

        • Jasper Taylor

          I think there’s more to this last comment than she had a shitty mother…

          • Lady Willpower

            What does that mean?

          • Jasper Taylor

            the point of the comment wasn’t “she had a shitty mother so that means she couldn’t have gotten raped”

    • Drew2U

      …Believing what she wrote is not proof she was abused by Allen. That’s the problem. Doesn’t the possibility exist that it was Farrow’s own pedophile brother that abused her, and it was an opportunity for Mia to get some revenge? Yes, I do believe that Dylan was abused, but I don’t believe it was Allen, who did in fact pass a polygraph.

  • Susie from Philly

    Why does no one ever mention Stacey Nelkin, the high school kid that the 42-year-old Woody Allen dated? Why didn’t critics mention how creepy it was when he used that relationship in “Manhattan”? That’s a red flag.

    • scottrose

      Allen has never acknowledged a relationship with Nelkin, but Nelkin alleges that a relationship with Allen began when she was 17, i.e. when she had already reached the age of consent in New York. What would two people of legal age dating each other possibly have to do with pedophilia? Do you also think that critics should have written that it was “creepy” for a 45-year-old Bogart to marry a 20-year-old Lauren Becall? How old was Celine Dion when she met Rene Angelil?? How old was Charlie Chaplin when he married Oona O’Neil, and how old was she when they got married?

      • JK131660

        Let’s not forget that Farrow was 21 when she married Sinatra, who was 50. (She continued to have the occasional sexual encounter with Sinatra after they divorced–including while he was married to someone else and she was involved with Woody Allen, as she acknowledged earlier this year when she hinted that her son Ronan could be Sinatra’s son rather that Allen’s. She also became pregnant by Andre Previn when he was married to someone else. She was about 25; he was about 41.)

        • KafeSociety

          Let’s also not forget Mia herself dallied with her mother Maureen O’Sullivan’s then-boyfriend when she was a mere lass of 17 or 18.

          • Lady Willpower

            “Let’s not forget” who this case is about: Dylan Farrow.

          • KafeSociety

            Actually it seems to be more about Mia Farrow and her twisted need for revenge at any price.

          • Lady Willpower

            I don’t know what you’re basing that on but it’s certainly not the impression I got from Dylan’s open letter. I guess you just think Mia’s pulling all the strings.
            Again, I don’t know why you can’t give a 28 year old woman more credit than that.

          • Sally

            Did you actually read the post, or are you just trolling the comments? If you haven’t yet read it, it does a good job of explaining why it’s possible to disbelieve the account and also believe that Dylan is not lying.

            Also curious how old you are, and if you remember when these events played out in the tabloids? It was horrific, and as much as the public was grossed out by Woody Allen, the public did not find Farrow credible. Don’t you find it curious that the story disappeared for 21 years? Do you think tabloid readers were any less salaciously minded in the 90s than they are now? Absolutely not. But there was so much context around Mia Farrow’s behavior – not to mention the criminal investigation – that while the public never quite forgave Woody for his relationship with Soon-Yi Mia Farrow was deemed the kooky one.

          • Lady Willpower

            Yes, I read the post. And yes, I read the article from David Weide. It’s possible to read things all the way through and still come to a different conclusion than you did.

            Nothing in this post or the linked article has convinced me this woman went on the internet to tell a story that isn’t true. I just don’t think she’s been brainwashed to this Manchurian Candidate level. She sounds exactly like someone who’s been abused.

            As for your silly “trolling the comments” ish, I come here every day. I’ve never seen you here.

          • Sally

            Then why do you keep asking people over and over again, “Why do you think she did this?” when the post explains in detail a theory of why she did this?

            Allegations of sexual abuse should never be taken lightly. They should always be investigated. But no matter how horrific the crime, the accused is always entitled to “innocent until proven guilty” – without this, our justice system breaks down.

            “Brainwashing” is an unfortunate choice of word – it sounds quaintly sci-fi. However, if you do some easy searching, you will find an enormous amount of research on memory and how fallible it is – especially around events that were traumatic. If you were cognizant in the early 90s when these events happened it would be easier for you to understand how any child could emerge from the situation with PTSD.

          • Lady Willpower

            I ask different people. Maybe they have their own reasons for believing what they believe. I’m having a conversation.

          • Robgb

            She doesn’t necessarily have to have been brainwashed to believe it. It’s quite possible she WAS subsequently abused by someone, and her memory of the incident has been distorted.

          • Lady Willpower

            Possible? I guess. But hardly likely. And this is veering off into speculative fiction, for reasons I can’t begin to guess.

          • Robgb

            Look at the extended Farrow family. Allen is not the only person accused of child molestation. I won’t go so far as to accuse that family member of assaulting Dylan—that would be irresponsible—but it does raise questions.

            Speculative? Maybe. But all of this is speculative except for one simple fact: Allen was cleared of this accusation twenty years ago by a panel of child-abuse experts.

          • KafeSociety

            Uh, based on, “doctors saying that Dylan was inconsistent
            in her detailing of what happened 21 years ago and that her story had a rehearsed feel to it, to the actual amount of time witnesses say Woody was alone with Dylan at Mia Farrow’s home in Bridgewater, Connecticut on August 4th, 1992, a date which fell right in the middle of Woody and Mia’s vicious custody battle and a place where he was surrounded by people who didn’t much like him.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

          • KafeSociety

            Uh, based on, “doctors saying that Dylan was inconsistent
            in her detailing of what happened 21 years ago and that her story had a rehearsed feel to it, to the actual amount of time witnesses say Woody was alone with Dylan at Mia Farrow’s home in Bridgewater, Connecticut on August 4th, 1992, a date which fell right in the middle of Woody and Mia’s vicious custody battle and a place where he was surrounded by people who didn’t much like him.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html
            …especially the quote from Dr. Leventhal, who 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.”

          • Robgb

            It’s also about the man she’s accusing, who has already been cleared of any wrongdoing.

          • Lady Willpower

            Sometimes the guilty go free. The system is imperfect. Ask Dylan Farrow if she thinks the system worked for her.

          • Robgb

            She’s said what she had to say. And nothing she’s said has changed the facts of the case. Why don’t we ask Allen how he feels about the system after having these charges dredged up again when he’s already been cleared?

            I really do find it interesting that you ignore the facts of a six month long investigation and continue to accuse him based solely on a gut feeling. I certainly think you’re entitled to do that—as we all are—but that doesn’t make it right.

          • Lady Willpower

            It’s not my gut feeling. It’s the sworn testimony of a woman who insists it happened, and has maintained this claim for 21 years. Yes, she could be lying, crazy or brainwashed. I think it’s more likely that she’s telling the truth and that rich men get away with diddling little girls.
            I live in a world where women are abused every day, and find it next-to-impossible to get justice. I do not live in a world where girls claim to have been assaulted just to please their mothers and then double down on the claim 20 years later because they’re just SO brainwashed and weak-willed that they think it really happened. Of course it’s possible. I just don’t find it likely.

          • Robgb

            Sworn testimony that was considered either fabricated or coached by a panel of experts in child-abuse. That you continually ignore or discount this simple fact indicates to me that your blind allegiance to her letter is all gut, no logic.

          • Lady Willpower

            When she was 7. She’s 28 now. You still think it’s fabricated? That would be a gut feeling on YOUR part, wouldn’t it?
            But let’s just keep focusing on mine.

          • Robgb

            I don’t think she’s necessarily fabricating anything. As I’ve said elsewhere, she may well have been abused or she may be restating what she’s been told most of her life. That’s the part we’ll probably never know.

            But I’m basing my opinion not on a gut feeling, but on the best credible evidence provided to us after an extensive six month investigation by experts in the field.

            That’s why we have such a system. So that people don’t have to rely on their guts. They can rely instead on facts.

          • Robgb

            That’s pretty much what a gut feeling is. Especially in light of the fact that you continue to ignore that the man has been cleared of these accusations and are simply relying on how you FEEL about Dylan’s veracity.

          • Lady Willpower

            Famous people get away with stuff. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. Woody Allen never saw trial and never will. He still might have done it. I feel that he did, even though YES he was cleared. Child abuse cases are very hard to prove even under the best of circumstances, yet they DO still happen.

          • Bubble Genius

            Do you have a citation for this? Not a challenge at all, just curiosity as to who the boyfriend was…

          • KafeSociety

            I’m referring to Frank Sinatra, who had an affair with Maureen O’Sullivan when Mia was a kid. Mia then struck up an affair with him (I had the age wrong she was 18) and married him at the age of 19. How weird that she wound up marrying this older man who she watched sneaking in and out of the house to rendezvous with Mom; I think somewhere Mia even mentioned knowing about a “secret entrance” he used, which is either in her book, What Falls Away, or in an interview. I can try to dig up the citation.

          • Bubble Genius

            I did not know this! No need to delve further! Hmmmm.

    • Robgb

      I think one of the problems here is a misunderstanding of what pedophilia is. It’s defined as an unnatural attraction to children under the age of 10. Many people (men and women both) are attracted to seventeen or eighteen year olds—and that fact is often played up in the media and used to sell products—but it doesn’t make them pedophiles or suggest in any way, shape or form that said attraction extends to young children. While you and I may wonder about someone who is attracted to a woman half his age, it doesn’t mean that such people have or ever will engage in criminal behavior with a seven year old child.