February 5, 2014

"I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her."

"It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father."

Says Moses Farrow, defending Woody Allen. Moses is, we're told, a family therapist. He has some things to say about his mother: "From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. 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."

Meanwhile, Mia is tweeting: "A lot of ugliness is going to be aimed at me. But this is not about me, it's about her truth."

I feel like shutting the door on this session of family therapy, but I'll just say "her truth" is a strange expression. The usual concept of truth is that it is simply the truth. When you put a possessive in from of it — this is my truth — it is ordinarily to concede that you are talking about the way things look or feel from your perspective. And it's odd to direct your audience to another individual's truth, as though you need people to think about the question at hand through the eyes of this other person over there. This is her truth. That's what's important. This is not about me. How do I know it's not about you or that "her truth" isn't really your truth? Do we even know that Dylan Farrow wrote her own letter?

103 comments:

Brando said...

I hated the use of possessive before "truth" ever since Jim McGreevey stated "my truth is I'm a gay American". It just sounds self involved and touchy feely.

Brando said...

We'll likely never know THE truth about this, because the only two witnesses are telling completely different stories. But the police investigated this, and there's no indication they were compromised, and they did not find enough evidence to bring charges. That may not mean Allen is innocent, but he at least deserves to be considered "innocent until proven guilty". This is not like Roman Polanski who fled the country to avoid charges, though apparently that didn't bother Mia Farrow enough to end her friendship with that particular child rapist.

And another thing--Mia Farrow is a dangerously crazy person who should not be allowed near children. And her British accent? Completely fake! Put down the tea and crumpets, Mia, you're not fooling anyone!

Hagar said...

Please do shut that door.

William said...

Men would rather believe that a woman is devious than that a man is a pedophile. I suppose that's because in ordinary life one is far more apt to encounter a devious woman than a pedophile. But the historical record shows that pedophiles are skilled liars.

Peter said...

If there were no therapists in the world, would we be any worse off?

Lydia said...

I keep coming back to this, but I do find it very curious -- just why was Mia so soft and loving in a 2006 interview, even going so far as to say she'd forgiven Allen "in an instant" for the Soon-Yi affair. How could she say that if she thought he’d assaulted Dylan?

Put it together with that "her truth" and it would seem to indicate that she knows she went off the deep-end in the 1990s. The problem now is that it's Ronan and Dylan who can't let it go.

Shanna said...

This whole story is terrible. I don't think she would still be talking about this at 28 if it were only about her mother, though.

Shanna said...

just why was Mia so soft and loving in a 2006 interview, even going so far as to say she'd forgiven Allen "in an instant" for the Soon-Yi affair. How could she say that if she thought he’d assaulted Dylan?

Mothers who overlook their daughters abuse and look fondly still on the ex involved are probably much more common than those who prompt false reports from children.

JRoberts said...

More and more, this seems like a ready-made "reality" series for the BRAVO network.

Pogo is Dead said...

A crab bucket in hell.

Michael K said...

These people are all crazy in he way that actors often are. Some politicians, too.

"But the historical record shows that pedophiles are skilled liars."

I don't know where this comes from. Your own experience ? Most of them readily confess when caught. Many of them will readily agree to chemical castration to stop the fantasies.

traditionalguy said...

Thi appears to be a hall of mirrors created by several world class mind controllers.

May the best Fake Authority talking head win.

FullMoon said...

Allen and his wife have 13 and 14 year old daughters.
How kind of the Farrow gang to attack their dad.

Mia must be really pissed that woody chose the (purported retard over her.

Jon Burack said...

"Her truth" is shorthand for "it is what I say it is, and you better accept it or you're in the doghouse."

In thinking further on Dylan's letter I am struck by the sheer vindictive arbitrariness of it and its timing. I think someone else made this point once earlier, but it seems worth considering here. The actors in Allen's latest film were all singled out and put on the spot by Dylan, as if they have any obligations at all to her to interject themselves into this family drama, a "truth" totally beyond anyone's knowing. I see no reason related to healing or even legitimate punishment of Allen in that, I see only vindictiveness, an assumption of the supreme value of celebrity status and a readiness to implicate and harm others in the process of obtaining that revenge against Woody Allen.

What about all the other actors in Woody's other films? Why are not they called to account? Well, obviously, because they are not going to BE the celebrities in the ultimate celebrity show coming up this time, the Oscars. In any case, to get back to "her truth," perhaps it is the plain disrespect for truth and the ways of discovering it that explains this drive to whip up a mass lynch mob and badgers other celebrities to join in even though not a one of them is in a position to judge actual "truth" at all.

chickenlittle said...

Do we even know that Dylan Farrow wrote her own letter?

A provocative question from Althouse -- one which reminded me of the time when she questioned whether Ben Carson wrote his own speeches.

A common thread (besides incredulity) is that both Ben Carson and Mia Farrow threatened something which Althouse holds dear.

Revenant said...

I'm glad to see that Moses was able to emerge from that mess with his head screwed on straight.

MayBee said...

I look at the photo of Dylan accompanying her Nick Kristoff letter and I think, "this is a pose".

Ann G said...

I agree that we can't know THE truth - but I can easily imagine that all the people in this very sad family think they are in the right.

I can't help being aware that back in the early 1990s, there was a huge moral panic about satanic abuse and false memories. Of course we know that many people really are abused, and there's little doubt that Dylan believes it. But we do also know that memories can feel real that aren't real - weren't there some experiments about researchers fooling people into being certain they visited Disneyland as a child, when they didn't?

On a personal note, I was referred to a therapist by my GP for issues around being disagnosed with lupus in the 1990s. My therapist did attempt to make me "open my mind to the possibility" that my father abused me. I am pretty tough minded and I quit therapy and put in a formal complaint - but she is still a therapist. So perhaps that's what makes me a but suspicious about the particular flexibility and unreliability of personal memory in a therapy obsessed household.

I feel sad for all of them.

Pogo is Dead said...

Fame is a hell of a drug.

Revenant said...

Men would rather believe that a woman is devious than that a man is a pedophile. I suppose that's because in ordinary life one is far more apt to encounter a devious woman than a pedophile. But the historical record shows that pedophiles are skilled liars.

"I don't know who to believe" would have saved you a couple of dozen words.

Shanna said...

But we do also know that memories can feel real that aren't real

There is no reason to believe the memories are lies, though. This hasn't been proven one way or the other, and likely never will because he said/she said is the nature of things like this and because small children make terrible witnesses, which is partly why they are so attractive to an abuser.

But she's stuck with this for 28 years and woody allen just gives off creepy vibes all over the place. Plus, the soon yi thing feels very much like grooming. So I'd say this is 'plausible' not proven.

Naked Surfer said...

"By my so potent art. But this rough magic
I here abjure, and when I have required
Some heavenly music, which even now I do,
To work mine end upon their senses that
This airy charm is for, I’ll break my staff,
Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
And deeper than did ever plummet sound
I’ll drown my book."

Prospero, doing away with his family drama by burying its book, The Tempest

Unknown said...

Couldn't we nuke them both from orbit?

It's the only way to be sure.

Revenant said...

There is no reason to believe the memories are lies, though.

Dylan was examined by doctors and psychiatrists at the time. Their conclusion was that Mia Farrow had taught her daughter the story.

Now add in the fact that there is no actual evidence of molestation and that Allen's behavior has always been inconsistent with typical pedophile behavior.

It seems to me that's a pretty convincing case for "the memories are false". To put it another way -- given the evidence we have, Mia would be an entirely typical creator of false memories, but Allen would be an extremely unusual (and lucky) pedophile.

traditionalguy said...

Powerful People selectively edit their memories. But they are nervous when a living witness insists that it really, really did happen. The response is often a full court press attempt to destroy the witnesses credibility all over town.

Shanna said...

Dylan was examined by doctors and psychiatrists at the time.

The doctors looked for physical penetration and if you read the details, that is not what she is saying happened.

None of those people were in the room. Two people know the truth and they are not any of us.

Shanna said...

Now add in the fact that there is no actual evidence of molestation and that Allen's behavior has always been inconsistent with typical pedophile behavior.

What do you even mean by this? His behavior with soon yi is consistent with grooming and it is false to declare that molesters do not have adult relationships. My grandfather was married 7 times and it didn't stop him.

Naked Surfer said...

“ .. Mia would be .... but Allen would be ...”

Something that! - playing the Venn fiddle: 1) both tell the truth, 2) Mia tells the truth, Woody lies, 3) Woody tells the truth, Mia lies, 4) both lie ("something's happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear...")

Revenant said...

The doctors looked for physical penetration and if you read the details, that is not what she is saying happened.

That's not what she says happened *now*. At the time she said that happened, and that it didn't happen. Her story was inconsistent and kept changing, which is normal for kids who are being coached by someone else.

FullMoon said...

There is no reason to believe the memories are lies, though.

I have a fun little memory thing I do with friends.( I did it with myself first).

When they say"We used to always do...or we used to always go..." I ask them to really think about how many times they actually did it. It is rarely as often as they remember.

I remembered spending all my summer vacations with grandparents in the country near an Indian reservation.

Reflecting one day, I realized it was only five.

Incidentally,at 12 years old, I saw an actual( no touristy thing) Indian rain dance one summer, and sure as hell, right before Thanksgiving, it rained! That proved to me that we can manipulate the climate.

Next summer, at 13 years old, I was not allowed to go to the ceremony with my friends.


Revenant said...

Sorry, to clarify a bit further: the lack of evidence of penetration was not the sole basis for them concluding the story was false.

Revenant said...

What do you even mean by this? His behavior with soon yi is consistent with grooming

Sleeping with a 19-year-old whom you later marry and stay married to while she ages into her 40s is not "consistent with grooming". It is consistent with being a heterosexual man.

and it is false to declare that molesters do not have adult relationships.

Yes, it would be false to claim that. Except I didn't claim that.

David said...

"I feel like shutting the door on this session of family therapy, but I'll just say "her truth" is a strange expression. The usual concept of truth is that it is simply the truth."

That used to be the usual concept.

David said...

Do you swear to tell your truth, your entire truth and nothing but your truth so help you the Deity you walked in with today?

elkh1 said...

"Her truth" is therapist psychobabble.
Her truth vs her brother's truth.

David said...

Shanna said...
This whole story is terrible. I don't think she would still be talking about this at 28 if it were only about her mother, though.

This comment and your others all show what you are predisposed to believe, which is your truth, not the truth.

Jon Burack said...

Shanna says
"The doctors looked for physical penetration and if you read the details, that is not what she is saying happened."

I read that letter and saw no details at all about what Woody supposedly did to her in the attic while she watched the toy train. Perhaps I missed something. so feel free to fill this in. She said he "sexually assaulted" her, which is a general term a seven-year old would not have known or used. So what did it mean that he actually did? NO details at all specified that. Was that because of modesty or shame? She certainly did not hesitate to embelish with details meant to be lurid about "other things" he used to do that she did not like, things like sticking his thumb in her mouth, which only sounds ominous in the context of the presumption he "sexually assaulted" her. But she added absolutely NOTHING about that already dismissed claim. Nothing to make it more detailed or concrete. The whole thing was a masterful rhetorical tour de force, appearing vivid and concrete while remaining entirely vague and abstract. Totally manipulative.

EDH said...

Did you say, "I know my truth"?

Oh, boy.

sydney said...

The only Truth in this whole thing is that Allen married his girlfriend's 19 year old daughter, then began the endless cycle of pain.

Ann Althouse said...

@EDH LOL.

JoyD said...

Mia sets off all my crazy-sensors. It's true that I'm influenced by stories about her, going back to the Sixties, stories of a manipulative little girl who did become vengeful. Maybe not all of those stories were true, but there were a lot if them.
Other commenters have noted the timing and the wording of Dylan's letter. They may be on to something there.
I am going to take a tip from Althouse and close the book on this family therapy session.

The Crack Emcee said...

We've been over this "your truth/my truth" nonsense before

gregq said...

if "her truth" was meant as a shortened form of "her truthful statements about Woody Allen" (it's Twitter, it's short), that's one thing.

But if Farrow meant it in the normal "her truth" way, I'm going to have to conclude Woody Allen is "Not Guilty" (and I'd hate to do that, because I don't like Woody Allen).

paminwi said...

I would be interested invseeingvthe video Mia talks about here:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/04/mia-farrow-woody-allen-dylan-sexual-molestation-interview-soon-yi/

George said...

The tentacles of postmodernism are long and tenuous.

66 said...

Ann -- After reading this post, I read (for the first time) the comments to your first post regarding the Dylan Farrow letter to the NY Times. I note that you engaged with that post's commenters to a degree that I have not before seen on this blog (though I admit that I have been skipping a lot of the comment sections recently). Two questions: do you agree with that characterization? And if so, what do you think prompted your engagement?

Edward Lunny said...

Spiteful parents use their children to do horrific things to their ex-spouse, posslq, significant other, as well as to said children.
As far as the "her truth" and "memories" go, I am reminded of "truths" and "memories" as well as experienced "therapists" from about 30 or so years ago. In reference to some folks named Amirault and the abominable things done to them and others by "therapists", law enforcement, the courts, "their truths", and some fabricated "memories". The Amirault's ,and those treated similarly, still suffer while all of the experts, law enforcement, therapists, and the courts escaped any consequence or punishment.
Woody Allen is a pig, but, his ex is a hateful, spiteful, harpy willing to use any method to destroy him. Not unlike, perhaps to a lesser degree, many other ex-wives, girl friends etc. The press and family courts are never friendly venues for fathers even absent the shenanigans perpetrated by Woody.

Ann Althouse said...

@66 no. I often get involved in the comments. Hard to say why. Usually, probably I'm in a mood to talk and have nothing going on the front page or I'm reading comments and see something that prompts a response and then I'm inspired to do a back and forth. There are times when I bring a comment onto the front page and respond there. Those are usually the times when I feel there's a way to advance the thinking on the subject.

There's a lot that goes on in the interaction between me and the commenters, all the way from nothing to devoting the rest of my life to someone who reached me. It's a long, complicated story for me, and very little of it is about Woody Allen.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

I believe Dylan Farrow when she says that she was raped by Woody Allen.

She was seven; Allen was almost 50 and was carrying around some obvious baggage about having sex with girls at the time; first evident in the movie "Manhattan" which he made in his mid-40s.

If Dylan was lying, then she would have had to have made up the whole story about post-traumatic stress from seeing toy trains. That's too weird to make up. And Nick Kristof isn't the most credulous reporter in the world. He gave Dylan's account his imprimatur.

Gahrie said...

Has Mia ever admitted that her son is Sinatra's kid and not Allen's?

William said...

This story is why Sophocles is still performed.....I again say look at the historical record. Pedophiles lie and lie convincingly. I don't know anyone who looked more guilty than Michael Jackson. He vehemently denied the accusations and his fans fervently believed that he was set up. Daniel Ortega's stepdaughter claimed that he molested her from the time she was a young child. She had a creepy phone call from him on tape as corroborative evidence. No one believed her. The voters elected Ortega.......The MacBride-Gonne divorce case presents perhaps the most interesting parallel to the Farrow/Allen case in that both parties were wrong. Maude Gonne claims that John MacBride got drunk and raped her eleven year old daughter (his step daughter at the time). He denied that it happened and that she fabricated the charge to gain custody of their son. A couple of years later, he was executed by the English for his involvement in the Easter Rebellion. Maude, despite the bitter divorce, moved back to Ireland and claimed the status of the widow of a revolutionary hero and ixnay on the molestation charge.....Looking at the record one sees that if the pedophile can wrap himself in a worthy cause like Marxism, Irish nationalism, Penn State football, or Grammy worthy music, then his stories are so much more credible than the manipulative schemers with whom his bad caused him to be entangled.......There aren't a lot of Mcharl Jackson fans here, but something of the same dynamic is going on.

The Crack Emcee said...

Gahrie said...
Has Mia ever admitted that her son is Sinatra's kid and not Allen's?


Nope. Nor that he was conceived while she was with Allen.

She's also letting everyone imagine Allen and Soon-Yi are related, when Soon-Yi 's Mia's adopted daughter with Andre Previn.

Mia's all screwed up.

Carl Pham said...

Well...what the hell does Moses Farrow know? I mean, he was only in the house at the time of the alleged molestation, and has known his sister and his mother intimately for several decades.

I mean, jeez, compare that to the awesome X-ray Truth Vision of a New York Times columnist...no contest!

And we should certainly close the door gently on this ugly drama. I mean, it's one thing to shine the bright light of truth on how evil fathers sometimes monstrously abuse their positions of truth, and quite another to flop around in the sordid muck of how the exceedingly rare sadly misguided mother (who probably got insufficient support from her father/husband/boyfriend/the state) might kind of totally accidentally and with the best of motives grossly abuse her position of trust and ruin a kid's life.

Scott said...

Woody Allen has only spoken through surrogates. The public has not heard him say, from his own mouth, that Dylan is not telling the truth.

Let's stipulate that Mia Farrow is crazy. So what?

Why is it MORE plausible that Woody Allen is telling the truth and Dylan Farrow is lying?

Bob R said...

For yet another perspective, I'd recommend Dorothy Rabinowitz's articles about the Amirault daycare trials in Massachusetts. I find it very convincing that implanted childhood memories are very possible with no deliberate plan to implant the memories. Some people are posing the alternative the either Dylan is telling the truth or Mia implanted the memories deliberately. There is a very plausible third possibility - that Dylan was listening to Mia's rants about the sexual perversions of Woody (real and imagined) and these got converted into "memories."

Bottom line is that this is a very unstable, screwed up family, and there are a lot more possibilities than normal people can imagine.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott,

Let's stipulate that Mia Farrow is crazy. So what?

Why is it MORE plausible that Woody Allen is telling the truth and Dylan Farrow is lying?


Becauase Mia used the phrase "her truth", which makes her a NewAger, which history has shown makes her ideal candidate for working with implanted memories.

Then there's the adultery, the Ronin deception, and the fact her own former boyfriend and daughter are shunning her.

Where's the trust?

Freeman Hunt said...

Some people are posing the alternative the either Dylan is telling the truth or Mia implanted the memories deliberately. There is a very plausible third possibility - that Dylan was listening to Mia's rants about the sexual perversions of Woody (real and imagined) and these got converted into "memories."

Good point.

Revenant said...

She was seven; Allen was almost 50 and was carrying around some obvious baggage about having sex with girls at the time; first evident in the movie "Manhattan" which he made in his mid-40s.

Explain why you think being sexually attracted to 17-year-olds is a sign you might be sexually attracted to 7-year-olds.

As a bit of guidance: dumb ideas are best expressed using small words.

cubanbob said...

Woody Allen is a pig, but, his ex is a hateful, spiteful, harpy willing to use any method to destroy him. Not unlike, perhaps to a lesser degree, many other ex-wives, girl friends etc. The press and family courts are never friendly venues for fathers even absent the shenanigans perpetrated by Woody."

That's as close to the empirical truth as we are ever likely to get.

@crack: when someone starts yammering about his/her truth then it's a pretty safe bet it doesn't come too close to actual truth. New Age is all well and fine for harmless stuff like hippie living as long as one doesn't take it seriously. But you are right, those that take this stuff serious are dangerous.

Revenant said...

Woody Allen has only spoken through surrogates. The public has not heard him say, from his own mouth, that Dylan is not telling the truth.

We heard him say it twenty years ago. Repeating a baseless accusation twenty years later doesn't entitle one to a fresh personal denial.

jr565 said...

So now we have one brother saying he beleives his sister and one that doesn't.
Note though, even though Moses his mother demanded absolute obedience, that is not proof of implanting memories any more than Wood marrying Soon y is proof of molesation.

In regards to the idea that Allen was cleared way back when there's this:

"Case closed? Not necessarily. Three months later, that June, Acting Justice Elliot Wilk of New York State Supreme Court ruled against Allen in his effort to wrest custody of his three children from Farrow. Wilk criticized Yale–New Haven’s findings, stating that the hospital’s team had not interviewed Dylan, declined to testify at trial except via deposition, and destroyed its notes on the case. In her first piece for Vanity Fair about the Allen case, published in 1992, Orth had at least 25 on-the-record interviews—with sources both named and unnamed—attesting that Allen was “completely obsessed” with Dylan: “He could not seem to keep his hands off her,” Orth wrote."

And

"And in their May 1994 decision, the judges of the New York appellate court held that, with regard to the events of Aug. 4, 1992, “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.” Although “the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive,” the court stated, “our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis.”

http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/jan-18-did-woody-allen-molest-his-adopted-daughter-22-years-ago-2028068/

Revenant said...

Let's stipulate that Mia Farrow is crazy. So what? Why is it MORE plausible that Woody Allen is telling the truth and Dylan Farrow is lying?

That's easy: because all it would take for Dylan to have false memories is for her to have spent a lot of time in the company of a person who is out of touch with reality. Like you conceded: Mia's crazy. Dylan WAS raised by someone out of touch with reality. All the required elements are in place.

For Dylan's story to be *true*, a number of things we currently have NO reason to believe would also have to be true:

1. that Woody is a pedophile

2. that he was dumb enough to assault his daughter while going through a nasty break-up with the mom

3. that the medical and psychiatric professionals who examined Dylan and concluded the story was fake all screwed up.

4. That Woody is either extremely unusual for a pedophile (avoiding children and molesting only a single person) or has secretly molested OTHER children during his sixty years in the public eye without any of them ever coming forward.

Occam's razor: go with the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.

jr565 said...

And also
"In his June 1993 ruling, Wilk also denied Allen any visitation rights with Dylan or his older adopted child with Farrow, 15-year-old Moses. In May 1994, in a hearing considering custody or increased visitation for Allen, the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court cited a “clear consensus” among psychiatric experts involved in the case that Allen’s “interest in Dylan was abnormally intense.”

Revenant said...

Allen was “completely obsessed” with Dylan: “He could not seem to keep his hands off her,” Orth wrote."

A father who likes to spend time with AND physically touch his daughter? Holy crap, what a freakazoid.

Jupiter said...

'But the police investigated this, and there's no indication they were compromised, and they did not find enough evidence to bring charges. That may not mean Allen is innocent, but he at least deserves to be considered "innocent until proven guilty".'

What evidence might they have found? Shell casings?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard of legal procedure, not logic. The court, and the jury, have a duty to require a high standard of proof, and to exclude certain kinds of evidence which reasonable people may find convincing. The police and prosecutors have a duty not to press charges unless they can present evidence which a court will accept. While they frequently ignore that duty, they are more careful when they can expect to face a panel of expensive lawyers.

Michael K said...

Isn't worrying at this dried up corpse of a story getting bizarre ? I'm starting to worry about those still obsessed.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:

3. that the medical and psychiatric professionals who examined Dylan and concluded the story was fake all screwed up.


Is belied by what. I just linked to. Apparently those prosessionals didn't actually interview Dyelan. And conveniently, lost their notes and would appear for interviews at a deposition. And as I already posted
"In his June 1993 ruling, Wilk also denied Allen any visitation rights with Dylan or his older adopted child with Farrow, 15-year-old Moses. In May 1994, in a hearing considering custody or increased visitation for Allen, the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court cited a “clear consensus” among psychiatric experts involved in the case that Allen’s “interest in Dylan was abnormally intense.”

Being denied visitation because of the allegation that you are abnormally fixated on your kid is not nothing.

Where is the corroboration evidence that suggests that Farrow was implanting memories.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
A father who likes to spend time with AND physically touch his daughter? Holy crap, what a freakazoid.


The interest in the kid was described as "abnormally intense" and he lost visitation over it.

pst314 said...

"I'll just say 'her truth' is a strange expression. The usual concept of truth is that it is simply the truth. When you put a possessive in from of it — this is my truth — it is ordinarily to concede that you are talking about the way things look or feel from your perspective."

"Her truth" is also popular in post-modern rhetoric, where actual objective truth is claimed to be non-existent or not to be prioritized over the subjective feelings of protected minorities and ambitious dishonest fascistic academics.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Becauase Mia used the phrase "her truth", which makes her a NewAger, which history has shown makes her ideal candidate for working with implanted memories.

Then there's the adultery, the Ronin deception, and the fact her own former boyfriend and daughter are shunning her.


I'm pretty sure allen is also a new ager. And Dylan's other brother is standing by his sister and shunning Allen. And her daughter is shunning her, but her daughter is the one that betrayed her by sleeping with Allwn while he was still daring farrow. I doesn't see why she wouldn't view that as a betrayal.


The exact argument you're using could similarly be made against Alllen.

jr565 said...

It should have read "Is belied by what I just linked to. Apparently those prosessionals didn't actually interview . And conveniently, lost their notes and would NOT appear for interviews at a deposition.

pst314 said...

Caveat: My comment is only about the expression "her truth". I don't know enough about the Woody Allen controversy to have an opinion of who is telling the truth.

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

About that "abnormally intense" quote -- from Allen V. Farrow, 1994, here's the context in the court record:

"According to Mr. Allen, Ms. Farrow became inordinately attached to the newborn Satchel to the exclusion of the other children. He viewed this as especially harmful to Dylan and began spending more time with her, ostensibly to make up for the lack of attention shown her by Ms. Farrow after the birth of Satchel. Mr. Allen maintains that his interest in and affection for Dylan always has been paternal in nature and never sexual. The various psychiatric experts who testified or otherwise provided reports did not conclude that Allen's behavior toward Dylan prior to August of 1992 was explicitly sexual in nature. However, the clear consensus was that his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present."

That abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present is pretty important, don't you think?

This also makes think that Dylan was probably super upset by the split-up with Mia because she may have lost the one person who doted on her. She must have been terribly confused, poor kid.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
Meanwhile, Mia is tweeting: "A lot of ugliness is going to be aimed at me. But this is not about me, it's about her truth."

This sounds new agey, but it corresponds to what Dylan herself said.
She wrote:
""This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family," "My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life."

so when Mia says her daughters truth she is highlighting that these are her daughters statements not here. Farrow was not in fact the one leveling the charges.

She followed up:
"My mother never coached me," Dylan says. "She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up. In one of the most heartbreaking conversations I have ever had, she sat me down and asked me if I was telling the truth. She said that Dad said he didn’t do anything. and I said, 'He's lying.' "

So then the whole this is her truth is simply referring to her daughters view of events. Which her daughter is saying are actual memories and not implanted memories.

rcocean said...

Woody Allen & Mia Farrow.

Mr. Sick meets Ms. Crazy.

jr565 said...

Lydia wrote:
"This also makes think that Dylan was probably super upset by the split-up with Mia because she may have lost the one person who doted on her. She must have been terribly confused, poor kid."
Or, she remembers exactly what she says she remembers.

rcocean said...

Weird thing about Woody. He's been famous for almost 50 years. Made zillions of films, won the Oscar.

Yet, his cultural impact is non-existent. Outside of Manhattan and a few other SWPL areas, no one cares about him. He's been an art house film maker ever since Annie hall, and that was almost 37 years ago.

jr565 said...

Lydia wrote:
"That abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present is pretty important, don't you think?"


If he was focused on Dylan to the exclusion of Moses then is Moses a reliable alibi witness as it were.
As Allen himself argued he wasn't spending time with Moses. Would Moses then be privy to thinks that happened between Allen and Dylan that he wasn't privy to because Allen ignored him?

Revenant said...

Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard of legal procedure, not logic.

That's fine, but logic says he's innocent, too.

rcocean said...

"That's fine, but logic says he's innocent, too."

What about Not Guilty by reason of insanity?

Jon Burack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...

Revanant said:

""Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard of legal procedure, not logic. The court, and the jury, have a duty to require a high standard of proof, and to exclude certain kinds of evidence which reasonable people may find convincing. The police and prosecutors have a duty not to press charges unless they can present evidence which a court will accept. While they frequently ignore that duty, they are more careful when they can expect to face a panel of expensive lawyers."

Okay, maybe. But what then is the role of citizens who are not involved as parties to the incident, investigators, or on the jury? I think it's a bit facile to assume that the high standard for juries does not apply in some pretty similar way to everyone else. Let me put it this way. Since Dylan launched her totally unsubstantiated charge in the most prestigious news outlet in America, how many children do you think have been abused in America? Just since then. Yet does anyone here consider an urge to explore those cases so as to then make a "logical" (if less than beyond a reasonable doubt) judgment about any of them? Face it, not a one of us cares a fig to look into any of them. So what great principle of logic or morality calls any of us forth to make a decision about this one. I for one resent Dylan asking me to make a decision about it, or asking any of you to in this way. I see no reason why anyone has either a right or a duty or, above all, any ability to care any more about this ancient story than the hundreds of other stories unfolding all the time as we speak.

jr565 said...

"""Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard of legal procedure, not logic. The court, and the jury, have a duty to require a high standard of proof, and to exclude certain kinds of evidence which reasonable people may find convincing. The police and prosecutors have a duty not to press charges unless they can present evidence which a court will accept. While they frequently ignore that duty, they are more careful when they can expect to face a panel of expensive lawyers."


At this point, couldn't that standard be applied to both sides? since if you aren't saying that Allen is guilty you are saying that Dylan is lying and that her mother implanted a memory. That is just as much an accusation of a crime. If we were to appy that standard we couldn't really have an opinion on either side.

Valentine Smith said...

The Truth is irrelevant. Woody and Mia are complicit in family crimes. They are both control-freak consummate manipulators. The writer and director is an obvious one. She operating sub rosa by necessity only becomes obvious when it blows up.

The structure of a dysfunctional family is not strictly vertical or horizontal, but rather more like a web with alternate realities based on sheer fantasy. There are shifting alliances and the adoption of conflicting personae by individuals struggling for a core identity. And ambivalence drives the chaos.

God knows the extent of all the children's enmeshment in parental fantasy. The lack of any boundaries among these people is self-evident in the obvious destruction of all the people involved. And, sad to say, adopted children are the perfect recruits. They provide wonderful public cover, while in private they contribute a host of emotional problems to an insane stew.

We are the captive audience. It's like getting the backstory of the serial killer who moved next door.

furious_a said...

stories of a manipulative little girl... (Mia Farrow) who wrecked Dory Previn's marriage by stealing her husband.

Nasty piece of work, Mia Farrow is.

William said...

Revenant and jr565 both argue their points cogently. There are fair points to be made on either side. I like Mia Farrow better than Woody Allen. That's possibly why I find jr565's arguments more convincing. In any event, both parties are engaged in a war of mutual assured destruction. This scandal will be the defining moment in both their careers.

William said...

I was trying to analyze my own rather excessive interest in this case. The obvious response should be to file it away with Justin Bieber's DWI as a story that has no applicable moral to people in my neck of the universe......My own parents had a strained marriage. They each blamed the other for the wreck of their lives. They didn't ask their children to take sides, but try not to.......I wonder if this Allen/Farrow contretemps doesn't resonate with people who grew up in quarrelsome households. There's such a large amount of debatable evidence and such harsh judgments are passed on the basis of it that I wonder if we aren't sitting in judgment on something else.

William said...

If Mia Farrow was a manipulative little girl for wrecking Previn's marriage, what does that make Soon Yi.....If Mia is not married to Woody and they are both living apart, why can she have a quick frolic with her ex husband?.....Where is it written that pedophilia can't be a one off experience as opposed to an orientation. Greta Garbo had no fewer than two lovers who were exclusively homosexual prior to and subsequent to their affair with her.

Revenant said...

If Mia Farrow was a manipulative little girl for wrecking Previn's marriage

"who wrecked", not "for wrecking".

what does that make Soon Yi

Irrelevant to this discussion? :)

Where is it written that pedophilia can't be a one off experience as opposed to an orientation

People don't suddenly see one seven-year-old out of all the seven-year-olds in the world and think "mm, I'd love to fuck HER".

Revenant said...

This scandal will be the defining moment in both their careers.

A look at the lurid history of Hollywood suggests that will not be the case for either of them.

William said...

Catherine Allegret was the daughter of Simone Signoret and the step daughter of Yves Montand. In her book, The World Turned Upside Down, she claims that Yves Montand started sexually molesting her when she was aged five. So it happens.

beowulf said...

"My mother never coached me," Dylan says. "She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them."
------
This doesn't help. By definition, everyone with false memories thinks they're real memories.

beowulf said...

"I read that letter and saw no details at all about what Woody supposedly did to her in the attic while she watched the toy train..."
------
Attic, attic... what does that remind me of? Oh yes, in 1970 Dory Previn sang a song about father-daughter incest occurring in the attic. I bet there was at least one person in Farrow household familiar with it.

"Beware of Young Girls" is a scathing attack on Mia Farrow and her motives for befriending the Previns (Farrow belatedly apologized to Dory in her memoir What Falls Away). The track "With My Daddy in the Attic" is a chilling piece dealing with Stockholm Syndrome and fantasies of incest..."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_Previn

Revenant said...

In her book, The World Turned Upside Down, she claims that Yves Montand started sexually molesting her when she was aged five. So it happens.

If the "it" is supposed to be "children of celebrities making unsubstantiated allegations of molestation" then yes, indeed "it" does.

MayBee said...

" And Nick Kristof isn't the most credulous reporter in the world. "

Scott- Kristoff fell for the Plame/Wilsons hook, line, and sinker.

When it came out in Congressional testimony that Cheney had not, in fact, sent Wilson to Niger, I do not believe Kristoff ever corrected.

John said...

20 years later, Moses can still recall the day in question when all the family stayed gathered in public rooms...

And, why does Moses have such recollection of a non-event?

If Dylan's experience was as related, yes, I would expect she would recall that day.

If Moses experience was as related, why would that day be etched into his memory?

Who knows what happened? Not me. I do know that there are instances when the media and entertainment industry closed ranks to protect a celebrity at the expense of a young girl.

sydney said...

Moses was a teenager when all of this happened. The others were elementary school age. It is harder to manipulate the memory of a teenager. If I were to trust any of the children's recollections, I would put more stock in his. But I agree. It is time to shut the door on the affairs of this sad group of people. They should exorcise their demons in private

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...

Interesting observation by beowulf, who quotes this from Dylan.

"My mother never coached me," Dylan says. "She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them."

Beowulf then says:
This doesn't help. By definition, everyone with false memories thinks they're real memories.

I agree. Also, I am struck by the way this example fits with the entire naive romanticism of the whole open letter she wrote. She never once tries to get outside her own raw experience and deal with the basic validity issues it raises - especially for a mass audience not one of whose members is in a position to judge what happened at all. I think this sort of exalting of raw experience is a great failure of our age, especially among young people. Get some distance, Dylan. See it as others see it, not yourself, if you are going to ask others to believe you. What you say you remember is the START of the problem, not the end point.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:what does that make Soon Yi

Irrelevant to this discussion? :)


And yet Mia Farrow and Previn were brought into the discussion.

jr565 said...

Jon Burack wrote:
agree. Also, I am struck by the way this example fits with the entire naive romanticism of the whole open letter she wrote. She never once tries to get outside her own raw experience and deal with the basic validity issues it raises - especially for a mass audience not one of whose members is in a position to judge what happened at all


Althouse and Crack attack the use of the words "her truth" but you're saying she should get outside her own raw experience and instead deal with the reality of a public not equipped to judge. I don't know where that leads people who say they have been molested. Considering those cases are usually ones where someone is doing something to someone behind closed doors, it may well be that the public cannot sufficiently judge the truth. And in fact that is probably true for many/most crimes.

Would you have said the same thing about Sandusky's victims?