"His reaction is one of overwhelming sadness because of what has happened to Dylan. She was a pawn in a huge fight between him and Mia years ago. The idea that she was molested was implanted in her mind by her mother."
Said Woody Allen's lawyer Elkan Abramowitz, on TV today.
February 4, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
160 comments:
Linda Fairstein, former sex crimes prosecutor for NYC, said the same thing on Imus this morning, going with experience and odds.
Could Mia be that evil without Nicholas Kristof realizing it?
Okay, I'm all for giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. We should always steer clear of becoming Nancy-Grace-ish...
But still... he did keep nude photos of his parter's adopted child as a 20-year-old... and did subsequently marry that adopted child... which is really creepy... like something that would come out of The Cement Garden or Flowers in the Attic...
Or what if you turned Annie Hall up to 11? Ugh.... What does it matter???!!! Woody Allen is a slimey dude... so... what?... are we supposed to not watch his movies or something?
Not evil so much as crazy.
Like your girlfriend is mad at you because of what you did in her dream.
Whatever is necessary to be true, is true, if it will account for her feelings.
Never date an actress.
Kristof is Mia's friend--hardly impartial.
Yes, Mia could be that evil. Linda Fairstein pointed out that claims of sexual molestation that surface during a divorce or a separation are always suspect.
It is possible that Mia's righteous fury at Woody Allen over his affair with her adoptive daughter Soon Yi morphed into claiming Woody had also molested adopted daughter Dylan.
Bear in mind that Mia also publicly claimed that Soon-Yi had sub-normal intelligence and was therefore incapable of making her own decisions.
Picture what kind of mother would tell a lie like that, about her own daughter, to national news media, just to make herself look better.
I just recently saw Blue Jasmine. I think Blue Jasmine character is based more on Mia Farrow than on Ruth Madoff or Blanche Duboise, and Jasmine's failed marriage is a stylized version of the Farrow/Allen partnership and breakup......In the movie Jasmine is aware of her husband's financial and sexual transgressions but turns a willfully blind eye to them. Her husband buys her expensive jewels and she can live comfortably behind a facade of respectability. When the husband announces that he is leaving her for a teen aged girl, Jasmine completely loses it. She becomes crazy and vindictive. She reports her husband to the cops, and the subsequent scandals ruins both their lives and that of their child.......Allen is not exercising his demons so much as exercising them. We last see Jasmine as a pathetic, crazy lady talking to herself on a park bench. That's how Allen sees Farrow and that's the fate he wishes on her. In the movie the son blames the debacle of the family not on his father's frauds but on his mother's vindictiveness.........If I can see this subtext in the movie, it's a sure bet Mia and her children can also. Can you blame them for being pissed off at Allen. It's one offense to scar someone but a greater offense to mock that person's scar and ugliness.
What rhhardin said. Classic cognitive dissonance. I have little doubt Mia believes it happened, but strong doubt anything really happened. No Crueler Tyrannies by Dorothy Rabinowitz should be required reading before any columnist opines on this stuff. Wonder if Kristof has read it.
"We last see Jasmine as a pathetic, crazy lady talking to herself on a park bench. That's how Allen sees Farrow and that's the fate he wishes on her."
If that represents how he sees Mia, then he is maintaining his love for her and caring deeply about her subjective experience that involves anger toward him for leaving her. It's possible that as an artist, he invited this craziness into his life, because he obviously loves to write about nutty women.
Why not drive your woman nuts? Raw material. Very very raw material.
Fred Astaire & William Powell I think we're 40 years older than their wives. Their wives were older at the time of marriage, tho.
They're still together and married.
Daddy always said if a man wants to marry you, he will.
He didn't marry Mia.
Bitter woman, never married him and tossed over by not only someone younger, but your adopted daughter.
And your kid satchel might not be your kid.
Mia Farrow has had cosmetic surgery and that makes me think she's hiding something.
The lawyer says that Woody believes that Dylan believes the story she is telling but doesn't say whether Woody believes that Mia believes the story he think Mia implanted. Mia had reason to be furious at Woody, and perhaps she became insane, but she does seem to conduct herself sanely with respect to a large group of children. It would be hard for a crazy person to keep out of trouble for so many years immersed in such a difficult childrearing enterprise.
Oh it seems it is time to return to the esteemed Danish, the country from which I have exiled myself, the country of Denmark so hostile to us Americans as we are foreigners and violators of the Janteloven...
Watch The Hunt!!! JAGTEN... you motherfuckin' Danes.... and then you'll realize the contagiousness of fear and how it relegates the man back into being the main course of the carnivore socialist-feminist luncheon...
Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are strange people. They had three kids together but never lived together, much less married. No one talks about what kind of dad Allen was before 1992. Was he around? Did his kids ever stay at his place? Were they raised by nannies? Soon Yi was Mia's daughter with her previous husband. How often did she live with Mia and how often with her Dad? Did Woody Allen even talk to her much?
Mia Farrow has adopted more than a dozen children. One of the kids she adopted with Allen doesn't talk to her anymore and said she tried to brainwash her kids against Allen.
Neither Allen nor Farrow are decent people. They are self centered solipsists. No one should believe either of them.
One of the themes in Fairstein's books, based upon her years of experience, is the weeding out of phony rape and abuse claims. From the way she treats this problem in her fiction, it's clear that this is a big part of the job (prosecuting those crimes).
I think it's possible that Mia "implanted" this memory in Dylan, and that now, years later, they both believe that it happened, and meanwhile, Mia could live a relatively non-crazy life as it related to things not-Allen.
Maybe this may goad Allen to take the offense. For years his strategy was to ignore Farrow, Ronin's charges despite the giant glass house Farrow was tossing bricks about in.
Meaning Woody and pals can toss buckets of slime back - Mia and Ronan are easy targets. Her 25-vendetta against him will be tougher if she is held to public scrutiny as well.
@C4
Generally, I think it's likely to be better for all their kids if he does not escalate this. I'm guessing that's why he has not in the past. There are probably a lot of fragile relationships there. It may be tougher for him to be quiet, but better for the kids (young adults now).
I say we get Elkan Abramowitz together with Alan Dershowitz, who was Mia's attorney at the custody trail in 1993, and let them hash this out, once again.
This caught my eye while reading about their earlier involvement in the case:
"In a three-hour shouting match between Farrow's attorney, Alan M. Dershowitz, and Allen's attorney Abramowitz, Dershowitz denied allegations by Abramowitz that he had asked Allen to pay millions of dollars to get Farrow to call off the molestation charge."
Althouse knows her readers. She can't directly defend Allen's behavior any more than feminists could defend Clinton's behavior. So, she impunes the source (the NYT) and the woman (Farrow), which is much more fertile ground with this group of readers.
Althouse is losing a lot of credibility on this particular crusade.
"
Despite Allen's vehement denial, the accusations have caused outrage and division among Hollywood including Lena Dunham, who urged her 1.3 million Twitter followers to read Farrow's letter."
Oh, if Lena Dunham believes it, it must be true !
God, these people are crazy !
Mia is every man's nightmare of an ex-wife, even though she was never married to Allen.
Kristof is obviously unreliable as he has been for years.
Allegations of abuse by ex-wives is no mystery. It got Obama to the presidency so there is that. Why the ex-wife of former Senator Ryan is still considered a Republican is another mystery.
Well Mia can now sue Woody for libel. This should be interesting to see what she does. I suppose Dylan can sue Woody for libel, too since he says she made it up based on implanted memories.
I think Allen looks more like a child molester than Jerry Sandusky. If you know and like someone, it's very difficult to believe them capable of such a crime......I don't know if Allen is guilty. There's a lot of smoke. Maybe there's a fire and maybe there's a smoke making machine. Either scenario is credible.....I do think that if Allen had been a rabbi or a football coach instead of a gifted artist, many of his defenders here would take a different position regarding his guilt.
fells acre daycare center case. Tread lightly.
"Bear in mind that Mia also publicly claimed that Soon-Yi had sub-normal intelligence and was therefore incapable of making her own decisions."
Mia and others pointed out Soon-Yi's learning difficulties--which are a matter of record, btw. She was in special programs at school (usually attributed to her time in Korea (abuse) and perhaps cultural difference--Korean education relies more on rote memorization rather than making connections that mean more here. She needed to have the time limits waived on her standardized college tests, for example. Mia mentioned some of this in her book and interviews BEFORE she found out about the affair, but only to highlight the extra work you have to be willing to do with adopted children. You know why Woody's pals don't mention these things? Of course you do.
Althouse asked: “Could Mia be that evil without Nicholas Kristof realizing it?”
Kristof and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, are very involved in women's rights issues, particularly with regard to abuse. I think that probably predisposes him to sympathize with Mia in all this, and to unequivocally believe Dylan.
Soon-yi was 20 and legal. There is nothing to defend. Mia & Woody weren't married.
Just using a variation of the bubba defense.
Dylan, who knows? Women have used it in divorces or splits.
You know why Hollywood ignores problems with their stars, like heroin use, despite everyone knowing about it? Of course you do.
OK I need a deep profound essay from one of Woody Allen's idolators explaining to what lengths they would go to defend this man vs. any other man in similar circumstances. I don't care if the idolatry goes back 40 years and 50 films. I just want to know -- hypothetically speaking -- what it would take to shake his or her faith in him. Admission? In flagrante delicto? I give the man the presumption of innocence, but what it's starting to look like is idolators vs. detractors.
Full disclosure: If Woody Alen is someone's idea of perfected manhood, I should question that person's spectrum of knowledge.
Woody said what difference does it make where he met Soon-Yi--would you even be interested if he met her in a bar? Well, Soon-Yi was introduced to Woody by Mia a few months prior to her ninth birthday and I don't recall meeting any eight year olds in a bar. Perhaps Woody goes to different bars.
How far we've come, lots of kids aren't good test- takers, extra time is becoming more accepted, it doesn't mean she was sub-normal.
That could have been phrased more delicately on her mothers part.
You think Kristoff would have more humility after making false accusations himself against Steven Hatfill. He'll believe anything that confirms his biases. Which is why he works for the NY Times since his biases coincide with their biases.
I'll admit to not reading much about this, I guess because we'll never know for sure.
I have to ask though, how old is Dylan?? Is it really possible for something like molestation to get "implanted" into someones mind? Yes, children might be influenced by their mother, but as an adult, which I presume Dylan is, wouldn't she know if this was just something her mother wanted her to believe vs what really happened?
I've never seen Annie Hall, except the end I think on TV, I've seen a couple of his movies on TV, never sought them out in the theatre. I don't care either way. I just find it amusing to apply the lefts standards to things like this.
Was there a whisper of he and her under-age?
Darrell,
He's accused of molesting his daughter. Marrying one of his ex-girlfirend's 12 kids, while creepy, isn't a crime. Nor is it evidence of molesting a 7-year old. The evidence consists of Dylan's word against Allen's and Dylan's word seems shaky given the repeatedly inconsistent stories she gave shortly after the alleged molestation. Allen's word is also shaky since he has no honor. Mia Farrow's word is also shaky since she has no honor either.
In my opinion this implantation story is bullish. It is just the easy way out for some people. They don't want to call Dylan an outright liar because we're suppose to take all accusations by woman/girls as the gospel truth. It's just easier to say these memories were implanted.
Kelly,
The medical literature, FWIW, does say that these memories of abuse can be implanted or imagined.
Were we supposed to believe the Sinatra fatherhood story?
The problem for Mia is that when you mix bullshit with truth, it all smells like bullshit.
It was disgraceful for Woody Allen's first statement to label Dylan's letter "untrue and disgraceful". She very clearly suffered a severe trauma as a kid. The memories may have been planted or enhanced, they were not made up.
This all came to light when Dylan asked Mia what her father had done to her and with her when she was the same age, and whether she said no to some things or if she had to do everything he wanted to do. Sounds reasonable--a child of seven doesn't know what is normal and right or wrong. Dylan talked about feeling worse about what had happened as she got older and found out how normal children are treated by their parents. That lends weight to me because it is something that people who haven't been abused usually don't think about.
mcculough--I was responding to specific comments and many people are bringing up Soon-Yi. While I note your "concern," I also think you should mind your own business. Go piss up a pipe.
I'm pretty sure that time has taken care of the Woody Allen problem and if it hasn't it soon will offer a permanent solution. We can never know the absolute truth. Why not just read what the parties say and reserve judgment until they stop talking.
Darrell,
Sorry to challenge your views. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't comment. Believe what you want, just like Woody and Mia do.
Maybe it was "escalating rage" on Mia's part -- from a 1993 NY Times account of the custody trial:
The testimony of Dr. [Susan] Coates -- who regularly treated the couple's biological son, Satchel, from 1990 to 1992, and often conversed or met with both parents -- appeared to provide an alternative explanation for Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan other than the one advanced by Ms. Farrow. The actress's accusation that Mr. Allen had molested Dylan at her country house last Aug. 4 is a central issue in the custody trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Mr. Allen has denied the accusation.
Dr. Coates was questioned by Mr. Allen's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Dr. Coates -- one of several psychologists and psychiatrists whom various members of the couple's family had seen over the years -- portrayed Ms. Farrow as filled with escalating rage after discovering Mr. Allen's affair with Ms. Previn in January 1992.
The psychologist said that Ms. Farrow's actions in the following months, which included angry phone calls and a gift to Mr. Allen of a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children, had convinced her that Ms. Farrow might harm herself or Mr. Allen.
_______________
And this is very odd:
Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow's behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on Aug. 1 of last year Ms. Farrow called her after having learned that the affair with Ms. Previn was continuing. Ms. Farrow described Mr. Allen as "satanic and evil," Dr. Coates said, adding that Ms. Farrow pleaded with her to "find a way to stop him."
Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Ms. Farrow mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Mr. Allen had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married.
"Do you think I should marry him?' " said Dr. Coates, reading from the notes she took at the time and quoting Ms. Farrow.
"I said, 'Are you serious?' " Dr. Coates said. "She heard my reaction to it, and realized there was something absurd about it."
Four days after that conversation, the psychologist testified, Ms. Farrow phoned again, saying that Dylan had begun complaining that Mr. Allen had abused her. Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow as having been extremely calm during the call, in contrast to her agitated state in other calls.
It's also possible Woody is guilty. Just look at his movie "Manhattan" where he chooses to hook up with the young-ish Streep instead of the more mature Diane Keaton. Says it all.
Allegations of abuse by ex-wives is no mystery. It got Obama to the presidency so there is that. Why the ex-wife of former Senator Ryan is still considered a Republican is another mystery.
Jack Ryan was never a senator.
It comes as a surprise to people who didn't follow the 2004 IL Senate race that Jack Ryan was not the only candidate smeared by Obama and Alexrod. Blair Hull was leading the Democratic primary until he was similarly smeared with allegations that he'd beat his wife. He promptly lost support and ended up third in the primary.
Kelly asks: "Is it really possible for something like molestation to get "implanted" into someones mind?"
McMartin Preschool Trial
But still... he did keep nude photos of his parter's adopted child as a 20-year-old... and did subsequently marry that adopted child... which is really creepy... like something that would come out of The Cement Garden or Flowers in the Attic...
Imagine if Warren Jeffs did this? Would anyone defend him?
I do think that if Allen had been a rabbi or a football coach instead of a gifted artist, many of his defenders here would take a different position regarding his guilt.
Bingo! Though there are also a number of men on here who wouldn't believe any woman who accused someone in the middle of a divorce or custody hearing.
I do think this is different than the Roman Polanski thing. The fact that that man cannot enter the US for what he did and is still celebrated in Hollywood is disgusting.
This whole Woody Allen thing is more nuanced. Charges were never filed. So while I understand a victim publicizing the incident to say "keep your young children away from him," I can't see the point of trying to destroy his career. Perhaps they need to work more on the healing end of things than the revenge end.
I don't know. I don't see how anyone can know outside of the two principals. Yet Mr Allen may be lying. Dylan Farrow may be deceived. I don't know.
Yet it appears that refusing to take a side puts one on Mr. Allen's side.
Luckily figuring out whether or not to cut Woody Allen isn't part of my social life.
I think that Dylan should push this even further into the public eye. She is now an adult and she may no longer be so fragile. Woody Allen's behavior with his girlfriends's daughter is strange and it casts some credibility onto Dylan's charges against him. It's interesting that so many are willing to believe Allen over Dylan, despite his history with his current wife. In Allen's case I think where there is smoke there is fire.
Michael Jackson had large neon signs that proclaimed his pedophilia. Despite that, most of his fans were convinced of his innocence. The McMartin case happened. So did the protective cordon that formed around Michael Jackson and, for a time, Jerry Sandusky......I don't think there's enough evidence to convict Allen, but neither is there sufficient evidence to grant him a lifetime achievement award.
Complex and convoluted relationship.
Sounds like long term unresolved anger management issues all around.
Woody Allen in psychoanalysis for 37 years must of had something unsettling going on.
Did he marry Soon Yi Previn as some sort retaliation against Farrow?
May be he will reveal all in a script.
Another curious thing -- Mia in a 2006 interview said this about Woody and Soon-Yi's affair:
Asked whether she has since forgiven Allen, she says: "In an instant. I can't carry any of that. That's too heavy for me. It really isn't up to me to forgive or not forgive, is it?"
How could she forgive him if he'd sexually assaulted Dylan? Can compartmentalizing go that far?
We can't ever really know what happened. I am troubled by the fact that Dylan Farrow called out certain actors and actresses by name, and attempted to smear them for daring to appear in Allen's latest film.
Is it really due to the Golden Globe honor? The Golden Globes aren't exactly viewed as a truly high honor in Hollywood. Allen's made any number of films since his relationship with Mia ended. Dylan Farrow didn't call out Owen Wilson, or Penelope Cruz, or Judy Davis. Just the actors in this film. Why?
As near as I can tell, the only thing worth considering in all this rampant speculation about a situation that not one of you is in a position to know a thing about with any certainty, are the references here to the day-care center cases. Dorothy Rabinowitz's book is worth every single post on every blog about this private matter, including mine and all of yours here on this blog.
The Fells Acre case that Seeing Red refers to is only one of several that fell apart totally, long after lives were ruined by out of control prosecutors and all kinds of social welfare people who assured us over and over that the children never lie, they have no stake in lying, they must always be believed.
In fact, children lie all the time and their memories of what happened can be manipulated very easily so that the lies implanted in them grow and flower as time goes by. You will still find adults now from those cases who are sure their day-care teachers cut them with knives despite no evidence of scars ever appearing, locked them in crazy clown rooms or in tunnels that were never there, flew around the rooms on broom handles or whatnot.
All of which enraged a public in no position to know a thing abotu any of these cases. For Dylan and her enablers to direct their vicious charges via a maximum public venue indicts them in my mind more than anything else, no matter what is true. They are engaging abuse here, the abuse of the public who they have no right at all to ask to accept their story on faith, which is all any of you have to go on if you do accept it. And the gnashing of teeth and mental jujitsu moves of all those here trying to fathom or infer what they will never in fact be able to fathom or infer are testimony to that abuse.
As I am sure the amusingly monikered AReasonableMan (and many others, probably) will be happy to learn, this is my last word on this idiotic flap. The only think Mia and Dylan and Woody (who seems to know it) need, the ONLY thing, is total silence from us and anonymity for them.
I think that if you throw acid n a woman's face, you have to expect a certain amount of subsequent hysteria. People here are knocking Mia for overreacting to what must be considered the most primitive and harmful type of sexual betrayal......Also please note that Mia used--perhaps transcended is the better word--her neuroses and contradictions to raise fifteen children to successful adulthood.
Woody's lawyer...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigt.
nga said...
I think that Dylan should push this even further into the public eye. She is now an adult and she may no longer be so fragile. Woody Allen's behavior with his girlfriends's daughter is strange and it casts some credibility onto Dylan's charges against him. It's interesting that so many are willing to believe Allen over Dylan, despite his history with his current wife. In Allen's case I think where there is smoke there is fire.
It is less a matter of believing Allan over Dylan than it is a matter of believing children can be manipulated by insane scorned mothers into doing and saying what is necessary to gain moms approval.
Most interesting is how "normal" women so easily equate a mans attraction to a 20 year old woman to being related to pedophilia.
By the way, how does bringing up these false allegations affect Allens wife and especially their adopted children? I guess nobody gives a good goddamn about those kids.
"I give the man the presumption of innocence, but what it's starting to look like is idolators vs. detractors. "
No, it's just a bullshit detector going off.
James, you're right about Ryan. I was thinking of Fitzgerald who pissed off the Combine in Illinois and quit.
Damon Linker and Rod Dreher are finding a guilty Woody Allen immensely useful, and they aren't getting custody of anything.
Or are they?
Geez has Hollywood honored him in the past 20 years? Why all the uproar now?
She had Frank Sinatra's child while married to Woody Allen, and then she goes after Allen's reputation.
It's a war on women, I tell ya'.
"Also please note that Mia used--perhaps transcended is the better word--her neuroses and contradictions to raise fifteen children to successful adulthood."
Perhaps. Or that may be another story. (How's that for innuendo?)
Jon Burack said...
As I am sure the amusingly monikered AReasonableMan (and many others, probably) will be happy to learn, this is my last word on this idiotic flap.
Despite your failures in the areas of logic and fact and your complete inability to construct a coherent argument you do retain a small skill in expressing malice. It's not nothing. It's just not very much.
Inga said...
I think that Dylan should push this even further into the public eye. She is now an adult and she may no longer be so fragile. Woody Allen's behavior with his girlfriends's daughter is strange and it casts some credibility onto Dylan's charges against him. It's interesting that so many are willing to believe Allen over Dylan, despite his history with his current wife. In Allen's case I think where there is smoke there is fire.
You are showing nothing but your currently ruling predispositions, Inga.
Actually we have no idea what happened and never will.
Grimstar, I know all about the preschool case. My question is, as an adult wouldn't Dylan know whether she was abused or not?? I just don't believe she could have false memories.
Ann Althouse said...
Could Mia be that evil without Nicholas Kristof realizing it?
Several possibilities:
1. Enchantment. Mia is an enchanting woman.
2. Intimidation. Unwilling to confront Mia or Dylan even though he has doubts.
3. Jealousy. What's so great about Woody Allen?
4. Ideology. Men are pigs.
5. Projection. What dark secrets inhabit Kristof's life?
6. Self Promotion. Nick has not really been center stage foe quite a while.
7. Bad Judgment. I had no idea this old news would be such a big deal.
8. Neutrality. I report. You decide.
9. Innocence. He can not conceive that some one would be that evil.
Etc. Etc.
If I had to choose I would pick "enchanting Mia."
But of course like most everyone I know nothing of their relationship so your guess is as bad as mine.
Yes, you can implant lasting memories in children. Memory is exceedingly imperfect. It is largely the story you tell yourself. Change the story, change the memory.
You can even watch a child form his own false memory. Watch him get caught out at something and lie about it. Watch him suddenly believe his own lie.
Most interesting is how "normal" women so easily equate a mans attraction to a 20 year old woman to being related to pedophilia.
I'm going to defend Inga here. The thing that is unsettling about the relationship is not Soon-yi's age, it's the relationship to Allen before they became involved. No, he was not her adopted father, but he was in a position of power and authority as her mother's boyfriend and as a real father to her siblings. Come on, that's creepy! She wasn't some cocktail waitress or stripper he met one night out. I can't think that anyone would be comparing that to pedophilia.
We don't know. Was she at school, did Mia shuttle them from her house to his because they didn't live together, did she spend a lot of time with nannies, how much time did she spend with her dad... If there was something there, would Mia have used it a long time ago?
As someone who was abused as a child and had a world class manipulator for a mother, you know what is real as an adult. In fact, you know what is real as a child as well, but you want to please your abuser so you lie. One of my first memories is having my nose bloodied by my mother on my first day of nursery school.
Mom had to hurriedly clean me up before my ride came. She told me if anyone saw blood on me to make something up. Someone did see blood on my fingers and asked me about it…i said I had candy the night before. I was four and so proud of my lie I even went home and told mom. As an adult I know I didn't have candy, I know mom told me to lie and I lied for her throughout childhood. Yes, kids can be manipulated, but there are no such things as false memories in an adults. Unless you're mentally ill.
Being sexually abused is a HUGE thing. Dylan KNOWS whether she was or wasn't abused. The kids in the preschool case, now adults, KNOW whether they were abused or not. I'm sure they weren't, so if they still maintain they were, they're knowingly lying.
"My question is, as an adult wouldn't Dylan know whether she was abused or not?? I just don't believe she could have false memories."
The most famous case in the "recovered memory" story is a case here in Orange County where a father won a huge lawsuit against the institution that was pushing the attacks on him by his daughter. It basically ended the whole recovered memory movement because malpractice insurers would no longer cover recovered memories treatment by psychologists. It had been a growing industry at a time when psychologists were losing out in managed care rules for payment.
The daughter who had been convinced she was molested then went to work as the therapist for others making similar accusations. The lawsuit and decision did not budge her conviction in a pretty flimsy case that she had been abused.
Stephanie Ramona, who has since divorced her husband, has stood by her daughter and the therapists who treated her. "I don't think he should have gotten a penny for raping his own daughter," she said.
Holly Ramona's suspicions that she may have been molested surfaced in early 1990, when she was receiving therapy for depression and bulimia while attending UC Irvine. She testified during the trial that the memories were triggered by a trip back home in 1989, a Christmas excursion during which her father looked at her in a sexual fashion.
It's all emotion and facts don't matter.
Mom had to hurriedly clean me up before my ride came. She told me if anyone saw blood on me to make something up. Someone did see blood on my fingers and asked me about it…i said I had candy the night before. I was four and so proud of my lie I even went home and told mom. As an adult I know I didn't have candy, I know mom told me to lie and I lied for her throughout childhood. Yes, kids can be manipulated, but there are no such things as false memories in an adults. Unless you're mentally ill.
But that's not the same thing at all. There was no attempt to get you to actually believe that something else happened. You were told to lie, and approval and good feelings came from the feeling of lying well as instructed, not from believing that the lie actually happened.
Could Mia be that evil without Nicholas Kristof realizing it?
I don't know, could Allen be much more evil without Farrow realizing it, after a lot more and a lot closer observation? It would be logically inconsistent to think Farrow's evil would have to stand out in knobs, but Allen's could be fiendishly subtle. Or is the axiom that women are just stupider than men about hiding their pathologies?
It would be hard for a crazy person to keep out of trouble for so many years immersed in such a difficult childrearing enterprise.
A fascinating hypothesis. So if I have a habit of cheating on my income tax, it will sooner or later come out in my childrearing? I'll be stealing the kids' peanut butter crackers from their lunchboxes, maybe, because of my uncontrollable urge to cheat?
Evil is some kind of chthonic poison that affects everything you do, and isn't just focussed on your particular weakness, maybe? I guess the Republicans were right to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob from an intern -- clearly his proclivities would've come out, sooner or later, in, say, his foreign policy, and being caught sucking Yeltsin's dick would've been unbelievably embarassing.
Woody Allen's behavior with his girlfriends's daughter is strange
An adult man was sexually and emotionally attracted to an adult woman he wasn't related to. He cheated on his then-girlfriend with that woman, then (after an acrimonious breakup with said girlfriend) married the woman in question, remaining married to her until the present day.
Walk me through how that lends credibility to an otherwise unsubstantiated accusation that the man in question molested his seven-year-old adopted daughter.
Woody's behavior is evidence that he's a selfish person and a poor father. There is NOTHING about his behavior or history that suggests he molests children. The closest you can get to pedophilia is that supposedly he used to have a 17-year-old girlfriend. That's about as far from pedophilia as club soda is from Guinness.
Some have asked if everyone would feel the same were it someone else, such as a priest or coach. Given the evidence, yes, of course.
Yes, kids can be manipulated, but there are no such things as false memories in an adults. Unless you're mentally ill.
False memories are common in adults, and are not generally considered a symptom of mental illness. How many times have we thought to ourselves "I could have sworn I did ____" when confronted with the evidence that _____ never happened? That's a false memory.
If you are repeatedly told that something happened -- for example, if your mother spends two decades telling you your father molested you -- you will "remember" it happening. That's how memory works.
Some false mammaries look pretty real.
"Some false mammaries look pretty real."
Especially on that photo of Althouse.
I'm by no means a Woody Allen fan. I rarely see his movies and I think the whole thing around Soon Yi was creepy and indulgent. But people like Mia & Woody feel perfectly entitled to exceed boundaries. It comes with being a celebrity.
I'm old enough to remember the brouhaha when Mia was 21 and married Frank Sinatra who was 51. And Mia always struck me as someone not quite all there ...
However, bona fide pedophiles have no use for teens or adults. And the medical doctors who examined Dylan found no physical evidence of molestation (and if Dylan is relating reality, I fail to see how there could NOT be physical scars).
Never underestimate the single-mindedness of those ex-partners who seek revenge and destruction of the one who betrayed them. I've seen such cases. I also seen cases of actual molestation and it isn't just word against word.
Accusations aren't enough. I still consider Allen a gold-plated cad for not honoring the boundary between him and Soon Yi. But that doesn't make him a child molester.
And, IIRC, he has two young daughters with Soon Yi. Has there ever been any other accusations of molestation against Allen with other prepubescent girls? Cuz they just never do it once.
What I find interesting here is that there is a world of difference between the comments posted on Althouse and those posted on the Daily Beast, which has an article supporting Allen. Most of the commenters here are reasonable. The Beast commenters, by contrast, overwhelmingly denounce Allen in extremely vitriolic terms. Those expressions of feminist rage are frightening.
By the way, Soon Yi, like our president, has a degree from Columbia.
"The Beast commenters, by contrast, overwhelmingly denounce Allen in extremely vitriolic terms."
Even though I think the accusations are bullshit, I just can't work up much sympathy for the leftists who are turned on by their rabid cohorts.
Chronology of dysfunction
FEBRUARY 1992:
Farrow gives Allen a Valentine with a photograph of her and some of her children; a steak knife is stuck into Farrow's heart, covered with a photo of Soon-Yi, and meat skewers are stuck in the chests of the children. (The card will be displayed on CBS' "60 Minutes.")
***
MAY 1993:
The seven-week trial winds down. Among its many revelations: Moses wrote Allen a letter saying he hoped his father would kill himself. Farrow acknowledges lashing out physically at Soon-Yi. Allen's lawyers suggest Farrow tried to blackmail Allen for millions of dollars. A psychologist testifies that Farrow threatened to stab Allen's eyes out.
More....
Dale Light said...
What I find interesting here is that there is a world of difference between the comments posted on Althouse and those posted on the Daily Beast, which has an article supporting Allen.
That article was remarkably one-sided, written by someone with a financial stake in Allen's career. The response under those circumstances is understandable. What I find interesting is the emotional stake that some have in Allen based on their investment in his movies. I think Roman Polanski is a vastly better director but I would have no problem seeing him go to jail for his crimes. It seems some people cannot separate out the art from the artist.
According to that chronology lemondog linked to at 6:12 p.m., Mia found the photos of Soon-Yi in January 1992; sent Woody that Valentine card showing a steak knife through her heart and meat skewers in the chest of the children in February 1992; and then, while on a visit to Mia's home in Connecticut in August of that year "amidst lengthy and bitter custody negotiations", Woody was supposed to have molested Dylan in the attic.
Seems to me for that to be true, he'd have to be not just one hell of a sick guy, but also very, very stupid.
It seems some people cannot separate out the art from the artist.
Allen's competence as a director isn't relevant. There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation.
ARM false memories isn't fiction and as far as I know there wasn't any corroborating physical evidence. There is a reason the prosecutor didn't prosecute and it wasn't about being considerate of Dylan's feelings. DA's love to prosecute high profile criminals provided they are sure they can win. Is Allen a good guy? Absolutely not. Banging your girlfriend's daughter is never morally right even if she is of age. However Allen is being accused of criminal acts not of being an asshole. There is a difference.
Nice take down of Robert Weide’s sleazy, passive-aggressive attack on Mia Farrow and her daughter .
I find it amusing how many people seem certain they know what must have happened. Both ways too, which of course makes it funnier.
If it wasn't so sad. The girl was abused by one parent or the other, that is probably the closest we'll get to the truth.
cubanbob said...
ARM false memories isn't fiction
No one said it was but the anger that she feels and the fact that she has stuck by her story into adulthood does lend some credence to the whole story. I am agnostic on this issue. What I find interesting is that the attacks on Farrow and her daughter are closely analogous to the attacks on Lewinsky, but they have been made by people who would have strongly condemned the treatment of Lewinsky. People are blind to their own biases.
I don't think that qualifies as a take down, ARM. so much as the same shit from a different perspective. BOth should be read with an eye to their biases, agendas and interests.
Patrick said...
I don't think that qualifies as a take down,
The Twitter picture is pretty funny. Not exactly journalist impartiality.
I think Woody Allen likely has Asperger's.
Anyone who doesn't see the moral issues with fucking his long time SO's kid that he was a father figure to from the time she was eight has no ability to empathize and no available emotional intelligence from which to draw.
He has a talent, as a lot of aspies have, but no ability to make genuine human connection.
Because he is highly verbal within his "specialized field of interest", he and/or his films should be studied by researchers working to understand Autistic Spectrum Disorders.
I'm not kidding.
No one said it was but the anger that she feels and the fact that she has stuck by her story into adulthood does lend some credence to the whole story.
You don't appear to understand what the term "false memories" means.
Sticking to her story and being angry about it lend credence to her claim that she "remembers" being molested by Allen. But nobody disputes that she has those memories -- just whether or not the memories are real. Obviously SHE thinks they are real. That's why they are called "false memories", not "stuff she made up".
Revenant said...
You don't appear to understand what the term "false memories" means.
This is kind of a stupid thing to say, obviously I do. You have no more insight into what happened than anyone else. And, like everyone else, you are relying on your personal biases to judge the case. There is no unequivocal evidence that these are false memories,
I'm not sure if she's telling the truth or not.
I think it's pretty clear that DYlan believes it happened.
Could it be a false memory? Possible but I don't know if she would still be harboring this anger over a false memory.
On another note though, Mia Farris considers Polanski one of her best friends. So I notice she doesn't extend the same courtesy to his victim that we are supposed to towards her daughter
Why then should we?
"No one said it was but the anger that she feels and the fact that she has stuck by her story into adulthood does lend some credence to the whole story."
This is utter nonsense. The whole "recovered memories" thing vanished once malpractice insurance was not available to psychologists. They had workshops at their national conventions to teach how to "find" such memories. A year later, it was all gone.
You have a vindictive mother and young man who probably doesn't know who his father is. These people are weirdos, including Allen. Normal behavior cannot be expected.
It is all bullshit and you are trying to find a pony at the bottom of the horseshit.
Althouse wrote:
"Why not drive your woman nuts? Raw material. Very very raw material."
Did She jump or was she pushed?
Julie C asked:
Allen's made any number of films since his relationship with Mia ended. Dylan Farrow didn't call out Owen Wilson, or Penelope Cruz, or Judy Davis. Just the actors in this film. Why?
William answered that at 11:56AM. This movie is the anti-Hannah and Her Sisters. Where Hanna was widely interpreted as a loving tribute to Mia Farrow, this one is pretty obviously Allen's revenge against her. This doesn't become obvious until the end of the movie. The main character turns on her husband when he tells her he loves a 19 year old and is leaving her. She ruins the entire family. Their son, disillusioned with his father, drops out of college and turns to drugs. At the end, he's turned his life around, but tells his step-mother that he hates her more than he hated his father because she ruined their lives. In real life, Allen and Farrow's adopted son, Moses, is now estranged from Farrow and had made amends with Allen. Interesting that this is the same son that wished publicly in the 1990's that Allen would commit suicide. The father in the movie does commit suicide. This movie must have been incubating in Allen's soul for a long time. You know what they say. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
Funny thing is, I never would have watched this movie if Farrow and her children hadn't drawn so much attention to it. Bet there are a lot of others out there who could say the same.
jr565 said...
On another note though, Mia Farris considers Polanski one of her best friends. So I notice she doesn't extend the same courtesy to his victim that we are supposed to towards her daughter
Why then should we?
This is a pretty good point that gets at the main point here, which is how blind we are to our own biases. Farrow no doubt sees Polanski as a friend since they worked together.
fucking his long time SO's kid that he was a father figure to from the time she was eight
Which is weird, considering that Soon-Yi was 10 when Farrow and Allen began dating.
Seriously, though -- Soon-Yi was jointly adopted by Andre Previn and Mia Farrow. She claims that she considers Previn to be her dad and Allen to be her mom's ex-boyfriend. Mia claims Allen was the father figure, Soon-Yi claims her actual father was the father figure. If you have reason to believe Mia over Soon-Yi, let's hear it. :)
When I was a child I was possessed with extraordinary good looks. My mother had quite a lot of trouble keeping her hands off me. Did she sexually abuse me? I have no memory of that, but that's just the kind of memory one would repress. If she did, I've moved on and forgive her for the transgression. What still enrages me is the intimate contact she had with her brute of a husband. Every time I think of her in his embrace I want to get hold of a big, sharp knife and cut him to pieces.
"In real life, Allen and Farrow's adopted son, Moses, is now estranged from Farrow and had made amends with Allen. Interesting that this is the same son that wished publicly in the 1990's that Allen would commit suicide. "
A few points. Why did Moses wish his father commuted suicide back in the day? That's a pretty extreme reaction. Was it simply that he took his moms side and she poisoned him against his dad. Or was his dad a horrible person.
Also, althouse made the argument earlier that the fact that because Allen went on to marry Soon Yi it is suggestive that he isn't a molester. I.e. The story sounds bad, but for all intents and purposes he seems to have behaved honorably towards her so perhaps it's not as bad as we think. And plus he wasn't married to farrow so he may not have viewed her as his daughter.
Etc. etc. which is a fair point.
But, couldn't you make the same argent about Mia Farrow? I.e. She was involved with a lot of people and the relationships ended badly. Yet she only made allegations about Allen. There doesn't appear to be other times in her history where she accused her ex of molesting kids or attempted to destroy them in public. (Though in fairness Allen was the only one who ended up dating her daughter while seeing farrow).
@Revenant
Errr no, that's not what is weird here and 8 or 10 doesn't change the big and very obvious picture.
I just googled out of curiosity and the phrase was already in Google's memory. Apparently a lot of Aspie activists think Woody has it. He's already on the lists along with Bill Gates, etc.
If he were a kid today, he'd likely be diagnosed. If he has it, he could not and cannot understand how what he did is viewed or the affect it has on people or why it was wrong. He lacks the capacity - just like a high myope would not be able to be a gunfighter in the 1800s or someone with a heart condition would not be able to do a 20-mile military run with a 120 lb pack on his back.
Notice I'm not mentioning Dylan... because we don't even need to go into those murky waters. We can stay right here where most things are known and the conclusion is the same.
Revenant,
After a divorce, you always still have your dad, but any person your mom brings home and is in a relationship with (especially one that last years) establishes the bf as some sort of authority figure, especially if your siblings see him as their father.
He was not just some guy off the street. He had some sort of authority in that household, even if it was more directly connected to Soon-yi's siblings. Creepy.
You have no more insight into what happened than anyone else. And, like everyone else, you are relying on your personal biases to judge the case. There is no unequivocal evidence that these are false memories,
Reason isn't a form of bias.
The entirety of the evidence against Allen is Dylan's "memory" of the event. There is no physical, testimonial, or character-based evidence backing them up, nor has there ever been.
Give that the sole evidence is a child's memory, that it is easy to establish false memories in children, and that Farrow had the means, motive and opportunity to do so, the rational thing to do is reject the charges.
Might Allen be a child molester? Sure, just like you might be a child molester. There just isn't any rational reason to believe it, and thus the ethical thing to do is to not accuse him of it.
I just googled out of curiosity and the phrase was already in Google's memory. Apparently a lot of Aspie activists think Woody has it
You found people on the internet who agree with a theory? Must be true, then. :)
Wiki puts Soon Yi at eight when Farrow started dating Allen. (No, wiki is not definitive, but my god. They gave her a BONE SCAN, unbelievable.)
In 1973 and 1976, respectively, (Farrow and Previn) adopted ... Soon-Yi (born c. October 8, 1972) from Korea around 1978. Soon-Yi's precise age and birth date are not known, but a bone scan estimated her age as being between 5 and 7 years old at the time of her adoption.[33] Previn and Farrow divorced in 1979.[34]
In 1980, Farrow began seeing film director Woody Allen.
Why did Moses wish his father commuted suicide back in the day? That's a pretty extreme reaction. Was it simply that he took his moms side and she poisoned him against his dad. Or was his dad a horrible person.
He now says it was the former
After a divorce, you always still have your dad, but any person your mom brings home and is in a relationship with (especially one that last years) establishes the bf as some sort of authority figure, especially if your siblings see him as their father.
Try not to strain your back moving those goalposts. "Considered Allen an authority figure" and "considered Allen a father figure" are two radically different statements.
As for considering him an authority figure, why not read what Soon-Yi herself said about it? According to both her statements and Woody's, he spent little time at Farrow's place and ignored her other kids.
Revenant said...
Reason isn't a form of bias.
But again you have no actual knowledge so your biases have a finger on the scale of reason. A reasonable response is to remain agnostic but to also acknowledge that Woody ain't winning no father of the year award any time soon.
Many of Freud's early female patients complained that they had been sexually molested by their father. Freud at first believed them, but the fathers involved were some of the most respected men in Vienna. Freud then posited that their stories were fantasies and part of the family romance dynamic. That's one of the reasons feminists have such a low opinion of him......At any rate, there's a substratum of sexuality in the affection a child feels for his parents and for the love they feel for the child. That's why it's so important to observe the proprieties. The child should never feel part of the sexual pecking order. And ditto, of course, for the parents. These are potent forces. It's deeply disturbing for the kid to live in such a disordered universe. Incest, even the threat of incest, is such a damaging crime that it's very important for society to make clear, bright lines around it. There's not sufficient evidence to jail Allen, but enough with these Oscars and lifetime achievement awards for the sleaze.
It's true Woody's off, way off. Just look at him. If his name was Woody Hayes He'd have been clapped in irons 20 years ago.
Nobody except Woody knows the truth and he may be telling it.
Farrow's at least as off as him. Wierd. Does anybody believe it's an accident she's cultivated a relationship with Kristof? Mia's as manipulative as any wacko borderline broad. Rabbit in boiling water wacko.
Whatever the truth that poor bunny Dylan is cooked.
Revenant, I have always been consistent with the creep out and the correct context of that creep out, no goal post moving by me. If you want proof, I think there's something wrong with Celine Dion and her husband too.
But again you have no actual knowledge so your biases have a finger on the scale of reason.
There are many problems with that argument, but perhaps the biggest one is that I consider Allen to be a self-involved left-wing douchebag and terrible father.
So how my supposed "bias" would *discourage* me from believing the charges is a bit of a mystery. :)
But you're right, neither of us can know what happened -- which is why the charges have survived this long. It is impossible to prove a man didn't molest a child. One can only observe that the man has lived his entire life in the public eye without displaying any signs of pedophilia or leaving any evidence of molestation in his wake.
You'd be better off trying to argue that Obama is a closet Republican, basically.
This is a balancing article to all the negative stuff about Farrow. It is hard to argue that she is not a dedicated mother.
This story has as many mythic possibilities as the fall of the house of Atreus. Instead we got Blue Jasmine. O'Neil gave us Long Day's Journey out of his family's trauma. Allen gave us a cheap shot at his ex partner........Farrow had a delicate waif like quality when she was young. She's the kind of girl that would appeal to child molesters. Interesting to note that her career and greatest roles were based on her relationships with the century's two foremost sleaze balls.
O'Neil gave us Long Day's Journey out of his family's trauma. Allen gave us a cheap shot at his ex partner
This is the second film he made in response to the scandal. In the first (Deconstructing Harry) he cast himself as sex-obsessed bastard who treats other people like crap and uses them for his art. He waited 20 years to play the "oh, and Mia's a bitch, too" card.
I haven't seen his latest film and don't plan to, so I don't know if the "cheap shot" allegation is accurate or not. I do think that if a person makes false allegations of child molestation and suffers no worse fate than a bit of fictional ridicule, she's getting off pretty light.
Revenant said...
I do think that if a person makes false allegations of child molestation
This is where your biases are showing. You don't know for certain that this is a false accusation, but you are as angry about it as you would be if you did know for certain that it was false.
Blue Jasmine is worth seeing, but more for Cate Blanchett's great performance than for Allen's writing......I think if Jennifer Aniston was carrying on like this about Brad Pitt, the charge of vindictive nut would be valid, but Farrow's anger is proportionate to the offense. She didn't get blindsided. She got clothes lined.....Thanks to ARM for his link at 9:48. Farrow has many worthy qualities outside of her artistry. She's a better person than Allen.
ARM,
Rev gave reasons for his view. You believe he can't express a reasoned opinion unless he was in the room at the time the alleged molestation occurred.
By the way, three months ago Mia's brother was sentenced to 10 years in prison for molesting two 10 year old boys. She has yet to comment on that. How did her brother become a pedophile?
Are those opining about mothers' boyfriends as authority figures from intact or broken families? I think that if the actual father is still heavily involved in a child's life, that child will never see a mother's mere boyfriend as a father figure. The idea is laughable to me, and I've lived it.
Revenant wrote:
"Allen's competence as a director isn't relevant. There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation. "
except of course for the allegations of moleststion.
Nobody makes flippant allegations of this kind. Believe me.
Darrell wrote:
Mia and others pointed out Soon-Yi's learning difficulties--which are a matter of record, btw. She was in special programs at school (usually attributed to her time in Korea (abuse) and perhaps cultural difference--Korean education relies more on rote memorization rather than making connections that mean more here. She needed to have the time limits waived on her standardized college tests, for example. Mia mentioned some of this in her book and interviews BEFORE she found out about the affair, but only to highlight the extra work you have to be willing to do with adopted children. You know why Woody's pals don't mention these things? Of course you do.
That's a really good point. A lot of Allen defenders allege they Farrow was evil because she alleged that Soon Yi had learning disabilities as if she was denigrating her because she started seeing Allen. However, this was revealed before hand. And so is an example of a mother simply explaining the issues her daughter had at the time.
"But in a controversial move, state's attorney Frank S. Maco announced in 1993 that while he found "probable cause" to prosecute Allen, he was dropping the case because Dylan was too "fragile" to deal with a trial. Mia agreed with the decision, he said.
Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.
So, Revenant, there was probable cause at the time to pursue a prosecution. Dylan should have not backed down at the time, so we are now left in limbo. But probable cause to pursue prosecution is not exactly no suggestion of activity.
jr565
: ham sandwich = indictment
Been there done that.
This is where your biases are showing. You don't know for certain that this is a false accusation
Endlessly repeating the same claim doesn't make you sound any less silly, Ritmo. :)
Two more points. From what I read Moses is not actually estranged from Farrow. She supposedly attended his wedding a few months ago. (Did Allen?) so the idea that they are estranged may be untrue.
And secondly, at the time of the event woody Allen supposedly took a lie detector test. AND PASSED. Thea are not allowed in a court of law, and I have some doubt about the veracity of lie detectors (based on personal experience). But he did pass the test. Some are questioning the fact that he took a lie detector test as well.
So not only is the actual event shrouded in mystery and doubt, so is the evidence that supposedly shows
That one or both sides are innocent or guilty being offered by those pushing the respective stories.
There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation. "
except of course for the allegations of moleststion.
The couple of times I've gotten called up for jury duty, they've read us the charges against the accused and asked something along the lines of "who here, after hearing the charges but not the evidence, believes this man to be guilty".
I always wondered who the people were who answer "me!" to a question like that. And now I know. :)
Valentine wrote:
jr565
: ham sandwich = indictment
Been there done that.
rev had said there was no evidence or even suggestion that Allen had molested dylan. The fact that they were going to induct him (but for the witness not being capable if coming forward) is not exactly No suggestion. If agree that it doesn't prove anything, but
It does suggest that something MIGHT have happened.
Allen also lost custody and visitation rights when it came to Dylan. That's not exactly nothing. Neither though is it proof of Guilt.
Revenant wrote:
The couple of times I've gotten called up for jury duty, they've read us the charges against the accused and asked something along the lines of "who here, after hearing the charges but not the evidence, believes this man to be guilty".
I always wondered who the people were who answer "me!" to a question like that. And now I know. :)
Bringing an indictment simply asks if there is enough evidence to bring forward a trial. I wouldn't say that an allegation of molestation proofs guilt, but neither would
I say that if there is an allegation that there is no suggestion of molestation. There is a charge that there is.
And clearly the person making the allegation is sticking by their story. As is Allen.
A lot of Allen defenders allege they Farrow was evil because she alleged that Soon Yi had learning disabilities
Let's pretend for a moment that that is all Mia said, and that the allegations that Soon-Yi couldn't even form complete sentences never happened.
So, question: is publicizing your daughter's childhood learning disabilities in order to convince the media not to listen to her a good thing to do, or a bad thing to do?
I wouldn't say that an allegation of molestation proofs guilt, but neither would
I say that if there is an allegation that there is no suggestion of molestation.
Then you're as half-witted as Mia claimed Soon-Yi was. Accusations suggest nothing other than that somebody made an accusation. Phony accusations are made all the time, especially during heated custody disputes and break-ups.
The rational reason to believe he may be guilty of molestation is that there is someone accusing him
Of doing so.
I'm not Saying he's guilty or innocent. But the mere fact that there is an allegation made suggests a rational reason to believe he may be guilty. That's the whole point of a trial. There's also a rational basis to believe that he didn't do it.
Since we don't have a trial we can only go
By the info we know. Which, again, cuts both ways.
I know one or two people who were abused as kids by their parents and they are very ready to believe that Dylan is telling the truth. But I also know a few people who were
Pawns in a vicious divorce and ended up being used against one parent by the other. So it's certainly possible that Farrow is the villain in this.
I just wouldn't go sundar as to say there is no rational basis to believe Dylan's story.
Revenant wrote:
Then you're as half-witted as Mia claimed Soon-Yi was. Accusations suggest nothing other than that somebody made an accusation. Phony accusations are made all the time, especially during heated custody disputes and break-ups.
and legitimate accusations are also made all the time too when parents molest their kids you ignorant asshole!
The rational reason to believe he may be guilty of molestation is that there is someone accusing him
Of doing so.
Ah, I see the problem. You don't know the difference between "may be" and "is".
What I said was: "There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation"
Of course he MAY be a molester. The same goes for you and Ritmo. You're both physically capable of it and have been out of my sight for, well, your entire lives so far as I know. You could have molested a thousand kids for all I know.
But the fact that you might be a molester isn't a rational reason for me to think you ARE one.
and legitimate accusations are also made all the time too when parents molest their kids you ignorant asshole
So what?
Revenant,
You're a surly cunt.
If you read my statement again you'll note I didn't say I thought that he was guilty . I merely said that there is an allegation that he is and that the side making the allegation is sticking to their story. And the prosecutor at the time was going to indict based on the evidence at the time. But didn't because the witness was too fragile.
That's not nothing.
There is a rational basis to indict, therefore there's a rational basis to believe that something might have happened.
But, YOU ASSHOLE, I also said that woody Allen took a lie detector at the time and passed. And that I know people that were used by one parent to hurt another in a vicious custody battle.
So does that sound like me accusing Allen of being guilty?
there is also a rational basis to assume that farrow may have implanted a memory or that Dylan was a pawn in a nasty divorce.
You say there is no rational basis to show that Allen may have molested Dylan.
Where though is your PROOF that Dylan wasn't molested or that this is a false memory. You're acting on the same conjecture that you are saying those who call Allen a molester are just in the opposite direction.
Revenant wrote:
Then you're as half-witted as Mia claimed Soon-Yi was. Accusations suggest nothing other than that somebody made an accusation. Phony accusations are made all the time, especially during heated custody disputes and break-ups.
and your suggestion that it's an implanted memory and/or that Dylan is a tool in a divorce is just as much an accusation as suggesting that Allen is a molester. Are you sure that it's an implanted memory? People who are guilty deny the allegations all the time too. Maybe there's no rational basis to believe that Dylan has an implanted memory and she remembers exactly what happened
There is a rational basis to indict, therefore there's a rational basis to believe that something might have happened.
The first half of your sentence is false, therefore the second half does not follow. :)
There was no basis for an indictment, rational or otherwise -- that's why no indictment happened. District attorneys aren't in the habit of letting *actual* child molesters walk. It looks terrible in future campaign ads, you know.
So does that sound like me accusing Allen of being guilty?
My statement: "There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation. "
Your one-sentence reply: "except of course for the allegations of moleststion."
So yes, you flat-out stated that the simple fact that he was accused is sufficient reason to think he is guilty. Unless you don't know that "he's" is an abbreviation for "he is", of course. :)
Revenant wrote:
"But you're right, neither of us can know what happened -- which is why the charges have survived this long. It is impossible to prove a man didn't molest a child. One can only observe that the man has lived his entire life in the public eye without displaying any signs of pedophilia or leaving any evidence of molestation in his wake."
and by the same token it's impossible to prove that Dylan had a false memory implanted in her brain. One can only observe that since she was 7 she has been making a consistent claim that she was molested by Allen and has gone through life exhibiting all the signs of one who was molested.
Other than Allen's lawyer suggesting that she misremembered where is you substantiation that she isn't telling the truth.
You don't have it, do you? Couldn't that similarly be a false charge?
Did a psychiatrist say definitively that Dylan is remembering a fake memory, or is your suggestion that she falsely accused him of rape similarly groundless.
If we used your same argument about serving in jury duty and the case was instead whether someone falsely accused someone of rape and the prosecutor asked if after reading the charge would you find that person guilty you would be that same person who said yes! So, your hypocrisy is only outweighed by your idiocy.
and your suggestion that it's an implanted memory and/or that Dylan is a tool in a divorce is just as much an accusation as suggesting that Allen is a molester.
In that both are accusations, sure. My theory has the benefit of being consistent with all the available evidence, though. Farrow's isn't.
Revenant wrote:
My statement: "There simply isn't any rational reason to think he's guilty of child molestation. "
is there any rational reason to believe that Dylan is falsely accusing Allen of rape? Other than the lawyer making the assertion where is the substantiation on your part? There was no indictment of Allen, true, though the prosecutor says he didn't bring one becauese his witness was so fragile at the time. Yet there has been no indictment brought against Dylan either on the charge that she is falsely accusing Allen.
And you have no proof that she's lying.
And yet you seem to be asserting that there is a rational basis to assume she's lying and or misremembering things.
If it's a he said/she said situation then there's a rational basis to assume either side might be true.
Revenant wrote:
"Give that the sole evidence is a child's memory, that it is easy to establish false memories in children, and that Farrow had the means, motive and opportunity to do so, the rational thing to do is reject the charges.
Might Allen be a child molester? Sure, just like you might be a child molester. There just isn't any rational reason to believe it, and thus the ethical thing to do is to not accuse him of it."
You're not arguing rationality but your bias
It may be easy to establish false memories in children, but children can also have legitimate
Memories of things that actually happened. Both are possible and just as you say there is no evidence that he raped her, there is also no evidence that Mia farrow planted a false memory. Allen also had means, opportunity and motive to Molest his daughter.
Might Mia Farrow be a vindictive shrew who implanted a false memory into her kids brain to get Make Allen seem like a child molester? Sure. just like you might have done that to your kids to paint your wife as a crazy woman in your divorce. Similarly since there is no rational basis to prove it, ethically should you accuse her of being guilty of it?
A brief history of notable child molesters: Daniel Ortega, the multi tasking scumbag President of Nicaragua, was accused by his step daughter of having molested her when she was a child. Ortega denied it. Despite the fact that she had some incriminating statements on tape, the people chose to believe him and not her. For what it's worth, she was also a member of the Sandinista Party so his claims that her accusations were politically motivated were false....Also, it's worth noting that there have never been any prior or subsequent claims of molestation against Ortega. This might be supportive of his innocence, but it simply might mean that his abuse of his step daughter was a one off brought about more by proximity and opportunity than by orientation. Just as there are dilettante homosexuals, so might there be dilettante pedophiles.
Another famous child molestation case was Maude Gonne and her daughter Iseult. Maude was married to John McBride. She claims that one night he got drunk and raped his eleven year old step daughter. He denied the charges and claimed that she only made them to gain leverage in the divorce case. McBride was an Irish nationalist hero and many Irish people continue to take his side. He was a man of considerable dash and not at all the type you would take as a rapist of eleven year old girls. But something happened. Iseult led a disturbed, chaotic life........Maude Gonne was the great love of Yeats life. Yeats showed us all the proper way to make a pass at your girlfriend's daughter. When Yeats, for the umpteenth time had his marriage proposal turned down by Maude, he politely asked for permission to date her daughter. She gave him the green light. He proposed marriage to Iseult but she also turned him down. That's the way civilized people handle these things. A gentleman asks his girlfriend's permission to take nude photos of her daughter. If Allen had behaved with more politesse this whole ghastly misunderstanding could have been avoided.
William - you are one twisted, sick fuck.
I withdraw my earlier observation. Toward the end this comment thread degenerated to the level of that in the Daily Beast.
Crazy people acting crazy.
That's certainly news.
Post this again after arrests are made and discovery begins.
Are those opining about mothers' boyfriends as authority figures from intact or broken families? I think that if the actual father is still heavily involved in a child's life, that child will never see a mother's mere boyfriend as a father figure. The idea is laughable to me, and I've lived it.
Parents are divorced. Mom had full custody; never lived with father. Father remarried, had three more kids. Never called new wife my step mom even, just by her name. But you'd better believe that I would listen to her if she asked me to do something when I was over at my dad's or in neutral territory. She was my sibling's mother; they had to listen to her. No, she was not a mother figure, but in the grand totem pole of people you have to listen to, she was there in a position of authority.
Allen and Farrow weren't just in some fly by night summer romance; it went on for 12 years . . . that's not just some random bf.
Farrow and Allen weren't married and didn't even live together.
However, having now looked at the Vanity Fair article from the 90's, I would be interested to know what Allen's response to all of that was and who gave Orth her information.
I think Allen's appearance on 60 Minutes in 1992 was his response. Part of that interview is on YouTube.
If you want proof, I think there's something wrong with Celine Dion and her husband too.
Me too. Grooming, is what it's called and it's creepy as hell.
Alex said...
"It's also possible Woody is guilty. Just look at his movie "Manhattan" where he chooses to hook up with the young-ish Streep instead of the more mature Diane Keaton. Says it all."
If this is what you base your discourse on 'possible guilt' then I strongly advise you to reconsider. For if we go by the standards you propose, the film 'Manhattan', then it is more than possible that he is not guilty of the heinous offences he has been accused of (but never charged, for there was no evidence -legally defined- against him). It is rather obvious you've never seen 'Manhattan', so let me enlighten you. In the film Woody Allen made (and not the one you think he made), Allen's character (Isaac), leaves the young Tracy (Hemingway) for Diane Keaton's character (Mary). It is Mary who then dumps him for his best friend, Yale (Yale leaves his wife for Mary). Isaac goes back to Tracey, after being left heart-broken by the double betrayal (girlfriend running off with best friend). The film ends with Isaac going back to Tracy, who's leaving for London. She leaves with the line 'you must have faith in people'. We don't know whether they'll get back together or not. But one thing we do know, those of us who have seen the film (a few times), is that he did not leave the mature woman for the young girl but the other way around.
P.S. Streep plays Isaac's ex-wife (Isaac has been divorced twice)who's in love with another woman.
Post a Comment