those who don't believe Woody could possibly be a pedophile because there is, after all, no video.

And investigators said it was fabricated.

includes molestation. I agree with the investigators. We really do not know.

who concluded she was NOT molested.

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

That is a far cry from "fabricated."

has been found.

Pound away.

I see no relationship between a man attracted to sexually mature women (albeit young ones) and someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Making that logical error is somewhat like those who say there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Both are wrong.

what we want, but none of us know."

Inclined to give it a second thought? Pretty fucking flippant, wow.

The author spent almost 3 years on various Woody glorification projects and keeps saying he's not there to trash Mia or side w/ Woody, but that's pretty much all he does here. Doesn't address a lot brought up in the more balanced VF piece, so there's some pretty selective editing going on too.

last word when so much is left unadressed. The guy has obviously got an agenda, so much so, he denies it at least three times, LOL.
I don't know what really happened, but that article is a mess.

found no evidence of child abuse and suggested that Dylan was coached.

I heard the family "declined to prosecute" but could have. Seems that no real conclusions were reached. I am guessing neither of us know.

The family didn't decline to prosecute. The investigators—people who specialize in sexual abuse—said there was no evidence of molestation. As for the coaching, THIS is from the article. Apparently you didn't bother to read it:

"As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan’s claims, it’s been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn’t running. Was Mia “coaching” her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators? Mia says no—she merely turned the camera on whenever Dylan starting talking about what Daddy did. Maybe we should take Mia at her word on this. Since I wasn’t there, I think it’s good policy not to presume what took place."

And just for shits and giggles, I'll add this here:

"Mia’s allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested. "

..... to skew it to look as if coaching was their conclusion. Nope.

I believe most of this is regurgitating Woody's claims, right? I don't think the "investigators" had any final answers. I know the article looks like "case closed", but it's bullshit.

This article is pointing to THE FACTS. Not what people "think." A team of investigators found no evidence of molestation after a six month investigation. That is a FACT. Woody Allen was not prosecuted. That is a FACT.

I again think it's clear that you have not read this article. Why don't you actually take a moment to read it, then get back to me, instead of making uninformed assumptions.

and those are both facts.

Accused rapists and molesters don't go to trial all the time, prosecutions are difficult to obtain. There is a difference between doing something, and being found guilty of it in court.

I did read this article, and others- that's how come I KNOW the author was biased- and left out important facts to skew opinions in favor of Woody. (Who he is making money off of as we speak)

No "investigator" said their final conclusion was that the kid was coached. None. Sorry, THAT is BS.

and has been shown to be a friend of the Farrow family.

I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. I find it pretty amazing that people on DU—who claim to be progressives—are so quick to find Allen guilty until proven innocent.

WTF, are you reading someone else's posts?
Maybe someone who uses the word "think" as frequently as you do, LOL? Because your replies to me don't have much to do with what I have said at all- especially not my comments on the author's very deceptive editing.

the belief that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

You apparently don't share that belief. The facts are clear. I'll state them again. The investigation team, after a six month investigation, including physical examinations and interviews with all concerned, found no evidence that the young girl had been molested.

I'm sorry those facts don't matter in your world.

But no one in their right mind believes every crime that occurs actually ends up being prosecuted in court.
So, there's that.


And also the fact that we are not in court, LOL. But.... carry on as if we are, it's fun to watch!

and completely ignore them.

You're really embarrassing yourself. I hope you realize that. You certainly have a right to your opinion, but that opinion—if we look at the facts available—is wrong.

Court or no court, any other conclusion is just silly.

"people on DU—who claim to be progressives—are so quick to find Allen guilty until proven innocent..."

Only courts may decide guilt or innocence. People-- even those on DU who "claim" to be progressive merely have benign opinions, premises and conclusions. To think otherwise is pretty amazing too.

(insert distinction without a difference here)

From the lead investigator.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

You're just being ridiculous now.

"The team told Mr. Allen and Miss Farrow on March 18 that it had concluded that Dylan was not molested, but the transcript gives the first look at the thinking behind that finding."

I mean, seriously. Get some help.

quote it appears you'd like to avoid acknowledging. But it is what I have been saying all along.
Hope that "helped" you out. Cause you have put waaaay to many words in my mouth.

Read what comes BEFORE that quote. He's talking about whether Dylan is a "disturbed child" or was coached. He's not talking about their final conclusion that she was NOT molested. This is his theory on why she may have said what she said.

You're REALLY stretching here.

EDITED TO ADD: Look, you can cherry pick all you want. This doesn't change THE FACT that the investigation concluded that she was not molested. End of story.

You are a liar. It's as simple as that.

The entire quote from Leventhal makes it clear they are unsure why Dylan made up these charges, but concluded she made them up. They were unsure if Mia coached her to make these charges.

How could you have possibly read the second part of the quote without reading the first part. The only conclusion I can make is that you are a liar.

along the process, the judge certainly thought there was something going on, the prosecutor too.


Like I said, I don't know what happened, and guess what? NEITHER DO YOU, SO CHILL THE EFF OUT.

have an odd way of showing it.

the article blames Farrow for (5X married) Previn dumping his wife, and claims it's comparable to Woody because, yeah- that's just like cheating on your long term partner *with her teen daughter*.

My opinions are- we don't know, we cant know- and Woody and Soon Yi pretty much deserve each other. That's about it.

for obvious reasons.

my point -ONE LAST TIME-
Is none of us KNOWS what did and didn't happen.
And this article was biased crap from a dude making money off of Woody.

He makes it clear right at the beginning that he has worked with Allen, but that doesn't discount the fact that most of what he outlines is already public record. From the New York Times:

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

"A Connecticut prosecutor's handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen was cause for 'grave concern' and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, a disciplinary panel has found."

None of us knows what happened. But based on the evidence, we have a pretty good idea.

who wasn't bothered by what a hatchet job it was toward both Mia and her children. You should find the VF article and see how much this author left out in order to get that slant.

I'd bet there are very few people involved in the case who aren't biased.

Your selective use of one set of biased people is also biased.

by interviewing her nine times.

Each time a trauma victim has to repeat her story to strangers, she is subject to being re-traumatized. Why would they have done this except in an effort to catch her in contradictions and/or wear her down?

to the accused. Especially since her mother was in the room during some of the interrogations.

It's pointless to dismiss the investigation on that basis.

Dr. Diane Schetky was an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, and co-author of the textbook Child Sexual Abuse and co-editor of Clinical Handbook of Child Psychiatry and the Law.


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

The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said Allen violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.

The nine interviews were "excessive," Schetky says. "The danger is the child feels like she's not believed if she's asked the same questions over and over."

in charge of the investigation, rather than someone watching from afar?

He said Dylan changed her story multiple times and seemed to be rehearsed. Mia Farrow was sometimes in the room during those interviews, so if anything, that would be prejudicial against Allen.

What Schetky has to say is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. She wasn't there.

I guess it's a commentary on how difficult it is to try he said/ she said cases. I doubt we will ever know what really happened.

"It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.”

not sure why you responded with a different quote either? want to quote the judge next? or Dylan, for perspective?

largely recapitulates.

"The campaign began in the November issue of Vanity Fair in a profile of Mia Farrow by Maureen Orth, a long-time friend (Orth is the widow of NBC's Tim Russert)"

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

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 02:45 AM - Edit history (1)

the whole thing is a decades long Woody Allen stunt in cooperation with the Farrow's and all other participants for the craziness of world domination of tabloid media. Maybe art.. like Salvador Dali who near the end of his life signed thousands of blank canvases just for the hell of devaluing his own art... as art. Then there's Andy Kaufman....

or not.

on edit: After reading other comments on the subject, I have to clarify that what I am saying. The idea we know something because we read it is as absurd as what I wrote in this comment above.

Shit like this happens EVERY FUCKING DAY and the mass media ignores it or makes it worse.

Turn off the god-damned T.V. and make the world a better place for the community you live in.

There are demons walking among you, and there are innocent neighbors who have been falsely charged.

Look out for them!

Amanda Knox and Woody Allen are stories, they do not exist in my personal universe. Nothing I could say, nothing I know, could make any difference at all.

It can stop very easily and give you peace. You don't have to click the link.

See how easy that is?

And plenty of people are glad they are willing to share their wisdom.

the problem is we are not learning from the experience of others here, people are reading media gossip and making judgments with that information. There is no wisdom to be found in reading it. It's repeated and bludgeoned for the entertainment value, no more. If you or others are entertained then we should acknowledge that, not mistake it for learning or wisdom.

for yourself.

to watch perfectly well educated people mistake tabloid media for wisdom and education.

because there is not a lot of that going on here. Seen very little of it here in the last 8-9 years. But never expected to either.

In post #21 it stated learning from others and from their wisdom. That's where I began my replies.

opinions about them. some times it's interesting just to see what people say.
It's better than comments sections in a lot of articles, but not always. Good reads often has good links, but GD is a lot of self reverential wacking off these days. I don't know that anyone comes here for an education. I hope not!

My post was explaining to weekendwarrior why Hunter would bother to take time to remind people to remain focused on what is important and on making the world a better place.

I hope you are just tired and confused, because seriously [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

"Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

#9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child."

Now here is my comment:
I think it is very important to understand that these allegations were made during a child custody battle. I think this context from the article is very important --

"I know I’m treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of “blaming the victim.” However, I’m merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will. But if Mia’s account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they were both missing."

Most of that post is a direct quote fron the linked article.

Texas law is irrelevant, they lived in NY.

New York is, and they don't recognize Common Law marriages.

So how is the article wrong?

"A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost (Farrow's) tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children."

"One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter."

I find all of them creepy.

saw references made in a different thread, and I thought it was some sort of weird antiquated analogy. this can't possibly be a story for Feb 1st 2014, or is it?

Dylan is old enough to speak for herself now. Moses is ten years older, a busy senior in high school when the behavior was supposedly going on, and not in a position to know what Woody was doing with Dylan when he was alone with her.

I'm not calling for Woody to be imprisoned or even put on trial. But I believe the young woman, not him.

Nicholas kristof, who gave Dylan a platform, is also a friend of Farrow's.

There is no unbiased reportage here.

And IMO rehashing this 20 years after the fact is orchestrated, not accidental.

PSSSSST....He's a fucking creep.

You can think he's a fucking creep, that's cool. But not because he married his daughter.

to wonder if the guy ever had healthy boundaries.

But I have never known him or Mia or any of the others, so it's impossible for me to know. We just imagine.

what was she thinking?

He was 42.

He is disgusting.

And thanks also to Robert B. Weide.

Does anyone else think Ronan looks more like Frank Sinatra and not like Woody at all? I know Mia said Frank was "possibly" Ronan's dad and looking at him he looks like Frank and Frank Jr. I also read that Nancy Sinatra treats him like he's family. The one child Woody was supposed to have fathered may not be his after all. Probably a blessing if I'm honest.

but after looking through pictures of Frank Sr and Frank Jr and compare them to Ronan, there is quite a resemblance. He looks nothing like Woody. He however does look like a good mix of Mia and Frank.

If Woody is the father, I doubt I could believe it!

I've looked at a few other pix and it seems clear. But, I wouldn't want to be responsible for making some legal decision based on what it looks like to me.

Still...

Moses knows exactly what his mother did to Malone....and that is why he reunited with his father.

Andre Previn was married to his song writing partner, Dory Previn. Dory and Mia became friends, Mia was 24, the Previns much older. Andre left Dory and married Mia, half his age. Dory Previn wrote a song about her called 'Beware of Young Girls'

Beware of young girls who come to the door
Wistful and pale, of twenty and four
Delivering daisies with delicate hands
Beware of young girls, too often they crave
To cry at a wedding, and dance on a grave

She was my friend, my friend, my friend
I thought her motives were sincere
Oh yes I did
Ah, but this lass, it came to pass
Had a dark and different plan
She admired my own sweet man
She admired my own sweet man

We were friends
Oh yes we were
And she just took him from my life
Oh yes she did
So young and vain, she brought me pain
But I'm wise enough to say
She will leave him one thoughtless day
She'll just leave him and go away
Oh yes

Beware of young girls
Beware of young girls
Beware


Now let's remember that Mia kept up her affair with former spouse Sinatra while taking up with the married Previn, while married to Preven, while dumping Previn, then later while she was with Woody Allen.
Just some perspective, both Mia and her mother have a tendency to paint themselves in very excellent and saintly light that others might not see as suitable.

Also see the Dory Previn song 'With My Daddy In the Attic'.

but stand up for Woody Allen. Why?

It is not the same thing. Long before Allen, Farrow was distrusted by tons of people for all sorts of very specific reasons.
I see lots of discussion of Allen's every action and joke, as if his character was of importance, so it might be fair to take a moment to glance at the character and actions of Farrow and of Previn. If the idea is to protect the children, not Mia and Andre and Frank and Woody, well then why be upset with the facts about the adults being discussed? Why are some of them protected from their own damn history?
I did not realize that the other adults and parents involved were above all reproach in the current telling. That's not how I look at it.

Whatever you think of Mia Farrow is irrelevant to whether Dylan is telling the truth. The sins of the mother to not transfer to the daughter.

Disbelieving rape victims is a default position for many, something that occurs to no other victim. If someone reports their property being stolen, people don't then start talking about what a horrible person the victim's mother was. Why should they do so in the case of child rape? Disbelieving victims is why the crimes of rape and child sexual abuse are so difficult to prosecute. We can't know with absolute certainty what the facts of this situation are, but we can choose how we respond to this and other victims of rape and child sexual assault. We can think about what we want our role to be vis a vis rape culture.

I fail to see how this differs from any of the cases where priests have been accused. The only difference I can see is that the victim is female and the accused molester her father. Surely that doesn't make it less serious or the victim any less believable?

Some sort of implications there. I note you said not a word about what I wrote, and instead made an attack upon my character. I do not think such a comment is called for at all.
I am talking about the adults. Of whom I have an opinion. Your need to protect the adults is counter to the protection of the victim. 'How dare you imply that Father O'Doyle is anything less than a saint!'. Some adults, above all suspicion. I don't buy it.

I also reedited my post. Yes, I know girls were also victims, but as I'm sure you know the Catholic clergy cases differ from the majority of child abuse cases in that the majority of victims have been boys.

Above suspicion? What crime has Mia been accused of? She is not the alleged abuser here. You've got some things badly twisted. Adultery is not a crime. It is in fact entirely irrelevant to Dylan's account of abuse. You are the one blaming the person who notified authorities. Why? How is that in any way relevant? You're using that attack to defend the metaphorical Father O'Doyle. Why?

You implied prior to edit that I cared less for a female victim of abuse. Vile, shitty and not acceptable. You are not allowed to speak to me in that way and then edit, claim you did not and absolve yourself.
I'm not overlooking that vicious bullshit you posted. An implication of the worst sort made based on nothing but a need for snarky rhetoric. Utterly unacceptable behavior.
Bye now. You lack even the decency to apologize and instead you edit and deny. Let members check your edit history and see the facts.

but your over the top insults far than exceed what I said. For the record, I said "I wouldn't like to think. . ." Not the best choice of words, which is why I edited. You've more than made up for it, and you've said far, far worse to me in the past.

The fact is you are deflecting and not examining your position in this issue. I only raised the issue with you because I was surprised you posted what you did, unlike in the case of some of Allen's other defenders. It did not seem in keeping with your previous positions on similar issues. Clearly I was mistaken.

"With my
Daddy in the attic
That is where
My being wants to bed
With the
Mattress ticking showing
And the tattered pillow slip
And the pine
Unpainted rafters overhead
With the
Door closed on my mama"

WTF?

You seem to absolve Mia Farrow of her very own actions. I think she's responsible for herself and Andre for himself. How is this a problem?

And he doesn't have a great track record there, does he?

on my doorstep. My post, you might note, was critical of Andre and Mia. She is also responsible for her 'own shit' as you so deftly put it. And having an affair with your friend's husband is in fact ones own 'shit'. Dumping your spouse to take up with her friend half your own age is Andre's shit. Being that young friend is Mia's own shit. And shit it is. Tip of a shit ice berg in fact.

got involved with had a soft spot for young girls- and of course- it is the girls fault when they are chased by married men. Mia's fault, not Frank or Andre, Soon Yi, and the HS senior he dated, not Woody.
Ah, the spells the young ones cast are no match at all for a wedding ring. How's that for vomit?

Allen and his pedophilia. The rest of us are just very sorry for his victims and rather disgusted with him.

And creepy.

I don't trust any of the Farrows. Mia's brother is in jail for long term abuse of multiple kids. Mia has not said a word about that. It was the now imprisoned brother that first told the press about Allen and Soon Yi Previn, the 19 year old adopted daughter of Andre Previn and Mia Farrow. The story served him well for a time, but only for a time. He's in jail now.
Soon Yi and Allen have been married happily for 15 years now. Andre, busy on marriages 4 and 5, said this about his adopted daughter Soon Yi 'She does not exist'. What a great man! He himself once took a wife half his age, barely 24. 'She does not exist'. The 24 year old was Mia, Andre was married to Mia's friend, but he dumped her for Mia. A great man! 'She does not exist'. Mia continued her relationship with ex Sinatra throughout the Previn 'marriage' and then during her dating of Woody Allen. Great, great, moral people of the highest order, to be believed because of who they are and how they have lived!

Anyone who claims Allen is innocent until proven guilty is OBVIOUSLY hiding "something", according to the posters above.

Of course, this is the vilest, most slimy smear imaginable: if you insist on evidence, you may be a child molester yourself. It's disgusting to watch the way certain posters on this website use this tactic over and over again in an attempt to steamroll anyone who objects to a trial by media and popular opinion.

Disagreeing with you and insisting on the legal presumption of innocence does not make anyone a child molestor or an apologist for molestation, as you are obviously implying.

Disgusting tactics. You should be ashamed of yourself.