An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

[Rob Lister]

The law gives Woody Allen the presumption of innocence.

I don't.

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.

[a very sad tell of abuse between]

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0 ... blogs&_r=0

When he married Soon Yi, we all knew. Some played apologist. Why? Why!?

Woody is an artist and fellow artists want to sing his praises. I understand that.

If the world were right they'd be sending those tunes to some jail cell somewhere.

[Pyrrho]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -fast.html

[Doctor X]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -fast.html

Very good article. I particularly enjoyed:

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.

There are Cunts involved in this. I do not pretend to know who they are.

--J.D.

[Pyrrho]

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/arch ... rrow199211

I don't know one way or the other. Woody Allen denied the charges back in 1992, but then again, molesters often delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is not molestation.

[Pyrrho]

...and then there is...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/r ... rdict.html

Mr. Allen's lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen's affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote.

On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

[Rob Lister]

...and then there is...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/r ... rdict.html

Mr. Allen's lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen's affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote.

On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

The entire finding and ruling from which that quote originated is here
http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/w ... y-suit.pdf

It is an emotionally hard read.

Ms. Farrow is certainly not blameless, but mostly only for the reason you quoted.

After reading it, it is hard for me to come to any other conclusion than Mr. Allen needs to be horsewhipped. Repeatedly. And never allowed anywhere near children.

[Doctor X]

How many children has he actually molested?

And, no, his wife was not "his child" nor was she ever a "child" when he started dating her.

These cases suck because it is very difficult to determine what happened. The appalling nature of these crimes demand justice . . . if they happened. Otherwise a great injustice is done to the falsely accused.

Dylan's testimony is no more believable than those from Fells' Acres and other made-up molestation cases, nor is it less believable than actual, provable molestation cases.

Therein lies the rub.

Now, excuse me, Boss Paul says my dirt is in Boss Keane's ditch again. . . .

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

How many children has he actually molested?

How many does it take? I'm convinced he molested Dylan, and so too I think was the judge. It is true it cannot be now proven. Only 'grossly inappropriate' was actually proven. It is important to note that Ms. Farrow was not the one that initiated the claim regarding Dylan. It was independently witnessed and reported. He was, in fact, caught red-handed, or at least enough 'in the act' to convince me that Dylan's claims are true.

And, no, his wife was not "his child" nor was she ever a "child" when he started dating her.

The fact that he 'dated' her at all, at any age, is also grossly inappropriate. He played a paternal role in her life, even if very poorly.
http://static.dyp.im/EY7BgDLixo/be6771f ... 09fa43.jpg
He was the acting spouse of her mother, and she the real sister of his children.
The Dylan issue aside, for that alone he needs to be horsewhipped.

[Cloverlief]

How many children has he actually molested?

How many does it take? I'm convinced he molested Dylan, and so too I think was the judge. It is true it cannot be now proven. Only 'grossly inappropriate' was actually proven. It is important to note that Ms. Farrow was not the one that initiated the claim regarding Dylan. It was independently witnessed and reported. He was, in fact, caught red-handed, or at least enough 'in the act' to convince me that Dylan's claims are true.

And, no, his wife was not "his child" nor was she ever a "child" when he started dating her.

The fact that he 'dated' her at all, at any age, is also grossly inappropriate. He played a paternal role in her life, even if very poorly.
http://static.dyp.im/EY7BgDLixo/be6771f ... 09fa43.jpg
He was the acting spouse of her mother, and she the real sister of his children.
The Dylan issue aside, for that alone he needs to be horsewhipped.

Exactly!

He was in a father figure role and he took advantage of that power and authority.

In conjunction with the Dylan thing, it appears he has a history of taking advantage of children in his care.

[Pyrrho]

...and then there is...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/r ... rdict.html

Mr. Allen's lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen's affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote.

On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

The entire finding and ruling from which that quote originated is here
http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/w ... y-suit.pdf

It is an emotionally hard read.

Ms. Farrow is certainly not blameless, but mostly only for the reason you quoted.

After reading it, it is hard for me to come to any other conclusion than Mr. Allen needs to be horsewhipped. Repeatedly. And never allowed anywhere near children.

Holy shit, that family was royally fucked up.

Judging by the content of that document, it seems prudent to keep him away from children.

[Doctor X]

How many children has he actually molested?

How many does it take?

More than zero.

I'm convinced. . . .

What you are "convinced of" or "fooled by" is irrelvant to the lack of evidence.

. . . and so too I think was the judge.

Which is why he did not act as if he did. Nevertheless, as a judge in a divorce case he behaved, to be charitable, credulously in favor of Farrow. This does not mean Allen is not a bastard, but Farrow is no saint.

Now about Farrow supporting a proven child molester:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/ ... r_html.jpg

Anyone?

Crickets?

It is true it cannot be now proven.

It could not be proven then. It is further clear that you did not read the linked article, else you would not make such emotional pleas against his dating a woman.

And . . . that is that. You have nothing other than self-righteous indignation and appeals to sympathy and ignorance.

Such may be sincere and understandable but it remains nothing to hang a man on.

This guy, however:

http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/docu ... d-1024.jpg

is guilty.

Mia Farrow does not seem to mind.

Now, produce evidence to convict Allen and I will join the Angry Mob.

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

What you are "convinced of" or "fooled by" is irrelvant to the lack of evidence.

Someone is being fooled here. Not sure it is me. Again, he was caught red-handed by third parties. Or should I say, red-faced, on page 11.

http://static.dyp.im/GMjSk1d1O4/1f23cc4 ... fa5dc4.JPG

I can only speculate, but I bet he has those panties to this day.

Now about Farrow supporting a proven child molester:...

Anyone?

Crickets?

Mia is a straw women. But I don't hold her blameless. Hell, she supported Allen when she knew his relationship with Dylan was 'inappropriate' to use her terms, so it doesn't surprise me she would support some far-off pedophile as well. So, in summary of knocking down that strawman, She had pretty clear signs that Mr. Allen was a predator (top of page four of the opinion) yet she continued to allow Mr. Allen near her children. That was the opinion of the judge as well (already quoted).

It could not be proven then.

Grossly Inappropriate was proven to the judge's satisfaction. I'll concede that there was no medical evidence of actual rape, actual penetration. That doesn't make him less the child molester, less the pedophile. Only more careful.

It is further clear that you did not read the linked article,...

Actually I did read it, but I had an advantage you seem to lack in that I also read the full, non-emotional opinion of the presiding judge as well. Did you? I suspect the guy that wrote the article did, because he expertly talked around it rather than to it.

...else you would not make such emotional pleas against his dating a woman.

Not just any woman, doc.
http://static.dyp.im/AK5oduf0e7/cda0599 ... 9c791b.jpg
If you think that is okay, so be it.

But it is not about Soon and Woody. It's about Dylan.

http://static.dyp.im/NmUr6yaIY2/360f21e ... 6b09fd.JPG

[Doctor X]

Someone is being fooled here. Not sure it is me.

Which is progress from your previous certitude.

Mia is a straw women.

Ipse dixit but incorrect. It proves rather relevant that she exhibits the ability to excuse a pedophile she likes. Further, children can be coached into making what we consider unbelievable accusations. I am not "certain" that she did; I merely warn of the real possibility absent evidence. I further warn against considering evidence "credible" from a woman who so easily dismisses rape when she likes the perpetrator.

That was the opinion of the judge as well (already quoted).

Your judge, however, is fallacious. As a "finder of fact" his only credential was his position. He introduced too much personal opinion backed by nothing. Welcome to divorce cases.

Grossly Inappropriate was proven to the judge's satisfaction.

That and $3.50 will get you a mocha.

I'll concede that there was no medical evidence of actual rape, actual penetration.

Curious that.

That is rather that.

I suspect the guy that wrote the article did, because he expertly talked around it rather than to it.

He recognized what you just conceded: the judge made a finding based on no evidence.

Not just any woman, doc.
http://static.dyp.im/AK5oduf0e7/cda0599 ... 9c791b.jpg
If you think that is okay, so be it.

Whether or not I think it is "okay" or you think it is "okay" does not alter the fact she was an adult and remains married to him as an adult.

But it is not about Soon and Woody. It's about Dylan.

About that strawwoman?

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

Someone is being fooled here. Not sure it is me.

Which is progress from your previous certitude.

My degree of certainty has not changed.

Mia is a straw women.

Ipse dixit but incorrect. It proves rather relevant that she exhibits the ability to excuse a pedophile she likes.

Indeed. Mr. Woody being one of them prior to the more incontrovertible evidence staring her in the face. If you wish to speak of her state of mind, fine.

http://static.dyp.im/B2Bpbj1C2e/36537a5 ... ad0b75.JPG

She allowed him access after that? Why yes. But is there evidence other than her own testimony that she was concerned at an earlier date? Why yes again. We have the testimony of Dr. Coats to whom she spoke about her concerns.

Further, children can be coached into making what we consider unbelievable accusations. I am not "certain" that she did; I merely warn of the real possibility absent evidence.

Are we asking Dylan to prove she wasn't coached or brainwashed? Dylan maintains to this day that she was not. Dylan maintains it now and the judge certainly didn't think so then.

http://static.dyp.im/ZptRZ7ZDjT/09dc384 ... dc1888.JPG

I further warn against considering evidence "credible" from a woman who so easily dismisses rape when she likes the perpetrator.

You keep coming back to that as if it helps his case somehow. It doesn't.

Your judge, however, is fallacious. As a "finder of fact" his only credential was his position. He introduced too much personal opinion backed by nothing. Welcome to divorce cases.

It wasn't a divorce case, it was a child custody case brought by Mr. Woody in light of the accusations. Which Mr. Woody robustly lost. The Judge heard all the testimony and all the witnesses and had the duty to rule upon it. Did the author of your article have that 'credential'? This clearly needs repeating:

http://static.dyp.im/GMjSk1d1O4/1f23cc4 ... fa5dc4.JPG

Personal opinion back by nothing? I admire the judge for his constraint.

Not just any woman, doc.
http://static.dyp.im/AK5oduf0e7/cda0599 ... 9c791b.jpg
If you think that is okay, so be it.

Whether or not I think it is "okay" or you think it is "okay" does not alter the fact she was an adult and remains married to him as an adult.

Indeed. Nothing illegal about that. Married to his children's sister. How romantic.

[Rob Lister]

And here's another open letter from Dylan Farrow

I'm quite sure she won't mind my quoting her exactly

Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me - but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.

His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as "inappropriate" behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here.

With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

• Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".

• Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

• Found that "there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult."

• Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her."

• Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he's promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/showbiz/d ... -response/

[Doctor X]

Someone is being fooled here. Not sure it is me.

Which is progress from your previous certitude.

My degree of certainty has not changed.

Then you are, in a way, http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif

The bottom line is you have no basis for certainty. Granted, what some slob thinks on the Interwebz do not matter in the Real World [Pat. Pend.--Ed.]. However, there is a reason we do not allow emotion to judge events.

Are we asking Dylan to prove she wasn't coached or brainwashed?

Those who make accusations have to establish they are telling the truth, yes.

Dylan maintains to this day that she was not.

Reread both your sentences and you may recognize the problem.

the judge certainly didn't think so then.

His reliability remains in question. He was not a "finder of fact." Do not elevate him to some sort of god.

You keep coming back to that as if it helps his case somehow. It doesn't.

It sinks her reliability. Not terribly complicated.

Personal opinion back by nothing?

If there was "something" he would have been and should have been charged.

I admire the judge for his constraint.

The ease of gaining your admiration has been noted previously.

Married to his children's sister. How romantic.

She was not their sister. Further you continue http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif.

That you or anyone else "don't wike it"--yet tolerate Farrow's continued defense of a pedophile for some reason--is not a basis for concluding fact anymore than "not wiking" homosexual sex is a basis for concluding homosexuals are pedophiles.

The bottom line is you have nothing but emotional opinions--which includes your Personal Lord and Savior the judge. He had and admitted he had no corroborating evidence. Custody and divorce trials are not conducted with the standard of evidence expected in a criminal case. Another "God" of a judge awarded children to a mother who promptly murdered them. This is not a science.

Absence of corroborating evidence we are left in that most heinous state of "he said" "she said." There is a reasonable explanation for both sides: Allen raped her/she was influenced to believe he did. There are tons of examples of both. Worse, with the later, it is not simply a matter of a rotten kid trying to "get back" with a parent/teacher--they sincerely believe. I would recommend a review of some successful suits of psychiatrists who ruined a few families with "memories."

If there be "Cunts" here--as I noted previously--it would be Farrow for doing that or Allen for doing that.

You will, I am sure, note that I have not defended Allen. I do not know--nor pretend to know--what happened. I also know that you do not know. Oh you are "convinced" because your emotions convince you with understandable righteous indignation. I prefer not to hang a man based on what "convinces" you or anyone else absence of evidence. Your running about citing irrelevances which actually undercut your opinion: like he is still married to a rather now quite bloody adult woman and there are no other suspicions because, you know, pedophiles are just, you know, one-time criminals rather suggest you recognize the solidity of your convictions.

I have merely demonstrated that the "cut and dried" version you heralded is neither cut nor dried. Does not mean it is "wrong." Unlike you, I require evidences--thanks--for conviction.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... -Beach.jpg

"And that is all I have to say."

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

My degree of certainty has not changed.

Then you are, in a way, http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif

I've moved no posts. See the first two sentences of this thread.

The bottom line is you have no basis for certainty. Granted, what some slob thinks on the Interwebz do not matter in the Real World [Pat. Pend.--Ed.]. However, there is a reason we do not allow emotion to judge events.

I have the basis of the finding of fact, by the judge, after a hearing, after witness testimony--specifically eye-witness testimony--after consideration, after ruling, and after Dylan's own words both then and now. I would say I have plenty of basis.

Are we asking Dylan to prove she wasn't coached or brainwashed?

Those who make accusations have to establish they are telling the truth, yes.

That has been well established as a finding of fact based not in small part on eye-witness testimony by third parties.

So then, it is Mr. Woody that must so establish she was coached, was brainwashed, and he.has.not. The judge found the assertion to not be credible. I wonder, was the baby-sitter also brainwashed and coached?

His reliability remains in question.

Not to me. I see nothing that puts his reliability in question.

He was not a "finder of fact." Do not elevate him to some sort of god.

http://static.dyp.im/wCU0oNiqck/54b449f ... 2d78e5.JPG

You keep coming back to that as if it helps his case somehow. It doesn't.

It sinks her reliability. Not terribly complicated.

I do not care about the reliability of strawman.

Personal opinion back by nothing?

If there was "something" he would have been and should have been charged.

I agree he should have been charged. See Dylan's statement above. Is she lying about that too?

She was not their sister.

Soon and Dylan are both the daughters of Mia. And Moses, their brother.

http://static.dyp.im/JJd2Zprmmz/31915d6 ... 79843d.JPG

[Doctor X]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... azarou.jpg

"This is just a saga, now!"

Allow me, en passant to correct a major error: she was adopted. She was also 19. I know . . . no one likes facts to get in the way of a righteous lynching. http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... ac5dea.gif

Nor is calling the rather relevant character of the accuser Farrow a "strawman" make it a strawman.

Just keep http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... b1f1af.gif.

Should you ever discover any evidence I am sure everyone will welcome seeing it. http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... ae1c3e.gif

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... 579438.jpg

"Check and Mate"

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

"This is just a saga, now!"

Allow me, en passant to correct a major error: she was adopted. She was also 19.

Let's be a bit more precise because stated that way, it appears she was 19 when adopted.

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

That's wiki, so feel free to second source it.

Nor is calling the rather relevant character of the accuser Farrow a "strawman" make it a strawman.

Your pointing to Mia's support for another pedophile was the strawman. I think it damning in a different way; it further demonstrates her willingness to turn a blind eye to most anything. At least until it pokes her in the eye and can no longer be 'therapy'ed away. So, yea, it is relevant to that.

Should you ever discover any evidence I am sure everyone will welcome seeing it.

The thread is bursting with it already.

But hell, let's let Woody tell us in his own words:

“I’m open-minded about sex. I’m not above reproach; if anything, I’m below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him. Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone. I admit to it all.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... story.html

Maybe he was just being glib.

[Doctor X]

Of your allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment absolutely.

But this is why we no longer hang people over emotions.

--J.D.

[DrMatt]

Moses Farrow has spoken in favor of Allen.

[Doctor X]

Precisely.

I often recommend the documentary Capturing the Freedmans for a number of reasons. Part of it for how kids can be manipulated to give false testimony with the best intentions--from police and social workers who want to catch and punish child molesters. I will put some of the details in a "spoiler":

Spoiler:

Two people go to jail--a father and a son. It seems very very clear that the son did nothing but felt forced to confess to serve 10ish years rather than 30+. The problem was his father confessed.

The father? Did he actually molest any children? I do not know. However he did obtain child pornography. That part is certain. There is no evidence he molested his own sons--or at least none was presented--but there is evidence he may have molested his brother. His brother has either willfully blotted it from his memory or it did not happen.

This was during the many day care molestation scares.

Some of the children interviewed freely admit they said what they said just to go home. The police told them, "we know what happened!" In fact, an retired cop explains to the documentarians how you have to tell children what they witnessed. This is how you interview them. Complete rubbish, of course. To be fair, few expected children to "make up" such charges.

One may be making it all up. His story conflicts with other testimony and changes even during the documentary.

But does that exonerate the father? I do not know.

The relevance to this case is Allen could have molested her--even given the details of the rebuttal posted by Allen's documentarian above. That it would appear "stupid" to do it at that time does not mean it did not happen.

Or it never happened. I would think enough posts have been made about how memories are malleable. More than one kid has realized they were moved to agree to accusations and even believe them. This is not "brain washing" at all. It is the way memory works and the way one can influence memory. Hell, I joke about how many people think if Bill Buckner fielded the ball, the RS win the WS. No. It just ends the inning. There was another game. But the scene shown over and over again has led to the mistake.

Allen may be a pedophile . . . or an ebophiliac or whateverthefuckImnotarsedtolookitup term applies to Japan people attracted to adolescents. That does not mean he actually molested anyone.

Does not me he did not either.

I would suspect that if he did molest he would do it again. This is not just a fetish that "goes away." However, absence of further accusations does not mean he did not molest her either.

And [ZzzzZZZzzz--Ed.] . . . that rather is that. Despite his appeals to certitude, Robert has no actual evidence. There is also no evidence that conclusively exonerates Allen either. So we are left with speculation.

Rotten place to be.

--J.D.

[Witness]

Complement: A SON SPEAKS OUT By Moses Farrow. (Long read.)

His conclusion:

To those who have become convinced of my father’s guilt, I ask you to consider this: In this time of #MeToo, when so many movie heavyweights have faced dozens of accusations, my father has been accused of wrongdoing only once, by an enraged ex-partner during contentious custody negotiations. During almost 60 years in the public eye, not one other person has come forward to accuse him of even behaving badly on a date, or acting inappropriately in any professional situation, let alone molesting a child. As a trained professional, I know that child molestation is a compulsive sickness and deviation that demands repetition. Dylan was alone with Woody in his apartment countless times over the years without a hint of impropriety, yet some would have you believe that at the age of 56, he suddenly decided to become a child molester in a house full of hostile people ordered to watch him like a hawk.

To the actors who have worked with my father and have voiced regret for doing so: You have rushed to join the chorus of condemnation based on a discredited accusation for fear of not being on the “right” side of a major social movement. But rather than accept the hysteria of Twitter mobs, mindlessly repeating a story examined and discredited 25 years ago, please consider what I have to say. After all, I was there – in the house, in the room – and I know both my father and mother and what each is capable of a whole lot better than you.

To my sister Dylan: Like you, I believe in the power of speaking out. I have broken my silence about the abuse inflicted by our mother. My healing began only after getting away from her. And what she has done to you is unbearable. I wish you peace, and the wisdom to understand that devoting your life to helping our mother destroy our father’s reputation is unlikely to bring you closure in any kind of lasting way.

Finally, to my mother: One thing you always said you appreciated about me was my ability to listen. I listened to you for years and held your truth above all others. You once said to me, “It’s not healthy to hold onto anger.” Yet here we are, 26 years later. I’m guessing your next step will be to launch a campaign to discredit me for speaking out. I know it comes with the territory. And it’s a burden I am willing to bear.

But, after all this time, enough is enough. You and I both know the truth. And it’s time for this retribution to end.

[Anaxagoras]

Soon-Yi Previn Opens Up About Woody Allen, Claims Mia Farrow Abused Her

[Doctor X]

Allen’s sister, Letty Aronson, told Vulture that Mia told her around that time: “‘He took my daughter, I’m going to take his.’ I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous. [Dylan] loves Woody. A child should have a father.’ She said, ‘I don’t care.'”

Why these things suck. Someone is a liar and a scumbag.

Who?

--J.D.

[Rob Lister]

Woody Allen Takes a Swing at His Son's Work
The filmmaker calls Farrow's reporting 'shoddy'

(Newser) – With Ronan Farrow on the ropes, his dad is taking a shot of his own. "People are beginning to realize that it isn't just in relation to me that his journalism has been kind of shoddy," Woody Allen tells the Telegraph. "And I'm not so sure that his credibility is going to last." The 84-year-old filmmaker has long denied Farrow's claim that he molested Dylan—Allen's daughter and Farrow's sister—but now, after recent criticism of Farrow's work, Allen is taking a broader swing. "I found him to not be an honest journalist in relation to me at all, but I write that off because, you know, I understand he's loyal to his mother (Mia Farrow)," adds Allen, per USA Today, saying that "now it's come out that his journalism has not been so ethical or honest."

https://www.newser.com/story/291588/woo ... hoddy.html

Son? Oh please.

https://i.imgur.com/Xw1LLwk.jpg

Frank gafaws from the grave.

[shemp]

The word "cuck" is so misused and overused nowadays. That face on the right is the face of a true cuck.