Just the court of public opinion.

This was part of a custody battle 21 years ago. The charges were not deemed worthy of pursuing then; the time ran out on them long ago. So there is no "case" in the legal sense, just in the Internet sense.

The only reason this seems to be in the discussion again today is because of the movie award season and especially the Oscars. It feels like a form of intimidation. It will actually be quite interesting to tune in.

not to because the process would be too hard on the 7 year old and her well-being was paramount.

And the family court judge decided, based on the evidence he considered, to terminate Woody's visitation with Dylan.

The prosecutor made a public announcement that basically said Woody Allen was guilty, we have secret evidence that proves it, but we're not going to go to trial because it would be traumatic to Dylan. As a progressive I find that vile. The fact is they didn't go to trial because they didn't have a case. Their own child abuse experts doubted the abuse ever happened. But the prosecutor's insistence that Allen was really guilty lingers to this day. I believe in trial by jury not innuendo by prosecutor.

Allen's losing custody doesn't prove he was a child molester. The judge's own words cite reasons mostly having to do with not being involved enough as a parent and failing to consider how his adult, consensual relationship with Soon-Yi Previn would affect his children.

So if we're going to call someone vile, I wouldn't pick out the prosecutor.

As for the report of the Yale child abuse experts, this is what another expert had to say. (Dr. Diane Schetky is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, 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 Yale team used psychologists on Allen's payroll to make mental health conclusions. "That seems like a blatant conflict of interest; they should have excluded themselves," Schetky says.

· Custody recommendations were made even though the team never saw Allen and any of the children together. "I'd sure want that information," Schetky says.

· The team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims.

· The team destroyed its notes. "I don't know why they would," Schetky says. "They shouldn't have anything to hide, unless there's disagreement."

· Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan. "How can you write about someone you've never seen?" Schetky asks.

The prosecution chose their experts but then they didn't like the conclusion their experts came to. So another expert was found to tear down the first team of experts. Can't you see how wrong that is?

How many experts were consulted until one was found who would say the "right" things? I don't know and neither do you. Is what's claimed in this story even true? I don't know and neither do you. You accept it because it fits what you already believe. Who were the "psychologists on Allen's payroll"? Does that mean they consulted Dr. Susan Coates, the one described in the original pro-Mia Vanity Fair article as being so alarmed by Woody's behavior toward Dylan? If so, you'd think Farrow's side would be glad to have her consulted on her opinion... unless that story was never true to begin with.

If the sex abuse experts chosen by the prosecutor were so corrupt or incompetent, did the prosecutor ever seek professional sanctions against them? If so, I've never heard anything about it. I guess it's easier to just shop around until you find an expert who will say they did a bad job and then shop around until you find a reporter who will print it.

Here are the experts at the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic at Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital who, according to you, cannot be trusted:

http://people.yale.edu/about/article.aspx?id=2502

I wonder how they're still around after the terrible job they did?

Whatever your opinion of what progressives should support, they're entitled to their opinions on this matter.

that even a rich, white man does not have the privilege to step over the line in our young girls health.

you have the tells of abuse.

do we defend the rights of a child as a progressive?
or the rights of the rich white man and his privilege and entitlement in sexuality, at all cost.

i guess we are the big tent.

we each make our choices.

i will stand with a child against the powerful, even the majority, .... every single damn time.

that is a huge problem with society yesterday and today, and why we still have boys amd men feeling it is their right and entitlement to rape our girls and women and ya.... boys.

i refuse to be part of the problem. again. when the tells are so clearly there, when the obvious is sittin right in front of our face, i will not be an the person that is part of the problem

i will stand by our CHILDREN each. and. every. time.

rapists and pedophiles, conditioning a gender it is the right and privilege and entitlement of our wealthy men to rape because our reality is still, females are there to be used.

you may be able to look away from the tells, so casually, without a blink, or a backwards look. but, not me.

i will stand strong for our children, each. and. every. time.

Paschal. She supposedly saw Allen with his head in Dylan's lap in the TV room through an open door during the same supposed "15 minute gap" when Allen also took Dylan to the attic.

That is why we use a Grand Jury.

Because it isn't, of course. But they will decide not to prosecute due to lack of evidence. It does happen.

But, this prosecutor decided to make an inappropriate and misleading statement to taint the public opinion.

It is very common for prosecutors not to follow through on sexual assault cases. Look at the situation with James Winston, the accused rapist and Heisman trophy winner. They had a boatload of evidence on him but didn't prosecute.

Sexual assault cases, whether of adults or children, operate on a whole other plane, and that is a result of rape culture. Why do you think we have people falling all over themselves to defend Woody Allen? That doesn't happen with any crime other than rape. The victim is on trial. She is the one shamed and attacked. It happens in every single rape case.

the evidence is mixed. it simply isn't conclusive one way or the other- or even close.

Of course they concluded she wasn't abused. That's what they were paid to say.

They didn't like the conclusions their own experts came up with so now there's an effort to tear down the experts.

It says they were paid by Woody Allen.

The article (as well as every other news article) makes it crystal clear that the prosecutor (Maco) is the one who chose the experts: "Maco had commissioned the Yale study..." On what planet would he choose a team of experts on Woody Allen's payroll?

Later the article says this: "An examination of the Yale report and court documents shows (that) the Yale team used psychologists on Allen's payroll to make mental health conclusions."

What does this statement really mean? Here's a description of how the Yale team (more accurately the Child Abuse Program at Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital) operates:

http://people.yale.edu/about/article.aspx?id=2502

When a child arrives at the hospital with a burn, a broken bone or other injury, how can you tell if it's an accident or child abuse?
If a physician is concerned about suspected physical abuse or neglect, they are obligated to report the case to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). We meet with the family, examine the child, and review medical records, and meet with DCF and the police if they're involved. We try to sort out whether this is an accident, birth injury or medical problem. We try to balance all these issues to figure out what happened to the child so we can ensure the child's safety.

Kids who are over age 4 or 5 can provide reasonable histories. We will interview those children, but sometimes they are reluctant to talk about the injury that brought them to the hospital, especially if it is a family member who has hurt them. We have a weekly child abuse meeting that includes social workers, nurses, emergency doctors and DCF colleagues to discuss these cases to ensure that our decisions are the right ones.

What clinical services do you provide when child sexual abuse is suspected?
We provide forensic interviews of the children, which are observed by the police and child protective services; forensic medical exams are used to look for signs of sexual abuse. A child life specialist helps the child through the interview and accompanies him or her through the medical exam. It is important for children and families to be linked with services in the community, so our family advocate helps families connect with therapy. Also, many families will have immediate access to the treatment provided through the Bridging Program, a short-term trauma-focused treatment provided in collaboration with the Child Study Center.

and proclaim innocence.

I don't claim to be an expert on what's standard procedure in these cases. All I know is that these are the experts the prosecutor selected and they seem to have very good credentials and I haven't seen any evidence that they performed unethically other than the vague assertions in the Andy Thibault article, so my default is to assume that they are honest and competent professionals. The fact that after a six-month investigation they concluded that the alleged abuse did not occur is, to my mind, an extremely strong point in support of Allen's innocence (as is the fact that he had never been accused of molestation in the first 57 years of his life or by anyone else other than the Farrows since the 1992 allegation). If convincing evidence comes out that this team performed unethically or incompetently, then I am prepared to revise my opinion. Is that really such an unreasonable stance?

I don't care if other people have different opinions about whether Allen is likely guilty or innocent of the allegation. What I object to is it being used as some kind of purity test. I object to those around here who say if you don't accept Allen's guilt unquestioningly, you're practically a pedophile yourself. I object to the notion that the only possible explanation for why someone might doubt the allegation is that they're either starstruck or a misogynist. Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bad feminist or a bad progressive.

And there are other values at play here that are important to me as a liberal. I don't like the fact that the prosecutor practically declared Allen guilty in a public statement when the truth is he didn't have a strong enough case to bring to trial. To this day, people are pointing to that statement by the prosecutor as proof of Allen's guilt. It likely affected the custody hearings and now the fact that Allen lost custody is also being used as "proof" of his guilt. This allegation has followed Allen for decades and he never even got his day in court. It all feels very McCarthyish and witchhunty to me. I also don't like that people are using statistics as an argument of guilt. That a high percentage of accused molesters turn out to be guilty shouldn't erode Allen's presumption of innocence. And the difficulty of getting a conviction in an abuse case shouldn't mean we throw Allen's rights out the window in some misguided attempt to balance things out.

dont get rid of their notes.

but wtf right? ignore the tells. again, and repeatedly. i will stand with out children against rape and molestation, each and every time. not a tough one for me. and those that want to dismiss, excuse, justify, validate or not take a second look are the problem. that continually allow the rape of our children, boys and girls, our women, for the privilege and entitlement of men.

yes, they do

final, official documents, no

These are not vague assertions.

Dr. Schedtky also criticized Yale for opining on the innocence of Woody Allen, saying that that was the job of the Court, not the team at Yale.

Dr. Diane Schetky is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, 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 Yale team used psychologists on Allen's payroll to make mental health conclusions. "That seems like a blatant conflict of interest; they should have excluded themselves," Schetky says.

· Custody recommendations were made even though the team never saw Allen and any of the children together. "I'd sure want that information," Schetky says.

· The team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims.

· The team destroyed its notes. "I don't know why they would," Schetky says. "They shouldn't have anything to hide, unless there's disagreement."

· Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan. "How can you write about someone you've never seen?" Schetky asks.

I need more than a bullet list from one reporter mixed with a few one-sentence snippets from one supposed expert. You can find a single expert to say almost anything if you shop around enough. You can get quotes that distort a speaker's true views if you cut out lots of stuff around it.

The original Yale team was chosen by the prosecution. They seem well credentialed. They came up with a conclusion the prosecution didn't like. So now the new claim is that the Yale team was corrupt or incompetent. Well, maybe they were. Anything is possible. But I think once you basically want a "redo" you really need to show that there was something seriously wrong with the first team. It has to be more than a single new expert who says, "Oh ignore that first team. They did it all wrong."

Maybe some news organization will take an in-depth look at the Yale team's investigation and shed more light on it. And if it's shown that the team acted unethically or incompetently or that there were serious irregularities, I am fully prepared to revise my opinion, as I said earlier.

Whereupon Farrow fired her.

Yeah, that person was really objective.

Of course then you must not think the ones Farrow paid were objective, including the one who testified at the trial but never met Dylan.

But of course you do, because you've quoted that one multiple times.

Allen also paid for the kids' school. I guess that's why there were some teachers who testified on his behalf.

I think he paid for their clothes too, and their doctor visits, and lots of other things. That's what people do when they are in a relationship and have kids.

But no doubt he was just paying for the therapist so he'd have an ally when he decided to abuse his adopted daughter. Probably planning to abuse Satchel too, since he was also paying for *his* therapist.

The judge suspended his visitation with Ronan because of poor parenting skills, not molestation.

Were you aware that Mia adopted Dylan and Ronan first and then later Woody did, in a very unusual proceeding in surrogate court rather than family court? And that he was able to get the judge to waive a home study?

I bet he got the home study waived for his adoptions with Soon-Yi, too, since he was successful the first time.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

One of the great ironies of this story is that Woody Allen, by virtue of his vaunted reputation, was able to adopt Dylan and Moses, who had already been legally adopted by Mia in 1985 and 1978, respectively. Never before in New York, it seems, had two single people separately adopted the same children—unmarried couples have not been able to adopt at all—and in fact, had the case been taken to family court, the usual venue for adoptions, such an exception would probably not have been allowed. But their lawyer Paul Martin Weltz put the adoption of Dylan and Moses before Judge Renee Roth in the surrogate court in Manhattan. “Surrogate court is less hectic. I felt the two judges there were both very humane and forward-looking,” says Weltz. “In family court you never know who you’re going to get. I didn’t want some clerk to say, ‘The statute doesn’t permit it. Go away.’ ” But, adds Weltz, “to have a second parent of the intellectual ability and the financial ability of a Woody Allen—how could anybody at that point think of a single negative?”

Given the status of the father, the home study was waived, and the court presumably knew nothing about Woody’s sessions with Dr. Coates. “You have a home visit when you’re thinking maybe these people can’t afford another child. Here there was no issue of morality or finances,” Weltz says. “Woody had told me that he used to go over to Mia’s apartment every day and be there when the children woke up. He’d see them every day in the middle of the day. He’d be there when they went to bed. On the surface it seemed that he was more of a father than a lot of natural fathers I represent.”

After their (Previn's) divorce, she adopted a Korean infant (Moses Amadeus Farrow), who has cerebral palsy.

In 1985, Allen and Farrow adopted a newborn girl from Texas (Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow). Two years later, they had their own son (Satchel O'Sullivan Farrow, named after Satchel Paige, the baseball pitcher and a hero of Allen's; the last name was chosen because the couple didn't want one Allen among two Farrows and six Previns).

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/magazine/woody-and-mia-a-new-york-story.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Little Allen Konigsberg (Woody’s real name) didn’t grow up surrounded by stars the way Maria de Lourdes Villiers Farrow did. But for 12 years they shared a life—she starred in 13 of his films—and he credited their time together with opening him up to understanding fatherly love.

“Mia’s been a completely different kind of experience for me, because the predominant thing has been family,” Woody told Lax. “She’s introduced me to a whole other world. I’ve had a child with her, and we’ve adopted one. She’s brought a completely different, meaningful dimension to my life.”

Two years later, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are locked in ugly and hurtful conflict.

Woody and Mia were supposed to sign an elaborate child-support-and-custody agreement, months in the negotiating, giving Mia $6,000 a month for the support of Satchel and Dylan and 15-year-old Moses, the other child of Mia’s whom Woody had adopted on December 17, 1991.

waived. What difference would it make if there were two adoptions or one?

But this paragraph from the same article you just linked to says "the children" were adopted on Dec. 17 -- the day you just pointed to on which Moses was adopted. So they all 3 were adopted the same day.

Concerning Mia, yes, I agree she is to blame, too. All the warning flags were waving and she was ignoring them, trying to keep things going with Woody. So if Dylan is right about what happened, then for some period of time, Mia was an enabler.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

"Given the status of the father, the home study was waived, and the court presumably knew nothing about Woody’s sessions with Dr. Coates. “You have a home visit when you’re thinking maybe these people can’t afford another child. Here there was no issue of morality or finances,” Weltz says. “Woody had told me that he used to go over to Mia’s apartment every day and be there when the children woke up. He’d see them every day in the middle of the day. He’d be there when they went to bed. On the surface it seemed that he was more of a father than a lot of natural fathers I represent.” Weltz recalls December 17, the day Woody, Mia, and the children accompanied him to the courtroom (where Woody remembered he had once shot a scene) and the judge’s chambers, as being “probably the happiest day I’ve ever spent in court.”

her approval is what I'm getting at. And probably it had something to do with the "glowing letter" she wrote in connection with the adoption.

"They point out that Mia wrote a glowing letter to the judge in favor of Woody’s adopting Dylan and Moses only a short time before she discovered that he was “taking Soon-Yi out.” "

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/60262

Supposedly in the period when Allen was doing all sorts of "inappropriate" behaviors with Dylan.

to go on for so long, and for going through with the adoption even though he was having counseling for his behavior with Ronan for at least a year?

She was under his spell, which is a not infrequent occurrence in situations like this. And she is to blame to the extent she was an enabler.

As far as the letter, I'm not going to bother linking to it because you know perfectly well about the Vanity Fair articles. But it wasn't a "glowing recommendation," it was just a form endorsement she had to sign. It doesn't matter, though, because she shouldn't have allowed the adoption, period.

in their evaluation. And the MD who wrote the report never even interviewed the little girl.

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

led interviewed the kid SIX times, as you know very well. You just like your spun version better.

Because that's the effect it had on her. After giving the same story three times, she thought they didn't believe her. Furthermore, every time a child who has been traumatized has to describe the event to a stranger, she is subject to being re-traumatized. There is no excuse for how they handled this.

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

By the way, the investigative reporter who wrote this article is not the same person who wrote the 1992 Vanity Fair article.

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."

falsehoods, you ignore it and bring up something else.

Then later I find you repeating the same falsehoods elsewhere.

First they didn't interview her at all; now they interviewed her too much. It doesn't really matter what happened, she was molested so whatever they did will be wrong, because you don't like their conclusions.

without ever even speaking to her. His assistants, through their repeated interviews, treated her more like a criminal suspect than Allen.

all you did was come up with a counter no more batting down just derailing that facts. pn gave you plenty in the reasoning for the poor conclusion in yale conconclusion and you choose to ignore and throw a counter, that does not really effect what was being said.

i gotta wonder about the person that actively seeks a counter that flags a pedophile. i just really gotta wonder. cause as a parent, and an adult that feels a responsibility to our children, i do know this is not the way to address these issues and merely feeds into the permission of raping our children with consent of society.

actually impartial actors in the entire proceeding.

to ignore a victim, a childs voice?

the tells are there. and you ignore them. how come?

When I was a baby attorney at firm in another city, I had to shadow the firm's family law attorney who was very very pregnant at the time. One of the cases that I had to sit in on was an abuse case where the father had raped the two older daughters and was seeking custody from the foster home of the youngest daughter who had just turn 11. Sitting in the interview of the older two daughters was very very hard and I was happy that I did not have to listen to this testimony when the judge interviewed the girls in chambers.

The foster home was happy to keep custody but did not want to see charges press due to the damage to the witnesses. I felt at the time that this was the correct decision.

I have kept away from family law after this experience. I can easily see why the prosecutor would not want to bring charges against the wishes of the child and her family

was being denied custody of dylan, and took it to the press and started and continued the battle in the press when they were CHILDREN.... and per quotes, it was mia that was asking to keep it out of press. woody was fine with it, as long as he got what he wanted, dylan.

20 yrs later, adults.

see the difference. taking care of children, and not.

And faced disbarment.

A prosecutor doesn't get to make accusations, except when filing charges. The ethics panel chose not to punish him, only because Allen had publicly criticized him, and they took his comments as a reaction to Allen.

Take your umbrella in case it rains, for example. The case of the missing cat, etc. . .

Really, really sad. We all know what you meant.

The reason they didn't move forward with the charges was out of concern for the toll it would take on Dylan. Not because they didn't think he was guilty.

That's why he did an end run around the law and essentially declared to the pres that Allen was guilty and that the only reason Allen was escaping justice was because of Dylan's fragility. As to whether they didn't move forward with the charges out of concern for Dylan, that's debatable. I think if they thought they had a case they would have moved forward, but what kind of a case could they have had when their own experts didn't believe the abuse happened?

The "abnormally intense" quote is misleading out of context. Here it is in its entirety:

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

As for their own experts, which ones are those?

Wikipedia: "Ronan Farrow (born Satchel Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow; December 19, 1987) [1] is an American activist, journalist, lawyer and former U.S. government advisor. He is the son of actress Mia Farrow and filmmaker Woody Allen."

to the point of starting an OP to call those that recognize the tells to perversion as homophobics. there are boundaries. and as a society it is ours to call out the rape of our children. big difference.

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. That's just sick.

the implication being made. the offensive to all in so many different ways.

tells of pedophilia, and calling those tells out, are the EXACT same as those that hate gays and their rights.

ya

a whole Op on it.

totally offensive. to everyone. but.... meh. right?

repulsive thing they want, include fuck their LT partner's child in their own home, and as long as it's legal- it shouldn't raise any red flags. They don't like it when people call out creepy or possibly abusive behavior if it is legal. When you do, you're are likened to a homophobe. And Woody- his humor about raping kids is like Twain or Nabokov, or so I am told.

is being called out regularly. the same old shit of shaming women in our sexuality be it prude, or slut shaming. to shame and humiliate us.

doesnt work any more.

try a new tack. it is even more sinister though, than the obvious offense. and many of us see right thru it.

that was the whole point of the OP. Just sad.

But the whole thread was a shit show. Most responses to me were challenging things I never even said.
Very sad and confused thread, pretending there is only one reason to believe Dylan- and it sure wasn't Dylan's statement. Of course it wasn't- it was the barely legal teen that was the focus- and how that should not be of any consideration.

Homosexuality was mentioned because that's something that WAS actually linked with child molestation in people's minds for a long time. There was no evidence to support it, just people's ideas that they were both deviant, perverted behavior so they probably went together.

I do think some people here are doing the same thing with regard to the fact of Allen dating much younger women. People find it creepy so they decide it's not a great leap to think he could be a pedophile. But there is no link I've ever heard of between an older man dating younger women and a man being attracted to prepubescent children. It was an analogy, it wasn't calling anyone here a homophobe.

Here's another analogy: I think many of the things George W. Bush did were immoral but I would never argue that his willingness to lie to get this country into a war means that he probably molests children. There's just no connection.

No? Only the person who was sleeping with the child of his long term partner he knew since she was ten? And they aren't accusing him for that action, but believing the victim of another molestation, someone who was 7 at the time? Then you and the writer of the OP being referenced are way off base.

about Mia Farrow, thinking if they can trash her enough it will discredit Dylan. They even talk about rumors of her infidelity with Frank Sinatra. So taking nude pictures and having a secret affair with the teenage daughter of one's partner and sister of one's children is not related, but unsubstantiated rumors that Mia might have had an affair are.

Allen dated a girl he watched grow up, the sister of his children. That signals a serious and pathological issue with boundaries. It is not evidence for a criminal conviction, but it does point to his character, as does his joke about being in a "love nest with 12 year olds." Who even thinks to joke about something like that? This isn't a court of law. We are allowed to draw conclusions based on what we know in the press. The idea of taking up in defense of a creature like that is repulsive to me.

I have no problem passing moral judgments. Politics and life are a serious of choices, and they do involve right and wrong. What Allen did with Soon-Yi was repulsive, and was enough to put me off his films for good. I did not know if the child abuse allegations were true. This week when I read Dylan's account, however, I decided they likely were. She seemed quite credible to me. I have no reason to believe Allen over her.

because that is just not true. I read others saying there would have to be multiple victims- again, not true.
believe it or not, some people have fewer to no boundaries about this stuff, and only the law or lack or opportunity stops them. And certainly many here say they would be fine with 15- 16 year old having sex with their Mom's partner, if it was legal. they have made clear that is their only standard. But... many more of us would find that kind of opportunistic betrayal pretty fucking creepy. It's telling how they even want to dispute here that Soon Yi was Mia's daughter, or that Mia and Woody were long term partners raising kids in that very household. Those are facts that give the whole episode context, and they do very much matter. It is not a random teenager, she was part of the extended family.

But you know that is not the primary reason why anyone is accusing Woody- it's Dylan's letter. That she is grown up know and holding on to her story, and has decided to quite credibly defend herself and her family is only a surprise to those who always needed to write it off and blame Mia. I almost wrote her off, but her letter- the whole reason we are now discussing this- is not even taken into account as a reason why people think he maybe guilty? Seriously? That is nuts- it is the whole reason anyone is thinking this. Without her letter, we wouldn't be here. It is not all about Soon Yi, or the HS girls he dated, or the jokes about raping 12 yr olds.... But taken together, he looks like someone who gets his rocks off transgressing boundaries pretty hard. It is his own doing that people wonder how far he might transgress. Woody put all those red flags out there for us to consider, so that is what people are doing.


And the OP certainly was inferring (a gutless ploy) that those who judge Woody are akin (''as stupid&quot to homophobes. And it is based on his misunderstanding that all child molesters fit the standard definition of pedo. His mistake. An ignorant and offensive one. But, six moths ago, it would have been the pearl clutcher gambit. Either way, it's deliberately insulting to many people here.

Can both happen together? Of course. Lack of correlation doesn't mean they can't ever happen together. It means you can't predict one from the other. I doubt there's any correlation between pedophilia and green eyes. I'm also sure there are many pedophiles who have green eyes. Lack of correlation just means you can't say, "Ah ha! Green eyes... probably a pedophile!"

and form a romantic interest in. It was his long term partner's child that he knew since she was ten. An entirely different personal relationship from someone he met. There is a significant difference there. That is the basis for the formation of judgment, the significant breach of the parental figure boundary. Not that he's merely dating a younger woman.

and exploitation in that household, and that all child abusers are serial pedophiles who are sexually disinterested in anyone other than a pre pubesent child. None if that is comes close to the truth.

the context, the huge betrayal, that he had dated 17 year olds before and was possibly guilty of statutory, and apparently exploitive relationships prior. Like it or not, it also doesn't help his own image when he jokes about being a child molester. It's not prudish or stupid (or like a homophobe) to take that as yet another red flag. Woody himself left many people wondering if he has any healthy boundaries at all.

I think the correlation seen is more about the narcissistic sociopathy he had already displayed coupled with his own admitted obsessions.
He absolutely does not have to set off any red flags for Dylan to seem credible, but he does.

But you also do have to imagine lots of hateful things about Mia to just write off Dylan without any consideration. There's no other way you can write it off. Not sure why it is so damned easy to go there and totally ignore Dylan herself? When they defend Woody- 99% of it is hating Mia because of others painful divorces. No one seems to want to consider that she believed her daughter, and acted accordingly.

But continue with your hyperbole, it's amusing.

how to use pronouns, even if you can't read them for comprehension. Wow.

Might want to get caught up on the story, there.

I must have the right people on ignore. Seriously? If I don't work tirelessly to prop up rape culture I'm a homophobe? How on God's earth do they figure that?

Because Soon Yi. Don't judge him! It's some of the most twisted logic you'll see on DU.

by a host of a small but distinct group on this site? I think I encountered that through looking at someone's last post from their profile but I didn't read the OP. I have said person on ignore. If that is the author, I have clearly chosen wisely in my ignore list.

Edit: I just read it. Predicable.

I think I know the forum you're talking about and I avoid it like the plague. I suspect you're probably right.

Do they really think people don't notice the Faux news-like distraction and spin?

If Dylan Farrow is lying, she could be sued by Woody Allen. If Allen really wants to contest these charges, he can sue and then testify under oath as to the facts. Allen has the money to litigate this issue and to date I have not heard of a defamation action being brought.

and was lying, why did the court deny Allen visitation of his own biological children? That is not done unless the court believes the parent a danger to the child. They didn't even allow supervised visits (I think. Correct me if I'm wrong on that).

It is very rare to see a father refused any contact with a child in a contested case.

Mia now says she's not even sure of that, meaning she slept with the 71-year-old Frank Sinatra within 9 months of Ronan's birth -- supposedly.

including Dylan, yet he was not allowed even supervised visitation of her.

He gave Allen visitation with Ronan.
He let Moses decide for himself.
He did not give visitation with Dylan because she had a bad reaction to seeing him but left the door open depending on the advice of therapists.

Of course, Dylan's former therapist was fired by Farrow because she didn't believe Dylan had been molested. Then Farrow picked a new therapist who would agree.

The subject is Dylan, not the other children. He is not accused of molesting the other children. There is only one issue that matters: Did Allen molest Dylan? Whether he had visitation of the boys is a side issue. The fact she was terrified of the guy is certainly a sign something was wrong, a clear warning sign. If Mia was such a horrendous parent, as the Woody Allen apologists claim, why was she given custody instead of Allen? Clearly this non-stop effort to discredit Dylan by attacking Farrow is a sad exercise in defection. Child abuse happens frequently. It is a horrendous thing. However much you want to pretend children and women commonly lie to implicate men, the fact is that happens rarely.

The fact the Allen defenders constitute to act like this is 1992 rather than 2014 and continually ignore Dylan's statement this week shows me just how little regard they have for the word and well being of rape survivors. At the very least, Allen is a dirty old man who preys on young girls, after watching them grow up from a young age. His willingness to violate boundaries in Mia's household with Soon Yi shows a disturbed person. When he began a secret affair with the sister of his children and then went on to marry her, he showed his own lust was more important than the well being of his kids. The man is vermin. That you would go to the mat to defend such a POS boggles the mind. Given his pattern of behavior and jokes about having sex with 12 yr olds, it's hardly a leap to imagine he would molest a child. He fits the profile of a predator to the T. I wouldn't let a creature like him anywhere near children.

The fact is prosecutors fail to bring charges in cases of sexual assault all the time. That is central to rape culture. That you are now appealing to that manifestation of rape culture as some sort of supposed evidence, while completely ignoring the statement from the victim, seems entirely lost on you. There are tens of millions of women in this country who have been raped without anyone being prosecuted for their assaults. That doesn't mean the rapes didn't happen. It means our sexist justice system and misogynist rape culture made sure the rapist never paid for his crimes.

This week has taught me exactly why the rates of rape and child abuse are so appalling high in this country, and why only three percent of rapes result in jail time. Clearly the prospect of one predator being even socially sanctioned. because he does not face jail time, is something too many people here will fight tooth and nail to prevent. This is rape culture in action. Victims of no other crime are treated with such disrespect, hatred, and vengeance. (Here I mean broader patterns of treatment, not how you particularly have responded).

I can't do anything about Allen. All I can do is control who I accept into my own life, and that does not include child rapists or their defenders.

things, including yourself.

but denied SUPERVISED visitation. this is her legal father, and he was denied supervised visitation.

the courtt did find the man guilty

That's a great argument.

if he doesn't sue, he is a scumbag.

Nice situation.

Dylan (like the continuing family drama and therapy regimen didn't), but she still gets to declare him guilty in the media anytime she wants.

Cozy.

trial in the protection of the child. which is as it should be. so the court did right here. but, the court denied primary custody woody was asking for and went so far to say NO visitation, not even supervised visitation. THAT is very much saying that this father is GUILTY. and to argue otherwise is foolish. a powerful white man with money, being denied any contact with a daughter, even under supervision has been found GUILTY.

so those that say innocent until proven guilty. the court found him guilty.

that is what is relevant.