Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[Spiro C. Thiery]

The presumption of innocence cannot be given to both parties. Only one of them can be not guilty.

I disagree.

[alwyn]

reading the accounts that said wa was soon yi's mom's boyfriend, not her dad. i think however you look at this, it's icky. any boyfriend who dates mom then daugher is off. i never liked woody allen anyway, but i'm appalled by how many men are defending him because he is a 'great artist'. i think he's a neurotic little prick with a taste for pre-pubescent little girls, and while i realize that's just my opinion, none of his movies make me think anything different about him.

[coffin_dodger]

I wonder if this is the US's 'Savile moment '. Bound to be one, sooner or later.

[Iamwhomiam]

Seems so, WIllow.

I dunno, smiths, I thought the article posted by sunny was right-on, logical and an intelligent observation.

What's really a shame is the many thousands of child-victims of sexual assault, especially incestuous, are just as alone, living haunted with the truthful horrors they experienced, with no chance of recourse as they know they'll not be believed; a further insult too unbearable to be added to their burden.
And their assailants live unhaunted in celebrity.

[Sounder]

I regret what I wrote this morning.

So what if Woody Allen makes art out of his shortcomings, art is built on that. So what if I don't like it, that is no cause to think ill of him without better evidence.

WA seems to genuinely enjoy the quiet life and that is not the general habit of hard core manipulators.

[FourthBase]

reading the accounts that said wa was soon yi's mom's boyfriend, not her dad. i think however you look at this, it's icky. any boyfriend who dates mom then daugher is off. i never liked woody allen anyway, but i'm appalled by how many men are defending him because he is a 'great artist'. i think he's a neurotic little prick with a taste for pre-pubescent little girls, and while i realize that's just my opinion, none of his movies make me think anything different about him.

Aside from Dylan's accusation, he has only exhibited a taste for post-pubescents, no? Soon-Yi was 18/19 (or 20/21). Hemingway in Manhattan is 17. Quite creepy, yes. But now, imagine he's not a balding neurotic elf. Imagine it's a handsome actor/director instead. Most people would perceive Allen to be significantly less of an icky pervert if he were as handsome as, say, Robert Redford or George Clooney. Amiwrong? Why? (Why am I wrong? Or if I'm right then what does it mean? Handsome privilege, lol?)

I'm not defending him, by the way. I'm just trying to be objective.
His being an artist of any caliber has nothing to do with my POV, anyway.

[justdrew]

well you should at least have seen Shadows and Fog before you write his movies off.

[Project Willow]

WA seems to genuinely enjoy the quiet life and that is not the general habit of hard core manipulators.

In my experience, there are no general habits (detected externally) of hard core manipulators.

[smiths]

i am genuinely disappointed in the stupidity of much of the commentary in this thread

and for the record

The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that
the presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge
and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtectio ... cence.aspx

but for all those who want to rewrite the common law operating in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, India, the EU, Japan, etc, etc, etc ...

lets use some of the rigorous gems of deduction and insight offered in this thread as a basis ...

Her story rings true.

In the event that ... somebody's story rings true, then it is. (Or is it only if a womans story rings true? or a childs?)

Why would the girl be lying at this point?

In the event that ... no motivation is known or seems obvious, then the story must be true.

Her own brother believes her. Why shouldn't everybody?

In the event that ... an acuusers family members support them, they are telling the truth

All things being equal, it’s more likely that the [accusation against a] man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly) ... is probably the right one.

In the event that ... a man (and only a man) has featured young women in their films, and has been accused of rape, they are guilty.

I've now read Dylan's piece in the OP. Its tone and tenor do not vary in a substantial way from any account of any sexual abuse survivor I've ever read. The very idea that it could be a fabrication is preposterous.

In the event that ... a singular account sounds like other accounts, it is not only true, but it is preposterous to suggest any other possibility.

I never cared for WA because he strikes me as someone that has commoditized his fuckedupness. Therefore it’s reasonable to at least suspect that he really is fucked up.

In the event that ... an artist demonstrates frailties, insecurities or complexities of character, they are guilty if accused of anything.

we are waking up gradually to the fact that we must listen to the voices of victims

In the event that ... there has been previous abuse of a vulnerable group by a stronger group, all subsequent claims are found in favour of the vulnerable

any boyfriend who dates mom then daugher is off. i never liked woody allen anyway, but i'm appalled by how many men are defending him because he is a 'great artist'. i think he's a neurotic little prick with a taste for pre-pubescent little girls

In the event that ... a man dates a Mum and then a daughter, even if the daughter is over 18, that man is a child molester

In light of our culture of rape I feel the preponderance of doubt to a moral certainty belongs to Dylan.

In the event that ... (fuck it, this sentence doesnt even make sense)

WA seems to genuinely enjoy the quiet life and that is not the general habit of hard core manipulators.

In the event that ... a person enjoys the quiet life, they are innocent of all charges

great stuff guys, a new legal system that resets the balance towards Intuition and Feelings away from that old stuff like Evidence, Rigour, and Responsibility

[smiths]

here is some actual legal discussion of the wider issue of child sex assault and its historical and cultural problems

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicatio ... sault.html

"The question is whether, in a modern society, we are prepared to accept this continued criminal justice response to a crime that is extremely difficult to police, under-reported, under-prosecuted, committed by offenders who are prone to recidivism and which leaves victims with psychological and behavioural problems that sometimes remain with them throughout their lives (Bagley & Thurston 1996; Ullman & Filipas 2005).
Given the complexity of prosecuting child sex offences, it is likely that radical reform options are required to shift the focus of the trial from an inquiry into the child’s credibility and the degree of unreliability of her/his evidence into an investigation of the allegations made against the accused."

clearly we have to change the way it is dealt with, and clearly it has to protect children and recongise the centuries of abuse that has been inflicted on vulnerable children by sick cunts who abuse thier positions of responsibility

but throwing comments about who you think is guilty based on hunches is not justice, and beleiving every child without question is not the answer

Honouring the rights of the accused while giving weight to testimony of abuse does not have to be a zero-sum game. But it is clear that we have yet to develop an ethical framework that can properly do both at the same time.

http://theconversation.com/woody-allen- ... buse-22719

[Project Willow]

^You've got to be kidding. A great proportion of what we discuss in this forum is opinion or speculation about crimes for which there has been no, or suspected botched adjudication. Does 911 ring a bell? I guess we all owe Dick Cheney an apology.

Preach to me about the law when 99% of rapists no longer go free. Preach to me about the law when sexual assault and abuse are no longer epidemic. Preach to me about the law when students at a major university don't protest against and attack the victims of their beloved football coach.

Also, victim and witness testimony is evidence.

Here's some of what happened with Dylan's case:

“The Yale team used psychologists on Allen’s payroll to make mental health conclusions.” He reported that the team had destroyed all of its notes, and that Leventhal did not interview Dylan, although she was called in nine times for questioning. They did not interview anyone who would corroborate her molestation claims. Judge Elliott Wilk, who presided over the custody hearing brought by Allen, wrote in his decision that he had “reservations about the reliability of the report.”

The specter of celebrity and Allen’s clout loomed over everything. The general public today has no memory of how complex, intense, and ugly this battle became. The court proceedings and hearings dragged on for more than four years. Although Allen spent millions of dollars in legal fees, he lost two trials and two appeals. The day after the Yale–New Haven clinic report came out, Maco issued a press release that said he was going to continue investigating.

Meanwhile, private investigators were hired by Allen. “There was a serious effort to dig up dirt on Maco and a number of state-police detectives and have an impact on the criminal investigation, and it did have an impact,” says Thibault, who spoke to some of the detectives involved. One of the top state-police investigators in the case told me, “They were trying to dig up dirt on the troopers—whether they were having affairs, what they were doing.” In his article, Thibault wrote that Allen’s lawyer Elkan Abramowitz acknowledged that at least 10 private investigators were hired, but, Thibault quoted him saying, “we didn’t go into any kind of smear campaign against the police.” Maco says, “I was informed by the state police that someone is going to be out there watching you. I was given the information to just be careful.”

At a key moment in the investigation, the trooper in charge of the case was accused of trying to leak a tape of Dylan to a local Fox affiliate in New York. The accusation was later proved to be false, but it prevented any Connecticut police from going to custody hearings in New York or from talking to New York authorities during the internal investigation. Their job was to determine whether or not there was probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. The top investigator I spoke to had interviewed Allen. “He had a scripted presentation, with his attorneys there. I did not find him credible,” the officer told me of the three-hour session. “I allowed him to say his piece without questions. When I questioned him, he starts stuttering and saying he didn’t do anything.” The officer stated, “There was never ‘Yes, I did’ or ‘No, I didn’t.’ There was not a clear, definitive yes or no.” (“You’ve seen how he talks sometimes,” Abramowitz says of Allen. “But there was no hesitation on the merits of what that was about.”)

In June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk awarded custody of Dylan to Mia and denied Allen immediate visitation with the child. He allowed Moses to decide for himself whether he wanted to see his adoptive father again, and he increased Ronan’s—then Satchel’s—visits to three a week, supervised. The judge concluded that Allen demonstrated no parenting skills and was “self-absorbed, untrustworthy, and insensitive.” Allen’s trial strategy, he concluded, had been “to separate his children from their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother.” He found “no credible evidence” to support Allen’s contention “that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.” He found the molestation allegations inconclusive. Allen appealed, but the opinion was upheld.

Unlike the Yale–New Haven staff, the state investigators found Dylan credible. “When a little girl says someone digitally penetrated her,” one of them told me, “if a child relates pain to the incident at that age, that’s credible.” Maco had steered clear of any questioning of Dylan during the Yale–New Haven inquiry. After Wilk’s decision, however, he decided he needed to see for himself if she could be relied on to take the witness stand. “I sat down with the child, with my secretary, with another female from the state police, and we rolled around—we had stuffed animals. As soon as I broached the idea of Woody, the child just froze. Nothing.”

On September 24, 1993, Maco called a press conference to say that he believed he had probable cause to arrest Woody Allen but that he would not press charges because of the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco’s statement caused at least one legal expert to accuse him of wanting it both ways—of convicting Allen without a trial. Allen called a press conference to say that “vindictive” Mia’s “cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception.” He asked, “Did State’s Attorney Maco choose to overlook the truth and become a stooge for Miss Farrow because he didn’t like my films?”

“It should have been ‘complainant’ instead of ‘victim,’ ” Maco admitted to me, but he had felt he owed his community an explanation: “It’s not that the mother is a fabricator or concocter or that the child is unbelievable.” Dylan just wouldn’t cooperate, he said, so it would not have been fair to Allen or anyone involved to bring the case to trial. Allen’s lawyers swiftly filed ethics claims against Maco with two Connecticut state boards. The Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission, which appoints state prosecutors, dismissed the complaint, and a local panel of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which reviews and investigates attorney complaints, also dismissed it, but its decision was overturned by one vote in the Statewide Grievance Committee. It was not until a year after public hearings were held, in 1996—a “mini trial” with both Maco and Allen testifying—that Maco was found not to have violated the rules of professional conduct. It had cost the state more than $250,000 to defend him. Maco, whose more than 20-year record remains unblemished, was forced to absent himself from trials for a time. He retired early, in 2003.

[Nordic]

Thanks Willow. I can't believe there are people here who would even argue, and argue so vehemently, about this.

It's as disturbing to me as the molestation. How awful that this girl came out publicly and so many people choose to disbelieve her, all because they have some preconceived notion as to the character of the creep whose fake name is Woody Allen. He's a miserable and talented creep.

Men. Why am I one? This is why I always had more female friends than male. Men are dicks.

[smiths]

Nordic, i never, ever, anywhere said that i disbelieved her, i never ever defended Allen or asserted his innocence,
i dont have a fucking clue what went on and i think it should be reinvestigated and she should be given the best opportunity possible to male her case

i have merely been disgusted with the number of people who are willing to accept his guilt based on 'a feeling', or based on the fact he started a relationship with an 18 year old girl who was the adoptive daughter of his ex-wife

and yes i will argue about about basic rights like presumption of innocence, i happen to have a strong affinity towards a number of legal rights that have been developed over the centuries

isnt that what most of the people on the left are now trying so hard to defend against the people who would give us no courts of law, no legal representation, no access to the accusations being made against us, and yes, no presumption of innocence

i also have a repugnance for child molesters and all who defend or protect them who have operated with impunity for so long and i would like to see massive changes in that regard

but it is possible to hold a high regard for more than one human right at a time

get off your sopaboxes and actually use your reasoning powers to read and think about what it is i am arguing

[FourthBase]

Thanks Willow. I can't believe there are people here who would even argue, and argue so vehemently, about this.

It's as disturbing to me as the molestation. How awful that this girl came out publicly and so many people choose to disbelieve her, all because they have some preconceived notion as to the character of the creep whose fake name is Woody Allen. He's a miserable and talented creep.

Men. Why am I one? This is why I always had more female friends than male. Men are dicks.

Merely having an argument of any kind about this matter is as bad as molestation? Really? Could you elaborate on who you mean by "people here"? Because I have made no such choice, and my reasoning has had nothing to do with any preconceived notion of WA's character. What here in this thread, written by who, disgusts you so much?

[Nordic]

Imagine of you had been abused, and you finally worked up the courage to tell people about it, and everybody scoffed and said you were probably lying.

What a horrifying experience that must be.

This is what people who have been abused deal with all the time. And yes, it's an enormous betrayal, and it's unbelievably cruel.

I can only imagine that those who don't get it have never been victims.

A lot of us have been. And maybe that's why we can tell when a victim's story rings true.

People as famous and wealthy and powerful as Allen know that they can get away with almost anything they please. They can be grotesquely impulsive. They can hire investigators and attorneys and PR people. Their resources are unlimited. They can pay people off. They know the normal rules don't apply to them.

The prosecutor decided not to charge Allen not because he thought Allen was innocent but because the child had already been through enough and didn't think she could deal with any more stress associated with having the whole sordid mess go into the bureaucratic and public meat grinder of the courts. Allen was barred from having any contact with her.

At least somebody was thinking of the kid.