Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[FourthBase]

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.

You didn't answer my questions. They were not rhetorical.

What you said about "they" is true, generally. In this specific case, though? Not so fast, as the Daily Beast article says. The article which presents a pretty compelling competing narrative based on the facts of the case, not just generalizations.

[semper occultus]

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.

.....so what's the film industry insider scuttlebutt on WA then.....?

[Project Willow]

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

It's not a "feeling". It's reading the victim's statements and the history of the case. It's working with victims and studying the phenomenon of sexual abuse, how the once taboo crime is still so egregiously mangled by our institutions and culture, and how power has an impact on people's perceptions, motives, and actions. It's knowing all of the forces at play that keep most victims silent, the huge emotional toll of going public, being ridiculed and ostracized, and weighing that against an absence of any other motivation. Dylan is a 28 year old woman. There's no custody battle going on right now. Dylan's letter makes crystal that her motivation is being able to partially relieve herself of the burden of secret suffering while the world celebrates the man who assaulted her.

To advocate for Allen's innocence you must completely discount Dylan's statements, the Connecticut State Police investigator's opinion, and her mother and brother. Present me with a single bit of evidence as to why this daughter of a powerful and famous artist would choose to sour that relationship, and forgo all of its benefits in order to make false claims about abuse. I see no reason in that position at all.

[Nordic]

Nobody in the "but read they Daily Beast article" crowd has even made a stab at answering the question: Why would she be lying now?

Y'all are just ignoring it.

Like Willow said, she's a grown woman, she is no longer being "coached" by her mother, the statute of limitations has passed and she's not looking to prosecute him legally. She just wants to tell the truth.

That "Daily Beast" article was rendered null and void the second Dylan's account came out anyway. That article is the Popular Mechanics "we debunked 911 conspiracy theories" article of this case. Completely irrelevant and nothing but strawman.

Again, somebody at least offer up a reason as to why Dylan is lying. Give it your best shot!

And Smiths, while I respect you and your reasons for posting what you have, this isn't a court case. Nobody's been arrested. The statute of limitations has passed. The rules of those situations don't apply. You can either believe the girl is lying, or not. that's about it.

But if you think she's lying I would like to know why.

[The Consul]

hic thalamum invasit natae vetitosque hymenaeos?

[justdrew]

Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

I do not find the article a 'hit job' - the author is just stating facts and bending over backwards to be 'fair' - and compassionate to Malone - but in the end, I can't believe. That doesn't mean I necessarily think Malone is knowingly lying either and it doesn't mean I would take that position in other cases.

Read the article, there are lots of details there that make this mater questionable.

I prefer to err on the side of believing accusations, but in this specific case, there are too many extenuating circumstance to allow that.

[justdrew]

hic thalamum invasit natae vetitosque hymenaeos?

for reference (in case anyone else is having trouble translating that), aprox:
With incest some their daughters' bed profan'd
more literally: entered daughter's room and 'took her virginity'

line 623 book 6, Virgil's Aeneid

this is amidst listing some crimes committed by those in the underworld. (I think)

In answer to consul's question: no, apparently not.

[cptmarginal]

I personally try to withhold pronouncements on issues that are so highly contentious as this. But allow me to stick my foot in my mouth here and say that this case is pretty weird. I wouldn't be surprised if Woody Allen and Mia Farrow both know more than they are letting on. Just for one example, they both support Roman Polanski.

Mia Farrow gives evidence in Polanski case

Woody Allen has restated his support for fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski

Or for another weird circumstance which I recently read about in Levenda's Sinister Forces: Frank Sinatra purportedly taking Marilyn Monroe to be drugged and gang-raped on film by the mafia not too long before he was marrying Mia Farrow.

Marilyn Monroe's last weekend: Told for the first time, an eyewitness's account of the row with Frank Sinatra that friends fear signed her death warrant

Or, also:

Mia Farrow herself had only recently completed filming Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby. Her exquisite performance as Rosemary—a resident of New York’s Dakota building, impregnated with an anti-Christ by a coven of neighboring witches—surely meant she arrived in the Valley of the Saints carrying some very interesting inner baggage. Certainly her stay would leave its mark on history—most chroniclers ascribing some rumored sexual impropriety (or worse) on the part of the Maharishi towards Farrow as being the principal reason for Lennon and Harrison’s (the last remaining Beatles) acrimonious departure that August.

Lennon later claimed that, while packing his bags, he came up with the rudiments of another tune destined for “the White Album,” “Sexy Sadie,” four syllables that supplanted the original—and extremely libelous—“Maharishi.” The same four syllables would also find themselves supplanting the name of Manson Family Tate/LaBianca murderess Susan Atkins—known in the Family as “Sadie Mae Glutz” prior to Manson’s fateful encounter with “the White Album.” Before falling in with Manson, Atkins was an associate of Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan. LaVey is said to have served as an unaccredited technical adviser on Rosemary’s Baby.

I know that those examples are sort of weighted against Mia Farrow, but that's not my intention in posting this. I really don't know what happened, and will indeed reserve judgment. There's no reason to come to any conclusions on the basis of such incomplete information; I'm not on a jury and my opinion matters very little. About the only thing I'd say for sure is that Dylan Farrow was sexually victimized by someone. In my opinion Woody Allen is very likely the culprit, but that's all.

Time to go take a shower and read about something else...

[Iamwhomiam]

The point I believe, is to whom should the benefit of doubt be applied when justice demands, commands a presumption of innocence be applied to one accused by another's sworn to be truthful testimony.

Crimes against children are given or should be given a certain credibility based upon the alleged victim's testimony. Could an innocent child create such a tale? We all know the horrors adult do commit against children.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Wow, this is really giving me a McMartin preschool vibe. After reading Dylan Farrow's heart-wrenching letter, I have no doubt she was sexually abused as a child. My knee-jerk reaction was it had to be Woody.

I didn't think I would read anything in the The Daily Beast article to change my mind, but as I'm not a slave to binary logic, I was not surprised to have my eyes opened to a new angle. Now I don't particularly agree that the author of this piece was entirely level-headed and impartial, as he tries to claim. I thought it was particularly ugly to bring up the whole Previn affair and try to paint Mia Farrow with a scarlet A driving poor Mrs. Previn to insanity. But I appreciated his recounting of the facts regarding the chronology of what went down 20 years ago. What especially jumped out was what justdrew highlighted:

Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

I believe this may be the lid of a Pandora's Box being lifted just a crack. This is why I don't buy into the either/or pigeonholing that either Dylan Farrow is lying or she isn't. If we're talking about an environment where brainwashing occurred, unless my understanding of MK-Ultra is wrong, we're talking about an environment where a mind control subject's memory is capable of being altered. No, this is not a "Mia did it" accusation. What I am proposing is a deeper examination of what Moses Farrow is referring to as "the reality" of Frog Hollow. Keeping in mind the historical relationship between the MIC mind control and charity organizations (World Vision being the most egregious example), I'm curious to know of the many charity organizations Mia Farrow is involved with, who had access to Frog Hollow during the early 90's? Are they an NGO with intelligence links?

I'm not letting Woody completely off the hook just yet. I'm pretty certain, especially if you've ever seen Manhattan, that he has a sexual attraction to high-school girls. But that doesn't mean he's automatically guilty, look no further at any other possibility. Occam's Razor is too often just an instrument to slice the brain and quit thinking. And my intuition is telling me that the molestation of Dylan Farrow could be the tip of something much more sinister. I think it's a possibility worth investigating.

[Project Willow]

It's always the victim's protectors who get blamed for brainwashing, ironically not the perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret. The false memory meme is so deeply implanted that the pat answer now is she was abused, but by whom, we cannot say. This erases the agency, the very personhood of the victim.

The Daily Beast article's author is professionally dependent on Woody Allen, he is not a neutral source, and that is clear in his writing, his selection and framing of the facts, some of which he gets wrong. I'm reticent to even begin a review because it's tedious and it should be obvious. He calls the case, again and again, "Mia's claim", but Dylan first reported the incident to her babysitter. Of course Dylan didn't tell the full story at first, young victims almost never do that, especially when the offender is parent and that person has told them not to tell. Of course it's suspect that the Yale team destroyed their notes, and on and on.

[smiths]

perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret

this kind of certainty alarms me, it does nothing for your argument but instead makes you look fanatical,

i will not insult you by claiming to have any insight into the pain and suffering that abuse like this can inflict, my childhood experiences were carefree and i know i was fortunate,
i do understand your desire to defend the victims and to change the systematic culture of abuse and protection which has existed,

but declaring guilt based simply on claims, feelings and historical patterns is not justice,

instead of declaring it to be "obvious" and declaring that even considering the complex aspects of the case is "preposterous" why not keep posting details which may enlighten us
you posted material earlier with no link, where did it come from, where are the records and documents for people to read?

[Project Willow]

perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret

this kind of certainty alarms me, it does nothing for your argument but instead makes you look fanatical,

I'm quoting Dylan there, that's hardly fanatical, it's called simply, believing the victim. That's not a knee-jerk response either, as I've stated above, it's a well considered position.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow

[FourthBase]

It's always the victim's protectors who get blamed for brainwashing, ironically not the perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret. The false memory meme is so deeply implanted that the pat answer now is she was abused, but by whom, we cannot say. This erases the agency, the very personhood of the victim.

Except this isn't just someone throwing speculative shade on a victim's guardian, this is the brother, the son, who for years had been within that protectorship, and is now, for whatever reason, not only driven apart from Mia Farrow but embracing Woody Allen.

The Daily Beast article's author is professionally dependent on Woody Allen, he is not a neutral source, and that is clear in his writing, his selection and framing of the facts, some of which he gets wrong. I'm reticent to even begin a review because it's tedious and it should be obvious. He calls the case, again and again, "Mia's claim", but Dylan first reported the incident to her babysitter. Of course Dylan didn't tell the full story at first, young victims almost never do that, especially when the offender is parent and that person has told them not to tell. Of course it's suspect that the Yale team destroyed their notes, and on and on.

- Weide is not dependent on Woody Allen, and if he had good reason to believe Allen molested Dylan then making a film about that scandal or being an oft-consulted source on that controversy would serve him just as well in a raw careerist kind of way.

- Your reticency to begin a review is surely either an excuse for an unwillingness to put your analysis on the line, or an aversion to dealing with unpleasantness. I could entirely understand the latter. If it's the former, well, you should be aware: It is not obvious, quite the opposite actually.

- In the cataloging of all the power dynamics possibly at play, did it occur to you that Mia Farrow would've been able to wield life-changing power over the babysitter?

- It is suspect that those notes were destroyed. Zero objection/qualification there.

[justdrew]

Gossip is the new pornography