Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[brekin]

brekin wrote:

And if Allen isn't into the domestic scene why did he adopt two girls with Soon-Yi?

justdrew wrote:
maybe because his wife wanted children? Maybe his feelings on the subject changed?

Perhaps, but why would he suddenly want to be the family man at over 60 years of age? Doesn't that seem a bit late to do a complete turn about?
I can't guess as to Soon-Yi's motivations for wanting to have children with someone who would doubtfully see them graduate college (Allen is 78 right now).
Allen motivations though, I try not and think about.

[Project Willow]

She only suggests Moses may not be a big deal because she doesn't know and only hopes that it somehow isn't a big deal because then it might undermine her thesis on Allen and Weide.

First of all, you cannot read my mind dude, so please quit disparaging me and let's stick to the material at hand.

Secondly, I said it was typical. How do I know that? Again, over two decades working with victims and studying the phenomenon of sexual abuse. I do not know of a single family that did not split allegiances in some way in the aftermath of abuse claims, especially sexual abuse claims. Even if all the children in the family have been abused, some of them will align with the perpetrator, and against the accuser(s). There are many contributing factors to these schisms, but at the heart of them is loss of a parent. Studies show children will put up with the most heinous treatment in order to maintain that primal connection. This is a major reason why victims do not tell, and why when the abuse is extreme, they can develop DID. I even know survivors of extreme abuse who stay in relationships with their abusive parents because they cannot face the pain of losing the relationship altogether. When abuse claims come to light however, everyone in the family system is forced to make a choice.

In some cases, there are siblings who align with perpetrators because they are perpetrators themselves. Others may be in denial and find it less painful to remain in denial than to face the pain of the abuse. There may also be siblings who may not have been abused and whose relationship with the accused parent is different or more significant. These siblings can feel extreme resentment towards the accusers for harming their relationship and will unleash the magnitude of that pain onto the accusers. Even these examples are highly reductive however, we're talking about complex emotional responses within complex family systems that rarely, if ever, lend themselves to absolutist frameworks. All of this is taking place in a culture that does not support victims. So while I cannot claim to know the specific factors behind Moses' choice, I just don't find his taking a different side, on its face, to be anything other than typical, let alone a major signifier of the truth.

[Saurian Tail]

Project Willow, what you just wrote is an extremely lucid and concise summary of the problem. I've learned a great deal about this and other related topics from your writings here at RI ... and I just wanted to say thank you and let you know that it has been very much appreciated!

[coffin_dodger]

Thank you for opening my mind a little more, PW.

[Julian the Apostate]

I have shifted 180 on this. When I first read Dylan's letter I believed WA had done this to her. Now I lean more toward thinking that he did not, but she truly believes he did. All the potential reasons for both standpoints have been pointed out on this board and others so I won't go into them, save to say that I think Mia Farrow is a very sketch individual (Ronan is def Frank's kid IMO, and anyone who supports Roman Polanski, especially someone who's own daughter has allegedly been an abuse victim, is just WTF). In any case, it's a very sad story for all involved, primarily Dylan and Woody.

Full disclosure: fan of WA's movies

[Julian the Apostate]

In this case I believe it is possible, as someone up thread pointed out, that both are telling the truth as far as they know

[Saurian Tail]

I think there is about a 2% chance that Dylan is lying, confused, or brainwashed. Notice how this culture makes the victim's own testimony disappear from the conversation.

Derek Jensen's quote fits here: "Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims."

That is exactly what is happening here. There must be some other explanation so we grasp onto unlikely scenarios and find ourselves being persuaded. Meanwhile the victim's own testimony is disappeared. As a product of this culture, I did this very thing myself until just a few short years ago. My mental process was invisible to me.

I don't know, can't know, anything about this particular case for certain. But I can observe how these things tend to play out ... and learn from people who have experienced it directly ... and use that knowledge to prevent my rigorous rationalizing from overwhelming my intellectual objectivity.

This case is not fundamentally different from other similar cases ... neither are the proffered explanations on behalf of the accused. As Project Willow so clearly pointed out ... this is playing out along predictable lines in a culture that does not support victims.

[Nordic]

If anyone wants to go all "R.I." on this and investigate the possibility that Mia Farrow's weird social connections may have had something to do with some mysterious figure who is not Woody Allen molesting her while at the same time brainwashing her into believing it was Woody Allen, go for it. This is R.I. after all.

But I would say to question your motivations for doing so. I mean, of you want to pursue that because you find it fun, or ir's your hobby, then great, but if you're insisting on going that route because you simply can't believe/don't want to believe/refuse to entertain the likelihood that Dylan is telling the truth, then you might want to investigate your own feelings about all this first.

Because there is exactly, at this time, absolutely zero evidence that Dylan was molested by someone other than "Woody" Allen. Zero.

I don't usually go Occam's Razor on anything, because what the simplest explanation is is completely subjective, but look at the evidence and the patterns of behavior, and the motivations of all involved, and I don't see how anyone can rationally, setting their own emotions aside, emotions which might include a certain underlying guilt for liking the guy and his work so much, conclude anything other than what Dylan says is the truth.

Why the steadfast refusal to believe her, with absolutely zero evidence at hand? And thanks to the others above who spoke so eloquently about this. It's do weird how everybody wants to talk about everything EXCEPT the girl's own words.

[cptmarginal]

I don't know, can't know, anything about this particular case for certain. But I can observe how these things tend to play out ... and learn from people who have experienced it directly ... and use that knowledge to prevent my rigorous rationalizing from overwhelming my intellectual objectivity.

This case is not fundamentally different from other similar cases ... neither are the proffered explanations on behalf of the accused. As Project Willow so clearly pointed out ... this is playing out along predictable lines in a culture that does not support victims.

I agree, and this was why my earlier post in this thread questioning Mia Farrow started with "allow me to put my foot in my mouth." There's a consideration of not unintentionally giving meat to the wolves that use purported false memory cases to promote an agenda. I personally am all too aware how much this particular affair touches on issues that I consider to be surrounded by rank ignorance in America. Probably a good time to bump PW's Disinformation and DID: the Politics of Memory thread again, as it's obviously relevant here.

It's interesting up to a point to look at some of the unusual facts about Farrow, and to an extent that information may be presented as somehow vindicating Woody Allen. I post such information anyway, with multiple caveats, because it is genuinely curious to me. This really deserves the full paranoid treatment from someone like Dave McGowan (who I read with a big grain of salt.)

[OP ED]

spoiler:

OP ED is not a remarkable fan of mr allen.



OP ED owns Everyone Says I Love You on vhs somewhere around here. this is mostly because OP ED has had a crush on ms portman נטלי הרשלג‎ since like 1995...



:: ::

OP ED knows little of actual fact with regards to this particular case.

OP ED also knows that it is statistically very unlikely that mr allen is entirely innocent of illegal or inappropriate behavior given what few facts ARE available.


[the statistics related to similar crimes are widely available on the internet]

[and are most certainly and significantly understated]

...

OP ED couldn't hang someone on that alone, of course, but that doesn't mean we'd be having him over for brunch on sundays either.

:: ::

[hello Willow. glad to see you are still here, still doing this thing]

[OP ED]

oh and OP ED cautions about doing the connect-the-dots and/or "degrees of separation" games wrt to thee allens/etcs.

namely because art and power when represented by peoples are often found to gravitate toward each other. it'd be surprising to find any world famous celebrity tyes who don't have any [in]famously scary friends.

everyone in california is only 3 degrees away from catching Charlie Manson's herpes.

[Project Willow]

Hullo back you guys and same to you.

Thanks to Saurian Tail for this golden quote:

"Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims."

Here's an article I actually wish I had written, lots of links in the original: http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2014-02-are-children-supposed-to-document-their-abuse

Are Children Supposed To Document Their Abuse?
By Soraya Chemaly

Dylan Farrow published an open letter on Saturday in which she publicly addressed, for the first time, her accusations that Woody Allen sexually abused her when she was a child. Within hours there were sloppy responses calling into doubt the veracity of her testimony.

In the midst of the many conversations that were generated online, I saw this tweet by Zerlina Maxwell, which sums up the core of our problem with rape: "Testimony is evidence. Stop saying there is no evidence. #dylanfarrow"

Given the statistics surrounding sexual abuse and the persistence of false rape accusation myths, maybe we should teach our children, particularly our girl children, how to gather evidence of their assaults.

As I wrote in an earlier post here, "How We Teach Our Children That Women Are Liars," this is what a 14-year-old French girl had to do in November. She went to her school counselor and then the police to explain that her father was raping her. She asked for help and was told she needed "hard evidence." So, she videotaped her next assault. After he was arrested, his attorney explained, "He insists that these acts did not stretch back further than three or four months. His daughter says longer. But everyone should be very careful in what they say." Because, really, even despite her seeking help, her detailed recitations, her fearlessly filming her father's attack, you really can't believe what the girl says, can you?

If an 11-year-old girl told an adult that her father took out a Craigslist ad to find someone to beat and rape her while he watched, as recently actually occurred, would she have had to provide videotape after the fact if it hadn't otherwise been discovered? What if a girl had been in the showers with serial abuser Jerry Sandusky? It is very likely that people would have contorted themselves to blame her, as they did the 11-year-old Texas girl gang-raped by more than 18 men that same year.

Dylan Farrow is in a situation that thousands deal with every day. In general, people want to look away, muttering some variant of "he said/she said." But, that phrase implies an equivalence where we have a gross imbalance, because "he" is more trusted, virtually always, in every capacity, than "she."

There is a substantial body of research documenting our preference for thinking of men as more competent and moral. Researchers who studied gendered speech patterns found that people expect different kinds of lies from men and women and that women are considered more trustworthy, unless lies include another person, in which case, confidence in the veracity of what women say plummets.

These beliefs are part of the same fundamental gender schemas that hold men out as more deserving of trust in general. The reason victim-blaming happens and "controversy" can exist in cases like Roman Polanski's rape of a child is because men, especially but not uniquely, heterosexual white men, are culturally entitled to be believed and admired. We transfer this information to children very early in life.

Three years ago, I listened while a 14-year-old girl in the back seat of my car described how angry she was that her parents had stopped allowing her to walk home alone just because a girl in her neighborhood "claimed she was raped." When I asked her if there was any reason to think the girl's story was not true, she said, "Girls lie about rape all the time." She didn't know the girl; she just assumed she was lying. I pulled the car over so I could talk to the girls about assumptions, who gets to be believed, and how culture portrays women. Fun times with Mom.

Mothers, of course, are often the problem. In Farrow's case, there is no end of demonizing her mother, Mia Farrow, as a psychotic, vengeful woman who, in 1992, trumped up charges during a custody battle in the wake of Allen's affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. This weekend, Allen's representatives issued this statement: "At the time, a thorough investigation was conducted by court appointed independent experts. The experts concluded there was no credible evidence of molestation; that Dylan Farrow had an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality; and that Dylan Farrow had likely been coached by her mother Mia Farrow. No charges were ever filed."

Celebrities called out in Farrow's letter for supporting Allen have also responded, more or less all in the same vein: This is a private family matter. No one will ever be able to prove one way or another what Allen did or did not do to Farrrow.

But it's not a private family matter. It's a public, systemic one.

That everyone "knows" girls and women lie about sexual assault is a dangerous and enduring myth. A survey of college students revealed that the majority believed up to 50% of their female peers lie when they allege rape, despite wide-scale evidence and multi-country studies that show the incidence of false rape reports to be in the 2%-8% range. Yes, there are false claims, but they occur in roughly the same numbers as false claims for other crimes. As the Equality for Women's Charles Clymer pointed out recently, based on FBI and Department of Justice information, "The odds of the average straight man (the target group overwhelmingly concerned with this) in the U.S. being accused of rape are 2.7 million to 1."

The chances of actually being sexually assaulted?

1 in 3-to-4 for girls (before they turn 18)

1 in 5-to-7 for boys (before they turn 18)

1 in 5 for women

1 in 77 for men

Much of our research is categorized in these binaries, but studies of LGBTQ communities, show numbers are even higher for non-binary, non-gender conforming people, with studied rates of sexual assault and intimate partner violence as high as 50%

When victims come forward they almost always face massive resistance, public criticism, are often threatened by their assailants and re-traumatized by having to recount their assaults repeatedly. In public, it runs the gamut from random celebrities, like Stephen King tweeting about Farrow’s “bitchery” to newspapers creating “spiteful woman” narratives.

While male victims face similar responses and are often not believed, as evidenced particularly by reports of military rapes, distrust of women isn't limited to myths about allegations of sexual assault but includes doubts about their competence and credibility in the workplace, in courts, by law enforcement, in doctors' offices, and in our political system. As Dahlia Lithwick pointed out in 2012, an entire political party's agenda is being pursued under a rubric that women cannot be trusted and need "permission slips" and "waiting periods." The pervasive message that women are untrustworthy liars is atomized in our culture.

When you stop and think about the overwhelming incidence of the sexual abuse of women and children and what it means in terms of our culture, it is staggering. Just over 42% of female rape victims are first raped before they turn 18, 29.9% between the ages of 11 and 17, and 12.3% of female victims and 27.8% of male victims are raped when are 10 or younger. It is highly unlikely that these are stranger rapes and highly likely that these are trusted adults.

This is what Mia Fontaine calls "America's Incest Problem." Only 3 out of every 100 perpetrators are ever convicted and imprisoned but their victims suffer lifelong consequences, not the least of which is the realization that society chooses not to believe them. When the aggressor is an adult with authority, like a parent, the psychological effects are amplified and uniquely devastating.

In case it’s not clear, I don’t actually think we should be teaching children to film their abuse. However, given these realities, it’s a sad truth that it would make our relentless unwillingness to look this problem in the eye much, much harder.

It is long past the time that Woody Allen can be charged in this case. The prosecutor at the time believed there was probable cause, but declined to press charges in order not to expose Farrow "to possible harm.” If there is a ray of hope, it is that Farrow wrote her letter and that it is a source of strength for others who've experienced what she has. The hashtag #believedylanfarrow means a great deal to millions of sexual assault survivors who understand what it takes to come forward publicly.

In the end, you have to decide, as Salon's Roxane Gay said yesterday, if you'd rather be mistaken believing her, or believing him. Or, as Aaron Bady put it in The New Inquiry, "Until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it's important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her."

[FourthBase]

In the end, you have to decide, as Salon's Roxane Gay said yesterday, if you'd rather be mistaken believing her, or believing him.

Wait, so, we're supposed to be less averse to falsely accusing a person of a heinous crime, if that were the case? And then, what, in the event of there being no way to ascertain with any confidence what really happened, we're then left committed to adhering to that one stance, in order to avoid ever making the mistake of making what is supposed to be the worse mistake to make? That's implied in that either/or, right? I despise unnecessary either/or's. That might be one of the most insidious examples of it I've ever seen. The only sense in which it might be defensible is if the person suspected of the crime is felt to be an actionable risk to keep committing the crime unless swiftly and unambiguously interrupted, exposed, opposed as a precaution. Otherwise, we're talking about being okay with the rare instances when someone is falsely alleged to have committed a crime, okay with a life being unfairly destroyed, because to ever not take the side of a person claiming victimhood risks making a worse mistake, even on those rare occasions when the only mistake actually made winds up being accusing someone of something they never did. Oops. Oh well. Thinkofthevictims! You can't cook up an omelette of justice without breaking a few eggshells, I guess, eh? Why should anything a victim says ever have to be substantiated, right. Role reboot, right. The role of the fascist, it seems, perhaps. Except it'd be a kind of fascism oblivious to its own nature as fascism, a fascism which thinks it's the exact opposite of fascism. Nothing must be spared to provide justice for the oppressed, etc. That's the subtextual takeaway for me, anyway. Anti-co-sign. Consul had a theoretical gun to our heads earlier. Yeah, no thanks. Pass. I prefer to keep thinking. There is no gun to my head.

Or, as Aaron Bady put it in The New Inquiry, "Until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it's important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her."

And, again, this exhortation is not incompatible with a Mia-warped-her-mind interpretation.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Woody Allen Responds to Daughter's Sexual Abuse Allegations

http://gawker.com/the-new-york-times-ha ... 1518650966

Friday night, the New York Times published Woody Allen's response to his adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow's open letter, in which she detailed her sexual assault allegations against Allen. In the response, Allen denied abusing Farrow, blaming the ordeal on the fallout from his "acrimonious breakup" with her mother, Mia:

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn't molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary's home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I'd go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Allen wrote that Dylan told the first doctor who examined her that she had not been molested by her father, but changed her story after Mia took her out for ice cream. He also claims he passed a lie detector test and was cleared by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital:

This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: "It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan's statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan's statements. First, that Dylan's statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan's statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan's allegations of sexual abuse."

Allen addressed the rumors that Frank Sinatra was Ronan Farrow's father, saying Mia Farrow's admission that it was a possibility calls into question her "integrity and honesty." And, further attacking Farrow, he said that the location of the alleged assault—an attic—was inspired by a song by Dory Previn, whose husband Allen said Farrow stole.

He also questioned whether Dylan wrote her open letter:

One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother's shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

Finally, he again denied molesting Dylan and said he hoped that she will someday "reconnect" with Soon-Yi and himself. He ended with this:

No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

Comments (in part):

thedjandiUTaylor Berman451L
I don't have the energy to read it. I already predicted it would contain some victim blaming and he would continue the narrative the Mia is a vindictive shrew that planted memories. Was I wrong? Is there anything new or shocking? Today 8:56pm


thedjandiUthedjandi191L
Come at me, trolls. I am ready with my "x" button powers. Today 9:04pm


FlorbUthedjandi381L
No victim blaming. He does blame Mia, but why wouldn't he? Her own child (Moses) and the investigators that thoroughly examined the allegations years ago concluded that Mia was (at least partially) responsible. Today 9:06pm


guggenslimeUthedjandi101L
It really didn't contain any victim blaming (side note: I hate woody and think he's guilty) Today 9:06pm


guggenslimeUthedjandi11L
It really didn't contain any victim blaming (side note: I hate woody and think he's guilty) Today 9:07pm


BorealisUthedjandi111L
Not really.

No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing.

That about sums it up, I think. He also pretty much disowns Ronan and doesn't try and claim his as a son, even bringing Mia's infidelity with Frank as an indicator that she is not trustworthy. Really, Woody? Really?

The MRAs will no doubt have a field day with it. Today 9:08pm


floribundasUthedjandi121L
Yep. That pretty much sums it up. Oh, with the added invention on Allen's part that Dylan got the idea about the attic from a song on a Dory Previn album that has a song about Mia Farrow's seduction of her husband. And Dylan would have heard this album because . . . .? Also, some nice false equivalency—again—between Farrow running off with Frank Sinatra and Allen's fucking his kid's teen sister. (Oh, yeah, he ages up Soon-Yi into her "early twenties.")

Yeah, nothing new. Today 9:09pm


guggenslimeUfloribundas71L
I took it to mean Mia got the idea from the song but maybe I read too quickly. Today 9:10pm


flamingolingoUthedjandi161L
You got it right. He repeats basically every argument that all of his defenders have been using, right down to Mia granting permission for the Golden Globes to use a film clip in which she stars to honor Allen.

Except he surprised me by addressing the rumors about Ronan Farrow's parentage. He suggests that Mia's admission that Ronan might be Frank's is further evidence that she's an untrustworthy bitch.

What's weird is that he mainly talks about Ronan in terms of the child support he might have been tricked into paying. And there's a brief mention of how he didn't really know his son, yet he talks at length about how much he adored Dylan. I found that a little weird.

The letter doesn't convince me at all, of course.It makes him look self-centered, petty, and spiteful. Predictably, he portrays himself as nothing but a loving father and an innocent man who's never done anything untoward ever and who was tricked and harassed by a crazy shrew for decades. And there's a weird conspiracy-theory air to the whole thing with his theorizing about the attic.

This letter was a big mistake. It reads like none of his people vetted it.

Woody Allen is gonna be the men's rights movement's biggest hero. Today 9:12pm


thedjandiUBorealis31L
Hmm, the Ronan stuff is interesting. After the Sintra thing came out, Woody said something along the lines of "that's ridiculous, of course he is my kid."

I guess when blaming Mia for everything has worked so well to avoid the actual problem that a daughter is claiming abuse and to deflect from the Soon-yi thing, why not double down do it some more? Today 9:13pm


ReefTime
Well, it wouldn't be that Dylan heard the song on her own (although that is possible if it was being played in the house), but more likely that, if Mia did indeed coerce her daughter into making these allegations, she based this "made-up story" on this song.

BorealisUthedjandi61L
That's how I felt too.... deflect, deflect, deflect.

Also, now I feel sorry for Dylan AND Ronan. Today 9:15pm


ReefTime
But I am curious how all of this can ever be sorted out? Is she taking him to Court? What legal response is available anyways in this type of case?

nightobeisance
Read it again: Allen's saying Mia had the idea to use the attic, not Dylan.

nightobeisanceUguggenslime11L
No, you're correct. He suffers from pronoun overuse, but the last person mentioned is Mia, and he continues speaking only of her in that passage. Today 9:17pm


callistagingrich
He was saying that that's where MIA got it.

nightobeisance
I maintain that Mia's an untrustworthy bitch based on everything I've read. None of that means Dylan is a liar.

nightobeisanceUthedjandi41L
He's done pretty much what's been expected, yes. I expected victim blaming that didn't appear, but no, just Mia. I think she's a piece of work for sure, but that doesn't mean Woody didn't molest their daughter. Today 9:20pm


slugboy70Uthedjandi81L
You shouldn't make definitive statements about something you didn't read. Today 9:22pm


thedjandiUBorealis41L
This is a wild speculation but it got me thinking:

Woody probably didn't have control when this was published (unless his lawyers worked something out), but think of the timing. It's Friday night. 9pm on the east coast (west coast here, so 6PM), and what is currently blowing up Twitter and Facebook feeds? The Opening Ceremonies broadcast. The response, for now, will stay buried. Today 9:22pm


mburgerUthedjandi31L
I think it is fair to point out the fact that during the custody/child support battle he was DEFINITELY Ronan's father. Today, weeellll maybe not. Mia should at least stick to her guns on the paternity issue too. Today 9:23pm


NjedwinaUFlorb151L
From Maureen Orth:

Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded 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.”

In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine.

The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2... Today 9:23pm


UngratefulDeadUthedjandi21L
In fairness (and I think Woody is guilty!) there really isn't a way to deny a rape charge that wouldn't be "victim blaming." I think he's lying and everything but his position is that there is no victim to be blamed. Today 9:25pm


_MCA_Uslugboy7061L
What is the point of arguing with someone that is proudly going to police [his] own thread? Remember that saying about wrestling with the pig... Today 9:26pm


Strider2Uthedjandi61L
Impartiality must be a foreign word here at gawker. Either that or everyone has a first hand account. Today 9:26pm


slugboy70U_MCA_1L
Yeah- there's no point to what I did- Today 9:27pm


BorealisUthedjandi11L
Not wild speculation at all, really! Your point is very apt. Didn't think of that, even though here I am, watching the opening ceremonies on east coast. I wouldn't be surprised if he had control over when it was published, he's a power player with lots of powerful people ready to leap to his defense. Today 9:28pm


kolleenbeeUthedjandi71L
I'm tired too. Skimmed it, saw Mia's name about eighty times, passed.

If I have to hear from one more guy I know "BUT MIA SLEPT AROUND" as if that means Woody couldn't have assaulted a 7 year old I am going to kill myself. Today 9:29pm


_MCA_UStrider241L
They handed out crystal balls last week. Mines in HD! Today 9:29pm


goldiewilsonlivesUfloribundas21L
That's not exactly aging Soon Yi up. Her exact age is not known as she has no birth records. It is believed she was either nineteen or twenty-one when they started their relationship. Today 9:30pm


thedjandiUslugboy7031L
I didn't make statements. I predicted two or three days ago on the Defamer article that it would be victim blaming and the Mia is crazy/vindictive/planted memories. I've had a rough few days and I'm not in the mood to read his response (especially since it would be the same old Woody bullshit), so I just wanted confirmation that my prediction was true. I was half-right, and I am learning a few other things (he's now claiming Dylan isn't his kid). I'll definitely read it over the weekend, Today 9:31pm


chillpillUthedjandi61L
He refers to Dylan as "the child." That's all I need to know. Today 9:31pm


burningdiscolovemachineUflamingolingo71L
The character smearing he does of Mia and his fondness for false equivalence detract greatly from his credibility here, IMO. I like how he refers to himself in the third person directly after quoting the New Haven investigative team findings. His final sentence (his concern for hurting "too many people" and refusing to speak about the issue ever again) reminds me of the Bill O'Reilly intern falafal incident — where Papa Bear addressed the issue, minimized his responsibility and involvement in it and peremptorily declared the issue to be over and that he would never speak of it again. So the guilty party (in O'Reilly's case) gets to put an end to all discussion? Urgh. Today 9:32pm


floribundasUguggenslime11L
Yeah, you're probably right. I keep forgetting that Allen doesn't really see Dylan as a person with her own memories. Today 9:32pm


whoa-disillusionmentUthedjandi31L
I don't think anyone is pointing out that his comment about that attic song is WORD FOR WORD from an anynomous poster on the original daily beast article. Today 9:32pm


thedjandiU_MCA_11L
I'm a dude. Try again. I'm dismissing the trolls, not dismissing healthy discourse (notice I didn't dismiss slugboy70). Today 9:34pm


EazyPezy
I read that as the song inspired the story Mia fed to Dylan. Not that Dylan heard the song. This would support his assertion that the entire episode was made up by Mia.

ElliePelliePicklepants
Replying to get you out of the grey. Great citations and facts. Thank you.

thedjandiUchillpill11L
ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhlllllllll. Barf. Today 9:35pm


floribundasUflamingolingo31L
Oh, I expect it was vetted. But shmuck persona aside, Allen's a powerful guy who's used to having things his way. He would have had final say. But I'm glad he wrote it because it reveals his mind at work—Mia's irredeemably evil and he, Woody, is a saint who never did anything wrong. I've seen similar comments by him, but it's nice to have something recent. Today 9:35pm


thedjandiUkolleenbee1L
Please don't kill yourself! Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I know the feeling. We'll all be dead by Monday. Today 9:36pm


cmi0616
It's not victim blaming if there's no victim to blame (besides that of a child who was caught up in a messy separation between parents). As Mr. Allen said, I'm all for victims speaking out, and I think if perpetrators are found guilty they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That said, the day when an…

FlorbUNjedwina1L
Okay.. are you addressing something I said in specific or do you think just copy pasting an article is equivalent to an argument? Where does any of that refute a single thing I said? Today 9:37pm


slugboy70Uthedjandi1L
Read it- then we'll talk. Today 9:37pm


thedjandiUflamingolingo11L
Break out the fedoras! Today 9:38pm


abrasax2Uthedjandi81L
Regarding 'planting memories' we should note that in cases where children were 'brainwashed' or coerced (such as the McMartin trials) the children, usually when they grew up realized what had really happened. Dylan, on the other hand, is sticking to her story well into her adult life. That would have to be some super powerful brainwashing if that's the case. 59 minutes ago


thedjandiUmburger1L
I think she doesn't actually know. There was speculation that Ronan might do a paternity test and try to match it with the Sinatra children, but it sounds like he isn't interested. 59 minutes ago


burningthemidnightoilUBorealis11L
Well, Mia is not trustworthy. Woody may not be either, but Mia definitely is not. 58 minutes ago


L Ron FlubbardUwhoa-disillusionment21L
OMG. Link?? How amazing would that be if a) he runs around commenting on the internet on these Dylan articles, or b) he straight up copied some rando's internet comment for his statement in the New York Fucking Times. 58 minutes ago


floribundasUBorealis21L
There's a 2011 interview in the Guardian where the interviewer notes how Allen deflects and doesn't answer the actual questions:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/mar/....

Moses, Dylan and Ronan are "those children" at that point. 58 minutes ago


burningthemidnightoil
It was Mia who he said got the idea about the attic from the song.

FlorbUNjedwina31L
By the way, that article is supposed to be a list of facts but I can spot a complete falsehood already. It claims that "The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow."

However, that is absolute not true.

"Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality." At one point, he said she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyr...

56 minutes ago

MysticlightsUthedjandi31L
This was purposeful timing - negative celebrity news is best published on a Friday to get buried. 56 minutes ago


thedjandiUMysticlights21L
Yep. The only better timing would be the night before a national holiday. 55 minutes ago


nightobeisanceUfloribundas1L
Dead link. 54 minutes ago


BorealisUburningthemidnightoil21L
He's basing her lack of trustworthiness (at least in part) on her infidelity. Woody definitely fucked her daughter (Soon-yi). That's pretty unfaithful and therefore pretty untrustworthy by his own standards. 52 minutes ago


L Ron FlubbardUburningdiscolovemachine11L
I think I recall hearing about some undisclosed amount they paid her out of court, and that was why we never heard anything from her again. IIRC, O'Reilly made that statement right after they paid her. Anyway I wonder if this is something Allen has tried or is thinking about doing. I hope he doesn't, but he's probably in the wealth bracket where hush money is common. 51 minutes ago


burningthemidnightoil
...the day when an accusation is all it takes to lock somebody up is a dark day indeed.

slugboy70Uthedjandi11L
Yeah you should read it- this thing right here that you wrote-

(he's now claiming Dylan isn't his kid)

I don't know who sold you that bill of goods. One- biologically, she's not- she was adopted. Two- Adopted or not is beside the point he never even suggests that he has disowned her.

Read it and we'll talk because you seem to be getting some pretty shitty info from some of the folks posting on your thread... 50 minutes ago


goldiewilsonlives
No victim blaming. Blames Mia, sure, but you know... that's exactly what he would do if he were innocent, so...

RandomBurnerAccount
I'm not sure "she slept around" is why he brings up the parentage issue. I think what he's getting at is that if she says "Ronan is yours" in a child support hearing and "Ronan is not yours" in VF, her central motivating force might be how she can maximize pain inflicted on Woody, not how she can maximize her honesty.

thedjandiUthedjandi1L
Fuck. Ronan, not Dylan. Can't fucking edit. 47 minutes ago


thedjandiUslugboy7011L
I fucked that one up. I meant Ronan, and I can't edit it. 47 minutes ago


Brado1999UFlorb21L
Yeah why wouldn't he blame Mia? Because he has no choice but to. As a lawyer who has handled cases involving sex crimes, his rebuttal and detailed attacks on Mia' s character are consistent (though much more complex) with what I have heard predators use to smear victims or the vindictive family member who's behind a child's allegation, while explaining their motivation to lie.

I don't know much about Mia Farrow. But she does have a lot of children that she has cared for. It's not reasonable to me to believe she would destroy her child's psyche because she's a spurned lover and is vindictive. And to continue it all these years later? Woody Allen is the one who sexually connected and married a woman that he was a father to and had known since she was a small child. His character and judgment are more questionable than hers. 45 minutes ago


floribundasUnightobeisance11L
Try this:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/mar/... 42 minutes ago


burningdiscolovemachineUL Ron Flubbard11L
This case is obviously much more complicated whereas in the O'Reilly case it was pretty obvious he was liable. An a-hole windbag like O'Reilly would not settle to make a frivolous case go away. He'd BLOW IT UP and use it to make some point about tort reform or something. What I was referring to was that in both cases, the final "I'm not going to talk about this any more" speaks to a sense of entitlement (i.e., I (and only I) can determine that this issue is settled and all discussion of it shall hereby end forever.) O'Reilly is a bullying dick and did it in a dick fashion. Woody does it out of ostensible concern for the "too many people" hurt by all this — when it's kind of clear (given the smearing of Mia in the letter) he's hardly taking the high road at all. His supposed compassion and sensitivity to the pain of others reads more as a cover for his own evasion — e.g., That's that, and I'm not going to discuss the matter further! Eh, good luck with that, Woody. 41 minutes ago


slugboy70Uthedjandi21L
But he doesn't even disown Ronan- here I'll quote:

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.

That's a little more nuanced then saying "That kid is not even mine" and does raise reason questions about Mia Farrow's character.

My take on it: Who knows? But between the coclusions the investigating body came to added with the comments by Moses Allen, who is a Family Therapy professional- I think there is enough doubt here that people should maybe suspend their judgement against someone that has not been convicted of a crime. 40 minutes ago


chocoshatnerUFlorb1L
That article was written by Woody's professional asslicker. Other accounts, written by others, are completely different. 37 minutes ago


FlorbUBrado199921L
Yeah why wouldn't he blame Mia? Because he has no choice but to. As a lawyer who has handled cases involving sex crimes, his rebuttal and detailed attacks on Mia' s character are consistent (though much more complex) with what I have heard predators use to smear victims or

So what makes his account consistent with what "predators use to smear victims" (even though at no point does Allen attack Dylan in any way) and not consistent with someone who is tired of the false accusations?

I don't know much about Mia Farrow. But she does have a lot of children that she has cared for. It's not reasonable to me to believe she would destroy her child's psyche because she's a spurned lover and is vindictive. And to continue it all these years later? Woody Allen is the one who sexually connected and married a woman that he was a father to and had known since she was a small child. His character and judgment are more questionable than hers.

You are already off to a bad start.

1. Allen was NOT the father of Soon Yi. Niether a biological father, nor a step father, nor even an adoptive father. Soon Yi was the adopted child of Andre Previn. In fact, Farrow had conceded "Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her."

2. He did not approach Soon-Yi in any sexual manner until she was already an adult.

3. While I agree with you that it's unusual that a daugther would falsely accuse a parent of this; the same is true of Moses account. Why would he insist the opposite and defend his father? He was much older than Dylan, and therefore more apt to remember things correctly and lest susceptible to manipulation.

I don't know the answer to why, but it's not like it's a "wash" in one direction; no matter which side you land on, you have to conceive of a child accusing a parent of something disturbing. 35 minutes ago


burningthemidnightoilUBorealis11L
Even if he is untrustworthy, she is, too. That's the point. Yes, she asked a person to lie for her. She asked multiple people to lie for her. She is not trustworthy. Get it? How dense are you? 34 minutes ago


FlorbUchocoshatner1L
Do you have any evidence of that? Please show me evidence that "Richard Perez-Pena" is such a "professional asslicker" that he would completely fabricate a story over a decade ago just to support Woody Allen.

You can't just make things up, you need to provide evidence. 33 minutes ago


L Ron Flubbard
Who said he's going to be locked up? I don't think anyone has expressed any interest in pressing charges.

mburgerUthedjandi1L
I am sure she doesn't and I think Ronan is basically Schrodinger's child at this point so it makes sense for him to believe the happiest narrative and live that.

I am not sure what the hell is going on here because without the nasty custody dispute and Mia's nonsense the abuse seems more concrete. Without Son-yi I would find Dylan/Mia's clam more difficult to comprehend. In reality none of these things are really indicators that something did or did not happen so I am having trouble getting all ragey at either person... 25 minutes ago


lollygag
Dam the page is gone.

SybilT2
I agree — I think the letter was a mistake. I suppose it is not impossible that Dylan's sincere belief that she was molested is based on some kind of false memory, but Allen's letter is not persuasive to me, first of all, because it mischaracterizes some of the legal proceedings and investigations that went on. Worse…

BorealisUburningthemidnightoil1L
How dense are you? Where did I claim she was trustworthy? I take issue with the fact that a known philanderer used infidelity as proof of her being untrustworthy. Fucking piss poor argument on his part. Grossly hypocritical when he is asking us to trust him. 21 minutes ago


FlorbUthedjandi1L
It's not true in any case. He doesn't claim that Ronan isn't his kid either. He says IF he's not, then that hurts Farrow's credibility. A pretty damn reasonable thing to say. 19 minutes ago


burningthemidnightoilUBorealis1L
You criticized his basing her lack of trustworthiness on her philandering. I'm saying that criticism holds no water because it is, indeed, an indicator that someone is not trustworthy. That he may not be trustworthy is beside the point that he's making. 19 minutes ago


thedjandiUFlorb21L
That's what Woody does best: Slut Shame Mia, because somehow her private sexual life is related to the fact his daughter has claimed he sexually abused her. It's all smoke and mirrors to deflect and cause doubt on Dylan's claims. 15 minutes ago


BorealisUburningthemidnightoil1L
How is it beside the point? If we are to believe him, he must be trustworthy. This is an absolute. If he himself is setting the bar (or at least one of them) at fidelity - he fails his own test.

You using statements like "may not be trustworthy" implies you are either unsure whether or not he was unfaithful (fact shows us he was) or that you are okay with us judging Mia by his standard but not using it to judge him. 14 minutes ago


floribundasUgoldiewilsonlives11L
No, it's believed she was 19 or 20 when the relationship was discovered.

In 1992, Daisy Previn said in an interview that her sister was 19. So, that's how she was seen, where she was in school, etc. Daisy Previn also said that Soon-Yi had never had a boyfriend and that she, Daisy, and the rest of them viewed Woody as more of a father than Andre Previn. 14 minutes ago


fugitUthedjandi11L
If he was innocent, what would he have said to convince you? 13 minutes ago


woodyallenpedophilerapist
She started her affair with Woody in at least her senior year in high school. She would have been between 16 and 19. The years Allen likes them. 20s would be too old

woodyallenpedophilerapist
Link, please?

SannaKJUFlorb1L
The whole thing is victim blaming. Instead of coming right out and saying "she's a lying liar!" he's essentially saying she's weak and easily manipulated and none of this would be happening if she wasn't so easily bullied by her mother. It benefits him to make her look like she's unstable and he's not. And added kudos for "any rational person would see the ploy for what it was," implying that he and his supporters are the only non crazy people in the room and attempting to shut discussion down via insults and name calling. This is a fun tactic narcissists and abusers are adept at using. 8 minutes ago


Chariotdrvr14
Not trolling. But it's unfair to assume one side is right while refusing to hear the other side of it.
That's all.

La Diablesse
The scariest part is his complete denial of Dylan's autonomy. It's not enough to belabor the absurd "implanted memory" theory. Nope. Allen must also go on to suggest that Mia Farrow, not Dylan, wrote the letter to the New York Times. Or she "guided" it, whatever that means. (Isn't Dylan Farrow a 27 year old grown woman?)

floribundasUBrado19991L
Yep. A good defense attorney always comes up with a defense, but it doesn't mean it's "fair" or just. The Allen PR team has worked at discrediting Farrow for years, but outside stuff just doesn't hold up.

In my meanderings across the Internet, I came across a poster at Datalounge who described seeing Allen taking Dylan everywhere on the UES in the early 90s. His theory was that Soon-Yi was actually a distraction from Allen's obsession with Dylan and that Mia's real sin wasn't being a jealous shrew, but an enabler who turned a blind eye to Allen's inappropriate behavior with Dylan for too long. 4 minutes ago


FlorbUSannaKJ1L
Yeah, that's ridiculous. First of all, she was a child at the time. Any child would be easily manipulated. To say that suggesting a child could have been manipulated by the mother is blaming the child is ludicrous. Second of all, if Dylan was indeed manipulated... what other recourse would Allen have other than to say just that?

You complain about insults, yet how those that sentence even begin to compare to the insults Farrow and Dylan have launched against him? If insults are bad, and a tactic of discrediting your opponent, then Farrow has done much worse... 2 minutes ago


PetyrBaelishUburningthemidnightoil1L
It's not the philandering, its the child support and custody battle. It implies Mia was willing to go into court and lie about something fairly fundamental. I don't know who to believe and I'm biased toward Woody Allen because, I know Woody Allen from his work and he's a public figure.

But this isn't a simple case, unless you want to assume everyone who is accused is guilty.

[justdrew]

I would also like to remind, for those who don't know, what a piece of shit Frank Sinatra was.

There are allegations that Sinatra took Marilyn Monroe on a 'date' drugged her and hung out while his mafia pals filmed her gang rape. The film likely still exists somewhere. He was mad at her you see.

Woody Allen Speaks Out
By WOODY ALLEN | FEB. 7, 2014

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.

I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.

NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?

Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)