by NewYork44M 131 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Woody Allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Have you ever been accused of something you did not do? If that happens, what do you do?
Good. Thanks for the link.
Nobody knows who is guilty or innocent of the charges - not everybody thought Woody was necessarily as innocent as he claimed to be - Mia should have taken a lie detector test but then again, she wasn't the one charged - perhaps if Woody had charged her with something, she would have been forced to have a test done and that might have brought things one step closer to closure...sw
----------------------------
The Judge in the Custody case had this to say about Allen:
"his trial strategy has been to separate his children from their brothers and sister; to turn the children against their mother; to divide adopted children from biological children; to incite the family against their household help; and to set household employees against each other. His
self-absorption, his lack of judgement and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault, thereby impeding the healing of the injuries that he has already caused, warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children."
Allen vs. Farrow
"Found that there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult."
In fairness - here is her response - sw
8:27 PM PST 2/7/2014 by THR Staff
Woody Allen
Dylan Farrow has responded to an op-ed Woody Allen published by The New York Times Friday.
In the response, provided to The Hollywood Reporter, Farrow denounced Allen's op-ed -- in which he suggested Farrow's mother, Mia Farrow, had coached her to accuse Allen of sexually assaulting her as a child.
"I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life," Farrow said.
She went on to challenge other points in Allen's op-ed, calling it 'the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years."
Allen's op-ed came nearly one week after Farrow published an open letter on the Times website, where she detailed an alleged sexual assault Allen carried out on her when she was seven. Farrow is the adopted daughter of Allen and Mia Farrow.
The famous couple was together for 12 years, and split in 1992 after allegations of the abuse surfaced. Allen was never convicted of a crime relating to the allegations. In 1997 he married Soon-Yi Previn, also an adopted daughter of Farrow.
Read Farrow's full response below.
Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me - but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.
His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here:
With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.
iMO Allen seems much more credible than Farrow.I recently saw the Danish movie THE HUNT. It is about a school teacher that is falsely accused of molesting a five year old. The movie is absolutely exceptional. I highly recommend it.
Link to the custody ruling:
"Here's The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
*****************
ETA: Part of sammies post above is Dylan Farrow's response to Allen's latest ...writing. I hope people read and consider her response...
Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me - but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.
His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here:
With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
- Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".
- Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
- Found that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”
- Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
- Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.
Yeah, these "He said, she said" situations are always difficult, since most judicial systems assume the accused is innocent until the accuser presents compelling evidence to support their charges.
Being that implanted memories are a well-known phenomena, and eyewitness testimony is not-as-reliable as once thought (as explained by Dr Loftus, in the video below), it means sometimes the truly-guilty will go free due to a lack of compelling evidence, a more-desirable-situation than the truly-innocent being punished for crimes they didn't commit, based on false accusations and false memories (I know personally that some of the memories of childhood I thought were actual events are likely only memories of my childhood DREAMS, confirmed by asking siblings involved who didn't corroborate having an independent memory of such events. It happens, esp with young children, when the brain is more 'plastic' and memories are more-malleable).
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory.html
In these kinds of "he said, she said" situations, most are only going with their pre-conceived biases, anyway, siding with Dylan if they're predisposed to do (dealing with anti-authoritarian issues of their own), and side with Woody if they accept the principle of 'presumption of innocence' (OR if they're someone who sides with abusers and authoritarian figures).
In these kinds of "he said, she said" situations, most are only going with their pre-conceived biases, anyway, siding with Dylan if they're predisposed to do (dealing with anti-authoritarian issues of their own), and side with Woody if they accept the principle of 'presumption of innocence' (OR if they're someone who sides with abusers and authoritarian figures).
I accept the principle of 'presumtion of innocence' and yet I believe Dyan.
For me, it was a few things that swayed me. The lies he told (saying he had never been in the attic, ect), the twisting of the truth (like when he said agreed to a lie detector, but actually he refused a lie detector that could be admitted in court, only took one he paid for that could not be admitted into court...total JW-like twisting of things!), and the constant refusal to accept any responsibily for any of his actions...
Dylan's story on the other hand has not wavered.
Also, the fact that 'probable cause' was found to prosecute. That right there is a biggie for me. Doesn't mean he is guilty, but they had probable cause the prosecute.
I am not a jury and this is not a court and I don't have all the evidence before me. But based on the evidence I do have before me, I tend to believe Dylan and I tend to NOT believe Woody.
This has nothing to do with believing in the principle of 'presumption of innoncence', which of course I do believe in. If Woody had gone to trial he would be presumed innocent until he was proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, right now, he IS 'presumed innocent.'
Lisa said- Also, the fact that 'probable cause' was found to prosecute. That right there is a biggie for me. Doesn't mean he is guilty, but they had probable cause the prosecute.
Lisa, what case you're referring to (i.e. the case for which "probable cause existed to prosecute")? Has Woody Allen actually been prosecuted and tried in court for these allegations of child sexual abuse? That sounds highly suspicious to me, since why would Dylan be speaking out now?
But even if such PC existed and such a case had been heard and tried, PC needed to prosecute is a different matter from evidence having the ability to CONVICT someone of the charges. People often are prosecuted based on sufficient PC (as determined by the DA's office), only to later be found "not guilty" in a trial, since apparently the jury didn't agree with the prosecution the evidence was sufficent to hand down a conviction, and the jury has the final say.
