to believe, and be heartbroken by Woody Allens step-daughters testimony

[fromparistoberlin]

kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/

I read this last night and it just about broke my heart

I believe her, and I am just so saddened by it

How the hell did he not get prosecuted

brave brave girl, and I feel awful as I have watched and enkoyed his films, even knowing of this murky tale in the background

In think this is hideous. I do believe her and no I don't have a favourite Woody Allen movie, I think they're all crap.

Mothership, we have each quoted different lines from that same source. We just don't see the same meaning in some of the vaguaries enclosed in legalese.

I find it sad that when a male child expresses his views that his mother has abused him the 'we must believe the statements of an abused child' do not hold as true as they do for a female child accusing a male figure.

You ask why Moses is more credible than his siblings - I don't think he is - but would ask why you think he is less credible and choose to doubt his story?

That needs context, RightRoyal. It is being used out of it on this thread. Take heed of the 'helplessly' part. I have already posted that he was, imo, saying that his persona is/was so out of kilter with 'regular' society that there was nothing he could not be accused of, that he was not above reproach, that many people would find it very easy to believe even the worst of him.

Given this thread, he may have been right.

I believe Dylan believes it. I also think memory is an extremely tricky thing and that it is far less reliable than it can seem. And that the age of seven is extremely young to have firm and solid memories from.

Plus with all the other child abuse cases exposed recently (Jimmy Saville et al) numerous victims have come out of the woodwork so it seems strange that there is only one in this case.

I believe WA. Because he's innocent until proven guilty and there is not enough proof here. It's not a crime to be a bit creepy nor is what he did with Soon Yi a crime. The case against him abusing Dylan was dismissed years ago and nothing new has come to light - just faded memories and confusion.

I can't really pick a favourite of his movies but loved Blue Jasmine. Also loved Annie Hall. I loved how in his old movies his female leads could be so neurotic and ditsy but also really smart and capable all at the same time. As an anxious person I have identified with him a lot over the years and appreciated it how he made it okay to laugh at my fears and insecurities. Maybe that's the difference in who believes what.

nomama But you haven't answered my question, what evidence is out there that the judge came to the wrong conclusions? Is it only Moses that makes you think so badly of MF that you think her capable of this?

I don't say Moses is less credible than his siblings but when I ask why people believe that MF made it all up and coached Dylan everyone seems to jump in with 'because Moses said so'.

You say However taking all the evidence we internet detectives have at our fingertips, I am not sure that those memories are hers. I say on what evidence/sources? And if it's only Moses then on balance with the judges report and the rest of his siblings on the other side of the scale, it appears weighted against him.

Did you honestly read page 26 of the report? Moses is conscious that the 6 Previn children have a father and he asks WA to be his, he was very hurt when when WA had an affair with his sister he describes WA's relationship with his sister SY as a horrible, needy, unforgivable, stupid thing.

So apart from Moses is there anything else that makes you so sure MF is lying? What supports your belief that WA is telling the truth?

NotJust The case against WA abusing Dylan was not dismissed at all, in fact the District Attorney handling it said publicly that there was probable cause but decided not to proceed because of the fragility of the alleged victim.

"Calling someone a child molester should be against the law if a court hasn't convicted them of a crime"

It probably can be done via libel or defamation already.

Problem WA has is if he reaches for the law, she gets more oxygen of publicity and probably a bigger sympathy vote, so he has little option but to grin and bear it and hope public opinion starts to go his way.

Sorry mothership, I missed your specific question.

As I have said a few times before, I lived through this and have memories of the, fairly limited, reporting of it at the time - t'internet not being as grown up as it is now. But the legal teams of the day did not cover themselves in glory. The judge did what judges do, pronounce upon the likelihood of a thing. I have not said he was wrong - I just don't agree with your interpretation of what he said in some parts of the source you have linked to. He had a viewpoint... he also said it could not be proved.... it was his opinion! Not a judgment.

No, Moses is not the only factor in my thinking Farrow is capable of nastiness if it suits her needs. I have already posted about that - Dory Previn, Sinatra, etc. But if you don't know about that then I can't blame you for not understanding how it has coloured my view of Farrow.

As for the rest of Moses and the all important(??!!) page 26, I am assuming that, like most of us, Moses grew up and had a rethink.... maybe not, he may still have those thoughts. So what?

I have not said I disbelieve Dylan (how many time do I have to reiterate that?) but I would suggest that Moses current viewpoint is as likely to be the truth, or part thereof. We don't know. The evidence we internet detectives have is so very sketchy, bastardised by journalists with an agenda, sensationalised by people with a cause and filtered by our own experiences and beliefs. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant there! I mean we cannot know..... I am uncertain.... I will not judge either party....

From which you can take that I have not said that Farrow is lying. I have simply said that she has a past that makes her as likely to be at fault as Allen. I have no sympthay/empathy for either of them.

Nomama I have no sympthay/empathy for either of them. Have to say I agree with you there!

Ok, I think I get what you are saying, we will never know the truth of these allegations (unless WA makes a deathbed confession!) but for you MF is as dodgy as WA and Dylan too young and vulnerable to be reliable.

For me, on balance, and because I place more weight on those court documents than you, it falls in Dylan's favour. As I've said, many times, MF is no saint, did not have good family role models herself and obviously has some major issues, but there is nothing I've read about in her history to suggest that she would put her children though the trauma of an abuse investigation purely through vengeful malice.

And there we must agree to disagree, I have enjoyed having a reasonable conversation about this.

However I do still object to remarks like this
I had assumed it was because the sisterhood must protect its own, all victim statements must be taken at face value and, not forgetting the biggest, all men are evil.
I guess, looking at the wink, you weren't entirely serious but for all the generations of women and girls who we know suffered silently and weren't believed it feels you are belittling the efforts to turn the tide.

The first women who spoke up about their abuse at the hands of Savile received much of the same disbelief as Dylan Farrow is now. She's lying, she has no evidence, why is she saying this now? The charges were dismissed. She must be after his money.

Many people leaped to defend JS as they are now WA. Poor man, he can't defend himself against these allegations. It should be illegal. Why would he bother with them when he could have whomever he wanted?

Why does disbelief still seem to be the default response?

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Savile had been accused in his lifetime, people would have been queuing up to defend him and trash the victims and chances are that if it had gone to court, he would very probably have walked free.

That's the state of things. And it's appalling.

"Why does disbelief still seem to be the default response?"

Because the default response is 'innocent until proven guilty'. As others have said, the alternative is scary. We can't all automatically assume that someone is guilty simply because they've been accused.

I don't understand why people have such difficulty in separating the (criminal) legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" with the normal everyday life responses we all have of "what's the balance of probabilities?" (which is also the default position of civil law)

They only seem to have that problem with crimes which involve violence by men against women.

When it comes to something like burglary or fraud, they don't seem to have quite such a difficulty.

Odd that.

AskBasil I think people are weighing up the balance of probabilities, but you don't seem to like the fact they've weighed up the evidence differently to you and come to a different conclusion.

Not odd at all. I can't just go to the police and say "so and so robbed me" and they get sent to jail. It doesn't work like that for any crime!

Thanks for that post MothershipG

I have seen other posts likening this to Savile but it is not the same. With Savile, his victims were actively shut down/shut up by, amongst others, the Police and the BBC. Their complaints were not taken seriously or allowed to be aired.

In WA's case, Dylan's allegations were treated very seriously. She was questioned and assessed a number of times as well as having to undergo at least one medical examination. The results of all those investigations were that there was no physical evidence of abuse and that Dylan's testimony was not strong enough to initiate a court case.

ComposHat, the balance of probability, is that Dylan is telling the truth.

The rate of false allegations about childhood sexual abuse, is miniscule.

Very, very few children ever allege sexual abuse. Of those who do, most are telling the truth, even where the actual details they disclose are wrong.

Therefore, the statistical probability is that she is telling the truth. She may not be of course, WA may be one of those adults who are in the category of being wrongly accused. But the probabilities on this, are fairly clear cut.

So when people decide that they are going to go with the statistical improbability, rather than the statistical probability, then they're the ones who are swimming against the tide, not the other way round.

Not only that, but a team of investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital had studied Dylan's accusations and concluded that no sexual abuse had taken place and described Dylan as having "difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality." They concluded that Dylan had been coached by her mother. I tend to believe a whole team of researchers investigation in their own specialism over a trial court judge who overstepped his bounds even commenting.

Criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "statistical probabilities of random non similar cases without taking into account the specifics of this one!"

Great post AskBasil

Winter The case wasn't dropped because Dylan's testimony wasn't strong enough, the District Attorney who handled it thought it was. It was dropped because of the damage it was felt it would do to her.

I am perfectly aware of that Notacigar.

We're not in a court of criminal law. And yet some people are insistent that we conduct the discussion as if we are.

Why?

Maybe because when you're accusing someone in a public forum of one of the most horrific crimes imaginable you might want to be sure you're right first?