Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

499 replies

fromparistoberlin · 03/02/2014 09:01

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

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 09/02/2014 16:18

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

Not true at all. You just seem to think that is the case because we don't share your opinion on this occasion.

ComposHat · 09/02/2014 16:19

But these are specific cases involving specific individuals. Just because false allegations are comparatively rare doesn't mean you can automatically dismiss it as possibility or set aside evidence that suggests Woody Allen didn't abuse his daughter.

It is like someone saying 'I have bone cancer'

  • you can't have that it is very rare

I got beaten up in rural Suffolk.

  • that isn't likely to be true as Suffolk has the lowest rate of violent crime in England and Wales. Assualts there really are very rare.

Make judgements on what is known about the case, yes. But doing so on the basis of blind use of statistics is dangerous.

NakedTigarCub · 09/02/2014 16:20

Do the people you all are posting about know you are posting about them?

Did you know their relationship Wa and SY is none of our business and if you suspect abuse you should all report it?

Marrage and relationships are aparently not for public discuession Hmm

And you cant believe something if you dont have proof or evidance yourself!

Hmm

Dylan I believe you xx

NotJustACigar · 09/02/2014 16:23

I take it you're referring to posts about people whose names aren't given, Naked? Pretty big difference.

chicaguapa · 09/02/2014 16:25

Sorry if this has already been posted, but Victoria Coren covers this in her column today here I think she makes an excellent call.

NakedTigarCub · 09/02/2014 16:27

If you name a person and say something damaging that isnt true, provable or you have another written source for its liable. Is my understanding!

ComposHat · 09/02/2014 16:30

I found Coren's fevered imaginings voyeuristic and unpleasant.

NotJustACigar · 09/02/2014 16:33

I think what Victoria Coren says is about what I think about it - Dylan isn't lying but was traumatised by WA's betrayal withSoon Yi which caused her to get confused.

We'll never know for sure but also with most paedophiles do they really have just the one victim?

AskBasil · 09/02/2014 16:37

"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?"

So you don't need to be sure you're right if you're accusing someone of being a nutter or a liar on a public forum?

Because no-one here is accusing WA of a horrific crime. They are saying they do not automatically disbelief Dylan. That may seem a nice distinction, but it is a distinction.

winterkills · 09/02/2014 16:53

"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."

Precisely - because he knew the evidence for her case was not strong and therefore she would be subjected to a fierce dissection in court. The DA (Maco) did not say he thought the evidence was strong. He said he thought WA was 'probably guilty', and that was very wrong of him.

AskBasil · 09/02/2014 16:58

LOL winterkills.

You are obviously totally unfamiliar with the way that children whose testimony was strong enough were cross examined in court.

D'you think they were treated differently?

AskBasil · 09/02/2014 16:59

All rape victims are subjected to a "fierce dissection" in court, whether or not their testimony is strong.

Lazyjaney · 09/02/2014 17:36

"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)"

No, what you don't understand is why people think that "accusation = guilty by default" is a Bad Idea.

Do you really think it's vulnerable women who would gain most in a Guilty till proved Innocent world?

NotJustACigar · 09/02/2014 17:47

AskBasil, a lot of posters on here including I believe yourself have said they believe WA molested Dylan. Or am I wrong about that? I haven't accused Dylan of being a nutter or a liar, either. I just know that memory has been proven to be extremely unreliable and that we are terrible at judging whether our own memories are accurate or not. Especially memories dating back to when we were 7 years old. To be clear, I believe Dylan believes what she's said. I think she's most likely mistaken, however.

My own DH was accused of sexual harassment by a woman at his workplace. It later came out that she had lied. It almost destroyed his life. False accusations do happen. As do mistaken ones. There are probably some people reading this and thinking "yeah well your DH probably did it". Many people go around with the philosophy that theres no smoke without fire. Think about that - its awful what a false accusation can do.

MothershipG · 09/02/2014 17:53

I'd second Basil's lols - if it wasn't quite so sad that because the DA thought Dylan was too fragile to endure the ordeal of a court case some people seem to think that exonerates WA. Sad

As there was no physical evidence it comes down to her word against his.

But WA -
*denied ever being in the attic space - until presented with forensic evidence
*was already in treatment for his inappropriate behaviour towards her, including
*rubbing sun tan lotion between her bottom cheeks,
*resting his head in his lap facing towards her

*getting her to suck his thumb.
*being so obsessive about her and making her feel so uncomfortable around him that she tried to avoid him.

Of course none of this is proof that he finally took this one step further, but it is clearly an unhealthy pattern of behaviour. To everyone who blames MF I would say her biggest mistake was letting this man be around her children for as long as she did.

AskBasil · 09/02/2014 17:59

"No, what you don't understand is why people think that "accusation = guilty by default" is a Bad Idea. "

I do understand that, because you're setting up an Aunt Sally in your usual silly way. No-one thinks that "accusation=guilty by default" is a Good Idea and has said that it is.

MothershipG · 09/02/2014 18:02

NotJust I'm sorry that you have personal knowledge of a false accusation, it must have been terrible for you and your family.

Why do you think Dylan is mistaken?

winterkills · 09/02/2014 18:06

askbasil that's a fair point about the way those who allege rape/abuse are treated in court, I apologise for my clumsy wording.

nooka · 09/02/2014 18:07

I agree that memory can be unreliable, but in this case the allegation of abuse was contemporaneous. Dylan reported being abused 20 years ago and has maintained her account ever since. So if you don't believe her then you are saying that she lied then and ever since.

AskBasil · 09/02/2014 18:09

Notjustacigar, I haven't said I believe WA molested Dylan.

I have pointed out that the statistical probability is that she is telling the truth.

You've rightly pointed out that probability has to be weighed against individual circumstances.

As Mothership's post points out, the individual circumstances of this particular case don't really inspire optimism about this case bucking the statistical probability.

I can totally understand that people don't want to condemn anyone out of hand without a defence. Particularly without a legal defence which is right and proper. I just don't see why they have to pretend we're all in a court of law and need to ditch what we know about the context from any discussion. The context being that child abuse is far more common than we think, most allegations are true and most perpetrators are never brought to justice.

ComposHat · 09/02/2014 18:12

No nooka no one is saying Dylan Farrow lied, most people agree that she genuinely thinks she was abused by Woody Allen. The sticking point is that it is not clear that this abuse ever happened.

MothershipG · 09/02/2014 18:24

Compos So if you don't think Dylan is lying are you saying that MF somehow convinced her 7 year old daughter that it took place? How would she do that?

And if she went to all that trouble why would she say the incident took place during a visit when, to the best of her knowledge and on her specific instructions, WA was not alone with Dylan? Surely that would undermine her evil plan somewhat?

Why would WA then deny he was ever in the attic if it was all so above board?

nooka · 09/02/2014 18:26

If someone recounts an event that didn't actually happen, what else could that be but a lie? Whether you call it a fantasy or say her mother coached her doesn't really change that, these are just reasons why someone might lie. Of course children (and adults for that matter) don't always tell the truth, and yes there are different ways to interpret accounts, but I really can't imagine with this particular scenario how to give it a more innocent spin.

Bogeyface · 09/02/2014 18:26

Why is it that you cant say that you have doubts about the reliability of someones statement, without being accused of being an abuse apologist?!

I have said that I believe that SHE believes that what she is saying is the truth. However, there has been enough said by others who were in the house, and part of that family to create "reasonable doubt", thats all I and others are saying.

Saying "I believe you" is very important, it means that allegations are fully and comprehensively investigated. But equally, it means accepting that if the allegations are found to be unproven, or without sufficient evidence to prosecute (for whatever reason that may be) that the the allegations may not be wholly true.

Bogeyface · 09/02/2014 18:31

If someone recounts an event that didn't actually happen, what else could that be but a lie?

Thats a ridiculous thing to say! If she believes what she is saying is true then she isnt deliberately telling a falsehood in order to incriminate someone. There is a massive difference between knowingly and deliberately lying, and telling what you believe to be the truth even if it turns out that you were wrong.