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

CromeYellow may you be forgiven, WA running off with Soon Yi is ALSO relevant because it says that he has form for ignoring moral convention. I agree that it is not relevant to whether is he a paedophile.

And surely the Saville case could also show that a paedophile can become an icon and escape exposure for many, many years, simply because it's very difficult for many 'small' people to stand against such a person.

wouldbemedic, lots of people ignore social convention, it's no indication of an interest in or ability to sexually abuse children. Many child abusers are outwardly respectable, if he's not a paedophile then he's not going to abuse children in the first place.

With Saville (and others), once one or two allegations became public, the floodgates opened. There has never been any suggestion that Allen has abused any other child. Somebody would have come forward by now. They haven't.

I find it hard to believe that a man is going to become a first time child abuser at sixty.

The investigators believed the child was coached and manipulated by her mother, her nanny was pressured to lie and felt the need to leave her job because of the pressure, her brother claims that his mother is crazy, controlling, manipulative and bullied them into hating Allen, Allen passed a lie detector test at the time (which Mia refused to take).

It's not impossible but it's unlikely and it's wrong to condemn a man as a paedophile based on unproven, questionable allegations.

I believe her unfortunately.I do not like Woody Allen or the idiots that fawn over him.
What a stupid think to say.

I don't like Jeremy Clarkson or the idiots who fawn over him. But thst doesn't mean I think him any more or less likely to abuse a child on the basis of his work or personality.

Going purely on the basis of two probably biased reports referenced in this thread, we have Vanity Fair and the Beast telling very different stories about essentially the same events. So the Beast points out that the investigators said that either Dylan made it up or her mother coached her, which does indeed seem quite damning. But then you read the Vanity Fair article which states that the judge was fairly damning about the investigation, and also that the chief investigator apparently never met Dylan, and didn't speak to any potential witnesses. So then it sounds rather less conclusive to say the least.

Vanity Fair talks about the cop who basically accused WA of abuse despite not being able to bring a case. Also surely very unusual, and the Beast points out he was investigated and censured for it. But the glosses over the fact he was later exonerated. Also it can't have been that usual for a father to be legally denied access to his child. Of course there are documented cases of parental alienation, but I don't know how common they are compared to cases of abuse.

The Beast talks about Moses becoming reconciled with Allen, doesn't really touch much on the fact that none of the other children except Soon-Yi have contact with him, and his only biological child clearly despises him. The Beast seems to think that this is because there is a possibility that he might be Sinatra's biological son, but that seems to be more because the writer is enjoying a bit of slut shaming.

The whole thing looks like a bit of a mess. The reason I would veer on the side of belief is that at the time children were fairly routinely not believed, and celebrities had a lot of power, so brushing things under the carpet seems sadly really quite possible. But the only people who know what happened in this situation are Dylan and WA.

None of us are in a position to comment on the likelihood of WA becoming a child abuser at 60. It's certainly perfectly possible that Dylan was his first victim, however unlikely we might think it is.

We've no way of knowing which story - Mia's or WA is true. We can be fairly confident that clever professionals have gone to a lot of trouble to create and circulate both stories. We'll never get at the truth.

What needs to happen, I think, is that the investigation into the allegations should now go ahead. I understand Mia's desire to protect her child and keep Dylan out of the spotlight. But now Dylan seems to want to talk. And talk she should. I'd imagine that a professional will be able to tell very quickly if she is lying.

CromeYellow Woody running off with his then girlfriends adult daughter wasn't the nicest thing to do

That is so minimising. So you condone a man in his late 50's starting a sexual relationship with a vulnerable teenager, who also is his children's sister and the daughter of his partner of 10 years!

Is that not the definition of grooming???

Can you honestly say if you were that young person's mother or sibling you wouldn't find it a little beyond 'not nice'?

If these were everyday people and not in the public eye and he wasn't the 'great' Woody Allen would anyone think for a minute that it wasn't deeply creepy and inappropriate on so many levels?

If he wasn't woody allen TBH no-one would know about this.

Ridiculous to believe an open letter when that is really all that is known. Articles are all written from a certain perspective, and as for WA's son it was Mia who said in the Vanity Fair article that it may be Sinatras son.

WA is odd, to say the least. Mia Farrow has her own issues, and to carry on this campaign against WA for 10 years takes some energy. Still if it was WA making allegations against her, I'm sure the majority would still think he was a total w**r.

Paedophiles don't just abuse one child What nonsense.

A friend's brother only abused one of his daughters.

bobby The fact that Sinatra may be Ronan's biological father is irrelevant, he grew up with WA as his father and Soon Yi was his sister. His father then had an affair with, and married his sister.

If your daughter told you that her father had sexually abused her and then that man was being lauded and praised and awarded in public, would you not be outraged? Even after 10, 20 or 50 years? How long would have to pass before it was ok? Before she should have gotten over it?

I'm not saying Mia Farrow is a saint, she comes from a very dysfunctional/messed up family herself, but her daughter reported sexual abuse to her and she believed her.

Have you read Dylan's letter? She cannot avoid images of the man who abused her, I can't imagine how hard that must be for her.

MothershipG - Have you read Dylan's letter? She cannot avoid images of the man who abused her, I can't imagine how hard that must be for her.

I believe you have ommitted the word 'allegedly' there. Most of the last 40-odd messages are debating the fact that because one person (and it IS only one person) has accused Allen of abuse, so many people blindly state 'I BELIEVE HER' without knowing anywhere near the full set of facts.

Apologies for the random set of capitals in the middle there. Sausage fingers....

Paedophiles don't just abuse one child what a weird argument! According to that logic we should ignore all single allegations of child abuse and wait until a second (third? fourth? how many do we need?) victim comes forward.

akachan: "But you don't have to take sides, you aren't involved. Isn't a more sensible position to accept you don't know?"

Goodness, akachan, if everyone took that view, where on earth would we be? You'd deprive people of the enormous satisfaction of passing judgement on people they've never met based on hearsay and rumour.

wouldbemedic : "I'd imagine that a professional will be able to tell very quickly if she is lying."

I'm not so sure about that. If a child has been brainwashed into believing something and has grown up with that belief they may not even be aware themselves that it isn't true. I am not saying this is the case in this situation - we don't know that - but I just don't think it's always easy to tell if someone is lying or not - particularly if they are unaware of it themselves.

The Daily Beast article was written by someone who acknowledges a bias towards WA; he was WA's biographer (film about his life) iirc. Not impressed with his opener that basically says that MF has done bad things so this must be a lie. Apparently Vanity Fair article was written by a friend of Farrow's. I don't know that either of these can be used as 'proof'. I struggle with Moses Farrow's statement against his sister. He's apparently a family therapist and should know better regarding some of his comments (basically that she didn't behave how a "real" abuse victim would behave). He was 15 when this went down so wouldn't really know at all what happened. He also appears to have felt differently back then. But that link just shows how dysfunctional they all were to me.

Something really bothering me: MF is NOT a supporter of Polanski; she was subpoenaed to appear (and thus not able to choose to go) in court because she was having dinner with him at the time the allegations of harassment (reason for case) were supposed to have happened. The dinner was back just after Sharon Tate had died. Asked on twitter, MF said no to being a Polanski supporter/friend (can't remember which). WA is a Polanski supporter; he signed the HW petition and made statements saying things like, 'Polanski is a nice person who has suffered enough' and that he's 'paid his dues'. Please stop erroneously using this against MF, if anything it should be against WA.

so many people blindly state 'I BELIEVE HER' without knowing anywhere near the full set of facts.

you have a point there! However I do beleive that she believes she was abused, and I believe she is horrendously traumatised. whats now unclear is the exact crime, and hey its none of my business

But looking at the whole, muddy, shitty mess I would bet that something very nasty happended to her, and I DO believe her on that

what I wont continue to do is state who I think did it , as I just dont know

I think the aims of the 'I believe you' campaign were laudable, but think the idea has been taken and misappropriated up by some to mean 'no smoke without fire' and an automatic assumption of guilt by the fact an accusation has benn made.

NirvannahCrane Interesting that you focus on the word 'allegedly' but seem completely happy to ignore WA's public, undisputed behaviour with Dylan's sister that demonstrates his deeply unhealthy attitude to the girls in his family.

I support the Mumsnet campaign
'We Believe You' Rape Awareness Campaign
In March, with overwhelming support from Mumsnetters, we launched a new campaign. It's called We Believe You, and it has two simple aims. First, we want to shine a spotlight on the prevalence of rape and sexual assault in women's lives; then, we want to pull apart the many myths surrounding rape, which make so many women feel that they will not be believed if they report this crime.

To all those women, we say: we believe you.

And I see no reason not to include Dylan in that.

You can read about it here

I have read it thanks and fully understand the campaign. As I have said I think it is laudable. Yes, people reporting rape should be allowed to tell their account in a judgement free environment and busting a whole bunch of myths around rape is important.

I can't see anywhere where the campaign advocates assuming absolute guilt in a case you've read about on the internet, based on no evidence what so ever.

Certainly not on the grounds that:

i)Woody Allen looks creepy
ii) I've always had a funny feeling about him
iii) His films are over rated
iv) the people who like his films are pretentious.

This is dangerous.

You're entitled to believe what you like, so you're not being unreasonable either way. I adopt Keith Richard's approach who, when asked if he was upset about the death of Princess Diana allegedly replied, "Never met the chick."
But as for being heartbroken, OP, how can you be heartbroken? You don't know her and you don't even know if its true, so I think YABVU and a bit silly to say you are 'heartbroken.'

It's. sorry.

jigsaw-yes i think thats it.

i believe her too.

I found this article quite difficult to read: www.theonion.com/articles/boy-ive-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-havent-i,34949/

Argh, sorry www.theonion.com/articles/boy-ive-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-havent-i,34949/

Not really uncomfortable as it uses something well known amd unsavoury (albeit not criminal) in establishing a relationship with his girlfriend's daughter whilst she was in her teens, to 'prove' an extremely serious crime.

'He did x so therefore this must mean he did Y' lazy and shitty satire.