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

Is there going to be a court case?

It was supposed to raise awareness.

OK, how about a link to a legal document?

A few of interesting quotes...

In December 1991 two events coincided. Mr. Allen's adoptions of Dylan and Moses were finalized and Mr. Allen began his sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi Previn.

and

it is clear that he should have realized the inevitable consequences of his actions well before his relationship with Ms. Previn became intimate.

and

the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur.

and

The judge concluded that Allen demonstrated no parenting skills and was “self-absorbed, untrustworthy, and insensitive.” Allen’s trial strategy, he concluded, had been “to separate his children from their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother.” He found “no credible evidence” to support Allen’s contention “that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.

Here

As everyone keeps saying we don't know all the facts, this judge had access to a lot more than us or any journalist and this is the conclusion he reached. I really don't find it some sort of giant leap to believe Dylan when you read this, not sure why anyone does.

You forgot a bit

Justice Wilk said it was unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.

Just trying to maintain some balance.

As I said, lots of evidence for both Dylan and Woody. We can select and recount the bits that support our stance and ignore those that oppose our view.

Ah! Balance, so in the interest of balance who is more plausible?

The 50 year old man who groomed, and had sex with, a vulnerable teenager (who just happened to be his children's sister and the daughter of his partner of 10 years)?

Or

The child of 7 years old who has consistently maintained that her father (who was, at the time voluntarily in counselling because of his obsessive and intense attitude towards her) abused her?

And at the end of the appeal did the judge give access to WA? No, because on balance he obviously decided she shouldn't be around him.

MothershipG you have used the words 'groomed' and 'vulnerable teenager' in relation to WA and SY relationship over and over again. You are using the language of child abuse to describe a consenting adult relationship and I find that really offensive.

What's the point of quoting a legal document if you can't even be factually correct? WA was not denied access to the 3 children involved in the custody battle - he was granted visitiation rights to all 3 (including Dylan), he was denied custody.

You missed out an important quote from your list: It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context.

The truth cannot be based on 'who is more plausible' - if it were there would be even more miscarriages of justice.

"How can anyone just state ' I believe her' ? "

Have your read the blog entry in the OP?

---

He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear.

When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me.

The "evidence" in accusations/ cases of sexual abuse is always weighted against the accuser/ victim because objective evidence often doesn't exist.
I think the reason for campaigns such as "I believe you" are that it is so difficult for victims to speak about their abuse and so, so rare for them to be untruthful that we need to try to begin to balance.
Sexual abuse of children is very common indeed. It is denied by the perpetrators and often most of the adults around them , including people one might expect to have the child's best interests at heart (often their own mothers)
Speaking out is so difficult and so likely to have historically been dismissed with the aim of discrediting the abused child, that campaigns like this one are essential in offering a shred of hope for victims.
So, not so much blimd, bandwagon hopping- on as appreciating the prolific and horrific nature of sexual abuse of children and understanding the need to appreciate the truth of what children (even once they've grown up) tell us.

winter

I used the word groomed because when a man in his 50's initiates a sexual relationship with a teenager that he had known since she was 8 and who is his children's sister and the daughter of his partner, it's seems appropriate. I certainly wouldn't call it 2 consenting adults beginning a healthy relationship.

I used the word vulnerable because Soon Yi was not adopted until she was 7 and I don't expect her life on the streets in Korea was a bed of roses and she would almost certainly be dealing with the after affects of this. Her Mother's partner has been completely dismissive of her for most of her life then suddenly turns on the charm, seduces her and isolates her from the rest of her family. Don't you think this would make her vulnerable?

His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen's tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

I don't say I know the truth, only WA and Dylan do, but I know which of them sounds more plausible to me.

With respect to Satchel, the IAS Court denied the petitioner's request for unsupervised visitation. My mistake, he was allowed supervised access, obviously a model father.

It became apparent, during oral argument, that there was serious doubt that Mr. Allen truly desired custody. Oh look, definitely an excellent parent.

Excellent post mothership

Mothership, iirc it says in the document that you linked to that SY and WA did not actually have a relationship as a father and daughter.

I read that he met SY when she was 18 and never had a father-daughter relationship with her.

His relationship was with mf. Who was her mother.
That is, at the very least, a boundary issue.

bumble I never said they did. He was her siblings' father and he was her Mother's partner of 10 years. As Soon Yi's brother has said - his sister is now his step-Mum, I really don't see how anyone thinks that's ok?

To clarify I'm no fan of MF, she obviously has a very dysfunctional family of her own, a rescue complex and appears to have made some serious errors of judgement. But her child told her her father abused her and she believes her child, you can't fault her on that.

mothership

The words 'groomed'/'grooming' are used specifically to denote a predatory campaign of luring and softening up used by paedophiles to ensnare their victim. You have absolutely no evidence that WA behaved in such a way towards SY and the fact that their sexual relationship began when she was an adult argues against him having paedophile tendencies towards SY so why do you continue to use it? By doing so you are diluting the power of that description in relation to child abuse.

Likewise 'vulnerable' suggests a person who is at risk in their life and so is prey to someone who seems to be offering help or escape of some kind. SY had lived a comfortable life for many years amongst a wealthy family and was at college. I don't doubt that she had plenty of issues stemming from her childhood but it doesn't follow that those issues would make her fall for WA. If it was the case, that she was lured into that relationship, don't you think she would have left WA by now?

As Soon Yi's brother has said - his sister is now his step-Mum, I really don't see how anyone thinks that's ok? Apparently her other brother, Moses, thinks it's OK.

To clarify I'm no fan of MF, she obviously has a very dysfunctional family of her own, a rescue complex and appears to have made some serious errors of judgement. But her child told her her father abused her and she believes her child, you can't fault her on that.

I certainly wouldn't blame MF for believing Dylan if she came to her and told her she had been abused. But why are we so sure that's what happened? Experts at the time concluded Dylan had not been abused. If that's the case, I have to wonder if perhaps MF suggested to Dylan that she was abused, and poor Dylan now believes it happened.

Ah, so people believe Dylans account because Woody married Soon-yi ??? Would this stand up in court?

winter

I disagree that I am diluting its power. But if I refrain from using it will you accept that WA, a man in his 50s, starting a relationship with Soon Yi while she was a teenager, the daughter of his partner and his own children's sister, is very far past the boundaries of acceptable behaviour?

Would you honestly not be deeply concerned at any relationship between a man in his 50s and a teenager? You keep saying she was an adult, but she was only 17 when it started and he was in a relationship of long standing with her mother.

Do you really not have a problem with that?

Similarly if I refrain from using vulnerable will you take on board that Soon Yi had spent her formative years in very difficult circumstances and it is extremely possible that she would have boundary issues from that that would leave her more likely to be receptive to the inappropriate advances of a powerful figure like WA?

WA isolated her from the rest of her family. You only have to read the relationships board on here to see how hard it is for women to leave relationships they are heavily invested in, have children in, especially if they feel isolated.

I hope for Soon Yi's sake that I am completely wrong and that she is entirely happy! But I will never accept that WA was right to have started it and caused all the distress he has.

steff Those 'experts' were subsequently discredited by the courts.

dinky Fortunately MN, twitter and the rest of internet isn't a court, so we are allowed to express our opinions without applying the strict rigour of a court. Wouldn't the internet be a dull place if we couldn't?

But personally it seems to me that WA has exhibited documented behaviours (amongst them having an affair with his childrens' sister) that don't make it hard to believe Dylan is telling the truth.

Do you think she is lying?

mothership

I am happy to accept that - I have posted twice (possibly on another thread!) that it was reprehensible of WA to start an affair with SY and I could well understand how MF would be beside herself with rage and hurt over it. It is certainly past most people's idea of acceptable boundaries and clearly WA was living in some bubble of delusion and arrogance to think otherwise.

The age difference is not the issue to me that it seems to be for you. It is far from uncommon for young people of both sexes to get involved with much older partners, quite often people they have know in their childhood and even uncles/aunts etc. The issue for me is the betrayal and the fact that SY was part of the family, whether he was a father figure or not, and so bound to cause devastation and shock.

I have already said that I understood SY would have issues resulting from her childhood but I don't think it is right to jump from that to saying that this would make her 'vulnerable' to WA or that he viewed her in that way - as a 'soft target' or some such thing. If you are saying that WA was so powerful why on earth would he put himself in such a position with SY when he could have so many others?

I also don't accept that he isolated her from the family in the way you mean - the result of the relationship was that she became isolated from the family, not the result of deliberate maneovering from WA to bring that about, as seen in abusive relationships.

The age difference is not the issue to me that it seems to be for you. It is far from uncommon for young people of both sexes to get involved with much older partners

MF herself was 21 when she married Frank Sinatra, who was 51.

winter Just because the judge didn't consider them credible, doesn't mean they weren't, nor does it mean she was definitely abused. The experts were doctors at a hospital who examined Dylan, and the police used that report when they decided not to charge WA. A judge is not a doctor.

Mothership - just because you don't automatically state 'We believe you' does not mean that you think the person is lying.

Winter Fair enough, an age difference of more than 30 years does make me very uncomfortable when the younger person is still a teenager (especially one with a troubled start to life).

I didn't see your other posts, maybe they were on another thread, it is a relief that you don't think it was anything other than reprehensible.

As to why a powerful man like WA would put himself in such a position, as he said himself "The heart wants what the heart wants" and he seemed to think that makes it ok irrespective of the damage it caused to others.

Even if it wasn't his plan or intention WA's starting a relationship with SY had the effect of isolating her from her family, so as I said she has a lot invested in it.

steff What has MF's relationship with FS got to do with anything? Are you saying SY's mother was a poor role model? I think I'd agree with you there!

And you mean me not winter. No, a judge is not a doctor but he heard evidence from several doctors so based his opinion on that. To repeat what he found... the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur

bumble Just wondered, that's why I asked the question. But obviously you don't have to answer.

I am wondering about the reasoning that says as an adult SY can look back, determine that her relationship with WA was OK or not and then leave if she wants to, but Dylan who is also an adult now cannot look back and think whether she made up/was coached and be sure in her own mind what happened.

Also for those that think the relationship with WA was unremarkable if your older teen got into a relationship with a much much older family friend would you not be very very worried? Just because you can't go to the police, doesn't mean it's not very wrong.