RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Farrow writes: "Initially, I begged my sister not to go public again and to avoid speaking to reporters about it. I'm ashamed of that, too. With sexual assault, anything's easier than facing it in full, saying all of it, facing all of the consequences."

Ronan Farrow. (photo: Gilbert Carrasquillo/Getty)
Ronan Farrow. (photo: Gilbert Carrasquillo/Getty)


My Father, Woody Allen, and the Danger of Questions Unasked

By Ronan Farrow, The Hollywood Reporter

12 May 16

 

"They're accusations. They're not in the headlines. There's no obligation to mention them.”

hese were the objections from a producer at my network. It was September 2014 and I was preparing to interview a respected journalist about his new biography of Bill Cosby. The book omitted allegations of rape and sexual abuse against the entertainer, and I intended to focus on that omission. That producer was one of several industry veterans to warn me against it. At the time, there was little more than a stalled lawsuit and several women with stories, all publicly discredited by Cosby's PR team. There was no criminal conviction. It was old news. It wasn't news.

So we compromised: I would raise the allegations, but only in a single question late in the interview. And I called the author, reporter to reporter, to let him know what was coming. He seemed startled when I brought it up. I was the first to ask about it, he said. He paused for a long time, then asked if it was really necessary. On air, he said he'd looked into the allegations and they didn't check out.

Today, the number of accusers has risen to 60. The author has apologized. And reporters covering Cosby have been forced to examine decades of omissions, of questions unasked, stories untold. I am one of those reporters — I'm ashamed of that interview.

Some reporters have drawn connections between the press' grudging evolution on Cosby and a painful chapter in my own family's history. It was shortly before the Cosby story exploded anew that my sister Dylan Farrow wrote about her own experiences — alleging that our father, Woody Allen, had "groomed" her with inappropriate touching as a young girl and sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old.

Being in the media as my sister's story made headlines, and Woody Allen's PR engine revved into action, gave me a window into just how potent the pressure can be to take the easy way out. Every day, colleagues at news organizations forwarded me the emails blasted out by Allen's powerful publicist, who had years earlier orchestrated a robust publicity campaign to validate my father's sexual relationship with another one of my siblings. Those emails featured talking points ready-made to be converted into stories, complete with validators on offer — therapists, lawyers, friends, anyone willing to label a young woman confronting a powerful man as crazy, coached, vindictive. At first, they linked to blogs, then to high-profile outlets repeating the talking points — a self-perpetuating spin machine.

The open CC list on those emails revealed reporters at every major outlet with whom that publicist shared relationships — and mutual benefit, given her firm's starry client list, from Will Smith to Meryl Streep. Reporters on the receiving end of this kind of PR blitz have to wonder if deviating from the talking points might jeopardize their access to all the other A-list clients.

In fact, when my sister first decided to speak out, she had gone to multiple newspapers — most wouldn't touch her story. An editor at the Los Angeles Times sought to publish her letter with an accompanying, deeply fact-checked timeline of events, but his bosses killed it before it ran. The editor called me, distraught, since I'd written for them in the past. There were too many relationships at stake. It was too hot for them. He fought hard for it. (Reached by The Hollywood Reporter, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Times said the decision not to publish was made by the Opinion editors.)

When The New York Times ultimately ran my sister's story in 2014, it gave her 936 words online, embedded in an article with careful caveats. Nicholas Kristof, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and advocate for victims of sexual abuse, put it on his blog.

Soon afterward, the Times gave her alleged attacker twice the space — and prime position in the print edition, with no caveats or surrounding context. It was a stark reminder of how differently our press treats vulnerable accusers and powerful men who stand accused.

Perhaps I succumbed to that pressure myself. I had worked hard to distance myself from my painfully public family history and wanted my work to stand on its own. So I had avoided commenting on my sister's allegations for years and, when cornered, cultivated distance, limiting my response to the occasional line on Twitter. My sister's decision to step forward came shortly after I began work on a book and a television series. It was the last association I wanted. Initially, I begged my sister not to go public again and to avoid speaking to reporters about it. I'm ashamed of that, too. With sexual assault, anything's easier than facing it in full, saying all of it, facing all of the consequences. Even now, I hesitated before agreeing to The Hollywood Reporter's invitation to write this piece, knowing it could trigger another round of character assassination against my sister, my mother or me.

But when Dylan explained her agony in the wake of powerful voices sweeping aside her allegations, the press often willing to be taken along for the ride, and the fears she held for young girls potentially being exposed to a predator — I ultimately knew she was right. I began to speak about her more openly, particularly on social media. And I began to look carefully at my own decisions in covering sexual assault stories.

I believe my sister. This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father's strange behavior around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behavior that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations.

But more importantly, I've approached the case as an attorney and a reporter, and found her allegations to be credible. The facts are persuasive and well documented. I won't list them again here, but most have been meticulously reported by journalist Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair. The only final legal disposition is a custody ruling that found Woody Allen's behavior "grossly inappropriate" and stressed that "measures must be taken to protect [Dylan]."

On May 4, The Hollywood Reporter published a cover interview with Woody Allen, quirky auteur. To me it is a sterling example of how not to talk about sexual assault. Dylan's allegations are never raised in the interview and receive only a parenthetical mention — an inaccurate reference to charges being "dropped." THR later issued a correction: "not pursued."

The correction points to what makes Allen, Cosby and other powerful men so difficult to cover. The allegations were never backed by a criminal conviction. This is important. It should always be noted. But it is not an excuse for the press to silence victims, to never interrogate allegations. Indeed, it makes our role more important when the legal system so often fails the vulnerable as they face off against the powerful.

Here is exactly what charges not being pursued looked like in my sister's case in 1993: The prosecutor met with my mother and sister. Dylan already was deeply traumatized — by the assault and the subsequent legal battle that forced her to repeat the story over and over again. (And she did tell her story repeatedly, without inconsistency, despite the emotional toll it took on her.) The longer that battle, the more grotesque the media circus surrounding my family grew. My mother and the prosecutor decided not to subject my sister to more years of mayhem. In a rare step, the prosecutor announced publicly that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Allen, and attributed the decision not to do so to "the fragility of the child victim."

My mother still feels it was the only choice she could make to protect her daughter. But it is ironic: My mother's decision to place Dylan's well-being above all else became a means for Woody Allen to smear them both.

Very often, women with allegations do not or cannot bring charges. Very often, those who do come forward pay dearly, facing off against a justice system and a culture designed to take them to pieces. A reporter's role isn't to carry water for those women. But it is our obligation to include the facts, and to take them seriously. Sometimes, we're the only ones who can play that role.

Confronting a subject with allegations from women or children, not backed by a simple, dispositive legal ruling is hard. It means having those tough newsroom conversations, making the case for burning bridges with powerful public figures. It means going up against angry fans and angry publicists.

There are more reporters than ever showing that courage, and more outlets supporting them. Many are of a new generation, freed from the years of access journalism that can accrete around older publications. BuzzFeed has done pioneering reporting on recent Hollywood sexual assault stories. It was Gawker that asked why allegations against Bill Cosby weren't taken more seriously. And it is heartening that The Hollywood Reporter asked me to write this response. Things are changing.

But the old-school media's slow evolution has helped to create a culture of impunity and silence. Amazon paid millions to work with Woody Allen, bankrolling a new series and film. Actors, including some I admire greatly, continue to line up to star in his movies. "It's not personal," one once told me. But it hurts my sister every time one of her heroes like Louis C.K., or a star her age, like Miley Cyrus, works with Woody Allen. Personal is exactly what it is — for my sister, and for women everywhere with allegations of sexual assault that have never been vindicated by a conviction.

Tonight, the Cannes Film Festival kicks off with a new Woody Allen film. There will be press conferences and a red-carpet walk by my father and his wife (my sister). He'll have his stars at his side — Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, Jesse Eisenberg. They can trust that the press won't ask them the tough questions. It's not the time, it's not the place, it's just not done.

That kind of silence isn't just wrong. It's dangerous. It sends a message to victims that it's not worth the anguish of coming forward. It sends a message about who we are as a society, what we'll overlook, who we'll ignore, who matters and who doesn't.

We are witnessing a sea change in how we talk about sexual assault and abuse. But there is more work to do to build a culture where women like my sister are no longer treated as if they are invisible. It's time to ask some hard questions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-98 # danireland46 2016-05-12 09:08
Ronan, if your father is Woody Allen, why are you the spitting image of your mom's previous love, Frank Sinatra?
 
 
+91 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-12 09:14
Objection. Relevance?
 
 
-41 # danireland46 2016-05-12 10:16
Sorry, you're right, it isn't relevant to the article, it's just something I've wondered about for a long time. I'm surprised by the vitriolic reaction - I guess nobody else wondered about it.
 
 
+52 # CL38 2016-05-12 11:19
it's really none of your/our business.
 
 
-64 # Anonymot 2016-05-12 11:38
You are ABSOLUTELY right: None of this is any of our business. Since the neurotic kid is a son of 2 neurotic parents and has a neurotic sister, none of this should concern us. But since Ronan is a scandal journalist he wants this tried in the news media, not the place where it should be - in court before a judge. Unfortunately, since his parents were both brilliant in their professions he'd like to ride their coattails.
 
 
-18 # Radscal 2016-05-12 15:08
It's been to court. They lost, but never stopped.

I have a cousin who received a PhD in criminal recidivism, specifically child molestation. Pedophiles never stop being attracted to children. They can be stopped from acting on it.

Pedophiles are apparently "born that way." It is a sexual identity. It's a sexual identity that is considered wrong in our current society, and can cause enormous harm.

But what doesn't happen is that a pedophile makes it into his mid 50s without ever showing that predilection, then commits a single act, and never shows that interest again.

A seven year old child was used in an acrimonious divorce by a manipulative and bitter mother. I guess that wasn't a crime either, but the harm done to her children (adopted and birthed, regardless of paternity) continues to this day.

It's a shame.
 
 
-4 # economagic 2016-05-12 17:15
Your comments about pedophiles are correct to the best of my knowledge, that developed out of incidents in my extended family. About the Farrow-Allen debacle I know nothing except that it was all over the tabloids, nor do I wish to know, for reasons others mention above. OK, I know that like many people in Hollywood both are neurotic.
 
 
+32 # Old4Poor 2016-05-13 02:09
Of course it had happened before. Allen also seduced his teenage stepdaughter and later married her.

Just because some child victims have been forced into false memories does not mean that all such accusations are without merit.

Sexual assault against women/girls is the one crime where the victim needs an independent witness and often is not believed. If she had said someone had robbed her and IDed him, it would have been taken more seriously.

The family decision not to go further in the legal system was out of concern for the child's well being, as detailed in the article, had you read it all.

I further note that in the child custody actions Allen was ordered to stay away from the girl. At least that one judge who does family court understood what had been going on.
 
 
-10 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:28
Allegations of child sex abuse should be treated like other crimes. The accused should be presumed innocent unless found guilty in a court of law.

Judge Elliot Wilk said that Allen lacked parenting skills. He did not say that Allen molested Dylan.
 
 
+10 # lights 2016-05-12 17:50
Funny, Anonymot... you don't think there is significant meaning in having a social debate about this social genocide... especially considering you have such strong feelings about war. This is war and if you can't hear that in the way things come down on the subject...then you have a very deaf ear.
 
 
+1 # Anonymot 2016-05-14 18:03
I know you strain what comes into your head before it gets to your brain, lights, but did you read what I said? I often partake in social debates about matters of abuse. What I said is about the publicity revenge-seeking involved in a specific overpublicized case. read it again.
 
 
-2 # Anonymot 2016-05-14 18:40
Really interesting. Everyone who criticizes Ronan for trying to try this in the press is wrong. I'd love for someone to clearly explain why. If you read all of the comments, the red downs seem to be very knee jerk.

This case is not about child abuse, but about a mother's using a child for revenge. Once when I was working in LA I met someone in the identical situation. His reputation was ruined by the publicity. His professional practice was destroyed. He was tried by a jury and found not guilty, but his life was in ruins. At least Woody Allen moved on.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-13 02:16
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-3 # dickbd 2016-05-13 14:35
It's relevant because he keeps referring to Woody Allen as his father.

I call myself a liberal, but it is disgusting how many of them can be decoyed off serious topics by tabloid stuff.

I would suggest that all the red markers read "Psychology Gone Wrong" by two respected scientists.

Now I'm ready for all my red marks from knee-jerk liberals, as opposed to the thoughtful ones.
 
 
+7 # EternalTruth 2016-05-12 09:51
Sheer good fortune.
 
 
-19 # Radscal 2016-05-12 14:59
Ronan has been a welcomed member of the Sinatra family since his birth.

How old was Mia when Frank started having sex with her? We know she was 21 when she married 51-year old Blue Eyes.

Oh, and Mia did say that Ronan was Frank's son.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441281/Mia-Farrow-says-Frank-Sinatra-father-son-Ronan.html

That was before she backtracked and said she was just "kidding," because you know, what could be funnier than to admit that the man to whom you were married, and who raised that son as his own was NOT the father?

Look. I don't give a hoot about what consenting adults do sexually as long as no one gets hurt. But this Farrow family slander against Woody Allen has been going on for decades, and deserves to be criticized.
 
 
+16 # Old4Poor 2016-05-13 02:14
AND why do you assume this is slander instead of the truth.

Do you also assume that Roman Polanski was innocent because he was a great director?
 
 
-1 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:30
The two cases are completely different. Roman Polanski was found guilty and fled the country in order to avoid prison.

Woody Allen was never even charged.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-12 23:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-12 23:40
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+65 # fsboos 2016-05-12 09:41
Thank you for this courageous and much-needed statement.
 
 
-59 # shraeve 2016-05-12 09:42
This issue has been settled. Legal authorities in two different states thoroughly investigated Woody Allen. They found nothing that would justify an indictment.

Dylan Farrow was examined for months by the Yale New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic. They concluded that she had not been molested.
 
 
+53 # vicnada 2016-05-12 10:03
Clearly this issue is anything but settled. You might have been press agent for Cosby two years ago with your exact argument...
 
 
-29 # shraeve 2016-05-12 11:19
Really? How is the issue anything but settled? Are you saying Allen is going to be indicted?

The District Attorney's Office in Connecticut had over a decade to file charges against Woody Allen. They never did. Why would they allow a child molester to walk free (and harm other children)? Because they concluded that Woody Allen was not a child molester.

Dylan Farrow could have sued Woody Allen. She never did. Why not?
 
 
+43 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:02
Did you actually READ the complete article which stated that "the prosecutor announced publicly that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Allen, and attributed the decision not to do so to "the fragility of the child victim."

And further, "My mother still feels it was the only choice she could make to protect her daughter. But it is ironic: My mother's decision to place Dylan's well-being above all else became a means for Woody Allen to smear them both."

It seems that people like you have a false sense that you have a right to do the same to both Dylan and Mia.
 
 
-20 # shraeve 2016-05-12 14:43
Why would this "child victim" be any more fragile than any other child victim? Where is the evidence of her fragility? If fragility were a good reason not to pursue child abuse charges then no one would ever be convicted of molesting a child. What victims are not fragile?

You forgot to mention that the prosecutor who made that statement, Frank Maco, was disciplined for having done so. See: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/nyregion/panel-criticizes-prosecutor-in-inquiry-on-woody-allen.html

The statute of limitations did not expire for over a decade after the investigation. Was Dylan still too "fragile" to testify all those years later? Where is the evidence for that?

Apparently Dylan is not too fragile to keep on bringing it up now.

And the prosecutor was willing to allow a child molester to walk free and attack other victims? What kind of an ethical prosecutor would put countless children at risk from a child molester if he could put that child molester behind bars?
 
 
+25 # CL38 2016-05-12 15:02
You so clearly don't understand the issue of child sexual abuse or it's impact on the victim. It seems you could care less.

There's lots of credible information out there to help you understand WHY children in this situation are fragile....and how prevalent childhood sexual abuse is. Often, men are not convicted because the justice system is stacked with men and women, like you, with the same bias and attitudes about rape, sex abuse, domestic violence, etc. Look how few rapists ever serve time.

I completely get why Dylan would refuse to deal with this issue publicly again. Look at the way she--and her mother--were vilified when the original charges were made. Look at the way Cosby's accusers were treated, STILL are treated by many, despite their numbers having grown to--what is it now--over 60??

Why would Dylan--or any child, or any woman, want to expose themselves to the kind of additional abuse that you've engaged in, or that the justice system engages in, at their expense.
 
 
+20 # CL38 2016-05-12 15:55
Here's the Vanity Fair article, 10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation by Maureen Orth

Part 1
As the author of two lengthy, heavily researched and thoroughly fact-checked articles that deal with that allegation—the first published in 1992, when Dylan was seven, and the second last fall, when she was 28—I feel obliged to set the record straight. As such, I have compiled the following list of undeniable facts:

1. Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse. Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician, who was bound by law to report Dylan’s story of sexual violation to law enforcement and did so on August 6.

**2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public. Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.

3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.
 
 
-12 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:27
RE: 1. The article neglects to mention that Dylan first told the pediatrician that she was not molested.

RE: 2. What inappropriate behavior? That is not mentioned. The pediatrician said that the inappropriate behavior was not sexual. The judge in the custody case said that Allen lacked parenting skills. That is a long way from child molestation.

RE: 3. Frank Maco and the Connecticut State police made it plain they were out to get Allen because of his involvement with Soon-Yi. A hostile environment during a polygraph can get anyone to fail, no matter how innocent they are. The polygraph test took was administered by one of the leading experts in the field.
 
 
+17 # CL38 2016-05-12 15:57
Part 2

**4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded 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.”

**5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

**6. Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.”
 
 
+14 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:00
Part 3

A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine.

**7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.

**All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case.
 
 
+13 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:02
Part 4

The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention. The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.

**8. Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place. First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible.

**9. The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen.
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:03
Read the Vanity Fair article.

10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation ...
www.vanityfair.com/news/
 
 
-9 # Radscal 2016-05-12 15:12
I did. It was a hit piece, perfectly timed to introduce Ronan after he was given that MSNBC program.
 
 
-14 # shraeve 2016-05-12 15:11
I receive a net vote total of minus 39 merely for citing a fact?
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:59
you don't cite facts. in fact, you IGNORE the facts, as determined by the investigator who found probable cause to prosecute.
 
 
-12 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:33
The prosecutor SAID he had probable cause. But he did NOT prosecute. That is the bottom line.

All victims are fragile. Apparently Dylan is not too fragile to keep on bringing this up.
 
 
+6 # dusty64 2016-05-14 01:32
Do you not think the fragility of a 7-year old is much greater than the fragility of a 28-year old?
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-14 04:58
That is debatable. What constitutes fragility? How do we determine fragility?

How many seven-year-olds commit suicide? How many adults commit suicide?

In at least some jurisdictions all questions relating to facts can be relayed to the witness without the witness having to be in the presence of the accused.

Testimony in a criminal trial is supposed to be about bringing the facts to light, not about allowing the accused to intimidate the witness. You can have the one without having the other.
 
 
+36 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 09:50
@danireland46
Your comment is not only bizarre but somewhat alarming given the content of Ronan's article
 
 
+12 # danireland46 2016-05-12 11:11
The title of the article refers to "the Danger of Questions Unasked", I'm just responding to the spirit of unasked questions. I'm sure Ronan, who obviously is disgusted by Allen, wouldn't mind a different genealogical history.
The article itself is an important example of how powerful people tend to shape the narrative of every story, It's an important, depressing fact of life, just look at Sheldon Adelson's purchase of the Las Vegas Review Journal and his subsequent dismissal of those at the paper who broke the story. Do you think that paper will ever disparage Adelson again?
 
 
-22 # shraeve 2016-05-12 12:09
Speaking of powerful people, look at Mia Farrow. Her mother, Maureen O'Sullivan, is a famous actress. Her father, John Farrow, was a very successful director. Mia herself is a famous actress. She has been married to two famous and influential men, Frank Sinatra and Andre Previn.

Woody Allen came up from nothing. His mother was a bookkeeper, his father was a waiter. He had no relatives in Hollywood. He directs and sometimes acts in quirky, offbeat movies that appeal mainly to the artsy crowd.

Mia Farrow has far more power than Woody Allen. Mia Farrow is Hollywood royalty.
 
 
+21 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:08
By virtue of being born female in our culture, MOST women still have far less influence and power than men, especially when they're up against far more powerful, rich white men.
 
 
+18 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 09:51
And for what it is worth Ronan has the Farrow /Ohara face
 
 
-10 # shraeve 2016-05-12 10:44
Not true. John Farrow had more of an oval face and a cleft chin. Frank Sinatra had a much more square face, similar to Ronan's. Look at the nose. Look at the eyes.

Who is Ohara? Mia's mother is Maureen O'Sullivan, not Maureen O'Hara.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-12 11:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-6 # shraeve 2016-05-12 11:58
I am not the person who said that Ronan has the Farrow/Ohara face. I merely pointed out that is not true.
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:09
Boy, you're an EXPERT on ....just....EVE RYTHING!!
 
 
0 # dusty64 2016-05-16 21:56
And who do Woody Allen's two faces look like?
 
 
0 # dusty64 2016-05-16 21:58
They may delete this one, but I think we're hearing from either a perp or an enabler.
 
 
+44 # JayaVII 2016-05-12 10:16
Great article about how things really work. Woody Allen is an incestuous monster and a pedophile. But he's worth a lot of money to Hollywood, which gives him impunity. It will last until he dies, at which point the vultures who now protect him will strip his carcass bare.
 
 
+33 # JohnBoanerges 2016-05-12 10:23
I was considering including this (worthy) article in my answer to a Quora question on the state of civility in modern discourse. My conclusion is that it is in freefall as evidence shown in (this and) the Bell/Snowden interview, lies being the ultimate insult to my intelligence. Thanks, Ronan, for adopting the courageous position of truthteller.
 
 
-27 # shraeve 2016-05-12 10:26
How do you know Ronan is telling the truth? How would he know the truth? Was he there?
 
 
+22 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:11
Were YOU there? My guess is Ronan has much more accurate information and facts than you ever will.
 
 
-9 # shraeve 2016-05-12 14:59
I was not there. But I am aware of the fact that Woody Allen was never prosecuted for what would have been a very serious crime. A child molester walking free is a danger to children everywhere. Yet the authorities not only allowed him to walk free, but also allowed him to adopt two toddlers.

I am also aware of the fact that there has never been even the slightest hint from anyone that Allen ever molested his two adopted daughters, even though he had unlimited opportunity to do so for well over a decade.

I am also aware of the fact that a clinic that specialized in child sexual abuse examined Dylan at great length and concluded that she had never been molested.

I am also aware of the fact that people who WERE in the house at that time said that Woody and Dylan were out of their sight for no more than 15 - 20 minutes (one person said no more than 5 minutes) and that the alleged crime occurred in a public place where anyone could have walked past.

I am also aware of the fact that Dylan originally told her pediatrician that she had not been molested and then changed her story after Mia took her home and brought her back some time later.
 
 
-9 # shraeve 2016-05-12 15:52
I forgot to mention: on the day of the alleged crime, Woody Allen knew he was being watched. Read Kristi Groteke's book, "Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal"

Groteke was there in the house during the time of the alleged molestation. She was the one who said they were not out of her sight for more than 15 - 20 minutes (it may have been only 15 minutes - it has been a while since I read the book). She had been ordered by Mia to watch Woody. She said that Woody knew he was being watched.

The housekeeper said they were not out of her sight for more than five minutes. Because she said that Mia fired her.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:01
see Part 2 and 3 of the Vanity Fair article I posted for you.
 
 
-4 # Radscal 2016-05-12 23:28
Dylan's brother, Moses was there.

He spoke out after the Vanity Fair hit piece, Oscars-timed Twitter attacks by Mia and Ronan and the exciting rollout of "media-star-in- the-making Ronan Farrow."

He said there's no way that Allen molested his sister, but that his mother coached both of them to believe it and hate him.

http://www.eonline.com/news/507483/dylan-farrow-s-brother-moses-defends-woody-allen-he-did-not-molest-my-sister
 
 
0 # shraeve 2016-05-14 05:00
Why does Ronan's opinion receive so much more attention than Moses' opinion?
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-05-12 17:23
". . . the state of civility in modern discourse. My conclusion is that it is in freefall."

Boanerges,I agree with this much of your comment (for once).
 
 
-17 # shraeve 2016-05-12 10:24
Woody Allen was 56 years old when the molestation of Dylan allegedly occurred.

Before that he had never even been accused of child molestation. After that he has never been accused of child molestation, even though he has spent over a decade parenting two girls from toddlerhood.

Dylan claims the molestation happened only once.

How many child molesters start out at age 56, molest only one child one time, and never do it again? Not very many. Possibly none?
 
 
+30 # JayaVII 2016-05-12 10:51
I'm assuming you're part of the Woody Allen spin machine, but if you are an objective commentator, you may wish to actually read Ronan Farrow's article, including the following paragraph:

"I believe my sister. This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father's strange behavior around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behavior that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations."
 
 
-17 # shraeve 2016-05-12 11:27
That paragraph in no way proves sexual molestation, even if every word were true. We don't even know if it is true.

If the evidence is so strong against Woody Allen, why hasn't he been prosecuted? Why hasn't he been sued in civil court, where the standard of proof is much lower?
 
 
+18 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:19
You'll have to read the above article--and the Vanity Fair piece--to get the facts about why Allen wasn't prosecuted. They are there--I assure you. You just have to take that filter from your eyes--and mind--READ and TAKE THEM IN. WHY do you defend Allen with the facts before you?

Actually Allen DID engage in another HIGHLY questionable relationship with another of Mia's adopted daughters, Soon-Yi, whom he married (probably to stop the gossip, since he's since admitted that he thought this relationship would remain an affair?).

The question that always pops into my mind with people like you (who seem to be in such deep denial about this issue), is, is there a reason that you choose to identify with --and defend -- child molesters and sexual predators?
 
 
-4 # Radscal 2016-05-12 15:37
CL, now you're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. You're better than this. Try to put aside preconceptions and just look at what is undisputed.

Allen began having an affair with Soon Yi after she was an adult. Finding nude photos of the 21 year old Soon Yi that Allen had taken is what Farrow has said led to the divorce.

That is, the exact opposite of what you suggested.

Allen and Soon Yi have now been married for 20 years. Doesn't look like a cover story to mask a single alleged child molestation, does it?

Now, is it kind of creepy that a man in his 50s had a sexual relationship with a woman of 20 or 21? Ask Frank Sinatra and Mia.

Is it creepy that Soon Yi and Allen had known one another since she actually was a minor? Again, there are MANY similar situations.

But whether you or I or our present society find any of this creepy does NOT make it criminal, and certainly does not warrant decades of slander.
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:38
exactly what do you think I 'made up'???
 
 
-9 # Radscal 2016-05-12 17:06
Exactly what I wrote.

Later, I read that you were one of the FAR TOO MANY victims of sexual abuse and assault. I cannot claim to understand how you feel, and do not wish to even seem to be harassing you about it.

There's no excuse for abuse or assault, especially of children.

I just do not see convincing evidence that Allen is guilty of such.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:23
This is from an article quoting both Allen and Soon-Yi about their relationship:

“She (meaning Soon-Yi deferred to me, and I was happy to give her an enormous amount of decision-making just as a gift and let her take charge of so many things,” he continued. “She flourished. It was just a good luck thing.”

The two began their relationship in the late ’80s WHEN ALLEN WAS DATING FARROW, with whom he adopted several children.

Citing this as a perfectly healthy relationship, IMO, is absoutely absurd.
 
 
+3 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:26
Quoting Radscal:
CL, now you're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. You're better than this. Try to put aside preconceptions and just look at what is undisputed.

Allen began having an affair with Soon Yi after she was an adult. Finding nude photos of the 21 year old Soon Yi that Allen had taken is what Farrow has said led to the divorce.

That is, the exact opposite of what you suggested.

Allen and Soon Yi have now been married for 20 years. Doesn't look like a cover story to mask a single alleged child molestation, does it?

Now, is it kind of creepy that a man in his 50s had a sexual relationship with a woman of 20 or 21? Ask Frank Sinatra and Mia.

Is it creepy that Soon Yi and Allen had known one another since she actually was a minor? Again, there are MANY similar situations.

But whether you or I or our present society find any of this creepy does NOT make it criminal, and certainly does not warrant decades of slander.

Radscal, you're another fact-free apologist for perverts. Shame on you.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-12 22:41
What fact did I misstate?
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-05-12 23:19
I just found that I had misstated a fact.

Mia Farrow was 19 when she married 51 year old Frank Sinatra, not 21. He served her divorce papers when she was 21 (and apparently having an affair with her soon-to-be husband, Andre Previn).

She calls Sinatra, “the great love of her life,” and that she and Frank “never really split up.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/13/what-you-should-know-about-woody-allen-s-feud-with-mia-and-ronan-farrow.html

Creepy? Maybe. Illegal? No.
 
 
+4 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:26
Quoting shraeve:
That paragraph in no way proves sexual molestation, even if every word were true. We don't even know if it is true.

If the evidence is so strong against Woody Allen, why hasn't he been prosecuted? Why hasn't he been sued in civil court, where the standard of proof is much lower?

It proves sexual moestation. Nothing you've said proves otherwise, in fact, it proves that you're a perverted apologist for perverts.
 
 
+12 # Old4Poor 2016-05-13 02:25
Its called "grooming". The molester often works for years to gain the child's trust and acquiescence.

Sexual violence is devastating and for a child something that creates a lifelong scar.
 
 
-4 # Radscal 2016-05-12 15:21
Exactly true.

This just does not happen. It could be possible for a pedophile to resist acting on that sexual attraction, but the attraction would exist throughout sexually-active life, and been made manifest in other ways.

I've seen no evidence that Allen ever demonstrated any level of sexual attraction to any other pre-pubescent girl.
 
 
+5 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:28
Quoting Radscal:
Exactly what I wrote.

Later, I read that you were one of the FAR TOO MANY victims of sexual abuse and assault. I cannot claim to understand how you feel, and do not wish to even seem to be harassing you about it.

There's no excuse for abuse or assault, especially of children.

I just do not see convincing evidence that Allen is guilty of such.

Quoting Radscal:
Exactly true.

Sorry, your opinions are worthless, as you've made yourself into an apologist and a liar.

This just does not happen. It could be possible for a pedophile to resist acting on that sexual attraction, but the attraction would exist throughout sexually-active life, and been made manifest in other ways.

I've seen no evidence that Allen ever demonstrated any level of sexual attraction to any other pre-pubescent girl.


You have seen no evidence because you are willfully blind.
 
 
-3 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:36
Where is the evidence?
 
 
0 # dusty64 2016-05-16 22:08
"How many child molesters start out at age 56, molest only one child one time, and never do it again? Not very many. Possibly none?"

By far the greater probability is that he just never got caught until he was 56, and any previous attempts at prosecution were nipped in the bud with threats, money, or both.
 
 
-10 # Citizen Mike 2016-05-12 10:34
Allegations are not proof and traumatic memories are sometimes induced by suggestive circumstances. Yes, Woody's marriage looks weird and has suggestions of pedophilia and incest about it, but jumping off from that point of suggestion, false memories could easily be generated. What's the actual truth? It is uncertain but the accusation is very sticky.
 
 
+14 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:21
while "false" memories may explain some allegations, this is not the norm. please read the literature about childhood sexual abuse before making assumptions.
 
 
0 # shraeve 2016-05-14 05:09
You are wrong about that. Only a few decades ago false memories that led to false charges of child abuse were the norm.

There was the explosion of the psychiatric diagnosis "multiple personality disorder", which was almost always attributed to child abuse.

There was the "Satanic panic", in which it was widely believed there were vast underground networks of Satan worshipers who abused and sometimes murdered children.

And there were many accusations of incest and child molestation that were later proven false.

All these things occurred in a period of about 15 years that began in the late 1970s and lasted into the early 1990s.
 
 
-8 # Radscal 2016-05-12 15:40
Yep. And "suggestions" is the worst that can be implied.

Soon Yi was not a minor at any time during her and Allen's sexual relationship, so pedophilia is irrelevant.

Soon Yi was adopted as a young girl by Mia Farrow, and never by Allen, so incest is also irrelevant.

But the Farrows have kept various accusations alive for decades.
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:29
Allen's relationship with Soon Yi, his partner, Mia's, daughter, is a solid indication of a healthy, normal relationship?? Add to this, that Allen began the Soon-Yi affair (THAT'S how Allen characterized it) WHILE HE WAS DATING MIA, HER MOTHER.

Perfectly normal, healthy, stable man, this is! Not.

"Woody Allen’s Relationship with Soon-Yi is Creepier Than You Could Imagine "

http://pagesix.com/2015/07/30/woody-allen-soon-yi-responded-to-me-because-i-was-paternal/
 
 
+29 # janehallaren 2016-05-12 10:58
Clearly you are either young, or ignorant or both. Do you think that Allen's behavior started with his daughter? In MANHATTAN he is in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old. Obviously, he thought he was untouchable enough at that point to put it out to the public. He is a brilliant, talented pedophile whose success is a blanket of protection.
 
 
-9 # shraeve 2016-05-12 11:22
In all his 80 years Woody Allen has never been charged with any act of child molestation. He's been molesting children all that time and never been caught?

17 is the legal age of consent in New York.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:34
Hmmm.
 
 
+13 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 15:49
[quote name="shraeve"] In all his 80 years Woody Allen has never been charged with any act of child molestation. He's been molesting children all that time and never been caught?

Yeah well, it took awhile to lock up Jerry Sandusky .
Every dog has his day.
 
 
-5 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:34
The prosecutors in the Sandusky case did not refuse to try him because of any supposed "fragility" of his victims.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:44
You have inside information that the prosecutor who found enough evidence to prosecute, didn't prosecute for ANOTHER REASON???

For a sex abuse victim (as you stated) you have absolutely no sensitivity to, or respect for, a victim's genuine 'fragility'. WHY IS THAT?

There's something here that just doesn't wash.
 
 
0 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:29
Quoting shraeve:
The prosecutors in the Sandusky case did not refuse to try him because of any supposed "fragility" of his victims.

well, apologist for perverts, Sandusky is not Woody allen. Even you should be able to discern that.
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:38
But his victims were still victims of sexual molestation, and were just as fragile as Dylan.
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-05-13 14:44
Correction please: You're NOT committed to fair play for Dylan or Mia, the actual victims in this case, NOT Allen.

You've made judgements based on your opinion which are NOT based on facts. You've lynched Dylan and Mia, without hesitation.

In fact, you're insistence that Allen is the 'real' victim here, your complete lack of respect for the actual victims leads me to wonder if:

1. You're not a woman, you are male.
2. You were never sexually abused. If you were, you'd exhibit much more sensitivity to their situation.
3. You've COMPLETELY ignored the facts. In fact, like a robot, you persist in repeating the SAME comments, over and over, regardless of facts put before you.
4. You're suffering from Stockholm syndrome as someone else suggested.
5. You're a worthless troll.

READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE. READ the VANITY FAIR piece. Google it.
 
 
0 # shraeve 2016-05-14 05:11
Your post is nothing but a personal attack. You are trying to make it about me.

It doesn't matter who I am. The facts are the facts.
 
 
-2 # janla 2016-05-14 18:27
Quoting shraeve:
But his victims were still victims of sexual molestation, and were just as fragile as Dylan.

Circular argument - logical fallacy
 
 
+1 # shraeve 2016-05-15 07:53
A circular argument is one that assumes the proposition which is to be proved.

Where is the circular reasoning in my statement?
 
 
+24 # lights 2016-05-12 11:19
Ronan, the power of words absolutely fail me.... but I must thank you from the depths of my heart...I know how much this must mean to your sister and mother - and the one out of four women on this planet who read this and know. You, your sister, mother and family - courageous, strong and inspiring pioneers and leaders.
 
 
+19 # CL38 2016-05-12 11:29
Congratulations on this piece and your evolution on sexual abuse issues. It's helpful to have your take on the 'insider' issues and why the media rarely does it's job of seeking out and reporting facts, rather than kow-towing to the rich and famous.

I read the Vanity Fair piece when it was published and always believed your sister, Dylan. No child at the age 7, has the emotional or cognitive ability or maturity to make up the kind of details about events that she gave during the investigation.

That so many in the media are male goes without saying. Many men, and surprisingly, women, too, have a knee-jerk reaction to defend the perpetrator and dismiss a victim's charges. I wonder why.

Thank you for coming forward.
 
 
-10 # shraeve 2016-05-12 13:06
Far from true. There has been much research that shows that false memories can be easily suggested to children.

Just as one example: "False memories come from investigators asking leading questions, therapists trying to uncover hidden truths, and yes, distraught parents engaged in acrimonious divorce proceedings." From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/09/it-s-shockingly-easy-to-create-false-memories.html

Dylan originally told her pediatrician that she had not been molested. Mia took her home and brought her back to the pediatrician a day or two later. Dylan then contradicted her earlier statement and said that Woody Allen had molested her.

What did bitter, scorned, vindictive Mia say to her child in the time between those two visits?
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-05-12 13:49
YOU are an example of my point about bias and a total willingness to quickly dismiss a perpetrator's guilt at the expense of the victim. This victimizes the victim yet AGAIN.

How do I know? I was a very young victim of childhood sexual abuse by a step-father. He also abused my sister, who was 2 years younger. I know what it takes to come forward. Neither of us ever did, except to one another.

Go ahead. Now, tell ME I'm an evil woman conniving to accuse a poor innocent guy.

I suggest that you examine WHY you're so compelled to fight to defend Allen against legitimate allegations made against him. Have you read about the behaviors he engaged in with Dylan? No sexually healthy adult male engages in the kinds behaviors he did with a child, unless he has some pretty serious "issues".
 
 
-8 # shraeve 2016-05-12 15:10
You seem to be assuming that which has yet to be proven, namely that Allen did it. I am saying that the facts indicate he did not.

I am sorry to hear about the tragedy in your life. But that does not mean that every man who is suspected of child abuse is automatically guilty.

I was also the victim of abuse, sexual and otherwise, on different occasions. I experienced firsthand the power of perpetrators who pick their victims carefully. I experienced the indifference and outright hostility of the authorities. I am not saying that abusers should not go to prison. They should.

But I am also saying we should look at all the facts before we condemn someone and seriously damage their career.
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-05-12 16:20
I did not say that every man suspected of child abuse is automatically guilty. That's your attempt to try to characterize my views as 'overreacting'. I think I've been very clear about how I see this and why.

Clearly, a number of people find a lack of credibility in your comments and attitude, as well, with all the negative down-votes received.

**Since you were a victim of abuse, I'm astonished at your quickness to defend Allen while choosing NOT TO BELIEVE Dylan. If you were abused, as well, WHY wouldn't you believe her? Do you actually believe that Allen's behaviors with Dylan were 'normal', perfectly innocent? What does it take to convince you, if you don't believe the investigator WHO FOUND THAT THE FACTS SUPPORTED PROSECUTING ALLEN, but all concerned decided to protect Dylan from further stress.

If you were abused, where is your compassion for Dylan??

I'm not worried about Allen's career. He's suffered absolutely no negative impact. He goes on making movies with well-knows stars who line up to work with him.....everyon e making millions and millions. ...

Dylan, and Mia, on the other hand fought an intense media battle that, up to now, "found" for Allen by ignoring the investigative facts by the investigating attorney.

I'm glad Ronan wrote this--he explained how that could happen. Guess you don't want to hear that, either. Your choice.
 
 
-7 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:40
You said "I did NOT say that EVERY man suspected of child abuse is automatically guilty."

OK, good. In the Woody Allen case I am looking at all the facts. Nothing in Ms. Orth's article comes close to a proof that Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow. There is nothing new in that article. But there are key omissions, such as Dylan's initial denial, which makes the article suspect.

RE: down votes All I did was cite facts, few if any of which were disputed. If I get down votes for telling the truth, then so be it.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:17
You have not quoted facts. You post your opinion, completely ignoring the findings of the investigation.
 
 
+3 # shraeve 2016-05-14 07:20
Which investigation?
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-05-12 21:09
"Since you were a victim of abuse, I'm astonished at your quickness to defend Allen while choosing NOT TO BELIEVE Dylan. If you were abused, as well, WHY wouldn't you believe her?"

Stockholm syndrome.
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:40
I don't believe in lynching an innocent person. The comments on this board reveal a lynch mob mentality.
 
 
+1 # shraeve 2016-05-15 07:54
No, commitment to fair play for all.
 
 
+1 # isafakir 2016-05-12 19:49
Quoting shraeve:



But I am also saying we should look at all the facts before we condemn someone and seriously damage their career.


nobody who's never been sexually abused has a clue

and all these people pawing over it is salaciousness and only hurts the people who've already suffered enough
 
 
+7 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:43
When these things come up in public discussion, it's not 'pawing over it' if people learn more about the issues, whatever they are, and it makes a difference in people's lives.
 
 
0 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:31
Quoting shraeve:
You seem to be assuming that which has yet to be proven, namely that Allen did it. I am saying that the facts indicate he did not.

I am sorry to hear about the tragedy in your life. But that does not mean that every man who is suspected of child abuse is automatically guilty.

I was also the victim of abuse, sexual and otherwise, on different occasions. I experienced firsthand the power of perpetrators who pick their victims carefully. I experienced the indifference and outright hostility of the authorities. I am not saying that abusers should not go to prison. They should.

But I am also saying we should look at all the facts before we condemn someone and seriously damage their career.


The facts are clear: Allen is a lifelong pedophile. That's a simple fact.
 
 
+1 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:41
Woody Allen never molested anyone before or after. How is that "a lifelong pedophile"?
 
 
+1 # janla 2016-05-14 18:32
Quoting shraeve:
Woody Allen never molested anyone before or after. How is that "a lifelong pedophile"?

You mean that he never got caught. Sexual abuse perpetrators often have a string of victims to their credit which people don't find out about and which many chose to disbelieve when they do find out.
 
 
+7 # lights 2016-05-12 16:38
Thank YOU CL38. I know exactly what you mean! And I appreciate the work you did to bring light to this case and this issue.....
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:12
I thank you. Wish it had had more impact on shraeve.
 
 
+6 # lights 2016-05-12 17:23
Oh, you've made a difference alright, CL38. And maybe the whole family will read, hear and value you for "saying" it...

The most powerful learning is unconscious learning. Everyone is learning even if we don't want to learn. And it is a double edged sword because that is part of what's so insidiously destructive about childhood sexual abuse!
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:45
and all the other 'abuses' that go on everyday, everywhere.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
 
0 # janla 2016-05-14 18:37
Quoting CL38:
I thank you. Wish it had had more impact on shraeve.

Shraeve does not want to 'know' - that is, understand what it means to be an abused child, even though she says that she was one. How is a kid able to understand what has happened to her, let alone have the courage to talk about it. Let's begin with 'forcing her to suck his thumb'????
 
 
+1 # isafakir 2016-05-12 19:55
Quoting shraeve:

What did bitter, scorned, vindictive Mia say to her child in the time between those two visits?


it's simply a fact, nobody who's never been sexually assaulted and abused has a clue. and pawing all over it again and again and casting judgements on people who've suffered more than enough only hurts people who did not choose to be brutalized and dehumanized by the predator.

let people be.
 
 
+3 # ronjazz 2016-05-12 20:30
Quoting shraeve:
Far from true. There has been much research that shows that false memories can be easily suggested to children.

Just as one example: "False memories come from investigators asking leading questions, therapists trying to uncover hidden truths, and yes, distraught parents engaged in acrimonious divorce proceedings." From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/09/it-s-shockingly-easy-to-create-false-memories.html

Dylan originally told her pediatrician that she had not been molested. Mia took her home and brought her back to the pediatrician a day or two later. Dylan then contradicted her earlier statement and said that Woody Allen had molested her.

What did bitter, scorned, vindictive Mia say to her child in the time between those two visits?


She most likely explained that her father ahd lied to her. It's really quite simple, only someone willfully blind,m like you, can't see the truth.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:46
I'm sorry. meant to give you an up vote and hit the wrong key.
 
 
-1 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:43
"She most likely explained that her father ahd lied to her."

"Explained" = brainwashed.
 
 
-2 # janla 2016-05-14 18:39
Quoting shraeve:
"She most likely explained that her father ahd lied to her."

"Explained" = brainwashed.

What do you think her mother should have said to her when she (the mother) understood what had happened? Should she have just let it go?
 
 
-16 # shraeve 2016-05-12 11:29
Woody Allen passed a lie detector test. Dylan Farrow never took one. Doesn't that say something?
 
 
+13 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-12 11:58
Quoting shraeve:
Woody Allen passed a lie detector test. Dylan Farrow never took one. Doesn't that say something?


Re: Allen - It could say he's innocent of the charges or it could say he is a psychopath.
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-12 12:56
I am not sure what you mean by "psychopath". Is there independent evidence that Woody Allen is a "psychopath"?
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:35
Google it.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:19
Allen refused to take a lie-detector test administered by the police. He took an outside test, arranged by his attorney.
 
 
+11 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 15:54
Quoting shraeve:
Woody Allen passed a lie detector test. Dylan Farrow never took one. Doesn't that say something?


Ted Bundy (remember him ?) took a lie detector test and passed. "Thou dost protest too much"
 
 
-8 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:43
No one claims the polygraph is fool proof. But Allen was given the test by one of the leading experts in the field (I forget the name). I am not saying the polygraph test is everything. But at least it is something.

At least Woody took a polygraph, something Dylan never did.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:22
Again, Allen REFUSED to take a police-administ ered lie detector test. The test he eventually did take was arranged by his attorney!

You are SO committed to ignoring real facts, as opposed to those you make up to protect Allen. WHY is THAT?

Ask yourself what is going on with you....and then listen to what comes up.
 
 
-1 # janla 2016-05-14 18:41
[quote name="shraeve"] No one claims the polygraph is fool proof. But Allen was given the test by one of the leading experts in the field (I forget the name). I am not saying the polygraph test is everything. But at least it is something.
Dylan was a child - what would such a thing mean to her and would that be a further attempt do traumatize a child?
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-12 22:21
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-05-12 23:35
FWIW: Mia Farrow also refused to take a lie detector test.
 
 
+15 # Colleen Clark 2016-05-12 11:30
Always believe the woman. She has every reason not to say anything against a powerful man - whether it's her boss or her father or her professor or a colleague or....
Recently (I'm 73) realized that I was once groped uncomfortably in my own house by a neighbor when I was about 13. He was also a chemistry teacher in the high school. It only happened once. I never told anyone. I just kept out of his way. (I don't recall what brought this memory up. Not this article.) Why do men do this? I have no idea. Clearly, famous and successful men do it, as well as millions of others we never hear about.
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-12 14:26
Always believe the woman? You never heard of the Tawana Brawley hoax? You never heard of the false rape accusations against the Duke lacrosse team? You never heard of Susan Smith, who murdered her two children and lied about a black man carjacking them? You never heard of the Brian Banks rape case, in which the false testimony of a woman sent Banks to prison for five years?

Female teachers and coaches are sometimes accused of molesting their students. Should we always believe those women? Even after they are convicted?

Always believe the woman? No, always believe the facts.
 
 
+13 # CL38 2016-05-12 14:38
Shraeve, you also have to be OPEN to hearing the 'facts'. Not automatically dismissing them, like you have INSISTENTLY done here, over and over, always defending child, sex abuser/predator .
 
 
+1 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:44
Everyone should get a fair hearing, no matter what they are accused of having done.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:24
A fair hearing like you've given Dylan???
 
 
-3 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:44
She is not being accused of a crime.
 
 
-2 # janla 2016-05-14 18:43
Quoting shraeve:
Everyone should get a fair hearing, no matter what they are accused of having done.


Define 'fair hearing.' Relate it to the difference between a child and a powerful adult, and all those who would prefer to believe him. Where is the fairness?
 
 
-7 # bardphile 2016-05-12 11:34
Maybe but I'm skeptical. Roman wants us to see him as an early exposer of Cosby--in 2014! That's pure pose. Cosby's shameful behavior was yesterday's news by then. I haven't followed the Allen story closely and don't intend to, and Allen is obviously a bit of a creep, at least; but hasn't Mia been the prototypical embittered rejected wife? Maybe still stirring up trouble after all these years? And do we have to go through this again every time Allen makes a new movie? It seem that we do.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-05-12 13:54
Poor, poor 'bardphile'. What HE has to go through each time Dylan's accusations are discussed.
 
 
-10 # ronclintonsmith@gmail.com 2016-05-12 11:40
Associating allegations against Woody Allen, fueled by Mia Farrow's extreme rancor against him for marrying their adopted daughter, with the 60 plus women who've come out against Cosby, is deeply misleading and a kind of rape in itself. The Farrows are making it a lifelong mission to destroy the man, at any cost, and I'm far more skeptical of their motives than suspicious that Woody Allen is some kind of sexual predator.
 
 
-6 # Caliban 2016-05-12 22:28
Right on. Why would we doubt the sexual proclivities of a man who has sex with his own daughter? He did marry her, after all.
 
 
+1 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:47
Soon-Yi was not Woody Allen's daughter. She had little to do with him until Mia asked Woody to take her places.

The nanny, Kristi Groteke, said that Soon-Yi always held herself aloof from the rest of the family.

Soon-Yi said that she never saw Woody Allen as a father figure.
 
 
-2 # janla 2016-05-14 18:49
Quoting Caliban:
Right on. Why would we doubt the sexual proclivities of a man who has sex with his own daughter? He did marry her, after all.

Incredibly honorable of him - or was it so she wouldn't talk? The whole 'marry your daughter (at least in a sense of connectedness ) is pretty creepy. How long before she became 'of age,' might we wonder, was he grooming her?
 
 
+18 # Patriot 2016-05-12 12:06
Like Colleen Clark, I, too, was groped at about the age of 11, by a lifeguard at our pool. I never told anyone, because I thought I must have imagined it--but it was real.

I also was raped at the age of 26, in my own home, by an intruder. I reported it immediately to the police, and filed a lengthy, detailed report. The officer who dealt with my report was as compassionate and considerate as any one could have asked.

No one investigated for more than two months, at which time I refused to give a verbal rendition of my written report, because I had no desire to go over the details again. The detectives, who had come to my hme, claimed I was lying. I threw them out with a warning that I would file charges against them for failure to investigate in a timely fashion.

The matter ended there, in a draw between the two threats.

Luckily for me, a good friend's husband, a police officer, whom I had called immediately, had advised me to file a complaint, but warned it probably would not be pursued. The rape occurred at avout 5 a.m.; I called a man I worked with, and burst into tears when his wife answered. She calmed me down, had me explain, and dispatched her husband to stay with me, in case the man came back, until morning. I would have gone crazy alone, and knew no one else who might be awake at that hour.

I never told anyone else. There was no point.
 
 
+3 # isafakir 2016-05-12 19:42
Quoting Patriot:


I never told anyone else. There was no point.


no one who's never been sexually assaulted has a clue

and basically their instinctive response is to accuse the victim of assault to cover their own fears and anxieties. it's easier to deny if you blame the victim
 
 
+21 # LionMousePudding 2016-05-12 12:13
I can't believe people can read this article and then immediately use their prejudices to attack the author and the victim. Wasn't convicted? Did you even read the article?

I should not be so surprised. Every once in a while an article comes out about women being victims and suddenly all the 'progressives' are anything but progressive. They are right there with the Right wing attack dogs.

Actually the exact same thing happened a little while ago when the article was about the rights of welfare recipients. These 'progressives' were right there on the 'welfare recipients get too much money because they have something enjoyable in their lives- sex' hate bandwagon.

I expect thumbs down and furious vitriol because I'm not allowed to say this stuff
But I'm not going to even check because why should I care? If one person reads this and has a better understanding of this audience, the comment was worth it
 
 
+6 # bardphile 2016-05-12 15:54
No vitriol from here, LMP--not even a reddie. Just what I still think is a health skepticism regarding Roman Farrow's article. My bias is that the woman's version is usually closer to the truth in these cases, but I don't like to have that bias played on by someone with an agenda.

If I'm wrong in my skepticism, I apologize to Mr. Farrow.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:25
who's agenda are you referring to?? Allen's agenda to misdirect the focus from HIS behavior to casting blame on 7 year old Dylan and a protective mother, Mia?? that agenda?
 
 
+20 # elkingo 2016-05-12 13:38
My take is that Woody is a genius and a dirtbag: the two are not incompatible. And some of you pillorying this guy for writing the article?! How low can you get? All that just continues the work of The Great American Bullshit Machine in this case.
 
 
0 # elkingo 2016-05-12 13:44
JayaVII,
You're right. Just another benefit of capitalism.
 
 
0 # jabo1941 2016-05-12 14:50
Because this country was founded by Puritans it has continued functioning with a blind eye to something that is real and pervasive--sex addiction. There is little doubt that Woody is a sex addict whether he is acting out or acting in. Bill Cosby is the poster boy for sex addiction as was Bill Clinton and so many other famous, powerful, creative men in history. Pablo Picasso was just one of so many artists, writers, and composers who used sex as a drug to ease the pain of their depression and make them feel alive.
 
 
+6 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:46
There is a huge difference between sex addiction with consenting adults and rape. This discussion is about the rape of a child.
 
 
+3 # lights 2016-05-12 16:55
shraeve: "this discussion is about the rape of a child."

And much more....as if rape wasn't enough.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:51
I have no doubt that you're right about Picasso using sex as a drug....and if you read his biographies, they show that Picasso took great pleasure in humiliating and playing women he was involved with (at the same time or serially) against one another. He was definitely a flat-out hateful misogynist. Many of his paintings exhibited women with body parts dismembered and attached to other body parts. They make me cringe.
 
 
+1 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 16:11
[quote name="shraeve"

"And the prosecutor was willing to allow a child molester to walk free and attack other victims? What kind of an ethical prosecutor would put countless children at risk from a child molester if he could put that child molester behind bars?

Why maybe a prosecutor who has a secret penchant for young children himself .Or are you now going to suggest that prosecutors are all ethical by definition and such people would never indulge in any kind of child porn or partake in activities with underage girls or boys.
 
 
+2 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:47
Is there any evidence for that in this case?
 
 
+3 # lights 2016-05-12 16:59
It could be for many reasons that you are so obsessed - but here's my potential list.

1. You are a sexual child predator yourself and are trying desperately to justify it to yourself.

2. You are a publicist for Woody Allen and you don't want Ronan's truth to affect your pocket book.

3. You are one of the attorney's hired by Allen to discredit this mother, this child and this family.

4. You are Woody Allen, himself!
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:11
5. You are in deep denial about your own sexual abuse, and have a sense of guilt that belies the facts, etc.
6. For some as yet unknown reason, you identify with the abuser. Why would you do that?
 
 
-3 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:50
7. I am committed to fair play.

8. I believe in making judgements based on facts, not mob hysteria.

9. I find lynching to be frightening and repulsive.
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-05-12 22:52
Correction please: You're NOT committed to fair play for Dylan or Mia, the actual victims in this case, NOT Allen.

You've made judgments based solely on opinion, never based on facts. You've lynched Dylan and Mia, without the slightest hesitation.

In fact, your insistence that Allen is the 'real' victim here, and your complete lack of respect for the actual victims leads me to wonder if:

1. You're not a woman, you're an unsympathetic male.
2. You were never sexually abused. If you were, you'd exhibit much more sensitivity to their situation.
3. You've COMPLETELY ignored the facts. In fact, like some sort of robot, you persist in repeating the SAME comments, over and over, regardless of facts put before you.
4. As someone else astutely suggested, you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
5. You're a pathetic, useless troll. In this case --and for all the reasons above, I'm finished trying to communicate with you.

READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE. READ the VANITY FAIR piece. Google it.
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-12 16:59
Everybody is extending credibility to Dylan's brother Ronan. Why is no one mentioning the fact that another brother, Moses, is certain that Woody Allen did not abuse Dylan?

Read what Moses has to say about Mia.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-05-12 23:37
And Moses was there at the time of the alleged molestation.
 
 
+8 # Desiderata 2016-05-12 16:59
At the risk of belabouring this :
Mia Farrow had a "little girl" quality to her well into her 40's did she not? When she debuted in Peyton Place she had a kind of sexual allure that made men of all ages take notice. What was that? She looked like a 14 year old. I just watched Rosemary's baby the other night ..Mia looked too young to give birth in that film ! Perhaps it was her waif like demeanor that attracted Woody Allen and when that started to fade he hit on what was close to home: their female children. Who knows what he got up to with Soon Yi before she turned 21. And marrying her was the best way to shut her up. Besides, she was probably besotted because he was all she knew.
The man may be talented ,but sick puppy he is ,to what extent we may never know ,but I suspect his family members do.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-05-12 17:07
excellent observations.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-05-12 23:49
Yes, Mia looked even younger than she was, and she was young. I saw that film at a special screening and it totally freaked me out.

Mia Farrow was married to 53 year old Frank Sinatra (whom she married when she was 19) when she was filming Rosemary's Baby.

In fact, Ol' Blue Eyes served her divorce papers on the set.

She married 41 year old Andre Previn the next year.

When Farrow and Allen began their relationship, she was 35 and he was 45.
 
 
+2 # shraeve 2016-05-13 03:57
Mia Farrow may have appeared to be younger than she was but no one would mistake her for a little girl. Being sexually attracted to young-looking adults is in no way the same as being attracted to small children.

"Who knows what he got up to with Soon Yi before she turned 21."

17 is legal in New York. 16 is legal in Connecticut.

Who knows what anyone might have done? You can't condemn someone on the basis of "who knows what they might have done".
 
 
0 # janla 2016-05-14 18:57
Quoting Desiderata:
At the risk of belabouring this :
Mia Farrow had a "little girl" quality to her well into her 40's did she not? When she debuted in Peyton Place she had a kind of sexual allure that made men of all ages take notice. What was that? She looked like a 14 year old. I just watched Rosemary's baby the other night ..Mia looked too young to give birth in that film ! Perhaps it was her waif like demeanor that attracted Woody Allen and when that started to fade he hit on what was close to home: their female children. Who knows what he got up to with Soon Yi before she turned 21. And marrying her was the best way to shut her up. Besides, she was probably besotted because he was all she knew.
The man may be talented ,but sick puppy he is ,to what extent we may never know ,but I suspect his family members do.


The "Lolita" syndrome
 
 
+3 # Auteur47 2016-05-15 15:35
Re- Soon Yi: "...... marrying her was the best way to shut her up."
Talk about "besotted," they've been married for the last quarter century! Perhaps there is more to the situation than this facile characterizatio n.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-05-12 17:49
A lot of vitriolic e-ink has been spilled on this page by people with only second- and third-hand knowledge (explicitly claimed as "fact" in some cases). If there were clear, consistent confirming evidence, we the public would have a serious interest in seeing it brought forth. There MAY be some heroes in this story, and there MAY be one or more victims.

We all would like certainty, in this case and in all cases, and if criminal acts occurred we all would like to see justice served. But given only what is on this page, all of which surely has support somewhere on the internet, it's just more fodder for the tabloids and we are voyeurs.
 
 
+1 # isafakir 2016-05-12 19:35
Quoting economagic:
there MAY be one or more victims.

We all would like certainty, in this case and in all cases, and if criminal acts occurred we all would like to see justice served.


nobody who's never been molested, assaulted, abused, used has a clue.

and the criminal process is even more brutal.

it never goes away. it never gets better. everybody has an opinion. it's like going through life with dog's drooling over you, trying to get a taste.

nobody gives a damn and nobody is interested in justice, just in accusing and abusing.

what in god's name does "may" mean. unless they've been abused themselves, nobody has that right to add that kind of abuse on top of all the abuse piled up already.

comments like this are just another way to throw the people who've been made into objects of consumption back into the garbage pile again. IMHO.
 
 
0 # isafakir 2016-05-12 19:26
nobody who's not been assaulted really has a clue.

and the criminal process is even more brutal than the assault.

and it never goes away. never gets better. and everybody has an opinion. it feels like dogs drooling over you. for the rest of your life you are garbage.
 
 
+1 # rxfxworld 2016-05-12 20:24
Most of the comments supporting Ronan are like his, unproveable allegations. IT reminds me of Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The certainty and hysteria of the guilt of Woody Allen. If one of youy were the accused, just try to disprove it and prove your innocence. Here's a few Facts for you. Acc. to her own autobiography, Mia lived in Sinatra's house when she was 16. I don't know what passed between them and neither do you.

I find most articles on this service are at least factually based. This article has no p[lace here and I question the ethics of continuing Mr. Farrow's unprovable allegations. I have never taken Kristoff's column seriously since he allowed a personal friend (Mia who went with him to Africa) to use his column for this same stuff. I think he should have been fired because it's unethical journalism, advocacy and without a basis in provable fact it reduces journalism of the NY Times to the level of the Enquirer. Disappointing that RSN should also sink this low.
 
 
0 # shraeve 2016-05-13 04:20
The comparison with "The Crucible" is apt. The campaign against Woody Allen is a witch hunt.
 
 
0 # shraeve 2016-05-13 04:33
Almost all of the pro-Woody comments in this discussion focus on the facts. The fact that the sex abuse clinic found that Dylan had not been molested, the fact that the statute of limitations did not run out for more than a decade, the fact that the prosecutor admitted that he allowed a predator to walk free, the fact that Woody Allen passed a lie detector test (and Dylan never took one), etc.

Most of the anti-Woody comments are personal attacks on the pro-Woody commenters, such as "Why are you defending a child molester?"
 
 
-2 # shraeve 2016-05-13 10:13
If you read Ronan's earlier comments ("Happy Fathers' Day. Or is it happy brother-in-law day?"), Judge Elliot Wilk's comments, or many of the comments in this discussion, you realize that this controversy is not really about Dylan. Dylan is merely a pawn. This is really about Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi.

Is it a coincidence that the molestation allegation occurred only six months after Mia found out about the affair between Woody and Soon-Yi?

If I had just fallen in love with a woman and begun a relationship with her, would I molest her little sister? Not a good way to impress my lady love.
 
 
+3 # JayaVII 2016-05-13 10:31
Shraeve:
Who are you? You've now made more than 40 postings on this one article. Clearly, you are more than a disinterested commentator.

Why are you so obsessed with proving Woody Allen's innocence?

Are you on Woody Allen's payroll? Are you Woody Allen?
 
 
-2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-13 12:02
[quote Shraeve:...You' ve now made more than 40 postings on this one article. Clearly, you are more than a disinterested commentator.

Why are you so obsessed with proving Woody Allen's innocence?

Agreed, Shraeve's interest in defending Woody Allan, & in casting Mia Farrow in the role of a 'bitter, vengeful & rejected' woman is excessive. There is obviously something playing out here that has nothing to do with the Woody Allen debacle, & has everything to do with Shraeve's personal issues.

Just one observation: Shraeve keeps stating that he is only citing the facts, & cites the "fact" that Woody Allen never molested any child before or after the allegations re: Dylan.

Sorry, Shraeve, that is not a fact, & in FACT you have no way of knowing whether or not Woody Allen molested other children.

The Cosby allegations were made by women who were mostly adults when they were victimized, & even then, it took years, if not decades, for most of the stories to emerge. Accusations from victims who were very young children at the time of abuse, & thus even more vulnerable, are far less likelyy to be made when the victim becomes an adult. & when you look at the rancor and scorn that Dylan, & her protective mother, have been subjected to, it becomes even more unlikely.
 
 
+3 # markovchhaney 2016-05-14 00:15
You're right: he doesn't know that Allen is innocent. Any more than do those decrying him know that Allen is guilty. Why is one group working "with the angels," while those who raise ANY doubt at all regarding these accusations are attacked as pedophiles or paid shills. I'm neither, but I maintain skepticism absent more convincing evidence. And that will result in many downvotes and slurs. What a country.
 
 
+3 # shraeve 2016-05-14 04:45
There is no way of knowing whether anyone ever did any crime. Anyone COULD be a child abuser.
 
 
+3 # shraeve 2016-05-14 04:43
You are trying to make this to be about me, not about the facts in this case.

This is not about me. Regardless of who I am, the facts speak for themselves.
 
 
+5 # JayaVII 2016-05-13 15:14
The real issue here for me is that the rich and powerful get away with murder in our society, while the poor and powerless are routinely sentenced to extreme prison sentences for the crime of not have a good lawyer.
 
 
+3 # tigerlillie 2016-05-13 18:33
Child sexual abuse is a crime that most criminals get away with quite routinely. You must remember that the average child sexual abuser is synonymous with the average man. It is just one more extension of male privilege. And yes, I know that there increasing numbers of female child sexual abusers, but overall, the average statistic has not changed much. I worked in the field for many years. I can assure you that the poor and powerless get away with sexually abusing children all the time. And they generally don't much care about whether their child victims are girls or boys.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2016-05-13 22:38
One things seems to be a constant: rich and powerful men are almost never thought to be guilty.
 
 
+3 # markovchhaney 2016-05-14 00:13
Sure thing. Except when they are thought to be guilty regardless of evidence.
 
 
+2 # markovchhaney 2016-05-14 00:12
You can always count on Americans to react to stories involving allegations of the sexual abuse of children with outrage, generally to the point of ignoring facts, common sense, and anything vaguely resembling legal principles. Consider the McMartin case in California, the Kelly Michaels case in NJ, and the Little Rascals case in North Carolina, just as three examples from a vast record in the '80s & '90s of false accusations of outlandish Satanic cults connected with day-care facilities. Ultimately, all the charges were dropped, convictions reversed, but many lives were ruined forever despite the fact that not one child was harmed by those accused. As to the harm they suffered at the hands of their parents, the police, and various "experts" who questioned them, well, that sort of thing never draws much public outrage.

Others here have mentioned the Duke lacrosse team and the Tawana Brawley cases in connection with adults bringing false charges that resulted in some very outlandish reactions.

Yet it seems that the majority of those reacting to the charges against Woody Allen have learned nothing from those cases. It suffices for them that there are charges (not legal ones, as of yet), and that kids were involved. And the accused is a famous man. Hence, he must be guilty.

What's missing here: the antisemitism, antiliberalism, anti-intellectu alism, etc., that appear in comments on less liberal sites. You should read some of those and see with whom you are allied.
 
 
+2 # shraeve 2016-05-14 07:38
RE: no criminal case against Allen

In 1978 Roman Polanski fled the USA to avoid prison time for child sex abuse. Because of this example, the Connecticut State's Attorney, Frank Maco, had ample justification to arrest Woody Allen to prevent him from fleeing while Maco prepared a criminal case against Allen.

But Allen was never even arrested, much less indicted, much much less tried. Why not? After all, according to the much-cited "Vanity Fair" article, Frank Maco "said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen".

How would arresting and indicting Woody Allen be a threat to Dylan's "fragility"? If Allen had been under indictment his passport could have been seized and he could have been held in jail while Maco could investigate whether he could prosecute a criminal case against him that did not involve Dylan testifying.

Why? Because Maco did not have any "probable cause". He did not even have enough evidence to get Allen arrested. If he did not even have enough evidence to have Allen arrested then there was no way he could have obtained a conviction.
 
 
+3 # Skyelav 2016-05-14 09:35
Pathetic comments from both sides, I have never seen more extremes of opinions on this site. Perhaps this is something that should be let die quietly. There is no end to speculation and rumor... every member of this group is neurotic at best... Woody Allen did not sally forth into the public as a predator.... if there was salacious behavior in that house I wonder why? It's rhetorical. If every person commenting would just give RSN $10.00 a month instead of spending time and energy in a fruitless argument, perhaps the world would be a better place. The Allen matter is closed, perhaps unfortunately. But that's the fact of the matter. I have learned to let God sort some things out.
 
 
+2 # shraeve 2016-05-15 08:10
Skyelav wrote: "Perhaps this is something that should be let die quietly."

Woody Allen has always been willing to let it alone. But Ronan and Dylan keep on bringing it up.
 
 
+2 # shraeve 2016-05-15 10:31
The much-quoted "Vanity Fair" article neglected to mention several things. Among them:

Dr. Susan Coates said she did not see Woody Allen's relationship with Dylan as sexual.

In his decision, Judge Wilk said "Until 1990, although he [Woody Allen] had had little contact with any of the Previn children, he had the least to to with Soon-Yi".

In 1990 Soon-Yi was at least 18 years old, possibly 20. Her exact date of birth is uncertain. But at any rate she was an adult when she and Woody Allen began a relationship.

The fact that Allen had the least to do with Soon-Yi means that it is impossible that he "groomed" her.

Why did the "Vanity Fair" article neglect to mention these things, among others? As someone said in an earlier post, that article was a hit piece.
 
 
0 # Auteur47 2016-05-15 15:21
This is a sad and disturbing tale which has seemed to have hit quite a raw nerve. Few topics such as illicit sex and celebrity involving trust that was exploited to victimize are capable of going so far. I, like most readers here, have long admired the brilliant work of Woody Allen. But now his reputation seems to be going the way of Cosby and Michael Jackson.
I commend Ronan Farrow for his courage and integrity. But this whole business is still darkly dispiriting.
 
 
0 # ojg 2016-05-15 15:40
If I was Woody Allen, I would demand my child support back for Satchel/Ronan. He is obviously a Sinatra. I love Frank Sinatra's music and movies. It's a shame that someone like Ronan is wandering around the world with the Sinatra face.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN