A. She was not underage. She was 20 when Mia found the photos. She had just returned from her first year in college. Allen never really spent any time alone with her prior to that.
B. She was not his stepdaughter. Soon Yi Previn was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and her then husband Andre Previn. Woody and Mia were not married and were not living together.
You can mention the lines he did cross but those are the facts.
As for Dlyan Farrow, this was looked at pretty much as soon as it was alleged. And it the multiple doctors who examined he said no abuse occurred and that is why he was not charged.
This is by no means whatsoever a cut and dried case.
Unfortunately we know that if you have a 7 year old tell you a story over and over and over you can actually imprint a memory.
So I think you have to go back to original events. This allegation happened after the Soon Yi affair was discovered and during Farrow's and Allen's custody battle. That is the backdrop.
January 1992: Mia Farrow finds intimate Polaroids of her (adopted) daughter Soon-Yi Previn, age 20, under a box of tissues on the mantle in Allen’s Manhattan apartment. After confronting Soon-Yi and confirming the affair, she tells all but the youngest children what she has learned.
The incident with Dylan was said to happen in August, two days before they were sign their custody agreement. There is a lot about Mia Farrrow's behavior at this time that had observers concerned
Among the folks who either say no abuse occurred or raise significant doubts are the following
Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist, who was working with the family for two years.
The pedatrician Farrow takes Dylan to, the day after the incident. When asked where her father touched her she pointed to her shoulder.
The doctor's who examine her 5 days after the incident
Dr. Nancy Schultz, Dylan's therapist
A group of child abuse experts at Yale-New Haven Hospital investigating the abuse allegation for the Connecticut State Police. The interview her 9 times, their statement
describes inconsistencies in Dylan’s accounts: “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” In interviews, he testified, she had “a rehearsed quality,” and once said, “I like to cheat on my stories.”
“We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.” But, he stated, “We don’t have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this.”
Leventhal noted one “very striking” consistency in Dylan’s accounts of the abuse: she connected it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Allen’s films.
As Moses originally made clear, Woody Allen was "grooming" Soon Yi Previn on his very first visits to the Mia Farrow apartment. Granted that story has been changed, but so was the relationship between Woody and Moses changed in what seems to have been new financial support for Moses.
Sue Coates, child psychologist, confirmed the warnings of friends and relatives of Mia Farrow who were greatly concerned about his behavior with Dylan -- which was described as an "obsession."
Nannines in the Farrow household were told to WATCH Woody carefully with Dylan and that he wasn't to be alone with her.
Anyone who feels inclined to believe this hogwash should actually review the records -- all of them are on the internet.
What would Yale's involvement be with this crime, except to represent and support Woody Allen who has given a great deal of money to the university? PLUS, they wouldn't testify under Oath.
Of course a child will be "inconsistent" in discussing a subject should could barely understand at her age.
DYLAN is here and present now in adulthood to tell you the reality of her sexual abuse by Woody Allen.
The records of Dylan at the time when she began to reveal Woody's abuse to her Mother are also evidence.
Again -- males are our sexual abusers of children -- not females.
And they are heterosexual males who are 100XMORE likely to sexually abuse a child than a homosexual according to studies.
As Moses originally made clear, Woody Allen was "grooming" Soon Yi Previn on his very first visits to the Mia Farrow apartment.
I don't know what you are referencing, but I know that back in 1993 the nanny's deposition said Moses felt it was made up.
Thompson added that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, another child Allen and Farrow adopted, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place.
"Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan," Thompson said in an affidavit.
The Nation timeline has this about Moses
March 23, 1993: The court hears the position taken by Moses in the custody dispute as enshrined in a letter he handed to Allen in 1992, after learning of his affair with Soon-Yi, which reads in part: “You can’t force me to live with you…. All you did is spoil the little ones, Dylan and Satchel…. Everyone knows you’re not supposed to have an affair with your son’s sister…. I don’t consider you my father anymore. It was a great feeling having a father, but you smashed that feeling and dream with a single act.”
Again -- males are our sexual abusers of children -- not females
They are heterosexual males -- homosexual males are 100X LESS likely to sexually abuse a child.
Yes, we do see the occasional female involved in sexual abuse of a child, but it is generally
connected to involvement with a heterosexual male. Sometimes under threat.
I believe out of 3000 prisoners only 12 were female. And that is far less that the number you
are suggesting.
We also have to consider that 82% of females are sexually abused, usually in youth
and often by family members. Without study, it can't be said whether that has had
an affect on these women which caused them to commit those crimes.
DYLAN is here and present now in adulthood to tell you the reality of her sexual abuse by Woody Allen.
Let's try for a change, not to attack and try to blame the victim.
All studies and science -- even the right wing women's group (Family Research Council) confirms
that it is males who are our sexual abusers of children.
And they are generally males who are adult family members, or friends of the family.
I think it's interesting that you're not questioning Woody's memory ... perhaps he sexually
abused Dylan and just forgot about it?
As parents, we all know that children want to be friendly -- even when they don't understand
what they're being asked to do. That's where pedophiles have the advantage, btw.
The first time they deny it. Of course THAT is true... but they will surrender to adult
pressure especially when they have no understanding of why someone would ask them
to lie. And you're also making clear that after weeks and weeks of harassment of the
child trying to confuse them that they succeed -- how charming!
As parents what we do know about children is that they very early on know the difference
between a LIE and the TRUTH.
I'm including this BS for other readers to absorb ...
"Unfortunately the nature of human memory is that it is malleable.
Psychologists have studies where they ask young children about an event that never happened.
Week by week they ask the children about it. Within a very short time period, the children not only
say it happened, but the children can tell you all about in detail.">
And did any of them suggest to the children that they should suck their thumb or tried to
influence or "groom" them in any other way. And how would we know?
I'd suggest to parents that should there be a need for psychiatrists to have anything
to do with your child that you insist that you are present even if by a two-way mirror.
I would not leave my child alone with any MALE doctor.
I'm including this BS for other readers to absorb ...
It is, of course, not BS. And yes we all should absorb it because we now understand much, much, much better how human memories works. The human memory is not a tape recorder and our memories do change over time.
Read Loftus and Schacter if you want to learn what the latest research on memory tells us.
I looked at your links and your figures and they don't hold up --
None of your post does ... including that dribble about psychiatrists ... you should just as ashamed as
they are for what they did to children.
Again -- if human memory isn't reliable, it is more likely to happen to an older person -- like Woody Allen.
Some people have photographic memories ... don't think Woody is one of them.
Again -- more likely that Woody Allen conveniently forgot what he did to Dylan Farrow ...
And very much hope that lots of people get to see her interview on CBS ...
It's about time the world took a new look at Woody Allen ... pedophile.
Dylan Farrow's memory of the event like Woody Allen's would likely be more accurate the closer to the event than further away.
Dylan Farrow did not initially say she was molested by Allen that story evolved over days and days of her mother asking about it.
She is very specific about details of what went on, but according to her brother Moses, those details don't match how the house was setup. She claimed to look at train set when it happened. But the train set was not in the attic, it was done in the house where a bunch of people were. If it happened where the train set was it would have been visible to other people.
When you're talking about a 7 year old child there is no "initially" ... and her original comments
were recorded by Mia Farrow as she began to divulge them.
Later she makes clear that she did not tell the doctor on the first visit where Woody Allen had touched her because she was embarrassed. That's when Mia returned to the doctor with Dylan so Dylan could make clear why she didn't at first tell him what Woody had actually done to her.
IF you are a parent and have any experience with children you readily understand this.
"False Memory" is BS -- it's a lie -- and it's over. Try something else.
Re this ... I really want to avoid suggesting that you're a misinformed idiot ... so I'll leave it to ignorance or a desire to misinform readers here ...
She claimed to look at train set when it happened. But the train set was not in the attic, it was done in the house where a bunch of people were. If it happened where the train set was it would have been visible to other people.
What Dylan said was that Woody took her to a third floor dark attic. He told her to lie on her stomach. Her underwear was removed. Woody told her to look at a toy train she had in her hand. Woody then penetrated her digitally.
And let me make clear to you and all readers here ...
DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES.
HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
And long before this Woody had been sent off to discussions with a psychiatrist because family and friends were making clear their concerns over Woody's very odd "obsession" with Dylan. The psychiatrist made clear that Woody should not be alone with Dylan. Everyone in the household was assigned to ensure that Woody wasn't alone with Dylan. Nonetheless, Woody did manage to take Dylan off to the attic ... and this was going on while everyone was frantically searching for Dylan throughout the house in Connecticut.
There was another incident where another Nanny or baby sitter entered a room where Dylan was sitting on a couch with her dress up and Woody Allen had his head in her lab, his face pointing into her lap ...
and Dylan explains also what he was doing at the time. But a Nanny or a Baby sitter witnessed that behavior. It's unusual of course for there to be witnesses because this is something that happens when children are isolated -- taken out of the view of their parents and guardians. Just as men don't rape women when there are witnesses unless it is gang rape which is also becoming more common.
I probably did miss this if you replied to your reply.
And let me make clear to you and all readers here ... DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
This is not true.
If you think this is case, I can see why you think this is a more cut a dried case than it actually is.
August 4, 1992: Allen visits Farrow and the children in Connecticut. Farrow has gone shopping with a friend, Casey Pascal. Babysitters, a number of children, Allen and other staff are at the house. Farrow has instructed babysitters not to leave Dylan alone with Allen. When Farrow and Pascal return from shopping, no one tells Farrow that anything was amiss between Allen and Dylan. Later, Sophie Berge, the children’s French tutor, notices that Dylan has nothing on under her sundress; she tells Farrow, who asks Kristine Groteke to get Dylan some underpants. At night Pascal’s baby-sitter, Alison Stickland, tells Pascal that she is bothered by something she saw (that day): Allen in the TV room, according to court documents, “kneeling in front of Dylan with his head on her lap, facing her body. Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.”
August 5, 1992: Pascal calls Farrow to tell what the baby-sitter said. Later Farrow will testify that she asked Dylan “whether it was true that Daddy had his face in her lap yesterday.” Farrow will add: “Dylan said yes. And then she said that she didn’t like it one bit.”
Farrow calls Dr. Coates to say Dylan has begun to complain that Allen abused her. “I was puzzled, because in that conversation she was very calm,” Dr. Coates testified. “I did not understand her calm.”
After consulting a lawyer, Farrow takes the child to a pediatrician. “When they arrived home [from the doctor], Farrow said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor,’ ” a nanny at the time, Monica Thompson, will testify in a sworn deposition. Farrow will testify that the child gestured to her shoulder when asked by the doc to indicate her “private part” and later confided that she felt embarrassed.
Depending on accounts, over twenty-four hours or a matter of days, Farrow videotapes Dylan. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors,” Thompson, who had not been at the house on August 4, testified in her deposition. “I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do…and what did he do next?’
“Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”
Yes, there was a first part reply -- and then a second part ...
However, re this ...
... DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
Technically you are correct ... in re-reading of both events recently -- both the DEN and the ATTIC -- I confused just
where DYLAN lost her underpants.
TRUE ... IT DYLAN LOST HER UNDERPANTS IN THE DEN WITH WOODY ... AND NOT IN THE ATTIC.
I reversed the loss from the Den to the Attic ... my apologies ...
This is one of the latest articles on the "events" in the DEN and in the ATTIC ...
Again .. Dylan's underpants were lost in the DEN with Woody Allen ... not in the Attic with Woody Allen.
Again, it states clearly in your link that Thompson subsequently denounced her statements
to Woody's attorneys.
This may have been yet one more attempt by Woody to set one member of the Farrow household
against the other as noted by Justice Wilk.
What you stated in simply false and because what you stated is false, this case is far, far more complicated that you make it out to be.
I would not be taking the opposite of side of this argument if this was true.
DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
You have three details here and all of them all false. My guess is you mistakenly believed this was the case for a long while and thus thought it was an open and shut case that he is guilty.
Allen was not found in the attic with Dylan.
Allen was not found with Dylan missing her panties
Allen was not found with Dylan with her dress in the air.
DYLAN LOST HER UNDERPANTS IN THE DEN WITH WOODY ... AND NOT IN THE ATTIC.
Since you again have the basic facts incorrect you jump to conclusion and state that has a fact.
Dylan not having her panties occurred way later, after Mia Farrow returned from shopping.
Nobody mentions Dylan having her dress in the air around Allen that day, you should reread the link you provide.
There was no witnessing or allegation of sexual abuse when Woody Allen left Connecticut.
Everything happens after this point. Dylan does not come forward with any allegation of sexual abuse. The process that starts the allegations are external.
The article you link to is from Mia life-long friend. Is it possible she will give Mia's story? That she might be biased? On the flip side you have claimed the medical doctors and child sexual abuse experts who looked into this to be biased for Allen. Why?
Is it because of what they say? That they believe no sexual abuse occurred. These were either independent authorities or doctors who knew Dylan. Do you think they would if they believed Dylan was abused they wouldn't say so? Why would they do that?
Is there a single doctor or child abuse expert who looked at this case who believes child abuse occurred here?
You previously even make this claim
What would Yale's involvement be with this crime, except to represent and support Woody Allen who has given a great deal of money to the university?
I find no evidence that this is true. What's your basis for saying Woody Allen donated Yale? He didn't even attend Yale. It's also just a stretch to think the Sexual Abuse Clinic would not take their commission by the CT State Police seriously because he donated to Yale.
What Dylan said was that Woody took her to a third floor dark attic. He told her to lie on her stomach. Her underwear was removed. Woody told her to look at a toy train she had in her hand.
This is not true. Her open letter to Woody says this
He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set..........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.
Regarding Monica Thompson's testimony.
Again, it states clearly in your link that Thompson subsequently denounced her statements to Woody's attorneys.
That is a statement from Mia Farrow's lawyer to the press. It carries no legal weight. Thompson would testify in the custody case. Here's what she said on the stand.
Nanny says Mia selective in taping abuse allegation
NEW YORK -- Mia Farrow was selective in interviewing her 7-year- old daughter about alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Woody Allen, a former nanny testified Monday at the couple's bitter child custody trial.
Under direct examiniation by Allen's attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, child nurse Monica Thompson said in state Supreme Court she was at Farrow's rural home in Connecticut last August when Farrow began questioning Dylan, asking, 'What did Daddy do?'
'Did Daddy ask you to take off your underwear?' Thompson quoted Farrow as asking.
'Dylan had her head hanging down and did not seem interested in the conversation,' Thompson testified, saying she did not hear the child's answer.
She said she continued to watch the interrogation and notice Farrow turned the video camera off and on as the child's interest in the conversation warranted.
'She'd turn it off when Dylan didn't seem particularly interested,' Thompson testified.
Well, good job on exposing yourself as a Woody Allen apologist ...
The link I gave to you is by a very good friend of Mia's whose baby sitter just happened
to be the one who happened to walk into the DEN to see Woody on his knees in front
of Dylan Farrow, with his face facing her vagina.
You want to NOT make an issue that Dylan's underpants were missing after being
with Woody Allen ... but you do want to try to suggest that she lost them somewhere
having nothing to do with Woody Allen.
And you continue on with your nonsense even after you know that Woody Allen took Dylan
to a dark third floor attic and molested her -- penetrated her vagina digitally.
Also on the Thompson testimony -- you're trying to lie to people here about what
actually went down between Woody Allen and Nanny Thompson ...
And by the way Woody Allen paid Thompson's salary as Nanny in Mia's household -- $40,000 a year.
And this is the kind of nonsense from Thompson you want to support ... ?
Under cross examination by Farrow's attorney, Eleanor Alter, Thompson admitted that she quit Farrow's employ the day after she received a subpoena to testify on Farrow's behalf.She appeared at the trial before Justice Elliott Wilk as a witness on Allen's behalf.
She said Allen had loaned her $4,000 and was paying for her attorney for the proceeding.
Thompson testified she was interviewed about the abuse allegation last August by Connecticut police and lied when she was asked if Farrow was a good mother.
I answered 'yes' which I didn't mean,' she said. 'I was afraid of losing my job.
And Thompson LIED to the Connecticut police about Mia Farrow saying she was a "good Mother."
Trust others will also see through the nonsense you are posting here.
Thompson testified she was interviewed about the abuse allegation last August by Connecticut police and lied when she was asked if Farrow was a good mother.
I answered 'yes' which I didn't mean,' she said. 'I was afraid of losing my job.
And Thompson LIED to the Connecticut police about Mia Farrow saying she was a "good Mother."
You saying the fact that she lied on Farrow's behalf indicates she was biased on against Farrow?
That's confusing.
Supreme Court Justice Wilk made clear that he saw NO evidence that Mia had coached Dylan.
Wilk was not in charge of determining if the abuse occurred. The authorities that were said it didn't happen. I think Wilk was going to award custody to Farrow no matter what. I think he would have crucified if he didn't. I think awarding custody to Farrow was the right thing to do. I do not believe any sexual assault occurred.
When you say he saw no evidence of coaching, he basically substituted his own expertise over people in the field. He outright rejected testimony from a sex crimes detective that her questioning on the videotape was leading and suggestive.
And you continue on with your nonsense even after you know that Woody Allen took Dylan to a dark third floor attic and molested her -- penetrated her vagina digitally.
I don't know that. You don't know that either. I don't believe this happened. You believe it did.
Kristine Groteke, Mia's friend and Nanny wrote a book afterwards. She does not claim in her book that the sexual abuse occurred and is open to the possibility that Mia coached Dylan.
This is someone close to Mia and someone who Mia encouraged to write her book.
What I'm very clearly saying is Woody Allen BOUGHT her change of heart.
Again, Wilk is a Supreme Court Justice who will review the records -- ALL of them.
It was obvious everything he had seen and heard caused him to be suspicious of Woody Allen as a
manipulator and as someone trying to "pit one member of the Farrow family against the other" ...
for his own benefit. Woody Allen was denied custody of Dylan, Moses and Satchel.
What Wilk said about the sexual abuse was that the evidence he saw was not conclusive as to what the
Yale team were saying ... but that he was unable to review the Yale investigation because they had
destroyed their notes -- and refused to testify under OATH.
Again... Wilk said he saw NO evidence that Mia had coached Dylan.
Wilk also saw evidence that the investigation was "sanitized" ...
Needless to say that would have been done only for the benefit of Woody Allen.
Dylan Farrow has always made clear that she was molested by Woody Allen..
It also looks like Woody Allen had his eye on Soon Yi over the 12 year relationship between
Mia and Woody.
The babysitter very CLEARLY related what was happening in the DEN between Woody Allen
and Dylan Farrow ... a young child sitting on a couch staring blankly at a TV scree while Woody
kneeled before her, with his face in her lap, facing her vagina.
Dylan describes what he was actually doing.
Mia has encouraged all information coming out -- sadly for Woody.
And now Dylan Farrow has decided that it is important for her to continue to pursue this case in media.
Woody has done nothing from the very beginning but engaged in some very harmful (and traditional BS comments)
against Mia who as a Mother of a daughter he was taking NUDE AND PORNOGRAHIC pictures of behaved as any
Mother would. Plus hiring of publicists and I believe other investigators ... similarly to what Weinstein did.
Something made it very obvious to Wilk that Woody was trying to manipulate witnesses... including family members.
Likely that when Dylan came along he interests changed from Soon Yi to Dylan.
And when he realized that Mia was still involved with Frank Sinatra it was possibly revenge
which caused him to not only abuse Dylan further, but to begin a relationship with Mia's daughter.
view the rest of the comments →
think- ago
Don't forget Woody Allen took porn pics of his underage step daughter and later married her.
Are_we_sure ago
He did not.
A. She was not underage. She was 20 when Mia found the photos. She had just returned from her first year in college. Allen never really spent any time alone with her prior to that.
B. She was not his stepdaughter. Soon Yi Previn was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and her then husband Andre Previn. Woody and Mia were not married and were not living together.
You can mention the lines he did cross but those are the facts.
As for Dlyan Farrow, this was looked at pretty much as soon as it was alleged. And it the multiple doctors who examined he said no abuse occurred and that is why he was not charged.
This is by no means whatsoever a cut and dried case.
Unfortunately we know that if you have a 7 year old tell you a story over and over and over you can actually imprint a memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So I think you have to go back to original events. This allegation happened after the Soon Yi affair was discovered and during Farrow's and Allen's custody battle. That is the backdrop.
This is a good timeline of those events https://www.thenation.com/article/woody-and-mia-modern-family-timeline/
The incident with Dylan was said to happen in August, two days before they were sign their custody agreement. There is a lot about Mia Farrrow's behavior at this time that had observers concerned
Among the folks who either say no abuse occurred or raise significant doubts are the following
Votescam ago
As Moses originally made clear, Woody Allen was "grooming" Soon Yi Previn on his very first visits to the Mia Farrow apartment. Granted that story has been changed, but so was the relationship between Woody and Moses changed in what seems to have been new financial support for Moses.
Sue Coates, child psychologist, confirmed the warnings of friends and relatives of Mia Farrow who were greatly concerned about his behavior with Dylan -- which was described as an "obsession."
Nannines in the Farrow household were told to WATCH Woody carefully with Dylan and that he wasn't to be alone with her.
Anyone who feels inclined to believe this hogwash should actually review the records -- all of them are on the internet.
What would Yale's involvement be with this crime, except to represent and support Woody Allen who has given a great deal of money to the university? PLUS, they wouldn't testify under Oath.
Of course a child will be "inconsistent" in discussing a subject should could barely understand at her age. DYLAN is here and present now in adulthood to tell you the reality of her sexual abuse by Woody Allen. The records of Dylan at the time when she began to reveal Woody's abuse to her Mother are also evidence.
Again -- males are our sexual abusers of children -- not females.
And they are heterosexual males who are 100XMORE likely to sexually abuse a child than a homosexual according to studies.
Are_we_sure ago
I don't know what you are referencing, but I know that back in 1993 the nanny's deposition said Moses felt it was made up.
The Nation timeline has this about Moses
Votescam ago
Guess I forgot this part ...
Again -- males are our sexual abusers of children -- not females
They are heterosexual males -- homosexual males are 100X LESS likely to sexually abuse a child.
Yes, we do see the occasional female involved in sexual abuse of a child, but it is generally connected to involvement with a heterosexual male. Sometimes under threat. I believe out of 3000 prisoners only 12 were female. And that is far less that the number you are suggesting.
We also have to consider that 82% of females are sexually abused, usually in youth and often by family members. Without study, it can't be said whether that has had an affect on these women which caused them to commit those crimes.
DYLAN is here and present now in adulthood to tell you the reality of her sexual abuse by Woody Allen.
Let's try for a change, not to attack and try to blame the victim. All studies and science -- even the right wing women's group (Family Research Council) confirms that it is males who are our sexual abusers of children. And they are generally males who are adult family members, or friends of the family.
I think it's interesting that you're not questioning Woody's memory ... perhaps he sexually abused Dylan and just forgot about it?
As parents, we all know that children want to be friendly -- even when they don't understand what they're being asked to do. That's where pedophiles have the advantage, btw. The first time they deny it. Of course THAT is true... but they will surrender to adult pressure especially when they have no understanding of why someone would ask them to lie. And you're also making clear that after weeks and weeks of harassment of the child trying to confuse them that they succeed -- how charming! As parents what we do know about children is that they very early on know the difference between a LIE and the TRUTH.
I'm including this BS for other readers to absorb ...
And did any of them suggest to the children that they should suck their thumb or tried to influence or "groom" them in any other way. And how would we know?
I'd suggest to parents that should there be a need for psychiatrists to have anything to do with your child that you insist that you are present even if by a two-way mirror. I would not leave my child alone with any MALE doctor.
Are_we_sure ago
The figures I gave were in the link I posted.
It is, of course, not BS. And yes we all should absorb it because we now understand much, much, much better how human memories works. The human memory is not a tape recorder and our memories do change over time.
Read Loftus and Schacter if you want to learn what the latest research on memory tells us.
Votescam ago
Are --
I looked at your links and your figures and they don't hold up --
None of your post does ... including that dribble about psychiatrists ... you should just as ashamed as they are for what they did to children.
Again -- if human memory isn't reliable, it is more likely to happen to an older person -- like Woody Allen. Some people have photographic memories ... don't think Woody is one of them.
Again -- more likely that Woody Allen conveniently forgot what he did to Dylan Farrow ...
And very much hope that lots of people get to see her interview on CBS ...
It's about time the world took a new look at Woody Allen ... pedophile.
Are_we_sure ago
Dylan Farrow's memory of the event like Woody Allen's would likely be more accurate the closer to the event than further away.
Dylan Farrow did not initially say she was molested by Allen that story evolved over days and days of her mother asking about it.
She is very specific about details of what went on, but according to her brother Moses, those details don't match how the house was setup. She claimed to look at train set when it happened. But the train set was not in the attic, it was done in the house where a bunch of people were. If it happened where the train set was it would have been visible to other people.
Votescam ago
Did you miss my reply in TWO parts?
When you're talking about a 7 year old child there is no "initially" ... and her original comments were recorded by Mia Farrow as she began to divulge them. Later she makes clear that she did not tell the doctor on the first visit where Woody Allen had touched her because she was embarrassed. That's when Mia returned to the doctor with Dylan so Dylan could make clear why she didn't at first tell him what Woody had actually done to her. IF you are a parent and have any experience with children you readily understand this. "False Memory" is BS -- it's a lie -- and it's over. Try something else.
Re this ... I really want to avoid suggesting that you're a misinformed idiot ... so I'll leave it to ignorance or a desire to misinform readers here ...
What Dylan said was that Woody took her to a third floor dark attic. He told her to lie on her stomach. Her underwear was removed. Woody told her to look at a toy train she had in her hand. Woody then penetrated her digitally.
And let me make clear to you and all readers here ... DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
And long before this Woody had been sent off to discussions with a psychiatrist because family and friends were making clear their concerns over Woody's very odd "obsession" with Dylan. The psychiatrist made clear that Woody should not be alone with Dylan. Everyone in the household was assigned to ensure that Woody wasn't alone with Dylan. Nonetheless, Woody did manage to take Dylan off to the attic ... and this was going on while everyone was frantically searching for Dylan throughout the house in Connecticut.
There was another incident where another Nanny or baby sitter entered a room where Dylan was sitting on a couch with her dress up and Woody Allen had his head in her lab, his face pointing into her lap ... and Dylan explains also what he was doing at the time. But a Nanny or a Baby sitter witnessed that behavior. It's unusual of course for there to be witnesses because this is something that happens when children are isolated -- taken out of the view of their parents and guardians. Just as men don't rape women when there are witnesses unless it is gang rape which is also becoming more common.
Are_we_sure ago
I probably did miss this if you replied to your reply.
This is not true.
If you think this is case, I can see why you think this is a more cut a dried case than it actually is.
Here are the actual facts.
She was not found in the attic. It was a sequence of events.
Farrow calls Dr. Coates to say Dylan has begun to complain that Allen abused her. “I was puzzled, because in that conversation she was very calm,” Dr. Coates testified. “I did not understand her calm.”
After consulting a lawyer, Farrow takes the child to a pediatrician. “When they arrived home [from the doctor], Farrow said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor,’ ” a nanny at the time, Monica Thompson, will testify in a sworn deposition. Farrow will testify that the child gestured to her shoulder when asked by the doc to indicate her “private part” and later confided that she felt embarrassed.
Depending on accounts, over twenty-four hours or a matter of days, Farrow videotapes Dylan. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors,” Thompson, who had not been at the house on August 4, testified in her deposition. “I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do…and what did he do next?’
“Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”
Votescam ago
Yes, there was a first part reply -- and then a second part ...
However, re this ...
... DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
Technically you are correct ... in re-reading of both events recently -- both the DEN and the ATTIC -- I confused just where DYLAN lost her underpants.
TRUE ... IT DYLAN LOST HER UNDERPANTS IN THE DEN WITH WOODY ... AND NOT IN THE ATTIC.
I reversed the loss from the Den to the Attic ... my apologies ...
Here's a link to details ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557270/Mia-Farrows-whistleblower-friend-speaks-reveals-Woody-Allens-obsession-strange-intensity-daughter.html
This is one of the latest articles on the "events" in the DEN and in the ATTIC ...
Again .. Dylan's underpants were lost in the DEN with Woody Allen ... not in the Attic with Woody Allen.
Again, it states clearly in your link that Thompson subsequently denounced her statements to Woody's attorneys. This may have been yet one more attempt by Woody to set one member of the Farrow household against the other as noted by Justice Wilk.
Are_we_sure ago
No. I am just simply correct.
What you stated in simply false and because what you stated is false, this case is far, far more complicated that you make it out to be.
I would not be taking the opposite of side of this argument if this was true. DYLAN WAS FOUND IN THE ATTIC WITH WOODY ALLEN ... AND WITH MISSING PANTIES. HER DRESS IN THE AIR.
You have three details here and all of them all false. My guess is you mistakenly believed this was the case for a long while and thus thought it was an open and shut case that he is guilty.
Allen was not found in the attic with Dylan. Allen was not found with Dylan missing her panties Allen was not found with Dylan with her dress in the air.
Since you again have the basic facts incorrect you jump to conclusion and state that has a fact.
Dylan not having her panties occurred way later, after Mia Farrow returned from shopping.
Nobody mentions Dylan having her dress in the air around Allen that day, you should reread the link you provide.
There was no witnessing or allegation of sexual abuse when Woody Allen left Connecticut.
Everything happens after this point. Dylan does not come forward with any allegation of sexual abuse. The process that starts the allegations are external.
The article you link to is from Mia life-long friend. Is it possible she will give Mia's story? That she might be biased? On the flip side you have claimed the medical doctors and child sexual abuse experts who looked into this to be biased for Allen. Why?
Is it because of what they say? That they believe no sexual abuse occurred. These were either independent authorities or doctors who knew Dylan. Do you think they would if they believed Dylan was abused they wouldn't say so? Why would they do that?
Is there a single doctor or child abuse expert who looked at this case who believes child abuse occurred here?
You previously even make this claim
This is not true. Her open letter to Woody says this
Regarding Monica Thompson's testimony.
That is a statement from Mia Farrow's lawyer to the press. It carries no legal weight. Thompson would testify in the custody case. Here's what she said on the stand.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/04/05/Nanny-says-Mia-selective-in-taping-abuse-allegation/7077733982400/
Votescam ago
Are --
Well, good job on exposing yourself as a Woody Allen apologist ...
The link I gave to you is by a very good friend of Mia's whose baby sitter just happened to be the one who happened to walk into the DEN to see Woody on his knees in front of Dylan Farrow, with his face facing her vagina.
You want to NOT make an issue that Dylan's underpants were missing after being with Woody Allen ... but you do want to try to suggest that she lost them somewhere having nothing to do with Woody Allen.
And you continue on with your nonsense even after you know that Woody Allen took Dylan to a dark third floor attic and molested her -- penetrated her vagina digitally.
Also on the Thompson testimony -- you're trying to lie to people here about what actually went down between Woody Allen and Nanny Thompson ... And by the way Woody Allen paid Thompson's salary as Nanny in Mia's household -- $40,000 a year.
And this is the kind of nonsense from Thompson you want to support ... ?
And Thompson LIED to the Connecticut police about Mia Farrow saying she was a "good Mother."
Trust others will also see through the nonsense you are posting here.
Are_we_sure ago
You saying the fact that she lied on Farrow's behalf indicates she was biased on against Farrow?
That's confusing.
Wilk was not in charge of determining if the abuse occurred. The authorities that were said it didn't happen. I think Wilk was going to award custody to Farrow no matter what. I think he would have crucified if he didn't. I think awarding custody to Farrow was the right thing to do. I do not believe any sexual assault occurred.
When you say he saw no evidence of coaching, he basically substituted his own expertise over people in the field. He outright rejected testimony from a sex crimes detective that her questioning on the videotape was leading and suggestive.
I don't know that. You don't know that either. I don't believe this happened. You believe it did.
Kristine Groteke, Mia's friend and Nanny wrote a book afterwards. She does not claim in her book that the sexual abuse occurred and is open to the possibility that Mia coached Dylan.
This is someone close to Mia and someone who Mia encouraged to write her book.
Votescam ago
Are --
Give it up --
What I'm very clearly saying is Woody Allen BOUGHT her change of heart.
Again, Wilk is a Supreme Court Justice who will review the records -- ALL of them. It was obvious everything he had seen and heard caused him to be suspicious of Woody Allen as a manipulator and as someone trying to "pit one member of the Farrow family against the other" ... for his own benefit. Woody Allen was denied custody of Dylan, Moses and Satchel.
What Wilk said about the sexual abuse was that the evidence he saw was not conclusive as to what the Yale team were saying ... but that he was unable to review the Yale investigation because they had destroyed their notes -- and refused to testify under OATH.
Again... Wilk said he saw NO evidence that Mia had coached Dylan.
Wilk also saw evidence that the investigation was "sanitized" ... Needless to say that would have been done only for the benefit of Woody Allen.
Dylan Farrow has always made clear that she was molested by Woody Allen.. It also looks like Woody Allen had his eye on Soon Yi over the 12 year relationship between Mia and Woody.
The babysitter very CLEARLY related what was happening in the DEN between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow ... a young child sitting on a couch staring blankly at a TV scree while Woody kneeled before her, with his face in her lap, facing her vagina. Dylan describes what he was actually doing.
Mia has encouraged all information coming out -- sadly for Woody.
And now Dylan Farrow has decided that it is important for her to continue to pursue this case in media.
Woody has done nothing from the very beginning but engaged in some very harmful (and traditional BS comments) against Mia who as a Mother of a daughter he was taking NUDE AND PORNOGRAHIC pictures of behaved as any Mother would. Plus hiring of publicists and I believe other investigators ... similarly to what Weinstein did.
Something made it very obvious to Wilk that Woody was trying to manipulate witnesses... including family members.
Likely that when Dylan came along he interests changed from Soon Yi to Dylan. And when he realized that Mia was still involved with Frank Sinatra it was possibly revenge which caused him to not only abuse Dylan further, but to begin a relationship with Mia's daughter.