Barbara Walter's "View" today

[NaLisa]

It just struck me as kind of ironic that so many of those who are so fervently defending Woody Allen are also vociferously intent on framing his pre-marital relationship to Soon Yi in increasingly distant terms. I wonder why that is so important?

I think Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi is/was extremely inappropriate, and personally find it abhorrent. However, I am bothered that many, many people distort/stretch the truth to try to prove their point. Unfortunately, I think it gives credence to Allen's claims that the whole story is a lie when people include these many distortions in repeating/commenting on the story.

I've read all the big stories and opinions about this situation and, after much consideration, have come to believe that Allen did molest Dylan. The only reason I might have been swayed otherwise and the reason Weide's piece carries weight is because it's easy to point out the many half-truths going around.

I think the truth (or what we know of it) is enough. Trying to convince people by distorting the truth usually has the opposite effect.

 

[msjprincess]

How on earth do you know on #5 and #8? Or how does anyone know these things? Because Woody said so?

MTE

#5 Even if he never spent the night. So what? That one article said he would put the kids to bed every night and be there before they woke up in the morning.

#8 What? You don't believe that he would admit to having sex with an underage girl.

 

[RadioNate]

MTE

#5 Even if he never spent the night. So what? That one article said he would put the kids to bed every night and be there before they woke up in the morning.

#8 What? You don't believe that he would admit to having sex with an underage girl.

That was a c/p from Weide's article.

But of course he did date Stacey Nelkin when she was 17 (and he was 42.)

This was a thought provoking article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...-law-protects-celebs-accused-of-abuse/283595/

 

[msjprincess]

That was a c/p from Weide's article.

But of course he did date Stacey Nelkin when she was 17 (and he was 42.)

This was a thought provoking article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...-law-protects-celebs-accused-of-abuse/283595/

I know. I was just agreeing with luvsjack that RVLady has no way of knowing if what she posted is true.

 

[cabanafrau]

I think Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi is/was extremely inappropriate, and personally find it abhorrent. However, I am bothered that many, many people distort/stretch the truth to try to prove their point. Unfortunately, I think it gives credence to Allen's claims that the whole story is a lie when people include these many distortions in repeating/commenting on the story.

I've read all the big stories and opinions about this situation and, after much consideration, have come to believe that Allen did molest Dylan. The only reason I might have been swayed otherwise and the reason Weide's piece carries weight is because it's easy to point out the many half-truths going around.

I think the truth (or what we know of it) is enough. Trying to convince people by distorting the truth usually has the opposite effect.

I do find it tremendously satisfying when a certain defense attorney I know who frequently works on behalf of those charged with child sex abuse in our area completely disregards the notion of what happens when you attempt to twist the truth in front of a jury. He employs a scorched earth technique of blaming the victim every single time. It's completely repugnant & nearly impossible to watch in silence. My only consolation is knowing the complete absurdity of his behavior infuriates the jury too.

I do believe Woody Allen molested his daughter. I will even say I believe it goes far beyond that. Knowing what I know about these types of cases and how pedophiles operate, far too many of the markers are there to explain away in details of the situation that aren't being discussed or argued about at all. I have avoided wading into those aspects here because discussion of those types of issues can be easily hurtful to those who have been victims of such abuse and I know there are victims reading here, most likely without identifying themselves. What I will say is pedophiles in general have a drive to obtain their desires, desires generally focused on a type. They can exhibit tremendous patience in order to place themselves in a situation where their desires are within grasp and will manuever situations longterm to achieve what they desire.

 

[NewRVLady]

How on earth do you know on #5 and #8? Or how does anyone know these things? Because Woody said so?

I was copying from an article- mainly because the poster said Mia and Woody were married

 

[luvsJack]

I was copying from an article- mainly because the poster said Mia and Woody were married

Oh.

They may not have been married but they were close enough. They had children together.

I don't think anyone, including the writer of that article can be 100% certain that in all that time Woody never stayed at the apartment nor do I think he can say with 100% certainty that Woody didn't have sex with the girl before she became of age.

There just isn't any good way to look at his relationship with Soon-Yi. It was creepy, it was inappropriate, it was just wrong. And no amount of "getting the fact straight" is going to change that.

 

[robinb]

I was copying from an article- mainly because the poster said Mia and Woody were married

Yes, but NaLisa was able to point out my brain fart without cutting and pasting from Weide's big, sloppy wet kiss to Allen.

No, they were not married. They were in a long-term relationship that spanned 12 years with 1 biological child and 2 adopted children.

 

[Disneychick75]

First, the Soon-Yi situation:

Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

#9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

You may be right, he seemed to be overly obsessed with Dylan.

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/60262

 

[LSmith]

Here is a link to the Judge Wilk's decision in the custody case:

http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

 

[OceanAnnie]

I read an article about Woody Allen that put out some information that was damning to say the least. I remembered reading this thread and thought I'd pass it along.

I believed Dylan before I read the article. Her account sounded like such a tortured soul.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

 

[PaulaSB12]

There is this

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

BY ABY BAKER/GETTY IMAGES.
This week, a number of commentators have published articles containing incorrect and irresponsible claims regarding the allegation of Woody Allen’s having sexually abused his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. 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.

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.” 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. 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.

10. I am not a longtime friend of Mia Farrow’s, and I did not make any deal with her. I have been personally accused of helping my “long-time friend” Mia Farrow place the story that ran in Vanity Fair’s November 2013 issue as part of an effort to help launch Ronan Farrow’s media career. I have also been accused of agreeing to some type of deal with Mia Farrow guaranteeing that the sexual-abuse allegation against Woody Allen would be revisited. For the record, I met Mia Farrow for the first time in 2003, more than 10 years after the first piece was published, at a nonfiction play she appeared in for a benefit in Washington, D.C. I saw her and Dylan again the next day. That is the last time I saw her until I approached her in April 2013 to do a story about her family and how they had fared over the years. I talked to eight of her children, including Dylan and a reluctant Ronan. There was no deal of any kind. Moses Farrow declined to be interviewed for the 2013 piece.

 

[LisaR]

There is this

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

BY ABY BAKER/GETTY IMAGES.
This week, a number of commentators have published articles containing incorrect and irresponsible claims regarding the allegation of Woody Allen’s having sexually abused his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. 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.

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.” 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. 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.

10. I am not a longtime friend of Mia Farrow’s, and I did not make any deal with her. I have been personally accused of helping my “long-time friend” Mia Farrow place the story that ran in Vanity Fair’s November 2013 issue as part of an effort to help launch Ronan Farrow’s media career. I have also been accused of agreeing to some type of deal with Mia Farrow guaranteeing that the sexual-abuse allegation against Woody Allen would be revisited. For the record, I met Mia Farrow for the first time in 2003, more than 10 years after the first piece was published, at a nonfiction play she appeared in for a benefit in Washington, D.C. I saw her and Dylan again the next day. That is the last time I saw her until I approached her in April 2013 to do a story about her family and how they had fared over the years. I talked to eight of her children, including Dylan and a reluctant Ronan. There was no deal of any kind. Moses Farrow declined to be interviewed for the 2013 piece.

So Mia was dating a man who looked at her 2 year old in a sexual way and she continued to date him and allow him into her home? Way to protect your kid, Mia! But she did tell her babysitters to make sure Woody was never left alone with Dylan so there's that. Way to be proactive! What about all the other little girls running around the house? Woody was in treatment with a CHILD psychologist? Child psychologists don't help perverted men. This is beyond bizarre!

Honestly, the more I read about the relationship between Mia and Woody, the more I realize that they are both disturbed individuals who never should have brought kids into the picture. They seem to be in need of some serious therapy. As usual, the only ones who pay the price are the children. Fine parenting going on there.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You may be right, he seemed to be overly obsessed with Dylan.

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/60262

That article was a really interesting read. It was pretty disturbing. It was also interesting because it gave an interesting look at the Woody Soon Yi relationship in relation to the family. She might not have been his daughter but she is his children's sister and was raised that way. I think it becomes harder to defend that relationship if you look at it from the family dynamic vs. Just his girlfriend's daughter.

 

[moon]

So Mia was dating a man who looked at her 2 year old in a sexual way and she continued to date him and allow him into her home? Way to protect your kid, Mia! But she did tell her babysitters to make sure Woody was never left alone with Dylan so there's that. Way to be proactive! What about all the other little girls running around the house? Woody was in treatment with a CHILD psychologist? Child psychologists don't help perverted men. This is beyond bizarre!

Honestly, the more I read about the relationship between Mia and Woody, the more I realize that they are both disturbed individuals who never should have brought kids into the picture. They seem to be in need of some serious therapy. As usual, the only ones who pay the price are the children. Fine parenting going on there.

I've been thinking the same thing, and it really bothers me. Mia "thought" about "protecting" Dylan only when she could use it as a weapon against Woody. Poor Dylan...poor kids. They had awful awful parents

 

[PaulaSB12]

Also a judge who wouldn't let him any where near his daughter.

 

[robinb]

So now Dylan was raped by Woody because Mia tried to get him help instead of throwing him out when she sensed something was wrong? ETA: She didn't know that Woody was systematically abusing Dylan until the incident in the attic and Dylan asked if Woody's behavior was normal.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

I've been thinking the same thing, and it really bothers me. Mia "thought" about "protecting" Dylan only when she could use it as a weapon against Woody. Poor Dylan...poor kids. They had awful awful parents

There are plenty of other women who've made this same decision. It's sick and sad, but, unfortunately, it's not unique or uncommon.

(Sorry, I only taught for a few years, but I had more than one female student in the untenable situation of having to find alternative living arrangements due to their momma's boyfriend's unhealthy interest. It still disgusts me how many women will choose a boyfriend over a child.)

 

[sunshinehighway]

There are plenty of other women who've made this same decision. It's sick and sad, but, unfortunately, it's not unique or uncommon.

(Sorry, I only taught for a few years, but I had more than one female student in the untenable situation of having to find alternative living arrangements due to their momma's boyfriend's unhealthy interest. It still disgusts me how many women will choose a boyfriend over a child.)

Very true.

If you read the link posted earlier, you get a picture of Woody as psychologically abusive or controlling of Mia. In no way does that excuse her having her concerns about him and not better protecting her daughter. I got the impression from that article that he knows how to manipulate and control people.

 

[LisaR]

So now Dylan was raped by Woody because Mia tried to get him help instead of throwing him out when she sensed something was wrong? ETA: She didn't know that Woody was systematically abusing Dylan until the incident in the attic and Dylan asked if Woody's behavior was normal.

If the article is to be believed, Woody was receiving treatment from a child psychologist before the attic incident. Mia also said that Woody looked at Dylan in a sexual way starting around the age of 2 or 3.

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.”