lumpenprol Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 lol he certainly threw everything but the kitchen sink into that one. Not sure he had to go so far as to bring Frank Sinatra and Moses Farrow into it. But hey, it does pretty much raise every possible point in his defense. Still in Woody's camp based on all I've read so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 pretty effective retort, it rings true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 i smell a remake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 A solid counter-argument: http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/woody-allens-good-name/ This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her. If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not. I think that's actually a terrible counter argument. Dylan is doing the accusing, therefore the burden of proof is on her. Simple as. There's no "presumption of innocence" that needs to be extended to Dylan, because she's not being accused of anything. Ridiculous. I understand the writer's point, but it's illogical from a legal standpoint, and simply bizarre as I don't hear anyone accusing Dylan of "lying" to begin with, at most people are suggesting she's...suggestible. Or mistaken. If you want a good counter-argument, this is it: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts Boom! 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 afterDylan 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 from the article i linked to earlier: After Nick Kristof published Dylan Farrow’s letter detailing the abuse she experienced as a child, Aaron Bady wrote a fantastic piece for the New Inquiry about rape culture and violence to women, but he rooted it in the baffling notion that Farrow must be afforded the same “presumption of innocence” as Allen. This is a nonlegal deployment of a legal notion that sets up readers to pick sides without hearing all of the actual evidence. Kristof himself conflates the coherent legal “standard to send someone to prison [that] is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” with the completely baffling “standard to honor someone.” And while I agree with my Slate colleague Amanda Marcotte on most things, when she suggests dropping to a preponderance of the evidence standard in the “court of public opinion,” all I can think is: What evidence? What standard? What court? We haven’t seen most of the evidence. Evidence in this case has been destroyed. Experts were never cross-examined. Different judges came to different conclusions. What evidence are we weighing? What “court” are we convening here, and what are the rules of the road? Do we even take conflicting evidence into consideration? What kind of evidence is “admissible”? Calling Mia Farrow a “whore”? Calling Dylan Farrow a “bitch”? Closely reading Allen’s movies? Do we consider that some of the advocates on each side are cretins? I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Sounds like he's basically saying what I was saying above, at least in the first part which is the only part I understand clearly, heh (the rest of the paragraph is worded a bit confusingly, to my weak brain). This is a nonlegal deployment of a legal notion that sets up readers to pick sides without hearing all of the actual evidence. Bingo. Tbh I expected something a bit more advanced from Encey, one of our resident philosophers. That lady's article is written even more childishly than the daily beast one extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen Is this kindergarten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Is this kindergarten? obvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I guess he's just guilty of being unusual at worst, which isn't a crime. Picking sides is kind of unrealistic because the more you read, the more confusing it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I just checked back to see if that Vanity Fair "10 undeniable facts" thing was posted. That coupled with Judge Wilk's case summary linked at the bottom (http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf) makes me less confidant about his innocence. But there certainly wasn't enough evidence against him to convict him. Man I would hate to be a judge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Still in Woody's camp based on all I've read so far. Lucky for you, Woody's the camp counselor! And he has never seen such a good boy as you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Okay, time to lighten the mood of this thread. One of my fave WA scenes: (btw I've thought about this whole thing alot and I'm 70% convinced he's innocent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Haha, that is a classic scene. Wish I shared that 70% conviction (that's where I was at a couple days ago). I'm back to the 50-50 no idea what to think zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 wow I'm reading that entire pdf, about halfway through, it's fascinating. All these pundits, friends and associates sharing their opinions and recollections, while this is the most interesting doc so far. If anything it seems like an indictment of what I see as "crazy east coast culture". I mean how many therapists did Mia Farrow and Allen see, or force their children to see? Totally mental. But the picture painted by the doc of Allen is certainly not flattering. I feel like typing out some of the juicier excerpts but I'm lazy, everyone who has an interest should read it. There's some mad stuff in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Ok, finished reading it. Well I'm back at 50-50 as well, or maybe 40-60 against Woody. My rough conclusions after reading it are as follows: 1) the most salient, compelling fact which I haven't seen mentioned before is that Mia apparently brought Woody's inappropriate behavior with Dylan to the attention of Woody's therapist *long before* the sex abuse allegation...since Woody's therapist said they were working on it, they were admitting he had some kind of problem; 2) both Woody and Mia are mental; 3) both of them are highly intelligent and capable of manipulating others; 4) Woody is an egotistical prick with impulse control problems (pushing Dylan's face in a plate of spaghetti, what?); 5) given the circumstances, it seems everything worked out for the best legally/custodially speaking; 6) the judge who wrote this opinion sounds a bit naive and biased himself at certain points (for example, saying that the fact that Mia Farrow said "I hope the abuse was just Dylan's fantasy" to her therapist indicated she that she was being honest; if it was me and I had an agenda of character assassination, I would say something similar to make myself appear honest and credible; he also makes sweeping statements which don't seem borne out by the details he's laid out previously, such as "credible testimony...does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior towards Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her." ... up until that point I don't think anything was universally agreed to have been witnessed that could have been called "grossly inappropriate." There's also one point where he said Allen was trying to turn everyone in the family against each other, but doesn't give any supporting details...sort of weird). What I really want to know at this point is...why can't Woody make babies? Is he sterile, or can't he perform? It seems a pattern with every woman he's been with... Edit: oh also, nowhere do I see it mentioned that his hair was found in the attic. Not that that's conclusive in any way, I just wonder when that little tidbit came to light, as it's certainly not mentioned in the judge's opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Regardless of what happened to Dylan, I find it hard to trust anything Mia says. Woody is no saint either, but at this point I'd trust him more as a person. Your first point, btw, was explicitly non-sexually related, according to the therapist. Despite what Mia at that point already was thinking. (woody sticking his thumb in a babies mouth is a sexual act? what?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Between what Dylan wrote and what was mentioned there, I took it to mean that he was doing that well into her childhood too... which is pretty fucking weird. But maybe I misinterpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 "crazy east coast culture". I literally, no joke, read this in (1970's) Woody Allen's voice in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Sounds like he's basically saying what I was saying above, at least in the first part which is the only part I understand clearly, heh (the rest of the paragraph is worded a bit confusingly, to my weak brain). This is a nonlegal deployment of a legal notion that sets up readers to pick sides without hearing all of the actual evidence. Bingo. Tbh I expected something a bit more advanced from Encey, one of our resident philosophers. That lady's article is written even more childishly than the daily beast one You may be right, that in this case the counter-argument is against a straw man; but I take it the author was referring to those who seemed to be defending Allen just on account of his fame and artistic merit. And you're definitely right that, in transferring the legal metaphor to the so-called 'court of public opinion,' the burden of proof is definitely on the accuser. But I think the author's more general point still stands, especially if you consider the tendency to discount and blame reported victims of sexual assault -- that the more reasonable and compassionate stance of human beings in the everyday public, who are not litigants, jurors or judges, is to trust the allegation at first and wait for disproof rather than the other way around. I took the point to be, only from that standpoint should you then go on to read all the evidence and make up your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root5 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I've been avoiding this thread until now. I've been following the news shit-storm, but I was apprehensive about talking about any of it because obviously, having not been there, I have no idea what happened. I think something that's interesting that, as a man -- and I'll add, as a man who is terrified of being thought to be a sexual predator -- I find it much easier to sympathize with Woody Allen's position, and to believe his arguments. I imagine a similar thing is going on with many of the people here. However, there's a lot going against Woody: 1. I'm under the impression (don't know where this came from but seems plausible) that people only very rarely give false accusations of rape/sexual assault, due to the stigma and shame associated with it. If anything, actual victims are more likely to keep quiet. So this affects the probability. 2. There are some pretty solid rebuttals to pretty much everything Woody said, which brings his credibility into question. It actually makes it look like he's just launching as many disparaging attacks as he can to discredit and silence the defendants. 3. I don't think anyone's mentioned this, but Woody's main defence is the oldest defence in the book. He's saying "It would have been irrational for me to do it. It would have been a stupid thing to do." Well, that defence generally holds true of everyone who's ever done anything illegal. And yet, crime still happens. So... What's frustrating about this situation is that, if Woody is innocent, it would be horrible for people to turn against him based on a false accusation. But it's also pretty terrible that people can get away with this stuff. So in conclusion, shit's fucked. Thanks you for your attention, bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I thought Allen's main defense was the investigative team that found no evidence of molestation. I dunno just a thought. @encey: why not go from the assumption that both claims have equal merit and weigh the evidence as objectively as possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marf Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 crimes and misdemeanors is very good. his dialogue is very yuppie 80's naval gazing, but i liked crimes a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Regardless of what happened to Dylan, I find it hard to trust anything Mia says. Woody is no saint either, but at this point I'd trust him more as a person. Your first point, btw, was explicitly non-sexually related, according to the therapist. Despite what Mia at that point already was thinking. (woody sticking his thumb in a babies mouth is a sexual act? what?) regarding the latter point, yeah, it's really a question of how you interpret their claims that he was invading her space, watching her naked, etc. I watch my daughter naked all the time because she's adorable as fuck. A game of peek-a-boo could easily be misconstrued as "playing around under the covers". As you say, based on the words alone you can take them either way. after thinking about it for a night, as I mentioned in my last post there's a big disconnect between the details noted in the judge's verdict, and the conclusions he seems to leap to a few times in the verdict - specifically, that Woody has tried to turn everyone in the family against each other, and that it was proven that his behavior was "grossly inappropriate". It's also weird how the judge notes Woody did all this stuff with Satchel - playing baseball, teaching clarinet, or whatever -but that that didn't show any intent to be a good dad. So either the judge omitted a bunch of details, or he's exposing his bias. I'm back sitting at 50-50. I do think it's interesting the Yale-New Haven team didn't include a psychologist, but only two social workers. The social workers probably had a lot of experience but still... I believe Dylan was the first child that Mia and he shared together (the first child they adopted, all previous being from the Previn relationship), which could go a long way to explain why he might smother her with attention. One interesting note: the judge implicitly blames Allen for being disinterested by Satchel's (Ronan's) birth. I think Allen knew all along the kid wasn't his, hence his disinterest. Which would therefore make that part of Woody's most recent public statement - "do you trust a woman who would father a child with another man" a bit disingenuous. I'm not saying they had a swinging relationship and Woody said "ok go for it", but once it happened, I feel sure he knew. And goDel, all words aside, I still feel that that interview with Farrow shows telltale signs of lying. So my instincts are still saying she's unreliable and a crazy bitch. But the seeming certitude in that judge's statements gives me pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 crimes and misdemeanors is very good. his dialogue is very yuppie 80's naval gazing, but i liked crimes a lot yeah, if we go from Allen's body of film work, I'd have to say there's no element I can remember that hints at pedophilia. If anything, he seems like a wattmer trying to come to grips with adult relationships. Though some of the shit in "Annie Hall" and others is a bit too precious (from what I can recall), his focus seems squarely on how to navigate the choppy waters of adult relationships. Also his films aren't particularly "sensual" in the sense that Bertolucci, or someone like that, is sensual. He doesn't seem nostalgic for dewy-eyed nymphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcock Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 he certainly looks like a pedo anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.