Sorry, what does his relationship with Soon-Yi have to do with the allegations of sexual abuse of Dylan? It doesn't follow on.
His behaviour towards Soon-Yi and Mia, and the fact that he had a relationship with them both at the same time makes him, to put it bluntly, an arsehole, as does his apparent neglect of/disinterest in his children, but it does not automatically mean that he sexually molested a 7 year old girl, as more than one of those articles seems to be trying to imply.
I'm not saying, btw, that I necessarily think Dylan is lying or Mia's made the whole thing up or whatever. It seems that the allegations weren't dealt with properly when they were initially made and probably warrant further investigation.
I'm not defending WA as such, he's evidently not a nice man, and if he's guilty, then he's a scumbag. I'd just rather not decide his guilt based the ill thought out ramblings of a few bloggers.
I think its relevant to people because the way in which he conducted himself re Soon-Yi was seen by many as morally wrong and further to that he didn't seem to grasp that he might have at the *very least* caused offence to Mia-he didn't seem to think anything was amiss at all! He states in interviews that he wasn't a father figure and hardly saw her but his nonchalance at the obvious taboo (dated your ex partners daughter whilst still in a relationship with the ex partner)is unnerving. Inability to empathise with anyone else. Extreme narcissism. Not hard for people to make the leap - based on gut feeling - that Dylan might be telling the truth.
Did the statute of limitations expire before she became an adult, why didn't she make a formal complaint to the Police about it when she did? We have celebs being put on trial for something that allegedly happened forty years ago.
Seems very spiteful to start this whole thing in public all of a sudden, accuse everyone he's worked with of being an accomplice. None of them are doing themselves any favours whatever the truth may be.
That's already been answered. The prosecutor didn't want to put such a young victim through the hell a high-profile court proceeding would entail.
It's not about anyone doing favors for anyone else, but for Dylan who was finally ready to come forward. She said she wanted to give courage to others who may be in a similar situation and afraid to come forward.
I support Dylan. Anybody that wants to support Woody, be my guest (though I'll think less of you).
I think it highlights that he is a liar with boundary issues when it comes to sex and relationships. He's been in Soon-Yi's life since she was 9. She is his child's sister. He was having a relationship with her mother at the same time. He was going to great lengths to conceal the relationship from Mia. And when caught he didn't think he had done anything wrong even though it had torn the family apart. What does this say about his moral compass?
The detractors seem to love focusing on Mia's behaviour but Woody's is just grotesque. If he's capable of seducing his girlfriend's daughter, why is it so far fetched to believe he molested his adopted daughter with which there is documented evidence, he had an unhealthy fixation with? But memory implantation seems to be the more believable theory? Really?
No - you really can't use the fact that he had a questionable affair to conclude that he is capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
And no, he pretty much wasn't in her life from the age of 9. They barely had anything to do with one another for years. Remember, theirs was not a traditional family unit, all living together.
It is far fetched because there is an incredible world of difference between starting a relationship, however strange the circumstances may seem, with a 19 year old, and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
When a child says she's been sexually abused, I'm more inclined to believe the child. And when the accused defense is basically to **** shame the mother, I'm even more inclined to believe the victim.
I agree. I really am amazed at some of the responses on this thread. There is a 33 page official document out there for all to read, yet still people are claiming Mia brainwashed her child. The man is a slimy little creep. Do you really love his movies so much you will defend him no matter what? Because that I think, is what this is all about.
Except Soon-Yi wasn't just a woman. She was his girlfriend's daughter, his son's sister. Soon-Yi's biological mother was a prostitute who would discipline her by banging head against a door and then eventually, abandoned her. When Mia adopted her, she could barely speak. Woody was the only father figure she's really known considering Andre Previn split soon after she was adopted.
Excerpts from the judges verdict after the custody battle:
"Mr. Allen’s deficiencies as a custodial parent are magnified by his affair with Soon-Yi…The fact that Mr. Allen ignored Soon-Yi for ten years cannot change the nature of the family constellation and does not create a distance sufficient to convert their affair into a benign relationship between two consenting adults"
"Mr. Allen admits that he never considered the consequences of his behaviour with Soon-Yi…Mr. Allen still fails to understand that what he did was wrong. Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system."
"self-absorption, his lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault, thereby impeding the healing of the injuries that he has already caused, warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children."
"we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and...measures must be taken to protect her."
Allen was in therapy over his inappropriate relationship with Dylan before the abuse allegation. Again, why is it such a stretch to connect a controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, morally reprehensible, powerful and rich man with abusing his 7 year old adopted daughter?
Because there simply is no connection between any of those things (which I'm sure are largely subjective anyway) and being a pedophile.
All of the stuff that judge said isn't really specific to his relationship with Soon-Yi. He and Farrow weren't particularly close either, with living in separate apartments and largely living separate lives. Strange as it may seem to a lot of people, that was how their relationship was. That they had a weird relationship, and the nature of their relationship extended to The distant relationship between Soon-Yi and Allen might be many things - but it is not, in and of itself, evidence that he was capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
When a child says she's been sexually abused, I'm more inclined to believe the child. And when the accused defense is basically to **** shame the mother, I'm even more inclined to believe the victim.
Sexual abuse doesn't get believed enough, especially if there isn't a 'perfect victim' and a 'perfect abuser'. Sexual abuse is also hard to prove forensically. It's not easy to get forensic evidence if it's oral (giving or receiving) or frottage.
So your reasons for believing he is guilty are based on things other than evidence then?
Were you equally inclined to believe William Roache's accusers for those same reasons?
Based on my opinion what did you think it was based on? This is DS - a showbiz gossip site not a court of law. No one here has any inside information whatsoever on this case. Including you. I couldn't care less if others disagree with my opinion but curiously many other online commentators do seem to be of similar opinion to me. Nonetheless we are no further ahead and still no one here actually knows anything factual so we are back to opinions which is why we're on DS and not a jury.
Yes, I understand that.
But saying you believe her, and that belief is based on your opinion doesn't really say very much.
Presumably there are some facts and evidence that lead to that opinion.
No - you really can't use the fact that he had a questionable affair to conclude that he is capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
And no, he pretty much wasn't in her life from the age of 9. They barely had anything to do with one another for years. Remember, theirs was not a traditional family unit, all living together.
It is far fetched because there is an incredible world of difference between starting a relationship, however strange the circumstances may seem, with a 19 year old, and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
So who in your mind is capable of abusing a child? Would it be someone in a position of power, preying on someone vulnerable, who is very good at lying and has no moral compass when it comes to relationships? Because I think that is someone that could be capable.
Because there simply is no connection between any of those things (which I'm sure are largely subjective anyway) and being a pedophile.
All of the stuff that judge said isn't really specific to his relationship with Soon-Yi. He and Farrow weren't particularly close either, with living in separate apartments and largely living separate lives. Strange as it may seem to a lot of people, that was how their relationship was. That they had a weird relationship, and the nature of their relationship extended to The distant relationship between Soon-Yi and Allen might be many things - but it is not, in and of itself, evidence that he was capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
To be honest, I don't really care. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter who is the sister of your child is gross. To me, it's not much of a stretch to think he's capable of doing something even more repugnant.
So your reasons for believing he is guilty are based on things other than evidence then?
Were you equally inclined to believe William Roache's accusers for those same reasons?
This isn't CSI. None of us know what went on. But finding physical evidence that he fingered her and kissed her all over isn't going to happen. But the fact that he lied about being in the attic, he was in therapy for his unhealthy fixation on Dylan prior to the alleged abuse, and his showing no remorse or understanding as to why his relationship with Soon-Yi was on so many levels wrong, is why I believe Dylan.
For someone who wants concrete evidence, it's laughable that you link to that vile daily beast article with so many half truths written by Woody's number one fan.
Look - you want to find Woody innocent, then great. I've read enough to have formed my own opinion of it so I shall leave the discussion. I really don't have anything else to say.
So who in your mind is capable of abusing a child? Would it be someone in a position of power, preying on someone vulnerable, who is very good at lying and has no moral compass when it comes to relationships? Because I think that is someone that could be capable.
I would say a pedophile was capable of sexually abusing a child.
There is no correlation between any of the subjective character traits mentioned and being a pedophile.
To be honest, I don't really care. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter who is the sister of your child is gross. To me, it's not much of a stretch to think he's capable of doing something even more repugnant.
But it is a stretch - in fact it's an enormous stretch to get from having a relationship with a 19 yr old (a relationship that has endured to this day), and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
This isn't CSI. None of us know what went on. But finding physical evidence that he fingered her and kissed her all over isn't going to happen. But the fact that he lied about being in the attic, he was in therapy for his unhealthy fixation on Dylan prior to the alleged abuse, and his showing no remorse or understanding as to why his relationship with Soon-Yi was on so many levels wrong, is why I believe Dylan.
You're right - none of us know what happened. Not knowing what happened, and a complete lack of evidence means one thing - that you cannot conclude that he is guilty.
That is the difference between us - you are happy to conclude he is guilty, despite a lack of evidence.
Whereas I won't conclude that he is guilty, because of a lack of evidence
For someone who wants concrete evidence, it's laughable that you link to that vile daily beast article with so many half truths written by Woody's number one fan.
It's not laughable at all. But the fact that you are using language like "vile" and "number one fan" just because he isn't as willing as you are to conclude that he's guilty says more about you than either myself or that writer.
Look - you want to find Woody innocent, then great. I've read enough to have formed my own opinion of it so I shall leave the discussion. I really don't have anything else to say.
It's not that I want to find him guilty or innocent. It's that I don't believe what is being suggested as evidence is sufficient or compelling enough to reach the conclusion that he is guilty.
No - you really can't use the fact that he had a questionable affair to conclude that he is capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
And no, he pretty much wasn't in her life from the age of 9. They barely had anything to do with one another for years. Remember, theirs was not a traditional family unit, all living together.
It is far fetched because there is an incredible world of difference between starting a relationship, however strange the circumstances may seem, with a 19 year old, and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
There is a world of difference but Woody Allen has kept changing his story.First he said he was never in the attic then he changed it to he may have popped his head in once or twice but this was only after his fingerprints and hair was found there and they questioned him again.He was already in therapy for his "behaviour" towards Dylan.
Calico, give it a rest. Your stretching the truth and desperately trying to prove Woody innocent is ridiculous, especially as you cite that ridiculous, biased and factually incorrect article as truth. Woody and him is his twitter profile picture for goodness sake.
Read evidence from the court case. Perhaps you have and are still twisting things to suit your obvious agenda.
Did the statute of limitations expire before she became an adult, why didn't she make a formal complaint to the Police about it when she did? We have celebs being put on trial for something that allegedly happened forty years ago.
Seems very spiteful to start this whole thing in public all of a sudden, accuse everyone he's worked with of being an accomplice. None of them are doing themselves any favours whatever the truth may be.
People are human - it's understandable perhaps if Dylan feels like this - not right but understandable. It's not doing her any favours to attack Allen's collegues but the angry are not always wise to quote Jane Austin.
I agree. I really am amazed at some of the responses on this thread. There is a 33 page official document out there for all to read, yet still people are claiming Mia brainwashed her child. The man is a slimy little creep. Do you really love his movies so much you will defend him no matter what? Because that I think, is what this is all about.
I agree and I understand - some spiteful biographer accused an artist I admired (who was convenientantly - for the author - dead and ergo unable to either sue or have someone sue on his behalf) of being an attempted rapist and I kinda of ruined my Crimbo. If you are really like Allen's work is probably easier not to believe the worse about him so you can carry on enjoying his work without feeling well dirty doing so. It's a complicated question how much do you trust the art and not the artist?
There is a world of difference but Woody Allen has kept changing his story.First he said he was never in the attic then he changed it to he may have popped his head in once or twice but this was only after his fingerprints and hair was found there and they questioned him again.He was already in therapy for his "behaviour" towards Dylan.
If there is a world of difference, then wouldn't you agree it is absurd to use one as evidence for the other?
He kept changing his story? As far as I can tell there is one thing here - which could possibly simply be explained by a difference between looking in the attic, and going in the attic.
Or are there other examples of him changing his story?
Calico, give it a rest. Your stretching the truth and desperately trying to prove Woody innocent is ridiculous, especially as you cite that ridiculous, biased and factually incorrect article as truth. Woody and him is his twitter profile picture for goodness sake.
Read evidence from the court case. Perhaps you have and are still twisting things to suit your obvious agenda.
I am not desperately trying to prove anything.
I took the time to go through several of the points cited as evidence.
But so far no-one has really debated those points.
So what truth have I stretched? As far as I can tell any stretching of the truth isn't being done by me.
He wasn't a great father, and his relationship with Soon-Yi was a bit weird therefore its likely that he is a pedophile is by far the biggest stretch of any truth in this discussion.
I agree and I understand - some spiteful biographer accused an artist I admired (who was convenientantly - for the author - dead and ergo unable to either sue or have someone sue on his behalf) of being an attempted rapist and I kinda of ruined my Crimbo. If you are really like Allen's work is probably easier not to believe the worse about him so you can carry on enjoying his work without feeling well dirty doing so. It's a complicated question how much do you trust the art and not the artist?
I know what you mean. This one is easy for me, I am not and have never been, a fan of his work. I own hundreds of movies but not one of his, I just never enjoyed them. So that doesn't come into it at all. However, there have been cases where I have felt some conflict. I haven't felt compelled to defend someone I believe to be guilty, or worse, refused to accept the possibility they might be so, but I have sometimes still enjoyed the work they produced, and felt bad for it. So I try to avoid it. I think fans of his work need to accept he is not a good person, and do their best to just live with it when watching his movies. But to carry on protesting his innocence is silly.
I know I said I'd keep out (oh what a fool am I) but I'm incensed that people still try to minimise his relationship with Soon-Yi. Oh, it's just a bit weird but they're still together! Who gives a crap. It was wholly inappropriate, wrong on so many levels and damaging to the family. He wouldn't even recognise that what he did was a betrayal to the family and that it might be psychologically damaging to his kids. Yes, his kids. The ones he didn't interact with...except for Dylan with which he was in therapy for having an inappropriate fixation on. The kids he visited everyday and went on holidays with. He might not have considered himself their father (even his own son) but he was a father to them. So stop reducing the relationship as mildly dysfunctional when it tore that family apart.
As for the attic, he said in an interview, he didn't even know where the attic was. But then they found his hairs. Oh, he must have just popped his head in to look. Then they found his fingerprints. Oh, he must have quickly gone in then gone out. That's quite an about face on a key piece of the case don't ya think? But I'm sure you'll dismiss it anyway calico. So adieu.
When a child says she's been sexually abused, I'm more inclined to believe the child. And when the accused defense is basically to **** shame the mother, I'm even more inclined to believe the child.
Unfortunately for children there have been some well documented cases where children have been persuaded to lie about abuse by their parents, mostly, it seems in the USA.
Personally I don't think I know enough about what is really happening here to make any form of judgement. Both WA and MF seem a bit odd to me. I don't feel any sympathy for either of them. I just think their relationship was weird from the start. I feel sorry for all their kids.
To all those saying innocent until proven guilty, I would hope this extends to Mia being innocent of 'brainwashing her kids' and Dylan innocent of lying/ having false memories implanted in her by her mum in an attempt to get back at her partner from 20 years ago.
If there is a world of difference, then wouldn't you agree it is absurd to use one as evidence for the other?
He kept changing his story? As far as I can tell there is one thing here - which could possibly simply be explained by a difference between looking in the attic, and going in the attic.
Or are there other examples of him changing his story?
There's a big difference between "protesting his innocence" and not being convinced there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he is guilty.
He hired some private investigators to dig dirt up on the police who were investigating him.He said that Mia had been making allegations but it was actually the doctor who examined Dylan and said that she'd been touched.He failed to mention that he was in therapy for his behaviour towards her prior to this.He said that Mia refused a lie detector test but she wasn't required to take one.The judge said he had a good chance of prosecuting but it wouldn't be fair to Dylan with all of Woody's "experts" to subject her to cross examination.
And in all of this Woody's defence basically is just to say Mia is nuts and she's brainwashed the kid against him.Oh and he passed a lie detector test that was set up by his own people because he refused the one by the police.That's his only defence.Yet he's the one who has been in therapy for 37 years and not only did he have an affair with Mia's daughter but is way of telling her was to show her pictures of her naked.Mia's adopted and raised 14 kids and none of them have been in trouble with the law or any history of mental disorders.There's been no accusations from Dylan towards anyone except Woody Allen.
People say innocent until proven guilty but the fact remains that sometimes the rich and successful can buy their way out of trouble.As we are not judge and jury we can only go on our gut instinct and I believe Dylan.
I know I said I'd keep out (oh what a fool am I) but I'm incensed that people still try to minimise his relationship with Soon-Yi. Oh, it's just a bit weird but they're still together! Who gives a crap. It was wholly inappropriate, wrong on so many levels and damaging to the family. He wouldn't even recognise that what he did was a betrayal to the family and that it might be psychologically damaging to his kids. Yes, his kids. The ones he didn't interact with...except for Dylan with which he was in therapy for having an inappropriate fixation on. The kids he visited everyday and went on holidays with. He might not have considered himself their father (even his own son) but he was a father to them. So stop reducing the relationship as mildly dysfunctional when it tore that family apart.
As for the attic, he said in an interview, he didn't even know where the attic was. But then they found his hairs. Oh, he must have just popped his head in to look. Then they found his fingerprints. Oh, he must have quickly gone in then gone out. That's quite an about face on a key piece of the case don't ya think? But I'm sure you'll dismiss it anyway calico. So adieu.
Yes - but whatever else, there is no connection between his relationship with Soon-Yi, a 19 year old, however weird it is, and being a pedophile.
You just can't argue that because his relationship with Soon-Yi was weird, that makes it more likely that he could be a pedophile.
With the attic, it could be something, but it could equally be nothing. Looking quickly in an attic for something that might have been stored there, but not actually going in the attic, really isn't that unbelievable a possibility.
I just think it's suspect that Mia Farrow came out in support of Roman Polanski, that she has a brother that has charges brought against him for abuse, and that this is suddenly a pertinent issue for Dylan. She's 28, why wait all this time? Woody Allen has won loads of awards through the years, what was the catalyst for this one? That said, we will likely never know what really happened.
I think Mia Farrow is unhinged, Woody Allen is a creep, they're as bad as each other. Mia Farrow shouldn't have been allowed to adopt all those kids.
I wish Woody Allen had addressed the Soon-Yi thing in his open letter. He's an odious man, it has to be said.
He hired some private investigators to dig dirt up on the police who were investigating him.He said that Mia had been making allegations but it was actually the doctor who examined Dylan and said that she'd been touched.He failed to mention that he was in therapy for his behaviour towards her prior to this.He said that Mia refused a lie detector test but she wasn't required to take one.The judge said he had a good chance of prosecuting but it wouldn't be fair to Dylan with all of Woody's "experts" to subject her to cross examination.
And in all of this Woody's defence basically is just to say Mia is nuts and she's brainwashed the kid against him.Oh and he passed a lie detector test that was set up by his own people because he refused the one by the police.That's his only defence.Yet he's the one who has been in therapy for 37 years and not only did he have an affair with Mia's daughter but is way of telling her was to show her pictures of her naked.Mia's adopted and raised 14 kids and none of them have been in trouble with the law or any history of mental disorders.There's been no accusations from Dylan towards anyone except Woody Allen.
People say innocent until proven guilty but the fact remains that sometimes the rich and successful can buy their way out of trouble.As we are not judge and jury we can only go on our gut instinct and I believe Dylan.
By the same token there have been no accusations against Allen except from Dylan.
Also, which is it with the lie detector thing? Some have argued that it doesn't count because lie detector tests are unreliable, and some have argued that it doesn't count because he should have taken a different one.
Its not enough to point out that he took one with someone else and infer that deception was used. Your argument would be stronger if you could actually demonstrate what the problem was with the one he did take.
Mia wasn't required to take one - but taking one, along with a DNA test to confirm Allen is Ronan's father would help her case a lot. It seems a little odd that she would even mention that Sinatra might be his father.
Comments
I think its relevant to people because the way in which he conducted himself re Soon-Yi was seen by many as morally wrong and further to that he didn't seem to grasp that he might have at the *very least* caused offence to Mia-he didn't seem to think anything was amiss at all! He states in interviews that he wasn't a father figure and hardly saw her but his nonchalance at the obvious taboo (dated your ex partners daughter whilst still in a relationship with the ex partner)is unnerving. Inability to empathise with anyone else. Extreme narcissism. Not hard for people to make the leap - based on gut feeling - that Dylan might be telling the truth.
Seems very spiteful to start this whole thing in public all of a sudden, accuse everyone he's worked with of being an accomplice. None of them are doing themselves any favours whatever the truth may be.
It's not about anyone doing favors for anyone else, but for Dylan who was finally ready to come forward. She said she wanted to give courage to others who may be in a similar situation and afraid to come forward.
I support Dylan. Anybody that wants to support Woody, be my guest (though I'll think less of you).
No - you really can't use the fact that he had a questionable affair to conclude that he is capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
And no, he pretty much wasn't in her life from the age of 9. They barely had anything to do with one another for years. Remember, theirs was not a traditional family unit, all living together.
It is far fetched because there is an incredible world of difference between starting a relationship, however strange the circumstances may seem, with a 19 year old, and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
I agree. I really am amazed at some of the responses on this thread. There is a 33 page official document out there for all to read, yet still people are claiming Mia brainwashed her child. The man is a slimy little creep. Do you really love his movies so much you will defend him no matter what? Because that I think, is what this is all about.
Because there simply is no connection between any of those things (which I'm sure are largely subjective anyway) and being a pedophile.
All of the stuff that judge said isn't really specific to his relationship with Soon-Yi. He and Farrow weren't particularly close either, with living in separate apartments and largely living separate lives. Strange as it may seem to a lot of people, that was how their relationship was. That they had a weird relationship, and the nature of their relationship extended to The distant relationship between Soon-Yi and Allen might be many things - but it is not, in and of itself, evidence that he was capable of sexually abusing a 7 year old.
So your reasons for believing he is guilty are based on things other than evidence then?
Were you equally inclined to believe William Roache's accusers for those same reasons?
Yes, I understand that.
But saying you believe her, and that belief is based on your opinion doesn't really say very much.
Presumably there are some facts and evidence that lead to that opinion.
So who in your mind is capable of abusing a child? Would it be someone in a position of power, preying on someone vulnerable, who is very good at lying and has no moral compass when it comes to relationships? Because I think that is someone that could be capable.
To be honest, I don't really care. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter who is the sister of your child is gross. To me, it's not much of a stretch to think he's capable of doing something even more repugnant.
This isn't CSI. None of us know what went on. But finding physical evidence that he fingered her and kissed her all over isn't going to happen. But the fact that he lied about being in the attic, he was in therapy for his unhealthy fixation on Dylan prior to the alleged abuse, and his showing no remorse or understanding as to why his relationship with Soon-Yi was on so many levels wrong, is why I believe Dylan.
For someone who wants concrete evidence, it's laughable that you link to that vile daily beast article with so many half truths written by Woody's number one fan.
Look - you want to find Woody innocent, then great. I've read enough to have formed my own opinion of it so I shall leave the discussion. I really don't have anything else to say.
I would say a pedophile was capable of sexually abusing a child.
There is no correlation between any of the subjective character traits mentioned and being a pedophile.
But it is a stretch - in fact it's an enormous stretch to get from having a relationship with a 19 yr old (a relationship that has endured to this day), and sexually abusing a 7 year old.
You're right - none of us know what happened. Not knowing what happened, and a complete lack of evidence means one thing - that you cannot conclude that he is guilty.
That is the difference between us - you are happy to conclude he is guilty, despite a lack of evidence.
Whereas I won't conclude that he is guilty, because of a lack of evidence
It's not laughable at all. But the fact that you are using language like "vile" and "number one fan" just because he isn't as willing as you are to conclude that he's guilty says more about you than either myself or that writer.
It's not that I want to find him guilty or innocent. It's that I don't believe what is being suggested as evidence is sufficient or compelling enough to reach the conclusion that he is guilty.
There is a world of difference but Woody Allen has kept changing his story.First he said he was never in the attic then he changed it to he may have popped his head in once or twice but this was only after his fingerprints and hair was found there and they questioned him again.He was already in therapy for his "behaviour" towards Dylan.
Read evidence from the court case. Perhaps you have and are still twisting things to suit your obvious agenda.
People are human - it's understandable perhaps if Dylan feels like this - not right but understandable. It's not doing her any favours to attack Allen's collegues but the angry are not always wise to quote Jane Austin.
I agree and I understand - some spiteful biographer accused an artist I admired (who was convenientantly - for the author - dead and ergo unable to either sue or have someone sue on his behalf) of being an attempted rapist and I kinda of ruined my Crimbo. If you are really like Allen's work is probably easier not to believe the worse about him so you can carry on enjoying his work without feeling well dirty doing so. It's a complicated question how much do you trust the art and not the artist?
If there is a world of difference, then wouldn't you agree it is absurd to use one as evidence for the other?
He kept changing his story? As far as I can tell there is one thing here - which could possibly simply be explained by a difference between looking in the attic, and going in the attic.
Or are there other examples of him changing his story?
I am not desperately trying to prove anything.
I took the time to go through several of the points cited as evidence.
But so far no-one has really debated those points.
So what truth have I stretched? As far as I can tell any stretching of the truth isn't being done by me.
He wasn't a great father, and his relationship with Soon-Yi was a bit weird therefore its likely that he is a pedophile is by far the biggest stretch of any truth in this discussion.
I know what you mean. This one is easy for me, I am not and have never been, a fan of his work. I own hundreds of movies but not one of his, I just never enjoyed them. So that doesn't come into it at all. However, there have been cases where I have felt some conflict. I haven't felt compelled to defend someone I believe to be guilty, or worse, refused to accept the possibility they might be so, but I have sometimes still enjoyed the work they produced, and felt bad for it. So I try to avoid it. I think fans of his work need to accept he is not a good person, and do their best to just live with it when watching his movies. But to carry on protesting his innocence is silly.
As for the attic, he said in an interview, he didn't even know where the attic was. But then they found his hairs. Oh, he must have just popped his head in to look. Then they found his fingerprints. Oh, he must have quickly gone in then gone out. That's quite an about face on a key piece of the case don't ya think? But I'm sure you'll dismiss it anyway calico. So adieu.
Unfortunately for children there have been some well documented cases where children have been persuaded to lie about abuse by their parents, mostly, it seems in the USA.
Personally I don't think I know enough about what is really happening here to make any form of judgement. Both WA and MF seem a bit odd to me. I don't feel any sympathy for either of them. I just think their relationship was weird from the start. I feel sorry for all their kids.
Works both ways of course.
He hired some private investigators to dig dirt up on the police who were investigating him.He said that Mia had been making allegations but it was actually the doctor who examined Dylan and said that she'd been touched.He failed to mention that he was in therapy for his behaviour towards her prior to this.He said that Mia refused a lie detector test but she wasn't required to take one.The judge said he had a good chance of prosecuting but it wouldn't be fair to Dylan with all of Woody's "experts" to subject her to cross examination.
And in all of this Woody's defence basically is just to say Mia is nuts and she's brainwashed the kid against him.Oh and he passed a lie detector test that was set up by his own people because he refused the one by the police.That's his only defence.Yet he's the one who has been in therapy for 37 years and not only did he have an affair with Mia's daughter but is way of telling her was to show her pictures of her naked.Mia's adopted and raised 14 kids and none of them have been in trouble with the law or any history of mental disorders.There's been no accusations from Dylan towards anyone except Woody Allen.
People say innocent until proven guilty but the fact remains that sometimes the rich and successful can buy their way out of trouble.As we are not judge and jury we can only go on our gut instinct and I believe Dylan.
Yes - but whatever else, there is no connection between his relationship with Soon-Yi, a 19 year old, however weird it is, and being a pedophile.
You just can't argue that because his relationship with Soon-Yi was weird, that makes it more likely that he could be a pedophile.
With the attic, it could be something, but it could equally be nothing. Looking quickly in an attic for something that might have been stored there, but not actually going in the attic, really isn't that unbelievable a possibility.
I think Mia Farrow is unhinged, Woody Allen is a creep, they're as bad as each other. Mia Farrow shouldn't have been allowed to adopt all those kids.
I wish Woody Allen had addressed the Soon-Yi thing in his open letter. He's an odious man, it has to be said.
By the same token there have been no accusations against Allen except from Dylan.
Also, which is it with the lie detector thing? Some have argued that it doesn't count because lie detector tests are unreliable, and some have argued that it doesn't count because he should have taken a different one.
Its not enough to point out that he took one with someone else and infer that deception was used. Your argument would be stronger if you could actually demonstrate what the problem was with the one he did take.
Mia wasn't required to take one - but taking one, along with a DNA test to confirm Allen is Ronan's father would help her case a lot. It seems a little odd that she would even mention that Sinatra might be his father.