Posted on 02/08/2014 10:20:50 AM PST by jazusamo
The back-and-forth volleys among the Woody Allen and Mia Farrow families continue as Allens adopted daughter Dylan Farrow has released a statement responding to Allens piece published Friday online in the New York Times Sunday review section according to Variety.
In the Woody Allen Speaks Out article, he defended himself against Dylan Farrows post published last Saturday in the New York Times alleging that Allen had molested her at the age of 7.
Dylan Farrows response sent Friday night read as follows:
Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.
His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as inappropriate behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
After reading the details of the Allen/Farrow and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I an come to three conclusions:
1. Fame sucks.
2. Famous people are usually not people who should be admired. (Although there are a few famous admirable people out there.)
3. Seeking fame is a way to waste your life.
Amen to all three.
The wife and I discuss those very things from time to time regarding the famous when the worst comes out about them.
My guess is that she thinks the crazy revenged filled woman that Cate Blanchett plays in “Blue Jasmine “ is based on her.
Woody marrying the stepdaughter makes everything else he says suspect
I’m with you about his movies....they were weird.
The salon love Allen too much, expect more attacks on Dylan.
Mia Farrow induced certified BS
***********************
Lets face it ,, Woody is a strange guy who makes some really good movies occasionally... Mia repeatedly refused to marry him and she adopted a bunch of kids. Sun Yi isn’t the prettiest girl in the world but apparently Woody saw a wife in her and she saw a man who wanted marriage and would give her a good life... Woody waited until she was legal age and moved in ... If I was a celeb I’d do the same rather than have to second guess the motives of every woman I met... I’ll side with the police shrink that came to the conclusion that Dylan was coached and was likely parroting what Mia wanted her to say .. at 7 years her memories would be VERY suspect today... Mia was by all accounts quite vindictive and this occurred right after Woody left her... and she admits to sleeping with Sinatra throughout her years with Woody..
Mia was a manipulative woman , a druggie , marijuana and LSD user ... and the people here that look down on Woody because he married a 19 year old should remember that Frank Sinatra married Mia when their ages were the same as Woody and Sun Yi..
Woody marrying the stepdaughter makes everything else he says suspect
********************
NOT stepdaughter ,, daughter of his girlfriend... GF/Mia and Woody never married.
She doesn’t look like she cares for Woody, even as a toddler.
Rowan looks exactly like ‘Ol Blue Eyes, even as an infant.
I saw Woody’s band tour movie, Wild Man Blues. He and Soon Yi seemed quite comfortable in their relationship. Kind of a fun movie, but not produced by Woody. Good music!
If you’re going to believe anyone, I would believe Mia’s son first.
These made up day care prosecutions in the 1980s and 1990s were just before/concurrent with this event. In most of those cases, the prosecutors likely (or provably) implanted memories into very young, impressionable children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno got a large part of her start prosecuting questionable cases like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno#State_Attorney
In short, I question the whole thing here. One thing the day care hysteria of the 80s and 90s showed us was that it is very possible to implant memories of things that did not happen into the minds of young children. I will say Mia Farrow was guilty of putting all her kids in incredibly messed up family situations. And that the Left's "anything goes" nonsense regarding families is arguably, statistically bad for children, as Farrow's kids lives show. But the idea that Woody was anything like provably, or even likely, a pedophile molester is nonsense.
I feel sorry for Dylan Farrow. Was she a victim of sexual abuse by Woody Allen — I don’t know I wasn’t there. I can see however she is a victim of her vindictive mother. The truth, whatever it is will set them free. In my opinion Mia Farrow is trying to muddy the waters because Allen’s movie is nominated for an Oscar. Twelve Years a Slave is going to win and dredging up all this dirt will have no ill efects on Allen’s career and is only hurting her daughter.
..water board the whole lot of them and find out what the truth really is...
Really????
And further, see my previous concerning the non-existent “memories” being implanted in children by psychologists working for overzealous prosecutors in the day-care hysteria of that era.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.