Twitter Wonders Why the Mainstream Media is Openly Supporting Woody Allen in Spite of Evidence
share
Because there's lots of evidence on Woody's side, too.
shareWoody's a sick fuck, and it reflects pretty poorly on anybody who comes to his defense at this point. He's a ridiculous liar, and that's pretty clear when you read his 2020 memoir. The recorded phone calls also show clearly the harm he's done and continues to do.
shareIf you don't think the documentary has a narrative spin, I've got a bridge to sell you.
shareNarrative doesn't inherently mean fictional.
shareI agree with that. But I think the documentary is biased and presenting facts in the wrong way leads to bad conclusions.
From everything I've seen, heard, and read, I think it's almost impossible to tell what really happened unless you were Woody Allen.
There are basically two narratives. One is that Dylan was molested by Allen.
The other is that Mia coached and brainwashed Dylan into believing this.
If we take the victim's side, the question is: which victim and who victimized them?
Dylan is a victim of either Mia or Allen. Could be both, of course.
Mia claims she was molested. This is compelling because Dylan has a firsthand account of the circumstances.
Moses Farrow claims they were all brainwashed. He was older at the time (so, likely better memory) and has reversed a long-held pro-Mia stance (had to leave a group and "admit he was wrong", which is extremely difficult to do). This is the narrative I lean towards - although I freely admit (as I said above) that it's impossible to know 100%. The reasons I lean towards it are multi-faceted, but a big part of this is that there is an explanation for the other narrative. If Moses is telling the truth about what happened, it explains why Dylan says what she says and believes what she believes. If Mia is telling the truth, it doesn't explain why Moses is saying what he's saying and believing what he believes. There are a LOT of other reasons, too (for instance, while Woody always has shown a preference for younger women, including a couple in their teens, he has no record at all of pedophilia outside of this one accusation; Mia Farrow was preparing to work with him on Manhattan Murder Mystery; etc.)
I don't believe everything in Woody's memoir. I think that's clearly a spin narrative. But what I would believe is that it is the truth as Woody sees it, just as Dylan believes what she says. If Mia brainwashed her, that wouldn't mean Dylan was lying, just that she believed an untruth. I've studied false memory. It's actually kind of scary how easy it is to mess with somebody's mind. It's totally plausible that this could have occurred. In fact, it's possible that Mia believed it happened, told Dylan it happened, and Dylan now remembers it, and not one person in the whole thing is lying.
Now, if your objections with Allen lie more with his relationship with Soon-Yi, I get that, and I get why that would make somebody unhappy. If you don't believe Allen and do believe the Farrows, I get that, too.
But I think there are reasons for believing Allen that don't just make somebody sick.
From everything I've seen, heard, and read, I think it's almost impossible to tell what really happened unless you were Woody Allen.
Unless you were Woody or Dylan. I believe her and I don't believe him. He has a long history of deception and she does not. He has a history of grooming young women and girls, and of controlling behavior. She has a history of telling a story of abuse committed against her. I can't and don't trust him, and I have no reason not to trust her. share
And, as I said, I get that. I get believing Dylan and Mia.
But the reason I said, "Unless you were Woody Allen" is because the brainwashing theory means that Dylan might not know either.
Moses Farrow's account and multiple reports of coaching from Mia are (two of) the reasons not to trust her.
I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but my assertion stands: believing Allen is does not an automatic sicko make.
Dylan who was in therapy as a child which Mia and Woody were both asked to sit in with - and that was twisted into Woody being in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan. Mia was there too for God's sake. The list of this stuff is endless ... it takes hours to go through it ... the 2.5 hour documentary barely scratches the surface of Mia's lies and scheming.
shareActually it is not impossible to determine what happened, and that leaves room for doubt.
There is no doubt that whatever Woody did with Soon-Yi, he never molested Dylan.
Watch the YouTube video "By The Way Woody Allen Is Innocent", it goes into tons and tons of documented evidence and testimony.
Also, the article "THE RISE AND FALL OF RONAN FARROW" is very telling about how Ronan Farrow is making up stories based on his mother's book.
Then look at Mia's history with these adopted children, none of whom got an education, while she spent hours a day driving Ronan to college.
Listen to Moses Farrow's story.
It is quite clear and getting clearer, the haze is lifting when as usually you have to look past the mainstream sensational media.
I've seen the By the Way, Woody Allen is Innocent video; it's very well put-together. I think it's got some spin on it, too, but I thought it did a good job of presenting Woody's case.
I'm very familiar with Moses' story. The number one thing I think is deplorable about the anti-Woody people generally is that they ignore Moses. The narrative is "believe victims!" but then Moses says, "We were all abused," and in ways equally terrifying to what Allen is accused of, but nobody says one peep.
I'll take a look at The Rise and Fall article.
I noticed a few moments in the "By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent" video that seemed to overdo it, or a bit overexuberant. It was maybe a 1 or 2 compared to the 9 or 10 on the Mia/Dylan Farrow story. But, honestly though, when you realize the effect this must have had on Woody Allen's life, even though he says he doesn't care as long as he can go on making his movies.
I don't see the blatant lies, ignoring facts, and just in general the urgency to vilify the other side in the BTWWAII video. In this "Allen V. Farrow" series they misrepresent and blow up the facts. I am beginning to change my mind to where I used to think this accusation was unknowable to where I feel confident to say it did not happen, period. But I am left with that nagging feeling that I need to leave my mind open, and I think that is where the Farrows hook people. Mostly people who are not going to do all this investigation, watching videos and reading the history.
Like the fact that in Soon-Yi's story in Vulture, she talks about how Woody was not married to Mia. He never spent the night at Mia's house, she says he did not keep any clothes there, and not even a toothbrush. How can Dylan claim that she thought of Woody as her father, and really loved him and he was her hero.
I do understand more a possible need for Dylan to delve into fantasy from a young ago. A kid will get a feeling about something but not be able to suss it out, but it remains as an emotion, and she lived in a pathological household where her mother was super-obsessed with Satchel/Ronan to the point where Woody who did not even live there felt he had to spend to compensate her for time her mother ignored her ... and then never mind all the adopted kids in the house.
I would disagree that Woody did anything as terrifying as what happened in that household itself. 3 kids that were family to each other in some weird twisted hierarchical way died. The mother was mock-married to a guy who never stayed there overnight, and Dylan never was able to get at the truth, probably none of them were ... maybe not even Mia.
That's why Dylan was in therapy at the age of 3 ... with Woody and Mia attending. So I think that the house, home, itself was just too weird, and that went on all of all of their lives. This accusation against Woody, which I do not think could have happened, but that even if it did happen happened in 20 minutes and she is crying about it publicly on TV every year for 30 years. My gut tells me there is something way off about that.
What I see there is genuine hate for her father alienating and abandoning her, or the circumstances that ended up that way, and a displaced hate for her life, her family and her mother that she dare not question, explore or express. Dylan says she has been in therapy for years ( I think she does anyway, not sure how long ) but she has not been able to get at the root of the problem - either that or she is just a great actress able to trot this out on demand and cry and act like something that could not even be detected by 2 or 3 examining teams that would have gone for a few minutes ... that is actually too absurd to have even happened. It just seem too mean and dismissive to say - get on with your life ... it's her life, she can do what the thinks she wants to with it. I just think that she and Mia are doing is pathological and not good for Mia, or Dylan, or anyone else, and not particularly good for the media which wants to constantly blow this up and play games with all of their lives.
Dumbass who doesn't know what he's talking about but likes to think he does.
shareThat's wrong, wrong in a vicious way, and total BS.
One thing in Woody's memoir is about Mia who made a claim to the court about Dylan running into the arms of her sister on the say she was supposed to have been molested.
Woody pointed out that this particular sister was not present at the house that day and that she was in NY. Mia changed her story and said - that is what Dylan would have done had her sister been there. That is the kind of mind and the lies you are dealing with from Mia Farrow.
By the way, we are not talking about the perceived harm that Woody did. I'd say it was harmful to Mia since it seems to have driven her insane in terms of spending the rest of her life attacking and lying about Woody. But, we are talking about actual crimes defined in the criminal code.
Purgury is a crime as well, and no prosecution of Mia Farrow has been forthcoming based on the number of lies she was promulgated shamelessly.
There is way more evidence on Woody's side.
They refuse to look at it because of his relationship with Soon-Yi.
A 25 hour long documentary that is here on You-Tube tells a tediously long story that refutes every single claim of the Farrows.
By The Way Woody Allen Is Innocent.
Search for it, look it up and watch it.
Of course he's innocent. But tell that to the antisemites...oops I mean Woody 'critics'.
shareI used to believe this when it first was revealed way back. I was so pissed that one of my favorite moviemakers would turn out to be pedophile. Then over the years I started to realize there was a lot more to this story, but even then I though it was unknowable. Now I think it is definitely knowable, and the story of Woody molesting Dylan in an attic that they have never shown any picture of or proved even exists. Moses talked about a crawlspace that was full of spider webs and exposed nails, and there not even an electrical receptacle to plug in a toy train.
I mean this goes on and one forever ... why? Poor Woody. What a bunch of BS. Yeah, he did have what were statutorily illegal relationship with 17 year old girls ... but they were real relationships - and even started by the girls. I think it was Christine Eberhardt saw him in NYC restaurant and passed him a note with her name and number on it. They were together for 7 years. She says he did not rape her and she could not change a thing.
This is pissing me off as I watch these episodes of Allen V. Farrow and go to search the internet for inconsistancies. Then there is the lunatic who keeps posting anti-Woody comments filled with lies under the Allen V. Farrow movie entry ... which is very hard to find on Moviechat.
Yeah, he did have what were statutorily illegal relationship with 17 year old girls ... but they were real relationships - and even started by the girls.
One detail: it's not clear whether the relation with Christina Engelhardt was or not illegal. She dropped a note with her phone to him in October. They started seeing each other after that. She would turn 17 (legal age) during December. It's not clear when they became intimate and had sex (before of after her 17th birthday) and whether she told him her real age.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/woody-allens-secret-teen-lover-manhattan-muse-speaks-1169782 share
I have seen so many Youtube videos on this. There is one where she is interviewed ... it's a nice interview. She is asked that question, and she did not answer, but the implication was yes. That was a factor too, I don't think she told him her age until later. But I don't think this is either grooming or rape or whatever, she initiated it.
She said she was his muse for "Manhattan", and I always loved that movie.
Even if they had sex, let's say, a couple of weeks before her legal age, I wouldn't see the moral problem. She was obviously more mature than other girls her age. We're not talking about a fucking kid.
I understand that the law needs to draw a definite line that can be measured, and that line is usually the 16th, or 17th or 18th birthday, depending on the country or the state. But I don't get the moral outrage because one couple decided to have sex one week before her legal age.
In the absence of evidence, a multitude of credible accusers can make a difference. In Woody's case there is not even one credible accuser not a shred of evidence. There is Mia's evolving fictional narrative. And Ronan Farrow who was 4 at this time says he remembers things almost word for word to what Mia wrote in her book. There are so many red flags in the Farrow's narrative, why does all doubt seem to be aimed at Woody Allen?
shareIn the absence of evidence, a multitude of credible accusers can make a difference.
I disagree.
The reasoning behind that argument is statistic: if the probability of one event is 1/x, the probability of n events combined is 1/xⁿ. But there's a trick here: it requires those events to be independent.
For example, it's unlikely that a kid dies naturally. What happens if 4 kids in a family die naturally? One judge could decide that even there's zero evidence, the mother will be sentenced to jail, only because of how highly unlikely is that the 4 kids die naturally. But those events are not independent: what happens is the 4 kids share a genetic defect? That could seem like a fantasy scenario, but it's actually a real one: that case happened in Australia (if I'm not wrong) and it was reopened a few weeks ago after introducing medical evidence.
The same happens with a multitude of credible accusers. The key question is: are they independent events?. They could have made their accusations without knowing about each other. That case, that should be as good as evidence.
However, in other cases you have one person making an accusation, and then other ones joining it. That happened for example in witch trials, you had one person saying he witnessed another person on a flying broom, and suddenly you had dozens of credible witnesses who saw the exact same thing. Perhaps witches were real back then? Or more likely, we're not talking about independent events, but about a multitude of accusations that were caused by the original one.
CONT share
CONT
There are so many red flags in the Farrow's narrative, why does all doubt seem to be aimed at Woody Allen?
It's easy: Mia is a woman, Woody is a man. In general, women always had the benefit of the doubt, particularly in relation to men. That was the case even centuries ago. And there's a biological cause: women NEED to feel safe, and this is a way to provide that safety.
Of course, at the same time woman used to have a huge social pressure, and I think one of the goals of that pressure was to prevent them from abusing it. That was eliminated... and nothing has replaced it. Right now there's no mechanism to prevent that abuse. share
You are making too much of the few cases of "man bites dog" ... it is not the general rule. I hear a lot of anti-woman rhetoric online, but the reality is that women in general have it a lot tougher than men, especially women who are not independently rich or powerful.
shareActually, that's not the case. There was a female journalist who spent 18 months living in the shoes of a man, and she wrote a book about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)
When she was asked who had it better, her answer was that there was not much of a difference, but if she had to choose, women had it a bit easier.
A statistic in the news today ... 1 out of 3 women is sexually assaulted in their lives. I always think of the Dave Chappelle routine about carrying money or drugs crosstown and being worried to be responsible for something that is so tempting for someone to steal, and then he switches that over to women who carry that thing around with them all the time. I've been reading about this and following the news and laws about it since the 1970's and you are going on pure prejudice and what you want to believe.
shareA statistic in the news today ... 1 out of 3 women is sexually assaulted in their lives.
That kind of statistics use to have the same trick: they use a very wide definition of "sexually assaulted", including things like somebody giving you a slap in the butt, or an unrequested kiss, or having sex when you weren't in the mood. The trick is to include something that can boost the statistics, and boom, rapes everywhere!
Out of curiosity, I checked this one you mentioned. This is the original report
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/violence-prevention/vaw_report_web_09032021_oleksandr.pdf
What's the trick to boost the statistics here? First, it includes being pushed. No kidding. If your partner pushed you once for whatever reason, you should answer "yes". Second, it includes generic unwanted sexual touching too. If once you were slapped in the but or gave you an unwanted kiss, you should answer "yes" to that statistics. That's not all. If somebody threatens to do it, that counts too. Somebody said "I'm gonna kiss you"? you should answer "yes" to having been sexually assaulted.
Probably you'll say "that's stupid, nobody is gonna answer 'yes' because of this". Well, some people will, some people won't. That's the trick: you use a very vague and wide definition to gather as much cases as possible. I guess the usual 20-30% in these statistics what really portrays is the percentage of population willing to give positive answers to extremely vague questions.
I've been reading about this and following the news and laws about it since the 1970's and you are going on pure prejudice and what you want to believe.
Actually, it's the opposite. Prejudice is literally the judgement you make in absence of enough information. When I find some news which is controversial, I like to google to know what's really behind the news. In the case of these "statistics", the key information is what was the exact question they asked. You're not gonna see that information in mainstream media. You have to check the original pdf, and sometimes it's not even there. share
Rape allegations shed light on challenges facing sexual assault survivors
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2021/03/10/sexual-assault-facts
33% But, that is just one link from the past 24 hours. I don't know what the New Daily is. Rapes on college campus are frequent and I remember reading about the Navy where women use to carry sidearms to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night on ships.
The other fact is that sexual assault is often not reported and more often not prosecuted.
Please do not tell me what I am going to do or what you think I am probably going to do or say. You may be right or you may be wrong, but either way it shows you have a certain rigid closed mindset.
As a man I know I would be very pissed off and angry and would probably consider it a sexual assault if a man came at me. I've been approached aggressively by some gay men and I am not in the least bit interested. I had an apartment manager threaten to evict me from my apartment if I did not give in to his demands. If the tables were turned on do you think you you might lower your standard for what constitutes a sexual assault.
Why are you so adamant to discount women's experience instead of wanting more data to characterize it, you want to just ignore it. I know there are there women who over-react to stuff like this, I still remember in high-school talking with a girl and just touching her lightly on her side to get her attention and she wheeled around and slapped me in the face. I could not believe it, didn't feel like I deserved it at all and had absolutely no sexual intentions towards her.
There are men who think women should not have a right to refuse sex, like the Proud Boys have some peculiar ideas about sex, and some other groups basically cast women as subhuman. Up until the 1980's it was legal for men to rape and beat their wives. In Italy it was legal for a man to murder his wife if he thought she was unfaithful.
If the tables were turned on do you think you you might lower your standard for what constitutes a sexual assault.
I have been slapped in the but in a bar a couple of times, which according to the report constitutes sexual assault. And I keep thinking that lowering the bar to that point is propaganda and toxic politics.
Btw, I have been hit by gay men too. I'm not into guys, but it's not that terrible. It's actually quite flattering.
I still remember in high-school talking with a girl and just touching her lightly on her side to get her attention and she wheeled around and slapped me in the face. I could not believe it, didn't feel like I deserved it at all and had absolutely no sexual intentions towards her.
And you still support all this toxic feminist populism???
There are men who think women should not have a right to refuse sex
Of course. A German friend of mine had to stop going out with her friends because Turks in her city systematically thought that a group of girls that were having some beers alone were asking for sex. And they used to insult them when they said they just wanted to be on their own.
This is not a "male" thing. This is cultural thing. But hey, talking about that is taboo and racist. So enjoy diversity 😄 share
> Btw, I have been hit by gay men too. I'm not into guys, but it's not that terrible. It's actually quite flattering.
Did you not read the part where my apartment manager threatened to evict me? It is this kind of sideways answers that make me wonder.
> And you still support all this toxic feminist populism???
That is not what I am doing. What is up with you?
> This is not a "male" thing. This is cultural thing.
I'd say it is more of a loser thing.
You have a lot of emotion on this subject that you are trying to work out. That accounts for the rather hostile anti-woman sarcasm.
This a global stat from the UN.
A staggering one-in-three women, experience physical, sexual abuse
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1052041
intimate partner violence (battering, psychological abuse, marital rape, femicide);
sexual violence and harassment (rape, forced sexual acts, unwanted sexual advances, child sexual abuse, forced marriage, street harassment, stalking, cyber- harassment);
human trafficking (slavery, sexual exploitation);
female genital mutilation
child marriage.
> Actually, it's the opposite. Prejudice is literally the judgement
> you make in absence of enough information. When I find some
> news which is controversial, I like to google to know what's
> really behind the news. In the case of these "statistics", the
> key information is what was the exact question they asked.
> You're not gonna see that information in mainstream media.
> You have to check the original pdf, and sometimes it's not even there.
Yes, that's true, but you just err in assuming in the other direction.
Also, you can't tell how someone is going to interpret a question,
or if they will feel like answering it.
Other means of getting information would be from going from
convictions for sexual assault, backtracking to prosecutions, or
reports, and then some statistical inference as to how many
sexual assaults occur that are not reported.
Sure, but once you go to police statistics, the numbers are not that impressive, even when you include some margin for unreported cases. So mainstream media rarely uses them.
Btw, another conclusion from police statistics is that men are much more likely to be victims of non-sexual violence. Media never talks about that. Guess why...
> Media never talks about that.
Why should they, it is a whole different subject?
There is much more evidence on Woody's side in fact. The only reason anyone has suspicions about this is that the accusation keeps getting pushed out there by Mia Farrow, who if you ever take the time to actually look at is a nasty piece of work who has been caught in lie after lie, but seems have powerful friends in the media.
shareMia was willing to work with Woody on his next film (she was going to shoot Manhattan Murder Mystery) and she defends Roman Polanski. That's all I need to know that something's not right there.
I assume that Mia believes Woody is basically guilty of incest and paedophilia because of his relationship with Soon-Yi. Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like that was a normal, sensible relationship (heck, even Woody admits that he knows why people find it strange) but he's guilty of neither of those crimes. Certainly not legally (ethically... okay, we could discuss the ethics of it). But regardless of that truth, I think (my theory) Mia perceives him as being culpable for those heinous crimes. She can't convict him on either sin in a courtroom, so she invents a scenario where he's guilty of both and tries to get him punished for the crime he didn't commit that she thinks he did. That's my best guess. There's clearly some jealousy, feelings of betrayal (justified, I think), and perhaps some control issues in there, too.
> That's all I need to know that something's not right there.
Well, that shouldn't be all you need to know, but her behavior is more of a character witness to her lack of character than her image, but I get your point.
> I assume that Mia believes Woody is basically guilty of incest and paedophilia because of his relationship with Soon-Yi.
I see no evidence that points to that. The judgement of her "belief" was reached with Mia after she made up her mind she was scorned or humiliated or whatever was up with her. The story seems pieced together later, so Mia's belief is - whatever it takes to get Woody. Caveat though is that one can hardly blame her, and she has no other avenue of recourse, so she plays it to the hilt and gets others to express solidarity with her in spirit, and disregard the facts - even though it is not strictly
Basically, even if she was emotionally hurt does that justify Mia lying in order to hurt Woody as much as she can.
Mia is forcing, or trying to force her own reality on the world.
I think the Woody-Soon Yi thing is a lot more common than we think, and the only thing really that limits it is social convention that older more powerful males do not seduce girls that society judges are too young for sex. That is assuming Woody's story is true, that they never got involved until she was over 18 or whatever the age of consent was.
A theory about Mia actually believing that Allen abused Dylan is undermined by a few of her & her nannies' actions.
1. On July 12th, Dylan's birthday, Mia hung a note on the bathroom door, visible to the guests, saying "Child molester at Birthday Party! Molded then abused one sister. Now focused on youngest sister. Family disgusted". In other words, Mia announced to the world that Woody was now out to molest Dylan. Yet on Aug 4th, she invited the Terrible Child Molester to Dylan's house, left the two alone, and 'went shopping with a friend'. What mother does THAT? Leave her vulnerable 7 yo girl in the hands of a 'disgusting' child molester?
2. On Aug 5 or 6, Mia was to sign a hard-fought custody agreement with Woody; one they had been working on for several months with a team of attorneys. Yet on the evening of Aug 4th Mia had called her attorney Paul Martin Weltz, and asked him to *stop* sending over the papers to be signed, because of "disturbing news". Yet it was not until the following day, Aug 5, that Mia "suddenly discovered" that Dylan had been "abused". Was Mia clairvoyant on the evening of Aug 4? She went out that evening with Woody and had dinner. Nothing was said about any 'disturbing news', and Mia acted as if she would sign that agreement. How does this fact alone *not* smell like a turd?
3. Mia claims she had warned the three nannies in the house (Kristi, Sophie, Alison) to watch Woody like a hawk. But when the Terrible Child Molester arrived at Dylan's house, ALL THREE NANNIES suddenly suffered from memory loss and 'went to drink tea in the kitchen'. When (they later claimed that) they 'could not find Dylan', they did not search for her in the house and did not call out her name. When Mia returned from 'shopping', only 20 minutes after Woody had arrived, the nannies did not tell Mia and Mia found nothing unusual about Dylan. How is this in any way *credible*? How could Mia 'believe' her own nannies' story, and *not* be angry with their negligence?