An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

**twitchy2.0** · February 6th, 2014, 12:59 PM

I guess it's that we, on the outside of the relationship, don't actually know who started what or who did what. The whole thing is speculative.

**rollo** · February 6th, 2014, 01:02 PM

Are you saying that it is equally valid to speculate that Dylan started it?

**Mel1973** · February 6th, 2014, 01:05 PM

People say Mia is bad because she OPTED to STAY in the relationship even AFTER she knew Woody was fucking SoonYi.

**rollo** · February 6th, 2014, 01:15 PM

Yes I know and that is why I said 'belatedly.' It was a Hollywood hook-up and everyone depended on Woody and his fame, money and casting power. That doesn't make Mia's reaction right but it does somewhat explain it and Dylan (for the various reasons stated upthread) seems to consider her mother to be on her side. If Dylan is to be believed of course ....

**MohandasKGanja** · February 6th, 2014, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

Not certain when Schetky became involved in the case, or if they just involved her for the CT magazine piece, but contemporaneous accounts seem to dispute some of her points. According to sworn statements Levanthal interviewed Dylan nine times. http://www. Nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistancies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

Frank D'Amico, who was on the police investigative says that Leventhal never talked with Dylan (text highlighted in blue). Here is some other stuff on Leventhal from the article:

Leventhal himself later admitted, in sworn testimony in the custody case, that he made several mistakes during the course of the investigation. One of those was his false characterization of Dylan’s active imagination as a thought disorder.
In the Yale report, Leventhal cited what he called “loose associations” by the child. He said she talked about looking in a trunk and seeing “dead heads.” When advised that Mia Farrow had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or a thought disorder.
The pediatrician also attempted to categorize Dylan’s banter as “magical thinking,” citing her vivid description of a sunset. However, after being advised that Mia Farrow described the dark sky upon leaving New Haven in the evening as “the magic hour,” Leventhal said he was “less concerned” about the incident as an example of “loose thinking.”
“This guy Leventhal never left his office, never talked to the child, but he gave a wonderful account and said, ‘I exonerate you, Woody,’” D’Amico says. “Boy, I wouldn’t want to carry that flag around—‘Leventhal says I’m OK.’”
A Yale spokeswoman said that the hospital stands by the report and Leventhal’s national reputation.

**Shinola** · February 6th, 2014, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by sluce

We treat toddlers everyday. It is normal practice.

Shinola - I do not think it is just mothers who are held to policing everything. But most often it is the father who abuses the kids. In the reverse cases I see, the fathers are viewed the same as mothers when they knew or suspected abuse and did nothing to protect their kids. I watched a Judge ream a father last week for not doing enough to protect his 3 kids and he didn't even live in the same house. The judge told him he had failed as a father because he walked away when they needed him the most he must now step to the plate since he wants custody.

I appreciate your perspective as someone who knows how things are handled in the family courts in your region. I think the courts--though imperfect, and some better than others--are more fair than the public at large. If my own divorce and custody matters had been handled by the public, I hate to think of what would have happened, as my ex honed his image to a fine finish and was a manipulator hiding behind a nice-guy guise. Most people cannot and will not see through that in everyday life. Fortunately, because I had plenty of records showing just what a not-nice guy he really was, the court did not buy his crap. But, for example, he sent my son to a therapist of his choosing, who was part of the same spiritual belief system as he, and the therapist bought the act wholesale, despite not knowing anything about me personally. She believed lies about me, told by my ex and his new wife. When I met her, I was confronted by these lies, which she had accepted as facts. AND she is a court evaluator in custody cases in that county!

Why was my ex so persuasive? Power, stature, popularity ... to cover for controlling, cunning, and manipulation. That was all it took. And unless I had some forum to expose all of his dirty work (the only place I had that was in court, and even then there is only so much evidence you can expect the judge and mediator to evaluate), his image won out. Not with everyone--some people were not convinced, but even then, he was in a position to cause them harm (employment status, reputation), so they spoke to me in confidence but went on kissing his ass.

Now when I explain what I have been through, even kind and well-meaning people who like me tend to ask things like, how could you not have known what he was like? Uh ... because manipulators don't approach you with lines like, hi, i'm a sociopath and a manipulator, and I'd like to ruin your life, wanna have some kids? Please. I'll warrant, though, that if the whole story were dragged out on the Internet, more than half the people who read it would hold me to blame in lots of ways and let my ex off the hook for any variety of reasons.

Anyway, that's my personal garbage aired in an inappropriate place.

**NoNoRehab** · February 6th, 2014, 02:48 PM

In other words, she didn't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as Dylan had not yet made accusations, and there were no Soon-Yi photos, only misgivings that were no doubt going to be swatted away.

Except most of the misgivings people have with Mia's behavior is from stuff she did after the Soon-Yi photos. According to Mia's book, she gave the order that Woody not be alone with the kids on January 13, 1992, the day after she found the Soon-Yi photos. It was a direct response to that and long before, according to her, Dylan made any accusations. Soon-Yi got banished from the family for the affair, yet by Mia's own account she continued to to date Woody, invited him into her homes, worked with him, allowed him to see their kids, presumably still had sex with him, accepted gifts from him, etc. She was not an average woman trapped in a marriage, or in a house she co-owned or with assets tied up with her partner's name. He had no right to her homes and didn't live with her, she was the one who kept inviting him over! Her comment that she thought she and Woody would still "be together for the rest of their lives" was not only after the Soon-Yi photos but after she said Dylan first made her allegation.

The thing I don't get is that from sometime in 1991 all the way up until August '92, she and Woody were negotiating a legal custody agreement. If you believe that your partner and co-parent can't be trusted with your kids because you have PROOF that he is having an affair with your daughter, would that not be the perfect time to bring it up? The whole purpose of agreements like that is to work out parameters and restrictions. Why would you not go to the lawyer you already have dealing with the issue and say, "Look, Woody and Soon-Yi are having an affair. They've admitted it, I have photographic proof. So tear up the existing agreement we were working on and made a new one that Woody gets only strict supervised visitation, Soon-Yi can't be there, Woody can't contact me unless it's directly about the kids, etc."

**DirtyGossip01** · February 6th, 2014, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Shinola

Anyway, that's my personal garbage aired in an inappropriate place.

I don't feel it was inappropriate. I enjoyed hearing your perspective, and so sorry you had to go through that.

**Shinola** · February 6th, 2014, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by NoNoRehab

Except most of the misgivings people have with Mia's behavior is from stuff she did after the Soon-Yi photos. According to Mia's book, she gave the order that Woody not be alone with the kids on January 13, 1992, the day after she found the Soon-Yi photos. It was a direct response to that and long before, according to her, Dylan made any accusations. Soon-Yi got banished from the family for the affair, yet by Mia's own account she continued to to date Woody, invited him into her homes, worked with him, allowed him to see their kids, presumably still had sex with him, accepted gifts from him, etc. She was not an average woman trapped in a marriage, or in a house she co-owned or with assets tied up with her partner's name. He had no right to her homes and didn't live with her, she was the one who kept inviting him over! Her comment that she thought she and Woody would still "be together for the rest of their lives" was not only after the Soon-Yi photos but after she said Dylan first made her allegation.

The thing I don't get is that from sometime in 1991 all the way up until August '92, she and Woody were negotiating a legal custody agreement. If you believe that your partner and co-parent can't be trusted with your kids because you have PROOF that he is having an affair with your daughter, would that not be the perfect time to bring it up? The whole purpose of agreements like that is to work out parameters and restrictions. Why would you not go to the lawyer you already have dealing with the issue and say, "Look, Woody and Soon-Yi are having an affair. They've admitted it, I have photographic proof. So tear up the existing agreement we were working on and made a new one that Woody gets only strict supervised visitation, Soon-Yi can't be there, Woody can't contact me unless it's directly about the kids, etc."[/COLOR]

Yeah, I think you're right, this behavior was extremely weird and hard to understand. I don't pretend to understand what was going through her mind or what all the factors were. It seems really, really crazy and fucked-up and bad for the kids. But what I was saying in general is that Mia did not actually DO the alleged molestation or the daughter-of-partner marrying. Rather, she responded to it. Apparently she did not respond very well. And doing it, and allegedly doing it, versus responding to it ... different categories altogether. Mia has been blamed both for not protecting, AND in court, the Allen team claimed her limits on Allen's role were estranging. Maybe she did both, going too far in both directions, but it looks hard to get it right when you're damned either way.

In general and in this thread, there are Woody Allen apologists aplenty, and Mia Farrow bashers, and they may not always be the same people doing both, but the collective pattern is that I see a lot of protection of the accused and a lot of negativity about a secondary party, and precious little about the purported victim.

Anyway, I shouldn't have posted here because it's triggering to me, but I gave in. Ugh.

*DIVA! · February 6th, 2014, 04:15 PM

I'm not a WA apologist nor am I a MF basher.. I dislike them equally!! I feel if my child was molested by anyone and they weren't tried and found not guilty or innocent.. I wouldn't wait 20 years to remind the world!! I would be everywhere with signs, everyday!! I wouldn't have rested until he was tried!! And I damn sure wouldn't have let him near me!! Maybe to castrate him!!!!!

**Shinola** · February 6th, 2014, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by *DIVA!

I'm not a WA apologist nor am I a MF basher.. I dislike them equally!! I feel if my child was molested by anyone and they weren't tried and found not guilty or innocent.. I wouldn't wait 20 years to remind the world!! I would be everywhere with signs, everyday!! I wouldn't have rested until he was tried!! And I damn sure wouldn't have let him near me!! Maybe to castrate him!!!!!

That's awesome! Sincerely. Because maybe it lowers the chances of this sort of stuff ever happening to you and yours to begin with, if it's true that people choose their targets based on vulnerability.

**witchcurlgirl** · February 6th, 2014, 04:21 PM

Apparently if you aren't ready to condemn someone based on an accusation, you're an apologist. Good to know. Many people here have shared stories of their molestation. I was lucky, and that never happened to me. But I do have someone close who was sentenced to jail for 17 years for attempted murder, served three years and was later cleared and released. Sexual predators should be jailed, but I'm wary of trial by accusation only. Especially by trial via Twitter and The New York Times Op-Ed page.

**MohandasKGanja** · February 6th, 2014, 05:02 PM

The thing, though, is that you have a number of people here who were molested and the common thread was that an adult was believed over them. Children's memories are considered imperfect, and they often don't have the slightest idea of the gravity of the situation, or what they would need to say or do to substantiate their claims. So, their claims are often dismissed. In the case of a private citizen, it's bad enough. But if this person sees the person they perceive as their abuser continually lionized in the media, it probably opens up wounds continually.

**effie2** · February 6th, 2014, 05:07 PM

Our local tabs are shouting.DAUGHTER OF FAMOUS DIRECTOR REVEALS*MY FATHER RAPED ME*..WOODY ALLEN IS A MONSTER PEDOPHILE..nice..

**MohandasKGanja** · February 6th, 2014, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

And what does that have to do with the fact that some people don't want to rush to condemn on accusation alone?

Because sometimes all that a sexual assault victim has is their testimony - meaning, no witnesses and no physical evidence. For example, if a guy walked by a woman on the street and groped her genitals outside her clothes, that would be a sexual assault. But with no other witnesses, or no surveillance cameras around, all we would have have is her word against his.

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

Not even being a smart ass, but what is the answer to that? How do we resolve that? Our entire legal system works in the opposite direction regarding burden of proof, so how can that be resolved? Should we apply a different standard in theses cases? ( I'll clean up all these posts as soon as I'm off my horrible work server)

I know you are being very sincere. What is going through my mind in this thread is that you cannot dismiss either story out of hand. There are weird elements to both.