AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Open letter from Dylan Farrow *trigger warnings*

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".
 
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".
I'm not sure what the statute of limitations would be, I suspect it's too late in her case now.

Also, i'm rather happy to say i've never liked his movies. After reading that I am even more happy with that fact.
 
http://www.theimproper.com/98810/woody- ... l-assault/

Woody Allen, the celebrated film-maker, can still face criminal prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting his step-daughter Dylan Farrow, even though the crimes occurred more than 20 years ago, according to legal sources.

Investigations into the allegations were sparked in New York and Connecticut. But eventually both were dropped.

Now that Dylan has come to grips with the abuse and can clearly articulate what happened to her, she could provide crucial testimony establishing “probable cause” for Allen’s renewed prosecution.

If he is guilty, I hope the authorities put him away.
 
Sevrin said:
http://www.theimproper.com/98810/woody-allen-prosecuted-child-sexual-assault/

Woody Allen, the celebrated film-maker, can still face criminal prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting his step-daughter Dylan Farrow, even though the crimes occurred more than 20 years ago, according to legal sources.

Investigations into the allegations were sparked in New York and Connecticut. But eventually both were dropped.

Now that Dylan has come to grips with the abuse and can clearly articulate what happened to her, she could provide crucial testimony establishing “probable cause” for Allen’s renewed prosecution.

If he is guilty, I hope the authorities put him away.

Truly Excellent!
 
I agree with both of you guys
like holy shit what a fucking piece of the lowest scum ever to do this to A CHILD
im not normally one to support street justice but i mean...

he totally needs to be punched in the face by lots of people
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red7227
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".

And that works so well on rich white men with good lawyers? Dylan was 7 and the judge at the time said it was inconclusive despite him being in a relationship with his 20 year old daughter. None of his other children from that time will speak to him.
 
Red7227 said:
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".

And that works so well on rich white men with good lawyers?

Mia Farrow has a net worth of $60 million.
 
Sevrin said:
Red7227 said:
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".

And that works so well on rich white men with good lawyers?

Mia Farrow has a net worth of $60 million.

So? a criminal case is gong to be made by the government not Mia Farrow. 20 years after the fact, without any testimony from anyone who was an adult at the time, sounds like a great way to waste money.

Simpler to hire a hitman
 
Red7227 said:
Sevrin said:
Red7227 said:
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".

And that works so well on rich white men with good lawyers?

Mia Farrow has a net worth of $60 million.

So? a criminal case is gong to be made by the government not Mia Farrow. 20 years after the fact, without any testimony from anyone who was an adult at the time, sounds like a great way to waste money.

Simpler to hire a hitman

You totally underestimate the power of a prosecuting attorney who has also decided to run for election as a judge. They can pursue it with the tenacity of a momma bear protecting her cubs if it means more press. Get one of those put on the case...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sevrin
Fucking hell, Woody. I was always kind of aware of Polanski's past and such never really gravitated towards his movies. Woody Allen though, I had no idea. Manhatten is one of my favourite films. If the allegations are true, it's a film I won't be able to watch again and enjoy, I don't think. Needless to say, if he is guilty, he should suffer the consequences, regardless of statute of limitations.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Fucking hell, Woody. I was always kind of aware of Polanski's past and such never really gravitated towards his movies. Woody Allen though, I had no idea. Manhatten is one of my favourite films. If the allegations are true, it's a film I won't be able to watch again and enjoy, I don't think. Needless to say, if he is guilty, he should suffer the consequences, regardless of statute of limitations.

I agree. I'll just say at this point, if she's willing to finally pursue it then I hope she gets her day in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rose and Gen
Sevrin said:
The first thing I thought when I read that is "Why is she going to the New York Times instead of the police?".

Even without a statue of limitations, it seems like it'd be a hugely messy case at this point with the amount of time that's passed and the amount of publicity. Going to the cops and saying "a rich, famous, beloved person molested me" doesn't usually work, let alone decades later. It's hard enough at the time when it's he said/she said, particularly with kids, but then given all the public speculation and the messiness of that, I can't imagine she'd have much luck getting it prosecuted. And in doing so, she'd just be exposed to the masses of people saying she's lying for attention/fame/her mom/etc, although I'm sure she's getting that now. I do believe her and think he should be punished, but it seems like a hard sell with so little evidence at this point. A lot of people talk about the "revictimization" of going through the legal system, and this seems like a good example where she'd go through it and probably not get the outcome she wanted at the end.

I thought this letter was really powerful, especially the callouts to other celebrities. I can't imagine how awful it would be to have to watch the public fawn over him like they do, and I'd be so scared to post that letter.
 
Dylan Farrow isn't exactly a nobody. Not everyone gets published in the NYT like that. This was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. While there will be people questioning the validity of her claims and her motivation, she is hardly avoiding that by writing this open letter.
 
The thing is, this isn't a revelation or a sudden announcement. He was accused of the molestation back in the day. Mia Farrow contacted authorities and an investigation took place, but the charges were ultimately dropped. The prosecutor actually said he had probable cause to prosecute, but dropped the charges to spare Dylan from trauma of appearing in court.
 
The saddest part of this is that her adoption by Woody wasn't finalized when she first brought the molestation up to her mother. Mia Farrow continued to allow him contact, continued to go through with his end of the adoption and did NOT go to the police. The initial accusation to the police came from a babysitter who walked in on him with his face on her genitals. She was let down by her mother, the police and the man that was supposed to be her adoptive father. I don't really understand why anyone chooses not to believe her. She doesn't have anything to gain by sharing her experience, and Woody obviously groomed his now wife from an inappropriate age as well.
 
Personally, I have never liked Woody Allen or his movies. Never understood the hype about his supposed genius. I do not have an opinion one way or another on whether this molestation actually happened. If it happened of course he should be punished but I can't help but think people are more willing to believe this due to his "creepy" relationship with Soon Yi Previn. When you look at the timeline of the allegations it certainly gives me some doubt about Dylan's renewed allegations.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=850534
Here is a timeline of the original allegations against Allen, and his contentious parting with Farrow:

February 1992: Mia Farrow discovers nude photos of her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, in Allen's home. He soon confesses to an affair with Previn, who was roughly 20 at the time. (Her exact age is unknown because of the circumstances of her adoption.)

Aug. 5, 1992: Dylan Farrow tells her mother Allen touched her inappropriately in the attic-like space. According to Vanity Fair, Allen and Mia Farrow had been preparing to sign an elaborate child-support-and-custody agreement the next day, Aug.6, which would have given Mia Farrow $6,000 a month for the support of Satchel, their biological child, and their son, 15-year-old Moses. Allen and Farrow had adopted both Moses and Dylan. (Satchel has since changed his name to Ronan, and there have been reports that Frank Sinatra, not Allen, is his biological father.)

Aug. 13, 1992: Allen's lawyers, notified of the allegation, pre-emptively file a custody suit against Farrow, accusing her of being an unfit mother.

August 1992-1993: Connecticut police and prosecutors investigate the abuse claims against Allen. The November Vanity Fair article says Dylan Farrow was prepared at the time to take the stand and testify against Allen.

May 1993: During the custody fight, a doctor who led the investigation and interviewed Dylan Farrow nine times says he has doubts about her allegations against Allen. Dr. John M. Leventhal says she has changed key details, like whether Allen touched her vagina, and said her accounts had a "rehearsed quality."

"We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind," he said, according to the New York Times. "And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination."

Levanthal did not immediately respond to attempts by TheWrap to reach him Monday.

June 1993: In a scathing judgment against Allen, a Manhattan judge ruled that Farrow should receive custody of the children, and said he was not convinced "that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse." He said the psychotherapists who interviewed Dylan Farrow had their judgement "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen," according to the Times.

The judge also blasted Allen for his relationship with Previn, saying his relationship with her harmed both her and her adoptive siblings. "Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system," Justice Elliott Wilk wrote.

September 1993: Connecticut state's attorney Frank S. Maco announced that while he found "probable cause" to prosecute Allen, he was dropping the case because Dylan was too "fragile" to deal with a trial. Mia Farrow agreed with the decision, he said, and Dylan Farrow provided a similar account in her statement Saturday: "After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut - due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the 'child victim,'" she wrote.

Maco recently told People that Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom."

Allen sought without success to have Maco removed for saying there was "probable cause."

Dec. 24, 1997: Allen and Previn marry.

Feb. 1, 2014: Dylan Farrow speaks out about the alleged abuse on the blog of New York Times' columnist Nicholas Kristof.
 
JickyJuly said:
I don't really understand why anyone chooses not to believe her.
It's called burden of proof, she and anyone involved has to persuade me that it actually happened.

I could easily say that you fuck your regulars for tokens but I'd doubt that anyone on here would believe me without any physical or corroborating evidence, same concept different situation.
 
CallMeWilliam said:
JickyJuly said:
I don't really understand why anyone chooses not to believe her.
It's called burden of proof, she and anyone involved has to persuade me that it actually happened.

I could easily say that you fuck your regulars for tokens but I'd doubt that anyone on here would believe me without any physical or corroborating evidence, same concept different situation.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... e-10-facts

This woman has published these facts twice. The first time was over 20 years ago, and she hasn't been sued. I don't know about you, but if someone was accusing me in print of acting on pedophile feelings using information that was false, I'd sue. It's easier to sue for libel than disprove he said/she said allegations. Woody Allen certainly has enough money to make anyone who furthers this story with things he can easily disprove pay for it. So, why didn't he? And, if these facts couldn't be proven, why would a publisher allow them out knowing a very rich man could smack them down in court?

Some things aren't worth suing over. If you want to say I sleep with dudes for tokens, it's not going to hurt me, and I'm not going to sue or even bother with a reply. To be called a pedophile is pretty damning though. A man who's accused of diddling a 7 year old and isn't afraid of more truths coming out, should fight those allegations. Instead of doing so in any way that makes him look credible, his answer is that Mia is a bad person. Sadly, she IS a bad person. She should be seen as an accomplice to his crimes in my opinion. He was in therapy for issues with that little girl, and she allowed him access (probably because she made a shit ton of money starring in his films).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rose and Gen
JickyJuly said:
Some things aren't worth suing over. If you want to say I sleep with dudes for tokens, it's not going to hurt me, and I'm not going to sue or even bother with a reply. To be called a pedophile is pretty damning though. A man who's accused of diddling a 7 year old and isn't afraid of more truths coming out, should fight those allegations. Instead of doing so in any way that makes him look credible, his answer is that Mia is a bad person. Sadly, she IS a bad person. She should be seen as an accomplice to his crimes in my opinion. He was in therapy for issues with that little girl, and she allowed him access (probably because she made a shit ton of money starring in his films).

The original interviews with Dylan at the time were assessed, and the view of the assessing psychiatrists was that at least some of what she said was from coaching. Dylan was a minor and neither of the adults were in any way credible, so nothing would have come from any attempt to convict him. From what i have read ne never had access to Dylan again, had only chaperoned access to his younger son and the other son who was over 16 refused to see him. I've never seen any of his movies and disliked him intensely even before these stories started to circulate. He always seems a self absorbed wanker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.