Woody Allen's response letter to accusation of abusing his 7 year old daughter

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=851392

I think I believe him.

Why do you believe him over the child? Do you think they can really determine she was not abused w/o being there?

Why do you believe him over the child? Do you think they can really determine she was not abused w/o being there?


Because the child told the doctor originally that she was not abused. Woody took the lie detector test and passed, while abusers do not take the test.  Woody in a closed  tight attic to do the deed makes no sense when  an abuser will certainly pick an opportunity advantageous to them, but the attic story was not well thought out, and Mia was a scourned woman with hate toward Woody.  This was a fabrication and there was unanimous consensus by police and prosecutors.  To answer your question.....yes there is always a possibility of Woody abusing his child, and that is motivation enough to make an accusation because once made, it can never be 100% removed as a possibility, and it brings the most damage to the former spouse.  I have sadly seen this repeatedly

I wouldn't be so fast here Seaoat jumping to conclusions. It is very common for children to recant in sexual abuses cases. There are a lot of reasons why they don't bring criminal charges in these cases. Fondling is very difficult to prove as there is no physical evidence. It is solely the word of the child. The prosecutor believed there was probable cause and the judge ruled it was inconclusive. The fact of Allen's status, the age of the child, her ability to testify and probably because she recanted all weighed in on whether they could win the case. I have concerns because the woman is grown now and still says it happened. Taking a lie detector test proves nothing especially as Allen knows there is no physical proof. You can't reason out where it happened or the logicalness of that. I've seen cases where they did it in the same room behind a parents back.

I believe Woody. I have heard of women doing this all the time. Making up stories of abuse.
I think the marriage to his adopted daughter is the main bias against him..that is really creepy.

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence,

T we agree. Mia as a young girl marrying an old man, and this pathological need for children adopted or otherwise puts her in my mind as extremely vulnerable and who would not be hurt to have a spouse leave you for an adoptive child.....that is creepy enough in and of itself, but to bootstrap this to abuse goes too far. A lie detector test is not the end all, but why did MIA refuse the same?

The real question is why is a grown woman still alleging he abused her? What does she have to gain now?

The same reason that some of the children in the many day care schools where accusations were made and all the day care workers were cleared still believe they were abused when it was impossible for the same. The power of suggestion is powerful with a young child and the abuses of play therapy sessions which have been widely documented can create a believable alternative reality with a child. This was a classic case of a scorned woman seeking revenge where the husband did a pretty painful thing to her, but to take an innocent child and create abuse where non existed.....far worse, I would be much more open minded if she simply took the lie detector test.....she was not being charged with anything and there was only one downside......she could be found that she was lying and the damage she was doing to her former husband would end......she now can keep this ruse going.

You think after 20 yrs. this woman doesn't know if she was abused or not? That this was put in her mind? Seriously? Why would farrow take the lie detector test? She didn't make the accusation. I wouldn't take it either.

2seaoat wrote:The same reason that some of the children in the many day care schools where accusations were made and all the day care workers were cleared still believe they were abused when it was impossible for the same.  The power of suggestion is powerful with a young child and the abuses of play therapy sessions which have been widely documented can create a believable alternative reality with a child.  This was a classic case of a scorned woman seeking revenge where the husband did a pretty painful thing to her, but to take an innocent child and create abuse where non existed.....far worse, I would be much more open minded if she simply took the lie detector test.....she was not being charged with anything and there was only one downside......she could be found that she was lying and the damage she was doing to her former husband would end......she now can keep this ruse going.

Those children in the day care were very young. This was a 7 yr. old. Children are not clever enough to know details of sexual abuse if they are implanted. The woman has nothing to gain w/ bringing it up now.

Those children in the day care were very young. This was a 7 yr. old. Children are not clever enough to know details of sexual abuse if they are implanted. The woman has nothing to gain w/ bringing it up now.


No, some of the children were older than this child. She has never been free of the suggestion which was brainwashed from the beginning and influenced the other children who have slowly reunited with their father. To tell the truth is to accept her mother as a liar.....humans take the road of least resistance. Sure there may be truth......it will never be eliminated, but it appears with the timing of the award shows that this remains full fledged revenge.

2seaoat wrote:Those children in the day care were very young. This was a 7 yr. old. Children are not clever enough to know details of sexual abuse if they are implanted. The woman has nothing to gain w/ bringing it up now.


No, some of the children were older than this child.  She has never been free of the suggestion which was brainwashed from the beginning and influenced the other children who have slowly reunited with their father.  To tell the truth is to accept her mother as a liar.....humans take the road of least resistance.  Sure there may be truth......it will never be eliminated, but it appears with the timing of the award shows that this remains full fledged revenge.

You don't know that. Many people have allowed children to be abused because of that kind of thinking.Brainwashing doesn't last for 20 yrs.

You don't know that. Many people have allowed children to be abused because of that kind of thinking.Brainwashing doesn't last for 20 yrs.


But a wrong impression or memory certainly does.  I have told the story about the plumber who was seeking custody of his daughter in a post divorce motion.  The wife suffered from borderline personality so she planned to frame the husband for abusing their five year old child.  The dad had the child for a visitation weekend with his new wife and their new child.  Unfortunately, after going to the movie with the child on a Friday night as a family the dad worked all day saturday, attended church with the child, and then worked the balance of Sunday on a new home only spending time on friday, and never was alone with the child all weekend.

The mother picked up the child at noon sunday and then mysteriously  took the child to the doctor at 1pm Monday.  She said the child had the flu, the doctor checked.....no illness when out of the blue she says she is worried that the father is abusing the child and asked for a vaginal exam.  Lo and behold the child's vagina had a scratch.  The doctor reported as a mandated reporter, the SA began processing criminal charges, when the divorce attorney had a hearing and brought in the pediatrician.  The Doctor took the stand and told the strange story of how he discovered the scratch, and then laid a blockbuster for the scheming mother.....the scratch was fresh and had to me made in less than 24 hours because mouth and vaginal tissue heal very quickly and the scratch was from a fingernail.  The only person who could have scratched the child was the mother who showed her long nails in open court, and her divorce lawyer immediately asked that she take the fifth and say nothing more......the judge immediately granted temporary custody to the dad, and the mother eventually lost custody after testimony that she had been doping her child with cough medicine and writing scripts for vicadine which she was charged with a felony.........the play therapist had said the child who had been coached indicated in her play she had been abused, but when the judge found out the play thearapist had found abuse in EVERY case, her agency was all but decertified and other cases were reopened.   The abuses of these lies were common, and what this woman had so carefully planned was destroyed by her ignorance of the human body and science.

That's all fine and well but has nothing do w/ this case. This case is based solely on the child's account who is now a grown woman and says it happened 20 yrs later. The woman knows now whether the incident happened or not. You're saying the woman is brainwashed 20 yrs.later is not plausible.

No, I am saying her memory is not controlling on the issue when she told the doctor immediately after the alleged incident that it did not happen, and a seven year old recognizes a lie. After subtle and continuous pressure from her mother, her memory is certainly no better than it was when she told the doc.

woody allen is a LONG TIME KNOWN PERVERT.

it pisses me off there is a statue of limitations. it also pisses me off but doesn't surprise me Hollywood still gave him a award. screw Hollywood.

woody allen is a LONG TIME KNOWN PERVERT.


link please with other cases or convictions which allows you to reach that conclusion.

2seaoat wrote:woody allen is a LONG TIME KNOWN PERVERT.


link please with other cases or convictions which allows you to reach that conclusion.

Director Woody Allen made headlines in 1992 when, at the age of 56, it was revealed that he was in a relationship with 21-year-old Soon-Yi Previn, the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, his girlfriend of over 10 years and the leading lady in 13 of his films.

http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Woody-Allen-on-marriage-to-Soon-Yi:--What-was-the-scandal-/8209443

sound familiar?

What law of perversion was broken?......if you are suggesting an age difference then certainly the person making this up is guilty of the same when she married Frank Sinatra........silly girl.....

2seaoat wrote:No, I am saying her memory is not controlling on the issue when she told the doctor immediately after the alleged incident that it did not happen, and a seven year old recognizes a lie.  After subtle and continuous pressure from her mother, her memory is certainly no better than it was when she told the doc.

Seaoat,sexually abused children recant all the time for various reasons. It is very common.

They gave Roman Polanski and award and he drugged and raped a 13 yr. old.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I believe Woody. I have heard of women doing this all the time. Making up stories of abuse.
I think the marriage to his adopted daughter is the main bias against him..that is really creepy.

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence,

I'll show you the weaker sex, asshole.

So shame on you for being so unladylike..bad language doesn't become a woman of refinement, How on earth will you ever find a well bred man to take care of you with that salaciously unfeminine mouth ?

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:So shame on you for being so unladylike..bad language doesn't become a woman of refinement, How on earth will you ever find a well bred man to take care of you with that salaciously unfeminine mouth ?

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

I can beat your ass,Teo.