Allen v Farrow

BorneTobyWilde · 23-03-2021 3:13pm #1

Is Woody Allen the one that got away, the slippery Eel who wiggled free from the MEtoo net.??

Here is a guy who denies abusing one daughter, but claims '' oh yes I did the other, but its love''
A guy who is accused of abusing one adopted daughter, takes naked photos and starts a sexual relationship with another, and still is allowed to adopt another , a '' little blonde girl'' as he puts it himself when looking for someone to adopt.

Did anyone watch Allen v Farrow on sky documentaries ?
Pretty damming stuff.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/woody-allen-documentary-dylan-farrow-accusations-b1819570.html

https://twitter.com/RealDylanFarrow/status/1372686470746542081

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKTOj7HnLbo

SEPT 23 1989 · 23-03-2021 4:19pm

I was watched this very disturbing behavior

EmmetSpiceland · 23-03-2021 4:21pm

I’m holding out for the sequel ‘Allen vs Predator’.

retro:electro · 23-03-2021 4:22pm

It’s a good documentary. There’s lots of home footage where you can see how intense he is with Dylan and how infatuated he was with her when she was a child. He is an absolute creep

Yurt2 · 23-03-2021 5:18pm

Haven't seen this. All sorts of allegations flying around in the Farrow / Allen saga. At the very least, Allen's relationship with the adopted daughter crossed serious boundaries - and calling it weird would be kind.

With that being said, it's worth reading is Moses Farrow's blog who takes a very different view, and he accuses Mia of being physically and emotionally abusive towards some of the kids. Two of them died of suicide (according to Moses) and one of them from Aids.

A toxic family unit whichever way you cut it.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 5:21pm

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

For starters, it doesn't involve Woody, Soon Yi or Moses, the latter who is adamant that his mother Mia is a raging nut.

Secondly, the documentary uses National Enquirer-esque gutter reporting, rehashing old interviews, and ignoring that two separate state investigations found that Woody Allen was innocent of all accusations.

The documentary also manipulated interviews to suit their case, as Samantha Jane Geimer revealed on Twitter and she is now suing the makers for doing so.

No mention either of the fact that the Farrows are a supremely damaged family, full of incest, sex crimes and suicides. A quick google search will show you how dark they are.

Shockingly made documentary that highlights the power of narrative in an age where people will swallow pretty much anything if they see or hear it.

Have a read of this if you truly want educating on the matter: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

McGinniesta · 23-03-2021 5:27pm

The question shouldn't be is he the one that got away.

Ask yourself how many people have been prosecuted against how many have been accused or suspected.

Harvey Weinstein is the highest profile case but who else? I don't know and I wouldn;t like to hazard any guesses.

retro:electro · 23-03-2021 5:27pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

For starters, it doesn't involve Woody, Soon Yi or Moses, the latter who is adamant that his mother Mia is a raging nut.

Secondly, the documentary uses National Enquirer-esque gutter reporting, rehashing old interviews, and ignoring that two separate state investigations found that Woody Allen was innocent of all accusations.

The documentary also manipulated interviews to suit their case, as Samantha Jane Geimer revealed on Twitter and she is now suing the makers for doing so.

No mention either of the fact that the Farrows are a supremely damaged family, full of incest, sex crimes and suicides. A quick google search will show you how dark they are.

Shockingly made documentary that highlights the power of narrative in an age where people will swallow pretty much anything if they see or hear it.

Have a read of this if you truly want educating on the matter: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

He was receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation of Dylan. She is also on camera as a child detailing where he touched her. Pretty bizarre how you can dismiss those things.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 5:29pm

retro:electro wrote: »

He was receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation of Dylan. She is also on camera as a child detailing where he touched her. Pretty bizarre how you can dismiss those things.

Ever heard of coaching?

Feel free to dispute the other points that clearly show the documentary is a nonsense while you're at it.

Bit weird you'd take the word of a deranged woman and a shockingly one-sided documentary full of holes over 2 separate state investigations by the way.

retro:electro · 23-03-2021 5:44pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

Ever heard of coaching?

Feel free to dispute the other points that clearly show the documentary is a nonsense while you're at it.

Bit weird you'd take the word of a deranged woman and a shockingly one-sided documentary full of holes over 2 separate state investigations by the way.

I’m taking the word of a child who confessed on camera that she was sexually abused by Woody, the man who had to enter therapy for an intense fixation on her when she was little more than a baby, the man who cheated on Mia with the daughter she raised since a child, who had a string of movies where he played a man who openly groomed young women.
Dylan has never strayed from her allegations and the fact you think she was “coached” over the very obvious fact that he is a creepy old paedo says more about you.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 5:47pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m taking the word of a child who confessed on camera that she was sexually abused by Woody, the man who had to enter therapy for an intense fixation on her when she was little more than a baby, the man who cheated on Mia with the daughter she raised since a child, who had a string of movies where he played a man who openly groomed young women.
Dylan has never strayed from her allegations and the fact you think she was “coached” over the very obvious fact that he is a creepy old paedo says more about you.

I'll take the word of two separate state investigations that found that Woody Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan Farrow. You can have a HBO documentary that went so deep that it has to use Carly Simon for interviews.

blue note · 23-03-2021 5:54pm

I haven't seen the documentary, but I hear it's very one sided. And isn't it from the makers of that college campus documentary a few years back that had credibility problems as well? I think people involved were editing wikipedia to support their claims. And I hear with this they basically make no effort to show why the claims against him may not be true. So if the TV is the court of public opinion, it's only the prosecution side we're being show. Whereas if they'd shown why the claims may not be true people would be in a better position to condemn him in their own minds or not.

However, I have never been able to watch Woody Allen films without thinking of his relationship with his ex partners adopted daughter. It's not necessarily technically illegal, but it just screams all kinds of wrong. His films are fantastic. But it's always in my mind that he married his ex partner's adopted daughter.

ohnonotgmail · 23-03-2021 6:08pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m taking the word of a child who confessed on camera that she was sexually abused by Woody, the man who had to enter therapy for an intense fixation on her when she was little more than a baby, the man who cheated on Mia with the daughter she raised since a child, who had a string of movies where he played a man who openly groomed young women.
Dylan has never strayed from her allegations and the fact you think she was “coached” over the very obvious fact that he is a creepy old paedo says more about you.

is it not the case that some of the details that dylan remembers could never have happened? Something about a train set in the attic that never existed. Mia always struck me as very bitter.

One eyed Jack · 23-03-2021 6:14pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is Woody Allen the one that got away, the slippery Eel who wiggled free from the MEtoo net.??

He is, among a few others who are considered too valuable to the industry.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Did anyone watch Allen v Farrow on sky documentaries ?
Pretty damming stuff.

I started watching it, got about 20 minutes in before I decided it was rehashing the same old shìte that had been played out in the media as Allen v. Farrow 20 years ago. Celebrities occupy a different stratosphere to ordinary people in society, they’re akin to Royalty, which is one of the reasons why Prince Andrew has never had to break a sweat either.

fryup · 23-03-2021 6:16pm

i finished it the other night, and to honest with you i don't know what to make of it...i just don't know who to believe? at the end of the day it one person's word against another - a child and a adult man

there's definitely something off about the whole family, it wasn't your conventional family household, looking at the camcorder footage it seemed a very much a bohemian/hippy upbringing

it all boils down to what happened that day in the attic room? was Allen just resting his head on Dylan's lap showing affection or was there something more sinister in it?

btw - One thing i'd like to know did Allen start his relationship with Soon Yi before or after the assault allegations surfaced??

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:19pm

fryup wrote: »

i finished it the other night, and to honest with you i don't know what to make of it...i just don't know who to believe? at the end of the day it one person's word against another - a child and a adult man

there's definitely something off about the whole family, it wasn't your conventional family household, looking at the camcorder footage it seemed a very much bohemian/hippy upbringing

it all boils down to what happened that day in the attic room? was Allen just resting his head on Dylan's lap showing affection or was there something more sinister in it?

btw - One thing i'd like to know did Allen start his relationship with Soon Yi before or after the assault allegations surfaced??

Before. It's when she found out that a scorned Mia fabricated the story to try and ruin his life, per the result of two state investigations that lasted months.

Earthhorse · 23-03-2021 6:24pm

I remember when the allegations around Allen resurfaced a few years back. At the time I took to reading every article about it as they appeared and any time I read one that said he was guilty I would come away believing he was. The reverse was also true. I basically came to the conclusion that it's impossible to know what happened. It strikes me as worrying how certain people can be that it did or didn't happen and how they have to ignore a lot of countervailing evidence to be so sure.

To balance the OP here is an article from The Guardian criticising the documentary.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/03/allen-v-farrow-woody-allen-mia-farrow-documentary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much

It's fine to believe one way or the other but don't just conveniently ignore facts that suit that belief.

fryup · 23-03-2021 6:24pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

Before. It's when she found out that a scorned Mia fabricated the story to try and ruin his life, per the result of two state investigations that lasted months.

c'mon now we don't know that, the investigations were inconclusive...mainly because the chief prosecutor didn't want to traumatise Dylan anymore by putting her on the stand

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:26pm

fryup wrote: »

c'mon now we don't know that, the investigations were inconclusive...mainly because the chief prosecutor didn't want to traumatise Dylan anymore by putting her on the stand

Both investigations concluded that Dylan was not abused by Allen and the charges were dismissed. This is public record.

Treppen · 23-03-2021 6:26pm

Friends with Jeffrey Epstein... Nuf said

fryup · 23-03-2021 6:28pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

Both investigations concluded that Dylan was not abused by Allen and the charges were dismissed. This is public record.

yes mainly because as i stated - Dylan didn't testify

btw - i'm on the fence about this

retro:electro · 23-03-2021 6:30pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

I'll take the word of two separate state investigations that found that Woody Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan Farrow. You can have a HBO documentary that went so deep that it has to use Carly Simon for interviews.

Ah sure god love him he was just an ordinary misunderstood bloke who had an inappropriate fixation on his toddler daughter.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:38pm

fryup wrote: »

yes mainly because as i stated - Dylan didn't testify

btw - i'm on the fence about this

I appreciate you're on the fence, but this is a very big misconception Allen haters love to pound home.

The New York/Yale investigation reported that they found nothing. This leads to the prosecutor, Frank Maco, issuing a statement saying that he feels there is “probable cause” to charge Woody, but won't do it for the sake of Dylan's mental health.

For a prosecutor to say they have probably cause and not prosecute when it comes to molestation is pretty much unheard of, it's a face saving measure.

fryup · 23-03-2021 6:40pm

but not when it comes to a child's mental well being, which is perfectly understandable...what age was she then seven?

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:43pm

fryup wrote: »

but not when it comes to a child's mental well being, which is perfectly understandable...what age was she then seven?

It's especially unheard of when it comes to child abuse. Peers have said that on child molestation that if there is 'probable cause' it's an obligation to go through with it for prosecutors.

the whole year inn · 23-03-2021 6:45pm

The relationship with Mia daughter is strange, he was a father figure to allot of the kids , even if he said he wasn't. He was on holiday with then , over at the house , eats breakfast with them.
And then he goes off with one of Mia daughters.
He's 85 now , nothing will happen , lets just hope the daughter comes out with the true story after he dies, weither it be good or bad.
I don't have kids but if I did I wouldn't let him near any of them.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:45pm

Alos worth noting that the statute of limitations to prosecute this crime in criminal court was 10 years. So to say there is probable cause and not follow up when Dylan was 17 is damning.

blue note · 23-03-2021 6:46pm

fryup wrote: »

but not when it comes to a child's mental well being, which is perfectly understandable...what age was she then seven?

I don't know if it is. Would a prosecutor really choose not to prosecute a man they believe to be guilty of this when he is the guardian of other kids? Maybe they'll just get him next time if that child isn't too traumatised?

I don't know what if anything happened. But I do think that sounds a bit unrealistic. Whereas the kid not being a reliable witness as has been alleged sounds a bit more plausible.

23-03-2021 6:54pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

I appreciate you're on the fence, but this is a very big misconception Allen haters love to pound home.

The New York/Yale investigation reported that they found nothing. This leads to the prosecutor, Frank Maco, issuing a statement saying that he feels there is “probable cause” to charge Woody, but won't do it for the sake of Dylan's mental health.

For a prosecutor to say they have probably cause and not prosecute when it comes to molestation is pretty much unheard of, it's a face saving measure.

So the prosecutor said there was probable cause, but you took that to mean he was innocent?

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:58pm

bubblypop wrote: »

So the prosecutor said there was probable cause, but you took that to mean he was innocent?

Erm no. Read all the replies.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 6:59pm

If Dylan truly believes she was molested she could also still take Woody Allen to a civil court and take him for everything he has. Wonder why she hasn't done that?

Gregor Samsa · 23-03-2021 7:02pm

I misread the thread title. I definitely need new glasses.

____

23-03-2021 7:02pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

Erm no. Read all the replies.

I read all your replies.
The prosecutor stated there was probable cause, but there would be no charges because the child was so young.
Nothing there suggest he was innocent

BorneTobyWilde · 23-03-2021 7:02pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Haven't seen this. All sorts of allegations flying around in the Farrow / Allen saga. At the very least, Allen's relationship with the adopted daughter crossed serious boundaries - and calling it weird would be kind.

With that being said, it's worth reading is Moses Farrow's blog who takes a very different view, and he accuses Mia of being physically and emotionally abusive towards some of the kids. Two of them died of suicide (according to Moses) and one of them from Aids.

A toxic family unit whichever way you cut it.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

That is the very powerful Allen PR machine at work. Moses has been got too, he only came out with that after the documentary , up to the point he was supporting Mia. Sold out., sad.

23-03-2021 7:03pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

If Dylan truly believes she was molested she could also still take Woody Allen to a civil court and take him for everything he has. Wonder why she hasn't done that?

Do you know how that can affect someone's mental health?
She doesnt have to do that just.to satisfy the likes of you who believe she is lying

Yurt2 · 23-03-2021 7:04pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I read all your replies.
The prosecutor stated there was probable cause, but there would be no charges because the child was so young.
Nothing there suggest he was innocent

That's not how the law works.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 7:08pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you know how that can affect someone's mental health?
She doesnt have to do that just.to satisfy the likes of you who believe she is lying

But she's mentally stable enough to do a salacious documentary which is full of holes and ignores all the facts. Makes sense.

23-03-2021 7:08pm

Yurt! wrote: »

That's not how the law works.

I actually know-how the law works, I was replying to a poster who posted like that.
I am aware that people are innocent until proven guilty, thanks.
The prosecutor stated that there was probable cause but they wouldn't be prosecuting for other reasons.

BorneTobyWilde · 23-03-2021 7:09pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

Ever heard of coaching?

Feel free to dispute the other points that clearly show the documentary is a nonsense while you're at it.

Bit weird you'd take the word of a deranged woman and a shockingly one-sided documentary full of holes over 2 separate state investigations by the way.

That is Allens PR talk. In court he was called the weirdo, she was was called the doting mother who only cared for all her kids, she won custody.

Allen as a defense used the '' She's alienating the child against me'' this was his defense. It took off as a defense in abuse cases after his trial according to documentary, and resulted in a lot of abusers getting custody of kids they were abusing. Who 85% of them afterward the fact, reported more ongoing abuse.
In a way his PR machine, which at the time inundated everything news outlet with 1000's of emails with the line '' Scorned Woman using Child to get revenge'' and it worked at the time, as that was what everyone ran with.

Yurt2 · 23-03-2021 7:09pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That is the very powerful Allen PR machine at work. Moses has been got too, he only came out with that after the documentary , up to the point he was supporting Mia. Sold out., sad.

How was he 'got at'? We're now entering an entirely different realm here.

23-03-2021 7:12pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

But she's mentally stable enough to do a salacious documentary which is full of holes and ignores all the facts. Makes sense.

Big difference sitting in a quiet room with a camera man or a couple of people and being in a box in a courtroom.

BorneTobyWilde · 23-03-2021 7:12pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

I'll take the word of two separate state investigations that found that Woody Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan Farrow. You can have a HBO documentary that went so deep that it has to use Carly Simon for interviews.

The failed to prosecute to protect Dylan, they had cause , they confirmed it. It was dropped due to the mental state of Dylan, and the effect putting her on the stand would have on her.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 7:14pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The failed to prosecute to protect Dylan, they had cause , they confirmed it. It was dropped due to the mental state of Dylan, and the effect putting her on the stand would have on her.

You don't not prosecute when you have probable cause for child molestation. The two state investigations said they had nothing.

If Dylan believes she has a case then she can still take Woody to a civil court. The fact that she won't suggests she knows she has nothing.

Hamlet. · 23-03-2021 7:18pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That is the very powerful Allen PR machine at work. Moses has been got too, he only came out with that after the documentary , up to the point he was supporting Mia. Sold out., sad.

'He only came out with that after the documentary.'

Moses' piece was published in 2018 lol.

Yurt2 · 23-03-2021 7:20pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I actually know-how the law works, I was replying to a poster who posted like that.
I am aware that people are innocent until proven guilty, thanks.
The prosecutor stated that there was probable cause but they wouldn't be prosecuting for other reasons.

Well, if you know the law and the case, you'll know the person stating 'probable cause' was a State Attorney for Connecticut, not a judge at an evidentiary hearing. Prosecutors are legal maximalists, and particularly so in the US. Their word is not law, this didn't go before a probable cause hearing in front of a judge.

A State Attorney would say they had probable cause for you kidnapping Shergar and turning him into pet food if they could.

I'm not even defending Allen, just be accurate.

Yurt2 · 23-03-2021 7:23pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The failed to prosecute to protect Dylan, they had cause , they confirmed it. It was dropped due to the mental state of Dylan, and the effect putting her on the stand would have on her.

They said they had cause. Once again, a prosecutor is not a judge. And once again, I'm not even necessarily defending Allen.

tipptom · 23-03-2021 7:28pm

I also have went from he is guilty as hell to thinking that he is been framed by a vengeful nut.

One thing that struck me in the first episode was the scene when she got them all to line up and question them if they had eaten their dinner before they could gey some treat.To me the children seemed very scared of Mia.
Its just an opinion that i got so early in the first of four long parts but it stuck with me and then reading about how abusive and controlling Mia was to them as alleged by one of the children makes me doubtful about things.

Mias childhood was glossed over,no mention of her brother doing ten years for sexually abusing children,another brother committing suicide not long after been to her house,and the truth of her marraige to Andre Previn and this is just the stuff we know.

On the other hand she would have to go down in history as a supreme arch manipulator to get so many people on board and tell lies about something they said they saw.

Funny enough Allens biggest saviour in this has been Mia Farrow and lt looks like he can ride this out because no one believes Mia,

SnazzyPig · 23-03-2021 7:43pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That is Allens PR talk. In court he was called the weirdo, she was was called the doting mother who only cared for all her kids, she won custody.

Allen as a defense used the '' She's alienating the child against me'' this was his defense. It took off as a defense in abuse cases after his trial according to documentary, and resulted in a lot of abusers getting custody of kids they were abusing. Who 85% of them afterward the fact, reported more ongoing abuse.
In a way his PR machine, which at the time inundated everything news outlet with 1000's of emails with the line '' Scorned Woman using Child to get revenge'' and it worked at the time, as that was what everyone ran with.

In 1993?

One eyed Jack · 23-03-2021 8:31pm

tipptom wrote: »

Mias childhood was glossed over,no mention of her brother doing ten years for sexually abusing children,another brother committing suicide not long after been to her house,and the truth of her marraige to Andre Previn and this is just the stuff we know.

‘Twas Soon-Yi, Farrow and Allen’s adopted daughter, was married to Andre Previn?

EDIT: Just checked there, you’re right, I thought ‘twas as above from memory of hearing about the whole mess at the time.

tipptom wrote: »

Funny enough Allens biggest saviour in this has been Mia Farrow and lt looks like he can ride this out because no one believes Mia,

‘Twas less that nobody would believe Mia, and more to do with her support for Roman Polanski at the time, put people in a bit of a bind as to who had the more credible, or creative narrative -

Mia Farrow Defends Polanski

Polanski too, was something of a protected species in the world of Arts and Entertainment.

ohnonotgmail · 23-03-2021 8:34pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

‘Twas Soon-Yi, Farrow and Allen’s adopted daughter, was married to Andre Previn?

Soon-Yi is the adopted daughter of Mia and Andre Previn. she is married to Woody.

Redo91 · 23-03-2021 8:55pm

Hamlet. wrote: »

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

For starters, it doesn't involve Woody, Soon Yi or Moses, the latter who is adamant that his mother Mia is a raging nut.

Secondly, the documentary uses National Enquirer-esque gutter reporting, rehashing old interviews, and ignoring that two separate state investigations found that Woody Allen was innocent of all accusations.

The documentary also manipulated interviews to suit their case, as Samantha Jane Geimer revealed on Twitter and she is now suing the makers for doing so.

No mention either of the fact that the Farrows are a supremely damaged family, full of incest, sex crimes and suicides. A quick google search will show you how dark they are.

Shockingly made documentary that highlights the power of narrative in an age where people will swallow pretty much anything if they see or hear it.

Have a read of this if you truly want educating on the matter: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

Jesus Christ the absolute state of this post (and the subsequent ones). The only reasonable explanation is that you didn’t watch the documentary I’d be worried if you did and still had this view. You’re ignoring details in the documentary.

Firstly, they clearly stated in the doc that Allen, Soon-Yi and Moses all declined invitations to be a part of the documentary? How can you criticise the makers for not including them when they clearly tried to. What were they supposed to do? Not make it? Also re Moses do you not remember when Ronan said he was offered incentives like his college fees being covered by Allen to come out in support of him? This is clearly what happened to Moses. They showed a letter he had written in his late-20’s to Mia where he said how much he loved her, etc. What changed? Also ALL of the other children have since said his claims of abuse by Mia are BS.

Re the investigations, the New York one seemed like a cover up. The case worker that was dealing with the investigation and had raised concerns was subsequently fired without any reason. In Connecticut it was shown they had probable cause. So it’s not true to say that they “concluded that Dylan was not abused by Allen”. You make it sound as if it’s a matter of fact. Do you not understand what probable cause means? They decide not to prosecute to protect Dylan due to her age. This was going to be a celebrity trial. Think OJ, etc. Imagine subjecting a child to that? You also go on to reference the Yale report. They destroyed all their notes which was said to be unheard of. Also it was shown that one of the case workers actually believe Dylan which contradicted their findings but of course the notes were conveniently destroyed.

I’m not sure if it was you or another poster but I saw someone mention the train set that Moses said wasn’t there. The documentary referred to police notes which noted the presence of a train set when they inspected their room as part of their investigation.

I see plenty of rubbish posted on here and don’t usually bother replying but this was so bad I couldn’t help myself. You’re making points that the documentary refuted with FACTS (claims from Moses, train set, etc) and are just ignoring the fact the documentary refuted them. It’s bizarre.

Allen v Farrow

Comments