Moses Farrow is a licensed family therapist. Will the state give him a license if he truly has a mental illness? I still question why his own accounts of abuse are dismissed to be ‘irrelevant’ or ignored, while Dylan’s is wholeheartedly accepted. Both are recounting childhood events that happened when they were both kids.

There is a big difference. Moses is going off an assumption. He IMAGINES nothing could have happened. Dylan said she was a victim of Woody's. Flash Forward and Dylan is sticking by her story. There is no gain for her other than redemption or some type of social justice.

I don’t see any difference. I see two children who were there at the time all of these events were happening.

I am questioning why his own accounts of abuse at the hands of Mia Farrow is being dismissed, because it is relevant to the case if it is true Mia was coaching Dylan. His own account about the train set or the attic is also relevant. From what I read about the investigations’ report Dylan was inconsistent when questioned, and was changing her story.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

What would Moses gain by coming forward with his story when it is clearly shown he is ostracised from his family, the Farrows and most people believe Dylan and side with the Farrows.

Yes, she is, but he fired first. Still, it doesn't take away from the fact that he left his wife and has no ties to anyone.

Fired first? He only spoke against Mia in 2014, when he had been estranged for years before that because he decided to see Woody against her wishes. Even if he left his wife (for reasons you and I do not know), why would that impact on his own claim of abuse?

By 2003, Moses reconnected w/Woody and Soon Yi, and the link was written in 2014. This is all after the allegations.

True, but based on his own account, he never spoke about his mother’s abuse before because as a child he was afraid of being ostracised by her. He consistently spoke of the need to please his mother and his fear of her. Isn’t this what #Metoo is all about? Most victims do not speak out immediately due to their fears and therefore would only speak years after?

As far back as 1993, one of the nannies had confirmed she had seen Moses being hit by Mia which backs up his account. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

I also recently found out that Farrow’s other adopted kids had some trouble in their adolescents years too. One committed suicide. http://people.com/celebrity/mia-farrows-children-where-are-they-now/

The one who committed suicide was wheelchair bound. One got hooked on drugs and was caught shop lifting. Mia adopted the unwanted. I'm not saying she is a saint, but at the end of the day, the undisputed proof is that Woody ran off with one of her daughters, a daughter he knew as a child.

I am not disputing that. It is 100% true Woody ran off with the daughter of his ex long time gf, and that is repugnant.

However, all the facts/stories/allegations/investigations presented so far do not prove 100% that he molested Dylan. I have been reading both sides. It is a mess. I know some argue that just because the investigations didn’t yield absolute proof doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen. That is true, but there is also a chance that the investigation led to the conclusion because as they hypothesised before, a child had been influenced by her mother to say something .

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

This is why I have doubts.

@ToniTurnyne said:

I am questioning why his own accounts of abuse at the hands of Mia Farrow is being dismissed, because it is relevant to the case if it is true Mia was coaching Dylan.

He was not the victim, and whether he was a victim of Mia's does not negate the fact that Dylan saying she was Woody's victim. Plus, Johnny Come Lately is now speaking up (2014) after he made ammends with Woody.

His own account about the train set or the attic is also relevant. From what I read about the investigations’ report Dylan was inconsistent when questioned, and was changing her story.

I read a bit about Dylan's excuse for being inconsistent, which isn't unusual for a child. At first, she said she was embarrassed and that she interpreted the question.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

What would Moses gain by coming forward with his story when it is clearly shown he is ostracised from his family, the Farrows and most people believe Dylan and side with the Farrows.

He is not ostracized by Woody anymore, so there is plenty for him to gain. Woody needs an insider on his side, and what better insider than a child who lived in the home.

Fired first? He only spoke against Mia in 2014, when he had been estranged for years before that because he decided to see Woody against her wishes.

Fraternizing with the enemy and casting doubt in a claim that never went to trial in the first place is enough to ruffle feathers.

Even if he left his wife (for reasons you and I do not know), why would that impact on his own claim of abuse?

It speaks to his character.

By 2003, Moses reconnected w/Woody and Soon Yi, and the link was written in 2014. This is all after the allegations.

True, but based on his own account, he never spoke about his mother’s abuse before because as a child he was afraid of being ostracised by her. He consistently spoke of the need to please his mother and his fear of her. Isn’t this what #Metoo is all about? Most victims do not speak out immediately due to their fears and therefore would only speak years after?

Immediately? Isn't Moses 39? He waited until he was 36 to speak out. I think he had personal gains to do this.

This is one of his quotes from People:

“My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” Moses told PEOPLE. “And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.”

The last bit about Woody "falling in love" with Soon-Yi gets me. If he had just said the first line, it would appear lest orchestrated to me.

As far back as 1993, one of the nannies had confirmed she had seen Moses being hit by Mia which backs up his account. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

If you read the following post's link, the judge speaks to the Nanny's claim. Doesn't the following quote of what the nanny said sounds similar to what Moses is now saying?

"She told Allen's lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple's other -- adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation."

Flash Foward and now Moses is saying that line. The baby sitter and Moses are in Woody's pocket, even the judge pretty much thinks that.

However, all the facts/stories/allegations/investigations presented so far do not prove 100% that he molested Dylan.

No, rarely will anyone find 100% proof, but my thinking is when there is smoke there is fire.

By the way, here's the real dirt on the situation.

Judge's notes -- read number four in this link

Woody Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

It seems as if Woody was out for blood, when this accusation came to light.

@Poetist said:

By the way, here's the real dirt on the situation.

Judge's notes -- read number four in this link

Woody Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

It seems as if Woody was out for blood, when this accusation came to light.

Isn’t it natural for him to be ‘out for blood’? He and his ex-gf were in a bitter custody battle for their children, and he’s been accused of something he claims he is innocent. If he had the means, why would he not do everything in his power to fight for his children and clear his name?

It seems to me that both sides were out for blood. One side wants to prove the other sexually molested Dylan, two investigations with a team of professional psychologists reached the conclusion that there was no evidence to support this. The same goes for Allen who wanted to prove his ex acted upon a desire for revenge so she coached Dylan, but again not enough conclusive evidence was shown to prove this.

@Poetist said:

@ToniTurnyne said:

I am questioning why his own accounts of abuse at the hands of Mia Farrow is being dismissed, because it is relevant to the case if it is true Mia was coaching Dylan.

He was not the victim, and whether he was a victim of Mia's does not negate the fact that Dylan saying she was Woody's victim. Plus, Johnny Come Lately is now speaking up (2014) after he made ammends with Woody.

If he was verbally abused and physically abused by Mia, then he was a victim too. He was still a child at the time when these events happened, an orphan who was scared of his adoptive mother and wanted her approval. His accounts is vital because if he, as an older child, back then can be influenced by Mia, imagine what she can do to someone younger like Dylan. His account can actually negate Dylan’s because it raises reasonable doubt if she was truly a victim. From what I read, two different independent investigative teams have found also reasonable doubts too and they are experts in their field who have no agenda, leanings or prejudice to do their jobs.

Moses doubts about the alleged abuse had come out way back in 1993, based on the report of one of the nanny’s published in the LA Times back in 1993. His own account also said that way back when he was a teenager in high school, he had misgivings about the incident:

He had a psychological evaluation done in the wake of the high emotions of the custody case. “I shared my truth and told the psychologist that I felt like I was a pawn. I was torn between both Mia and Woody. After his report was submitted, I received a very upsetting call from Mia at school. She said, ‘You’ve destroyed my case! I can’t believe you said that you are torn. You have to recant your statement. You have to call your lawyer and make this right.’” Moses did as he was told.

It seems to me he had a history of misgivings even before he reconciled with Woody Allen. Is his own accounts more easy to discount simply because he spoke about them in a private setting (ie a private visit to a psychologist) rather than talking about them on national TV or newspaper?

His own account about the train set or the attic is also relevant. From what I read about the investigations’ report Dylan was inconsistent when questioned, and was changing her story.

I read a bit about Dylan's excuse for being inconsistent, which isn't unusual for a child. At first, she said she was embarrassed and that she interpreted the question.

It isn’t unusual for a child, which is why I would defer to the team of professional pshychologists and two investigative teams who interviewed her years ago and investigated the matter when the trail was fresh to make the assessment.

As a 7-year old, she was inconsistent; the videotape of her reporting the incident was made by Mia rather than an independent investigator, and psychologists found back then she was emotionally disturbed. She’s an adult now, one who grew up mostly under the care of her mother whom another brother claims is manipulative and abusive towards her kids and has strongly influenced them to think Woody is evil. She has had no contact with Woody since she was a child.

I’m sorry, but all these factors still gives me reasonable doubt about her latest testimony. How do I know if it’s based on something that really happened versus something that she was drilled to believe?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

What would Moses gain by coming forward with his story when it is clearly shown he is ostracised from his family, the Farrows and most people believe Dylan and side with the Farrows.

He is not ostracized by Woody anymore, so there is plenty for him to gain. Woody needs an insider on his side, and what better insider than a child who lived in the home.

Where is the gain? The current climate shows more support for the Farrows. He has received a lot of abuse for it. Most major media had so far not approached him, and it seems there is a consensus amongst them not to do so.

From what I read, Woody has not ostracised him, even after the fallout of that bitter custody dispute. It was Moses who made the decision to be with Mia, and when he wanted to re-establish contact with Woody, Mia did not want him to do so.

Fired first? He only spoke against Mia in 2014, when he had been estranged for years before that because he decided to see Woody against her wishes.

Fraternizing with the enemy and casting doubt in a claim that never went to trial in the first place is enough to ruffle feathers.

Enemy to whom? He had doubts if Woody was truly an enemy since way back in 1993.

Even if he left his wife (for reasons you and I do not know), why would that impact on his own claim of abuse?

It speaks to his character.

In what way? He left his wife, so just like that it invalidates everything he is saying? Should I invalidate everything Mia is saying because she had an affair with a married man (Previn) and continues to support Roman Polanski?

By 2003, Moses reconnected w/Woody and Soon Yi, and the link was written in 2014. This is all after the allegations.

True, but based on his own account, he never spoke about his mother’s abuse before because as a child he was afraid of being ostracised by her. He consistently spoke of the need to please his mother and his fear of her. Isn’t this what #Metoo is all about? Most victims do not speak out immediately due to their fears and therefore would only speak years after?

Immediately? Isn't Moses 39? He waited until he was 36 to speak out. I think he had personal gains to do this.

The Farrows are big supporters of #Metoo. How old are some of the women putting their stories forward? How old are some of the incidents brought forward?

Some would argue that the Farrows’ attempts to reignite this issue, particularly Ronan’s is to help boost his own career as a journalist/reporter.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-abuse-allegations

This is one of his quotes from People:

“My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” Moses told PEOPLE. “And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.”

The last bit about Woody "falling in love" with Soon-Yi gets me. If he had just said the first line, it would appear lest orchestrated to me.

As far back as 1993, one of the nannies had confirmed she had seen Moses being hit by Mia which backs up his account. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

If you read the following post's link, the judge speaks to the Nanny's claim. Doesn't the following quote of what the nanny said sounds similar to what Moses is now saying?

Doesn’t what the nanny says verifies Moses’ account of abuse (some of which happened before the nanny arrived in the household), and verifies his own misgivings expressed way back in 1993? From what I’ve read, Moses gives different incidents of Mia being abusive to him. The nanny’s deposition which includes an incident with a dog leash adds another incident.

"She told Allen's lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple's other -- adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation."

Flash Foward and now Moses is saying that line. The baby sitter and Moses are in Woody's pocket, even the judge pretty much thinks that.

Who was paying for the other nannies’ salaries? Weren’t they in Mia’s payroll? The other nanny was on record stating Mia’s lawyers drilled her for days to prepare her for the questioning from Woody’s lawyers.

Technically Moses’ should be in Woody’s pocket because he was co-adopted by Woody. Didn’t Woody adopt him and Dylan with Mia? Technically, Woody is his Dad.

Actually, one of the nannies should be in Woody’s pockets back then because he technically was the father of Mia’s 3 kids so he had to pay child support which would include paying for a nanny’s salary.

However, all the facts/stories/allegations/investigations presented so far do not prove 100% that he molested Dylan.

No, rarely will anyone find 100% proof, but my thinking is when there is smoke there is fire.

There was definitely fire, smoke and brimstone on both sides.

@ToniTurnyne said:

@Poetist said:

If he was verbally abused and physically abused by Mia, then he was a victim too. He was still a child at the time when these events happened, an orphan who was scared of his adoptive mother and wanted her approval. His accounts is vital because if he, as an older child, back then can be influenced by Mia, imagine what she can do to someone younger like Dylan. His account can actually negate Dylan’s because it raises reasonable doubt if she was truly a victim.

His account? All Moses can speak to is about what he saw with his own eyes -- not what he suspects. Let's say Mia is highly persuasive and mean.

The investigation needs to know if Dylan was molested.

Moses has no proof as he was not a witness to anything. He can only assume Mia convinced Dylan to say lies.

If he had half a brain, he -- as a grown man -- needs to retire this whole issue.

Moses doubts about the alleged abuse had come out way back in 1993, based on the report of one of the nanny’s published in the LA Times back in 1993. His own account also said that way back when he was a teenager in high school, he had misgivings about the incident:

He had a psychological evaluation done in the wake of the high emotions of the custody case. “I shared my truth and told the psychologist that I felt like I was a pawn. I was torn between both Mia and Woody. After his report was submitted, I received a very upsetting call from Mia at school. She said, ‘You’ve destroyed my case! I can’t believe you said that you are torn. You have to recant your statement. You have to call your lawyer and make this right.’” Moses did as he was told.

All this proves is that he was torn and he listened to Mia, who was upset that he was ruining the investigation.

It seems to me he had a history of misgivings even before he reconciled with Woody Allen. Is his own accounts more easy to discount simply because he spoke about them in a private setting (ie a private visit to a psychologist) rather than talking about them on national TV or newspaper?

He said he was torn between Mia and Woody. The judge blamed Woody for causing this between the adopted/bio kids and household help.

It isn’t unusual for a child, which is why I would defer to the team of professional pshychologists and two investigative teams who interviewed her years ago and investigated the matter when the trail was fresh to make the assessment.

This trained team made a big mistake by destroying their notes. Who does that? When the judge asked for them, they couldn't produce them.

As a 7-year old, she was inconsistent; the videotape of her reporting the incident was made by Mia rather than an independent investigator, and psychologists found back then she was emotionally disturbed.

Is it Mia's fault? Couldn't the investigators have taped Dylan?

She’s an adult now, one who grew up mostly under the care of her mother whom another brother claims is manipulative and abusive towards her kids and has strongly influenced them to think Woody is evil. She has had no contact with Woody since she was a child.

Dylan, as a child, never wanted to be around Woody, even the judge saw that. He made a point of that in his notes and said, "Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and...measures must be taken to protect her."

The judge's notes in the case point out Woody's manipulation. The judge pointed out how Woody tried to cause dissension between the children and household staff, and it seemed to work.

I’m sorry, but all these factors still gives me reasonable doubt about her latest testimony. How do I know if it’s based on something that really happened versus something that she was drilled to believe?

I have no problem with that. What I have an issue with is Moses. All he has is a different memory than Dylan, but he's going hard in saying that her experience didn't happen. He is even on Twitter talking about this on his birthday. Yet, Dylan isn't attacking him, and she's the alleged victim in all of this.

It's quite possible that both are right - Dylan and Moses, but he needs to chill.

The more he tweets makes me believe even more that he is in Woody's pocket.

He is not ostracized by Woody anymore, so there is plenty for him to gain. Woody needs an insider on his side, and what better insider than a child who lived in the home.

Where is the gain? The current climate shows more support for the Farrows. He has received a lot of abuse for it. Most major media had so far not approached him, and it seems there is a consensus amongst them not to do so.

I said he's warped. He's on Twitter yacking about this on his birthday. He has people willing to believe him, and it is more than you and I can imagine.

By 2003, Moses reconnected w/Woody and Soon Yi, and the link was written in 2014. This is all after the allegations.

True, but based on his own account, he never spoke about his mother’s abuse before because as a child he was afraid of being ostracised by her. He consistently spoke of the need to please his mother and his fear of her. Isn’t this what #Metoo is all about? Most victims do not speak out immediately due to their fears and therefore would only speak years after?

Victim? He's not speaking solely on his victimhood. He's branched off and questioned his sister's being molested.

Immediately? Isn't Moses 39? He waited until he was 36 to speak out. I think he had personal gains to do this.

The Farrows are big supporters of #Metoo. How old are some of the women putting their stories forward? How old are some of the incidents brought forward?

See above. Moses is denouncing Dylan's claim. It would have been one thing to say that he was a victim of Mia, but he went further to claim that what happened to Dylan couldn't be true, as if they couldn't have had more than one nutso parent.

However, there is a letter he wrote to Allen denouncing him as a father, and someone posted it on his Twitter feed.

From Twitter

Doesn’t what the nanny says verifies Moses’ account of abuse (some of which happened before the nanny arrived in the household), and verifies his own misgivings expressed way back in 1993? From what I’ve read, Moses gives different incidents of Mia being abusive to him. The nanny’s deposition which includes an incident with a dog leash adds another incident.

"She told Allen's lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple's other -- adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation."

Flash Foward and now Moses is saying that line. The baby sitter and Moses are in Woody's pocket, even the judge pretty much thinks that.

Who was paying for the other nannies’ salaries? Weren’t they in Mia’s payroll?

From my understanding, the singing nanny had quit for some reason. Maybe, Woody's cash was enough for her to hit the road. I imagine that the cost of the nannies was shared between the fathers.

The other nanny was on record stating Mia’s lawyers drilled her for days to prepare her for the questioning from Woody’s lawyers.

That's normal.

No, rarely will anyone find 100% proof, but my thinking is when there is smoke there is fire.

There was definitely fire, smoke and brimstone on both sides.

It still doesn't prove that Dylan was lying or had some false memories.

Now, the male models are saying me too.

Bruce Weber and Mario Testino, photographers that HC have worked with, are accused of being inappropriate.

And the beat goes on

Brendan Frasier has his story.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brendan-fraser-says-he-was-groped-by-former-hfpa-president_us_5a8ee6f3e4b005bb0fef3283

Corey Feldman is accused.

http://celebrityinsider.org/corey-feldman-accused-of-rape-responds-with-no-comment-watch-bobby-wolfe-jackie-von-rueden-interview-video-163537/

To answer the topic's question:

HC said he doesn't have a story, but in the harsh light perhaps things are different. He did say he saw some actresses in a situation and thought it was creepy, but he says he didn't see a Me Too moment or know of any predators.

I'm smh on that one because Bryan Singer was his friend.

@Poetist said:

To answer the topic's question:

HC said he doesn't have a story, but in the harsh light perhaps things are different. He did say he saw some actresses in a situation and thought it was creepy, but he says he didn't see a Me Too moment or know of any predators.

I'm smh on that one because Bryan Singer was his friend.

When did he say all this?

@ToniTurnyne said:

@Poetist said:

To answer the topic's question:

HC said he doesn't have a story, but in the harsh light perhaps things are different. He did say he saw some actresses in a situation and thought it was creepy, but he says he didn't see a Me Too moment or know of any predators.

I'm smh on that one because Bryan Singer was his friend.

When did he say all this?

It's in his GQ Australia interview.

@Poetist said:

@ToniTurnyne said:

@Poetist said:

To answer the topic's question:

HC said he doesn't have a story, but in the harsh light perhaps things are different. He did say he saw some actresses in a situation and thought it was creepy, but he says he didn't see a Me Too moment or know of any predators.

I'm smh on that one because Bryan Singer was his friend.

When did he say all this?

It's in his GQ Australia interview.

Well, he’s having a #MeToo backlash now for the stuff in the interview.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/henry-cavills-me-too-comments-spark-controversy-on-twitter_us_5b475159e4b022fdcc56a47a

I personally don’t think there’s much to fuss over his comments in that interview. There’s more to fuss over what he said in past shenanigans in some bars/clubs in London, Florida, Detroit and Jersey, but I guess he can use the ‘I was drunk’ excuse for some of them and the fact some of the chicks he talked to didn’t seem to mind. (The only peeved one I heard about was the dancer who felt insulted in London.)

Dany has apologized for the words she let come out of HC's mouth. Her attempt to make him sound straight came w/some unwanted attention. It's funny he didn't post this on his IG.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlIvKtOFZIY/

@Poetist said:

Dany has apologized for the words she let come out of HC's mouth. Her attempt to make him sound straight came w/some unwanted attention. It's funny he didn't post this on his IG.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlIvKtOFZIY/

LOL! All the reactions just reminds me of the heated discussions on the IMDb whenever his shenanigans in the the bars/clubs were reported, when he made his comments about women ‘harassing’ him and equating it to women being harassed, or his comments about the #OscarssoWhite thing, making a comment that all women likes to wear heels when some actresses in Cannes complained about the shoe rules there for women. I didn’t have much of a problem with his GQ comments, but I had more of a problem with his OscarssoWhite comments, or some of his shenanigans in bars/clubs which obviously would never be reported in a magazine like GQ.