Taped Phone call between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow
https://www.tiktok.com/@whistleblowernetwork/video/7229745982970350874
This is so messed up.
This sounds like some dialogue from a movie!
MovieChat Forums > Woody Allen Discussion > Taped Phone call between Woody Allen and...
Though that is not enough evidence to put him in jail.
shareWow, Woody says three words, including denying everything, and then Mia goes into a monologue making sure to hit multiple points of contention in the case ("She tells the truth and is consistent!")
Yeah, that's... boy, that's really something...
You don't hear Woody Allen denying anything, do you? Like "What are you talking about?" or "When did I lie?".
That is not enough for the court to convict him, but it definitely looks bad.
There's a part near the beginning where he denies it.
First off, he barely says anything - you can hardly even hear him. The only two things that he says that are audible are him saying things like, "But you know that I didn't," before Farrow cuts him off again. It sounds to me like he starts in trying to tell her it's not true before she cuts him off and then talks for the rest of the clip. His lack of response to her yelling hardly seems like guilt to me. He just might be not engaging, unwilling to respond or hang up the phone (because maybe he feels he needs to know what she wants to say).
Whether you think Allen's denials are honest or not I leave to you, but this hardly seems to point to his guilt - or innocence, come to that.
When Allen said:"You know that I didn't ...", Farrow has not accused him anything yet, other than lying. It was his lack of response after that looked bad.
Farrow did not even report him, like she said she was just trying to make sure Dylan was OK, I think she called doctor, it was the doctor reported the sexual assault, which I assume it meant vaginal penetration on a 7 year old and the doctor was obligated to report it.
If that was not Woody Allen, then who? You don't see they investigated anyone else, do you?
"You know that I didn't..." is the beginning of Woody denying something, though. I'm not sure if this is the absolute start of the telephone conversation, but it sounds like it's not (ie, we could be listening to him denying something that's not on the tape). It's also not the first time they've spoken about this or the first catalyst to the whole situation. In other words, Farrow has accused him of many things at this point, just not during the portion of the phone call we hear - or even necessarily during the phone call. But if your ex accuses you of child molestation and then calls you, the first words out of your mouth can be, "You know that I didn't..." and it's still denying an accusation.
Farrow got him reported. She talked to a lawyer, then her doctor. This goes over it: https://youtu.be/muyaCg2dGAk?t=1322
In a nutshell: she consults a lawyer, then goes to the doctor. It's possible the lawyer gave her the advice to get this auto-reported by the doctor.
Well, let's park the "then who?" for a second.
No, I don't see that they investigated anyone else. But in the middle of a messy breakup, lots of exes get accused of molestation that they did not perform. Furthermore, they *did* investigate Allen - quite thoroughly - with one of the country's top clinics. They found Allen innocent. This reminds me of the TV clip where two MDs are being confronted by Jenny McCarthy and a guy (don't remember his credentials) about vaccines. One of the doctors points out that the *only* thing investigated is vaccines, not other causes. This is taken by McCarthy and her pal as proof that vaccines must be causing autism when, in fact, all it means is that vaccines are almost definitively not causing autism and other investigations *should* happen.
Woody being found innocent by different investigations but no one else being investigated isn't proof of Allen's guilt.
(cont.)
A youtube video is not evidence, unless you can provide real evidence, I'd say that guy is just like you, is paid by PR firms.
shareWell, I can't tell you if the youtube creator is paid by a PR firm, but I can tell you that I'm not.
And you're right: a youtube video isn't evidence, but all of the evidence that is cited in the youtube video is.
But let's discount the youtube video. Take what I said, not the video: the sequence of events is that Mia consulted a lawyer, *then* took Dylan to the doctor. I'll pose the question: if Mia was "just concerned about Dylan" why go to a lawyer *before* a doctor?
I already assumed you are just another paid troll, it is not like you would admit it.
shareWell, we could both engage with one another in bad-faith, assuming we're trolling or paid by Allen or Farrow or whoever, but that wouldn't be very productive or interesting. If you want to continue this conversation in good faith, I'm game. If you're just going to ignore what I'm saying and attack me personally by saying I'm a shill, well, I've got better things to do with my time. Please let me know what kind of conversation you'd like to have, though, so we don't waste any more of our time than is necessary.
shareThe recording is a citable source of evidence from a HBO documentary.
Do you have anything citable from a credible media?
Until you have that all you say is really just bullshit.
Here is Moses Farrow's eyewitness account that corroborates Woody's story:
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html
Here's the Newhaven report summary:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20397492-yale-new-haven-clincial-eval-woody-allen
Here's a news story which tells of a separate investigation by the New York State Department of Social Services that also concluded Allen's innocence:
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/26/nyregion/agency-drops-abuse-inquiry-in-allen-case.html
The blog is not a credible source, also written more like a story than actual facts. So I am going to disregard that.
The Yale New Haven Clinical Evaluation and New York Times article did not say what you stated before. So everything you said before (Farrow consulted a lawyer before calling a doctor) still unsubstantiated. I am now inclined to think it is made up.
"Mr. Allen noted in a statement released yesterday that the latest milestone came seven months after the finding by a team of child abuse investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital that no molestation took place."
I think that is referring to the Yale New Haven Clinical Evaluation, which was stated it is an opinion.
The reasons given are:
2) She struggle to describe the touching (which could be understandable).
3) There is no spontaneity in her statements (which again is understandable because I think she told the story again and again).
1 and 4) She has inconsistencies in her statements (I think we all do if we are not coached by lawyers).
Anyway it was good enough for the court because it is expert opinion but I am not thoroughly convinced that is good enough. I think these things could go either way depending how they are conducted.
From page 6 of this document (www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf), Wilkes' ruling in the custody case:
"After Dylan's first comments, Ms. Farrow telephoned her attorney for guidance. She was advised to bring Dylan to her pediatrician, which she did immediately."
It still does not calibrate with your narrative, that was that Farrow intended the doctor to report Allen.
This version is Dylan told Farrow that she was molested, Farrow called lawyer for how to proceed, the lawyer said to have the kid checked up by a doctor, which is quite normal way of conducting things.
You were clearly trying to create a very biased narrative.
I'm out.
No matter what I say, no matter what facts I present, you assume not only that my information is bad or inaccurate, not only that my conclusions are wrong, but that I myself am biased, lying, or manipulative. I'm really not trying to be, but I don't expect you to believe that either.
So, again: I have better things to do with my time than be taken in bad faith in an unproductive discussion.
I myself am biased, lying, or manipulative.
Which you are, when you pointed to a youtube video with a title says:"By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent" as your evidence, that can't be any clearer. share
As to the report, the doctor reported that there had been allegation of sexual assault. I don't recall if he performed any testing for rape. However, the allegations I've read include acts like fondling and digital penetration (it depends on which time the allegations are made - the reports have varied) which might or might not be noticeable on a test.
But let's assume that the aftereffects of some digital penetration were observable and that the doctor observed them. The question was: who could have done this?
Anybody or nobody.
A curious child might have caused them herself. Other perv celebrities Mia palled around with might have (she defended Roman Polanski for years, for instance, and I can't recall having read any recanting of this by Farrow). Mia's brother is a convicted child molester. Mia has been accused of various forms of abuse by Moses Farrow. Or it's possible that the doctor misdiagnosed the penetration and no digital penetration occurred at all.
Nobody else being accused doesn't make Woody guilty any more than his mumbling a few words during a phone call - words which seem to be a denial, anyway.
Give me evidence, not just a narrative prepared by PR firms.
shareI did. The Yale Newhaven team - the investigators who specialize in child psychology and were, at the time, among the top experts to determine molestation or lack thereof - cleared Allen. You are ignoring what I'm saying.
shareShow me a credible source, not just you. Do you really think you have any credibility at all?
shareNope. I don't have any credibility beyond our ability to talk to one another and agree to be civil. That's why I keep citing the highly respected, credible source of the Newhaven report.
EDIT:
I replied to a similar request for links/sources above, but in case anybody is just reading this section of the thread (for whatever reason) here is one of the links I gave out elsewhere:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20397492-yale-new-haven-clincial-eval-woody-allen
I did not bother replying below because it would have been redundant with my above reply.
Show me a link, a citable source.
shareMedical examination of the girl showed that she had not been abused or molested in any way. After an extensive investigation, psychologists and police detectives concluded that she had lied, and had probably been coached to lie by her mother.
shareHe was probably flipping through the phone book looking for the best lawyer to shove up her ass.
share
I think she taped a couple of sentences from some other conversation, and then acted out a whole monologue that she tacked onto it.
And you have any indication or evidence of that, or at least basis of the thought? Or are you just trying to make things up?
share
Listening to this "conversation", where for some reason Woody is silent beyond the first few seconds, is my evidence.
You mean like Mia made up that whole phone call?
shareThat's possible, although I don't think it's a necessary explanation. It sounds to me like Allen tries to talk, Farrow goes off, and Allen just realizes the futility of trying to say anything. He doesn't hang up because he probably wants to know what she's going to say. Guilty or innocent, he'd want to know her thought processes and if she's going to reveal anything of her strategy or anything else she might be about to do to him.
shareHow do we know Woody Allen was even on the other end? I have a hard time believing this. It should have come out when it happened. It didn't. It's fishy.
shareI think the recording was first introduced in 2021's 'Allen v. Farrow' docu series, according to this article: https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/movies/2023/05/17/64652e39268e3e7b2c8b45af.html
There are people calling the documentary "one sided", but so far nobody is calling it a fabrication.
Anyway I think they would have been sued if it was fake.
I just know that these are 30 year old allegations. They've been to court. Why wasn't this phone call entered into evidence?
There's proof that Farrow coached her daughter Dylan. I just see no reason to buy this all a sudden after 30 years. Like I said, it's fishy.
Mia is accused of child abuse by two of her children, Moses[22] and Soon-Yi,[23] who also accuse her of false allegations and of "brainwashing" Dylan. In a 2018 letter, Moses, who felt in charge of carefully watching Dylan the afternoon she was allegedly molested and who was 14 at the time, explains in detail why he believes the allegation is false and describes his forced support of Mia as the biggest mistake of his life.[22] He tweeted, "So many times I saw my mother try to convince her that she was abused—and it has worked."[24]share
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
That is more of "he said and she said", considering Allen was a wealthy man, that could be the result of bribery.
Ronan Farrow alleges in the documentary that Allen offered to pay for his college tuition but only if he denounced his mother and sister, which he declined to do.
That is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_v._Farrow
Anyway, like I said the makers of documentary and HBO both could be sued for this if any evidence provided in it was fake, but I did not see a lawsuit, so I think at least the recording was genuine.
Of course those evidence was still not enough to convict him of any crime, just made him look really guilty. share
If that's Woody Allen on the other end of the phone, he's most likely guilty.
But again, it's never come to light until now, after 30 years? It's suspicious and up to this point the lion's share of evidence has always shown Allen to be innocent.
I'd need to know why this phone call was never heard of before now.
I think it was in the evidence at the time, but was not given to media, though I am not certain of that.
Anyway that is not enough to put him in jail.
Even if he is on the other end, why does that make him guilty?
I've been attacked by a raving lunatic throwing all sorts of BULLSHIT allegations at me before, but I wasn't allowed to get a word in edgeways, which is partly because I'm quite a meek individual, BUT NOWHERE NEAR AS MEEK as Woody Allen. It seems that it's 'okay' for BULLIES to throw BULLSHIT allegations at meek men, and have everyone believe it, simply because the man isn't a loudmouth PIG who shouts back at the accuser. NOT FUCKING FAIR. You're all nasty bullies (not so much you Onan, but some of the others here). ðŸ˜
Okay, you make a good point. He may have been so accustomed to Mia Farrow's diatribes, that he just kept his mouth shut until she was finished.
shareGood point; well said.
shareYou should have read up on the connection between Mia and the prosecutor. It's really not cool you posting a few things you heard or think, but not really bothering to investigate it or read about the other side.
That HBO documentary was a total hit piece, Woody was right.
Child molestation is not a one-time, one-person crime. Dylan Farrow is 37 years old and there was one allegation where Woody was supposed to have been alone with her in a crowded house for 15 minutes.
There is no evidence that Woody ever molested a child before or since, and no evidence he did so with Dylan.
I wonder who initiated that call, who scripted it, who recorded it, and acted it in an Oscar-worthy performance.
A lawsuit over something like that just raised the whole issue again and how do you prove a negative.
Woody played around with people's lives, and it has bounced back on him in an unexpected way, but from what I've read I'm confident the charge of child molestation is untrue, and by the way Mia Farrow is not poor.
You really should read or listen to some of the articles about Woody and Mia.
Like I said it really is an army of trolls.
The reason I know that is because all the one sided assertions, such as "That HBO documentary was a total hit piece, Woody was right.", they really are quite ridiculous.
Oh, gee, I wonder who scripted that, and recorded it, and acted the hell out of it?
Every time there is a bump in the #MeToo, or some kind of pedophile talk Mia Farrow gets the old hate-Woody machine running again.
The moment they slap a Hollywood soundtrack on it, you know it's bullshit.
share