Dylan Farrow (daughter of Mia Farrow) accuses Woody Allen of sexual abuse

[wild roses]

EWWW on Woody's comments about marriage. Granted, I would hope one purpose of marriage is to make the other happy, but the way he added all that stuff about having power and feeling validated as the wiser one is just grossness.

As for separating art from the artist, I think it depends on the film. A part of me will probably always like 'Midnight in Paris' but when I watched 'Manhattan' (which was made well before Woody's family/personal problems came to light), I couldn't separate it from his personal life (in the film, he dates a high schooler, and Woody does want us to sympathize with his reasoning for dating a high schooler).

Also,people talk about boycotting Woody's films, but he's never been mainstream. I suppose for an indie/art house person, he's mainstream, but even so, he's not...blockbuster mainstream. So, it's a different audience that has to taken into account. (One would think all audiences are the same, but I do think the audiences boycotting Mel Gibson are difference from the type who go see Woody Allen. So, it will be interesting to see how his future films pan out.) (Re: I think arthouse audiences seem to be more...open-minded.. towards controversial people--regardless of WHY they are controversial--hence why Woody's acclaim would be harder to shake.)

I really hate the double standard response to Dylan. I will confess I did RT the Daily Beast article after seeing it linked on Simon Pegg's account, but now that it's been examined more closely, I see that author was sl*t-shaming Mia and other things. Also, interesting that not many people in Hollywood seem to be backing Dylan. Or believing her.

 

[chickadee]

^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?

THIS. This absolutely and so, so much. Admittedly, none of us knows any more than the other, but all the arguments in Woody's defense ring shallow at best and blatantly offensive at worst. I'm not speaking about anyone here, but in the comments I've read on various news sites, no one can seem to defend Woody without shaming Mia, Dylan, or women entirely. That's very telling to me.

Also, I have to say respectfully, that just because he was not convicted in a court of law does not mean he's innocent. Our court system is far from infallible: ask any ex-convict who has been exonerated by DNA evidence in the past decade. More to the point, the situation is way more complicated than, he just wasn't convicted. First of all, the only reason they didn't go to trial was because Mia and the state attorney feared for the mental and emotional health of little Dylan. Maco, the state attorney, has gone on record several times (even recently in a 2013 Vanity Fair article where Dylan first spoke about the sexual assault publicly) as saying they had quite a lot to prosecute Woody, but they placed Dylan's health above it. And even though they didn't go to trial, the judge in the case was wary enough of Woody's behavior that he granted Mia sole custody and refused Woody visitation rights with both Dylan AND Moses, Mia and Woody's other adopted child. There are also reports that Woody was in therapy for "inappropriate behavior" with Dylan, at least eight months before Mia discovered the naked pics of Soon-Yi, which blows up his "vengeful lover" defense.

 

[MyNameIs]

^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?

No. That's the only logical thing to do at this point. Were you in the room where "something" happened? Did you conduct an extensive investigation into this case? Do you know anything we don't? All we have is her word against his word. I'd rather be impartial than condemn an innocent man.

Child sexual abuse allegations are some of the trickiest and most difficult to deal with. Not surprising. Children don't have the mental capacity to characterize, recall or explain everything correctly. They're also more prone to outside influence than adults. That's not to say these crimes shouldn't be prosecuted or punished. Just that they're difficult to deal with and we need to be mindful of that.

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific. No less horrific than the actual crime itself. 99/100 times the public will condemn the accused regardless if he's actually guilty. I say he, because men are predominantly the victims of this. People always play up the emotional factor by saying "Imagine your child was abused." Well, imagine you were wrongly accused. Your father, brother, son, husband, friend.

This IS the modern day witch hunt.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific.

Well falsely accusing someone of a crime is actually a crime in itself. So i cannot see the relevance.
Someone that gets a non guilty verdict in a sexual abuse case in court is not falsely accused of any crime, it means that there is not enough proof that the things the victim claims actually happened, it does not make the victim a liar. It just makes the accused innocent of those charges.
For any sexual abuse case to go to court people have always to presume the victim is telling the truth, the victim has to be believed to start with, does not make the accused guilty and no one is thinking of throwing anyone into jail without their day in court. I find it shocking how dismissive people, and the media, can be of sexual abuse claims, and this case is a good example.

 

[eternitygoddess]

No. That's the only logical thing to do at this point. Were you in the room where "something" happened? Did you conduct an extensive investigation into this case? Do you know anything we don't? All we have is her word against his word. I'd rather be impartial than condemn an innocent man.

Child sexual abuse allegations are some of the trickiest and most difficult to deal with. Not surprising. Children don't have the mental capacity to characterize, recall or explain everything correctly. They're also more prone to outside influence than adults. That's not to say these crimes shouldn't be prosecuted or punished. Just that they're difficult to deal with and we need to be mindful of that.

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific. No less horrific than the actual crime itself. 99/100 times the public will condemn the accused regardless if he's actually guilty. I say he, because men are predominantly the victims of this. People always play up the emotional factor by saying "Imagine your child was abused." Well, imagine you were wrongly accused. Your father, brother, son, husband, friend.

This IS the modern day witch hunt.

But you're not being impartial. You're already starting off with the assumption that Woody Allen is "an innocent man", and then providing evidence that throws doubt on Dylan Farrow's accounts.

This article provides a good breakdown of how the presumption of innocence plays out in this situation:

Woody Allen’s Good Name
By AARON BADY
This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her.

If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody AllenHi, The Daily Beast!, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.

The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a r*pe culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are r*pe cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance–to assert that we can never know what happened, in that attic–then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story.

To be blunt: I think Woody Allen probably did it, though, of course, I could be wrong. But it’s okay if I’m wrong. For two reasons. First, because my opinion is not attached to a juridical apparatus—because I have not been empowered by jails and electric chairs and states of exception to destroy people’s lives—it isn’t necessary for me to err heavily on the side of “we need to be really ****ing sure that the accused did it.” It’s a good thing, generally, that juries are empowered to say “We think the accused is probably guilty, but we’re not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, so we will not convict.” That bar is set high for a reason; if you’re going to lock a person in a cage for a long time, you need to be really sure. But we are also empowered to say the same thing. We are also empowered to say “We think Woody Allen probably molested a seven year old.” And because we are not in a court of law, we don’t even need to say the second part. The fact that we will not convict him doesn’t even need to be implied. He is not, after all, on trial.

The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right. Because I am not on Woody Allen’s jury, I can be swayed by the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man’s reputation. We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false r*pe charges, and that fact is important here. All things being equal, it’s more likely that the man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly) is a likely candidate. All things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one. It’s a good thing that juries can’t think this way, that they can’t take account of Occam’s Razor, because—in theory—the juridical system needs to get it right every single time (or at least hold tenaciously to that ambition). But you and I can recognize the bigger picture, because we aren’t holding a person’s life in our hands. Especially in situations like this one, the overwhelmingly more likely thing is that he did it. The overwhelmingly less likely thing is that a pair of bitter females—driven by jealousy or by the sheer malignity of the gender—have been lying about him for decades.

What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high. You don’t have to say a word in your defense, in fact, and people who have directed documentaries about you will write lengthy essays in the Daily Beast tearing down the testimony of your accusers. You can just go about your life making movie after movie, and it’s fine. But if you are a woman who has accused a great film director of molesting you when you were seven, the starting point is the presumption that, without real evidence, you are not telling the truth. In the court of public opinion, a woman accusing a great film director of r*ping her has no credibility which his fans are bound to respect. He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name. And when she is silent, the Daily Beast does not rise to her defense.

In a r*pe culture, there is no burden on us to presume that she is not a liar, no necessary imperative to treat her like a person whose account of herself can be taken seriously. It is important that we presume he is innocent. It is not important that we presume she is not making it all up out of female malice. In a r*pe culture, you can say things like “We can’t really know what really happened, so let’s all act as if Woody Allen is innocent (and she is lying).” In a r*pe culture, you can use your ignorance to cast doubt on her knowledge; you can admit that you have no basis for casting doubt on Dylan’s statement, and then you can ignore her account of herself. A famous man is not speaking, so her testimony is not admissible evidence. His name is Woody Allen, and in a r*pe culture, that good name must be shielded and protected. What is her name?

source: thenewinquiry

 

[MyNameIs]

But you're not being impartial. You're already starting off with the assumption that Woody Allen is "an innocent man", and then providing evidence that throws doubt on Dylan Farrow's accounts.

He is an innocent man. Until the court of law finds him guilty of sexual abuse or similar crime beyond a reasonable doubt, he will remain innocent. Again, that is the foundation of our society. I can follow that principle and remain impartial on this particular case. I don't know what happened. I don't know if he committed a crime. I don't know that he hasn't. I don't know that she's lying/making it up/being coached. I don't know that she isn't. I never called her a liar. I afford her the same presumption of innocence I afford the accused. Do you?

Thank you for the article you posted, it is just the kind of current fluff I despise.
-"I think Woody Allen probably did it, though, of course, I could be wrong. But it’s okay if I’m wrong. For two reasons. First, because my opinion is not attached to a juridical apparatus... The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong."

What? How is that a justification for him being wrong? Even if his opinion directly isn't attached to a judicial apparatus, millions of like-minded opinions could potentially become. How often do you see a story about an innocent man being charged, tried, even convicted just to appease the raging public? Second, even if his and other like his opinions don't have a legal apparatus, they could ruin someone's life forever. Accusations of sexual abuse (true or false) have lasting impact on one's life. It's literally the worst crime to be accused of. Shouldn't that be a reason enough to be cautious about being wrong? That scares me. But then he's probably not wrong so it's ok. WTF? Someone published this nonesense?

Additionally, yes, it's a good thing that the accusations go through a vetting period. They should be questioned, verified, tested. These are grave accusations. Are we just expected to take every accusation that comes out at its face value and run with it? And how DARE the accused just go on with his life! What is he supposed to do? Plead his innocence? Give interviews to random schmoes about how he didn't do it? The burden is on the accuser to prove his/her case, not on the accused. The accused doesn't have to say a word, and if the accusations don't hold up, he should be free to go. Except, it appears even if that happens, we're still CONVINCED he's guilty. Because... well, he's creepy? Weird? Famous?

Again, I don't know what, if anything, happened. Neither do you. I admit that I don't. You're convinced you do. Where is this conviction coming from? You simply believe what she says. Why? Why don't you believe what he says?

 

[Morphe]

I'd say anyone should read "The Daily Beast" piece though. It's illuminating.

OH REALLY?
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...t_weide_s_attack_on_mia_farrow_and_her.2.html

Can we not with the r*pe apologists in this post??!!

 

[softgrey]

He's probably groomed her for so long. He's disgusting to a tee. Has she ever really "spoken out," not a bunch of he said, she said from his camp, but actually spoke? And every time I hear Woody Allen and his children mentioned I think of those pictures of him some years ago with his two daughters (funny how he only has daughters) and they looked absolutely disgusted themselves. I hope he hasn't done anything to them too.

untrue...

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/moses_farrow_defends_woody_allen/

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Morphe... please note that I also said this:

he was quite fair-minded at times, and quite biased at other times in the article.

and this:

I guess what I found illuminating were all the things I actually didn't know that I found out in the DB article. That's why I used that word. I was under some misconceptions and the article includes a lot of details. I am able to read critically enough that I could take what I wanted from it.

- and I mentioned already that enternitygoddess raised some valid points about the article.

I read the Slate piece yesterday, but thanks for linking it. It's a strong rebuttal in some aspects; she does an interesting analysis and makes some savvy rhetorical moves.

Finally I am not sure if this is what you're saying - but I am in no way shape or form a "r*pe apologist"! I think we can have a conversation showing respect for each other... hopefully anyhow.

 

[softgrey]

FYI-
all the kids with Farrow are adopted with the exception of one---
he only adopted two kids with Farrow...Dylan and Moses
the rest were kids she adopted without him...

from wikipedia- one biological child, Satchel Farrow (known as Ronan Seamus Farrow)

 

[softgrey]

i'd rather this situation wasn't being tried in public, but if you're going to start judging, i believe that you at least need to start with accurate information...

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I'd still like to clarify further re: the DB article and just give some examples of how I learned some things I didn't know about this case and beyond:

here are things I didn't know:

I didn't know Woody & Mia were never common-law because of NY law (because he never stayed at her apartment, i.e. they didnt live together).

I didn't know Mia had to approve the clips for the GG tribute. I think it would have almost been a more powerful statement for her to say "no" because it would have been a noticeable GAP in the tribute since she was in so many of his films, including some of his best films. People would've been talking...

I didn't know how intelligent Soon Yi (apparently) is

I didnt know Moses had become close with Woody; I was still under the impression that he was closer to Mia, as when the custody battle happened.

I learned all those things in the DB article. I have no idea how that makes me a "r*pe Apologist". It's just one more article in a PLETHORA of articles and I have been reading almost all of them, from both sides. Some are more factually/detailed based and some are more opinion based. Some are both. I am reading it all and critically evaluating it. I thought that one was worth linking for the details it included. Obviously the author has his biases as do many writing on this issue.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

i'd rather this situation wasn't being tried in public, but if you're going to start judging, i believe that you at least need to start with accurate information...

Agree, on both counts.

 

[before]

i'd rather this situation wasn't being tried in public, but if you're going to start judging, i believe that you at least need to start with accurate information...

Besides the discrepancy in who he legally was the father of, what else do you believe is inaccurate? In addition, just because Allen never signed legal documents to father most of the children does not mean he, at the very least, was not an authority figure to them.
It's inevitable for things of this nature to be tried in public especially when they relate to our sense of morals even if we look at this situation as observers.
It's disappointing to read many educated individuals belittle her message as a way of promoting her brother's new show and punish Allen's Oscar run. Such accusations are baseless considering Ronan has seen success in his professional career and this isn't the first time an Allen film has made an Oscar run since his alleged crimes.
I believe Dylan and I have to allow others to reach a different conclusion, even if it makes me question their character

 

[chickadee]

I want to say this respectfully because I don't want to come off as nasty or unkind to anyone. Nor do I want to stop people from sharing their opinions. But this is not the first time that I've heard people express their distaste for this being aired in "public." I would argue that that's the whole point of Dylan's letter. She wanted this to be public. She was sick of being silenced and shamed.

I think it's worth it to point out that this is not brand new information, by the way. Dylan has been silenced at least twice before now. I know a lot of you don't believe her and you have your reasons, but let's pretend for a moment that she isn't a vindictive little liar hellbent on destroying poor Woody Allen's career and reputation. When she first spoke up as a child, only a few family members and professionals believed her. But the overwhelming opinion was that she was lying or that her mother put it in her head so she was dismissed. She was ignored again as recently as last November when Mia and her kids gave an interview to Vanity Fair. Mia and Dylan both detail the abuse and its aftermath for almost half the article, only to be overshadowed by a brief, throwaway line about how Ronan Farrow might biologically be Frank Sinatra’s son. It’s only now that people seem to be paying attention to these allegations and yet still desperately seek to silence her.

So, this is just my own individual opinion--and I understand that many feel this is a "private" family matter: The family has been dealing with this privately for years. And in those years, Woody Allen has been lauded as a gem of the film industry, patted on the back, worshipped, adored. People wanted to enjoy his films so this was swept under the rug. Me, personally, I don't want it to go away. Ever. Because it is far more common for women (and men) to be assaulted than it is for someone to be falsely accused of assaulting someone. This is something that desperately, urgently needs to stop, and the only way we can do that, is if we talk about it and change our culture, which would rather silence its victims than protect them. And if we stop thinking about all of the potentially selfish reasons Dylan might be doing this, why isn't it just as possible that she maybe wanted to give a voice to children, adults, who have been assaulted and have not yet found the courage to speak up?

 

[advo]

Moses' dismissal of Dylan's accusations are not worth any more than the statements by the other siblings who do stand behind her. In fact, I believe him less. He claims that Dylan and Allen were not gone but that cannot be true because it was, that would have been the single most powerful evidence of Allen's innocence. Yet, the case was not immediately dismissed because of lack of evidence but to protect Dylan's fragile mental health. And the other siblings who were also present, even according to Moses, believe Dylan was abused. Furthermore, while Moses might not have known about or witnessed any abuse, that does not mean it did not happen. Abuse happens all the time without the family knowing about it.

I cannot say for sure that Allen is guilty because this case IS messy. It's she said, he said and everyone trying to discredit the other. However, it is not a "private matter". Because first of all, we are talking about potentially sexual abuse. That IS a public matter. Second, the victim, Dylan wants the public to discuss this. She wants people to have an opinion because these matters should not be silenced.

It's really that hard to believe that Allen is a sexual predator? Yes, Allen and Mia weren't married and didn't live together, and Soon-Yi didn't consider Allen her father since Andre Previn was her father. However, Allen came into her life when she was a child, dating her mother and she was his children's (Dylan, Moses and Ronan) sister. Then you have Allen actually admitting their marriage has a more paternal feeling to it (!!!), how he enjoys the inequality of their age difference and how that takes away any real meaningful conflict. I'm sorry but is he not saying that he enjoys how he's far more powerful in their relationship? Is an imbalance of power and control not often motivations in child sexual abuse? No, I see far too many reasons for why he very much could have sexually abused Dylan and groomed Soon-Yi. Without even factoring how statistically sexual abuse happens way more often than falsely accusing people of sexual abuse.

I'm appalled at how the public has dismissed the accusations because Mia has a "sl*tty" past and that somehow makes her less credible. Or how she's a bitter scorned woman trying to ruin Allen's Oscar chances. Even though, you know he's had critically acclaimed movies for years. Or how Ronan, Mia and Dylan are dredging this up to promote Ronan's new show. And Dylan isn't credible either because she's either been brainwashed by her mother or she's lying because sometimes people lie about sexual abuse. If you take away all these poor attempts at discrediting the accusations and look at Allen's questionable predilections, I know what I believe more.

 

[jennifer~]

^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?

Exactly. And I interpret "innocent until proven guilty" rather literally. It entitles one to due process under law. It doesn't mean we have to protect Woody Allen's image as a public figure. Celebrities and other members of the media have fallen out of favor for less.

I suppose media outcry can sway a court case, but it works both ways, since most victims of sexual abuse or assault are afraid to speak openly. The insults to their character can be damaging, even if the perpetrator is charged. It happens all the time, where the public turns on the victim and blames them for ruining the abuser's life. Even still, there are plenty of cases where public opinion has run in opposition to a verdict. To the perpetrator, it's not necessarily damning, while it's likely to silence a victim. How many Dylan Farrows haven't spoken out? She must represent so many more women like herself, who've been afraid.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

It's disappointing to read many educated individuals belittle her message as a way of promoting her brother's new show...

Yeah, that's a bizarre claim; how would such a thing even work as promotion?

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I want to say this respectfully because I don't want to come off as nasty or unkind to anyone. Nor do I want to stop people from sharing their opinions. But this is not the first time that I've heard people express their distaste for this being aired in "public." I would argue that that's the whole point of Dylan's letter. She wanted this to be public. She was sick of being silenced and shamed.

I agree.
What i find shocking is that people think that is perfectly natural to be of the opinion someone that claims to be sexually abused is not telling the truth, in the name of "innocent until proven guilty" not even noticing that they are in turn accusing someone of a very serious crime. False accusations are a crime can land you in jail . The innocence of the accused, or the presumed innocence, does not make the victim a liar. And that's basically the position people are taking in this story, for him to be innocent, she must be lying. And that's not at all how the law works.

Sexual abuse is a public crime and people should speak up if they have the courage and have sympathetic ears to listen, or we might end up with cases like the one of "Sir" Jimmy Saville, that only after he died it was discovered he was probably of the most prolific sexual predator in the country.

 

[chickadee]

I agree.
What i find shocking is that people think that is perfectly natural to be of the opinion someone that claims to be sexually abused is not telling the truth, in the name of "innocent until proven guilty" not even noticing that they are in turn accusing someone of a very serious crime. False accusations are a crime can land you in jail . The innocence of the accused, or the presumed innocence, does not make the victim a liar. And that's basically the position people are taking in this story, for him to be innocent, she must be lying. And that's not at all how the law works.

Sexual abuse is a public crime and people should speak up if they have the courage and have sympathetic ears to listen, or we might end up with cases like the one of "Sir" Jimmy Saville, that only after he died it was discovered he was probably of the most prolific sexual predator in the country.

Absolutely. The worst thing is that the presumption of innocence argument is reserved almost exclusively for accused r*pists. Has anyone noticed this? Rarely do people ride on their high horse with "innocent til proven guilty" unless it's a r*pe case, which is actually the worst time for it. But you didn't hear very many--if any--go 'innocent til proven guilty' with Oscar Pistorius, or O. J. Simpson. No one is cautious about passing judgment then.

In this case, the victim called out her abuser in her own words. She didn't use a lawyer or any other kind of third party; she detailed the abuse herself. So you may as well go up to Dylan and call her a liar straight to her face. There's no reasonable way even to blame Mia at this point as Dylan is a grown adult, almost thirty. Her story has not changed in twenty years. There's no reason to believe she's not telling the truth, and yet with all the creepy facts we know about Allen, people still find a way to discredit her. SMH.