Patricia Arquette is a White Woman who believes Dylan Farrow, an other White woman. She doesn’t believes Woody Allen, a Jewish man and doesn’t believe Moses Farrow, an Asian man.
RELATIF CONTENT. Are Dylan Farrow’s Believers Racists Against Asian and Jewish People ?
Patricia Arquette insults Bechet and Manzie Allen
Why was he allowed to adopt more children? Girls no less? Negligent
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) December 7, 2017
You need only one tweet to know what kind or human being Patricia Arquette is: Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn have two adopted daughters, Bechet (born December 1998) and Manzie (born February 2000). They both love and support their father.
What do you think they feel when they read Patricia Arquette’s slandering tweet ?
Her sister Rosanna Aquette insults Moses Farrow
Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan…
About the texts on the picture, the first full sentence is “The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
As everyone can see, Woody Allen is one of four people whose testimony is considered credible. Woody Allen has ALWAYS denied the allegations against him, so it is not a testimonial about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse: Woody Allen didn’t testimony against himself.
Ditto for Dr. Susan Coates who said that according to her Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan. Same for Dr. Leventhal who was leading the Yale-New Haven Hospital team, and said that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan (he suggested that Dylan could have invented the assault or could have been coached or influenced by her mother, Mia Farrow).
In reality, Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior refers to Dr. Susan Coates’ observation: “I understood why she [Mia Farrow] was worried, because it [Mr. Allen’s relationship with Dylan] was intense, … I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child.” – The Grossly Inappropriate Behavior wasn’t Sexual
“Clear consensus” among psychiatric experts…
This is a complete lie: the words “clear consensus” don’t appear in the Supreme Court document. And the one and only psychiatric expert is the Dr. Susan Coates mentioned above who said the relationship was intense – he never said “abnormally” intense – and precised “I did not see it as sexual”.
No credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention…
No credible evidence but the report of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Evaluation of Dylan Farrow by the Yale-New Haven Hospital (the referral was made by the Connecticut State Police at a meeting of the Police, State’s Attorney Frank Maco, and members of the Child Sexual Abuse Team) mentions: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. (…) and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. – Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Evaluation of Dylan Farrow
State Attorney Frank Maco, in consultation with Mia Farrow…
Frank Maco never said what the “probable cause” was, nor in 1993, nor in 2014. Anybody reading the full statement instead of isolating “probable cause” understand that the true reason Frank Maco wanted to “avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution” was because “even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.” – Maco’s Full Statement Contradicts his “Probable Cause”
RELATED CONTENT. Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation: 20 Undeniable Facts.
Woody Allen never had a stepdaughter and wasn’t a paternal figure for Soon-Yi when she was a child
Oh no. No no no no no . Woody Allen? You mean the guy married to his stepdaughter ?
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) January 17, 2018
Most of people attacking Woody Allen don’t know anything about the case. Is it really a surprise that Particia Arquette is one of them? Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married and Soon-Yi Previn is not Woody Allen’s stepdaughter.
Woody ALLEN met his wife when she was a child because he was having a sexual relationship with her mother. How’s that.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) January 18, 2018
Is it the reason why Patricia Arquette “believes” Dylan ?
Not only Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married but they never lived together. Woody Allen lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave, Mia Farrow and her kids lived on Central Park West. During his 12 years relationship with Mia Farrow, Woody Allen never once stayed over night at Mia Farrow’s apartment.
According to Soon-Yi Previn, Justice Wilk and Mia Farrow, Woody Allen was never a paternal figure for Soon-Yi when she was a child.
An accuser is not a victim and there are no witnesses of any sexual abuse
What the writer is saying is that Woody ALLEN is telling the truth and the victim and witnesses are all lying.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) February 11, 2018
Replacing “accuser” by “victim” is the golden rule for the worshipers of the MeToo dogma. Adding a few lies to establish the credibility of the “victim” is recommended: there was no “witnesseS” but…
None of us would have allowed Dylan to step away with Woody, even if he tried. Casey’s nanny, Alison, would later claim that she walked into the TV room and saw Woody kneeling on the floor with his head in Dylan’s lap on the couch. Really? With all of us in there? And if she had witnessed that, why wouldn’t she have said something immediately to our nanny Kristi? (I also remember some discussion of this act perhaps taking place on the staircase that led to Mia’s room. Again, this would have been in full view of anyone who entered the living room, assuming Woody managed to walk off with Dylan in the first place.) The narrative had to be changed since the only place for anyone to commit an act of depravity in private would have been in a small crawl space off my mother’s upstairs bedroom. By default, the attic became the scene of the alleged assault. – Moses Farrow, A Son Speaks Out
Patricia Arquette knows Dylan Farrow is lying and misleading all true survivors
During an interview, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour questioned Cate Blanchett, saying: “How do you juxtapose being a #MeToo proponent, a Time’s Up proponent, and staying silent or having worked with Woody Allen?” Cate Blanchett’s answer was smart and measured:
“…if these allegations need to be re-examined which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court, then I’m a big believer in the justice system and setting legal precedents. If the case needs to be reopened, I am absolutely, wholeheartedly in support of that. Because I think that there’s one thing about—social media is fantastic about raising awareness about issues, but it’s not the judge and jury.”
Of course, this answer didn’t please to Dylan Farrow, who continues her efforts to shame actors who have worked with Woody Allen. But while she’s normally quick to thank those who say they won’t work again with her father, this time Dylan, perhaps embarrassed, hesitated before commenting on Blanchett’s statement. She waited a full week before tweeting:
Perhaps Ms. Blanchett is unaware of the statute of limitations that prevents my case (and so many others) from being reopened, but if she is looking for a legal perspective, there is plenty of that publicly available in both Justice Wilk’s and the NY Appellate Court’s judgments. https://t.co/ut1eD4q31V
— Dylan Farrow (@RealDylanFarrow) March 29, 2018
It wasn’t long before educated people reminded Dylan that the statute of limitations DOESN’T prevent her to take Woody Allen in civil court. One smart voice was Samantha Geimer who was raped by Roman Polanski when she was 13 years old and who has previously denounced how she felt used by Mia Farrow pursuing her own vendetta against Woody Allen:
The statute of limitations is 30 years. You could still take him to civil court. You cannot refuse to use the legal system in the decades you had as an adult and then shame those who respect the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty. She owes you nothing.
— Samantha Geimer (@sjgeimer) March 29, 2018
Patricia Arquette was aware of Dylan Farrow’s lie but still tried to support her:
And this was the law at the time? Not now, but at the time of the alleged encounter? Because yes that does matter. Many laws are not retroactive to the law being changed.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) September 19, 2018
Educated people were kind enough to tell her she can check by herself… or ask to her lawyer. Then, she stopped to answer.
Patricia Arquette still supports Dylan Farrow’s discredited false allegation
Although she knows that Dylan is lying and misleading all true survivors, Patricia Arquette continues to put up with Dylan’s false allegation of sexual abuse and to “believe” her:
I believe Dylan.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 14, 2020
Stop. Read what the judge said. What the nanny saw.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 14, 2020
Read what the judge said.
Instead of asking people to read what the judge said, Patricia Arquette should read it herself.
The judge said : “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he [Woody Allen] could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”
Because of Woody Allen celebrity and because he wasn’t showing remorse about his love relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Mia Farrow ‘s 19 years old adopted daughter, Judge Wilk’s conclusions are skewed by barely concealed revulsion toward him.
Justice Wilk was married with an attorney “advocating for women and children” and was so biased against Woody Allen that he found some reasons to challenge ALL testimonies saying he didn’t abuse Dylan: the Dr. Susan Coates (a woman), the Dr. Nancy Schultz (a woman) and the Yale-New Haven team (The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master’s degree in social work.).
On October 7, 1993, a second independent 14-month-old investigation, from the New York State child welfare, cleared a second time Woody Allen and declared the Dylan Farrow sexual abuse allegation unfounded: “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded.”
Interviewed by Charlie Rose, in June 7, 1993, Eleanor Alter was Mia Farrow’s lawyer for the custody battle. It is not possible to find someone more predisposed to interpret the facts in favor of Mia Farrow. Still, she said she doesn’t know if Dylan Farrow was sexually abused by Woody Allen or if she fantasied due to Woody Allen’s behavior with Soon-Yi.
Charlie Rose: Let me jus tie up one point, there is no question in your mind that there was child abuse of Dylan?
Eleanor Alter: No, that’s not what I was saying. (…) Whether the ultimate things Dylan accuses him actually happened or whether of his behavior with her, or his behavior with his sister, some of which she witnessed, caused Dylan to fantasize, I don’t know
What the nanny saw
As already mentioned above, what the nanny saw was what everyone in the room saw, reason why the sexual abuse allegation was moved to the attic.
RELATED CONTENT. Dylan Farrow: did the Attic Abuse Allegation Came From a Song ?
And there wasn’t only one nanny: Monica Thomson was a nanny for Mia Farrow, she resigned from the Farrow household on Jan. 25 after being subpoenaed.
Monica Thompson said in a deposition that on several occasions Mia Farrow “asked me if I would be ‘on her side.’ Ms. Farrow has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.”
Thompson said that the next day Kristie Groteke, Dylan’s baby-sitter, drove her to the bus, and her fellow employee was “very upset.”
“She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”
“Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan. For several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.”
Monica Thompson also said on deposition that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses Farrow, 14, another child Allen and Farrow adopted, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place.
“Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Thompson said in an affidavit.
Is Patricia Arquette racist?
As all the evidence says Dylan Farrow is lying, we must try to find why Patricia Arquette is still believing Dylan Farrow.
With three of her Asian siblings dead (Lark, Thaddeus, Tam), two by suicides, what do you think Dylan Farrow says about her Asian brother Moses ?
Dylan Farrow: “My brother is dead to me.”
How do you think Patricia Arquette reacted when she learnt that her name is part of Are Dylan Farrow’s Believers Racists Against Asian and Jewish People ?
Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan…
In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 17, 2020
As already explained and detailed in the present article the full sentence is “The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” And it changes everything.
As Patricia Arquette as tweeted “Read what the judge said.” she has read the Supreme Court document and she knows exactly what is written in it. It speaks volume that like Maureen Orth and Dylan Farrow Patrcia Arquette uses only a part of the full sentence to manipulate it.
Maureen Orth discredited listicle for Vanity Fair
Then, Patricia Arquette is so shameless that she wasn’t afraid to use Maureen Orth’s discredited listicle:
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 16, 2020
According to Maureen Orth herself: I remember, for the legal fact-checking process on the Woody Allen piece, I was in a room with the fact-checkers for eight hours. They weren’t going to allow the piece to be published until I had a written letter from Mia Farrow saying if we did get sued, she would be a witness to say what I had said was the truth from her point of view.
There is a full article refuting Vanity Fair all 10 “Undeniable” Facts.
There’s one more thing I need to say. Rose McGowan back in the day was a straight up sex symbol! It was ALL about the face and body in the roles she took, and she displayed herself shamelessly in everything she appeared in. I find it interesting that she suddenly does a 360 degree turn and is now a staunch feminist after she was in a car accident that left her face so messed up that she needed reconstructive surgery ( her body seems to have suffered the same fate). While her face and body was saved her famous beauty was not, so her looks are gone forever. She really has not worked much after that, except in a Lifetime TV movie that was not very good ( nor she ). She is trying to stay relevant by riding on the coattails of this trending feminist wave of metoo. That’s all.
It seems to me that the reason why the Arquette Sisters, Rose McGowan and Asia Argento are condemning of WA is because they are aged actresses who are no longer in demand and they are trying to stay relevant. I would also say the same thing about Mira Sorvino, whose career was sizzling for a short time in the 1990s until it wasn’t. That’s the impression I get, anyway.