Statute of limitations: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors

Catte Blanchett said that social medias are not judge and jury

Dylan Farrow has accused her adoptive father Woody Allen to have sexually abused her in an attic when she was 7 years old. The statute of limitations to bring Woody Allen to civil court hasn’t expired.

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:

 

The statute of limitations DOESN’T prevent Dylan Farrow from taking Woody Allen to civil court

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:

There was also an interesting answer from Robert Weide who has written many articles about Woody Allen innocence:

A tweet by Justin Levine – who has completely destroyed Maureen Orth’s (called by Dylan an “independent, highly respected journalist) lies for Vanity Fair, 10 Undeniable Facts – was reminding that it is easier to win in a civil court:

 

There is not statute of limitations for 1st Degree Sexual Assault

Some others people reminded Dylan Farrow that if she had not changed her story regarding allegations of sexual abuse, criminal prosecution could even still be an option:

 

As an adult, Dylan Farrow has changed her version many times concerning the way Woody Allen touched her.

First accusation in 1992: Aggravated Sexual Assault First Degree

First Degree AGGRAVATED Sexual assault has NO TIME LIMIT and the victim can bring charges even 40 years later in both Connecticut and NY state where the investigation was run.

Farrow Testifies That Daughter Accused Allen of Molestation

In a quiet voice, Ms. Farrow testified, “She said he took her into the attic and that he touched her in certain places, that he inserted a finger partially.

According to “Mia Story” in Vanity Fair, written by Maureen Orth, Mia Farrow’s friend:

He touched her “private part.” The word “touched” seems inappropriate as just after we can read: Dylan said she told him, “It hurts. I’m just a little kid.” which implies a penetration of the finger.

Allen v. Farrow (1993) – Justice Wilk

“…and said she just remembered that Dylan had told her that Mr. Allen had put a finger in her vagina.”

 

Dylan Farrow version in 2013

On October 23, 2013, Vanity Fair published a new article by Maureen Orth, “Mamma Mia”. This article reminds that in 1992 “…Dylan told her mother that Allen had stuck his finger up her vagina and kissed her all over in the attic…”. But later, we can read “He TOUCHED her “private part.”

 

Dylan Farrow version in 2014

Dylan Farrow Open Letter is published in The New York Times by Mia Farrow’s very close friend – or maybe more – Nicholas Krystof.

In her letter Dylan Farrow mentions “sexually assaulted me”, but not penetration.

 

Dylan Farrow version in 2018

In 2018,  January 15, Dylan Farrow gives her first interview on TV to Gayle King for “CBS This Morning“.

DYLAN FARROW: And he sat behind me in the doorway, and as I played with the toy train, I was sexually assaulted… As a 7-year-old I would say, I would have said he touched my private parts.

GAYLE KING: Mmhmm. Okay

DYLAN FARROW: Which I did say.

GAYLE KING: Alright. Alright.

DYLAN FARROW: As a 32-year-old, he touched my labia and my vulva with his finger.

Again, no penetration.

 

Dylan believers know nothing about the statute of limitations

As usual, people staying on Dylan Farrow’s side have very strong arguments:

 

Is Dylan Farrow lying again ?

How is it possible that Dylan doesn’t know that the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent her from taking Woody Allen to civil court? Isn’t it legitimate for people to think that she knows this, but that she’s lying, as she has many times before?

Dylan Farrow is not interested in due process, only mob trial-by-media: she exists publicly solely through her accusations against Woody Allen. She owes her new book publishing deal (and huge advance) to the father she continuously denigrates to establish her name. Dishonesty is a Farrow trait (except for Moses).

Rather than saying her brother Moses “is dead to me” – how nice when you consider that her sister Lark died from AIDS in poverty at 35; her brother Thaddeus killed himself at 27; and her sister Tam also committed suicide at 21 – she should re-read Moses’ essay, “A SON SPEAKS OUT”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *