Skip to content

DYLAN FARROW’S OPEN LETTER ABOUT WOODY ALLEN Reveals the Twenty Years of Media Double Standards

February 3, 2014

The second part of the post on Demerol will have to wait as very, very interesting news has come from Dylan Farrow about her stepfather Woody Allen. The 28 year-old Dylan says she was sexually assaulted by her stepfather almost twenty years ago when she was 7 years old.

Considering that a similar allegation is probably awaiting us in June this year (when Wade Robson’s lies about Michael Jackson may be resumed) it will be interesting to look into Dylan’s story to educate ourselves a bit on the subject before the Wade Robson wave comes upon us again.

Making judgment on Woody Allen even on the basis of a powerful letter like Dylan’s will contradict the basic law principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, so the only thing we can really do is tell the girl’s story and focus on the reaction to it from the media which, especially in comparison with what they did to Michael Jackson, will strike you by its incredibly considerate attitude towards Woody Allen as one of the Hollywood pillars.

The comparison of the manner in which the similar stories of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen were handled by the media will be all the more easier as the seven-year-old Dylan accused her stepfather of abuse right at the time when Jordan Chandler accused Michael Jackson of the same.

Dylan’s story started in 1992 and was over in February 1994 when the investigation against Woody Allen was closed without bringing criminal charges, and Michael’s case started in 1993 and the police investigation ended in September 1994 without bringing criminal charges against him either.

However this is where the similarity between the two cases ends as all the rest was completely different. 

DYLAN’S STORY

Photo of Woody Allen with his adoptive daugher Dylan Farrow. Photo: Rex/photoreporters Inc.

Woody Allen with his adoptive daugher Dylan Farrow. Photo: Rex/photoreporters Inc.

When Maureen Orth (who seemed to be writing about all child abuse allegations at the time) wrote a story about Woody Allen and his adoptive daughter Dylan, she diligently repeated Mia Farrow’s accusations against her ex-partner Woody but nevertheless tried to keep a balanced view of the case.

Of course her article about Woody Allen was a far cry from her series about Michael Jackson which grew more biased and nastier with each new consecutive piece.

However even her much quieter narration about Woody Allen is still holding many curious details of Dylan Farrow’s case who at the time of the events was just seven years old.

Orth says that Woody Allen’s love for his step-daughter was so intense that he literally couldn’t take his hands off her.

The intensity of this relationship was once observed by a child psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates who was in the family to attend to another of Mia Farrow’s 11 children (most of them adopted) and who, just after a brief look at Allen’s interaction with the little Dylan, approached him and Mia Farrow with a suggestion of a session on “inappropriate fatherly behavior”.

Quote from the Vanity Fair:

“There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist.

In more than two dozen interviews conducted for this article, most of them with individuals who are on intimate terms with the Mia Farrow household, Allen was described over and over as being completely obsessed with the bright little blonde girl. He could not seem to keep his hands off her. He would monopolize her totally, to the exclusion of her brothers and sisters, and spend hours whispering to her. She was fond of her daddy, but if she tried to go off and play, he would follow her from room to room, or he would sit and stare at her.

Indeed, people wondered how she could cope with so much doting attention from her father—behavior that many people frankly didn’t know what to make of. “When she just wanted to giggle and run away and play, he’d be right behind her. And I just looked at it, and I’d shake my head and think, I hope this is a great thing,” says Pascal. “It was to the point that when we would go over there I wouldn’t run over and talk to her or anything. I’d talk to Satchel, but it’s like you don’t even dare talk to Dylan when he’s around.”

And was Pascal aware of the rule that Woody was never to be left alone with Dylan? “It was a really good rule,” she says. “There was no other way she could get away and get out.”

Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia’s apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woody’s agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didn’t know that, according to several sources, Woody, wearing just underwear, would take Dylan to bed with him and entwine his body around hers; or that he would have her suck his thumb; or that often when Dylan went over to his apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play.”

The seasoned us who are well familiar with Victor Gutierrez’s stories about MJ will be impressed by this introduction but will note that all of the above may not be necessarily true  – some sources like making up stories and some authors are prone to add their own embellishments to them, so let us agree not to rush things and make fast judgments about Woody Allen.

Dylan with her stepfather in 1988

Dylan with her stepfather in 1988

However with every new line the story told by the girl’s adoptive mother Mia Farrow continues to grow uglier.

“One summer day in Connecticut, when Dylan was four and Woody was applying suntan lotion to her nude body, he alarmed Mia’s mother, actress Maureen O’Sullivan, and sister Tisa Farrow when he began rubbing his finger in the crack between her buttocks. Mia grabbed the lotion out of his hand, and O’Sullivan asked, “How do you want to be remembered by your children?” “As a good father,” Woody answered. “Well, that’s interesting,” O’Sullivan replied. “It only lasted a few seconds, but it was definitely weird,” says Tisa Farrow.

…. Several times last summer, while Woody was visiting in Connecticut, Dylan locked herself in the bathroom, refusing to come out for hours. Once, one of the baby-sitters had to use a coat hanger to pick the lock. Dylan often complained of stomachaches and headaches when Woody visited: she would have to lie down. When he left, the symptoms would disappear. At times Dylan became so withdrawn when her father was around that she would not speak normally, but would pretend to be an animal.

On August 4, [evidently 1992] Woody was in Connecticut to visit the children, and Mia and Casey went shopping, taking along Mia’s two most recently adopted children—a blind Vietnamese girl named Tam, 11, and Isaiah, a seven-month-old black baby born to a crack-addicted mother. While they were gone, there was a brief period, perhaps 15 minutes, when Woody and Dylan vanished from sight. The baby-sitter who was inside searched high and low for them through the cluttered old farmhouse, but she couldn’t find them. The outside baby-sitter, after a look at the grounds around the house, concluded the two must be inside somewhere. When Mia got home a short time later, Dylan and Woody were outside, and Dylan didn’t have any underpants on. …Woody, who hated the country and reportedly brought his own bath mat to avoid germs, spent the night in a guest room off the laundry next to the garage and left the next morning.

That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Casey’s baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it “a fatherly pose,” but more like something you’d say “Oops, excuse me” to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. “It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.”

As soon as Mia asked Dylan about it, Dylan began to tell a harrowing story, in dribs and drabs but in excruciating detail. According to her account, she and Daddy went to the attic (not really an attic, just a small crawl space off the closet of Mia’s bedroom where the children play), and Daddy told her that if she stayed very still he would put her in his movie and take her to Paris. He touched her “private part.” Dylan said she told him, “It hurts. I’m just a little kid.” The she told Mia, “Kids have to do what grown-ups say.” Mia, who has a small Beta video camera and frequently records her large brood, made a tape of Dylan for Dylan’s psychologist, who was in France at the time. “I don’t want to be in a movie with my daddy,” Dylan said, and asked, “Did your daddy ever do that to you?”

What’s absolutely crucial to the story is that the little girl volunteered this information herself. With small children it is the surest sign of real abuse. A little child doesn’t know what’s good or bad, what’s normal or abnormal – for them everything a grown-up does is good and not to be disputed. So when she asked Mia Farrow a simple question: “Did your daddy ever do that to you?” it was worse than any accusation she could ever make.

However this is true only in case the overall story is accurate and correct.

According to people close to the situation, Mia called her lawyer, who told her to take Dylan to her pediatrician in New Milford. When the doctor asked where her private part was, Dylan pointed to her shoulder. A few minutes later, over ice cream, she told Mia that she had been embarrassed to have to say anything about this to the doctor. Mia asked which story was true, because it was important that they know.

They went back to the doctor the next day, and Dylan repeated her original story—one that has stayed consistent through many tellings to the authorities, who are in possession of the tape Mia made. The doctor examined Dylan and found that she was intact. He called his lawyer and then told Mia he was bound by law to report Dylan’s story to the police.

One of Mia’s lawyers, Paul Martin Weltz, notified Woody’s lawyer J. Martin Obten of an incident by hand-delivered letter. On August 13, Allen’s lawyers responded with a jolting pre-emptive strike. They filed a custody suit against Mia Farrow, charging that she was an unfit mother. They have also denied any suggestion of child abuse or therapy for it.

Woody told Time, “Suddenly I got a memo from her lawyers saying no more visits at all. Something had taken place. When I called Mia, she just slammed the phone. And then I was told by my lawyers she was accusing me of child molestation. I thought this was so crazy and so sick that I cannot in all conscience leave those kids in that atmosphere. So I said, I realize this is going to be rough, but I’m going to sue for custody of the children.”

…Woody Allen maintained he had done nothing wrong, but suddenly he was under criminal investigation because of statements Dylan had made. Things had begun to unravel seven months earlier, when Farrow discovered that Allen was having an affair with her 19- or 21-year-old adopted Korean daughter, Soon-Yi. Was it incest? Mia Farrow believed Allen to be a father figure to 9 of her 11 children, not just to Satchel and the 2 he had adopted, and felt that his behavior could not be excused or rationalized.

[She] made the discovery of Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi when she found a stack of Polaroids taken by him of her daughter, her legs spread in full frontal nudity. Woody would later say publicly that the pictures had been taken because Soon-Yi was interested in modeling. ..The pictures were under a box of tissues on Allen’s mantle. Each managed to contain both her daughter’s face and vagina, and when Mia saw them, she later told others, “I felt I was looking straight into the face of pure evil.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

Well, well, well… So in Woody Allen’s case there were photographs of Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter “with her legs spread in full frontal nudity” and each photo contained “both her daughter’s face and vagina” and Allen said that it was just for “modeling”? And no one in the media thought that this interesting factual evidence deserved even a comment?

Please compare it with Michael Jackson’s case where they didn’t find a single scrap of factual evidence and all they had to talk about was two books he had from his fans with a couple of photos of naked boys on the beach (the books were ‘seized’ in 1993 while  in 2003 they didn’t ‘seize’ even that little].

These two books were the only thing they had in addition to the so-called Michael’s “porn” (Playboy magazines locked away in a bag) however this scarce nothing keeps Michael Jackson’s haters talking for more than 20 years now.  Oh, they haven’t heard of Woody Allen pictures of a schoolgirl Soon-Yi with “her legs spread in full frontal nudity” yet….

Can anyone here imagine what would have happened to Michael Jackson if he had made photos of a boy thirty years his younger “in full frontal nudity” and explained to the police that it was “just for modeling”? Frankly, I cannot even imagine it. Could it be a crowd tearing him apart or a bomb dropped on Neverland as a radical solution to the problem?

However it was Woody Allen who made those photos, and since Woody Allen is surely not Michael Jackson the matter of the girl’s photos was evidently brushed aside and looked upon as a little whim of the ageing master and as his private matter not worthy of attention or intrusion.

This is what is called double standards, guys.

Though the whole thing was highly immoral it still remained to be seen whether it was illegal. The age of Soon-Yi was not clear as no one knew her real age – she had been picked up from a street in Korea and adopted by Mia Farrow and her previous husband when she was approximately 7. Now the girl was in the last year at school and was aged somewhere in between 19 and 21.

A quote from the Vanity Fair:

Nobody knows how old Soon-Yi really is. Without ever seeing her, Korean officials put her age down as seven on her passport. A bone scan Mia had done on her in the U.S. put her age at between five and seven.

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi began dating long before their marriage in 1997. This photo shows them attending a Knicks game in 1990. at that time Soon-Yi was 17.

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi began dating long before their marriage in 1997. This photo shows them attending a Knicks game in  January 1990. At that time Soon-Yi was 17.

In 1997  Soon-Yi became Woody Allen’s wife and in the noise over their marriage the news of the alleged Dylan Farrow’s molestation was somehow lost.

However the 7 year-old girl was saying a horrendous thing about that scene in the attic she had described to her mother – she said that her stepfather” had used his finger to abuse her.

Sorry for the shock, guys…

THE MEDIA REACTION

After all we learned about the way the media treated Michael Jackson it will be amazing to find out that exactly at the same time when they were pouring their mockery, scorn and dirtiest possible language on Jackson, the same media was on its best behavior with Woody Allen – the articles were civil and restrained, and it was actually Mia Farrow who found herself in the center of media ridicule.

The Vanity Fair article says about it:

Allen and his friends not only mounted an aggressive campaign of damage control but sought to defend him by painting Farrow, whom he had never moved in with, as filled with rage and out for revenge…

Particularly vicious were the tabloid Hamill brothers, Pete in the New York Post and Denis in the New York Daily News, whose brother Brian has worked for Woody as a still photographer on 17 movies.

In a single column, Denis [..] quoted Woody minions who said that Mia washed down tranquilizers and antidepressants with abundant red wine, and that in April, after quarelling about his affair with Soon-Yi, she had staged a fake suicide attempt in Woody’s apartment. What had Woody done, was the leitmotif, to deserve all this?

We haven’t got these particularly vicious pieces from Pete and Denis, but it is quite noticeable that other media resources also presented the horrendous details of the story in a way which is suggestive that they were doubting Mia Farrow’s credibility.

When she testified about the details of abuse they noted that she described it  “in a quiet voice”:

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.”

And when she presented the video of her 7-year old girl telling her story the fact that the video was made out of several episodes was interpreted as a sign of it being false:

Mr. Allen and his lawyers have suggested that the video, which has many stops and starts, reflects Ms. Farrow’s efforts to cajole false answers from the girl. Ms. Farrow said she simply turned the machine on each time Dylan began to talk about the incident.

Just imagine for a second that Evan Chandler had made a video tape with Jordan Chandler describing the alleged abuse (in whatever stops and starts it took) and you will realize that Michael Jackson would have been doomed. No one would have paid attention to the breaks in the video (it would have been regarded as a sign of its authenticity) and the tape would have turned into a hit piece shown in prime time on TV for years to come.

However the tape showed the girl talking about Woody Allen, so the media didn’t care.

The fact that the girl was embarrassed to point to her private parts was again used against the accusers. No one explained that the girl was shy and that on the way back from the doctor she told her mother about her problem of confessing things to a stranger. The next day she did disclose everything to the doctor but the media was already focusing on something different – the fact that the girl’s bodily parts were not injured.

She took Dylan to a doctor the same day the videotape was made, Ms. Farrow recalled. “I think she said he touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” she said, patting her shoulder.

While returning home in the car, Ms. Farrow said, Dylan told her that she did not want to talk about the incident with a stranger.

Four days later, Ms. Farrow took Dylan to another doctor. “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Mr. Abramowitz asked.

“Yes,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/nyregion/farrow-testifies-that-daughter-accused-allen-of-molestation.html

The nanny (whose $40,000 salary was paid by Woody Allen) said the tape was made over 2 or 3 days with breaks in between. This was interpreted as a sign that in the periods between the takes Mia Farrow was coaching her daughter.

The media portrayed her as an unbalanced and bad mother who had fits of rage in front of the children. Her understandable fury with Allen for seducing one daughter and molesting another and the need for anti-depressants to cope with the problem were presented as something extraordinary and out of the way.

Woody’s friends ridiculed her as “a heavily medicated walking zombie” and the papers were writing that according to her nanny she had “dramatic mood swings and screaming fits” (did they expect her to take all that trouble with a Hollywood smile on  her face?)

“I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,” Thompson said. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?’ “Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

In her two affidavits filed with Allen’s lawyers, Thompson painted a less than tranquil portrait of Farrow’s household. She charged that the actress gives her biological children more gifts and possessions and depends on her adopted children “to do all the chores in and around the house.”

“Since January, Ms. Farrow has suffered dramatic mood swings and had screaming fits about Mr. Allen,” the nanny said in an affidavit taken last August. “These fits of rage were often conducted in front of the children where she would say mean and nasty things about Mr. Allen. All of the pictures of Mr. Allen in their home were destroyed.” 

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

As regards the accusations made by the 7-year old girl the public verdict was that they were made by an “emotionally disturbed child coached or influenced by her mother”.

Dr. Leventhal said: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

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

Have you ever heard Jordan Chandler called by the media an “emotionally disturbed child coached or influenced by his father”? Never heard any such definition in MJ’s case? Me neither.

Can you imagine the prosecution having a video tape of Jordan describing the scene of alleged abuse and Tom Sneddon not making it the central part of his case, possibly even substituting this tape for the child’s testimony at the trial? You can’t imagine Tom Sneddon not using such a tape? Me neither.

Did you ever hear the media say that the prosecution did not have any factual evidence in  Jordan Chandler’s case and the only thing they had was the boy’s story which was totally contradicted by the photos at that? No, I’m afraid you never heard of it because they never said it.

What is funny about Woody Allen’s case is that it was running absolutely parallel to Michael Jackson’s case and this is why the difference between the two is so striking and vivid. While Michael Jackson was being crucified, Woody Allen was shielded and protected, and the media kept restraining the public from accusations against him providing argument after argument against the little accuser and her mother.

THE 7- YEAR OLD GIRL STOOD HER GROUND

There was so much pressure from lawyers and the media on Mia and her daughter to “recant” that at some point Mia also questioned the girl’s story and said to her that she would understand if she had made it up.

However the 7-year old stood her ground, did not waver and even said about Allen: “If he says he didn’t, he is lying”.

A quote from Vanity Fair, 1993:

Mia went to Dylan to see if she was willing to recant. Mia said, “Dylan, you know, we all make up stories. Everybody does that. Sometimes we know we made it up.” But the little girl would not back down. “If he says he didn’t,” Dylan answered, “he’s lying.”

Since the incident, Dylan has burst out, even in the middle of playing games, with statements like “I don’t want him to be my daddy.”

“The thing that people have to understand in this case is that it is not Mia versus Woody; it’s just a plain simple fact that a seven-year-old child has told her mother something and that her mother has to choose to believe her,” says a member of the household.

“If her mother doesn’t believe her, who is going to believe her?” Lynn Nesbit observes, “Mia says, ‘How can you turn your back on a seven-year-old? Believe me, her life would be a heck of a lot easier if she dropped it.”

The end of Woody Allen’s story is that the media brushed off all accusations against him as ridiculous and went after the little girl’s mother instead. Dylan never recanted on her story, but all media attention was diverted to the Michael Jackson case though it didn’t have even half of the evidence they had against Woody Allen. No photos, no video tapes, no nothing there – just what the boy said.

Dylan and Mia Farrow

Dylan  never wavered on her story about Woody Allen

But this is not the only difference between Allen’s and Jackson’s situations.

THE PROSECUTION

Same as in the criminal investigation of Jackson’s case which lasted for more than a year ended in nothing, the Prosecutor investigating allegations against Woody Allen also dropped the case without making any charges.

However at a press-conference Prosecutor Frank Maco said that there was “a probable cause” to charge and he didn’t do it only to spare the child as the experience of a trial would be too traumatic.

From the Prosecutor we also learned that an arrest warrant had already been drawn for Woody Allen, but then they decided against proceeding with the case to enable the child to heal.

Woody Allen called a press-conference where he lashed out against the Prosecutor, police and Mia Farrow who in his opinion formed an “unwholesome alliance in the cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception” (I wish Michael Jackson had been than eloquent):

Allen said that Farrow, the prosecutor and police formed an “unwholesome alliance” against him. “Their cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception,” he said.

The filmmaker held a news conference soon after Litchfield, Conn., State’s Atty. Frank Maco said he would not press a sexual abuse charge, despite his belief that there was “probable cause” to support it.

Maco said state police investigators had drawn up an arrest warrant for Allen but he decided there was no “compelling interest” in further pursuing the sexual abuse allegations. Later, Farrow’s lawyer said her client agreed with the prosecutor’s decision to spare 8-year-old Dylan from the trauma of a trial.

Farrow, who won custody of the three children in June, is trying to void Allen’s adoption of Dylan and her 15-year-old brother, Moses. An ugly court fight followed for custody of Dylan and Moses, both adopted, and 5-year-old Satchel, their biological son.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-25/news/mn-38960_1_woody-allen

And here guys, a big surprise is awaiting us. After the prosecutor made his statement about a ‘probable cause for charge’ he was ostracized and you’ll never guess for what – it was for sending a copy of his statement to a judge who was at that time deciding on the status of Dylan’s adoption by Woody Allen.

The legal authorities worried about the possibility of a “terrible” outcome – what if the Prosecutor’s “inappropriate” statement prejudiced the judge against Woody Allen and the girl who accused him of a sexual assault would stop being his adoptive daughter? What a terrible outcome indeed…

A special disciplinary panel was called and found the Prosecutor’s act to be “inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial.”

There was no need to worry though – despite the Prosecutor’s statement the judge wasn’t prejudiced and Dylan remained Woody Allen’s adoptive daugher, however the behavior of “the Connecticut Prosecutor handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen” was found to be a cause for “grave concern” and sanctions against him were considered “ranging from censure to disbarment.”

Since this was a public reprimand the media called it a “damning” decision in respect of the Prosecutor. To show how “bad” the Prosecutor’s misconduct was the media also added that  “Prosecutors are generally barred from making accusations that are not contained in formal charges”:

“In most circumstances,” the panel wrote, Mr. Maco’s comments “would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused.”

Prosecutors are generally barred from making accusations that are not contained in formal charges, according to legal experts.

“This amounts to a public reprimand, though they’re not calling it that,” said Kate Stith, a law professor at YaleUniversity and a former Federal prosecutor. Though the decision was “quite damning,” she said she was not surprised that the panel did not punish Mr. Maco, because lawyers are rarely disciplined for their public statements.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/nyregion/panel-criticizes-prosecutor-in-inquiry-on-woody-allen.html

Wait a minute, please.

So the prosecution has certain obligations to the accused and these obligations include a ban on making accusations that are not contained in formal charges?

So if there are no formal charges a Prosecutor cannot continue with his accusations? And this is so grave a violation that a disciplinary panel may censure and even disbar the prosecutor?

Dear me, and what was Tom Sneddon doing to Jackson for ten years from 1993 to 2003 though no formal charges were made?

He was accusing him to the left and to the right, and no one ever stopped and restrained him let alone disbar!

Tom Sneddon kept referring to the photos as proof of his ideas though the photos absolutely did not match the boy’s description, and this means that he was telling open lies about Jackson, and still not a single disciplinary panel ever noticed it? Can I ask a question why, please?

And if all these amazing double standards have not amazed you bad enough here is one more piece to amaze you even more.

The recent Vanity Fair article reported that “the file for Dylan’s case in New York City’s Child Welfare Administration is nowhere to be found”. 

Yes, the file they collected about Woody Allen as a result of their investigation mysteriously disappeared. In contrast to Allen all documents from the MJ 1993 case were scrutinized not by one, but by two Grand juries, however they found nothing to indict him for and this is why the case was ended.

TWENTY YEARS LATER

In the autumn of 2013 Mia Farrow and her eight children including Dylan spoke to Vanity Fair again and Dylan, now a grown up woman, reiterated her story about the sexual assault by Woody Allen.

She said that even 20 years afterwards she could not bring herself to call her abuser by name and his image was still giving her a crippling fear. By now she has forgotten a lot but what happened in the attic she remembers very well:

Orth speaks to Farrow’s children, including Dylan, who now has another name and who discusses what she remembers about Allen and how his behavior has tormented her. She refuses ever to say his name. She calls her fears “crippling” and says, “I’m scared of him, his image.”

According to Dylan, “There’s a lot I don’t remember, but what happened in the attic I remember. I remember what I was wearing and what I wasn’t wearing.” She tells Orth, “The things making me uncomfortable were making me think I was a bad kid, because I didn’t want to do what my elder told me to do.” The attic, she says, pushed her over the edge. “I was cracking. I had to say something. I was seven. I was doing it because I was scared. I wanted it to stop.” For all she knew, she tells Orth, “this was how fathers treated their daughters. This was normal interaction, and I was not normal for feeling uncomfortable about it.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/10/mia-farrow-children-family-scandal_slideshow_item8_9

Ronan Farrow's tweet

Ronan Farrow’s tweet

Dylan’s brother Ronan Farrow made her story public via Twitter during the Golden Globes ceremony where Woody Allen was given an award for his lifetime achievement.

He tweeted:

  • “Missed the Woody Allen tribute — did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?”

This tweet drew a long reply from the Daily Beast written by Robert Wiede, an Emmy-winning filmmaker who also recently made a documentary about Allen in the series of “American Masters”.

Ronan Farrow, Allen’s son with Mia Farrow, wrote on Twitter about the ceremony: “Missed the Woody Allen tribute — did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?” Mia Farrow tweeted the next day: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. Golden Globe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

Robert Weide, a screenwriter, director and producer who made a documentary on Allen for PBS’ “American Masters” series in 2011, wrote a long story on the controversy in the Daily Beast last week, casting doubt on the accusations. “If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece,” he said after the Dylan Farrow letter was released.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-dylan-farrow-20140202,0,1889055.story#axzz2sAde1hCJ

Here is an excerpt from Robert Weide’s long story about the good Woody Allen and the not-so-good Mia Farrow who brainwashed her children about their stepfather:

I’ve already said this, but it bears repeating: I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did.

The point is that accusations make headlines; retractions are buried on page twelve, and coerced accusations are as much a reality as coerced confessions. Since Woody literally pays no mind to this stuff, and he continues to work and have a happy home life, I would never suggest he’s a victim in this case. The real victim has always been Malone. For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question.

Malone, who is now a writer and artist, and happily married to an information-technology specialist, had been living a seemingly quiet life out of the spotlight. Obviously, if she feels that an interview with Vanity Fair is a necessary part of her healing process, that’s her right. I can only hope it brought her some closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

Robert Weide’s long answer to Dylan and Ronan Farrow is an amazing (and novel for us) piece of journalism. The author meticulously records every little media fact in support of Allen’s since 1993. He also says that “he cannot take a position on reliability and objectiveness of Vanity Fair” and closes the article with banging news that the magazine was accused of libel in Roman Polanski’s case and lost to him – which is a very transparent allusion to the Vanity Fair’s sources being untrue and this being a libel case again.

Knowing all the good Maureen Orth did to Michael Jackson I would not even object to these accusations if it were not for one nagging question. If the magazine is so bad, why didn’t anyone notice it when it was publishing lie after lie about Jackson? Were these lies so difficult to notice considering all that craziness about the blood baths from 42 cows allegedly taken by MJ in the center of Switzerland described by Maureen Orth?

When the witch hunt for Jackson was in full swing not a single Emmy-winning filmmaker raised a voice of reason and the media was allowed to run wild with all those nasty stories about Jackson, choking with agitation and the thrill of the game.

And why hasn’t anyone ever, ever cared to make a long story similar to that about Allen meticulously recording the numerous facts of Michael’s innocence, including the fact that the description of Michael’s accuser never matched the photos and they were actually so different that the accuser’s lawyer wanted them barred from the case?

Let us sum up.

Woody Allen was never charged with a crime in 1993. And Michael Jackson was never charged with a crime in 1993 either. In 2005 he was charged with everything under the sun including conspiracy and keeping hostages, but was fully acquitted on all counts and proclaimed a free and innocent man.

So both of them were innocent until proven guilty, and if that is the case why was there so big a difference in the way they were treated by the media?

Michael was crucified and ripped into shreds for almost two decades while Woody Allen lived the 78 years of his life basking in the rays of glory, respect and admiration.

Why has Woody Allen been always supported by the media despite the accusations made by a 7-year old girl while Michael Jackson was vilified as the worst of criminals on the basis of a similar story?

Does it mean that the innocence until proven guilty principle apply only to the chosen few in the country that prides itself on equal opportunities for all?

In fact, Robert Weide is absolutely right when he says that accusations make headlines and retractions “are buried on page twelve”. But for Michael Jackson it was even worse. The retractions about his innocence were not even on page 12 – they were not published at all except for the USA Today and one other media source. The retraction was a short piece about the photos not matching the accuser’s description, published in tiny letters and under a wrong title.

Now that both these sources are happily archived and can be obtained only for money, Jackson is denied even the luxury of a tiny retraction on page 12 while Woody Allen is enjoying the benefit of long stories written in his support by renowned filmmakers.

DYLON FARROW’S LETTER IN VIEW OF WADE ROBSON’S ALLEGATIONS

Dylan Farrow has grown up and talks

Dylan Farrow has grown up and talks

The Farrows’s story was suddenly continued in a way no one really expected it – Dylan Farrow wrote a letter to the New York Times website where she confirmed that at the age of 7 she had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather Woody Allen. She addressed her letter to the public and Hollywood.

Here is the text of it preceded by a note from Nicholas Kristof:

 In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.

FEBRUARY 1, 2014, 3:04 PM  357 Comments

An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

By DYLAN FARROW

Frances SilverDylan Farrow

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.

But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

The letter is absolutely outstanding in its pain and sincerity. This is how real victims talk.

She used to tell this story when she was 7 years old and she is still sticking to it now – years have absolutely not erased it from her memory. She felt nausea for him when she was small and this nausea still hits her each time she sees his image twenty years later. In her childhood she locked herself in the bathroom to avoid meeting with him and even now she still looks for a solitary place to lock herself in to loosen her feelings and fall apart.

How typical it is. The memory of a childhood horrid experience never goes away as it is the emotional memory which sends the grown-up exactly into the moment when she experienced it in childhood and the same emotion is relived again and again with all the heartbeat, panic and confusion of it.

Every little detail of it is imprinted in the memory and this is forever. And the only thing you can do about it is change your own attitude towards it – it was a different you and this other you remained in the past, while now you are new and living a new life.

Is it necessary to explain that in the mind of really sexually abused children their perception of themselves in the past and present coexist, but never change places and play games which Wade Robson is fooling us with now?

Even a seven-year old will know that something abnormal was taking place with her when she was little and will remember it forever, and this is all the more true for a boy who was allegedly abused from the age of 7 to 14 as Wade Robson claims.

And it is absolutely impossible to imagine this tortured soul of a girl behaving the way Wade Robson is behaving now – supporting the man right at the time of the alleged abuse followed by a happy 10 year period of  being a close family friend of the “offender”, then defending him at a trial looking confident, relaxed and even making easy jokes (like Wade Robson did) and then, after twenty years of this total amnesia, suddenly recalling the horror of what happened at age 7-14 – painting it in most dirty colors and asking for a mere $30mln at that?

Give me a break, guys. Wade Robson’s scenario is complete fiction and Dylan Farrow’s letter of her twenty years of nausea towards the man she sees as her offender shows it like nothing else would.

And though her letter cannot of course be considered the final establishment of guilt of Woody Allen due to the “innocent until proven guilty” principle, I’m still happy that Dylan talked. First of all it will be the final step in her healing process  and from now on her emotional memory won’t have a crippling a power over her mind.

And secondly, in comparison with her heart-wrenching story Wade Robson’s allegations begin to look especially ridiculous and this is what we need to really thank her for.

The more victims of abuse speak up the easier it will be for the public to realize what real abuse is all about and the better and safer it will be for our children.

COREY FELDMAN, HOLLYWOOD AND MICHAEL JACKSON

Dylan Farrow is not the first to tell us what some people in Hollywood like doing to little girls and boys. The one who made the first crack in the wall of silence around real pedophiles in entertainment business was Corey Feldman who was also abused by some Hollywood mogul – same as his friend Corey Haim.

Feldman says that pedophilia is the Hollywood “open secret” and while he was a child he was surrounded by pedophiles.

They say that Corey Feldman's book is fantastic

Corey Feldman’s book will BLOW YOU AWAY. Readers’ reviews, Feldman’s audio version and a preview of the book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Coreyography-A-Memoir-Corey-Feldman/dp/0312609337

This is a review of his fantastic (as I’ve read) book called “Coreyography” where he tells it all:

Feldman [..] did encounter more sexual abuse later on from the adults around him, including an older male Feldman had hired as his assistant who he calls “Ron Crimson” in the book. Crimson allegedly performed oral sex on Feldman after he encouraged a teenaged Feldman to take a cocktail of pills. Feldman writes that in his teen years he was constantly surrounded by pedophiles.

Corey Feldman said that of all people Michael Jackson was the one who never in his whole life gave him an inappropriate touch and with whom he was finally able to return to normalcy.

After all the abuse Corey endured from other grown-up people Michael Jackson became his happy place and it was actually Michael Jackson who brought him back to innocence:

Feldman’s childhood was so troubled that he looked to his friend Michael Jackson, introduced to him by director Steven Spielberg, for normalcy.

“Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place,” he writes.

“Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence. When I was with Michael, it was like being 10 years old again.”

Feldman stresses in the book that Jackson never once acted inappropriately toward him.

… You can’t go around publicly accusing industry titans without expecting to find yourself in the middle of a nasty lawsuit,” writes Feldman, “to say nothing of the potential threat to my career, as well as to the personal safety of myself and my son.”

Coreyography acts in part as a warning to parents pushing their children into show business. Feldman claimed on a 2011 episode of Nightline and repeats in the book that the “number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/22/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/corey-feldman-sexual-abuse-book-ew/index.html

Same as in the Woody Allen investigation in 1993, the media and police didn’t follow up on the true story of Corey Feldman’s molestation which he disclosed to the police when they were seeking his “confession” regarding Michael Jackson.

Corey said that his relationship with Michael Jackson was one of the healthiest he had. When questioned by the police he had nothing bad to say about Michael and instead ventured information about his true abuser, however the police were not interested and did nothing. 

A recording of Feldman speaking to Santa Barbara sheriffs recorded in December 1993 when the actor was 22 was obtained by RadarOnline.

Feldman was being questioned in relation to the molestation charges brought against MIcahel Jackson by Jordy Chandler and his family. In his book the Stand By Me actor said his relationship with the pop king was one of the healthiest he had.

In the recording, Feldman can be heard telling Sgt. Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim, ‘I myself was molested’ before going on to name his abusers.

The detectives expressed little to no concern but continued to keep the focus on Jackson.

‘I know what it’s like to go through those feelings and believe me, the person who molested me, if this was him that did that to me, this would be a different story. ‘I would be out there, up front, doing something immediately to have this man given what was due to him.’

He alluded to this interview recently after a fan on Twitter asked him why he did not report the men to authorities.

‘All names were given to police before statute had run out but they did zero,’ he answered.

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

In the book, Feldman recalls his often twisted friendship with fellow child star Corey Haim and how the pair were told by trusted adults that it was normal for older men and young boys to have sexual relations in the industry.

He named their abusers as Ron, Tony, Burnham and Crimson — all pseudonyms.

…Naturally, he sought out adult role models at work. And while Steven Spielberg, who hired him for the first time for ‘Gremlins,’ became a trusted friend, other grown ups took advantage of him, he writes in the book.

One picture in the book shows Feldman and Haim at the former’s 15th birthday party flanked by five older men who at the time were abusing them.

‘Slowly, over a period of many years I would begin to realize that many of the people I had surrounded myself with were monsters,’ he writes.

Interestingly, the only safe place he knew was with Michael Jackson.

‘I was shattered, disgusted, devastated. I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson,‘ he recalls. The pair had been introduced by Spielberg.

‘Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place. Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence. When I was with Michael, it was like being 10 years old again.’

He insists in the book that Jackson never abused him or tried to touch him sexually.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483502/Corey-Feldman-told-cops-molested-named-abusers-did-nothing.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

The surprises didn’t end there. Corey, 42, also said, ‘The people who did this to me and Corey [Haim] are still in this business…. and they want me dead.

He also stated that these predators are ‘very powerful in the media and in the studio system.’

Sherri, who sat between Corey and guest host Nick Offerman, made sure to squeeze in a mention of Michael Jackson. After the host pointed out he wrote that the King Of Pop was the one man who did not take advantage of him, Corey agreed, saying, ‘Of all people.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2479128/Corey-Feldman-claims-molested-Hollywood-power-players.html

Here is the interview of Corey Feldman where he speaks about the powerful players in Hollywood who molest children and that there was one gentleman in this industry who did NOT take advantage of him and that was MICHAEL JACKSON – and all Barbara Walters has to say to it is this:

“You are damaging an entire industry!”

FELDMAN: I’m saying that there are people that did this to both me and Corey Haim that are still working, that are still out there, and they are some of the richest and most powerful people in this business.

WALTERS: And they are predators?

FELDMAN: And they do not want me say what I’m saying right now.

WALTERS: Are you saying that they are pedophiles?

FELDMAN: Yes.

WALTERS: And that they are still in this business?

FELDMAN: YES. And they don’t want me here right now. They want me dead.

SHERRI SHEPHERD: And that’s what you are saying in your book. When you talk to parents…Corey.. There are a lot of parents out there who want to put their kids in this business. Their kids are cute, they are great actors. What will you say to parents who have their best of intentions who’re coming there with their child? Are you saying there are many predators in this industry?

FELDMAN: It’s a many feathered bird, okay? Be careful what you wish for – that’s what I’ll tell you. You know, don’t go into it with naivety, don’t go into it thinking that it’s all roses and …

WALTERS: You are damaging an entire industry!

FELDMAN: I’m sorry, I’m not trying to. I’m just trying to say it’s a very important, serious topic.

SHEPHERD: There is one gentleman in this industry who did NOT take advantage of you. He was not a pedophile. You said it was Michael Jackson.

FELDMAN: Of all people. 

Yes, of all people Michael Jackson was the one who never took advantage of children. The most vilified man on earth was even able to return the abused children to normalcy and give them a feel of childhood innocence which they had long lost.

And the more child victims come out to tell their true story the more obvious it will become that Michael Jackson was simply used as a shield to cover up for someone else’s crimes.

100 Comments leave one →
  1. February 3, 2014 7:29 pm

    In addition to the Open Letter by Dylan Farrow, published on the blog of Nicholas Kristof, a respected journalist and columnist for the New York Times, there is another column by Robert Weide, published in the Daily Beast a few days before the Open Letter. It shows another side to the Farrow-Allen War of words and actions.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

    The NY Times Public Editor has raised questions as to whether Kristof, a longtime close friend of Mia Farrow, should have used his forum-blog to post the Open Letter which re-accuses Allen of molestation. There were some 3700+ reader responses to the Open Letter. I read some of them hoping NOT to see any reference to Michael Jackson, but especially not in the context of, “… these rich, famous guys get away with everything because they’re rich and famous.” I didn’t see any, but somehow it’s unlikely that there isn’t at least one Jackson reference in 3700 responses.

    Like

  2. February 3, 2014 8:35 pm

    The only thing I want say is that in the photographs of Dylan as a child with Woody Allen, she looks very unhappy and uncomfortable and faraway, preoccupied. I’m sure what she is saying is true. I never liked Woody Allen. I thought he looked a creepy, ugly, weird individual. Still he must have had something for Mia Farrow to get involved with him. He was a rich white guy, of course.

    Like

  3. February 3, 2014 10:38 pm

    Helena, this is a heart-breaking read, for Dylan (of course), the two Coreys, for our hearts for Michael. I so pray that this kind of clarity of point finds the way to the judge in the Wade Robson matter. Giving them all the benefit of the doubt, in general, judges are human and hope to make right decisions and, certainly, never want to not take an accusation lightly or dismissively. That said, there will be a tremendous amount of pressure to not “let Michael Jackson off the hook” in reference to Robson because, after all, how many accusations must there be before it’s realized that Michael Jackson was, indeed, a child molester – even though there has never been any, any shred of proof of that. The sickening truth is, of course, that accusers can feel comfortable coming out of the woodwork now that Robson has broken the ice, so to speak, and since Michael can no longer, physically, stand in his own defense.

    I also want to note that, in paralleling Michael’s and Allen’s histories regarding similar accusations, you, perhaps intentionally, made absolutely no mention of the baseless suffering Michael endured being in any way founded in racist attitudes or behaviors. However, as a 7th decade WASP, I will say it aloud: there is no way to avoid believing that many negative, damaging, damning realities of Michael’s life arose out of and were nurtured by a racist mentality. The more I learn about what was inflicted on Michael Jackson, as regards the molestation accusations and also other matters, such as extortion attempts aimed at milking the Michael Jackson money-tree (which not only Evan Chandler but also other litigants, certain of Michael’s employees and handlers and, most likely, powerful persons in the music industry and business world boldly and with a sense of entitlement tried to achieve against Michael), the more clear this truth becomes. It is a pitiful commentary on mankind that we would rather rob ourselves of the bounty someone planned to bestow upon us than accept it from “one of them”. Hearts need to change – for our well-being, and even for the well-being of those embracing such grievous mentality.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    February 4, 2014 12:56 am

    Helena it been so long since I commented here. I have been very busy these several months while you were so tirelessly covering the AEG trial and what a superb job you did with it.
    First I would like to say that this a an excellent post on the comparison of the two cases. This woman never forgot and as a child always understood that it was happening to her was not right.
    Then compare the confusing repressed/not repressed but did not understand that it was wrong that is Wade Robson’s story now. I haven’t spoken out about what it is that makes Wade’s story so unbelievable but I know that if you ask the psychologists in your family they will be able to tell you what I mean when I say affect congruent to context of the speech is what I was looking at when I watched him in the interview in May.
    Another thing that I want to ask or to say that is somewhat cryptic is this statement. I think that we are all in agreement that Wade is lying now am I correct? If that is the case and someone would like to make a late false claim where would they go to get the details that he would need to tell a therapist.
    I would like the readers of your blog to think about that and I will also contact you by email with an outline of an idea that I have.

    Like

  5. lynande51 permalink
    February 4, 2014 12:59 am

    That should read affect congruent/incongruent to speech.

    Like

  6. February 4, 2014 1:16 am

    lynande51, you make a very good point. In order to “stage” the accusation effectively, specifics must be in place. To my thinking, that requires one of two things. Either the accuser has to gather key data (in Michael’s case there is so much intel available derived from prior accusations, that can be studied to create, as in fabricate, the scenario), or the therapist has to be in collusion with the accuser. I think either situation, or a combination of both, is plausible. What a world we live in.

    Like

  7. February 4, 2014 5:08 am

    “I think that we are all in agreement that Wade is lying now am I correct? If that is the case and someone would like to make a late false claim where would they go to get the details that he would need to tell a therapist.” – Lynande51

    Lynette, happy to hear from you again. Of course I fully agree that Wade Robson is lying. Considering the facts of the case and Robson’s words and behavior it cannot be anything different. I’m simply not talking about it not to give this beast new ideas and a chance to adjust his story to them. If we say all of it now he will be fully equipped with fabricated “facts” to disprove our arguments already voiced here.

    This is why I am simply waiting – to be ready when (or if) there is a need for an answer.

    I will be happy to know your ideas too, but it is indeed better to discuss them via emals. In the case of Wade Robson I’m sure that he and the people standing behind him are following everything Michael’s supporters are saying.

    Like

  8. February 4, 2014 5:41 am

    But there is one thing I need to say now. I’ve noticed that Dylan was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder only last year when she approached a therapist, and on the face of it it might look like it is similar to Robson’s case.

    No, it is not. Dylan remembered that sex abuse all her life and could not live with her memories haunting her. This is why she approached a doctor who diagnosed her with an anxiety disorder.

    But this Robson liar claims something totally different – he went into a depression (or something of the kind), approached a therapist and in the course of some “treatment” suddenly recalled horrendous things. He claimed a “repressed memory” case – at least in the initial variant of his story (which constantly changes).

    So the big difference between Dylan and Wade is that Dylan ALWAYS remembered her abuse and sought a therapy for its after-effects, while Wade claims he forgot what he was doing from the age of 7 to 14 though he was repeatedly asked about it just at that time.

    The whole thing is absurd, same as it would be absurd to suddenly find out that at the age of 10 you committed a murder and then forgot about it.

    Imagine that you feel depressed and go to a doctor and he subjects you to some “treatment” and then announces to you that when you were ten years old you accidentally killed someone, but then forgot about it and this is why you are depressed now because you are suffering from some “guilt syndrome”. If this story becomes public some idiots can even believe it.

    Under certain circumstances even you can start believing this story if the doctor brainwashes you bad enough. With the present means of affecting people’s mind unfortunately anything is possible.

    But to any more or less reasonable person the whole thing will still remain absurd.

    Like

  9. February 4, 2014 6:15 am

    Great post, Helena. Very important.
    I’ve read Robert Weide’s whole piece on The Daily Beast and was caught by his description of Woody Allen’s reaction to these accusations and the media interest in general, which show another big difference:

    “Because he doesn’t go online, he was blissfully unaware of how much ink (sorry, bandwidth) the story was getting. If he had known, he still wouldn’t have cared. Mia’s accusations were old business, and the fact that Ronan was publicly chiming in meant nothing to Woody, who hadn’t even seen his (alleged) son for 20 years. I also knew Woody would never publicly respond to any of this. His indifference to the gossip has always struck me not as a decision so much as an involuntary and organic reaction. In fact, during a written exchange that day in which I mentioned the tweet attack, he was more focused on giving me advice about a stye I had on my eyelid that I joked was probably a brain tumor.” (quote Weide)

    Weide says Allen’s indifference to the gossip is an “organic reaction”, and with this he himself describes someone whose indifference is part of his character, who does not feel guilt, who is very self-confident, non-sensitive and unimpressed what people think about him, who feels nothing can happen to him and who wouldn’t think for a minute about a victim. I don’t say Allen is guilty because I don’t know, but this characterization is much more typical for a predator than for an innocent person falsely accused.
    This described behavior is not typical for people who are falsely accused of child molestation. We know from many cases where people falsely accused of this most serious and despicable crime are shattered and broken and even think of suicide, like this story of Irish music manager Louis Walsh shows: http://smokewithoutfiremichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/the-effects-of-being-falsely-accused/

    Michael also was devastated by these allegations, it was a living hell for him and he never recovered from it. Many lives were destroyed by false molestation allegations, but obviously not Woody Allen’s life.

    Like

  10. Helen-Marie permalink
    February 4, 2014 7:20 am

    A very painful article to read and my heart goes out to those who have gone through such horrendous experiences.

    One of the comments Corey Feldman made which stood out for me was…
    “the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be paedophilia.”

    This is a startling statement and one which may explain why Michaels accusers were listened to so quickly and why a media circus ensued with such ferocity. I am not excusing them for what they did and a hate campaign is a different mentality altogether, but Corey’s statement explains a lot.

    A similar situation has occurred here in the UK regarding such cases, with the well known Jimmy Savile case serving as a catalyst for many accusations to be made towards stars in the entertainment business. The press has had a field day, but as we have seen not all are legitimate claims and innocent lives have been damaged by those who have lied.

    When Michael died I said to my Husband, if Michael was guilty, (which I do not believe), this would be the time that his victims would come forward, and what happened? Nothing.
    Later, my husband pointed out that if this didn’t exonerate him then nothing ever would and I am inclined to agree.

    When I was at senior school a friend who was 13 at the time confided to me that her father had been abusing her for many years and she made me swear not to tell anyone. I was shocked, but the fear in her eyes and the relief of sharing the information was evident. Of course I told my mother and she in turn approached the school, but my friend was not believed and it broke the family in two and she was put into care.

    I always felt I was somehow to blame and had let my friend down, but of course in adulthood I see it from a very different perspective. Indeed, the father went on to abuse other children and has now been sentenced to prison.

    Thankfully we now live in a different society and protocol is very different from what my friend went through over 30 years ago and maybe a different outcome would have happened for Dylan and Cory in present times. Who knows, perhaps present protocols are why Wade Robson’s case is even being given the time of day.

    Woody Allen was a very influential film maker at the time and the allegations against him would have made for a very nervous Hollywood. If convicted he may have used information on ‘others’ as leverage if what Cory Feldman states is correct.

    Lets hope the truth prevails.

    Like

  11. lynande51 permalink
    February 4, 2014 9:46 am

    Helena Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has some very specific symptoms. If Wade had PTSD it would have been evident a very long time ago. It would have been evident to his family and to the public.
    Instead we have a young man that was extremely successful in his own right. He was the Golden Boy of dance. He had very famous clients and he had shows of his own. Suddenly we are supposed to believe that the ‘brainwashing” Michael did has made it impossible for him to work? I won’t say anything else about that on the open forum because like you said they are listening and reading what we write.
    But it would be very easy to research something like abuse on the internet wouldn’t it? I mean there are hundreds of support groups online with forums where survivors of child sexual abuse can go for comfort. Some of them are gender specific There are a lot of books out there about child sexual abuse.So is it unrealistic to think that Wade might have gone to these? No it isn’t.
    What is peculiar to me about his accusation is that it follows a familiar theme. The same theme that certain members of the media have been trying to put over as facts about Michael for a long time. So my next question would be, where would he go or who might have reached out to him to get him to go along with this?

    Like

  12. February 4, 2014 11:02 am

    “Helena Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has some very specific symptoms. If Wade had PTSD it would have been evident a very long time ago. It would have been evident to his family and to the public. Instead we have a young man that was extremely successful in his own right.” – Lynande 51

    Exactly. EXACTLY. He would have displayed it long ago. By now I have read the full Vanity Fair article of November last year and there are some details about Dylan Farrow which show what this post traumatic stress condition is all about. For example:

    One time, the sight of a boy at school wearing a Woody Allen T-shirt sent Dylan into a fit of vomiting.

    Or this:

    To this day it’s hard for me to listen to jazz,” Dylan told me. “He [Allen] would take me with him [when he practiced the clarinet with his band]. I’d be in between his legs, facing out. I felt like a dog or something. I was just told to sit there. I did what I was told. He used to sing to me the famous song ‘Heaven’ [“Cheek to Cheek,” by Irving Berlin]. It really sends shivers up and down my spine and makes me want to throw up, because it’s a throwback.”

    This throwback is something I myself recently experienced when some circumstances reminded me of an especially traumatic period of my life. Just one phone-call from the people associated with it and a possibility of a similar situation arising again shattered me into pieces. I thought I had been well over it and here I was experiencing it again as if it had never gone away – all the nausea and cold sweat of it. It took me just a few seconds to get into that state again. Just a few seconds. I couldn’t even believe it.

    This is the power of stress and emotions. You can’t tell your body not to sweat – it will happen all the same because it is beyond your mind’s control. All your will power cannot stop nausea or the blood suddenly throbbing in your head. This is why Dylan had such a reaction to Allen – the old stress overwhelmed her each time she saw an image of him and this is why she sought help from a doctor.

    And all these symptoms is how we know that there was this stress in her life, because you cannot fake it, same as you cannot fake sweating. What she is describing is absolutely genuine.

    Do we see anything like that in Wade Robson? Not a single time. NEVER.

    And not a single time did we see it in Jordan Chandler either.

    “There are a lot of books out there about child sexual abuse.So is it unrealistic to think that Wade might have gone to these? No it isn’t. So my next question would be, where would he go or who might have reached out to him to get him to go along with this?”

    I am absolutely sure that Wade Robson is not only doing research of special literature but is being consulted by professional experts to be able to fake his “molestation” more or less convincingly. They are going about it in a serious way.

    Like

  13. lynande51 permalink
    February 4, 2014 11:17 am

    What you experienced and Dylan experienced are very common with PTSD.It has to do with memory and triggers to out memory of a traumatic event. I don’t want to say a lot but triggers can come from anything because a memory is about what all five of our senses take in at a specific time. And there is a lot to that.

    Like

  14. February 4, 2014 12:09 pm

    “What you experienced and Dylan experienced are very common with PTSD.It has to do with memory and triggers to out memory of a traumatic event. I don’t want to say a lot but triggers can come from anything” – lynande51

    Yes, I know – the traumatic event may be anything. And all people who had some trauma in their life can relate this situation to themselves.

    A mere thought about it makes people sick and this is why they avoid talking about it. And avoid the person who caused it in the first place and will trigger it off again – even if a century has passed since the event.

    This avoidance is also typical and here is another example from Vanity Fair about Dylan Farrow telling us how the prosecutor tried to talk to the girl:

    Maco had steered clear of any questioning of Dylan during the Yale–New Haven inquiry. After Wilk’s decision, however, he decided he needed to see for himself if she could be relied on to take the witness stand. “I sat down with the child, with my secretary, with another female from the state police, and we rolled around—we had stuffed animals. As soon as I broached the idea of Woody, the child just froze. Nothing.”

    And now I urge everyone to remember how easily Jordan Chandler talked for hours and hours on end with Dr. Richard Gardner and how emotionlessly he discussed all that fake “molestation” of his. When the doctor asked him if he had any fears, he sounded even surprised – there were no fears, “except probably of a cross-examination”.

    This alone was a huge red flag in Jordan’s case and I have no doubt whatsoever that Dr. Gardner made a negative conclusion about Jordan’s credibility.

    As to Wade Robson it is enough to read his testimony in 2005 and note his easy manner at the trial to understand that it was then that he was telling the truth and not now.

    And anyone can perfectly see it with their own eyes – you don’t need to be an Einstein to see what’s what here.

    Like

  15. February 4, 2014 12:22 pm

    “Weide himself describes someone whose indifference is part of his character, who does not feel guilt, who is very self-confident, non-sensitive and unimpressed what people think about him, who feels nothing can happen to him and who wouldn’t think for a minute about a victim… this characterization is much more typical for a predator than for an innocent person falsely accused.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, I absolutely agree. Look at one more detail provided by the judge in Woody Allen’s child custody case – it is expressing exactly the same thought:

    In June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk awarded custody of Dylan to Mia and denied Allen immediate visitation with the child. He allowed Moses to decide for himself whether he wanted to see his adoptive father again, and he increased Ronan’s—then Satchel’s—visits to three a week, supervised. The judge concluded that Allen demonstrated no parenting skills and was “self-absorbed, untrustworthy, and insensitive.”

    Allen’s trial strategy, he concluded, had been “to separate his children from their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother.” He found “no credible evidence” to support Allen’s contention “that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

    And here is an example how a boy was suffering from stress in connection with Allen. Look at his reaction to the news that visits with his father will have to be resumed – it was a physiological reaction, the one over which the boy had no control. He practically fainted:

    At the end of the trial, in which both sides referred to Ronan’s “phobic reaction” to Allen, Judge Wilk informed Ronan that he would have to resume visits with his father in the office of his psychiatrist — which Allen vehemently objected to. Ronan started heaving uncontrollably, collapsed on the floor in front of everyone, and had to be carried out. The judge ruled that Dylan did not have to see her father at all. Allen appealed again and lost. He never saw Ronan again either. Last year on Father’s Day, Ronan tweeted, “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow

    Do I need to remind everybody that children never fainted in Michael’s presence but were drawn to him as if to a magnet (June Chandler’s words)? No fear, no nothing – he was just a great pal of theirs.

    Corey Feldman said that with Michael Jackson he once again felt “like a 10-year old”

    Like

  16. February 4, 2014 12:47 pm

    “Thankfully we now live in a different society and protocol is very different from what my friend went through over 30 years ago and maybe a different outcome would have happened for Dylan and Cory in present times.” – Helen-Marie

    Helen-Marie, unfortunately I’m not sure that the situation today is better than 30 years ago. Some information says that it is worse. All these protocols can help to protect children from strangers in the street but most of abuse takes place within families.

    See this Pennsylvania University report of 2002:

    “As reported above, some 105,000 substantiated or indicated cases of child sexual assault occur in the U.S. each year (NCCAN< 1996). The bulk of these assaults are perpetrated against children 12 years of age or younger and nearly all (84%) occur in the privacy of the child’s own home.

    Sadly, 96% of all child sexual assaults are perpetrated by persons known either to the child or the child’s family – 96% by acquaintances (e.g, neighbors, teachers, coaches, physicians), or by members of the child’s own family (e.g., fathers, step-fathers, uncles, older siblings). Contrary to widely held belief, only a small number of substantiated child sexual assault are committed by strangers."

    http://es.scribd.com/doc/78886345/The-Commercial-Sexual-Exploitation-of-Children-In-the-U-S-Canada-and-Mexico-Complete-CSEC-020220

    Like

  17. February 4, 2014 2:12 pm

    “there will be a tremendous amount of pressure to not “let Michael Jackson off the hook” in reference to Robson because, after all, how many accusations must there be before it’s realized that Michael Jackson was, indeed, a child molester – even though there has never been any, any shred of proof of that.” – Rosalynn Smith

    Rosalynn Smith, I’m not sure I’m getting you. MJ was not a child m*lester and any person with a pure heart knows it. What’s happening now is actually not the trial of Michael Jackson – it is the trial of humanity for our ability to differentiate the good from evil.

    “you, perhaps intentionally, made absolutely no mention of the baseless suffering Michael endured being in any way founded in racist attitudes or behaviors.”

    I generally don’t talk about it because the racial element in Michael’s harassment is obvious. Sort of an axiom which does not require any proof.

    Like

  18. February 4, 2014 5:41 pm

    I’ve said the following before, as some may remember. When I read that Wade Robson was employed by, or had been employed by AEG, it was as clear as could be, that he was being blackmailed or threatened in some way, to blacken Michael’s name in respect of the Katherine Jackson v AEG trial over the responsibility for Michael’s death. Then there was the jury verdict manipulation, and on the news yesterday during coverage of the death of the actor in New York, it was reported that Michael Jackson’s death had been due to his addiction to pain killers; no mention was made of Conrad Murray or Propofol. It is all one huge cover up of the truth, and so infuriating. The question is why, to which I could answer is that AEG may still have to defend themselves if Katherine is successful in her appeal to the High Court for another trial and are thinking ahead..

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Susanne permalink
    February 4, 2014 6:45 pm

    I’m taking a risk of being misunderstood, but doesn’t Woody Allen have Jewish background? Don’t get me wrong. I love all races and nationalities just as MJ did. I don’t know if Woody Allen is innocent or guilty. But it has always been said that Jewish people are powerful in America. Especially in the media and entertainment business. Who knows, maybe that’s why Woody Allen wasn’t treated like MJ in the media. Or maybe I’m wrong. I’m not sure, just a thought. “Jew me, sue me……”, lyrics from MJ’s song “They don’t really care about us”.

    Like

  20. Nan permalink
    February 4, 2014 9:48 pm

    I saw Barbara Walters on a clip of the VIEW taking up , for ,her good friend, Woody Allen.
    I am dumbfounded by how these people can vilify MJ who stood trial for 5 months and had his entire house and lifestyle scrutinized and yet Woody Allen deserves a measured response.

    Susanne.
    As far as MJ lyrics , with the They dont care about us song, and the lines regarding kick me k@ke me etc, Im sure that did anger some very powerful people in the Entertainment business,, as well as people who are in the legal profession.
    .I think Steven Speilberg was angry with him about those lyrics, and alot of other old friends
    Evan was Jewish , as was Barry Rothman, Larry Feldman , Robert Shapiro,Stanley Katz…
    Maybe he was lashing out at those people, with those lines ..
    .
    Then when the Arvizo came along , Jamie Mesada brought them to Dickerman, who brought them back to Feldman and Katz.
    Dickerman even states on the stand that he was very angry because Mark Geragos , while representing MJ , had things delivered to his office, knowing it was the high Jewish holidays , and he wouldnt be able to respond..
    He was insulted by that.
    Louise Palanker also very pro Arvizo.
    Zonen made a point of saying he watched the raid on tv from the King David Hotel in Israel, All these people were Jewish so Im sure they didnt appreciate the lyrics,
    He did write the DS Cold Man song about Sneddon , which I am sure got under his skin also..
    Lets just say , that could have antagonized some people..
    People who know how to manipulate the justice system..

    Woody Allen is Jewish and he is a big name in NYC and it has a huge Jewish population , so that could also be why there are people on tv, , sticking up for him ., getting airtime..
    Come to think of it, Barbara Walters is Jewish too.
    So who knows…
    MJ was very powerful also , but he was an outsider .,,He wanted to make a positive impact on the world , and say money should be used to help others …
    And to me it was like a corporate raid , because they wanted to destroy his brand and take his power.

    Woody Allen doesnt get the draw , that MJ does, he doesnt have the assets MJ does, he doesnt have the fan base for ratings the way MJ does.
    And his doesnt have the earning potential that MJ still does, so MJ is like magnet for all these greedy people, even now..
    If anyone had told me , that with all these people desperately trying to pin something on MJ, when he was alive, and people offering to get their clients MILLIONS of dollars, all you have to do is come forward, and nobody except the ridiculous Arvizo make a claim …
    And then WR would make this pathetic money grab, and it might make it into a court of law, I wouldnt have believed it..but Mj still makes tons of money for everybody , so they still try and push WR BS, because people wont walk away from the tv as long as something is being said about MJ.
    I dont think Wade Robson wants to go to court ..I think he is hoping for a settlement , like the Chandlers got , since Weitzman is the lawyer , just like in 93 , and Branca has a fudicualry responsibility to generate money for the estate .
    He is hoping they will settle to avoid damage to their product/MJ
    I am hoping the estate lawyers realize , accusations wont destroy his fan base, but giving in to wade will.
    Wade lawyers may hope the estate think it more cost efficient , but isnt in the long run, because the fans will not support the estate imo, and they will lose money on future projects

    AEG trial had begun when he started this stuff, but his estate was just promoting those Vegas shows..
    So I think that was his attempt to show how powerful his accusations could effect them financially , but it didnt work and Vegas was and remains a success.
    .

    Like

  21. Nan permalink
    February 4, 2014 9:56 pm

    I would also be very interested to see if Diane Dimond writes a scathing article on Woody Allen, regarding these accusations.
    I believe the Daily Beast is out of NYC , as is DD.
    Seems to me she is a very selective crusader against people who abuse children , so lets see if she speaks up for this accusation..
    When she had her article regarding the baloney in the English tabloid, Roger Friedman not only called her out on the article , but her editor Tina Brown as well.
    Diane , after all , is just a foot soldier, there are higher ups that decide what is published and what isnt.

    Like

  22. Susan M-S permalink
    February 4, 2014 10:55 pm

    @Nan

    If you check on Dimond’s twitter account (I am not on twitter – I check her twitter to see what bs she is up to) she is encouraging people to read the Daily Beast article where she gives a link to the article and states – “know real facts B4 reaching opinion”.

    So it seems she is trying to give the impression of being a fair and impartial “journalist”, when, in truth, as we are all aware, nothing could be more ridiculous.

    Like

  23. TatumMarie permalink
    February 4, 2014 10:56 pm

    This is no different from when the Hollywood community was sticking up for Roman Polanski. This is someone who admitted he had sex with a 12 year old, convicted but was allowed to hang out in France. I remember watching one of the shows and the host said we wont talk about this (Polanski issues) because the family is having a hard time. I was so furious by that comment because we couldn’t even mourn Michael’s death without the media bringing up the allegations. They sure didn’t care about his children or his family.

    Like

  24. February 4, 2014 11:36 pm

    “there will be a tremendous amount of pressure to not “let Michael Jackson off the hook” in reference to Robson because, after all, how many accusations must there be before it’s realized that Michael Jackson was, indeed, a child molester – even though there has never been any, any shred of proof of that.” – Rosalynn Smith

    – Rosalynn Smith, I’m not sure I’m getting you. MJ was not a child m*lester and any person with a pure heart knows it. What’s happening now is actually not the trial of Michael Jackson – it is the trial of humanity for our ability to differentiate the good from evil.- Helena

    Helena, it seems I wasn’t as clear with my words as I thought I was. I absolutely have no doubt about Michael’s innocence of the allegations and charges brought against him. Those who have read any of my writing for Michael, which is, at this point, primarily posted as Notes on my Facebook page, know that. My point here was that I anticipate that the justice system will feel pressured to hear Robson out, to give him opportunity to prove his credibility, so it doesn’t appear to be taking up for Michael, and they will feel this way simply because there have been other allegations and therefore, many, misguided and misinformed as they are, will be clambering, “Here’s yet another accusation. Poor man, couldn’t dare come forward until Jackson was dead. This proves Jackson’s guilt!, etc.” And the media, of course, will be milking this, or perhaps creating it is more correct, for all it’s worth.

    I will say that, though I agree humanity is, once again, being brought to a point where it can not only show it is able to differentiate between good and evil but that it can choose good over evil, and though Michael cannot, anymore, personally be dragged through any charge or trial against him, Michael, as the symbol and voice and power of good/innocence/ justice/love is still very much on trial, and will be repeatedly into the future, until the scales tip in favor of truth and actual justice when the majority voice of humanity knows Michael’s motives, actions, and heart. I don’t see that day coming anytime soon, but I will continue, alongside millions of others such as yourself, to work and pray for its arrival.

    “you, perhaps intentionally, made absolutely no mention of the baseless suffering Michael endured being in any way founded in racist attitudes or behaviors.”
    I generally don’t talk about it because the racial element in Michael’s harassment is obvious. Sort of an axiom which does not require any proof.

    Helena, I was complimenting you for the fact that you so beautifully made your statement and case, without venturing into the topic of racism, where you could justifiably have gone because, as you said, “the racial element in Michael’s harassment is obvious.”

    Like

  25. Nan permalink
    February 4, 2014 11:38 pm

    Thank you for the info, I am blocked form DD twitter and FB, so I didnt know that.
    As far as Roman Polanski..Roman did admit it , and if I remember correctly, he did admit to it , and was supposed to get a plea deal, and the judge backed out of it , so he ran off.
    I cant remember on what documentary I saw that.
    With Mj he refused to be extorted by Evan Chandler , even to the extent of having to drop his pants to prove his innocence…unbelievable.
    And he stayed where he lived under the dangerous jurisdiction of Tom Sneddon.He could have lived anywhere in the world but refused to be run out of town by that nut..
    I wish he had moved out of that nut jobs jurisdiction.
    Because I cant imagine anyone else going forward with these ridiculous accusations

    Like

  26. February 5, 2014 6:20 am

    “…he was being blackmailed or threatened in some way, to blacken Michael’s name in respect of the Katherine Jackson v AEG trial over the responsibility for Michael’s death. Then there was the jury verdict manipulation, and on the news yesterday during coverage of the death of the actor in New York, it was reported that Michael Jackson’s death had been due to his addiction to pain killers; no mention was made of Conrad Murray or Propofol. It is all one huge cover up of the truth, and so infuriating. “- Nina Hamilton

    Nina, I hope that by now no one is doubting that it is a cover up of the truth. One should be completely blind and deaf not to see what’s going on and I regret if some people have not discarded their illusions yet.

    And the idea that Robson may be threatened or blackmailed in some way may indeed be true. It seems to me that much will depend on the final outcome of the AEG trial. If the powerful prove that their power is indeed unlimited some people may be tempted to conform and tell a lie to ensure themselves a comfortable life.

    As to the media likening Phillips Hoffman’s 50+ bags of heroin to Michael Jackson’s lorazepam and valium prescribed by a doctor this stretch of the truth is a complete SHAME – shame on the media, the country and human beings in general.

    Philip Seymour Hoffman Drug Stash Rivaled Michael Jackson’s
    Pharmacopoeia Found in Apartment
    By TheImproper Staff, February 3rd, 2014

    Philip Seymour Hoffman, who died yesterday (Feb. 2) of a suspected drug overdose, had a virtual pharmacopoeia in his apartment, including up to 50 stamp bags of heroin, the powerful painkiller Oxycontin and an assortment of prescription drugs.
    He’d recently split from his long-time partner Mimi O’Donnell and was living alone in his West Village apartment in lower Manhattan.

    He was late picking up his three children, so an assistant went to check on him. Hoffman’s body was found lying on the bathroom floor.

    He was dressed in boxer shorts and a tee-shirt and still had a needle sticking in his arm, according to police. The needle was one of 20-used syringes found in a plastic cup by investigators, suggesting Hoffman may have been shooting up for days.

    A number of empty bags were found stamped with “Ace of Hearts.” Others, unused, were labeled “Ace of Hearts.” Those brand names have not been associated with a particularly deadly brand of heroin that’s been found to be laced with Fentatyl, a powerful painkiller.

    In addition, police found a virtual pharmacopoeia of prescription drugs. Some seem to have legitimate medical uses, such as clonidine hydrochloride, a drug to treat high blood pressure, and buprenorphine, used to treat drug addiction.

    But other drugs are often abused. They include Vyvanse, used to treat hyperactivity and muscle relaxer methocarbamol.

    Oxycontin, a powerful painkiller also known as Hillbilly heroin because of its widespread abuse in poor rural communities, was also found, according to radaronline.

    It’s unknown at this point whether Hoffman had prescriptions for the drugs. Police are also trying to determine whether anyone was with Hoffman when he died and where and how he obtained the drugs.

    The New York medical examiner’s office is expected to conduct an autopsy today (Feb.3), but a toxicology report likely won’t be available for weeks.
    http://www.theimproper.com/98886/philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-stash-rivals-michael-jacksons/

    Like

  27. February 5, 2014 7:04 am

    “I saw Barbara Walters on a clip of the VIEW taking up , for ,her good friend, Woody Allen. I am dumbfounded by how these people can vilify MJ” – Nan

    I’ve looked up what Barbara Walters is saying and am also dumbfounded by her arguments. The double standards in respect of MJ and Woody Allen are stunning. She asked:

    “the question is: does you personal life interfere with the awards you may get?”

    So when it is Woody Allen it is “personal life” and when it is Michael Jackson it is everyone’s business up to a point that they demand that his children should be taken away from him?

    These double standards are DISGUSTING. Look how Walters tries to reduce the matter to a family issue. And why are they talking of Soon-Yi only while it was a 7-year old who was allegedly abused?

    Barbara Walters got into a fight with Sherri Shepherd on The View Feb. 3 after defending Woody Allen against Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegations.

    Barbara Walters is firmly taking a side in the Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow war. On The View Monday, Feb. 3, the 84-year-old veteran journalist got into a fight with cohost Sherri Shepherd for defending her friend, director Allen, against his daughter Farrow’s Feb. 1 open letter claiming he sexually abused her at age 7.

    “I have rarely seen a father as sensitive, as loving and as caring as Woody is and Soon-Yi to these two girls,” longtime New Yorker Walters said of Allen’s relationship with his wife of 17 years and their adopted daughters Bechet, 14, and Manzie, 13. “I don’t know about Dylan. I can only tell you what I have seen now. That it’s a good marriage, and he’s a loving, caring father. I think that has to be said.”

    “She has nothing to gain by coming out and saying this, so it just makes me stop and question,” View cohost Jenny McCarthy countered of Dylan’s letter, published in the New York Times over 20 years after the abuse claims first surfaced.

    “Supposedly she is very angry, but she is doing it now because he is up for an award,” Walters explained of the director’s latest Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay for Blue Jasmine. “So the question is: does you personal life interfere with the awards you may get?”

    But the ladies didn’t debate that question, and rather continued debating Allen’s character.

    “We’ve heard so many cases of people going, ‘He was the most wonderful person in the world. I would have never thought he would’ve done . . .'” Shepherd said. Walters interrupted: “That’s not what I’m saying.”

    “Barbara, when you say, ‘I’m speaking from what I’ve seen,’ there are so many things that go on behind closed doors,” Shepherd said. “We also know that he was with Soon-Yi when she was very young. Mia [Farrow] had adopted this girl when she was young and Woody was around her . . . He was dating a 17-year-old at one point. You’ve also got a man who’s got a track record. He liked younger women,” Shepherd said. “So it’s not that far off.”

    “The fact that he likes ‘younger women,’ that has nothing to do with . . .” Walters told Shepherd.

    “But they’re not of age!” Shepherd argued. “Seventeen is not of age, Barbara.”

    “But it was mutual,” Walters said. “To condemn this man now is unfair.”

    “It was his stepdaughter that he messed around with!” Shepherd said. “That was his stepdaughter, Barbara. He married his stepdaughter!”

    Allen, 78, adopted Dylan and her brother Moses with Mia Farrow, 68, who he began dating in 1980. They also welcomed son Ronan together in 1987. During their relationship, Allen did not adopt any of Farrow’s previous children — including Soon-Yi — with her ex-husband, musician Andre Previn. Allen and Farrow, who never wed, split in 1992, after he admitted to having a relationship with Soon-Yi, who he went on to marry in 1997. Allegations of abuse against Dylan began in 1993, and Allen consistently denied any wrongdoing, and the case was later dropped.

    The Blue Jasmine director’s lawyer, Alkan Abramowitz, issued a statement Feb. 3 in response to Dylan’s recent letter. “It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces,” Abramowitz told CNN. “Even though it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities.” He added: “The one to blame for Dylan’s distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen.”

    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/barbara-walters-defends-woody-allen-fights-with-sherri-shepherd-on-the-view-201442

    What’s also interesting is that not a single person recalls that Woody Allen made pornographic pictures of Soon-Yi.

    Let me ask each woman here a question: How often does your partner make photos of you with your legs spread? I may be naive or old-fashioned but I’ve never heard of it.

    Like

  28. February 5, 2014 8:15 am

    Do you know what Barbara Walters said on a TV program when Corey Feldman spoke about his molestation by some Hollywood people?

    She accused him of damaging the entire industry. And he replied that he was sorry – he was not trying to.

    The industry is what she is protecting and the fate of children is the last thing she is worrying about. So it’s no wonder she considers the story of a 7-year-old a “personal matter”.

    When Corey Feldman dropped by The View on Tuesday to promote Coreyography: A Memoir, he couldn’t have been expecting what was in store for him.

    After host Jenny McCarthy questioned his familial abuse allegations, the former child star explained, ‘I don’t want to turn this into a mother-bashing session… she tried the best she could.’

    Host Sherri Shepherd was next, telling The Lost Boys star that he was wrong to accept some responsibility for being molested by a man at age 13 because as she put it, ‘You were a child.’

    Finally Barbara Walters stepped in, accusing the rehabbed star of trashing an ‘entire industry’ after he said that Hollywood is full of ‘predators.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2479128/Corey-Feldman-claims-molested-Hollywood-power-players.html

    By the way I think that it was Barbara Walters who made an introduction to Martin Bashir’s film about MJ. At that time she didn’t consider Michael’s “issues” a personal matter.

    Like

  29. February 5, 2014 8:26 am

    And this is DD’s contribution to this story:

    What else can be expected from this demon!

    Like

  30. Sina permalink
    February 5, 2014 9:13 am

    ‘What’s also interesting is that not a single person recalls that Woody Allen made pornographic pictures of Soon-Yi.
    Let me ask each woman here a question: How often does your partner make photos of you with your legs spread? I may be naive or old-fashioned but I’ve never heard of it.’

    The question should be : how often does a stepfather make pornograpic pictures of his MINOR stepdaughter ,is caught redhanded and gets away with it.
    This is all about who pulls the strings and connections. It always works to start a smearcampaign against your opponent, then use your media friends to support you, case closed. Never mind its the same media who still fuel the public doubt about Michael Jacksons innocence.

    Like

  31. February 5, 2014 9:28 am

    Here is the interview of Corey Feldman where he speaks about the powerful players in Hollywood who molest children and that there was one gentleman in this industry who did NOT take advantage of him and that was MICHAEL JACKSON – and all Barbara Walters has to say to it is this:

    “You are damaging an entire industry!”

    The interview has been added to the post now together with its transcript:

    FELDMAN: I’m saying that there are people that did this to both me and Corey Haim that are still working, that are still out there, and they are some of the richest and most powerful people in this business.

    WALTERS: And they are predators?

    FELDMAN: And they do not want me say what I’m saying right now.

    WALTERS: Are you saying that they are pedophiles?

    FELDMAN: Yes.

    WALTERS: And that they are still in this business?

    FELDMAN: YES. And they don’t want me here right now. They want me dead.

    SHERRI SHEPHERD: And that’s what you are saying in your book. When you talk to parents…Corey.. There are a lot of parents out there who want to put their kids in this business. Their kids are cute, they are great actors. What will you say to parents who have their best of intentions who’re coming there with their child? Are you saying there are many predators in this industry?

    FELDMAN: It’s a many feathered bird, okay? Be careful what you wish for – that’s what I’ll tell you. You know, don’t go into it with naivety, don’t go into it thinking that it’s all roses and …

    WALTERS: You are damaging an entire industry!

    FELDMAN: I’m sorry, I’m not trying to. I’m just trying to say it’s a very important, serious topic.

    SHEPHERD: There is one gentleman in this industry who did NOT take advantage of you. He was not a pedophile. You said it was Michael Jackson.

    FELDMAN: Of all people.

    Like

  32. Nan permalink
    February 5, 2014 10:45 am

    I wanted to put this video out , that is an interview with Jim Clemente and Alison Hope Weiner… regarding Dylans open letter ..
    you may recall Mr Clemente , who seems like a very nice guy, is the one who was supposed to testify against Mj in 2005 and still believes he committed crimes.
    I like that Alison counters with questions , instead of just assuming the accusations against Woody Allen are true,
    I dont know the truth regarding the accusations, I do recall it was a really bitter ending to a very strange relationship between Mia and Woody and that they never even lived together.
    I also think it is strange that her son Ronan would tweet these accusations , just as the Golden Globes are in the middle of the segment honoring Allen.., before his sister made any statement.And he has a new tv show starting on MSNBC.
    Why wait 20 years until that specific moment to bring all this painful stuff up?
    Reminds me of Wades timing for the accusations.
    There is something else afoot here to me, that the timing of this stuff is at such an advantageous time for the Farrell camp
    And then her letter shaming people who had worked and praised him? just seems strange to me.
    Ronan was also on Bill Maher on HBO last Friday ,looking very happy that he is in the spotlight , no mention was made of these accusations when he was on the show , yet he was tweeting about it.
    Why not take that opportunity to talk about it, when there are people who can ask you questions about it.
    I dont like how they have been given a platform , and yet , no one gets to ask them any questions.
    .
    Mia also recently made a public statement that he may be Frank Sinatra son, not Woody Allens , ..lots of strange stuff with all these people..
    I recall the prosecutor in the Allen case , didnt go forward and yet he sent a notice to the judge regarding his opinions or something, that reminded me of Sneddon having no case and yet calling LMP mother with his suspicions and then of course he was all over the place looking for other victims..
    And the underage naked pictures of the daughter who eventually married Woody….
    I would think if she was underage at the time they were taken , he would be in a jail cell .
    this is something else that never got to court like the Chandler stuff, so there is a lot of speculation out there,.but I havent really studied these accusations
    I will wait and see what transpires..
    I an just contrasting the coverage on tv to the way MJ was vilified and people like Walters, can take the same kind of innuendo , and destroy Mj and protect Allen..
    I have come to the conclusion that Barbara Walters is the last person , who ever should have been on tv casting moraljudgements about anyone, given her track record as well.
    .
    I think it is interesting , in this video,how no matter what , Mr Clemente ,seems to be able to ignore some exculpatory suggestions and is certain this child is telling the truth.I think it was because he is still suffering from the abuse he dealt with as a child, because it would seem to me , once accused,,,,you cant recover.Especially with Mr Clemente.
    Mr Clemente says children over , I think he said 5 dont lie..
    How about if your father is making demands for money, threatening to destroy a celebrity career, before YOU have actually made any accusations and the celebrity is saying it is extortion, which could send your father to jail , and leave your family totally devastated?like JC.
    Or you come from a family like the Arvizos, who dont spend quality time as a family , going bowling together, but going shoplifting together…..instead, and have been brought up to support their parents lies for money?
    I just think it is very interesting how this interview goes, when someone like Mr Clemente is not given a platform to voice his opinions, without a little counter point.to his opinions
    .
    Interesting that later when they cover Bieber , Alison also says he is a big rich target, and the civil suits will keep coming.

    Like

  33. February 5, 2014 10:53 am

    “The question should be : how often does a stepfather make pornograpic pictures of his MINOR stepdaughter ,is caught redhanded and gets away with it.” – Sina

    Sina, I know what they will answer to it – that the girl was not a minor (she was 17-19?) and that he was not her stepfather, as she was the adoptive daughter of Mia’s previous husband.

    But it doesn’t make things easier at all.

    Woody Allen and Mia were not married, but they were together for 12 years. It means that since ~ age 7 this girl was a kind of a stepdaughter to Allen and he was her father figure. He was practically raising this girl and it was after 12 years of a father/daughter relationship that he made pornographic pictures of her and kept them on his mantelpiece for enjoyment.

    What kind of a father figure was that? This is what I call perversion.

    But even that is only half the story. Whatever was the case with Soon Yi why are they discussing her while it was Dylan who made those accusations?

    Dylan was only 7 years old, so why is everyone pretending that the whole thing is only about Soon Yi?

    Like

  34. February 5, 2014 11:10 am

    And this is DD’s contribution to this story:

    The Woody Allen Allegations:Not So Fast thebea.st/1ckev98A must read in the Allen/molestation saga. Know real facts B4 reaching opinion— Diane Dimond (@DiDimond) February 04, 2014

    How extremely interesting, Susannerb. So this champion of morality, who believed each word of Michael’s accusers without asking for any proof, is now disbelieving the account of Dylan Farrow?

    I don’t expect Diane Dimond to call Woody Allen names, but there should be at least some consistency in her actions. Previously she never hesitated to act against Michael on totally unverified information and now she is calling for restraint towards Woody Allen?

    I would understand her position in case each time they say to us “not so fast please” they also add something like “We need to be careful because remember what we did to Michael Jackson?”

    But they are not saying that! Moreover, if you ask Diane Dimond about MJ she will continue to whip him with one hand all the time embracing Woody Allen with the other.

    These are DOUBLE STANDARDS AT THEIR WORST.

    Like

  35. February 5, 2014 11:33 am

    “Why wait 20 years until that specific moment to bring all this painful stuff up? Reminds me of Wades timing for the accusations.” – Nan

    Nan, Dylan’s letter should NOT remind you of Wade Robson because they are the exact opposites of each other.

    Dylan is just repeating what she ALWAYS said, while Wade Robson made an unaccounted for U-turn and “recollected” something after more than 30 years of praising Michael Jackson and even defending him in court.

    But okay, let’s distance ourselves from the accusations proper and look only at the media reaction instead.

    And LET US REMEMBER THIS REACTION in case Wade Robson comes up with his accusations. Let us memorize what each of these media people says now and throw it into their faces in case they start a new hysteria against Jackson.

    – Will Barbara Walters brush off all accusations and side with Michael Jackson saying what a splendid father he was (like she is now saying it of Woody Allen)?

    – Will Diane Dimond restrain everybody and say “not so fast” and “we need to know real facts before reaching an opinion”?

    – Will all these people say that it is a purely “personal matter” of Michael Jackson and no one else’s business?

    Let us make a list of everyone who is talking now in support of Woody Allen and register each of their statements. These statements may come in very handy in the future.

    Like

  36. February 5, 2014 1:46 pm

    “I wanted to put this video out , that is an interview with Jim Clemente and Alison Hope Weiner… regarding Dylans open letter” – Nan

    Nan, thank you for the video. Jim Clemente is drawing attention to the most essential points. The first time I hear a really expert analysis.
    They discuss Woody Allen’s case from the beginning to 17:15:

    Like

  37. Michael Moore permalink
    February 5, 2014 3:01 pm

    First off, to let you know, I may have the name of the polarizing filmmaker, but I’m not him. Anyways, I’m going a bit on a limb here, and I expect to be raked over the coals a bit, but I’m gonna say it anyways. First off, regarding Woody Allen, I make no claims as to whether he is innocent or guilty. I must say, that there is indeed a considerable amount of hypocrisy on Mia Farrow’s part for blasting him but defending Roman Polanski and even considering him a lifelong friend. Recently, one of the other adopted children, Moses, officially defended Allen, saying “she trained me to hate him just for what he did to Soon-Yi.” I agree that what he did with the naked pictures is creepy and disgusting, but we must remember, their relationship was purely consensual by virtually all accounts. She was also of legal age, and thus there was nothing illegal there. And by many other accounts, Soon-Yi didn’t see Allen as a father figure at all, just her adoptive mother’s boyfriend. As for Dylan’s case, I make no judgments there, but we can agree she definitely believes that she was sexually assaulted, behaving in much the same way a true victim does, is clearly traumatized, and her letter does indeed sound like those written by confirmed victims. That said, we’ll never confirm whether something happened to implant false memories or not, or whether Allen paid off the investigating team that declared there were no credible signs of abuse. Obviously, the truth there will never be known. But I definitely agree the media reaction concerning him was absolutely despicable compared to how Michael was vilified.

    Like

  38. February 5, 2014 3:35 pm

    “But I definitely agree the media reaction concerning him was absolutely despicable compared to how Michael was vilified.”- Michael Moore

    Michael Moore, actually this is the main point we are discussing here – the media double standards in respect of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen.

    If the media, experts and general public react in the same restrained way to Wade Robson’s allegations as they do to Woody Allen’s case I will be happy. And Robson’s story is much crazier and much more irrational than Dylan’s account.

    I’ve just reread Robson’s claim and don’t even know whether to laugh or cry. It is a story for complete idiots.

    Like

  39. February 5, 2014 4:11 pm

    “My point here was that I anticipate that the justice system will feel pressured to hear Robson out, to give him opportunity to prove his credibility, so it doesn’t appear to be taking up for Michael, and they will feel this way simply because there have been other allegations” – Rosalynn Smith

    Rosalynn, I probably misunderstood you, my English is far from perfect, sorry.

    As regards the justice system, pressured or not, Robson’s case is so idiotic that I cannot even imagine the judge to believe this gibberish. Robson claims that he “didn’t understand that it was abuse” even at the age 23 when he testifed at the 2005 trial, and realized it only when he was 30.

    It is pure imbecility, only Robson does not produce the impression of an imbecile – he produces the impression of a person who knows what he is doing.

    If the judicial system believes this delirious case it will be a diagnosis for the judicial system in the first place. In my opinion it does not matter how many claims like that arrive. Even if a hundred it will still be a clinical diagnosis.

    Like

  40. February 5, 2014 4:48 pm

    “I remember watching one of the shows and the host said we wont talk about this (Polanski issues) because the family is having a hard time. I was so furious by that comment because we couldn’t even mourn Michael’s death without the media bringing up the allegations. They sure didn’t care about his children or his family.” – TatumMarie

    Tatum, the double standards in treating Michael and everyone else are so glaring that it seems that we are talking about two different countries.

    In that Vanity Fair article there are two episodes which show the difference even in the way the justice system worked for MJ and Woody Allen.

    It turns out that in Woody Allen’s case the prosecutor was actually subjected to a “mini trial” for the fact that at the final press conference he said the “child victim” and not the “child complainant” (I immediately recalled how many times Tom Sneddon said the same and not a single legal expert paid attention to it).

    Quotes:

    On September 24, 1993, Maco called a press conference to say that he believed he had probable cause to arrest Woody Allen but that he would not press charges because of the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco’s statement caused at least one legal expert to accuse him of wanting it both ways—of convicting Allen without a trial. Allen called a press conference to say that “vindictive” Mia’s “cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception.” He asked, “Did State’s Attorney Maco choose to overlook the truth and become a stooge for Miss Farrow because he didn’t like my films?”

    Allen’s lawyers swiftly filed ethics claims against Maco with two Connecticut state boards. The Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission, which appoints state prosecutors, dismissed the complaint, and a local panel of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which reviews and investigates attorney complaints, also dismissed it, but its decision was overturned by one vote in the Statewide Grievance Committee.

    It was not until a year after public hearings were held, in 1996—a “mini trial” with both Maco and Allen testifying—that Maco was found not to have violated the rules of professional conduct. It had cost the state more than $250,000 to defend him. Maco, whose more than 20-year record remains unblemished, was forced to absent himself from trials for a time. He retired early, in 2003.

    Paul Williams, another person working on the case (from the Child Welfare Administration) said that his office was pressed by the City Hall to drop the case and afterwards Woody Allen’s file disappeared from their archive:

    In New York in March 1993, Paul Williams, who had been honored as Caseworker of the Year in 1991, and who was handling Dylan’s case for the city’s Child Welfare Administration, was suspended after being suspected of leaking to the media. According to a New York Observer article at the time, Williams claimed his office had faced pressure from City Hall to drop the case—a charge denied by then Mayor David Dinkins. Williams, who spoke twice to Dylan, is said to have “absolutely” believed her.

    Williams was eventually reinstated, in September 1993. Today, according to someone close to the matter, the case file is nowhere to be found, although it would ordinarily have been marked “indicated” to signify that it merited further attention—a potential red flag in allowing someone to adopt children.

    It also turns out that Woody Allen hired ten (10) investigators to dig up dirt on the police officers handling the case:

    Meanwhile, private investigators were hired by Allen. “There was a serious effort to dig up dirt on Maco and a number of state-police detectives and have an impact on the criminal investigation, and it did have an impact,” says Thibault, who spoke to some of the detectives involved. One of the top state-police investigators in the case told me, “They were trying to dig up dirt on the troopers—whether they were having affairs, what they were doing.”

    In his article, Thibault wrote that Allen’s lawyer Elkan Abramowitz acknowledged that at least 10 private investigators were hired, but, Thibault quoted him saying, “we didn’t go into any kind of smear campaign against the police.” Maco says, “I was informed by the state police that someone is going to be out there watching you. I was given the information to just be careful.”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow

    Frankly, all of the above makes Woody Allen look like some powerful magnate (if not worse), and not just a simple film director.

    Like

  41. February 5, 2014 7:39 pm

    Helena, you need not apologize for your English. I’ve been reading your blogs for 2 or 3 years now. They are well documented, present clear and rational perspectives, are so valuable for Michael’s community, and I have never had any difficulty understanding your English. Sometimes, in loving Michael, things just need a little clarification.

    As for Robson, whose career after June 25th I used to adore watching because I knew how deeply rooted it was in the time spent with and lessons learned from Michael, I completely agree about the idiocy of his accusation. Given the twists and turns Robson has made, trying to make up and/or keep the best story in the public eye, from the beginning of it, it is even more insane.

    My hope is that the Estate will be able to deny his claim, purely on grounds of its late filing. However, this is where I worry that the court will not want to appear to be trying to sweep Robson’s accusation under the rug, and so the Estate may have to represent Michael in court against Robson’s claim.

    Even if the Estate is able to dismiss Robson’s late claim, I will not be surprised if a civil case for this gets to move forward. I’m not in the legal field, but I think that civil cases can be filed even if there’s no sound basis or apparent merit to the claim. Just think about all the ridiculous cases Michael had to deal with, and that his Estate has had to deal with on his behalf. Robson is clearly grabbing at straws to try to actually make some kind of believable case for himself. The fact that his attorney was so interested to speak with, for example, Michael’s housekeeper (I think), whose entire testimony was proven false in cross examination by Tom Mesereau, proves that. Still, I think we should not underestimate Robson’s familiarity with Michael. He spent enough years around Michael to know that Michael hated confrontation and, mostly if not always, preferred to settle rather than have to go to court and deal with the drama, stress and time consumed. Robson may be counting on exactly that attitude from the Estate, since it represents Michael, and is really only angling to try to get a settlement and doesn’t really want to ever go to trial with this. Well, Weitzman and Branca may represent Michael, but they are not Michael when it comes to making legal decisions and maneuvers.

    Like

  42. Lopsided Man permalink
    February 5, 2014 7:44 pm

    “I’m taking a risk of being misunderstood, but doesn’t Woody Allen have Jewish background? Don’t get me wrong. I love all races and nationalities just as MJ did. I don’t know if Woody Allen is innocent or guilty. But it has always been said that Jewish people are powerful in America. Especially in the media and entertainment business. Who knows, maybe that’s why Woody Allen wasn’t treated like MJ in the media. Or maybe I’m wrong. I’m not sure, just a thought. “Jew me, sue me……”, lyrics from MJ’s song “They don’t really care about us”.” – Susanne

    In 1996, J. Randy Taraborelli appeared on Hard Copy to talk about MTV and VH1’s decision to ban the TDCAU video. He suggested Michael felt he was being blacklisted in the industry (in America, at least) specifically because of this song. Again, note the year JRT says this:

    Taraborelli: “My sources tell me that Michael fears that there are people in the industry who are trying to sabotage his career – that there are people at Sony, at VH1, and at MTV, who are intent on seeing Michael Jackson destroyed.”

    Interviewer: “Why?”

    Taraborelli: “There are people who are offended because of [TDCAU’s lyrics]. Those remarks have really come back to haunt Michael Jackson.”
    – [Hard Copy; April 23, 1996]

    In several interviews at this time, Spike Lee (who directed both prison/Brazil versions of the video) commented about the media & entertainment industry’s double standard, comparing the reaction to Quentin Tarantino’s repetitive use of the term “n*gger” in several of his films, to the avalanche of criticism towards Michael for his lyrics in TDCAU – which were completely taken out of context and misunderstood.

    Like

  43. lynande51 permalink
    February 6, 2014 1:00 am

    The important question about the photos of Soon Yi Previn is not how old she was, 17 or 19, but how old she looked to Woody Allen. Go ahead and Google Soon Yi Previn 1991 photos and you will see what I mean.

    Like

  44. lynande51 permalink
    February 6, 2014 1:05 am

    Then when you are looking because photos of her throughout the years with the girls she adopted with Woody will come up. Is it just me or does the younger one bear an eerie resemblance to Dylan Farrow?

    Like

  45. gel permalink
    February 6, 2014 4:32 am

    this is not related to the woody allen case but here’s a recent article on child abuse involving gov’t officials in UK. We know the British press can be the most vile to MJ when it comes to the allegations yet we don’t hear anything about this being reported much. A portion of the article states:

    “He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

    He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.”

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

    Like

  46. February 6, 2014 2:55 pm

    “We know the British press can be the most vile to MJ when it comes to the allegations yet we don’t hear anything about this being reported much. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care” – gel

    Gel, after half a year of studying the situation around Michael Jackson I came to a conclusion that there is a huge world pedophilia lobby and that Michael fell a victim to these people. I hope very much that what we see now is the beginning of their world crumbling.

    In May 2010 when a convicted child abuser Thomas O’Carroll wrote a book about MJ I made a post about Michael“He wasn’t one of them”: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/academic-assault-on-michael-jackson-he-wasnt-one-of-them/

    Here is an excerpt from it:

    I know that all this reading about pedophilia was tiring and unpleasant – but it was a necessary thing to do for making conclusions on the subject. Here are only some of them (please, correct me if I am wrong):

    1. There is much tolerance to pedophilia both in academic circles and the upper strata of society now.

    2. There are many pedophiles who are holding positions of authority and power and are easily getting away with their crimes.

    3. The pedophile lobby is strong, diverse, deep-rooted and well backed by various scholars who support the idea from various scientific viewpoints – history (which says it has always been there and even brought about miracles in the society), psychiatry (which says that monkeys do it too) and even literature (which says that everything that’s ever been written about children is about pedophilia, whether it is Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan).

    4. The field work has been done: the seeds are sown, the younger generation of students is well taken care of by their older mentors and the teaching aids are written in a highly readable manner for everyone the enjoy – so it is only one last touch which is needed now.

    5. The missing link is the right guy who will serve as a “poster boy” for the movement.

    6. I am very much afraid that Michael Jackson has been nominated for the job – which is all the more deplorable as he cannot really refuse since he is not able to be physically present at the assembly.

    7. However his previous non-support for their cause and his constant and vehement denial of ever being connected to that filth may be regarded as his disapproval of their goals and his refusal to participate.

    8. In fact, with so many pedophiles being in positions of power IF Michael had ever given them a wink or a slightest hint that he was “one of them”, they would have shielded and protected him in an absolutely the same effective way they are doing it for themselves. They would have opened their arms to him and kept him safe, sound and ready for the victory day they are working for.

    9. Since there are so many of them and many of them are so powerful, they would have surely known which strings to pull to check and control the MEDIA so that it doesn’t hurt their greatest, dearest and handsomest boy.

    10. There wouldn’t have been any media frenzy and if any mischief on his part had been occasionally noticed it would have been passed off as a mild eccentricity which would only add to his irresistible charm.

    11. The fact that Michael never took their hint and never went for what they wanted of him proves that HE WASN’T ONE OF THEM.

    12. In his numerous public statements Michael made it absolutely clear that he didn’t want to be even minimally associated with their filth.

    13. From the point of view of real pedophiles it was a mistake. If he hadn’t been that stubborn they could have easily excused him all his ‘peculiarities’ (if he had had them) and would have even helped some of those habits to work their way into the society as another of those ‘norms’.

    14. But Michael preferred to fight for his good name and go through unthinkable suffering, the complete agony of which he was destined to know only when it started.

    14. He was punished by them for being non-cooperative.

    15. The fact that in spite of his 15 years of inhuman anguish he still stuck to his views and never exchanged them for a comfortable life of a half-confessed ‘lover of boys’ proves that he was INNOCENT and that the nature of his attachment to children was completely different.

    16. The reason for Michael’s attachment to children was the OPPOSITE of that of pedophiles.

    17. They argue that sex is inherent and exciting even to a small child, thus lowering an innocent child to the level of a horny adult – while Michael almost prayed to a child’s purity and innocence which gave him the harmony and balance he so much needed for sustaining his life and creating his music despite all the dirt he constantly faced and lived with.

    Their motives and intentions are opposite in their very DIRECTION – pedophiles want to bring an innocent child down to their dirty selves, while Michael was looking for a way up to a child to acquire and maintain childlike innocence in his soul and mind.

    18. Besides having a natural inclination for purity this harmony and a clean inner self were essential for his creative process without which he was unable to make his music. Clean thinking does open the way to harmony – and that is why Michael asked us in his book Dancing the dream to ‘return’ to innocence (the process which is indeed possible as some who have taken to this path will tell you).

    19. He often spoke of his love for children as being similar to his love for animals which was another of his passions. We can easily understand that as some of us also prefer the company of innocent animals to the company of beastly human beings.

    20. Those of us who have ever looked into the eyes of a hungry stray dog, fed it and stroke its head will understand that our compassion for this creature has nothing to do with (OMG, please forgive me) sodomy with beasts – though a sick person with twisted brains may think otherwise.

    21. Even if your cat crawls into your bed while you are asleep and you find it sleeping on your pillow the next morning it does not mean that you sexually abuse animals. The only thing it means is that you forgot to close the door last night before going to bed.

    22. The outward similarity of some things is what pedophile activists are using now for the purpose of getting Michael into their ranks.

    23. The fact that they ventured to do it only after his death (though the book was started back in the 90s) speaks to them knowing that if he were alive they would NOT get away with such cheek.

    24. He never gave in to them while he was alive – so there is no reason to regard him as ‘theirs’ after his death.

    25. Michael Jackson was NORMAL while these guys are SICK (independent of what these psychiatrists will tell you).

    WE SHOULD NOT SURRENDER MICHAEL TO THESE BEASTS.

    Like

  47. February 6, 2014 3:19 pm

    “The important question about the photos of Soon Yi Previn is not how old she was, 17 or 19, but how old she looked to Woody Allen. Go ahead and Google Soon Yi Previn 1991 photos and you will see what I mean.”- Lynande51

    Lynande51, you are so right! I looked up some photos and this is what I found:

    Woody Allen and Soon-Yi in January 1990

    The note on the photo says it was made in January 1990 when Soon-Yi was ~17.

    The photo comes from a magazine dated September 1992. The text cites one of Woody Allen’s friends:

    One night, Allen was without a date for a Knicks game, and Soon-Yi, then a quiet student at Marymount School (she is now a sophomore at Drew University, in New Jersey), volunteers to go. A friendship began to blossom between the schoolgirl and the filmmaker, who had reportedly never had much to say to each other before. Sometime in the past year or so, that friendship became a love affair. Exactly when is in dispute. “Some people think the affair with Soon-Yi was going on for a while, like maybe two years,” says Simon. “Soon-Yu was acting weird, and I gather there was quite a bit of hand-holding at basketball games.” (The now-notorious photo of the two acting amorous at a Knicks game was taken in January 1990).

    Now a lot of information is being uncovered about Woody Allen’s love for young girls. In an interview of 1976 he said:

    “I’m open-minded about sex. I’m not above reproach; if anything, I’m below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him. Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone. I admit to it all.”

    http://www.iol.co.za/tonight/woody-allen-s-sick-sex-quip-1.1643112#.UvPhgdKqWHE

    Here is another photo of Woody Allen and Soon-Yi from the same magazine, this time dated 1992.
    Allen speaks at a press-conference he called to answer the allegations (August 18, 1992) and Soon-Yi is at college (August 25, 1992):

    Like

  48. lynande51 permalink
    February 6, 2014 3:56 pm

    Helena the psychiatrists that say that there is nothing wrong with P******** are incredibly few and far between I am sorry to say. It is still classified as a paraphilia in the DSM-5 and it is on that basis that we petition courts in this country when these people are coming to the end of their prison sentences for civil commitment that keeps them from returning to society.
    That is one of the things that many of them fight is the civil commitment and the diagnosis of being one because of the long term and indeterminate confinement.
    I don’t know what it is like in other countries but here we have security facilities to hold these people in in many states.
    We also have empirical science research findings that back up our long held belief that this is organic. What that means is that there are specific changes in their brains that happen when they are stimulated by what they desire. That is why certain hormones like depo provera work to contain some of the urges that they have. However that is dependent on compliance to take it. To date the only real effective treatment that works where they can be released is surgical castration and not many of them will agree to that.

    Like

  49. lynande51 permalink
    February 6, 2014 10:07 pm

    Actually let me expand on that some more. P********* is not a learned behavior like people think. That would mean that it was controllable/reversible which it isn’t. That does not mean that it is an alternative life choice like adult homosexuality. To make it a choice the partner would have to know what it was that they were agreeing to and children do not. Some victims we have seen lately are as young as 11 months old.
    There seems to be a big push right now to bring stories about this to the forefront so I can assume that they must be attempting to get the age of consent lowered which is what their organizations goal is. There is also a growing public awareness of more cases that are coming out. That has several reasons most to do with the investigation techniques that are now available and the one thing that is almost always the reason they get caught… they cannot stop themselves from documenting it in film. That is part of the disease that is one of the compulsions. They keep images of it because that is their form of porn and they are caught with tons of it, tons of it. Photos are too easy to take in the digital age everybody has a camera right at their fingertips so many of them think they can get away with producing and exchanging this documentation online.
    I know that the opposition likes to talk about those two books that Michael had like they were evidence of something. Well in essence they are… they are more evidence of his innocence than they are his guilt. They in comparison to what is actually found in the homes of sexual abusers, is topsy turvy in the world of Michael Jackson. If Michael Jackson had 100,000 books or more and two of these and these were the only two with photos of children I would not even be all that inclined to believe he liked kids all that much.
    What people have been ignoring is this. When we like something or when people look at porn it is to produce a certain response, a sexual response, therefore we chose to look at what we find attractive since it does have something to do with attraction. So all of those cached computer images and girlie magazines only cements what most of us already know. Michael Jackson liked females with very adult bodies. If any one tries to tell you that they were used for grooming that is ridiculous too. One or two girlie magazine and then a child sexual abuser moves on to what they want the child to do and that requires child porn.
    To me those photos of Soon Yi Previn looking more like a twelve year old and then hiding them tells me what Woody Allen is,

    Like

  50. February 7, 2014 2:33 am

    “To me those photos of Soon Yi Previn looking more like a twelve year old and then hiding them tells me what Woody Allen is” – lynande51

    What Woody Allen is has become clear from the recent studies of his interviews and movies which I will write about if I have an opportunity.

    As regards pedophilia you cannot even imagine the amount of information I’ve collected about “researchers” who are trying to erode the barriers to it. The number of them is legion, only I don’t want to go into that now.

    This problem is only partially medical. Medical professionals will never be able to solve it if they look only for medical roots of it. The problem is largely an ethical and even more so a spiritual one.

    Like

  51. February 7, 2014 12:27 pm

    “I am so open minded about sex.If caught witha 12-15 yo girl,people would think.- yes they would”.-Re Polanski, they first wrote dirt about his dead wife and her friends in the press.They searched the house, a home ready for a baby to be born. His sex-with 13 yo was a later sad and of course criminal act.
    Didn´t Allen go to a psychoanalyst forever or do I remember wrong. Was that a game?
    The pornographic pics of Soon -Yi are the worst indicators that all is not right with Allen.

    Like

  52. February 7, 2014 3:27 pm

    Reblogged this on Stop Global Airwave Abuse.

    Like

  53. February 7, 2014 4:55 pm

    Mia Farrow’s 1992 Valentine to Woody Allen Will Haunt Your Dreams (PHOTO) & (VIDEO)
    http://news.moviefone.com/2014/02/06/mia-farrow-valentine-woody-allen/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl16%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D439865

    Like

  54. Nan permalink
    February 7, 2014 7:29 pm

    http://nypost.com/2014/02/07/its-time-for-mia-farrow-to-let-go-of-hatred-for-woody/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow

    here is another person who constantly rips on MJ telling Mia Farrow to let it go..
    this is interesting in the fact that all these people are NY based and for years , Woody Allen was considered to be their favorite New Yorker…he was the essence of NY.
    It is like they are circling the wagons around him..
    I am not saying he did it, but this is such a contradiction, to the way MJ was vilified , it is , like looking in a funhouse mirror as mj used to say..
    The fact that these people can put these articles out , just tells me the decision who to trash and who to stick up for is someone higher up on the chain..

    Like

  55. February 8, 2014 2:54 am

    “here is another person who constantly rips on MJ telling Mia Farrow to let it go.. this is interesting in the fact that all these people are NY based and for years , Woody Allen was considered to be their favorite New Yorker…he was the essence of NY. It is like they are circling the wagons around him..” – Nan

    Nan, this is simply unbearable. The author of this piece saying that “it’s time to leave Woody Allen alone” is Andrea Peyser, the one who kept calling Michael “the freak of the week”, “Sicko Freak” and the like. Her hate-filled articles about MJ are the classics of a ravaging lunatic writing about things she has no idea of. And now it is her again – only this time demanding that everyone should leave Allen alone?

    No, this is too much. Really too much. The same people who went on the worst of all possible witch hunts against MJ have suddenly become the sweetest advocates of someone who is alleged to have abused a 7 year old. THE VERY SAME PEOPLE! Their transformation is incredible. Double standards unheard of. Hypocrisy incomparable to anything we’ve seen before. The bias disgusting, open and insulting to common sense.

    This is a sample of what this witch wrote about Michael:

    EXCESS RITES ALL WRONG FOR SICKO FREAK!
    By Andrea Peyser
    July 8, 2009 | 6:32am
    LOS ANGELES — Enough!
    You got two for the price of one if you attended Michael Jackson’s spectacular dog-and-pony show yesterday — a memorial as dignified as a Vegas lounge-lizard act combined with the entertainment value of a carnival freak show.
    How soon one forgets, given the opportunity to participate in this mass hysteria. From the accolades, prayers and cries of grief, you’d think you were witnessing the death of a saint, not an accused serial pedophile who hated the skin in which he lived.
    Much of the Western world’s music industry turned out at LA’s Staples Center — hallowed ground on the Dead Celebrities Tour — to bow and scrape at the flower-draped casket of the felled pop ruin.
    They disgraced themselves in the name of a man who died intentionally disfigured, traveled the world with his personal anesthesiologist, owed money to everyone from Bel Air to Bahrain, abandoned a pet chimpanzee when the beast reached puberty, and hadn’t had a hit record in more than 20 years.
    Michael Jackson died with enough drugs in his system to fell a small village — indulging a habit that, like everything else about his twisted, wasted life, was overlooked by toadies, enablers and those who profited from access to this amoral walking skeleton.
    And I haven’t mentioned the small boys he routinely shared his bed with, young enough to be his children.
    Enough!
    Mariah Carey got the music rolling, completely blowing the high notes — which is all of them — in Jackson’s early hit, “I’ll Be There.”
    She was followed by a non-singing Queen Latifah, who declared Jackson “the biggest star on earth.”
    “He let me know that as an African-American, you can travel the world.” Unfortunately, if Jacko burned one more creditor, he would not be welcome in a sewer.
    The scrumptious Jennifer Hudson found it necessary to sing “Will You Be There” from the unfortunately titled movie “Free Willy.” Somewhere, Simon Cowell is patting his own back.
    Al Sharpton, who’s using Jackson’s death to stage a self-aggrandizing media tour, had the audacity to bring up Jackson’s three children, whose origins remain a mystery.
    “What was strange about your daddy?” he roared. “It was strange what he had to deal with!” he answered, suggesting that Jackson’s criminal trial for pedophilia was some sort of plot and Jackson was the victim.
    I worry about Brooke Shields. The fair actress drew a memory more than 35 years old, telling how she and the former child star used to play together. Blubbering uncontrollably and apparently unmedicated, she compared him to everything from a “genius” to “The Little Prince.”
    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) revealed a House resolution that she said was to be debated today, declaring Michael Jackson “a musical icon and human legend.” Long Island Rep. Peter King should be enthusiastic.
    At the end, Michael’s daughter, Paris Michael Katherine, cried, unveiled, “I just wanted to say I love him so much!” It was too terrible for words. The freak show has casualties.
    I’ve had enough of Michael Jackson worship.
    Death has not cleansed him.
    http://nypost.com/2009/07/08/excess-rites-all-wrong-for-sicko-freak/

    And now the same person says “It’s time to leave Woody Allen alone?”

    Like

  56. February 8, 2014 6:40 am

    “Mia Farrow’s 1992 Valentine to Woody Allen Will Haunt Your Dreams (PHOTO) & (VIDEO)”:

    The host of this program says: “In some cases no doubt the allegations are true, in others a weapon of revenge”.
    In 1993 in Michael’s case no one cared if the allegations of Evan Chandler were a weapon of revenge! Double standard again.

    But as the article of Andrea Peyser shows, this is even more than double standard. This unbearable situation implies to me that Michael was chosen, was singled out to be vilified. He was a threat to these people, to the establishment, to the industry, because he hold a mirror up to them, he criticized them and their hypocrisy and didn’t want to be part of them. They wanted to see him guilty, they wanted to break him and get rid of him, the allegations were a means to an end.
    But Allen is part of the establishment, so he is protected. And all these people like Peyer and Dimond want to protect themselves by giving Allen a free ticket.

    The New York Post has a long story with bashing Michael. Their authors like Stacy Brown and Peyser will do this as long as they live, it’s part of their business. But they will be forgotten as soon as they retire, while Michael will live on for centuries to come.

    Like

  57. February 8, 2014 6:43 am

    Speaking about the media bias Susannerb sent me a link to the King Jordan radio show where the filmmakers Gedrick and Shaw who made a documentary about the 2005 trial shared a story worth listening to.

    It’s between 22:50 – 26:40.

    Dana Gedrick tells how media people in cooperation with police were trying to incite the fans purposely – handing out mushrooms with sketches of MJ’s genitalia; they wanted to incite a riot!

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/02/06/the-trials-of-michael-jackson-by-dana-gedrick-barry-shaw

    Let me add that the media people were handing out the “mushroom” picture (allegedly drawn by Jordan Chandler) under the supervision of a LAPD former policeman.

    Whether a riot or not but they were trying to incite people against Jackson using the fraudulent “evidence” from the 1993 case which by that time had long been proven to be incorrect.

    Like

  58. February 8, 2014 7:03 am

    “The host of this program says: “In some cases no doubt the allegations are true, in others a weapon of revenge”. In 1993 in Michael’s case no one cared if the allegations of Evan Chandler were a weapon of revenge! Double standard again.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, yes, a terrible double standard and a big lie at that. This program speaks about Mia Farrow’s death threats pointing to the photo of her family and children with their hearts pierced – which is a clear symbol of a their hearts broken and not of threatening Woody Allen with anything.

    Quote:

    Farrow’s anger was manifested in multiple death threats and late night phone calls, Allen alleged, and took a tactile form in the shape of a chill-inducing Valentine card (above) that Farrow presented him earlier that year. The card in question, shown on “60 Minutes,” features a photo of Farrow and her children stuck through with multiple needles. There is also a large knife, plastered with a photo of Soon-Yi (which appears to be — though is not confirmed — the pornographic photo that uncovered Allen and Previn’s affair), stabbed through Farrow’s chest. It features the caption, “Once my heart was one and it was yours to keep / My child you used and pierced my heart a hundred times and deep.

    The picture is indeed unpleasant to look at but it is definitely NOT what they are calling it. It is the evidence of a big disaster brought upon the family by someone who they trusted and loved. And Woody Allen was not just a “boyfriend” of Mia – he was the stepfather of two children whom he adopted together with Mia. He was a family man who broke the hearts of many.

    The article says that the card had a photo attached to the knife stabbing Mia’s heart – a pornographic picture of Soon-Yi (not just naked, but with her legs spread as you remember).
    I made a larger copy of it – look at the expression on her face. Does this girl look happy with what she is doing?

    What mother would be pleased to see her daughter this way and with this kind of an expression on her face?
    Actually Mia thought that her daughter was raped.

    Quote:

    “Woody Allen has raped by daughter Soon-Yi”, she told several of the couple’s friends in “ranting” phone-calls. “She was unable to modulate her grief and rage”.

    And I perfectly understand her feelings.

    Like

  59. February 8, 2014 7:22 am

    Allen had it coming to him. Let there be justice in the press and in the court. I,and i am not a child, but remember my childhood quite well, I cannot imagine someone like Allen as a father.Well so tried, some one else I didn´t like, but I was a tough little girl and to my recollection he got nothing.-Michael was ground to death by false allegations accompanided by the press.Michael was a good man when it was cool to be bad. And he tried to make a better world for his children and all children. Recall his last words.
    Lets see what the chorus=the press will conjure up on this one.

    Like

  60. February 8, 2014 11:15 am

    thanks for these info..we didn’t know anything about all these facts. Michael is a victim of racism and more…

    Like

  61. February 8, 2014 12:59 pm

    Re. a custody battle between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow here is the judge’s decision to award custody for their three children to Mia Farrow. The article has interesting details and interesting first-hand information from the judge.

    Please pay attention to the date – it is June 8, 1993. I think the date is very important here.

    June 8, 1993
    Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle
    By PETER MARKS
    ________________________________________
    Describing Woody Allen as a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive” father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their mother, Mia Farrow.

    In a scathing 33-page decision, Acting Justice Elliott Wilk of State Supreme Court denounced Mr. Allen for carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow’s daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children’s lives.

    The judge also denied Mr. Allen immediate visiting rights with his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Last summer Ms. Farrow accused the 57-year-old film maker of molesting the child. Justice Wilk said it was unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.

    Visiting Rights Under Review

    “After considering Ms. Farrow’s position as the sole caretaker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that function and Mr. Allen’s serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow,” Justice Wilk wrote.

    The judge, however, did not entirely close the door on any possible future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan, ruling that a therapist must be hired within six months to determine whether it would be harmful for Dylan to resume visits with Mr. Allen, whom she has not been permitted to see since August. “A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan’s therapy,” the judge said.

    In addition, while Justice Wilk denied Mr. Allen’s request for unsupervised visits with his 5-year-old son, Satchel Farrow, he allowed him to increase the number of weekly supervised visits with the boy from two to three. As for Mr. Allen’s third child, 15-year-old Moses Farrow, the justice said he would accede to the boy’s wishes that he not be forced to see his father.

    In almost every way, the opinion was a repudiation of the parental role of Mr. Allen, who filed his custody lawsuit last August, about a week after Ms. Farrow accused him of molesting Dylan at Ms. Farrow’s country home in Bridgewater, Conn. A team of investigators from Yale-New Haven Hospital that was retained by the Connecticut State Police subsequently concluded Dylan had not been abused.

    Mr. Allen’s lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen’s affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

    Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen’s manipulativeness and insensitivity. “Ms. Farrow’s principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen,” he wrote.

    On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son’s teachers — or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow’s apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

    Referring to what Dylan’s own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen’s inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop “the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately.”

    “Mr. Allen has demonstrated no parenting skills that would qualify him as an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel,” the justice wrote. “His financial contributions to the children’s support, his willingness to read to them, to tell them stories, to buy them presents and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance and caring in their lives.

    “These contributions,” he continued, “do not excuse his evident lack of familiarity with the most basic details of their day-to-day existences.”
    The justice said he considered Mr. Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn — and his inability to comprehend the impact the romance was having on the other children in the Farrow household — further evidence of his deficiencies as a parent. “Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system,” Justice Wilk wrote.

    Ms. Farrow also has six children whose father is her former husband, Andre Previn. Of her three children with Mr. Allen, Moses and Dylan were adopted and Satchel is their biological son. Tomorrow, a hearing is scheduled in Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan on Ms. Farrow’s request to overturn Mr. Allen’s adoption of Moses and Dylan.

    The judge’s ruling came a month after the conclusion of the couple’s bitter custody trial in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, during which 30 witnesses, including psychotherapists, family employees and close friends of the actress and the director testified about the fitness of each parent.

    Ms. Farrow and her lawyers were jubilant yesterday as they celebrated what they termed their total victory. “You got everything!” Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, Eleanor Alter, told her client yesterday morning as she read to her from the ruling over the telephone in a booth in the state Supreme Court building. At a news conference at Ms. Alter’s office in Manhattan later in the day, Ms. Farrow, in her first public comments since the trial, expressed her pleasure and relief at the outcome.

    “For so many, many months, my family has been living through a nightmare,” Ms. Farrow said, her eyes filled with tears. “My children have been ripped apart emotionally. I’m so proud of how they’ve held themselves together, stood by one another and stood by me.”

    Appeals Considered

    An hour later and about five blocks away, Mr. Allen appeared briefly at a news conference conducted by his lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Declining to take questions from reporters, he said he was disappointed with some aspects of the decision, but happy that the judge would allow him, even in a limited way, to see Dylan.

    “I’m thrilled I’m going to get to see my daughter again, because she has been withheld from me since last August,” Mr. Allen said. He added, however, that he was disappointed that he would not be permitted to see Satchel outside the presence of a social worker during the two-hour visits he will be allowed three times a week. And he expressed hope that at some point, Moses would want to see him again.

    Mr. Abramowitz said that as far as his client was concerned, the justice’s decision to allow him access to Dylan was a major victory, and the criticisms of his ability as a father were of secondary importance. The lawyer said he was considering an appeal of several aspects of the ruling, including the supervision provisions for Satchel, as well as a ruling by the justice that Mr. Allen’s lawsuit was frivolous and that he pay all of Ms. Farrow’s legal costs.

    While Ms. Alter said she had not yet calculated the fees for Ms. Farrow’s side, experts in custody proceedings say the costs could amount to $1 million on each side in the case.

    Assessing a Reputation

    Mr. Abramowitz said that as a result of the case, Mr. Allen’s reputation had taken “an enormous hit.” But he said he believed that he had successfully disproved the molestation allegation during the trial. “I don’t think any one person could do more to prove that this did not happen,” he said.

    Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not been abused. “I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse,” Justice Wilk wrote.

    The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had been “colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen.” He added that the unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the destruction of the team’s notes had “compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.”

    The circumstances under which Mr. Allen would meet with Dylan remained a matter of dispute yesterday. Ms. Alter said that she interpreted Justice Wilk’s opinion as preventing Mr. Allen from seeing Dylan for at least six months, while the evaluation of the girl by a new therapist proceeds. But Mr. Abramowitz said he believed that Mr. Allen would have an opportunity to be with Dylan sooner, in the presence of a therapist.

    At the news conference in her office, Ms. Alter said that Dylan had only a vague conception of the battle that has been waged over her and her siblings for months. She said that in the months away from Mr. Allen, the girl has become a happier child. “She has flowered in school and psychologically,” the lawyer said.

    Ms. Farrow told reporters that she bore no ill feeling toward Soon-Yi, who is still involved romantically with Mr. Allen. “I would dearly love to have a relationship with Soon-Yi,” she said. “That has been my fervent wish since this began.”

    In the meantime, she said, she hopes that the decision will mean a return to some sense of normalcy for her family. “It will be a long road until we wake up to a really normal day,” Ms. Farrow said. “We hope this will be a new beginning.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

    Like

  62. 29mj permalink
    February 8, 2014 4:10 pm

    The real value, value, value priceless of unique, pure Michael’s human nature is the best word to say here as everywhere where there is the giant, famous name of ♥ THE KING, Legendary’s Michael JACKSON! Congratulations to every human who promotes the values of the world! ♥ Michael Jackson is one most rare, the great values of human nature!!!
    I come here with the greatest love and want to tell you that I follow you closely. I do not know very well English, but I understand very well whisk the discussions here and I share with you the nobility, purity of thought and accuracy of the information on this very important blog. I appreciate you and love you for your the valuable intelligence and humanity. I am a lover of truth, human values ​​and particularly every value in part. Again, many thousand thanks and much success pro Helena, which, especially I appreciate! Again, I support wholeheartedly all your valuable work dear Helena gives to the people with so much sincerity, humility, professionalism so as to disappear of any trace of doubt about of the rare nobility, generosity of the human soul, complete, absolute human personality embodied in itself unique model -ICON- Michael Jackson! I love you MJJ! I Love you Helena!
    Hugs with love for those who are found in my description of the type model of human being! ALL from & for LOVE!!!

    Like

  63. Nan permalink
    February 9, 2014 12:17 am

    I was just going to pop this up here because it is an outtake of MJ and Oprah watching video from the interview he did with her,,It looks to me like a bunch of people , all gathered in MJ bedroom watching the footage , with Debbie and Arnie Klien on the bed,
    ,
    An entire crew of people are in his bedroom because it would seem to me that is the focal point of the house and his entertaining..
    When Oprah heard that people were in his bedroom , I wonder why she didnt remember she was too, instead she made it seem all the more sinister , and yet she knew first hand from this clip, that it was perfectly normal , and innocent,for him to have people in this huge “bedroom”
    To me it just shows another example of people in media exploiting innocent things , when it comes to MJ..

    Like

  64. Laura permalink
    February 10, 2014 4:37 am

    A wonderful article,and something I have said myself for year, only to get looked at like I’m mad and “well thats totally different!”
    This is a fabulous bloke, he’s done a lot of MJ body language and here he checks out Wade’s body language. The results are very telling

    Like

  65. Laura permalink
    February 10, 2014 4:59 am

    And this is part two to that body language analysis

    Like

  66. February 15, 2014 9:29 am

    Many a truth is said in jest: And the theme shows through his movies: Obviously he had a gift for humor;but this is no excuse for child abuse: And shame on the press that mostly did it for money:

    Like

  67. Lilly permalink
    February 21, 2014 7:24 am

    Why did the toy train make a sudden appearance 20 years later when she never mentioned it before? Why does her letter feel manipulative? I don’t believe it. Also pics of an adult woman naked or clothed are not “evidence.” Soon-yi was born either in 70 71 or 72. Get your facts straight and use common sense.

    Like

  68. Amaya permalink
    February 22, 2014 12:34 am

    Even if Soon-Yi was a legal adult at the time those pics were taken, she was still his step-daughter. I know, I know, “but she wasn’t biologically his!” They were still family regardless, which makes the fact that he had those kind of pictures of her to be a bit creepy. As for the toy train thing, perhaps we’re only hearing of it now simply because no one in the media reported it and/or any documentation related to the case that could contain that bit is not publicly available?

    Like

  69. February 22, 2014 11:44 pm

    Lilly, how do you know Dylan didn’t mention the train earlier? You should be asking why Woody Allen lied about never going into the attic because of his “claustrophobia” – until his hair and fingerprints were found there. Personally I’d like to know what provoked Woody’s extraordinary hostility toward Mia Farrow. His defenders love to describe her as an angry scorned woman, out to get revenge on him. Seems to me he must have been pretty angry at Mia to leave naked crotch shots of her daughter out where she, and her children, were bound to find them. Did he figure out that Ronan was way too good-looking to be his son?

    Whatever, my compliments to Woody Allen’s rapid response damage control team. New posters are popping up all over the internet to defend him and defame Mia. Michael Jackson should have hired “Lilly” and her colleagues.

    Like

  70. January 15, 2018 3:27 pm

    Four years have passed since this post about Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen was written. Now that #MeToo revolution has broken out Dylan is also asking a question why this movement is so selective and spares people like Woody Allen?

    Here is her new letter raising this subject again.

    Dylan Farrow: Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?
    Woody Allen was investigated for months in 1993. Prosecutors chose not to file charges. (Dec. 8, 2017)

    Editor’s Note: Woody Allen, who declined to comment prior to publication, has long denied the allegations described in this Op-Ed. Dylan Farrow’s allegations against Allen were investigated by sex-abuse experts at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who found no evidence of abuse. Some questioned their methodology. A state’s attorney in Connecticut said he had “probable cause” to prosecute in 1993 but did not file charges.

    We are in the midst of a revolution. From allegations against studio heads and journalists, to hotel maids recounting abuses on the job, women are exposing the truth and men are losing their jobs. But the revolution has been selective.

    I have long maintained that when I was 7 years old, Woody Allen led me into an attic, away from the babysitters who had been instructed never to leave me alone with him. He then sexually assaulted me. I told the truth to the authorities then, and I have been telling it, unaltered, for more than 20 years. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein and other accused celebrities have been cast out by Hollywood, while Allen recently secured a multimillion-dollar distribution deal with Amazon, greenlit by former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price before he was suspended over sexual misconduct allegations? Allen’s latest feature, “Wonder Wheel,” was released theatrically on Dec. 1.

    Allen denies my allegations. But this is not a “he said, child said” situation. Allen’s pattern of inappropriate behavior — putting his thumb in my mouth, climbing into bed with me in his underwear, constant grooming and touching — was witnessed by friends and familymembers. At the time of the alleged assault, he was in therapy for his conduct towards me. Three eyewitnesses substantiated my account, including a babysitter who saw Allen with his head buried in my lap after he had taken off my underwear. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.

    In the final legal disposition of the matter, a judge denied him custody of me, writing that “measures must be taken to protect” me and that there was “no credible evidence” that my mother, Mia Farrow, coached me in any way. A prosecutor took the unusual step of announcing that he had probable cause to charge Allen but declined in order to spare me, a “child victim,” from an exhausting trial.

    It is a testament to Allen’s public relations team and his lawyers that few know these simple facts. It also speaks to the forces that have historically protected men like Allen: the money and power deployed to make the simple complicated, to massage the story.

    In this deliberately created fog, A-list actors agree to appear in Allen’s films and journalists tend to avoid the subject.

    Discussing Weinstein, “Wonder Wheel” star Kate Winslet said, “The fact that these women are starting to speak out about the gross misconduct of one of our most important and well-regarded film producers, is incredibly brave and has been deeply shocking to hear.” Of Allen, she said “I didn’t know Woody and I don’t know anything about that family. As the actor in the film, you just have to step away and say, I don’t know anything, really, and whether any of it is true or false. Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible director.”

    Likewise, Blake Lively said of Weinstein: “It’s important that women are furious right now. It’s important that there is an uprising. It’s important that we don’t stand for this and that we don’t focus on one or two or three or four stories, it’s important that we focus on humanity in general and say, ‘This is unacceptable.’ ” But on the subject of Allen, she said, “It’s very dangerous to factor in things you don’t know anything about. I could [only] know my experience.”

    Greta Gerwig, who starred in Allen’s “To Rome With Love” and has called him her “idol,” said of the revelations about Weinstein and other powerful men, “It’s heartbreaking and I think it’s overdue.” But when pressed by Terry Gross of NPR on whether she felt conflicted about working with Allen, Gerwig grew uncomfortable. “You know, it’s all very difficult to talk about….” she said. “I think I’m living in that space of fear of being worried about how I talk about it and what I say.”

    For decades, Allen has used the same defense-through-intimidation techniques that Weinstein allegedly did. In 1997, Connecticut Magazine reported that Allen’s legal team had hired private investigators, including ones assigned to find damaging information on law enforcement officials working the sex-abuse case. As my brother Ronan Farrow documented in the Hollywood Reporter last year, Allen’s public relations team, led by Leslee Dart of the firm 42 West, jumps into action whenever allegations resurface. In retaliation for Ronan’s story, Dart barred the publication from a lunch event related to Allen’s feature at the Cannes Film Festival.

    Even now, I hesitate to speak out. Allen’s savvy affiliates know that it’s unseemly to direct attacks at me, an alleged victim, and so the invective is directed at my mother again and again. It’s awful and enraging.

    Especially painful is that Allen even managed to enlist my brother Moses against me. Moses now claims that my mother “brainwashed” him and “coached” me to accuse Allen, contradicting many years of testimony. Moses’ comments are devastating, but like so many of the attacks on my story, irrelevant: Moses was not there for the alleged assault.

    Many publications refuse to run broadsides against me and my family, while others happily repeat the distortions. They repeat that my allegations were made during a custody dispute, which is not true. In fact, Allen sued for custody of me and Ronan only after the investigation into child abuse began. Charming. Many point to a questionable 1993 report that concluded no abuse had taken place. The author of that report never interviewed me, and the team later destroyed all of its notes without explanation.

    Although the culture seems to be shifting rapidly, my allegation is apparently still just too complicated, too difficult, too “dangerous,” to use Lively’s term, to confront.

    The truth is hard to deny but easy to ignore. It breaks my heart when women and men I admire work with Allen, then refuse to answer questions about it. It meant the world to me when Ellen Page said she regretted working with Allen, and when actresses Jessica Chastain and Susan Sarandon told the world why they never would.

    It isn’t just power that allows men accused of sexual abuse to keep their careers and their secrets. It is also our collective choice to see simple situations as complicated and obvious conclusions as a matter of “who can say”? The system worked for Harvey Weinstein for decades. It works for Woody Allen still.

    Dylan Farrow is a writer and advocate for survivors of sexual abuse.
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-farrow-woody-allen-me-too-20171207-story.html

    Like

  71. January 15, 2018 3:57 pm

    But an even more interesting article was written by Dylan’s brother Ronan Farrow last year as a follow-up on Dylan’s story. You will find amazing details there – like, for example, the way Woody Allen’s publicist handled the scandal in the media to portray Dylan as crazy, coached and vindictive.

    Since Ronan was already a journalist then he had access to the publicist’s emails to the media which had read-made talking points to be followed by journalists of various media outlets, complete with the list of validators to support Woody Allen’s point of view. Ronan Farrow calls it a self-perpetuating spin machine – once the talking points were turned into stories, high-profile media outlets made links to them and repeated the talking points, thus making them dominant in the whole media space.

    My Father, Woody Allen, and the Danger of Questions Unasked (Guest Column)
    3:00 AM PDT 5/11/2016 by Ronan Farrow

    Despite Dylan Farrow’s damning allegations of sexual abuse, the director of Cannes’ opening film today remains beloved by stars, paid by Amazon and rarely interrogated by media as his son, Ronan Farrow, writes about the culture of acquiescence surrounding his father.

    “They’re accusations. They’re not in the headlines. There’s no obligation to mention them.” These were the objections from a producer at my network. It was September 2014 and I was preparing to interview a respected journalist about his new biography of Bill Cosby. The book omitted allegations of rape and sexual abuse against the entertainer, and I intended to focus on that omission. That producer was one of several industry veterans to warn me against it. At the time, there was little more than a stalled lawsuit and several women with stories, all publicly discredited by Cosby’s PR team. There was no criminal conviction. It was old news. It wasn’t news.

    So we compromised: I would raise the allegations, but only in a single question late in the interview. And I called the author, reporter to reporter, to let him know what was coming. He seemed startled when I brought it up. I was the first to ask about it, he said. He paused for a long time, then asked if it was really necessary. On air, he said he’d looked into the allegations and they didn’t check out.

    Today, the number of accusers has risen to 60. The author has apologized. And reporters covering Cosby have been forced to examine decades of omissions, of questions unasked, stories untold. I am one of those reporters — I’m ashamed of that interview.

    Some reporters have drawn connections between the press’ grudging evolution on Cosby and a painful chapter in my own family’s history. It was shortly before the Cosby story exploded anew that my sister Dylan Farrow wrote about her own experiences — alleging that our father, Woody Allen, had “groomed” her with inappropriate touching as a young girl and sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old.

    Being in the media as my sister’s story made headlines, and Woody Allen’s PR engine revved into action, gave me a window into just how potent the pressure can be to take the easy way out. Every day, colleagues at news organizations forwarded me the emails blasted out by Allen’s powerful publicist, who had years earlier orchestrated a robust publicity campaign to validate my father’s sexual relationship with another one of my siblings.

    Those emails featured talking points ready-made to be converted into stories, complete with validators on offer — therapists, lawyers, friends, anyone willing to label a young woman confronting a powerful man as crazy, coached, vindictive. At first, they linked to blogs, then to high-profile outlets repeating the talking points — a self-perpetuating spin machine.

    The open CC list on those emails revealed reporters at every major outlet with whom that publicist shared relationships — and mutual benefit, given her firm’s starry client list, from Will Smith to Meryl Streep. Reporters on the receiving end of this kind of PR blitz have to wonder if deviating from the talking points might jeopardize their access to all the other A-list clients.

    In fact, when my sister first decided to speak out, she had gone to multiple newspapers — most wouldn’t touch her story. An editor at the Los Angeles Times sought to publish her letter with an accompanying, deeply fact-checked timeline of events, but his bosses killed it before it ran. The editor called me, distraught, since I’d written for them in the past. There were too many relationships at stake. It was too hot for them. He fought hard for it. (Reached by The Hollywood Reporter, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Times said the decision not to publish was made by the Opinion editors.)

    When The New York Times ultimately ran my sister’s story in 2014, it gave her 936 words online, embedded in an article with careful caveats. Nicholas Kristof, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and advocate for victims of sexual abuse, put it on his blog.

    Soon afterward, the Times gave her alleged attacker twice the space — and prime position in the print edition, with no caveats or surrounding context. It was a stark reminder of how differently our press treats vulnerable accusers and powerful men who stand accused.

    Perhaps I succumbed to that pressure myself. I had worked hard to distance myself from my painfully public family history and wanted my work to stand on its own. So I had avoided commenting on my sister’s allegations for years and, when cornered, cultivated distance, limiting my response to the occasional line on Twitter. My sister’s decision to step forward came shortly after I began work on a book and a television series. It was the last association I wanted. Initially, I begged my sister not to go public again and to avoid speaking to reporters about it. I’m ashamed of that, too. With sexual assault, anything’s easier than facing it in full, saying all of it, facing all of the consequences. Even now, I hesitated before agreeing to The Hollywood Reporter’s invitation to write this piece, knowing it could trigger another round of character assassination against my sister, my mother or me.

    But when Dylan explained her agony in the wake of powerful voices sweeping aside her allegations, the press often willing to be taken along for the ride, and the fears she held for young girls potentially being exposed to a predator — I ultimately knew she was right. I began to speak about her more openly, particularly on social media. And I began to look carefully at my own decisions in covering sexual assault stories.

    I believe my sister. This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father’s strange behavior around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behavior that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations.

    But more importantly, I’ve approached the case as an attorney and a reporter, and found her allegations to be credible. The facts are persuasive and well documented. I won’t list them again here, but most have been meticulously reported by journalist Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair. The only final legal disposition is a custody ruling that found Woody Allen’s behavior “grossly inappropriate” and stressed that “measures must be taken to protect [Dylan].”

    On May 4, The Hollywood Reporter published a cover interview with Woody Allen, quirky auteur.

    To me it is a sterling example of how not to talk about sexual assault. Dylan’s allegations are never raised in the interview and receive only a parenthetical mention — an inaccurate reference to charges being “dropped.” THR later issued a correction: “not pursued.”

    The correction points to what makes Allen, Cosby and other powerful men so difficult to cover. The allegations were never backed by a criminal conviction. This is important. It should always be noted. But it is not an excuse for the press to silence victims, to never interrogate allegations. Indeed, it makes our role more important when the legal system so often fails the vulnerable as they face off against the powerful.

    Here is exactly what charges not being pursued looked like in my sister’s case in 1993: The prosecutor met with my mother and sister. Dylan already was deeply traumatized — by the assault and the subsequent legal battle that forced her to repeat the story over and over again. (And she did tell her story repeatedly, without inconsistency, despite the emotional toll it took on her.) The longer that battle, the more grotesque the media circus surrounding my family grew. My mother and the prosecutor decided not to subject my sister to more years of mayhem. In a rare step, the prosecutor announced publicly that he had “probable cause” to prosecute Allen, and attributed the decision not to do so to “the fragility of the child victim.”

    My mother still feels it was the only choice she could make to protect her daughter. But it is ironic: My mother’s decision to place Dylan’s well-being above all else became a means for Woody Allen to smear them both.

    Very often, women with allegations do not or cannot bring charges. Very often, those who do come forward pay dearly, facing off against a justice system and a culture designed to take them to pieces. A reporter’s role isn’t to carry water for those women. But it is our obligation to include the facts, and to take them seriously. Sometimes, we’re the only ones who can play that role.

    Confronting a subject with allegations from women or children, not backed by a simple, dispositive legal ruling is hard. It means having those tough newsroom conversations, making the case for burning bridges with powerful public figures. It means going up against angry fans and angry publicists.

    There are more reporters than ever showing that courage, and more outlets supporting them. Many are of a new generation, freed from the years of access journalism that can accrete around older publications. BuzzFeed has done pioneering reporting on recent Hollywood sexual assault stories. It was Gawker that asked why allegations against Bill Cosby weren’t taken more seriously. And it is heartening that The Hollywood Reporter asked me to write this response. Things are changing.

    But the old-school media’s slow evolution has helped to create a culture of impunity and silence. Amazon paid millions to work with Woody Allen, bankrolling a new series and film. Actors, including some I admire greatly, continue to line up to star in his movies. “It’s not personal,” one once told me. But it hurts my sister every time one of her heroes like Louis C.K., or a star her age, like Miley Cyrus, works with Woody Allen. Personal is exactly what it is — for my sister, and for women everywhere with allegations of sexual assault that have never been vindicated by a conviction.

    Tonight, the Cannes Film Festival kicks off with a new Woody Allen film. There will be press conferences and a red-carpet walk by my father and his wife (my sister). He’ll have his stars at his side — Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, Jesse Eisenberg. They can trust that the press won’t ask them the tough questions. It’s not the time, it’s not the place, it’s just not done.

    That kind of silence isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. It sends a message to victims that it’s not worth the anguish of coming forward. It sends a message about who we are as a society, what we’ll overlook, who we’ll ignore, who matters and who doesn’t.

    We are witnessing a sea change in how we talk about sexual assault and abuse. But there is more work to do to build a culture where women like my sister are no longer treated as if they are invisible. It’s time to ask some hard questions.

    Farrow’s investigative reporting series, “Undercovered With Ronan Farrow,” airs on NBC’s ‘Today.’
    A version of this story first appeared in the May 20, 2016 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-father-woody-allen-danger-892572

    Like

  72. January 16, 2018 7:10 pm

    I reacted to the doctor asking where her private part is. Of course I dont know the complete sequence of questions asked:I have done many such consultations. You never ask that kind of a question first.First ofcourse you introduce yourself to the child and mother. Then see the child first.(it succeeds in 99.99%). You start with play , asking the child to make up any story she wishes using a name not her own or any close friend,then you can go to drawing pictures, “whatever you want to draw”,if the child is uncertain tell her just a peron a house & tree.Ask about dreams.All this takes a while and all along you chat with the child. Only at the very end do you ask the question”has anybody messed with your privates?”.At that time the chlld trusts you and does answer.Then you take it from there. You also have to inform the child of confidentiality and ask if it is OK to disuss with the moher.Almost never a problem.
    Once a child trusts you she will disclose the truth. No leading questions before the child is comfortable and trusts you.

    Like

  73. January 18, 2018 6:43 am

    Just look at the photos of Dylan with her “daddy”.There is no eye contact in neither, nor does she look at the camera.Her facial expression is in one is one of slight annoyance and a bit of anger, in rhe other one she turns away from “daddy” as she wanted off his grip and facial expression one of feeling miserable. Usually, a child is happy when daddy picks her up-
    She has the right to get all information of all interviews and tapes made of her in the past. Those may reveal info not paid attention to at the time.. -And who are the nuts who think
    her mother Mia Farrow did not have all the reasons for being angry ? The ” climate” has changed and it is time justice will prevail.

    Like

  74. January 18, 2018 9:31 am

    As to “power use and abuse” I have experienced the greatest help in my career from 3 women with great authority, and “power abuse” from 4 male ones, not in authority comparable to the female ones by far. Also one #metoo at age 13, but I’ll leave that for another time. To all young girls and women, get a job with a female boss, your chances of advancement will be better. Not that all males are abusers.
    And of course I wish Dylan finally gets the justice she deserves. I will remain eternally thankful to those who helped me.

    Like

  75. January 20, 2018 7:56 am

    I have suffered from what I would call #poverabuse# from more males than what I mentioned before and at times unfairly suffered. economically.. Not a single female abused me in this manner. And I have to add a male college who helped me greatly. He was gay.

    Like

  76. January 20, 2018 3:11 pm

    “Just look at the photos of Dylan with her “daddy”.There is no eye contact in neither, nor does she look at the camera.Her facial expression is one of feeling miserable. Usually, a child is happy when daddy picks her up” -Kaarin222

    Exactly. Dylan always looks like she is on the verge of tears when she is in her stepfather’s arms. Thank you for making a note about it – I also wanted to, but always forgot.
    Indeed, in those photos Dylan never looks like a happy child. Actually it took a therapist (who visited their home to help with another child) just a couple of minutes to realize that Woody Allen’s attitude to the girl was improper after which he was forced to attend therapy sessions to deal with his problem.
    Apparently, the problem was so bad that all maids in their home were instructed to never let Allen stay alone with the girl. And the judge also called his behavior totally inappropriate.
    I wish Woody Allen himself and those who try to silence Dylan could acknowledge at least that much.

    Like

  77. January 20, 2018 4:04 pm

    “Also one #metoo at age 13, but I’ll leave that for another time.” – kaarin222

    Kaarin222, I am very sorry to hear that. The more we talk about it the more I realize how many people were abused in their childhood. As you probably know I can also add myself to #metoo, and at a pre-school age, though I clearly remember it as if it was yesterday. This plague is evidently everywhere, and it will also take everyone in the world to beat it.

    Like

  78. January 21, 2018 9:38 pm

    I have just looked into Dylan Farrows case. It was grossly mismanaged to start with. Only
    now after the #me too# and the interview she gave does the truth come out. It is very late and I will write more another time. I am truly shocked.

    Like

  79. January 22, 2018 6:35 pm

    There is actually much info on Dylan’s case and on Mia Farrow and Woody Allen on the net.
    I will not repeat what I learned but will give you a few sites to look up.
    Mia’s lawyer referred her to the Yale-New Haven team led by a pediatrician, a Dr. John M. Leventhal. No charges for Allen. Later a doctor Stephen Harman testified for Farrow, he is a child psychiatrist and stated that the prior report was seriously flawed. The Leventhal led team also destroyed all it’s notes!(ie evidence destroyed). Later justice Wilk expressed harsh criticism of Allen’s parenting skills.

    Look up 10 undeniable facts about the Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation: Here is the 33 page Woody Allen custody ruling in its damning detailed entirety. Huffington post Dec. 6th 2017 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
    Go on to CBS This Morning on Jan 18th 2018 to see Dylan Farrow detail her sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen.

    It is pretty much over for Allen. Mia Farrow is an awesome woman.

    Like

  80. January 22, 2018 6:55 pm

    I lived in NYC in the 1970ies, 80ies and 90ties. There was a rumor that Allen saw a very well known analyst, a specialist in personality disorders for 2 hrs every morning. I think this was in the 80ies, early 90ies. Those are very expensive, $250-350 at least per hr. This contrasts to being cheap re Mia and all the children. At times she was short of money for food for all the children.

    Like

  81. January 26, 2018 7:41 pm

    Again wealth, and fame, money is what rules the world. Dylan’s voice has not been heard.
    I have the same feeling as against the lawsuit against AEG.

    Like

  82. February 4, 2018 6:23 am

    “Look up 10 undeniable facts about the Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation: Here is the 33 page Woody Allen custody ruling in its damning detailed entirety” – kaarin222

    Kaarin222, a great find! By now I’ve also found it on the web and added a link to it to your comment. The short of it is below and I will also try to embed the document on which the Huffington article is based.

    Here’s The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety
    By Danny Shea
    • 02/07/2014 02:48 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
    The Huffington Post has obtained the 1993 court ruling denying Woody Allen custody of his three children with Mia Farrow. The ruling, which has been referenced often but has not yet appeared in full online, sheds some light on several questions surrounding Dylan Farrow’s allegations that Allen molested her when she was seven years old. While it does not conclude whether Allen molested Farrow, the ruling by Justice Elliott Wilk paints a particularly damning portrayal of Allen the father, describing him as “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive,” and undercuts the claims that Farrow was “brainwashed” by her mother into inventing the tale of her sexual molestation.
    Wilk’s ruling also calls into question the credibility of the much-cited Yale New Haven Hospital study, released Friday by Radar Online, that concluded that Allen did not molest Farrow and suggested that Farrow was either coached by her mother or merely a vulnerable child who fabricated her claims.
    Specifically, Wilk writes:

    1. “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan.”
    2. The Yale New Haven study report is “sanitized and, therefore, less credible” owing to a variety of factors.
    3. Mia Farrow was “not faultless as a parent,” but, “ironically,” her “principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen.”
    4. Allen’s “self-absorption” and “lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault…warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children.”
    5. Ultimately, “we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992…[but] Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and…measures must be taken to protect her.”

    The full 33-page document is embedded below. It is a quick and fascinating read. Dig in.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

    Like

  83. September 17, 2018 10:30 am

    Well, there are certain new wrinkles to the whole Woody Allen affair. Soon-Yi has broken her silence, and predictably defends Woody, and pours absolute visceral hatred against Mia Farrow: http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html?utm_campaign=vulture&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw.

    Predictably, Dylan and Ronan have responded by castigating the story, the author, and veiled attacks on Soon-Yi: http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/dylan-farrow-new-york-magazine-soon-yi-previn.html

    Most telling are the comments to both stories: http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html?utm_campaign=vulture&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw#comments

    http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/dylan-farrow-new-york-magazine-soon-yi-previn.html#comments

    I think you need not only to leave a reply here for all of this, but you might need to make a third blog post about the affair, not the least in comparing how the Mia-Woody family dynamics are utterly different to how Michael raised his children.

    Like

  84. September 17, 2018 6:25 pm

    Well, now we have a bit of a wrinkle here. Soon-Yi has broken her silence. She predictably defends Woody, calls Mia the real abuser, and attacks Dylan. Moses also chimes in to support this version. http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

    Quite on cue, Dylan and Ronan have struck back viciously at Soon-Yi: http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/dylan-farrow-new-york-magazine-soon-yi-previn.html

    You might need not only to respond here, but make a new blog post on the sordid affair.

    Like

  85. September 29, 2018 5:08 pm

    “Well, now we have a bit of a wrinkle here. Soon-Yi has broken her silence. She predictably defends Woody, calls Mia the real abuser, and attacks Dylan. Moses also chimes in to support this version. http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html Quite on cue, Dylan and Ronan have struck back viciously at Soon-Yi. You might need not only to respond here, but make a new blog post on the sordid affair.” -luv4hutch

    Luv4hutch, just as Susannerb said, this blog is dedicated to Michael Jackson in the first place, so there will probably be no full post about Soon-Yi “breaking her silence”. But apparently you want to hear my opinion about these new developments, and it is very simple – this article is the usual attempt at damage control and so open a PR job that it is even entertaining.

    The important point to remember here is that this story is not about Dylan Farrow, so whatever Soon-Yi has to say about Woody Allen will not nullify the ton of evidence against Allen with regard to the 7-year old Dylan.

    Secondly, it would be insane to expect a woman who had nothing but got everything through her marriage to Allen to turn on her benefactor. Compare “the couple’s six-story townhouse in the Upper East Side’s prettiest blocks” and “a personal driver and a chef“ with her life with Mia Farrow with whom “money was always an issue” and you will see the obvious answer. And does anyone here think that she is ready to lose all of it and will not fight tooth and nail for what she has?

    So the article is telling us of the “abuse” Soon-Yi suffered at the hands of her adoptive mother? Okay, let us compare her charges against Mia Farrow with – let us say – the way Joe Jackson brought up his children.

    And what do we see? To our horror we find that the only positive thing Mia said about the poor girl was that she was ‘elegant’. And when Mia first saw the child she threw her arms around her and gave her a big hug and – oh my God – this woman didn’t ring true or sincere to the girl!

    The other charges include: Mia didn’t go together with Soon-Yi in the bathroom (as she was used to when in the orphanage) but rather “threw” the poor seven-year old into the water and let her wash on her own.

    And she was not maternal enough. And once Soon-Yi was excluded from playing in a paddling pool with the younger children. And Mia was also impatient with the girl’s slow learning skills when she was teaching her the alphabet (never mind that the other children were waiting and that Soon-Yi indeed has a learning disability she “bashfully” admits).

    What’s worse is that Soon-Yi and her sisters had to do some chores about the house – did the grocery shopping, wrote the list of everything they needed for the house, paid for it and unpacked it. And they also cleaned the bathrooms, cleared the dishes, washed up, and did the sweeping. Poor Soon-Yi also had to pick up her siblings and iron the sheets, which for some reason are called “Mia’s sheets”.

    As a result of this life of horrors by the time she reached puberty her friends noticed how self-sufficient she was.

    According to Soon-Yi and her brother Moses Mia’s mothering style was to ensure that “they do what she wanted them to do” (and not to allow them do as they please as, apparently, other parents do). If they misbehaved the harshest punishment in the family that Moses now “painfully” recalls was “being thrown into a bedroom or a closet, then having the door locked from the outside”.

    In other words the life of these children was so tragic that Soon-Yi had no positive recollections whatsoever from her years with Farrow.

    Quote: Asked repeatedly if she has any positive recollections of her years with Mia, Soon-Yi says, “It seems hard to imagine, but I really can’t come up with one.”

    All of it makes me wonder – and what would Soon-Yi say if she had been brought up by Joe Jackson, for example? Complete with all that whipping, round-the-clock work and not a moment to relax, play or even associate with other children outside their home?

    Like

  86. September 29, 2018 5:25 pm

    I imagine that’s very true. After all, despite all that Michael went through in his upbringing, he made it clear that he still loved his father and forgave him for everything. Michael certainly represents what real grace and surviving problematic upbringings actually is. Something that Soon-Yi doesn’t quite understand, and effectively clings to Woody Allen because of the fact she was clearly groomed to his standards.

    Like

  87. September 30, 2018 5:38 pm

    “despite all that Michael went through in his upbringing, he made it clear that he still loved his father and forgave him for everything. Michael certainly represents what real grace and surviving problematic upbringings actually is.“- luv4hutch

    Absolutely. I couldn’t have said it better.

    “Something that Soon-Yi doesn’t quite understand”

    It is something that Soon-Yi doesn’t understand at all. She totally lacks empathy, gratitude and emotions in general. And it is not even her fault – the children who were neglected in their early childhood are unable to form attachments and are completely emotionless.

    I remember once reading the account of a woman who surrounded her adopted daughter with much love and care, but the several years of her efforts went away in a whiff when a neighbor came to visit them and brought a cake. The cake was delicious and this was enough for the adopted daughter to say to the neighbor: “I wish I could live with you instead. You cook so well”.

    What I mean is that the children who were neglected when infants or little kids (were not kept tenderly in the arms of their parents, were not kissed and hugged, were devoid of the necessary tactile signals indispensable to infants, were ignored and not paid attention to, etc.) lose the ability to form close emotional ties with anyone at all in their adult life. They will probably more or less simulate these emotions by making an effort on themselves and forcing themselves to express gratitude (for example), but in any case it will be a conscious effort on their part and not a natural instinct – they simply “know” that they should be grateful, but don’t know “how to” and don’t really feel it.

    Soon-Yi’s recent interview has a very good example of it:

    In 1991, Soon-Yi graduated from Marymount. She still has a copy of her yearbook, in which Farrow wrote, “A mom couldn’t dream of a better daughter. You are a miracle and my pride and joy. I am profoundly grateful for every minute along the way. Congratulations, bravo, and three cheers for our Soon-Yi.” Soon-Yi looks on impassively as I study the inscription, and when I ask her how she feels about it, she replies that she’s “grateful” to Farrow: “I mean, I’d be a completely terrible person if I didn’t feel grateful to her, right?”

    On another occasion, Soon-Yi shows me two photo albums that Farrow dropped off after Soon-Yi’s affair with Allen had come to light and she was no longer living at home. The photos show the budding orphan in various sweet frocks, looking incomparably cute, and are accompanied by Farrow’s handwritten text: “You have improved me, Soon-Yi, and it is a joy.” The discrepancy between Farrow’s chronicle of events and Soon-Yi’s is hard to make sense of. But when I suggest to Soon-Yi that perhaps it was a generous gesture of Farrow’s to make the albums in the first place and drop them off in the second, she comes right back at me in an email written early one Friday morning in May: “It’s because Mia thought that maybe she could win me over and I would look through the albums and feel guilty and run back to her … I’m sure it was a calculated move … Mia was never invested in me. I wish she had been. However, I’m a very realistic person, and I know this to be correct. http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

    “Realistic” is the right word for it – these children are indeed realistic, and as they grow up many of them easily learn which side their bread is buttered on.

    Initially Soon-Yi was surely a victim of Woody Allen – he used her for sex and pornographic pictures (of her naked “with her legs spread apart”) and as he himself admitted expected it to be just a “fling”. Here is one of those photos showing Soon-Yi’s young unhappy face:

    But when all hell broke loose the realistic Soon-Yi was quick enough to see a chance for herself too – her marriage to Allen and her standing up by him surprised and then silenced the shocked media and public, and turned her into a kind of his protective shield.

    So now it remains to be seen who depends on whom in this duo and who is the master of the situation there at the moment. But whatever it is the whole thing is still a tragedy – though it worked out well for Soon-Yi.

    Here are some facts about Soon-Yi’s early childhood: http://listverse.com/2018/06/02/10-tragic-facts-about-soon-yi-previn-woody-allens-child-bride/

    10 Tragic Facts About Soon-Yi Previn, Woody Allen’s Child Bride
    MARK OLIVER JUNE 2, 2018

    What kind of person would marry her own father?
    In 1992, Woody Allen got caught with a stack of naked Polaroid photos of Soon-Yi Previn, the young daughter of his common-law wife, Mia Farrow. Previn was essentially his own daughter, and as Farrow quickly learned, Previn and Allen were sleeping together.
    Although a lot has been said about what Woody Allen did, not nearly as much has been reported about the woman he married. Who is this girl who slept with and married her own stepfather, and how did her life go so wrong?
    Soon-Yi Previn’s life story is difficult to hear, but it’s worth taking the time to understand. Hers is a life full of pain, right from the moment she was born. It is a psychological profile of a victim of sexual abuse—an insight into the devastating effects of neglect and abuse.

    10.She Was Abandoned By Her Mother, A Prostitute In Seoul

    Nobody knows how old Soon-Yi really is. Her family celebrates her birthday on October 8, 1970, but they don’t really know when she was born.
    Her biological mother, a prostitute in Seoul who never bothered to get Soon-Yi a birth certificate, was brutally abusive. When Soon-Yi upset her, she would force the girl to kneel in a doorway and then slam the door on her head.
    When Soon-Yi was approximately six years old, her mother placed her on the street and told her to wait, promising that she’d be right back. Then her mother walked off, turned a corner, and disappeared.[1]
    For months, the abandoned six-year-old fended for herself, surviving on her own by scavenging food out of trash cans and sleeping on the streets. She stayed near the spot where her mother had left her, hoping that one day she’d come back. She never did. Soon-Yi would never see her mother again.

    9.She Was Likely Abused By Her Mother’s Customers

    An orphanage in Seoul took her in, but young Soon-Yi was seriously mentally scarred. She was practically feral.
    The one thing she’d learned in her first six years of life was how to hate men, most likely because of her experiences with her mother’s customers. When she saw a man, she’d jump back and hiss at him like an angry alley cat.
    She hadn’t learned much else, though. The most normal parts of childhood were so alien to her that they terrified her. When Mia Farrow came to the orphanage and met her future daughter, Farrow tried to give Soon-Yi a doll to play with. The girl had never seen one before. It terrified her.
    Farrow bought Soon-Yi a pretty dress, too, and let her look at herself in the mirror. Soon-Yi, though, had never seen her own reflection. She was so unnerved by it that she started kicking the mirror, trying to shatter it, and had to be stopped before she cut herself on the broken glass.[2]

    8. When She Was Adopted, Soon-Yi Couldn’t Speak
    Mia Farrow was determined to take care of the little feral girl she’d met in Seoul. It wasn’t easy. She had to petition Congress to change adoption laws so that she could take Soon-Yi, but Farrow didn’t believe she had any choice. From the moment she’d seen Soon-Yi, she said that she knew: “This was my daughter.”[3]
    Soon-Yi was seven years old by the time she made it to America, but she still couldn’t speak a word. It wasn’t just that she hadn’t learned English yet. She had never been taught how to speak any language at all. The only way that the young girl communicated with the world was to growl and make gibberish noises like a newborn baby.
    Farrow hired a tutor to help her new daughter, In fact, Farrow made sure that Soon-Yi had someone helping her throughout her entire educational career. It worked. Soon-Yi learned to speak and, in time, graduated high school and went on to get a degree in psychology.
    Still, the first seven years of neglect never stopped affecting her. She struggled with learning disabilities her whole life and had to be given extra time when she took the SATs.
    Social interactions, in particular, were difficult for her. “She’s very, very literal and flat in how she interprets what she sees and how she interprets things socially,” explained her tutor later when asked how it was possible that Soon-Yi ended up with Woody Allen. “She misinterprets situations.”

    7.She Was Neglected By Her New Parents

    Woody Allen’s defense for sleeping with Soon-Yi was that he’d never been much of a father to her. It’s the one thing he’s said that no one’s argued with. Soon-Yi herself called the idea that he’d raised her “laughable,”[4] while even Mia Farrow has said that all Allen cared about was his work.
    The thing nobody mentions, though, is that Woody Allen was a part of her life nearly as soon as Mia Farrow was. Farrow started dating Allen almost as soon as Soon-Yi arrived in America. Still, for 12 years, he completely ignored her.
    Farrow’s ex-husband, Andre Previn, was the closest thing to a father figure for Soon-Yi, but he wasn’t much better. Soon-Yi has described him as someone who “came to visit pretty often.” She meant it as a positive thing. But it’s sad to think that an occasional appearance was enough for her to consider a man her father.
    Even Mia Farrow, for all she fought to bring Soon-Yi to America, neglected her as soon as she arrived. According to Soon-Yi, Farrow just didn’t have enough time to take care of all her kids. By Farrow’s own admission, the two were never as close as Farrow was with her other children.
    “I don’t think you can raise 11 children with sufficient love and care,” Soon-Yi said about her mother. “Some of us got neglected.”

    6.Woody Allen Started Grooming Her In High School

    In her last year of high school, Soon-Yi Previn suddenly starting getting an awful lot of her stepfather’s attention.
    It began with him paying her to babysit the two babies he actually considered his own children: Dylan and Ronan Farrow. Like Soon-Yi, Dylan was adopted, but Woody showered attention on that little girl in a way he had never done with Soon-Yi. It was enough that he’d been called “completely obsessed” with Dylan.
    Perhaps that was part of why Soon-Yi was so receptive when her stepfather finally started paying a little attention to her. When he found out that Soon-Yi wanted to be a model, Allen encouraged her by telling her that she was beautiful, dressing her up in expensive clothes, and taking photographs of her.
    Allen’s thought process was deeply disturbing. This girl was his stepdaughter, but he still flirted with a twisted idea. He has openly admitted that he started the relationship and justified the idea by saying: “I thought it would just be a fling.”[5]

    5. Woody Allen Admits He Used His ‘Paternal’ Role To Lure Her

    By summer 1991, Allen had begun inviting Soon-Yi to basketball games. She was thrilled. In fact, she wore clothes that were so provocative that Farrow once lost her temper and told Soon-Yi to stop dressing up for her stepfather like she was “going to a disco.”
    “All of a sudden, she started wearing these incredibly sexy clothes,” the girlfriend of Soon-Yi’s brother Matthew recalled. “She would say, ‘Don’t tell Mom. I’m going to a friend’s house.’ ”
    Rumors spread through the family that Soon-Yi had a crush on Allen, and he reportedly loved it. The scandal just got him more interested in her. Soon, everyone in the family had a story about their creepy dad. Moses Farrow said that he had spotted Allen looking up Soon-Yi’s skirt and Daisy Farrow had seen Allen rubbing Soon-Yi’s hips.
    “The heart wants what it wants,” Woody Allen said in his defense when he was found out in the early 1990s.[6] But years later, he’d admit that there was a darker force driving the relationship between him and his neglected daughter.
    “I was paternal,” Allen said in 2015. “She responded to someone paternal.”

    4. Allen Used Her Modeling Dreams To Get Her To Pose For Naked Pictures

    The date was January 13, 1992, when Mia Farrow found the pictures. She’d dropped by Allen’s apartment while he was out and noticed a stack of Polaroid photos in his bedroom, stashed under a box of tissues.
    Woody Allen—the father of her youngest son—had dozens upon dozens of pictures of her daughter, Soon-Yi, stripped naked with her legs spread open. Mia would later say, “I felt like I was looking straight into the face of pure evil.”
    The pictures had been Allen’s idea, although he has tried to deny it. When he was first caught, he called it Soon-Yi’s idea and said, “Soon-Yi had talked about being a model and said to me, would I take some pictures of her without her clothes on.”[7]
    Later in life, though, Woody forgot that he’d lied and let the truth spill. Soon-Yi had asked him to take more modeling pictures—that part was true—but it was his idea for her to be naked. “Lay back on the sofa,” he’d told Soon-Yi, according to his own testimony. “Give me your most erotic poses. Let yourself go.”
    He’d been playing off her modeling dreams for years, and now he’d gotten her to strip naked for him. To her, it was a moment that would change her life. But to Woody Allen, it was just a way to pass the time.
    “It was just a lark of a moment,” Allen said later. “I felt nobody in the world would have any idea.”

    3.When She Found Out, Mia Farrow Attacked Soon-Yi

    Mia Farrow was understandably upset. She called Woody Allen, uttered little more than “Get away from us,” and then left his apartment as fast as she could.
    When Farrow got home, though, Soon-Yi was there. The hurt was still too hot for Farrow to control. She exploded on her daughter and, by her admission, slapped Soon-Yi four or five times.[8] Soon-Yi insists that it went further than that. In her version of the story, her mother shredded her clothing off her body and broke a chair over her back before locking her in her room.
    Allen came to pick her up, but he wasn’t much of a savior. Soon-Yi had sacrificed everything to be with him. But when he came in the door, he got on the ground and begged Farrow to forgive him and to marry him.
    Soon-Yi was nothing but “a tepid little affair that wouldn’t have lasted more than a few weeks anyway,” he told Farrow. And anyway, giving her a little attention was “probably good for Soon-Yi’s self-esteem.”
    Farrow didn’t go for it, of course. But Soon-Yi heard all of it. Allen didn’t take her home until he’d given up on winning her mother back. Soon-Yi went with him, too afraid to turn back.
    “I don’t go home,” she admitted a little after.

    2. While Dating Soon-Yi, Woody Allen Allegedly Molested Her Seven-Year-Old Sister

    Allen tried to keep things quiet, but he continued sleeping with his stepdaughter. Soon-Yi got fired from her summer job as a camp counselor because she spent all her time on the phone with a man who called himself “Mr. Simon.” It was secretly Woody Allen.[9]
    By August, she was all over the news when Allen told the press, “Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It’s real and happily all true.”
    Just as Soon-Yi’s name hit the news, though, another story broke. Days before Allen had declared his love for her to the world, he had allegedly been caught molesting another one of his daughters, seven-year-old Dylan.
    It wasn’t the first time it had happened. Two years earlier, a family friend had complained about seeing Allen rub his fingers into Dylan’s buttocks while applying suntan lotion. The family was already seeing a therapist about his unhealthy obsession.
    The worst came out, though, in August 1992. Allegedly, a babysitter walked in on Allen with his face in Dylan’s lap. According to the babysitter, Dylan wasn’t wearing any underwear.
    When Farrow asked Dylan about it, she said that her father had promised to take her to Paris if she could stay very still. He started touching her. Dylan told him that “it hurts.” But the little girl told Farrow that she didn’t scream because “kids have to do what grown-ups say.”
    Dylan asked her mother: “Did your daddy ever do that to you?”

    1. Soon-Yi No Longer Has Any Contact With Her Family
    Soon-Yi doesn’t see her mother anymore.
    “I’ve moved on,” Farrow said a little more than 10 years after her daughter left her house. “I really don’t think of her as my daughter anymore. I can’t. She isn’t.”[10]
    Things felt apart horribly between Soon-Yi and the rest of her family after she left with Allen. Devastated from living through the unimaginable, Farrow repeatedly called the couple and screamed at them, sometimes threatening to kill herself and sometimes threatening to kill Allen. And Soon-Yi had only made things worse by telling her mother, “I don’t need you anymore.”
    Andre Previn, the man whom Soon-Yi had considered her father, has given up on her, too. When he was asked about his daughter Soon-Yi, all he would say was: “She does not exist.”
    All that she has left is Woody Allen—a husband and a father in one.

    Like

  88. Alex permalink
    November 23, 2019 8:51 pm

    Allegations are allegations. Soon-Yi’s naked pics were made when she was 21. Big deal. Dylan was coached by her mother to take revenge. This article shows similar hate to an innocent man like haters hate MJ. Helen really should know better.

    Like

  89. Alex permalink
    November 26, 2019 12:28 am

    Lets be honest. Imagine the Yale-New Haven Hospital had done an evaluation of Jordan Chandler. They interviewed him 9 times, including the parents and other people, and then came to the conclusion that his accusations were false. Would that not be used as the ultimate proof that the Chandler allegations were false?

    Or, a year later, yet another investigation by the New York State child welfare with the same conclusions. Is that not enough evidence of Woody Allen’s innocence? Sometimes I am really surprised that even the biggest critical thinker can just join a lynch mob in another case and all critical thinking is suddenly gone. Just makes no sense to me. https://woodyallenmoblynching.com/dylan-farrow-sexual-abuse-yale-report/

    Like

  90. luv4hutch permalink
    November 26, 2019 10:46 am

    This is how I see it. We’ll never know the truth about what happened in this situation, because both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow fabricated evidence against each other and focused more on their campaigns of vengeance rather than what was best for the children. They’re both despicable people, and they ruined the lives of everyone, especially Soon-Yi, Dylan, Ronan and Moses. Of course Dylan genuinely believes the abuse happened to her, and her behavior is in line with actual abuse victims, because she believes it. But the truth of whether or not it happened can’t be determined, because of how a bitter custody battle turned into an uproar. And it’s despicable that those who focused on whether or not Woody Allen was treated fairly or not never remotely gave the same concern to Michael, and may even have helped set the situation up simply to take the heat off of Woody. It’s beyond reprehensible.

    Dylan spoke her truth, Moses spoke his, and both are equally plausible. It’s plausible Woody did go to violate Dylan. It’s also plausible that the police made him trip up regarding the attic fingerprint and hair, lying about evidence they didn’t have, and Woody ended up explaining in a way to admit to visiting a place he never was in. Who knows? But there is definitely more actual evidence to support Woody’s guilt than there ever was with Michael. Whether that evidence is real or not, again I can’t say,.

    Like

  91. Battenburg permalink
    November 26, 2019 2:15 pm

    My daughter is currently 21.

    You can bet your life it would be considered a big deal if I was taking pornographic photos of her.

    Adopted daughter or biological daughter. There’s certain things you don’t do. Taking naked, open-leg photos of the girl that you had a hand in raising since she was 8 years old is one of them.

    Like

  92. November 26, 2019 5:10 pm

    “her behavior is in line with actual abuse victims, because she believes it” – luv4hutch

    As far as I remember Dylan had a physical reaction of sickness whenever she saw Woody, and such things cannot appear “because she believes it.” It doesn’t work that way.

    All those articles on trauma and PTSD will remain shallow words to you and everyone else unless you recall something really stressful that happened to you personally, and not necessarily in your childhood.

    Imagine a situation when you step into an elevator and it suddenly goes down before finally stopping on some floor. The stress you have experienced will be so big that every time you approach an elevator you will feel nauseous. Every time. And though your mind will try to persuade you that modern elevators are equipped with all sort of safety mechanisms, the sick feeling will still be there because feelings and emotions are beyond our control. We can suppress them, but we can’t stop feeling them.

    Same with real victims of abuse. The situation of child sexual abuse always generates the feeling of utter discomfort, confusion and fear with a child, and this is the very least of it, so when a grown-up victim sees the abuser again, this feeling always returns, no matter what their mind tells them now. For the real victim it is never easy. And judging by the way Dylan described her sickness whenever she saw or even heard of Allen, her case looks real. No one can coach anyone to really feel it unless probably under hypnosis.

    Like

  93. November 26, 2019 5:34 pm

    “Sometimes I am really surprised that all critical thinking is suddenly gone. Just makes no sense to me.” – Alex

    Alex, if you talk about me, the post about Woody Allen was made to show the double standards practised by the media, experts and even law enforcement towards him and Michael Jackson. This alone is a very disturbing fact.

    In Woody Allen’s case every effort is made to show that the situation of Allen photographing Soon-Yi with her legs open is ‘normal’ and that Dylan is a liar though she was always consistent in her story.
    And in Michael Jackson’s case every effort is made to show that Chandler ‘told the truth’ though all facts testify to the opposite, same as with the two liars who first said one thing and then another, and still keep changing their stories .

    To see the contrast in the approach you need to reverse the situation and imagine that it was MJ who made that photo. What would have been the public and media reaction?

    Like

  94. Alex permalink
    November 29, 2019 3:52 am

    Sorry, I did not mean to start a huge discussion about Woody Allen. After all this website is not about him. I just think the comparison is false. They are not even that different. Soon-Yi Previn was not Allen’s daughter nor adopted daughter. She is an adopted Previn. Allen had a relationship with Mia. He was not living with her, and was not parenting Soon-Yi.

    Now, I understand it is not very nice to start a relationship with the adopted daughter of your ex, but that is not the point. The point is it is not illegal and when you are 21 you can do whatever you want. From that point it is a simple bf/gf situation. They are still married so obviously it is a real relationship. I know nothing compares to MJ, but Woody Allen wasn’t treated very nicely by the media either, and even though 2 investigations proved his innocence there is still a lynch mob who thinks he was a pedophile. No matter that he didn’t fit any pedophile profile just like MJ but they don’t care.

    I don’t agree that we can never know the truth because the truth came out in the investigations. Dylan Farrow was not consistent at all. The verdict that Dylan was lying was made by two teams of specialists after a thorough investigation. That should be more than enough evidence of his innocence just like MJ’s not guilty verdict in 2005 was. I don’t know if Dylan believes that she was molested by Allen. She was coached from a very young age so maybe. I believe Moses Farrow. That even Vanity Fair and Maureen Orth are quoted here is completely bizarre.

    Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, he said she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.”

    Like

  95. Alex permalink
    November 29, 2019 5:13 am

    Almost forgot. Moses Farrow story is a must read. I imagined Gavin Arvizo going through something similar. If only he could be so brave.
    http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

    Like

  96. December 4, 2019 3:01 pm

    “when you are 21 you can do whatever you want” – Alex

    But Woody Allen took a photo of Soon-Yi with her legs open when she was still 17.

    And here is another story about Woody Allen’s involvement with a 17-year old girl:

    Woody Allen’s 17-Year-Old Ex-Girlfriend Says He Has No Pattern Of Sleeping With Underage Girls, Manages To Keep A Straight Face

    We can add a new voice to the chorus of Allen-defenders: his former girlfriend, Stacey Nelkin. Unfortunately for Allen (and more unfortunately for Nelkin), this defense does more harm to his reputation than exonerate him, and it’s infuriating that this will be interpreted as a valid defense.

    Speaking on Piers Morgan‘s show, Nelkin “insisted her own relationship with Allen was entirely consensual and not corrupt in the least.” This seems suspect given that Nelkin was 17 to Allen’s 42. To be clear–this wasn’t illegal–17 is the age of consent in New York. But I have trouble believing that Allen’s 35 year seniority wasn’t an unequal power advantage, and that there exists a single 17-year-old on earth who has the wherewithal to make a decision like that for herself when faced with an older, famous, powerful man.

    …Mia Farrow didn’t need to create any pattern–it’s there. In fact, Stephen Marche wrote an especially salient piece on Esquire about the pattern of inappropriate relationships and uncomfortable age differences in Allen’s movies, in which the characters involved always seem to be stand-ins for Allen himself. Given the autobiographical nature of Allen’s movies, it’s hard to separate his characters from his real-life persona, and Allen made no effort to do so. It’s fair to look at his characters as extensions of himself.

    ..Defenders of Allen are beginning to sound increasingly unhinged, and are clinging to some sort of emotional attachment that makes it painful to watch a hero fall. But when Piers Morgan trots out Allen’s teenaged girlfriend as a way to defend Allen, it speaks more to his guilt than to anything else.

    http://www.thegloss.com/2014/02/05/culture/woody-allen-dated-underage-17-year-old-stacey-nelkin/

    Like

  97. December 4, 2019 3:33 pm

    “The verdict that Dylan was lying was made by two teams of specialists after a thorough investigation. That should be more than enough evidence of his innocence just like MJ’s not guilty verdict in 2005 was.” – Alex

    Not quite. Five years ago I did some research of the Dylan-Allen-Farrow story and here is an excerpt from my post in 2015:

    The Huffington Post has recently published an exceptionally useful document no one has ever seen – it is the Superior Court Ruling in Woody Allen’s claim for gaining custody of Dylan and her two brothers Moses and Satchel (now Ronan) made in June 1993. https://ru.scribd.com/document/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993#download

    I’ll quote some excerpts from the judge’s order and accompany them with the newspaper articles of the period which will amaze you by total lack of fact reporting from the judge’s ruling and exceptionally good manners towards Woody Allen – and this at the time when the media hate for Michael was already simmering and would later burst out into a spectacular witch hunt in August 1993.

    The details from the judge’s order are no less breathtaking that the declaration of Jordan Chandler (for example), and the only difference here is that the declaration was seen by everybody while the judge’s order against Woody Allen was swept under the rug and seen by nobody.

    Similarly the newspaper texts about Woody Allen are structured to present mostly his side of the story and the headlines alone testify to a big favoritism for Allen. Comparing them with the judge’s order is much fun, therefore some articles will be provided here in full for better enjoyment, however if you know what to expect of them you can skip the articles and immediately pass over to what the judge said about the same.
    [….]

    And this is how the judge characterized Woody Allen’s answer to Dylan accusations and the things he did in his defense:

    Mr. Allen’s response to Dylan’s claim of sexual abuse was an attack upon Ms. Farrow, whose parenting ability and emotional stability he impugned without the support of any significant credible evidence. His trial strategy has been to separate his children from their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother; to divide adopted children from biological children; to incite the family against their household help; and to set household employees against each other. His self-absorption, his lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault, there by impeding the healing of the injuries that he has already caused, warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children.

    The portrait of Woody Allen ensuing from the judge’s ruling is simply horrendous and the methods employed by him show a cold, callous and cynical man having no remorse and keen on manipulating children. His self-absorption feature pointed out by the judge is actually typical of predators or at least sociopaths who for the most part do not think of anyone else’s interests except their own.

    Getting back to the media coverage of Woody Allen’s case let us see the New York Times article of March 1993 which focuses on him and Mia Farrow being just ‘lovers’. This is a gross underestimation of their relations as Allen and Farrow were actually parents of two adopted children and one biological child and were therefore a family, even though they kept to different homes.

    Different homes were a must as Woody Allen did not stand children and didn’t want to have anything to do with them. During the custody case the judge even wondered why Woody Allen started the case as he had no interest in them and was lacking even the basic parental skills. The ruling said:

    “None of the witneses who testified on Mr. Allen’s behalf provided credible evidence that he is an appropriate custodial parent. Indeed, none would venture an opinion that he should be granted custody. When asked, even Mr. Allen could not provide an acceptable reason for a change in custody.

    His counsel’s last question of him on direct examination was, “can you tell the Court why are seeking custody of your children?” Mr. Allen’s response was a rambling non sequitur which consumed eleven pages of transcript.”

    Well, the judge’s ruling reads like a novel and contains a lot of key details. From this piece we learn of the way the newborn Dylan joined the family, how Allen shunned all responsibility for children and how suddently he began to display interest in Dylan:

    “Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow met in 1980, a few months after Ms. Farrow had adopted Moses Farrow, who was born on January 27, 1978. Mr. Allen preferred that Ms. Farrow’s children not be a part of their lives together.

    Until 1985, Mr. Allen had “virtually a single person’s relationship” with Ms. Farrow and viewed her children as an encumbrance. He had no involvement with them and no interest in them. Through their relationship, Mr. Allen has maintained his residence on the east side of Manhattan and Ms. Farrow has lived with her children on the west side of Manhattan.

    In 1984, Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to have a child with Mr. Allen. He resisted, fearing that a young child would reduce the time that they had available for each other. Only after Ms. Farrow promised that the child would live with her and that Mr. Allen need not be involved with the child’s care or upbringing, did he agree.

    After six months of unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant, and with Mr. Allen’s lukewarm support, Ms. Farrow decided to adopt a child. Mr. Allen chose not to participate in the adoption and Ms. Farrow was the sole adoptive parent. On July 11, 1995, the newborn Dylan joined the Farrow household.

    Mr. Allen’s attitude towards Dylan changed a few months after the adoption. He began to spend some mornings and evenings at Ms. Farrow’s country house in Connecticut and accompanied the Farrow-Previn family on extended vacations to Europe in 1987, 1988 and 1989. He remained aloof from Ms. Farrow’s other children except for Moses, to whom he was cordial.

    The above mentioned NY Times article of March 1993 says that the experts’ report didn’t confirm Dylan’s accusations against Woody Allen and now he had much better chances to win the sole custody of Dylan and the two boys.

    Excerpts from the article:

    Woody Allen Says Report Clears Him

    By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA,
    Published: March 19, 1993

    The hospital report could represent an enormous step toward exoneration of Mr. Allen in the eyes of the law and the public and could tilt the custody battle between the estranged lovers in his favor.

    The investigators found that the child, Dylan O. Farrow, who is adopted, had not been molested by anyone and concluded that a videotape that had been the centerpiece of the accusation was a result of either the child’s imagination or someone else’s manipulation, Mr. Allen and his lawyer said.

    On the videotape, made by Ms. Farrow, Dylan, under questioning by her mother, tells of abuse by her father.

    Ms. Alter described the Yale-New Haven team’s report as “incomplete and inaccurate” and said that “what actually happened will be determined after the many witnesses testify under oath in a court of law,” but she did not discuss the report’s specific contents.

    …The report is also expected to influence significantly the custody battle between Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow that has raged since last summer in the Manhattan courts.

    Mr. Allen has sued in State Supreme Court for sole custody of Dylan and the couple’s adopted son, Moses A. Farrow, 15, and their biological child, Satchel O. Farrow, 5.

    Ms. Farrow has sued in Surrogate’s Court to void Mr. Allen’s 1991 adoption of Moses and Dylan.

    “I believe this will turn everything around” in the custody fight, Mr. Allen said. “I haven’t been permitted to speak to my daughter or see her in eight months, and I think that’s going to change.”

    A finding that Dylan was not molested could profoundly hurt Ms. Farrow’s claim to the children if the courts conclude, as Mr. Allen has asserted, that his former lover trumped up the charge.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/19/nyregion/woody-allen-says-report-clears-him.html

    However the judge totally disagreed with the conclusions of the expert team on the point of the video tape where Dylan was describing how Allen had abused her:

    The judge: “Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and measures must be taken to protect her”

    Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or the child’s fantasy.

    Richard Marcus, a retired New York City police officer, called by Mr. Allen, testified that he worked with the police sex crimes unit for six years.

    He claimed to have an intuitive ability to know if a person is truthful or not. He concluded, “based on my experience,” that Dylan lacked credibility.

    I did not find his testimony to be insightful.

    I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992.

    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”

    Many witnesses indeed testified that Woody Allen’s behavior towards Dylan was highly inappropriate. For example, considering that Woody Allen kept to a different home and didn’t stay overnight in Mia Farrow’s house it is extremely strange that he got undressed to his undershorts and got into a bed with the little girl:

    “By then, Ms. Farrow has become concerned with Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan. During a trip to Paris, when Dylan was between two and three years old, Ms. Farrow told Mr. Allen that “you look at her (Dylan) in a sexual way. You fondled her. It’s not natural. You’re all over her. You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked”.

    Her apprehension was fueled by the intensity of the attention Mr. Allen lavished on Dylan, and by his spending play-time in bed with her, by his reading to her in his bed while dressed in his undershorts, and by his permitting her to suck on his thumb.

    Ms. Farrow testified that Mr. Allen was overly attentive and demanding of Dylan’s time and attention. He was aggressively affectionate, providing her with little space of her own and with no respect for the integrity of her body.

    Ms. Farrow, Casey Pascal, Sophie Raven (Dylan’s French tutor), and Dr. Coates testified that Mr. Allen focused on Dylan to the exclusion of her siblings, even when Satchel and Moses were present”.

    As regards Mia’s testimony that she feared that there was something sexual about the way Allen was dealing with the 3 year old, many of us will be tempted to think that it was only the work of Mia Farrow’s imagination.

    However when I look at Woody Allen’s photos with Dylan I also find myself disturbed by the way he always holds the girl.
    There is something unnatural about it.

    “No respect for the integrity of her body” is probably the best way to describe these pictures:

    Woody Allen holds Dylan, Leningrad 1987


    Holding the child like that was a repeated pattern with Allen. Photo: Getty images


    One of the pictures shows Woody Allen and Dylan in Paris in 1991. At that time she was a 6 or 7-year old girl – big enough to walk on her own – so why the need for Allen to hold her in his arms and in this strange manner too?

    The New York Times article says that Dr. Leventhal (hired by Woody Allen) interviewed the poor girl nine times and on some occasions she changed her testimony and than back again.

    Any psychologist will tell you that a little child like a 7-year old should be approached just once and simply videotaped, giving a chance to various experts to analyze the tape later and whatever number of times they want.

    However the biggest surprise of all is that this NY Times article got it all wrong.

    In her second letter Dylan Farrow says that Dr. Leventhal did not interview her at all, and all interviewing was done by other people.

    From the judge’s ruling we also learn that the interviews were done by Dr. Leventhal’s two aides who had a divided responsibility between themselves and that Dr. Leventhal was just summarizing other people’s findings.

    We also learn that for some reason these experts refused to give their testimony to the judge. The only one who testified was Dr. Leventhal who did it by way of a deposition. No first-hand records were provided by the team as all notes were destroyed prior to submitting their findings to Dr. Leventhal.

    However all this information is missing in the May 1993 NY Times report. Instead the article is almost triumphant at reporting inconsistencies in the girl’s testimony again and again.

    I wish they had repeated the fact that Jordan Chandler’s description didn’t match Michael’s photos as many times as they do it about Dylan. But in Chandler’s case the mismatch was reported on just one occasion and due to total lack of publicity is completely unknown to the general public.

    However for Woody Allen they made sure that everyone knows it:

    Doctor Cites Inconsistencies In Dylan Farrow’s Statements
    By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
    Published: May 4, 1993

    The doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation into whether Woody Allen molested his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, theorized that the child either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother, Mia Farrow, a sworn statement released yesterday says.

    Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, he said she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.”

    Dr. Leventhal said: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

    The doctor acknowledged that “We don’t have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this.”

    Dr. Leventhal’s remarks were part of a sworn statement made on April 20 and entered into evidence in Mr. Allen’s lawsuit to gain custody of Dylan and the couple’s two other children. A transcript of the statement was made public yesterday, after editing by both sides to remove some of the most sensitive material.

    The custody trial will conclude this week, with closing arguments beginning today.

    Dr. Leventhal headed the hospital team that was asked by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the claim that Mr. Allen molested Dylan last August at Miss Farrow’s summer home in Connecticut. The team told Mr. Allen and Miss Farrow on March 18 that it had concluded that Dylan was not molested, but the transcript gives the first look at the thinking behind that finding.

    Dylan’s statements in interviews at the hospital contradicted each other and the story she told on a videotape made by Miss Farrow, Dr. Leventhal said. “Those were not minor inconsistencies,” he said. “She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.”

    The doctor suggested a connection between Miss Farrow’s outrage over Mr. Allen’s affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, and the accusation made by Dylan, who he said was unusually protective of her mother.

    “It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that she stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother,” he said.

    Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, he said, “The view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household.”

    Dr. Leventhal said it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

    He also said it was possible that Miss Farrow encouraged her child to fabricate simply by videotaping her telling the story, because Dylan liked to perform.

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

    But from the judge’s ruling we learn that he was unimpressed by the report made by the above experts:

    “I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Leventhal. 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. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team.

    The notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations.

    The unavailability of the notes, together with the deposition of Dr. Leventhal, compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.

    Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist who has extensive familiarity with child abuse cases, was called as a witness by Ms. Farrow to comment on the Yale-New Haven report.

    I share his reservations about the reliability of the report.”

    “Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (1) for making visitation recommendations without seeing the parent interact with the child; (2) for failing to support adequately their conclusion that Dylan has a thought disorder; (3) for drawing any conclusions about Satchel, whom they never saw; (4) for finding that there was no abuse when the supporting data was inconclusive; and (5) for recommending that Ms. Farrow enter into therapy.

    In addition, I do not think that it was appropriate for Yale-New Haven, without notice to the parties or their counsel, to exceed its mandate and make observations and recommendations which might have an impact on existing litigation in another jurisdiction.”

    In one of the comments in today’s media I’ve found a summary of other strange points in the Woody Allen case. Originally they were reported by the 1997 Connecticut Magazine by its veteran journalist Andy Thibault. The summary adds a lot of interesting details to the picture:

    1. The Yale team used psychologists on Allen’s payroll to make mental health conclusions. CONFLICT OF INTEREST !

    2. Custody recommendations were made even though the Yale team never saw Allen and any of the children together.

    3. The Allen Yale team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims. Witnesses whose stories never varied from what they saw Allen do to Dylan.

    4. The team destroyed its notes. They shouldn’t have anything to hide, unless there’s disagreement. DESTROYED EVIDENCE!

    5. Dr Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan.

    6. The night before Leventhal gave a statement to Farrow’s attorney, he discussed the scenario with Abramowitz, the head of Allen’s legal team, for about 30 minutes.

    7. The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said Allen violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions, she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.

    8. Dr. Leventhal himself later admitted, in sworn testimony in the custody case, that he made several mistakes during the course of the investigation. One of those was his false characterization of Dylan’s active imagination as a thought disorder. This caused him to throw out Dylan’s story.

    9. Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half-hou­r interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.

    But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.

    But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that his prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent. HE LIED to police!

    10. Allen’s private detectives were compartmentalized, hired by different lawyers and subcontractors working for him, police say. The private detectives included former FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents, even former state cops who were friends with Mucherino.

    “They were just trying to disrupt the case. We all know today, in light of O.J., that if you have nothing to go on, you go after law enforcement.”

    D’Amico says the Allen team played a number of dirty tricks. Other law enforcement officials suspect that they had something to do with the false rumor that a top police investigator on the Allen case was trying to sell a videotape of Dylan to the tabloid media. The state police immediately began an internal affairs investigation of this trooper, who was cleared. Former Chief State’s Attorney Austin McGuigan said the allegations had to affect “the investigator’s ability to do his job.”

    “The investigation closed down for about 10 days,” Maco recalls. “About this time, I was told there was a campaign to disrupt the investigation and discredit the investigators, being orchestrated out of New York.“

    11. The Judge Wilk who finally greatly questioned the findings given the circumstances. He called Woody Allen a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive” father given the evidence.

    12 . Woody’s past history of dating a 17 year old high school girl identifies him having issues of pedophilia. I think most are now are agreeing.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/hamill-dylan-child-molestation-claims-woody-allen-planted-article-1.1601295

    The 1997 Connecticut Magazine article confirms all of the above and explains that Dr. Leventhal noted in his report that Dylan had a “thought disorder” because she spoke of some “dead heads in the attic”. When it was found that Mia Farrow kept there a trunk with wigs from her movies on wig blocks the matter was clarified, however Dr. Leventhal didn’t bother to change the report.

    This information is supplemented by details from the former Obama speechwriter who is close to the Farrows’ family and also cited the testimony from the original case. He says that the alarm was sounded by several witnesses even before Mia Farrow learned anything of it (I have counted at least three witnesses).

    He also confirms that Dylan’s story has not changed for 20 years which in comparison with Wade Robson’s allegations is one of the key points.

    Things are no longer funny here and needless to say, if it were Michael Jackson this news would be blasting from the front pages of every paper:

    Former Obama speechwriter makes case against Woody Allen on child molestation claim
    Posted at 8:40 am on February 6, 2014 by Twitchy Staff

    If you’ve been following the sexual abuse allegations against film director Woody Allen by Dylan Farrow and the responses from Allen’s defenders, you may be just as confused as anyone about what the truth is. One argument against Allen came yesterday from Jon Lovett, former Obama speechwriter, who cited testimony from the original case.

    Dylan’s story has not changed in two decades. The judge found no evidence of coaching. In fact, he said this: http://t.co/hzPosDaunY— Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    A quote from the judge’s ruling:

    “Ms. Farrow’s statement to Dr. Coates that she hoped that Dylan’s statements were a fantasy is inconsistent with the notion of brainwashing.

    In this regard I also credit the testimony of Ms. Groteke, who was charged with supervising Ms. Allen’s August 4 visit with Dylan. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan’s statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4.

    It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of having sexually molested her during a period in which Ms. Farrow believed they were in the presence of a babysitter.

    Moreover, I do not believe that Ms. Farrow would have exposed her daughter and her other children to the consequences of the Connecticut investigation and this litigation if she did not believe the possible truth of Dylan’s accusation. In a society where children are too often betrayed by adults who ignore or disbelieve their complaints of abuse, Ms. Farrow’s determination to protect Dylan is commendable.”

    A babysitter was so unnerved by what she caught Woody Allen doing to Dylan, his head in her lap, she sounded the first alarm.—

    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    But I’m close to this family, so I guess that means I’m brainwashed too. Even though everything I’m saying is in the public record.—
    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    The power of the internet, I hope, is that powerful men like Woody Allen no longer control the story. That has to be true.—
    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    This is from the court’s ruling. The attack that the abuse is some planted memory requires ignoring other witnesses:

    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    “During a different portion of the day, Ms. Stickland went to the television room in search of one of Ms. Pascal’s children. She observed Mr. Allen kneeling in front of Dylan with his head on her lap, facing her body.

    Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.

    After Ms. Farrow returned home, Ms. Berge noticed that Dylan was not wearing anything under her sundress. She told Ms. Farrow, who asked Ms. Groteke to put underpants on Dylan.

    Ms. Stickland testified that during the evening of August 4, she told Ms. Pascal, “I had seen something at Mia’s that day that was bothering me.” She revealed what she had seen in the television room.

    On August 5, Ms. Pascal telephoned Ms. Farrow to tell her what Ms. Stickland had observed. Ms. Farrow testified that after she hung up the telephone, she asked Dylan, who was sitting next to her, “whether it was true that daddy had his face in her lap yesterday.” Ms. Farrow testified:

    Dylan said yes. And then she said that she didn’t like it one bit, no, he was breathing into her, into her legs, she said. And that he was holding her around the waist and I said, why didn’t you get up and she said she tried to but that he put his hands underneath her and touched her. And she showed where …. Her behind.

    It’s just so sad and awful. Hopefully Dylan coming forward will help others. But making that true is up to us too. That’s all.—
    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    Thanks for reading all this.—
    Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014

    http://twitchy.com/2014/02/06/former-obama-speechwriter-makes-case-against-woody-allen-on-child-molestation-claim/#.UvP9tcIv4cU.twitter

    And as if this were not enough for us the judge’s ruling speaks of two more incidents with Dylan:

    “On December 30, 1993, Dylan was interviewed by a representative of the Connecticut State Police. She told them – at a time Ms. Farrow calculates to be the fall of 1991 – that while at Mr. Allen’s apartment, she saw him and Soon–Yi having sex. Her reporting was childlike but graphic. She also told the police that Mr. Allen had pushed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and had threatened to do it again.

    …Ten days before Yale-New Haven concluded its investigation, Dylan told Ms. Farrow, for the first time, that in Connecticut, while she was climbing up the ladder to a bunk bed, Mr. Allen put his hands under her shorts and touched her. Ms. Farrow testified that as Dylan said this, “she was illustrating graphically where in the genital area.”

    Can you imagine anything like this being reported, for example, by Jordan Chandler or his mother, and this news immediately not hitting the headlines the world over?
    Can you imagine the media not running with this story if the subject of it were Michael Jackson?
    I cannot. But what is impossible for Michael Jackson seems to be quite possible for Woody Allen.
    Indeed all people are equal, only some are more equal than the others.

    The fact that little Dylan was exposed to a sex act is probably one of the most reprehensible points in the whole of this depressing story. It speaks to irresponsibility, grooming and whatnot.

    “Her reporting was childlike but graphic”. It means that she saw it but couldn’t understand what it was, and so explained it in a manner only a child would. And this in its turn means that she was not coached.

    The second incident reported in the judge’s ruling means that what Dylan is describing now happened not just once, but at least twice. The first time her mother evidently didn’t believe her as it was only after several reports (from the nanny who saw the scene on the sofa, the fact that the underpants were missing and the girl’s story proper) that Mia Farrow began to suspect what was happening.

    The fact that this was not the first time is corroborated by another article actually written by Woody Allen’s allies in September 1992:

    “Dylan said it again…”

    “Dylan said it again,” she told her friend Nancy Sinatra, apparently implying that Dylan had spoken of another incident. “This time, I taped her.”

    “She was alarmed, upset, confused, and shocked,” says Simon, who talked to Farrow shortly afterward. “

    She said, ‘this is what Dylan told me.’

    She didn’t jump to any conclusions. She was simply considering the possibility that it could be true although she hadn’t seen it with her own eyes.

    I gather the tape is pretty conclusive.”

    The tape was leaked to Channel 5, which decided not to broadcast it.

    But one source who saw it says that when Dylan is asked where she was touched, she points to intimate parts of her lower torso and refers to them by childish nicknames.

    “It doesn’t leave too much doubt that something highly out of the ordinary took place”.

    [September 21, 1992/New York]
    http://books.google.ru/books?id=3uQCAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&lr=&rview=1&pg=PA33&redir_esc=y#v=twopage&q&f=true

    But the huge pile of evidence testifying to Woody Allen’s guilt is only half the story. The other half tells us about the pressure exerted on the Prosecutor and the officials from the New York Child Welfare Administration who were handling the Dylan Farrow case….”

    The rest of it here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/woody-allen-vs-michael-jackson-is-there-a-way-to-learn-the-truth/

    Like

  98. Alex permalink
    March 10, 2020 2:41 am

    Now you are doing exactly the same thing as all the MJ haters. Look at how he holds a child! Seriously? He never took any naked picture of her when she was 17. Please provide the evidence. People claim the same nonsense in the MJ case but can’t explain why he wasn’t arrested, and why such things were never shown in court.

    You are calling Soon-Yi a liar? She was 21 when they became romantically involved. She has told the truth. The truth never changes. Yes, Dylan did change her story. She suddenly comes up with a story about an imaginary toy train that would make Safechuck jealous.

    You are also calling Moses a liar? A highly intelligent man who is a family therapist. He told a very detailed story that proves beyond any doubt that the real abuser is Mia Farrow. She hit her own kids (especially the adopted ones) straight in the face, and forced them to hate Woody Allen. Mia made up a story about abuse in an attic because she remembers that from a song. Yes, it is that silly.
    https://woodyallenmoblynching.com/dylan-farrow-attic-woody-allen-song/

    We are supposed to believe that a 56 year old claustrophobic Woody Allen suddenly decided to become a pedophile (sorry, I am not interested in his past relationships with 17 or 18 year olds, that is not pedophilia imo) in a house full of people who hated him, during the few minutes people lost him out of sight (because he had to go to the bathroom), in an attic where there never was any toy train. It is a completely ridiculous story, and of course the accusation was made because of the child custody case. These kinds of false accusations linked to a custody battle are unfortunately rather common (see jordan chandler for example).

    I think you of all people should know how unreliable witness accounts are. She did not see anything sexual unless you have a very unhealthy imagination. Moses completely destroys that witness account.

    I am sure the investigation could be better. A good doctor is always critical of himself and looks for improvement. Of course, Dr. Leventhal didn’t work alone. Why in the world would he do all the work by himself? That is why he has a whole team around him. They all stand by their conclusions.

    You ‘forgot’ that judge Wilk was the one in the custodial case. Not ruling about any sexual abuse. Why does the judge think he knows better than a whole team of experts? Why does he think these professionals were ‘colored by their loyalty to Allen’? Shouldn’t he explain and prove such nonsense? Why does the judge not find the exact same doctors ‘colored’ when they conclude Allen’s behavior was inappropriate? Inappropriate but not sexual which you ‘forgot’ to mention. Why does he just accept Mia Farrow’s doctor opinion? How does any of that even make any sense to you? I suspect very selective reading. Yes, it is unfortunate that the notes were destroyed but it is standard procedure and actually done to protect witnesses. The judge should know that! You ‘forgot’ there was a 2nd separate investigation as well by the New York State child welfare who also could not find any evidence that Dylan was ever abused.
    View at Medium.com

    I can’t understand that you have to resort to repeating Maureen Orth false talking points. Don’t you realize that you are always wrong when you follow Maureen Orth? I know you just post a bunch of text to try to impress people, but I would have been more impressed if you had kept it short and had actually any evidence to show. You seem very confused about the word ‘inappropriate’ and leave out the ‘non-sexual’ part. Do you really think he would be allowed to adopt 2 children if he really was so inappropriate? Please reread your own post and ask yourself what actual evidence you provided. It seems you really want him to be guilty and completely lost your usual objective focus which makes me very sad.
    http://www.woodyallenpages.com/denying-vanity-fairs-undeniable-facts-about-woody-allen-and-mia-farrow-with-facts/

    Like

  99. March 16, 2020 8:57 am

    “Now you are doing exactly the same thing as all the MJ haters. Look at how he holds a child! Seriously? Please provide the evidence.” – Alex

    The best evidence that Dylan was indeed molested by Woody Allen is her physical reaction to him even when she was already a grown-up woman – you can read about it in one of her very first posts.

    No amount of coaching by Mia Farrow or anyone else can make a person have an uncontrollable sick reaction Dylan always experienced when she saw him. And what makes her testimony so valuable is that she didn’t know that this very specific point is the surest sign that she had really experienced it and was not just coached to accuse Allen.

    Like

  100. Alex permalink
    August 9, 2020 3:07 am

    Lol…her fake tears are evidence now? How do you know she didn’t know? She might believe it herself, but I read stories where she says something else in private. What happened to real evidence and doing proper research? So it doesn’t matter that 2 teams of specialists concluded that there was no child abuse and Dylan is a liar? The coaching by her mother is even on tape.
    View at Medium.com
    Moses talks about this coaching also. He was there and is much older so he has the better memory. How sick is that to tape your naked child and force her to make false accusations against her own father just for revenge?

    You already made one false claim after the other which I proved by doing some actual research. You are throwing dirt and hoping something will stick. It is completely the opposite when you write about Michael Jackson and do proper research. I am sure you have researched the profile of a real pedophile and their interest in a certain age category, Woody Allen is accused of being into 7 year olds, but you are making claims about him being into 17 year olds also. How does that even make any sense? Lynchmobbers shouldn’t be writing about Michael Jackson. He would never support such behavior. Shame on you.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: