Skip to content

Woody Allen vs. Michael Jackson. IS THERE A WAY TO LEARN THE TRUTH?

February 13, 2014

I’ve been closely following the Dylan Farrow story in order to equip myself with knowledge in case something of the kind arises in the MJ field and that Wade Robson beast raises his ugly head again.

If God wanted to educate us on the subject he is actually doing it now, well in advance, so I recommend each and everybody to familiarize oneself with the way to tell a true child molestation story from a fake one.

Woody Allen - I once stole a pornographic book

“I once stole a pornographic book that was printed in Braille. I used to rub the dirty parts” . Quote from Woody Allen’s “Bananas” (1971)

The majority of people are now saying that we will never know the truth of what happened between Woody Allen and his 7-year old adopted daughter which is a view I totally disagree with.

As someone who regards truth to be absolute like light, I think that truth is attainable in all cases, only you need to work hard enough for bringing out its light.

Some will say that a huge cloud of indecision still lingering over Woody Allen’s story is only for the better and if the public reacted in the same reserved manner to Wade Robson’s allegations against Michael it wouldn’t be that bad as it would give MJ at least the benefit of the doubt.

Michael Jackson and Dave Dave, a burn victim

Michael Jackson with  Dave Dave, a burn victim

However Michael Jackson doesn’t belong among those whose innocence should be doubted and this is why I’ll go into Woody Allen’s case to show that it is still possible to reach for the truth even without us being ‘in the same room’ and will point to the glaring differences between Allen and Jackson though the accusations against them look similar.

These two people only seem to be sitting in one boat while they are absolutely not.


The first thing that attracts attention in Dylan Farrow’s story is that Woody Allen’s powerful media allies immediately came to his help and tried to divert public attention from the accusations by saying it is a family feud and Woody Allen’s personal matter. This slant is noticeable not only with some individual journalists but the biggest newspapers and even major news agencies.

In contrast to that when allegations against Michael Jackson broke out the same media blasted all over the world that his “issues” were everybody’s business thus creating the impression that he was the center of all evil and a threat to whole mankind. Actually when Michael died some nutty cases even claimed that “now we can heave a sigh of relief for our children”.

Life has shown how wrong these people were because it was only after Michael’s death that the public began to realize that while they were so unnaturally preoccupied with Michael Jackson, real abusers like Sandusky and Saville were free to do to hundreds of children whatever their perverse imagination and morals allowed them to do.

By now the media double standards in respect of Michael Jackson have become so obvious that they don’t even require further proof.  But this bias has one important consequence which shouldn’t be overlooked.

If we compare MJ with Woody Allen, for example, this bias will mean that since the time their almost simultaneous investigations began, for Michael Jackson the media has always made the most of the accusers’ side of the story hiding the facts exonerating him, while for Woody Allen the exact opposite was happening – the media was predominantly spreading the defense side of the story and giving minimal attention to the facts from the accuser’s side.

Therefore about Michael Jackson we always knew only the worst, while about Woody Allen we know mostly the best. It is like seeing one person as a criminal from the start of it and the other person as innocent also from the start of it, and this makes the resulting perception of both absolutely distorted, only in the oppposite way. Let us always keep this crucial fact in mind.

What is especially stunning in the comparison of how the media treated Allen and MJ is that the very same people and media outlets who were the loudest accusers of Michael Jackson have now turned into the loudest advocates of Woody Allen.

In these circumstances even the biggest sceptics non-believing in conspiracy theories will start having doubts. People are expected to be at least minimally consistent in what they say and if the same journalists react in a decidedly different manner to two similar cases it means that they have an agenda and are guided by someone in choosing whom to attack and whom to protect.

Call it a conspiracy, agenda, being in cahoots, whatever – but this is definitely not neutrality and unbiased reporting which they so hypocritically profess.

Here are some illustrations of the above.

In Woody Allen’s case the LA Times did something they never hesitated to do in respect of Jackson – they refused to publish Dylan Farrow’s letter, at least not before others did it:

Before the New York Times published a scathing editorial written by the adoptive daughter of Woody Allen accusing the famed director of molesting her when she was just a child, the Los Angeles Times editorial page passed on publishing the ‘open letter’ penned by Dylan Farrow.

The paper’s op-ed editor, Sue Horton, says she considered running it but ultimately decided not to.

The Daily Mail that published the above news is playing a double game too as they reduced the story to a family feud only and provided little factual detail of the case. Judging by the way they are closing their article they share the views of Barbara Walters – the statute of limitations has run out, so what’s the point of even talking about it?

.. on Monday, Barbara Walters came to Allen’s support on The View. The 84-year-old co-creator of The View opened the discussion after Whoopi Goldberg introduced the topic. Walters, a friend of Allen’s, pointed out that the statute of limitations had run out.

‘I have rarely seen a father as sensitive, as loving and as caring as Woody is and Soon-Yi to these two girls. I don’t know about Dylan. I can only tell you what I have seen now,’ Walters said.

Barbara Walters is also presenting the problem as a ‘personal’ matter which should be separate from Allen’s awards (and God forbid, career). The main question she is asking of her co-host is absolutely immoral in its essence:

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

Shepherd: “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 . . .'”

Walters interrupted: “That’s not what I’m saying.”

Shepherd: 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, so it’s not that far off.”

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

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

Walters: “But it was mutual.”

A scene from Manhattan with Mariel Hemingway "Not everybody gets corrupted. You have to have a little faith in people"

A scene from Manhattan with Mariel Hemingway “Not everybody gets corrupted. You have to have a little faith in people”

They are talking about Stacey Nelkin who had a relationship with Woody Allen when she was 17 and was still at school. Stacey was a stand-in for the girl in Allen’s Manhattan (1979) played by Mariel Hemingway.

In Woody Allen’s own words, the film is about ‘the problems of trying to live a decent life amidst the junk of contemporary culture – the temptations, the seductions.’

For those who are unaware of the Stecey Nelkin story here is the short of it:

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

Stacey Nelkin in 1980, age 21

Stacey Nelkin in 1980, age 21

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.

So it was about this Stecey Nelkin that Barbara Walters said that her relationship with Woody Allen was ‘mutual’.

Apparently poor Barbara doesn’t know that the idea she is expressing is the key argument of all pedophiles. For them ‘if the teenager agreed, then it is okay’, though the teenager is often driven just by curiosity and doesn’t know what she/he is getting into, while a 30-year older adult knows it very well and this is where all their ‘consensus’ ends.

And since the problem actually concerned the 7-year old Dylan Farrow when Barbara Walters wondered “Does your personal life interfere with the awards you may get?” her question actually sounded like “Who cares if he possibly sexually assaulted his 7-year old step-daughter? It is his personal matter which should not interfere with the awards we are showering him with”.

To say that this is immoral is to say nothing at all, however if it is okay to think that way for a pillar of the establishment like Barbara Walters, then I wonder why she never said a similar word of support for Michael Jackson? Back in 2003 she rushed to accuse him on the basis of Bashir’s innuendoes alone, never minding the consequences it might have for Michael Jackson’s career.

Her comments on MJ at the time must have been so bad that the prosecution in 2005 insisted that the jurors should see Bashir’s documentary including Barbara Walters’ introduction of it to American viewers. Though we don’t know what exactly Barbara Walters said we can imagine how bad it was considering the prosecutors’ insistence that the jurors should listen to it:

The motion called the TV broadcast “a public relations catastrophe for Michael Jackson” and said jurors could not grasp its impact on him without seeing it in its entirety, including comments from reporter Martin Bashir and commentator Barbara Walters on the version broadcast in the United States. 

In their response, the defense said the documentary constituted inadmissible hearsay and is a “theatrical” production that exploits Jackson to attract TV viewers.

Bashir’s film came at a time when Michael did not even have any accusers (the Arvizos thought of their story much later), but nevertheless Barbara Walters already saw fit to trash Michael Jackson on the basis of Bashir’s speculations alone.

Isn’t it interesting that when Dylan Farrow speaks out against Woody Allen and never wavers in her story for 20 years, Barbara Walters tells people to never mind, but when Michael did not even have an accuser and all of it was just Bashir’s speculation, the same Barbara Walters fell over herself to condemn Michael?

An even more cynical approach to Woody Allen’s situation was displayed by a certain Joyce Carol Oates, who implied that even if Allen’s behavior was unconscionable it should not affect his brilliant career (and ability to earn money of course) as one thing has nothing to do with the other:

Woody Allen may have behaved unconscionably as a person/step-father–but it isn’t clear what this has to do with his often brilliant films.— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) February 02, 2014

Our old friend Diane Dimond also suddenly called on the public to be “not so fast” and “know real facts before reaching an opinion”. She referred us to the apologetic story by Woody Allen’s biographer Robert Weide as a ‘must read’ though his version tells us only a tiny fraction of the story:

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

For 20 years Diane Dimond has been slinging mud at Michael Jackson, reporting non-existent ‘love letters’, an ‘explicit’ video tape and crazy ideas like who ‘rubbed’ whom in fictional molestation acts inspired by her best source, a suspect deviant Victor Gutierrez – and now this champion of high morals is suddenly disregarding the graphic details of Dylan’s sexual assault for the sole reason that it is Woody Allen?


But the final drop that made it all clear was Andrea Peyser whose best name for Michael Jackson has always been “Sicko Freak” and whose writings of a ravaging lunatic in a New York Post column are the classics of the hate genre.

For those who don’t know Andrea Peyser , let me quote her calling MJ “an accused serial pedophile” who “abandoned a pet chimpanzee when the beast reached puberty” (got the hint?) and “hated the skin in which he lived” and died “with enough drugs in his system to fell a small village” and was “the felled pop ruin” and “amoral walking skeleton” who “would not be welcome in a sewer”.

And all this in just a couple of paragraphs as a tribute to the star!

Famous Woody Allen's quotes. "I'm due back in town. I have this masturbation class. If I'm not there, they start without me"

Famous Woody Allen’s quotes. “I’m due back in town. I have this masturbation class. If I’m not there, they start without me”

However now that this little problem with Woody Allen arose she has started lecturing Mia Farrow on the need to let go of her hatred and is telling us to leave Woody Allen alone:

It’s time to leave Woody Allen alone….

Woody, a self-described claustrophobe, led her to a cramped attic… So is Woody Allen the lowest form of human excrement — a child molester? …No. I don’t believe it’s true, although I think Dylan does.

It seems no coincidence that the letter spilled onto the Web about a month before the Oscars ceremony in Los Angeles, where Woody has a shot at being honored for his cinematic brilliance…. Now seems a good time for Mia… to enlist her daughter in her scorched-earth revenge campaign against Woody.

So the holder of ‘cinematic brilliance’ is ‘a self-described claustrophobe’ and this is why he couldn’t do it, and all this is just a ‘scorched-earth revenge campaign’?


At this point I recalled a couple of little details. For example, the fact that Andrea Peysner is a close relative to Evan Chandler, the father of Michael Jackson’s accuser as she admitted in one of her articles (which is naturally no longer available on the Internet, but hit the news after Michael’s death).

I also recalled that Evan Chandler said in that notable telephone conversation of his that “everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved. 

So there was a certain plan that was not just his and there were other people involved in it too.

I also remembered that the news of Woody Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi and his alleged sexual assault of a 7-year old became known exactly prior to Michael Jackson’s scandal, and that the media was exceptionally quiet about this news (especially about Dylan) and all of it was happily shifted into oblivion once the allegations against Michael Jackson broke out.

It also occurred to me that it was absolutely in Woody Allen’s interests to quietly disappear from public view while all media attention went into the direction of a much bigger scandal – which was made bigger by the media as the allegations against Woody Allen were no less spectacular than those against MJ and the evidence against Allen was far more convincing than the one in Jordan Chandler’s case (actually there was none there).  

You will agree that the sexual abuse of a 7-year old who volunteered this information herself is a much bigger story than the allegations of a boy twice that age who began accusing Michael only after much pressure from his father and made absolutely crucial mistakes in his descriptions too.

However for some reason Michael’s story turned into a worldwide witch hunt which lasted forever, while Woody Allen’s thing was almost immediately forgotten and was revived only due to Dylan’s insistence and fortitude.

The idea that Woody Allen had a certain means at his disposal for … well … things like diverting attention from himself came to me after reading Dylan Farrow’s second public letter where she says that Woody Allen had an ‘arsenal of lawyers and publicists’ and that for the past 20 years he has been ‘leveling a legalese, distortions and outright lies’ after he promised her and her mother a vicious ‘media campaign’ by his people.

Here is Dylan’s second letter:

Dylan Farrow fires back against Woody Allen

Jayme Deerwester, USA TODAY

12:38 p.m. EST February 8, 2014

Dylan Farrow has fired the latest volley in her war of words with adoptive father Woody Allen.

On Friday, Allen wrote an op-ed in The New York Times, arguing that his former partner Mia Farrow had coached Dylan to say he abused their daughter during their high-profile split in 1992 in retaliation for his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, the daughter she adopted with former husband Andre.

“I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life,” Farrow said, responding via The Hollywood Reporter.

She dismissed his account as nothing more than ‘the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years.”

She also takes issue with his claims that he passed a lie detector test: “In fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence).”

She points toward a 1992 ruling by the New York Supreme Court, which ruled that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen’s resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

She concluded, “Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised.

I won’t let the truth be buried and I won’t be silenced.”

So this Woody Allen guy was powerful enough to promise Mia and Dylan a media campaign by his lawyers and publicists in 1993 and has been doing it for 20 years and has a whole arsenal of people to do the job?

Looking at the way Barbara Walters and Andrea Peysner are defending Allen now would it be a big stretch of imagination to think that they may also be a part of his arsenal?

I definitely have a premonition that the MJ and Woody Allen cases are somehow connected – maybe in a roundabout way, by way of distraction and putting out fire in one place and igniting it elsewhere with the idea to take the heat off one person and put it on another.

And Michael’s own suspicions about who was doing it to him voiced in his song “They Don’t Care About Us” where the original lyrics were totally scandalous are suggesting something of the kind too.

Famous Woody Allen's quotes: "If God exists

Famous Woody Allen’s quotes: “If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse”

One of our readers noted about it:

 “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 reply to Susanne’s comment the reader Lopsided man said:

In 1996, J. Randy Taraborelli appeared on Hard Copy to talk about MTV and VH1′s decision to ban the They Don’t Care About Us 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 Taraborelli said 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 [They Don’t Care About Us lyrics]. Those remarks have really come back to haunt Michael Jackson.” – [Hard Copy; April 23, 1996]

I also love all races and nationalities as each of us has something unique to contribute to the common pot and the input of Jewish people is incomparable to anyone else’s (remember Christ) –  and all of us are a single body anyway where the left arm cannot fight the right arm – however Michael Jackson initially said what he said and this can mean that his own investigators could have reported something to him which we are unaware of, and whether we like it or not we have to take it into account.

Before you start throwing stones at me, let me change the subject.

Since the other side of Woody Allen’s story was scarcely reported by the press we need to learn the real facts of his case and compare them with the way media presented them to the public.


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.

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.

February 1993:

Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges : Custody: She tells Allen’s lawyers the actress pressured her to support molestation accusations against him. She says others have reservations.


NEW YORK — Lawyers for Woody Allen said Monday that a former nanny who worked for Mia Farrow has testified she was pressured by the actress to support charges that the filmmaker molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter.

The nanny, Monica Thompson, resigned from the Farrow household on Jan. 25 after being subpoenaed in the bitter custody battle between the actress and Allen. She told Allen’s lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple’s other adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation.

Authorities in Connecticut are viewing a videotape made by Farrow as part of their investigation, which has included interviews with Allen and Farrow as well as the daughter, named Dylan.

Farrow’s attorney, Eleanor Alter, issued a statement Monday saying, “It is my understanding . . . that Ms. Thompson has totally recanted” the statements attributed to her. She noted that Thompson’s salary, upwards of $40,000 a year, was paid by Allen. Thompson could not be reached for comment.

Thompson said in a deposition that it took the actress two or three days to videotape Dylan making the accusations. At times the youngster appeared not to be interested in the process, the nanny said in sworn affidavits taken by Allen’s attorneys.

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.”

Thompson, who had worked for Farrow for seven years, said she was not present in Connecticut the day last August the incident now under scrutiny by authorities allegedly occurred.

Thompson said the day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, the actress took Dylan to the doctor.

“When they arrived home, Farrow said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor.’ On Thursday, she took Dylan back to the doctor. When they arrived home, Farrow told me that ‘everything is OK now–everything is set.’

Thompson told Allen’s lawyers that Farrow, upon returning from the second doctor’s visit, seemed “very happy and excited for herself.”

Thompson said that the next day Kristie Groteke, Dylan’s baby-sitter, drove her to the bus, and her fellow employee was “very upset.”

“She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”

“Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan,” Thompson charged. “For several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.”

The nanny said that on several occasions the actress “asked me if I would be ‘on her side.’ Ms. Farrow has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.”

Thompson added that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, another child Allen and Farrow adopted, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place.

“Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Thompson said in an affidavit.

The bitter custody battle between Allen and Farrow has been under way since last summer.

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.”

She charged that about three years ago she witnessed Farrow slap Moses across the face because he could not find the dog’s leash.

“The other children were horrified and told their mother that it could not have been Moses who lost the leash,” the nanny said. “Farrow told the children that it was not their place to comment on the incident. The children were scared of their mother and did not like to confide in her because they were afraid of what her reactions might be.”

“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.”

Allen, 57, and Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, 22, one of Farrow’s adopted daughters from her former marriage to conductor Andre Previn, have acknowledged that they are lovers.

And here is an excerpt from the judge’s order about the 15-year old Moses and what he really said at the time:

Moses's letter

Moses’s letter

“Moses handed to Mr. Allen a letter that he had written. It states:

… you can’t force me to live with you… You have done a horrible, unforgivable, needy, ugly, stupid thing…

…about seeing me for lunch, you can just forget about that.. we didn’t do anything wrong.. .All you did is spoil the little ones, Dylan and Satchel…

…Every one knows not to have an affair with your son’s sister… I don’t consider you my father anymore. It was a great feeling having a father, but you smashed that feeling and dream with a single act.


Mr. Allen responded to this letter by attempting to wrest custody of Moses from his mother. His rationale is that the letter was generated by Ms. Farrow. Moses told Dr. Brodzinsky that he wrote the letter and that he did not intend for it to be seen by his mother.”

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.

Seeking their own pleasure is their main driving force and they don’t see reason why any barriers should be set for checking their striving for it.  By the way when I looked up the review of one of Woody Allen’s films it said that its main character (portrayed by Allen) was suffering from “anhedonia” which means “inability to feel pleasure”. Given that all Allen’s films reflect his own inner problems and are actually a self-analysis process, the inability to derive pleasure from whatever he tries is definitely an issue with this man.

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.

The question "What do you need a custody for" drew a a rambling reply

The question “Why are you seeking custody  of your children?” drew a a rambling reply from Woody Allen

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. (I’m even afraid to think what would have happened to Dylan if Woody Allen had won the case).

Excerpts from the article:

Woody Allen Says Report Clears Him

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.

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"

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.

Woody Allen and Dylan FarrowMs. 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

Woody Allen holds Dylan, Leningrad 1987

Woody Allen holds Dylan 1

In 1991 Dylan was a girl big enough to walk on her own, so why the need to hold her in his arms and in this strange manner too?

In 1991 Dylan was a girl big enough to walk on her own, so why the need to hold her in his arms and in this strange manner too?

Holding her like that is a repeated pattern with Allen. Photo: Getty images

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 May 1993 New York Times article says that Dr. Leventhal (hired by Woody Allen) interviewed the poor little 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

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 judge wasn't impressed by the report of the Yale-New Haven tean

The judge wasn’t impressed by the report of the Yale-New Haven team and deposition of Dr. Leventhal

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.

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. Herman was critical of the Yale-New Haven report

Dr. Herman was critical of the Yale-New Haven report

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.

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

Dylan's story has not changed for 2 decades. The judge found no evidence of coaching.

Dylan’s story has not changed for 2 decades. The judge found no evidence of coaching.

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:— 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.—

Obama's former speechwriter: "This is from the court ruling. The attack that the abuse is some planted memory requires ignoring other witnesses."

Obama’s former speechwriter: “This is from the court ruling. The attack that the abuse is some planted memory requires ignoring other witnesses.”

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

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.”

An excerpt from the court's ruling:

An excerpt from the court’s ruling: “She saw him and Soon –Yi having sex. Her reporting was childlike but graphic.”

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…”

“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]

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.


From the previous post you already know that Prosecutor Frank Maco had the misfortune to call Dylan a “child victim” (instead of a “complainant”) on one occasion and this cost him a mini trial by a disciplinary commission. To the state budget it cost $250,000 to defend him there.

Each of us remembers how many times Tom Sneddon said the same about Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo though in the first case there weren’t any charges made and in the second the complainant was not proven to be a “victim” either – however not a single legal expert paid attention to Sneddon’s innaccurate vocabulary and this takes the double standards problem even to a higher and more sinister level than we expected before.

The Vanity Fair article of 2013 cites two episodes in Woody Allen’s case describing the pressure law enforcement bodies were subjected to.

The “case” of State Attorney Frank Marco was taken to two commissions and after it was dismissed there it went to a superior body where the dismissal was overturned just by one vote, after which a mini-trial followed:

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.

Woody Allen says that all he has in life is his imagination

Woody Allen’s famous quotes : “All I have in life is my imagination”

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. [which is a body superior to the local panel – VMJ]

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, an official of the Child Welfare Administration said that his office was pressed by the City Hall [the Mayor of the city] to drop the case. It was also from the archive of the Child Welfare Administration that Woody Allen’s file eventually disappeared.

So now not only the notes of the Yale team were destroyed but the file made by the authorities was no longer available either?

I don’t know about you but to me the documents vanishing one after another convey the idea that Woody Allen’s team of lawyers and publicists was powerful enough to erase all traces of the evidence against him.

But if they were powerful enough to destroy one case, it means that they were equally powerful to build it up around another person – Michael Jackson, for example. Arranging leaks of the allegations against him in the media could be child’s play for these people, same as orchestrating a furious witch-hunt to distract attention from the guy they were so keen to protect from similar allegations.

You understand that all this is a hypothesis only, but it grows on me with every new fact uncovered about the truly mysterious way Woody Allen’s story was handled by the authorities and the extremely biased way the media was reporting the case to the public.

Vanity Fair of 2013 explains in more detail what happened to the Dylan Farrow evidence gathered by the Child Welfare Administration and its honored caseworker Paul Williams:

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.

An excerpt from Woody Allen's film: "

A sample of Woody Allen’s humor from one of his films. The kid is saying: “I used to be a heroin addict, now I’m a methadone addict”. Funny?

In addition to all that Woody Allen also 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.”

The forces employed by Woody Allen in 1993 indeed remind us of a little war or a big security type operation. And it didn’t get lost on us either that the former Obama speechwriter also called Woody Allen “a powerful man” and this person probably knows what he is talking about.

Actually as long ago as in the year 1976 the People’s article already reported that Woody Allen had important connections. And that he was “friends with the mighty” and “had access to the most privileged”. And that the fantasies of this self-admitted neurotic had “only to be named to come true”.

An excerpt from it:

My only regret in life

“My only regret in life is that I am not someone else” Woody Allen

October 04, 1976  Vol. 6 No. 14

Angst-Ridden Humorist

Allen has friends among the mighty and access to the most privileged.

Last year, for example, he escorted Betty Ford to a Martha Graham dance benefit. “We’re just good friends,” he cracked at the time of his date with the President’s wife. (Now he finds Jimmy Carter the “far superior” candidate.)

By any measurement Woody Allen is Walter Mitty, whose fantasies have only to be named to come true. Yet Woody glumly describes himself as “a neurotic personality prone to depressions and anxieties all the time.”

After 20 years of Freudian psychoanalysis he has succeeded only in reducing his sessions from five to three a week. “I cannot conceive of living without it,” he groans, “but it hasn’t helped as much as I’d hoped. In the normal things that trouble everybody—meeting new people, crowds, shyness, human relationships—I haven’t made much progress at all.”,,20066950,00.html

Frankly, all of the above makes Woody Allen look like an all-too-powerful magnate and not just a neurotic film director who is just making ‘brilliant’ films.


Brilliant or not but Woody Allen’s films are telling us much more than he would care to admit. I don’t remember if I have seen any of his films, but some journalists have finally guessed to rewatch several of them and were aghast at what they saw there.

For example:

A Brief History of Woody Allen Being Creepy About Young Girls

2/4/2014 at 7:35 PM

By Joe Coscarelli

In light of Sunday’s open letter from Dylan Farrow, which resurfaced allegations that her adoptive father Woody Allen sexually assaulted her at age 7, the Internet continues to dig up disturbing stories about the celebrated writer and director’s relationship with children.

A fragment of Soon-Yi's photo reclining on the sofa with her legs spread

A fragment of Soon-Yi’s pornographic photo  found by Mia Farrow.  The girl was 17 and was  photographed reclining on the sofa with her legs spread

Farrow coming forward follows a campaign by her mother, Mia, and brother, Ronan, to shine a brighter light on the accusations against Allen in the early nineties, around the time he left Mia for another of her adoptive daughters, Soon-Yi Previn, resulting in a hideous custody battle. Once considered tabloid scripture, the upsetting specifics had been largely forgotten, or overlooked, but no longer.

It’s all resurfacing now.

The details of the allegations against Allen, which never resulted in criminal charges, are reported in the 1992 Vanity Fair article “Mia’s Story,” by Maureen Orth, which begins, “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.” A similar New York story from the same period,“Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Woody and Mia (But Were Afraid to Ask),” by Phoebe Hoban, includes additional background and back-and-forth from the pair’s friends and attorneys:

From the start, Farrow’s friends say, Allen seemed “obsessed” by the little girl. He would arrive at Mia’s house at six in the morning and sit on the end of Dylan’s bed, staring at her until she woke up. He insisted that she be kept up until he got home in the evening to tuck her in. He was reluctant to leave her alone at school. His behavior struck several parents of other children as odd.

A follow-up in Vanity Fair late last year, “Momma Mia!,” repeats the allegations. (A defense of Allen, by the filmmaker behind Woody Allen: A Documentary is here.)

But a deeper look into the archives has turned up additional interviews and anecdotes suddenly deemed relevant. For instance, in the October 4, 1976 issue of People magazine, a 40-year-old Woody Allen, pre-Annie Hall, is profiled.It concludes on an upsetting-in-retrospect note about his sexuality (and disinterest in fatherhood):

“I try to have sex only with women I like a lot,” Woody explains solemnly. “Otherwise I find it fairly mechanical.” (He has little interest in family life: “It’s no accomplishment to have or raise kids. Any fool can do it.”)

He goes on: “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.” Allen pauses. “Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone,“he ventures helplessly. “I admit to it all.”

Also of note is a personal essay, published in May of 1993, by the writer Nancy Jo Sales, formerly of New York and now at Vanity Fair, titled “Woody Allen, My Pen Pal,” about her running correspondence with Allen, then 42, when she was a 13-year-old girl. “I don’t know how he found the time to respond to that first letter I wrote,” she recalls.

A few weeks later I received his reply:

Dear Nancy,

Hard to believe you’re 13! When I was 13 I couldn’t dress myself, and here you write about one of life’s deepest philosophical problems, i.e., existential boredom. I guess it’s hard for me to imagine a 13-year-old quoting anything but Batman — but T. Mann? Anyway, there’s too much wrong with the world to ever get too relaxed and happy. The more natural state, and the better one, I think, is one of some anxiety and tension over man`s plight in this mysterious universe …

Next time you write, if you ever do, please list some of the books you’ve enjoyed and movies, and which music you’ve liked, and also the things you dislike and have no patience with. And tell me what kind of place Coral Gables is. What school do you go to? What hobbies do you have? How old are your parents and what do they do? What are your moods like? Are you energetic? Are you an early riser? Are you “into clothes” … At the moment, I am re- filming some parts of my next film, which have not come out so good.

Best, Woody.

Sales, 25 years later, writes that in light of the Previn scandal and Allen’s “alleged yen for underage girls, I have listened to all the Woody jokes with discomfort and outrage — because I wonder if they are also, somehow, on me. I prefer to think they aren’t”.

…The two met once at Allen’s Manhattan penthouse; Sales brought “two older companions”:

I couldn’t say a word, and my companions filled in the silence with aimless chatter while Woody, wearing his very same clothes from Annie Hall, sat Indian-style in an armchair, nodding politely and trying to catch my eye.

Often discounted in the recent hysteria surrounding adult/child relations are the very real romantic fancies entertained by developing girls. Perhaps sometimes girls make too much of them; I think Woody saw that in me the day we met.

Our visit was brief, and when it was time to go I looked into his eyes. “Goodbye,” they said sadly.

Honeymoon hotel - a child molestation jokeThe New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum also dug up a child-molestation joke, uncomfortably similar to the details alleged by Dylan Farrow, from the Allen play Honeymoon Hotel, in which an older man runs off with his son’s bride:

FAY: I was a little girl. I had an Uncle Shlomo

NINA: Oh Mom!

FAY: Three fingers, he tried to molest me. Suddenly, three fingers I feel fondling me—

JUDY: What’s the three fingers got to do with it?

FAY: It’s hard to explain, but most people get groped by five.

SAM (to FAY): At least you were molested. I didn’t have sex till I was twenty-five—you were the first one.

According to a recent review, “the comedy is so clever that only in the final moments one realizes what a muddled character the philandering husband really is. Could Allen have borrowed the idea from his own reality?” Esquire has also collected the “newly chilling themes that you can see throughout his movies.”

None of which, of course, is evidence. But Allen’s art, as well as his public persona and pen-pal relationships, are being closely examined with new eyes, as they were when the pre-Internet allegations were first made public.

“It’s as if, like the picture of Dorian Grey, Allen’s films served as his conscience, leaving him free to misbehave in three dimensions,” wrote Phoebe Hoban in New York almost 22 years ago.

“All those elbow-nudging jokes about child molestation (the subject pops up in at least four of his films) and the permutations of sex with 16-year-old twins don’t seem quite so funny anymore.

Another example:

Re-Watching Woody Allen

The newly-chilling themes that you can see throughout his movies

By Stephen Marche on February 4, 2014

MICKEY: Why all of a sudden is the sketch dirty?

ED: Child molestation is a touchy subject, and the affiliates…

MICKEY: Read the papers, half the country’s doing it!

The above is from an early scene in Woody Allen’s 1986 film, Hannah and Her Sisters. I’ve been thinking about it since reading Dylan Farrow’s essay in The New York Times, accusing her adoptive father of molesting her when she was a child. The allegations are nothing new. Nobody except Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen knows what happened in that attic, and no one else ever will. But the sheer vividness with which Farrow recounts the experience, as well as the forum in which she does so, is enough to make even the most ardent fan reevaluate an artist’s entire body of work, especially one as personal as Allen’s.

So what happens when you go looking for evidence of sex crimes in Woody Allen movies? If you look, you find it, again, and again, and again.

Manhattan, 1979

“She is gorgeous” . Manhattan, 1979

Take this scene from Manhattan, when the Allen character, Isaac, introduces his new girlfriend to his friends.

YALE: Jesus, she’s gorgeous.

ISAAC: But she’s seventeen. I’m forty-two and she’s seventeen. I’m older than her father. Do you believe that? I’m dating a girl wherein I can beat up her father. That’s the first time that phenomenon ever occurred in my life.

..ISAAC: My second ex-wife is writing a book about our marriage and the breakup…It’s really depressing. You know she’s going to give all those details out, all my little idiosyncrasies and my quirks and mannerisms. Not that I have anything to hide because, you know…but there are a few disgusting little moments that I regret. 

How are we supposed to read “a few disgusting little moments that I regret” when Isaac is dating a girl still in high school?

And what are we to make of the scene in Love and Death (1975), in which the wise Father Andre tells the Allen character,

“I have lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is … blond twelve-year-old girls. Two of them, whenever possible”?

Incestuous themes—stated or implicit—seethe throughout the whole of Allen's career.

Incestuous themes—stated or implicit—seethe throughout the whole of Allen’s career.

Or this exchange from Stardust Memories (1980), in which the Allen character, Sandy, hints at incest when talking with his lover Dorrie about her father?

SANDY: What about you? Did you have a little crush on him? You can admit this to me if you like.

DORRIE: Sure, we had a little flirting.

SANDY: A little small flirt? Mother away getting shock treatment, and the only beautiful daughter home. Long lingering breakfasts with Dad.

In a later scene, Sandy and Dorrie have the following argument, while in the background a large newspaper headline on a wall reads “Incest between father’s…”

SANDY: I’m not attracted to her. What are you talking about?

DORRIE: Staring at her all through dinner. Giving each other looks.

SANDY: Stop it. She’s fourteen. She’s not even fourteen. She’s thirteen and a half.

DORRIE: I don’t care. I used to play those games with my father, so I know. I’ve been through all that.

SANDY: What games? You think I’m flirting with your kid cousin?

DORRIE: You smile at her.

SANDY: Yeah, I smile at her. I’m a friendly person. What do you want? She’s a kid. This is stupid. I don’t want to have this conversation.

DORRIE: Don’t tell me it’s stupid. I used to do that with my father across the table. All those private jokes. I know.

virginThat idea: that sexual exploitation and education are conjoined also runs through the Allen canon.

In Whatever Works (2009), the Allen character (played by Larry David) marries a childlike twenty-one-year-old, returning to the basic romantic situation that has motivated Allen’s work from the beginning, and which you can see even in Annie Hall (1977): A man educates the women he sleeps with. He raises them. Once they’re raised, he’s no longer interested.

So what are we supposed to do? … Separating the quality of the art from the life of the artist is necessary for anyone who wants to enjoy anything.

But with Woody Allen, such a separation is impossible, because his movies are so thoroughly about himself, and about his own condition, and, as it turns out, the moral universe in which he exists—one in which there is no expectation of justice. Consider the final conversation in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), in which the main character, Judah, tells his story of getting away with a terrible crime, disguising it as a movie he’s pitching:

JUDAH: People carry awful deeds around with them. What do you expect him to do, turn himself in? This is reality. In reality, we rationalize. We deny or we couldn’t go on living.

What the hell have we been watching all this time?

Full story:

Indeed, what the hell have you been watching all this time?


Never in my life will I agree that art is separate from what’s inside the mind and soul of its author. A person writes what he is thinking about – he simply cannot write about things that are beyond his interests or understanding. And it is not even the subject itself which is so telling but the thoughts communicated by the author to his audience which are so crucial here.

Speaking of child molestation Woody Allen shrugs his shoulders and tells us that “half the country does that”.

And it isn’t just an occasional statement of his – throughout his art he returns to it again and again, each time making dirty jokes and sounding as if molesting children were a routine matter half the country is doing and something that is probably not even without a positive effect on a seduced minor. “It is all so romantic, you know”.

Mj and childIn contrast to Allen, for Michael Jackson in whose face the word “molestation” was thrown probably a million times, the phenomenon itself was so dirty that he couldn’t bring himself to even pronounce the word.

Rewatch his interviews, reread the lyrics of his songs, listen to his depositions once again and you will realize that he cannot make himself even speak about it, not to mention making light-hearted jokes about the matter or attempts to romanticise it.

In fact you won’t be able to find a single trace of dirt in his songs.  What he sings he does mean, and what he doesn’t mean he doesn’t sing about.

Actually this is what he himself said: “Whatever I sing that’s what I really mean, I keep singing a song. I don’t sing it if I don’t mean it”.

So if you know Michael’s art you can be sure that you also know him.

Vilified as he was he could be well expected to shy away from raising the sensitive subject of child abuse, however he did not, only his ideas were the exact opposite of Allen’s and he expressed them in a totally different way.

He didn’t laugh at the phenomenon, but screamed about it and called on people to protect children from this horrible ill.

Look at the lyrics of his Do you know where you children are? song where a twelve year old girl is abused by her step-father and runs away from home only to get into the hands of a pimp –  and you will see that it is a SOS cry from Jackson for the people to wake up and do something about it.

Michael Jackson: "Whatever I sing that's what I really mean, I keep singing a song. I don't sing it if I don't mean it" . So if you know Michael's ART you actually know HIM.

Michael Jackson: “Whatever I sing that’s what I really mean, I keep singing a song. I don’t sing it if I don’t mean it” . So if you know Michael’s ART you actually know HIM.

Michael Jacksons and Woody Allen shared the same reality but lived in the worlds that never cross.

Michael Jackson’s universe was about love and care for children, about burning tabloids and doing away with human greed, about no place for racial and social injustice, about solving really important problems like doctors who don’t know how to treat and teachers who don’t know how to teach (instead of tripping on him), about support for all people and holding hands with them, about seeking truth and hoping that one day all this mystery ends, about the splendour and miracle of nature and his dream to preserve it for our children, about love for a woman and the magic of it, about looking in the mirror and changing yourself and the world, about the need for us to be God’s glow and about our Father whom he implored to help and fulfil what we were promised.  Did I forget anything?

This is what he was thinking about as is testified by his art. And how dramatically different it is for the cynical Woody Allen, in whose films even a respected priest approached for spiritual guidance says that the deepest secret of life he finally learned after all the troubles and tribulations of it is “blond twelve-year-old girls, two of them, whenever possible”!

This is no joke, guys. Actually it is an insult to lots of things still meaningful to many of us. It is all-around cynicism and the mockery of human values evidently regarded as pointless and unnecessary in life. No ethics, no restraint, no respect for the Heavens – nothing but a declaration of pleasure-seeking as the only goal worth living for. And also an occasional motif of doubting himself and his own preaching,  fighting his inner self and going back on his words.

When someone tells me that truth is unattainable all I can say in reply is that it is the worst of all possible fallacies. The recipe for finding out the truth about people is simple – look at the ideas they bring into the world and you will know who they are.

The irony of Woody Allen’s case is that he was talking about his demons absolutely openly. They say that if you want to hide something put it in everyone’s view and no one will notice it. It is indeed incredible that up till now no one noticed that Allen was openly testing the public for the amount of his cynicism it would be able to swallow. This may even be a method, guys – if you can’t restrain yourself despite decades of psychoanalysis, you can adjust the world to your way of thinking and then it is no problem as everyone will be like you …

Mj and children1Michael was the opposite of Allen. He was a pure and innocent soul and if anyone is still in doubt remember what Michael only recently, prior to his tour, talked about when he was put under sedation by Conrad Murray:

JACKSON: I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital. Gonna have a movie theater, game room. Children are depressed. The –in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.

MURRAY: I know you would.

JACKSON: I’m gonna do that for them. That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them, because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt. I can deal with it. “Heal the World,” “We are the World,” “Will You be There,” “The Lost Children.” These are the songs I’ve written because I hurt, you know, I hurt.

Or remember Uri Geller who went so far as to test Michael’s words under hypnosis. And under hypnosis a person is unable to lie and even despite his will reveals the deepest of his subconscious self. However the only thing Michael did reveal to Geller was that he had an absolutely blameless soul.

Here is a video where Uri Geller speaks about hypnotizing Michael and the reason why he did it. It was after Michael had paid out money in a settlement agreement with the Chandlers and Geller took the opportunity to test Michael’s true motives for it.

And Michael simply said to him that he had had so much of it that he wanted it to go away. He had been tortured for so long that couldn’t take it any more. He had had enough.


Michael Jackson welcomes thousands of children to his home, often without their parents present. And within five years he was the subject of the allegations of abuse that would follow him for the rest of his life.

The star vehemently denied abusing teenager Jordie Chandler and the case was settled out of court when the family accepted a 18 million pound settlement [actually it was $15,3 mln].

One friend of Jackson’s says the star was innocent of this first allegation of abuse made against him because he couldn’t help but tell him the truth.

URI GELLER: In a darkened studio he suddenly asks me, “Uri, this food that I crave for, can you stop me from eating it?” It was very light- hearted. And I said to him, “Well” and I was a hypnotist in Israel, “will you allow me to hypnotize you?”

And he says, “Wow, can you really do it?” And I said, “Okay”.

And then I hypnotized him. Very deeply. I put him into a very deep trance. And then I did something highly unethical – which I admit today. While he was under a trance I suddenly asked him, and these were the words, “Michael, did you ever touch a child in an inappropriate manner?”

And Michael Jackson immediately answered back and he says, “No, I would never do that!”

And then I asked him immediately, “Why did you pay Jordie Chandler off – millions of dollars?”

And he answered, immediately, “I couldn’t take it any more. I had enough”.

So to me this was a personal validation that this man is innocent.MJ and girl

This man was innocent….

Some ideas on Woody Allen’s mind were so intense that he couldn’t help raising them again and again and often paraded them quite openly.

However the same ideas were so alien to Michael Jackson that he didn’t reveal any even when someone searched for them in the deep of his subconscious.

And you said that we cannot know the truth.

44 Comments leave one →
  1. Mado permalink
    February 13, 2014 7:49 pm



  2. Nan permalink
    February 13, 2014 9:10 pm

    Excellent article..I had a conversation with someone the other day regarding separating an artist from their art .
    You can not do it..Michael art speaks for itself , Heal the World , We are the World , Earth Song…All these things speak to the soul of the artist.
    He would have had to have been the biggest fraud on the planet , to write those songs and have sinister intentions
    And that is why , for, heaven only knows, what reason ,Conrad murray was taping him , after drugging him, MJ was talking about using his talents and his art to make money to build a hospital to help sick children , never to take advantage of them in any way , shape or form.
    Most naturally, because this was the entire point of his art , to do good works , help others, save the planet ..respect respect respect ..
    The world has been duped by the tabloids and we lost one of the most pure people who ever walked the Earth.
    Thank you for writing this ..I dont like to jump to conclusions about anyone after what MJ was put through, but these instances of Woody dialogue, in his movies is very unnerving.


  3. Nan permalink
    February 13, 2014 9:12 pm

    ever to take advantage of them in any way , shape or form.

    this should read NEVER, not ever


  4. February 14, 2014 12:13 am

    Oprah Winfrey (who has been very unfair to Michael) loves to quote the poet Maya Angelou who says, “When people show you who they are, believe them.” In film after film, Woody Allen has shown us exactly who he is. He can’t take it back; like all artists, it’s part and parcel of his art – he has an obsessive sexual fixation with very young girls. Of course he could have such a fixation without acting on it. (But given his track record, with Stacey Nelkin, and Soon-Yi Previn, that seems unlikely.)

    Much has been made of the fact that, at seven years of age, Dylan Farrow was too young to have been sexually interesting to Woody Allen, and that while it is distasteful, there’s nothing illegal about old men being attracted to much younger females. But perhaps it is the transgressive nature of the relationships which is the major turn-on for Allen, more than the age or physicality of the girls. Of course by allegedly molesting one daughter, and bedding and then marrying another, Woody was able to inflict extraordinary pain on Mia Farrow, for reasons that have yet to be explored.


  5. February 14, 2014 5:14 am

    “In film after film, Woody Allen has shown us exactly who he is. He can’t take it back; like all artists, it’s part and parcel of his art – he has an obsessive sexual fixation with very young girls. Of course he could have such a fixation without acting on it.” – VC

    VC, I think that Woody Allen is a deeply troubled man and this is manifested at least by the many years of psychoanalysis he has gone through. However the same also shows that whatever problems he has he is trying to beat them.

    Seductions and temptations. Sometimes he can cope with them, sometimes he can’t.


  6. February 14, 2014 6:11 am

    I had a conversation with someone the other day regarding separating an artist from their art. You can not do it. Michael’s art speaks for itself, Heal the World , We are the World , Earth Song… All these things speak to the soul of the artist.- Nan

    Nan, yes, Michael’s art speaks for itself. I couldn’t write about it because Michael’s legacy is so big and so pure that if you want to talk about it you need to write a book. But people can make these comparison themselves. The purity of Michael’s art always amazed me as its most striking feature. This is why all of us feel elevated after listening to his songs – he takes us on a road to ascension, while Allen’s art, I’m afraid, is taking us on a downward road.

    Allen probably doesn’t mean it that way – he is simply expressing his inner self, but this is where the whole problem is. When you look into someone’s dark or troubled soul you simply have to follow it where it is taking you, especially if the process is entertaining, funny or romantic.

    I don’t remember any of Woody Allen’s films but I did see some episodes – for example, this piece from Woody Allen’s “Manhattan”:


  7. February 14, 2014 7:26 am

    Here is another piece from Woody Allen’s “Love and Death” where a well-respected old priest, who is approached for spiritual advice, says “I’ve lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I’ve come to the conclusion that the best thing is … blond twelve-year-old girls. Two of them, whenever possible.”

    This is a funny ridicule of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and their attempts to seek God and spiritual essence of life. Well, making fun of moral barriers has always been the best way to break them. And the piece is indeed funny, no denying it. If I were not that abhorred I would even like it.

    However the question is – would Michael Jackson have got away with it if this had been said by a character in his video?


  8. February 14, 2014 8:52 am

    Regarding the fact that Art is inseparable from the Artist I’ve found Michael saying exactly the same about himself:

    “Whatever I sing that’s what I really mean, I keep singing a song. I don’t sing it if I don’t mean it” – Michael Jackson

    So if you know Michael’s art you also know him.

    I’ve added it to the post.


  9. February 15, 2014 1:04 am

    Connecticut prosecutor Frank S. Maco is so angry about Woody Allen’s NY Times piece, where Allen describes him as “champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case”, he’s considering suing:

    Here’s a very telling comment from the article:

    “If you watch Hannah and Her Sisters, there’s a line where Woody is complaining that the censor wanted to pull one of his sketches, Allen’s retort is “child molestation–everyone is doing it.” In Crimes and Misdemeanors near the end of the film, Allen quips “The last time I was inside a woman was the Statue of Liberty,” but then he jump cuts to a little girl about 6 years old standing next to a wedding cake. I always found that cut very disturbing. Is he essentially bragging that he molested a little girl?”

    And the reply:

    “That little girl by the cake is, in fact, Dylan Farrow.

    It’s even creepier than you thought.”


  10. February 15, 2014 4:22 am

    Connecticut prosecutor Frank S. Maco is so angry about Woody Allen’s NY Times piece, where Allen describes him as “champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case”, he’s considering suing: – VC

    VC, thank you very much. A very interesting new development on the story. I find it especially interesting that the New York Times refused to publish Frank Maco’s response to Woody Allen.

    First the LA Times refused to publish Dylan Farrow’s letter, now the NY Times does the same for the former prosecutor – there is definitely a tendency here.

    Woody Allen Enrages Connecticut Prosecutor From Dylan Farrow Case; New York Times Won’t Run Maco’s Response

    Editor’s update: Following the events described below, Frank Maco experienced a sort of double-jeopardy. Based on his outrage over Woody Allen’s oped, he sought to respond. “Notably, when the prosecutor cited in Allen’s op-ed submitted a short statement to The New York Times, the paper rejected it,” freelance writer and Connecticut Magazine contributor Andy Thibault says in his latest column on the situation. The column, published on Valentine’s Day, looks at the Times’ handling of Allen’s oped and the paper’s subsequent response to Maco.

    Frank S. Maco, the former Connecticut prosecutor who found that probable cause existed to file charges against filmmaker Woody Allen for allegedly sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was 7—but did not prosecute out of concern for the impact on Dylan—is expressing outrage over Allen’s “I didn’t do it” missive published by The New York Times.

    Maco said in a Sept. 24, 1993, statement detailing his decision that he found probable cause existed to proceed with charges against Allen, who had been involved in a long relationship with Mia Farrow and allegedly assaulted Dylan in Farrow’s Litchfield County home. But ultimately Maco said he could not initiate a prosecution because of his fears about what the process would do to Dylan.

    Dylan renewed the claims recently, and The New York Times posted Allen’s response last Friday evening—a response that contained the line “The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case … .” That prompted the following statement from Maco today:

    “My name is Frank S. Maco. I served the State of Connecticut for 31 years as a prosecuting attorney, retiring in 2003 as the State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District. My total service in the criminal justice system of the State of Connecticut spanned five decades.
    In 1992 I directed the investigation involving sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen. The location of the alleged incident was Bridgewater, Connecticut, a town within the Litchfield judicial district. The manner in which I conducted myself during that investigation earned me the honor of being nominated by Richard Bozzuto of Watertown, Connecticut for the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 1994. I will forever be grateful for that honor.
    Before being appointed Litchfield State’s Attorney in 1988, I served as a prosecutor in Bridgeport, Connecticut from 1972-1986. I joined the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney in 1986.
    I believe those who knew me and my work prior to 1992 would agree that I was a prosecutor who took a case, tried the case to a conclusion, if necessary, accepted the decision of the judge or a jury, remained silent, and took on my next case. I would only speak publicly when to do less would undermine the community’s confidence in my office, the Connecticut justice system or me personally.

    My outrage today is directed at Woody Allen’s letter to the N.Y. Times describing me as a district attorney “champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case”. The attack upon my character was unprovoked, gratuitous, unwarranted and most importantly, unsupported by my history as a prosecutor. For me to sit silently in the face of this assault would do nothing less than betray the encouragement and support of so many, especially those who stood by me for the better part of five years of my career defending against Allen’s disciplinary complaints–all of which were dismissed.

    In conclusion, my history as a prosecutor was completely opposite to the “headlines seeking” prosecutor that Allen describes.
    Accordingly, in coming days I will consider the wisdom of seeking legal representation in order to further address Allen’s assault upon my character.

    Maco’s handling of the case is chronicled in an extensive 1997 Connecticut Magazine story by veteran journalist Andy Thibault.

    Fast forward to 2013. The old allegations resurfaced after the Golden Globes earlier this year, sparked by Diane Keaton’s ode to Allen and gushing praise about how well he understood women. (Look back at the chain of events and see our 1997 story here.)

    Dylan Farrow renewed the allegations in a letter published online by the Times. Near the beginning, it says:

    “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.”

    The media crush descended on the story again, and then, last Friday evening, the Times posted Allen’s response that has Maco firing back.

    Stay tuned. Meanwhile, read the full Sept. 24, 1993 Statement of Decision by Maco, and our latest update, liking to the 1997 Connecticut Magazine story:

    One of the readers of the article likened Woody Allen to Michael Jackson. I left a comment but it is still under moderation and has not been posted. Here it is:

    I thought this situation with Woody Allen would teach people a little about the innocence of Michael Jackson. Alas…
    Woody Allen spoke of his likings for young girls OPENLY and no one paid attention. Instead people went after Michael Jackson though he didn’t have these ideas even in his SUBCONSCIOUS. Check the tape made by Conrad Murray of Michael Jackson under sedation and see what Michael was talking of there:

    JACKSON: I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital. Gonna have a movie theater, game room. Children are depressed. The –in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.
    MURRAY: I know you would.
    JACKSON: I’m gonna do that for them. That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them, because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt. I can deal with it. “Heal the World,” “We are the World,” “Will You be There,” “The Lost Children.” These are the songs I’ve written because I hurt, you know, I hurt.

    It’s time to finally understand that Michael Jackson was INNOCENT and most probably used by some freaks in Hollywood as a distraction from their own crimes.


  11. February 15, 2014 4:39 am

    Here’s a very telling comment from the article – VC

    “If you watch Hannah and Her Sisters, there’s a line where Woody is complaining that the censor wanted to pull one of his sketches, Allen’s retort is “child molestation–everyone is doing it.” In Crimes and Misdemeanors near the end of the film, Allen quips “The last time I was inside a woman was the Statue of Liberty,” but then he jump cuts to a little girl about 6 years old standing next to a wedding cake. I always found that cut very disturbing. Is he essentially bragging that he molested a little girl?”

    And the reply:

    “That little girl by the cake is, in fact, Dylan Farrow. It’s even creepier than you thought.”

    * * * * *

    VC, this is sensational. So Woody Allen actually shot Dylan Farrow in his film and placed her in that highly dubious context?! It is indeed creepier than all of us thought.

    The film was shot before the 1991 attic incident described by Dylan, but it could show his frame of mind and intentions. And who knows – Dylan was even smaller at that time, so at the age of 4 or 5 she simply could not remember or realized certain things that were done to her.


    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
    Dylan Farrow appears as an extra at the end, as a guest at Rabbi Ben’s daughter’s wedding.


  12. February 15, 2014 5:05 am

    The Statement by Prosecutor Frank Maco where he spoke about the probable cause for bringing charges against Woody Allen was made on September 24, 1993:

    I can bet whatever you like that NO ONE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBLE CAUSE FOR ARREST OF WOODY ALLEN due to he fact that exactly at that moment the media announced the news of the CHANDLERS’ SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON.

    An interesting coincidence.

    Quote from the Statement of Decision by State Attorney Frank Maco:

    As to the allegations contained in the submitted arrest warrant application, I find that probably cause exists. Yet, despite meeting that standard and because of the obvious sensitive nature of any resulting case the risk a child complainant to the rigors, uncertainties and possible traumatization of such actions, I felt further review and consideration was necessary before I could present the application to a judicial magistrate.


  13. February 15, 2014 8:16 am

    With this post something is finalized what was in my mind decades ago. I wasn’t interested in W. Allen, but I saw some of his films long ago and always had a strange feeling about him. I remember I never understood why he is so highly respected as a filmmaker, author and intellectual, when his films are full of slapstick and jokes about relationships, morality and sex. Well, okay, it can be a good thing to challenge social and moral narrow-mindedness by art – Michael also did it -, but in Allen’s case I never saw respect or empathy in his work. It always seemed cold and self-centered to me. I never regarded him as someone with a serious contribution to society – to make a change. His films rather felt like a celebration of whims and temptations, of legitimate issues of an urban society looking for satisfaction.
    I always asked myself if he portrayed himself and his own issues in his films, and this question is answered now thanks to Helena’s research. I didn’t know that he even went so far as to violating feelings of children and teenage girls by his comments alone. And it apparently was always forgiven by society.

    Now imagine Michael would have said things like that or his videos would have included scenes like that. In truth, as soon as he spoke up in his music against racism and bigotry he was attacked. There was an outrage about expressions like “jew me, sue me” and about the Panther Dance and him smashing windows showing his anger about racism, and his videos were CENSORED. Was there ever a question about censoring Allen’s films? Double standard again.


  14. February 15, 2014 12:48 pm

    Michael had to carry the world’s burden as p-lia is concerned. Now it appears there is a total reversal between the “who” done it and THE INNOCENT ONE.


  15. February 15, 2014 1:35 pm

    “Now imagine Michael would have said things like that or his videos would have included scenes like that. In truth, as soon as he spoke up in his music against racism and bigotry he was attacked. There was an outrage about expressions like “jew me, sue me” and about the Panther Dance and him smashing windows showing his anger about racism, and his videos were CENSORED. Was there ever a question about censoring Allen’s films? Double standard again.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, yes, the double standard is simply incredible. But every cloud has a silver lining. If we had not had the example of the way Michael was treated we wouldn’t be able to understand the obvious favoritism displayed towards Woody Allen.

    I go on reading documents and found the source where the Woody Allen case was reported in more detail. It is the 1997 Connecticut Magazine

    Unfortunately it has even more graphic description than the one given by Dylan Farrow, but it also explains through what kind of nightmare the State Attorney Frank Maco and his investigators went through.

    First the people from Allen’s side handled all the investigators in the case.


    “One of their key targets was Sgt. John Mucherino, a primary investigator for Maco. They wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or a gambler, if he had any marital problems.“

    This reminded me of the way Pellicano was treated. Only Pellicano was on Michael’s (defense) side, while Mucherino worked for the prosecution in Woody Allen’s case and was equally “investigated”. In both cases the idea was to compromise the other side and the method used was the same.

    Then they handled State Attorney Frank Maco himself who was the Prosecutor in Woody Allen’s case. This was an officer with impeccable record, however his ‘misdeeds’ were investigated by TWO commissions and he faced a real danger of being disbarred. And all of it because in his statement he just once mentioned the word ‘victim’ though actually it was just a general statement:


    “I cannot identify a compelling state or community interest or expectation that justifies my risking the well-being of the child-victim by exposure to the criminal process”.

    The word was used just once on the 5 pages of the Prosecutor’s statement (in all other cases it said a “complainant”) but this one word resulted in a hurricane for him. It was actually a campaign of his intimidation. It was so bad that at some point his son said ‘Don’t worry, Dad, I’m sure we can always get you a job in insurance.’”

    And now compare it with what Tom Sneddon and Sheriff Anderson said at a press-conference on November 20, 2003 when no charges had not yet been brought against Michael:

    SNEDDON: I want to make several things clear about why this is different from the last investigation. No. 1, it is different because the law in California has changed. And it was changed specifically because of the 1993, 1994 Michael Jackson investigation.
    The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceedings without their permission and consent and cooperation. As a result of the Michael Jackson case, the legislature changed that law and that is no longer the law in California.

    Secondly, as you all know, or most of you know, either from being involved or knowing about that investigation, there were never any charges brought in that investigation, no warrant issued. There is a warrant outstanding and I can assure you that within a very short period of time there will be charges filed against Mr. Jackson, multiple counts. That’s different.

    …That civil case culminated prior to the completion of our investigation. I say completion because at the time that that civil settlement went down, the victim indicated to us they … were no longer interested in cooperating criminally. There is no civil case filed, and there is no anticipation there will be a civil case filed in this particular case.

    And the last reason this is different in this particular case, we have a cooperative victim in this particular proceeding. So I think there’s something — some things that are very different about what’s going on today and what occurred before.

    QUESTION: Why are you waiting to file charges? Are you waiting to see if in fact he cooperates and surrenders, vis-a-vis, you have to go arrest him? Is that why you’re waiting to file the charges?

    SNEDDON: The filing of the charges had nothing to do with that. I know it — it seems simple to people to get together a search warrant for several different places and stuff like that, but it’s just a matter of a decision we made to do a … warrant, an affidavit, get a judicial authorization, and that give us time to go back and do the formal charging another time. That’s all it was.

    QUESTION: Is there a possibility of any other victims?

    ANDERSON: Yes, there is that possibility, and we would encourage the public to come forward if they have any information whatsoever that would lead us to believe there are other victims in the community to contact us so we can follow up on that information.

    QUESTION: Are you confident your victim‘s willing to testify this time?

    ANDERSON: Yes.

    QUESTION: You guys say you’re open to other possible victims coming forward. Do you have knowledge at this point of other possible victims that may be included in this suit?

    ANDERSON: No comment, at this point.

    QUESTION: … [D]id you get a phone call? Did some one tip you off? You’ve been investigating this for two or three months. What led to this enormous, massive investigation and search yesterday?

    SNEDDON: Well, like in any other criminal investigation, we have to have someone who’s a victim come forward and present the information to law enforcement. That’s what begins the process for the investigation to start.

    QUESTION: Have you questioned people close to Michael Jackson about their association with this victim that came forward?

    SNEDDON: I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the investigation.

    QUESTION: Excuse me, I haven’t asked a question yet. Sheriff, are you going to be serving us members of the media lunch after this press conference?
    ANDERSON: You evidently don’t know about the budget crisis.

    QUESTION: Is the investigative work basically completed, or is there a possibility we may see other search warrants executed?

    ANDERSON: It’s not completed at this point. It’s an ongoing investigation. We’re following up information in as we speak.

    QUESTION: Sir, how long could Mr. Jackson go to jail for in total?

    ANDERSON: Well it depends whether or not he’s convicted, No. 1. And, No. 2, whether he’s convicted of and how many counts, and, you know, all those things have to be factored in. It can go anywhere from three to eight years, I think.

    Great, isn’t it? The investigation is not yet over. The charges have not yet been brought, but this “has nothing to do with it” and everyone freely talks about Michael Jackson’s “victims” and even speculates on how many years he will get.

    And in the first (1993) case there were no charges brought at all, but nevertheless Sneddon speaks of “a child victim” there.

    And no one even reprimanded Sneddon and Anderson for overuse of the word “victim”!

    These double standards are simply abominable.


  16. February 15, 2014 3:31 pm

    Allen is so lucky they lived or it happened in Connecticut. In NY the age of consent is18 years of age.


  17. February 15, 2014 3:47 pm

    Sorry,now it states NY age of consent is17. But I rememeber first coming there it was a bit of a innocuos joke and ended with the words..but are you eighteen? Here the most shockiing are the family relationships and the age difference.


  18. CVETANKA permalink
    February 16, 2014 12:26 pm

    When I read the details of the case of Michael Jackson in 1993 and now the Woody Allen, for whom he realized only now, since it was not widespread as the case of Mr. Jackson, answered a few questions that were asked over the years. Why Mr. Jackson is not backed by Hollywood stars and why is it left to the tabloids and warps in public opinion to decide whether he is guilty or not. The answer is that in Hollywood there are many Jews and also in America. So now, Woody Allen has such tremendous support from Hollywood stars, the media and forums. You know, there are many … …


  19. February 16, 2014 3:20 pm

    ” The answer is that in Hollywood there are many Jews and also in America. So now, Woody Allen has such tremendous support from Hollywood stars, the media and forums. You know, there are many …” – Cvetanka

    Cvetanka, I think there is some grain of truth to it, but it is far from the whole truth.

    Something is definitely wrong with all those Hollywood people and Corey Feldman was the first to speak about it, but Corey Feldman is himself of Jewish origin, but it still didn’t stop those beasts from abusing him and his friend Corey Haim (also raised Jewish).

    And Steven Spielberg is an Orthodox Jew but he is absolutely not one of these people. Corey Feldman specifically pointed it out. So the problem is absolutely not reduced to people of one origin. It would be a grave injustice to think that way.

    To me it seems to be a problem of concentration of these warps specifically in the film industry, because it gives them access to children and a huge power over them. All children want to be movie stars and there is unfortunately a well-known thing like a “casting couch” both for adults and evidently for children as well.

    It is quite possible that the same system exists in other countries as well and what we see now is only the tip of an iceberg.

    What is clear though is that these people will do anything, just anything, to divert attention from themselves. It makes my skin crawl to realize how much joy these people felt when they were choosing Michael as a victim for their game.

    And they possibly even believed that he was one of them, because they cannot imagine any other motive in associating with children except their own deviant motivation. I remember that when Victor Guiterrez was “introducing” Michael to the parents of the children he was making rounds of, he used to say that “everyone in Hollywood knows that Michael is a p-le”.

    At the time I didn’t pay attention to the word “Hollywood” but now it sticks out to me like I don’t know what.

    The people who stood up for Woody Allen are not necessarily Jews, but they definitely come from a multi-national breed of predators who felt that their own safety was in danger. They sort of sacrificed Michael to the media and public so that everyone went after Michael and left them alone.

    Michael was simultaneously a huge attraction but also a vulnerable and easy target as he associated with children, and for them he looked like a perfect choice.

    Characteristically real p-les do not display any interest in children and don’t like spending time with them. Their interest in them is totally specific – they use them for pleasure only.

    Actually I see the root of the whole problem in pleasure-seeking which some people regard as the central goal in life. It is indulgence which knows no controls.


  20. February 16, 2014 4:27 pm

    Guys, I go on reading about Woody Allen’s situation and the more I read the more food for thought it gives. Look at this information for example. It is a story told by one of the witnesses who was present when it happened to Dylan Farrow:

    It was in full glare of summer, on Tuesday, August 4, 1992, that Casey, now 70, left her children John, Emma and Katherine, with Mia’s children in the care of three nannies while they went shopping locally.

    Mere months had passed since Mia had discovered a set of exceedingly graphic nude Polaroid photos of her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, barely hidden on Woody’s mantelpiece, who was at the time was believed to be either 19 or 21. But for the sake of the children, Mia allowed Woody to stay in contact with his son Satchel – now known as Ronan – whose paternity has since been brought into doubt – and his adopted daughter Dylan. However, there remained an ‘atmosphere of hurt’ in the house.

    And she suggested the shopping trip purely, she says, because Allen was on his way over to the Bridgewater home Mia had bought, named Frog Hollow.

    It was while they were out that Casey’s babysitter Alison Strickland walked in on a scene in the TV room that left her reeling.

    Little Dylan was sitting on the sofa, while kneeling before her, with his head in her lap was Woody Allen. Alison would later give testimony in a 1993 court battle, saying Dylan had been ‘sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set’.

    Casey recalls: ‘We took Mia’s baby son Isaiah out with us and went to the store and while we were gone Alison went looking for John and opened a door to a little den off the kitchen and found Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap.

    ‘We came back, not knowing anything about this, we noticed Dylan didn’t have any underwear on and Mia asked one of the girls to help her get some pants on.’

    It was not until later that day, Casey says, that: ‘Alison came to me and said there was something I should know, she said it was the kind of situation where if she had walked in on grown-ups she would have said ‘sorry’ – then she realised there was a very small child involved and she was horrified.

    ‘I had to call Mia and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.

    Calling Alison ‘above reproach’, Casey says, ‘there was never a question of not believing her, she had worked for me since my children were babies’.

    It was a significant tipping point as Woody’s relationship with Dylan had become so intense he had sought treatment for his ‘inappropriate behaviour’ with the little girl, according to Casey.

    ‘It was an on-going concern,’ Casey says: ‘People were concerned about Woody’s behaviour with Dylan. His intensity with the child…he didn’t seem to leave her alone for a second. He was obsessed with the child. Mia had mentioned it to him and he was seeing someone.

    ‘I saw it from the perspective that the children would be involved in a game and he would come and scoop her up and take her away, it was not anything you would consider normal.

    ‘Mia always told baby sitters never to leave them alone, the child seemed to have no space for herself, he overpowered her. ‘She would be going off into her mind in a different space, she would tune out. We knew it was too intense for a little girl. ‘I would just take my children home when Woody arrived as there was no more playing with Dylan when he arrived.’

    Pausing, Casey adds: ‘It was such a one-sided relationship. He was gushing attentively over a little child who just wanted to be someplace else.’

    And in a telling statement, she said: ‘I would never have left my children with him.

    At this point I recalled that everyone who knew Michael well said the opposite – that they would not hesitate to leave their children with him. Even the former policeman LaPerruque said so about his young ones:

    “Michael Jackson is one of the most down-to-earth guys I’ve met in my life,” LaPerruque said. Under oath he will testify that he’s had experience with child molesters in his 22 years as a cop, and that Jackson does not fit the profile.

    He said he has two kids, and he would feel comfortable with either one of them – a boy and a girl – spending time with Jackson.

    Now about Woody Allen again:

    Casey’s phone call to Mia would spark the mother-of-14 to videotape Dylan, who would go on to claim that her adoptive father had molested her in the attic of the house.

    It later transpired that Farrow family’s nanny Kristie Groteke, who had been left with clear instructions not to leave Allen alone with Dylan, had not been able to find them for about 15-20 minutes on the same afternoon the star had been seen with his head in his daughter’s lap.

    And dismissing Allen’s claims he had never been close to Soon-Yi before they embarked on an affair, Casey says: ‘He WAS close to her, he chose to say that. They went on vacations to Europe, she was there, she was one of the children.’

    As for Allen, she says: ‘He thinks he’s inscrutable, he seems to know no bounds in pleasing himself and never seemed to realise the impact he had on this family.’

    See this last point? This woman confirmed what I myself saw as central to Woody Allen’s character and to the problem in general.

    “He seems to know no bounds in pleasing himself”


  21. Татьяна permalink
    February 17, 2014 7:39 am

    Здравствуйте, Елена.
    Я знаю вас по этому блогу, потому осмелилась написать вам здесь на русском. Ну, еще из-за моего плохого английского. Ваши посты читаю через гугл-переводчки, некоторые переводят в фан-сообществах и, должна заметит, что в русскоязычном фан-пространстве Вы, в сущности, единственный человек (есть еще, реально борющийся с мировым общественным мнением, этой кошмарной “матрицей, захватившей умы не только людей далеких от истории Майкла, но и многих фанатов, что особенно прискорбно.
    Я прочла ваши посты об Вуди Аллене и возникли некоторые вопросы. Возможно, я не слишком внимательно читала авто-перевод и пропустила кое-что, и прошу меня извинить, поскольку сейчас сижу дома с высокой температурой.
    Прежде чем задать вопрос, опять небольшое отступление. Когда по Евроньюс показали новость об ВА, меня тут же посетила мысль о вымогательстве, как в случае с Майклом. Я ничего не знала об этом режиссере, а пресса очень сдержанно преподала новость.
    Вопрос вот в чем. Его жена требовала ли когда-нибудь денежное возмещение за надругательство над дочерью? И почему Дилан так долго ждала, чтобы повторно обвинить ВА? Если я не ошибаюсь, исковой срок для подачи заявления уже истек, однако в случае с Робсоном власти штата надумали поменять законодательство, если мне не изменяет память. С Робсоном все ясно, но почему реальная жертва ждала до 27 лет? Прошло 20 лет и в этот промежуток она могла снова подать иск, будучи совершеннолетней, или не могла?
    Мысль о вымогательстве возникла еще и потому, что она пошла рассказывать ужасные подробности прессе. Если за это она получила деньги (надеюсь, что нет), то этот поступок будет не в ее пользу. Очевидно, что у Аллена “длинны руки” во всех смыслах и он, скорее всего, снова заткнет ей рот. И время на его стороне.

    “Жертвы” Майкла требовали денег, а Дилан требует возмездия или она уже ничего не требует, а просто констатирует факт насилия?

    Спасибо Вам за ваш титанический труд. Вам бы позавидовал и Шерлок Холмс:)

    С уважением. Татьяна.
    * * *
    VMJ: This message is in Russian, so I’ve translated it:

    Hello, Elena,

    I know you by this blog and this is why took the liberty to write to you here in Russian. And also because of my bad English. Your posts are read through Google translators, some are translated by fan communities and let me say that in the Russian fan-community you are, in fact, the only person (there is one more here: who is really struggling with the world public opinion and the nightmarish “matrix” that captured the minds of not only those who know nothing about Michael, but also of many fans which is especially deplorable.
    I’ve read your posts about Woody Allen and have some questions to ask. Perhaps I haven’t read the auto-translation carefully enough or have missed something, and ask you to forgive me for that – now I’m sitting at home with a high fever.
    Before asking a question here is another digress. When Euronews TV broadcast the news about Woody Allen I immediately thought about extortion, as in Michael’s case. I knew nothing about Woody Allen as a film director and the press was very cautious in reporting this news.
    The question is. Did his wife ever demand a compensation for the abuse of her daughter? And why did Dylan wait so long to renew her allegations against Woody Allen? If I’m not mistaken, the statute of limitations for filing a suit is over, however in the case of Robson the authorities have decided to change the law, if I remember it right. With Robson everything is clear, but why did the real victim wait until she was 27 years old? 20 years have passed and could she have filed a claim being an adult during this period of time or couldn’t she?
    The idea of an extortion occurred to me also because she went to the media to tell those horrific details. If she received money for it (I hope not), this will not speak in her favor. It is obvious that Allen’s has good connections (literal translation: “long hands”) in every meaning of this word, so he will most likely find a way to make her keep silent again. And time is on his side.

    Michael’s “victims” demanded money, but what about Dylan? Is she seeking justice or is she simply stating the fact of the abuse and does not want anything else?

    Thank you for your titanic work. Sherlock Holmes would have envied you.

    Yours sincerely, Tatiana.


  22. February 17, 2014 9:12 am

    Tatiana, thank you very much for the message, I’ve translated it as best as I could. The obvious problem in answering is that I first need to write it in English and then translate it into Russian. I will try to do it a little later.

    Honestly, I feel like I am a complete pig for not writing anything in Russian. Almost every day I say to myself that I need stop writing here and start writing for Michael’s fans in Russia, but some new challenges arise again and again and this keeps my little investigation going.

    I hope very much that when I retire here I will write a good summary in my Russian blog. In fact even now it wouldn’t be a bad idea to pass over the job of Michael’s vindication to his compatriots, only no one is volunteering for it 🙂

    And thank you for the comparison with Sherlock Holmes! That was great and still keeps me smiling.

    * * * Loose translation into Russian * * *

    Таня, спасибо за послание, я его более-менее перевела на английский. Вся проблема в том, что ответ тоже придется написать на двух языках, но постараюсь сделать это в ближайшее время.

    Чувствую себя последней свиньей за то, что ничего не пишу на русском. Почти каждый день говорю себе, что хватит писать здесь и надо начинать писать на русском, но тут обязательно происходит что-то новенькое и приходится снова браться за работу.

    Когда-нибудь я все-таки закончу свое маленькое расследование и тогда отвечу на все ваши вопросы в русском блоге. Вообще-то мне действительно давно пора передать защиту Майкла в руки его соотечественников, однако что-то особо желающих пока не видно 🙂

    И огромное спасибо за Шерлока Холмса. Очень лестное сравнение, я до сих пор улыбаюсь.


  23. February 17, 2014 9:49 am

    Helena and Tatiana:
    I’m sure you will address this, but as I have read several times now that people are wondering why Dylan Farrow is coming out now after this long time and repeats her accusations from so long ago exactly when Allen receives a lifetime award, I want to give my opinion on it. Because I myself wonder why people cannot understand it.
    I see it from her point of view: If you see your molester still being honored and receiving a high award for his lifetime work, this is exactly the moment where it becomes unbearable for you as an abused person to see this man receiving so much acknowledgment. If you know more about him than other people, like for example that his films even reflect his life and what he did to you and he is awarded for this, you cannot be quiet. So I completely understand that at this point of time when Allen received a lifetime award (after he already had received many awards in the past) Dylan couldn’t bear it any longer and she had to go public. So in my opinion it’s understandable that she took this as an opportunity to tell again what happened. Those who support Allen say she is just driven by hate, but imagine: If you would see someone who abused you as a kid being so highly awarded and regarded as a respectable person, could you be quiet at this point?

    And I never saw any mention of money she wanted as a compensation.


  24. February 17, 2014 10:41 am

    “Did his wife ever demand a compensation for the abuse of her daughter?”- Tatiana

    In the hundreds of pages I’ve read about the case (from both sides) there was no talk of any money except one piece which mentioned it in connection with a break up between Allen and Farrow. Evidently the money discussed was required for the upkeep of their commonly adopted children.

    However since Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married Mia Farrow never insisted on any money and if Woody Allen did think it necessary to give anything for sustaining the three children it was only because the court refused to annul Woody Allen’s parental rights and technically he still remained their father (of Dylan Farrow too).

    But what I’m sure of is that Mia Farrow never sued Woody Allen for any compensation and never offered to withdraw her story if he reached a settlement with her. Actually it was not her story – it was what Dylan said when she was 7 and kept saying for 20 years since then. She never went back on her words and recently simply repeated what she had always said before.

    20 years have passed. Could she have filed a claim during this period of time?

    She absolutely could but didn’t as apparently she never wanted any money from this person. It is typical for someone who was really abused. Even money from these people is dirty for the victim. I hear that the field that was bought by Judah for the 30 pieces he received for betraying Christ is still no one’s land. For 2000 years no one wanted to buy it and even touch it. Same here.

    Why did Dylan wait so long to renew her allegations against Woody Allen?

    Typical for a real victim again. It usually takes them very long to get over the trauma. They cannot even think of their abuser, cannot see him, they don’t mention the name and avoid everything that is connected with this person.

    It is better to shut oneself off him altogether and close that chapter of their life for good than remember him and inflict the pain again and again. Actually remembering this person is the real victim’s worst nightmare because this person is equal to pain for them. This is why some people never speak out against their abuser until old age – figuratively speaking this person does not exist for them though they are perfectly aware of his existence.

    Why did Dylan speak out then? First of all, because she evidently managed to cope with her trauma a little (Corey Feldman is another example), and secondly, because she saw that Woody Allen was getting a prestigious award for his life achievements and realized the terrible injustice of it all. The award was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. I am more than sure that if Woody Allen had kept a low profile she would not have spoken out.

    “Is she simply stating the fact of the abuse?”

    Yes, she simply wants people to know the truth about this person – nothing else. This is why she sent a simple letter to the media, not even knowing whether it would be printed or not. Well, it was printed but only by one paper and in a blog column of one of its authors. By the way this author was heavily ostracized by other media outlets – I’ve seen him dragged through the mud by other journalists who found fault with him for everything under the sun – even “human rights” imperialism and urging US intervention in other countries:

    But it was only this Times columnist Kristof who ventured to publish Dylan’s letter as all others refused as far as I know.

    For Michael Jackson everything was exactly the opposite. Newspapers published stories from anyone willing to smear him and most of them even paid money to the accusers and the more graphic the story was the bigger the prize was too.

    Once people smelled money it became a routine matter for false victims to “recover” from repressed memories and start happily talking about how terrible their “abuse” was 20 years before that. Again the bigger the money, the more terrible the story was.

    And none of these people ever looked like real victims. Gavin Arvizo made jokes on the stand, Jordan Chandler “had no fears” of anything as he admitted to the psychiatrist except “probably a cross-examination” and our good friend Wade Robson was leafing through some adult magazine in a courtroom looking surprised that Michael had read such magazines at all and joking that he never thought he would have to do it in front of so many people.

    For all these people it is a game, while for Dylan it is not. For Dylan it is real and this is what everyone feels – even those who support Woody Allen.

    * * *
    Tanja, I’ll also write a translation of it so that you can publish it for the Russian audience as well.


  25. February 17, 2014 11:00 am

    “I see it from her point of view: If you see your molester still being honored and receiving a high award for his lifetime work, this is exactly the moment where it becomes unbearable for you as an abused person to see this man receiving so much acknowledgment. If you know more about him than other people, like for example that his films even reflect his life and what he did to you and he is awarded for this, you cannot be quiet.” -Susannerb

    Susannerb, I see it in an absolutely the same way and also wonder why people don’t understand it. They should try to imagine what it would be like for them if they were in her place.

    Dylan couldn’t bear it any longer and she had to go public.

    Exactly! I tried to say the same in my answer to Tatiana.


  26. February 17, 2014 12:41 pm

    Tatiana, this is for you. Please publish it on the Russian MJ fan forum to make people know what I think of Dylan Farrow’s situation in comparison with those who accused Michael of the same:

    Таня, это для Вас. Пожалуйста, разместите это на нашем форуме. Я хочу, чтобы люди знали, чем отличается Дилан и ее ситуация от тех, кто обвинял Майкла:

    Его жена требовала когда-нибудь денежное возмещение за надругательство над дочерью?

    На сегодня я прочитала сотни страниц про Вуди Аллена и его дочь, но нигде мне не встретилось упоминания о деньгах – кроме одной статьи, но там, по-видимому, речь шла о некоем пособии или алиментах, которые обычно выплачиваются бывшей жене или отцом на детей после развода.

    Однако Вуди Аллен и Миа Фарроу никогда не состояли в законном браке, и поэтому, насколько я знаю, она не настаивала на выплате каких-либо денег. Если Вуди Аллен продолжал содержать двух усыновленных и одного собственного ребенка, это, скорее всего, потому, что суд не аннулировал усыновление, как того хотела Миа Фарроу. С формальной точки зрения Вуди Аллен по-прежнему является их отцом (в том числе и приемной дочери Дилан).

    В чем я совершенно уверена, так это в том, что Миа Фарроу никогда не просила никакой компенсации «в обмен на молчание» и никогда не предлагала ему отказаться о своих слов в обмен на деньги. Собственно говоря, это были не ее слова – она просто повторяла то, что ей сказала дочка, когда ей было 7 лет и что она продолжала повторять все 20 лет после этого. Был момент, когда сама Миа засомневалась в ее словах, но малышка ответила маме – «Он врет, если говорит, что этого не делал».

    Прошло 20 лет и в этот промежуток она снова могла подать иск?

    Да, конечно могла, только не «снова», поскольку иска никогда не было. Никто из них не хотел никаких денег от Вуди Аллена, и это типично для настоящих жертв насилия. Им даже противно брать деньги от человека, который над ними надругался.
    Это как с тем полем, который Иуда купил за 30 серебренников – говорят, что оно до сих пор пустует. За 2000 лет его никто так и не купил, потому что никто не хотел даже дотрагиваться до этого ужасного места. То же самое и здесь.

    И почему Дилан так долго ждала, чтобы повторно обвинить Вуди Аллена?

    А это типично для людей, над которыми надругались в детстве. Они переживают такую страшную травму, что не могут заставить себя даже подумать об этом человеке. Они не могут с ним встречаться, стараются избегать упоминания его имени в разговоре и вообще избегают всего, что с ним связано.

    Для них лучше полностью отгородиться от этого человека и закрыть эту кошмарную страницу своей жизни навсегда, чем вспоминать его и тем самым переживать свою боль еще и еще раз. Всякое воспоминание о нем – это самое страшное, что для них вообще может быть. Поэтому многие из них не говорят о своем детском горе до самой старости. Можно считать, что для них этого человека вообще не существует, хотя формально они, конечно, прекрасно знают, что он есть.

    Но если это так, то почему тогда Дилан заговорила? Во-первых, потому, что ей, по-видимому, удалось частично преодолеть последствия той травмы с помощью терапии (как и Кори Фельдману – та же ситуация). Но главная причина в том, что Вуди Аллену предстояло вручение престижной премия за его великий вклад в киноискусство и ей просто нестерпимо было видеть, как чествуют человека, который причинил ей столько страданий. Это стало последней каплей. Я даже уверена, что если Вуди Аллен сидел бы себе тихонько и молчал бы в тряпочку, она бы не решилась на такой радикальный шаг.

    «она просто констатирует факт насилия?»

    Да, она просто хочет, чтобы люди знали правду об этом человеке – больше ничего. Поэтому она отправила обычное письмо в средства массовой информации, даже не представляя себе, напечатают они ее письмо или нет.

    Письмо напечатали, однако только в одной газете и не на первой полосе, а в колонке одного из авторов. Потом этого автора тоже смешали с грязью. Его обвинили во всех смертных грехах вплоть до какого-то там империализма и призывов к военному вмешательстве в дела других стран:

    Однако же это был единственный журналист, который рискнул напечатать письмо Дилан – все остальные, насколько я знаю, отказались.

    Стоит ли говорить, что в ситуации с Майклом все было ровно наоборот. Газеты просто гонялись за каждым, кто готов был рассказать жуткую историю про Майкла, и даже платили деньги за эти рассказы – и чем более сальной была история, тем больше платили.

    Как только народ почуял, что на этом можно заработать, тут же нашлась масса людей, которые вдруг вспомнили, как Майкл их обидел двадцать лет назад и начали расписывать ужасы произошедшего. И опять то же самое – чем больше платили денег, тем ужаснее была история. (Помните, как это было со «свидетелем», якобы видевшим надругательство на Маколей Калкиным? За 100 тысяч скажу, что видел руку поверх его штанишек, а за 500 тысяч – что рука была внутри).

    Те, кто изображал из себя жертв, совершенно не производили впечатления, что они такими жертвами являются. Раскованный Гэвин Арвизо отшучивался во время суда. Джордан Чандлер никак не мог понять (в разговоре с психиатром), отчего он должен испытывать страх и наконец, сказал, что «да, необходимость отвечать на вопросы другой стороны в суде его немного пугает, а так, вообще-то у него никакого страха нет».

    А наш большой друг Робсон с удивлением перелистывал какой-то там Плейбой с обнаженными телами, явно не ожидал, что у Майкла вообще были такие журналы, и шутил, что никогда не думал, что ему придется рассматривать эти картинки в присутствии стольких людей.

    В общем, для этих людей все это было шуточками, в то время как для девочки Дилан все по-настоящему и всерьез. И это отмечают даже те, кто защищает сейчас Вуди Аллена.


  27. February 20, 2014 5:56 pm

    Hi 🙂 I know this has nothing to do with the subject of the article you wrote about WA, but I have a question that’s been bothering me: I am totally confident in Michaels innocence and was arguing against an mj hater yesterday who tried to use a portion/ shot of all the “evidence” found at Neverland and she said something along the lines of the children’s books were “erotica” for Mj and that proves he’s a ped–l and that the teen varsity websites and some magazines that had teens in it were evidence that mj was guilty. I didn’t know how to respond to that and was wondering if maybe you could help? She also said that Jordan Chandlers description of mj matched but I know that’s not true.



  28. February 20, 2014 7:44 pm

    I remember all of this many years ago. I read about it. Helena, thank you for kick starting my brain again. As a mother of 3, we have an in built (Intuition) that tell’s us when something is not right with one of our children. Children in fact have better memories then adults. I still to this day remember my father locking me in the toilet at the age of 3. My mother with her narcissist abuse and my brother, whom i loved dearly as a child, try to engage in sexual acts, which I ignored as, not normal from a family member.I was all of 13 going onto 14, he himself 15 going onto 16, but of age enough to say NO, and do damage if I needed to.

    What gets me is this reply to this letter.

    Dear Nancy,

    Hard to believe you’re 13! When I was 13 I couldn’t dress myself, and here you write about one of life’s deepest philosophical problems, i.e., existential boredom. I guess it’s hard for me to imagine a 13-year-old quoting anything but Batman — but T. Mann? Anyway, there’s too much wrong with the world to ever get too relaxed and happy. The more natural state, and the better one, I think, is one of some anxiety and tension over man`s plight in this mysterious universe …

    Next time you write, if you ever do, please list some of the books you’ve enjoyed and movies, and which music you’ve liked, and also the things you dislike and have no patience with. And tell me what kind of place Coral Gables is. What school do you go to? What hobbies do you have? How old are your parents and what do they do? What are your moods like? Are you energetic? Are you an early riser? Are you “into clothes” … At the moment, I am re- filming some parts of my next film, which have not come out so good.

    Best, Woody.

    What School do you go to?How old are your parents? What do they do? What are your moods like?Are you energetic?Are you into Cloths. These to me are question’s one does simply not ask on a first come basis. They seem to forth coming.

    I have always had a very odd feeling about him, whenever i see him and has happened for many years now. A feeling of uncenteredness or for a better word,not centered. Even with all of his genius for films. I find it odd they never married and his obsession to custody of these non biological children.

    Michael on the other hand was centered, he told of his feelings for this world and his very persona was evident of that. The eye’s, ( windows to the soul) exhibit a loving,caring soft gentle man who cared more for other’s then himself. He gave that out all of his life.

    I just hope for Dylan’s sake, she finds some sort of closure.

    I was pack rapped at 15 years of age. You never ever forget, it stay’s with you your entire life. Your dignity stripped from you, your self worth made worthless. Dylan is very lucky she has a loving devoted mother who has cared for her, on the other hand I did not.

    Thank you for your blogs.


  29. February 21, 2014 11:49 am

    Taylor, when it comes to Michael Jackson, people just make up “stuff”. There was NO material in his possession that could be classed as children’s “erotica” found by the police. If there had been, he would have been charged for it. The only “teen” magazines Michael looked at were of young women of legal age.


  30. February 21, 2014 4:27 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up for me VC:) I was reading a document yesterday about the things Sneddon’s was listing in his opening statement in 2005 and he kept reusing the word “teen-themed”, for these magazines, as a way of innuendo, to where Mr. Messereau objected the use of that word. Also Sneddon’s kept saying it appears to HIM that the magazines contained underage teens but that wasn’t the case. They were legal adult mags. Okay. That’s good because I really didn’t know how to respond.


  31. February 21, 2014 5:15 pm

    “She also said that Jordan Chandlers description of mj matched but I know that’s not true.” Ettelra

    This is absolutely untrue, but I cannot blame this person for not knowing about it because everyone including Sneddon was telling lies about it. My latest post has several points explaining why we can be 100% sure that there was no match between Jordan’s description and the photos.


  32. Michael Framer permalink
    February 24, 2014 8:10 am

    Michael Jackson was a ped-le of the worst order, and that’s a fact. There is no logic in any of the stuff you’ve put on here, in terms of Allen being the pedophile and Jackson being innocent. For every ‘defence’ you’ve entered into for Jackson, there are just as many, if not more, counter arguments.

    Like Woody Allen, Michael Jackson was a man with a sense of entitlement, who believed that his special place in the world meant he could bend the rules to suit himself. Jackson would have thought that if ‘he’ was having sex with kids, then it would be ‘different’ than other mere mortals who might do the same.

    I am totally convinced that Michael Jackson was a ped-le and that Wade is telling the truth.

    * * *
    VMJ: The word we don’t use for Michael Jackson has been abbreviated in accordance with our rules.


  33. February 24, 2014 8:55 am

    “For every ‘defence’ you’ve entered into for Jackson, there are just as many, if not more, counter arguments.” – Michael Framer

    Where are they? I mean the arguments?

    “Michael Jackson was a ped-le of the worst order, and that’s a fact. There is no logic in any of the stuff you’ve put on here, in terms of Allen being the pedophile and Jackson being innocent.”

    First of all nothing can be considered “fact” until it is proven. This is your first mistake. And your second mistake is that according to the rules of this blog the word p. is not to be used together with Michael’s name. He was called this word for so long and for nothing too that he deserves to be spared at least this “luxury”.

    By the way if reread my posts you will notice that I have not used this word for Woody Allen either. The most I’ve said is that he is a troubled man.


  34. February 24, 2014 10:37 am

    Okay, Mr. Framer, where’s your proof? You don’t like Michael Jackson – that’s fine. It doesn’t mean that your opinion is a fact. If you believe that Wade Robson is absolutely telling the truth, do you believe he was absolutely telling the truth when he vigorously defended Mr. Jackson? Robson was a grown man when he testified – was he lying then, or is he lying now? You cannot have it both ways.

    You seem to resent Michael Jackson, and Woody Allen, for being “entitled”. That’s your issue, not theirs. It has no bearing on innocence or guilt.


  35. February 24, 2014 11:53 am

    Oh my, Mr. Framer speaks of logic and facts when not one word in his comment bears logic and facts, just opinions and negative feelings. Where is your logic? And where is the logic in Robson’s claims?
    When you come to this blog to comment you should carefully weigh your words because here we go to the bottom of things, to the bottom of facts and logic. There is so much research about Michael Jackson on this blog like nowhere else, and except of this one post you probably never read any of the approx. 3000 pages VMJ wrote since the beginning plus the pages of the other authors. This blog is an encyclopedia full of facts and full of logic and common sense.
    Exactly, VC: If Mr. Framer is convinced of his opinion, it’s HIS problem, it has no bearing on the truth.


  36. Susanne permalink
    March 2, 2014 9:33 am

    I remember Christ! I also remember that thanks to the Jews, Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross. Scandalous, don’t you think?


  37. Susan M-S permalink
    April 19, 2014 8:58 am

    Here is some interesting information regarding a young man currently filing a lawsuit against Bryan Singer, an “A” list Hollywood director, being accused of sexually abusing him as a teenager. I have not seen very much about it in the media. It was on Inside Edition last night and is on some internet media.

    One of the very interesting statements made is this:

    “As detailed in his lawsuit, Egan says the alleged abuse included being drugged and lured into a sex ring with promises of auditions for acting, modeling and commercial jobs. He says he reported the molestation to the authorities when he was 17 but the accusations were not investigated. (Los Angeles Police Commander Andrew Smith said the department is looking into whether a report was made.)”

    Reminds me of the statement by Corey Feldman, where he stated he told the police that MJ had not molested him and named the names of his actual abusers – but they were not interested in anyone but MJ.

    Here is the link to the article:


  38. Nan permalink
    April 19, 2014 1:51 pm

    I saw that also Susan.,.Seems to have been an open secret in Hollywood , and the entertainment business.
    I saw Harvey Levin discussing, these parties on TMZ live and remarkably , he didnt seem half as interested as when he thinks it is MJ in the cross hairs.
    I wonder why Harvey didnt ask why no proper ID , to verify age ,was asked for at these well known parties , stating all parties are of consent, like some other celebrities do, so they have no problems.
    I thought I would put this up from a situation in 97 regarding this director , Mr Singer also.
    He was supposedly filming nude teenagers in a shower for a movie.
    MJ has an artistic and legal book, that he inscribed , and the police hold onto to it for a decade,…….yet this guy , nothing happens to , and he is affiliated with a known sex offender.
    I have asked Roger Friedman , why has this taken so long to get any coverage , if it has been an open secret , or is it true , that powerful people are keeping this under wraps.
    Why were people constantly scrutinizing MJ , when the authorities and media seem to be well aware of this situation.


  39. Susan M-S permalink
    April 19, 2014 3:49 pm


    Thank you for that link. That is really disturbing. I saw some comments on different articles covering the Singer story, and some people had mentioned the name Brad Renfro. I remembered seeing him in the movie “The Client” when he was quite young. I googled him and discovered that he died of a heroin od in 2008 at age 25.

    I think that “Hollywood” knows darn well that Michael Jackson was/is totally innocent, but like the p-e’s who want to use him as their poster boy, they were happy that people were looking at him and not them while they did what they wanted. I find Harvey Levin disgusting. He never misses an opportunity to smear Michael. Someone asked him if he thought MJ was guilty and he said – “he had a good lawyer” and left it at that. He plays the same Hollywood game that a lot of them do – just insinuate, don’t answer what you really believe. I think he knows what really goes on and he knows that Michael is innoncent. It is just more profitable for them to keep the insinuations and speculation going. I would not be surprised if Harvey Levin is one of those who attends these “parties”.


  40. April 20, 2014 2:14 pm

    Helena! thank you so much for your dedication and efforts put in to this blog. You guys prove people’s opinion about MJ fans being just “delusional”, biased and not believing the obvious” totally wrong. I became a Mj admirer after reading all the negative comments about him. The more I read about the allegations, testimonies and the tabloid fictions, the more it became obvious, that he was INNOCENT. I wish people could just use their brain to think critical and form a decision or opinion of their own rather than just parroting off what others say.


  41. appleh permalink
    April 20, 2014 2:46 pm

    “As detailed in his lawsuit, Egan says the alleged abuse included being drugged and lured into a sex ring with promises of auditions for acting, modeling and commercial jobs. He says he reported the molestation to the authorities when he was 17 but the accusations were not investigated. (Los Angeles Police Commander Andrew Smith said the department is looking into whether a report was made.)”

    Reminds me of the statement by Corey Feldman, where he stated he told the police that MJ had not molested him and named the names of his actual abusers – but they were not interested in anyone but MJ.

    Have you heard that the FBI is denying, that Egan has mentioned the name of Singer, when he reported the molestation to the police ? I dont know much of the story, if this is true or not, but have you ever asked yourself, why did the FBI didn´t make a clear statement regarding to MJ ?


  42. April 21, 2014 5:58 pm

    “Helena! thank you so much for your dedication and efforts put in to this blog. You guys prove people’s opinion about MJ fans being just “delusional”, biased and not believing the obvious” totally wrong. The more I read about the allegations, testimonies and the tabloid fictions, the more it became obvious, that he was INNOCENT” – Claire Detune

    Claire, thank you very much. Michael was innocent and I hope to be able tell more innocent truth about him once this painful period for me is over.


  43. Hasina permalink
    September 8, 2016 3:55 pm

    Helena, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your hard work and dedication. I have been reading your work for weeks. Cross referencing, checking it out with other information. And my God… Where have I been? My heart bleeds for Michel Jackson… Why didn’t I send him a letter of support? Why didn’t I do something… Anything? I started talking about MJ with a good friend of mine… Sadly she had the same warped views… So I pleaded with her to do her research. Thankfully she did and she has turned her opinion around and is also shocked. But a lot of people, probably most are under this fog of tabloid titles! And it hurts my heart. It really does. I stopped listening to MJs music when I had doubts at some point. You’re right Helena… Moral people cannot appreciate art if it does not come from a good soul. Now my doubts have been erased… And how can they not be, after listening to his Oxford speech? After listening to the Michael Jackson tapes? You are right… People are their art… They are what they preach, what they showcase… And MJ only ever showcased purity and love. Yet, somehow the tabloids use MJs tapes out of context to make him appear strange… They are still trying to kill his legacy. They said he cared about the killers of Jamie Bulger and so must be evil as a result. What they conveniently omit is that Michael Jackson is so kind hearted… So pure, that only HE can see that those murdering children came from horrendous backgrounds and even they are just a product of their past. Just kids that may turn around with a little love. Only Michael Jackson could have a heart big enough to think like that… Because I don’t know one single person who thought of those kids in any forgiving manner. God I miss him so much.

    Thank you Helena for opening my eyes… It’s because of people like you we still have hope. I love you.


  44. September 17, 2018 10:31 am

    (I’m reposting this here, just in case you didn’t notice the same post in another blog post’s comments. Please reply to only one)

    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:

    Predictably, Dylan and Ronan have responded by castigating the story, the author, and veiled attacks on Soon-Yi:

    Most telling are the comments to both stories:

    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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: