Woody Allen vs. Michael Jackson. IS THERE A WAY TO LEARN THE TRUTH?
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.
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.
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.
WHAT’S PERSONAL MATTER FOR WOODY ALLEN IS EVERYONE’S BUSINESS WHEN IT IS MJ
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.”
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
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:
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!
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’?
PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER
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.
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.”
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 BIG DIFFERENCE
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.
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.
February 02, 1993 |JOHN J. GOLDMAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER
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 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.
I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD TO CRUSH YOUR SON’S DREAM.
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.
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
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA,
Published: March 19, 1993
The hospital report could represent an enormous step toward exoneration of Mr. Allen in the eyes of the law and the public and could tilt the custody battle between the estranged lovers in his favor.
The investigators found that the child, Dylan O. Farrow, who is adopted, had not been molested by anyone and concluded that a videotape that had been the centerpiece of the accusation was a result of either the child’s imagination or someone else’s manipulation, Mr. Allen and his lawyer said.
On the videotape, made by Ms. Farrow, Dylan, under questioning by her mother, tells of abuse by her father.
Ms. Alter described the Yale-New Haven team’s report as “incomplete and inaccurate” and said that “what actually happened will be determined after the many witnesses testify under oath in a court of law,” but she did not discuss the report’s specific contents.
…The report is also expected to influence significantly the custody battle between Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow that has raged since last summer in the Manhattan courts.
Mr. Allen has sued in State Supreme Court for sole custody of Dylan and the couple’s adopted son, Moses A. Farrow, 15, and their biological child, Satchel O. Farrow, 5.
Ms. Farrow has sued in Surrogate’s Court to void Mr. Allen’s 1991 adoption of Moses and Dylan.
“I believe this will turn everything around” in the custody fight, Mr. Allen said. “I haven’t been permitted to speak to my daughter or see her in eight months, and I think that’s going to change.”
A finding that Dylan was not molested could profoundly hurt Ms. Farrow’s claim to the children if the courts conclude, as Mr. Allen has asserted, that his former lover trumped up the charge.
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:
Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or the child’s fantasy.
Richard Marcus, a retired New York City police officer, called by Mr. Allen, testified that he worked with the police sex crimes unit for six years.
He claimed to have an intuitive ability to know if a person is truthful or not. He concluded, “based on my experience,” that Dylan lacked credibility.
I did not find his testimony to be insightful.
I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992.
The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her”
Many witnesses indeed testified that Woody Allen’s behavior towards Dylan was highly inappropriate. For example, considering that Woody Allen kept to a different home and didn’t stay overnight in Mia Farrow’s house it is extremely strange that he got undressed to his undershorts and got into a bed with the little girl:
“By then, Ms. Farrow has become concerned with Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan. During a trip to Paris, when Dylan was between two and three years old, Ms. Farrow told Mr. Allen that “you look at her (Dylan) in a sexual way. You fondled her. It’s not natural. You’re all over her. You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked”.
Her apprehension was fueled by the intensity of the attention Mr. Allen lavished on Dylan, and by his spending play-time in bed with her, by his reading to her in his bed while dressed in his undershorts, and by his permitting her to suck on his thumb.
Ms. Farrow testified that Mr. Allen was overly attentive and demanding of Dylan’s time and attention. He was aggressively affectionate, providing her with little space of her own and with no respect for the integrity of her body.
Ms. Farrow, Casey Pascal, Sophie Raven (Dylan’s French tutor), and Dr. Coates testified that Mr. Allen focused on Dylan to the exclusion of her siblings, even when Satchel and Moses were present”.
As regards Mia’s testimony that she feared that there was something sexual about the way Allen was dealing with the 3 year old, many of us will be tempted to think that it was only the work of Mia Farrow’s imagination.
However when I look at Woody Allen’s photos with Dylan I also find myself disturbed by the way he always holds the girl.
There is something unnatural about it.
“No respect for the integrity of her body” is probably the best way to describe these pictures:
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
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
Published: May 4, 1993
The doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation into whether Woody Allen molested his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, theorized that the child either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother, Mia Farrow, a sworn statement released yesterday says.
Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, he said she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.”
Dr. Leventhal said: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”
The doctor acknowledged that “We don’t have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this.”
Dr. Leventhal’s remarks were part of a sworn statement made on April 20 and entered into evidence in Mr. Allen’s lawsuit to gain custody of Dylan and the couple’s two other children. A transcript of the statement was made public yesterday, after editing by both sides to remove some of the most sensitive material.
The custody trial will conclude this week, with closing arguments beginning today.
Dr. Leventhal headed the hospital team that was asked by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the claim that Mr. Allen molested Dylan last August at Miss Farrow’s summer home in Connecticut. The team told Mr. Allen and Miss Farrow on March 18 that it had concluded that Dylan was not molested, but the transcript gives the first look at the thinking behind that finding.
Dylan’s statements in interviews at the hospital contradicted each other and the story she told on a videotape made by Miss Farrow, Dr. Leventhal said. “Those were not minor inconsistencies,” he said. “She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.”
The doctor suggested a connection between Miss Farrow’s outrage over Mr. Allen’s affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, and the accusation made by Dylan, who he said was unusually protective of her mother.
“It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that she stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother,” he said.
Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, he said, “The view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household.”
Dr. Leventhal said it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.
He also said it was possible that Miss Farrow encouraged her child to fabricate simply by videotaping her telling the story, because Dylan liked to perform.
But from the judge’s ruling we learn that he was unimpressed by the report made by the above experts:
“I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Leventhal. The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master’s degree in social work. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team.
The notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations.
The unavailability of the notes, together with the deposition of Dr. Leventhal, compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.
Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist who has extensive familiarity with child abuse cases, was called as a witness by Ms. Farrow to comment on the Yale-New Haven report.
I share his reservations about the reliability of the report.”
“Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (1) for making visitation recommendations without seeing the parent interact with the child; (2) for failing to support adequately their conclusion that Dylan has a thought disorder; (3) for drawing any conclusions about Satchel, whom they never saw; (4) for finding that there was no abuse when the supporting data was inconclusive; and (5) for recommending that Ms. Farrow enter into therapy.
In addition, I do not think that it was appropriate for Yale-New Haven, without notice to the parties or their counsel, to exceed its mandate and make observations and recommendations which might have an impact on existing litigation in another jurisdiction.”
In one of the comments in today’s media I’ve found a summary of other strange points in the Woody Allen case. Originally they were reported by the 1997 Connecticut Magazine by its veteran journalist Andy Thibault. The summary adds a lot of interesting details to the picture:
1. The Yale team used psychologists on Allen’s payroll to make mental health conclusions. CONFLICT OF INTEREST !
2. Custody recommendations were made even though the Yale team never saw Allen and any of the children together.
3. The Allen Yale team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims. Witnesses whose stories never varied from what they saw Allen do to Dylan.
4. The team destroyed its notes. They shouldn’t have anything to hide, unless there’s disagreement. DESTROYED EVIDENCE!
5. Dr Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan.
6. The night before Leventhal gave a statement to Farrow’s attorney, he discussed the scenario with Abramowitz, the head of Allen’s legal team, for about 30 minutes.
7. The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said Allen violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions, she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.
8. Dr. Leventhal himself later admitted, in sworn testimony in the custody case, that he made several mistakes during the course of the investigation. One of those was his false characterization of Dylan’s active imagination as a thought disorder. This caused him to throw out Dylan’s story.
9. Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half-hour interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.
But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.
But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that his prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent. HE LIED to police!
10. Allen’s private detectives were compartmentalized, hired by different lawyers and subcontractors working for him, police say. The private detectives included former FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents, even former state cops who were friends with Mucherino.
“They were just trying to disrupt the case. We all know today, in light of O.J., that if you have nothing to go on, you go after law enforcement.”
D’Amico says the Allen team played a number of dirty tricks. Other law enforcement officials suspect that they had something to do with the false rumor that a top police investigator on the Allen case was trying to sell a videotape of Dylan to the tabloid media. The state police immediately began an internal affairs investigation of this trooper, who was cleared. Former Chief State’s Attorney Austin McGuigan said the allegations had to affect “the investigator’s ability to do his job.”
“The investigation closed down for about 10 days,” Maco recalls. “About this time, I was told there was a campaign to disrupt the investigation and discredit the investigators, being orchestrated out of New York.“
11. The Judge Wilk who finally greatly questioned the findings given the circumstances. He called Woody Allen a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive” father given the evidence.
12 . Woody’s past history of dating a 17 year old high school girl identifies him having issues of pedophilia. I think most are now are agreeing.
The 1997 Connecticut Magazine article confirms all of the above and explains that Dr. Leventhal noted in his report that Dylan had a “thought disorder” because she spoke of some “dead heads in the attic”. When it was found that Mia Farrow kept there a trunk with wigs from her movies on wig blocks the matter was clarified, however Dr. Leventhal didn’t bother to change the report.
This information is supplemented by details from the former Obama speechwriter who is close to the Farrows’ family and also cited the testimony from the original case. He says that the alarm was sounded by several witnesses even before Mia Farrow learned anything of it (I have counted at least three witnesses).
He also confirms that Dylan’s story has not changed for 20 years which in comparison with Wade Robson’s allegations is one of the key points.
Things are no longer funny here and needless to say, if it were Michael Jackson this news would be blasting from the front pages of every paper:
Former Obama speechwriter makes case against Woody Allen on child molestation claim
Posted at 8:40 am on February 6, 2014 by Twitchy Staff
If you’ve been following the sexual abuse allegations against film director Woody Allen by Dylan Farrow and the responses from Allen’s defenders, you may be just as confused as anyone about what the truth is. One argument against Allen came yesterday from Jon Lovett, former Obama speechwriter, who cited testimony from the original case.
A quote from the judge’s ruling:
“Ms. Farrow’s statement to Dr. Coates that she hoped that Dylan’s statements were a fantasy is inconsistent with the notion of brainwashing.
In this regard I also credit the testimony of Ms. Groteke, who was charged with supervising Ms. Allen’s August 4 visit with Dylan. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan’s statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4.
It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of having sexually molested her during a period in which Ms. Farrow believed they were in the presence of a babysitter.
Moreover, I do not believe that Ms. Farrow would have exposed her daughter and her other children to the consequences of the Connecticut investigation and this litigation if she did not believe the possible truth of Dylan’s accusation. In a society where children are too often betrayed by adults who ignore or disbelieve their complaints of abuse, Ms. Farrow’s determination to protect Dylan is commendable.”
A babysitter was so unnerved by what she caught Woody Allen doing to Dylan, his head in her lap, she sounded the first alarm.—
Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014
But I’m close to this family, so I guess that means I’m brainwashed too. Even though everything I’m saying is in the public record.—
Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014
The power of the internet, I hope, is that powerful men like Woody Allen no longer control the story. That has to be true.—
Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 06, 2014
This is from the court’s ruling. The attack that the abuse is some planted memory requires ignoring other witnesses:
“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.”
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,” 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.
“HE IS FRIENDS WITH THE MIGHTY”
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.
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.
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:
October 04, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 14
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.”
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.
THEY FINALLY GUESSED WHERE TO LOOK
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The 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.
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.
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”?
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.
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?
Indeed, what the hell have you been watching all this time?
WHEN WOODY ALLEN LAUGHS MICHAEL JACKSON CRIES
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”.
In 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 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 …
Michael 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”.
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.