Woody Allen and the Media’s Mob Hysteria

Woody Allen
Michael Stewart/WireImage

What’s my favorite Woody Allen movie? When I was asked, along with several other Variety staffers, to answer that question — long before Dylan Farrow posed it rhetorically to the world — for a 2013 sidebar to my own Allen interview, I picked “Husbands and Wives,” Allen’s raw and formally inventive 1992 drama of two married couples variously parting ways and reuniting amidst a roundelay of infidelities. That movie famously premiered while the director’s separation from Mia Farrow was still playing out daily in the headlines, and had reportedly been shot just as Mia was learning of Woody’s nascent affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn.

All of this powered “Husbands” — one of Allen’s rare movies to be released nationwide on its first weekend — to above-average box office, but with all the life-imitates-art parallels in the press, the movie’s actual merits got somewhat lost in the shuffle. There were two Oscar nominations, for Allen’s script, and for the blistering Judy Davis as supporting actress. But look at the film today and it remains a far more bracing thing than most of that year’s higher-profile nominees (including those treacle-fests “A Few Good Men” and “Scent of a Woman”). It’s savagely astute about relationships that have overstayed their welcome, brilliantly acted (not least by Mia herself, and the late Sydney Pollack), and bold in its use of handheld camerawork and an unexplained offscreen narrator who periodically interacts with the fictional characters.

Of course, “Husbands and Wives” could also be the title of another Woody Allen movie perched uneasily between reality and fiction — the one that has consumed untold amounts of real and virtual ink over the past month, beginning with the Feb. 1 Nicholas Kristof column in the New York Times that sparked the inferno. There is a husband, Woody, who has now been married to Soon-Yi since 1997; and there is Mia, who has been wife to two men, but never to Woody himself. And there is a daughter, Dylan, whose accusations of fatherly impropriety are far graver and more disturbing than mere spousal infidelity — doubly so if, in fact, they aren’t true.

The tenor of the Allen case has been just this side of Wagnerian, and shows no signs of abatement. Depending on what paper you pick up or which website you click, you can find Allen vilified as a sex fiend and defended as everything from a scapegoat for the Farrow family’s career ambitions to the victim of a far-reaching feminist conspiracy. Whenever some new high-profile forum presents itself, those with axes to grind and crosses to bear are soon to follow. You can also find Dylan Farrow’s original “open letter,” as well as the subsequent replies by Moses Farrow and Allen himself, followed by Dylan’s reply to those replies. And you can find dozens of stories about the insider horse-trading by which those op-eds were accepted or rejected by various media outlets. Even the efforts of Allen’s longtime publicist, Leslee Dart, to counter the initial tide of negative stories itself became a news item.

Because we live in a post-Drudge Report age when there’s no news like someone else’s news, each of these “breaks” in the Woody drama has inevitably spawned dozens of copycat articles in publications (including this one) licking their wounds from not getting the initial scoop: “News Flash! Woody Allen Publishes Op-Ed in the Times! Click Here to Read a Few Choice Quotes Plus a Link to the Original Story That You Really Want to Be Reading!”All of which is still preferable to that true Internet pestilence — the comments sections — where an army of armchair Freudians come to have their say. A great many of these people, operating on little more than gut instinct, are convinced that Allen has committed unforgivable crimes, and most will never be convinced otherwise, no matter what the evidence may ultimately prove.

Allen is hardly the first — or the last — public figure to be judged in the kangaroo court of public opinion, but oh, what a difference the 24-hour news cycle has made. Just imagine what fun the moralizing Twitterverse could have had with the hasty 1924 marriage of Charlie Chaplin, then 35, to 16-year-old Lita Grey, in part to avoid statutory rape charges (he had gotten Grey pregnant); or with Chaplin’s subsequent marriage, at age 54, to 18-year-old Oona O’Neill, to whom he remained married for the remainder of his life and with whom he fathered eight children. Chaplin’s comment in his autobiography that meeting O’Neill was “the happiest event of my life” is echoed in Woody’s remark that Mia’s discovery of his affair with Soon-Yi was “one of the great pieces of luck in my life.” And yet time has been considerably kinder to Charlie than to Woody, whose affair with Soon-Yi never really went away, beating on quietly in the background of his career for these past two decades, and now fully rearing its head once again.

But wait, you say, the latest allegations concern Dylan Farrow and not Soon-Yi. True enough, except that these “new” allegations aren’t really new — they were first leveled in 1991, at the height of Mia-gate, and there has scarcely been a report of the Dylan case that hasn’t invoked Soon-Yi as a kind of past precedent (starting with Dylan’s own accusation that Allen used his affair with Soon-Yi “to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me”). And there may be no single aspect of the Allen case more disturbing than the speed with which many in and out of the media have equated an attraction to young women in their late teens or early 20s (an affliction, if you must, hardly unique to Allen) with a predatory lust for prepubescent children. You can question the propriety of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and with his earlier teenage girlfriend Stacey Nelkin, but to say “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” especially when he has not before or since been accused of any similar offenses by any other parties, requires a most insidious leap of the imagination indeed.

As part of the relentless desire to leave no possible angle of this drama unexplored, there have been multiple articles speculating on the potential impact Dylan’s accusations could have on the Oscar campaign for Allen’s latest film, “Blue Jasmine.” More relevant to the discussion, though, is another film in this year’s Oscar race, Thomas Vinterberg’s “The Hunt,” that takes as its subject a specious allegation of child abuse and how it ruins the life of the accused man. “The Hunt” is fiction, of course, with its roots in a long tradition of cautionary tales about the dangers of mob rule, like Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “Le Corbeau” and Reginald Rose’s “12 Angry Men.” But it is also a story with its tendrils in reality, in cases of both a sexual nature (like the litany of false sex-abuse claims recently detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in an excellent Wall Street Journal essay) to the falsely accused Atlanta Olympics bomber Richard Jewell and the alleged Australian child killer Lindy Chamberlain (who spent 25 years after her release from prison trying to have a coroner officially declare that, indeed, a dingo had taken her baby Azaria from an Ayers Rock campground).

None of this, of course, bears any more directly on the Dylan Farrow case than Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi should, but it is another kind of past precedent, and one that many writing about the current case would do well to bear in mind. Your gut can tell you all it wants about what really did or didn’t happen between Woody and Dylan in that now-infamous Connecticut attic. But if we are to live in anything resembling a civil society, than anyone accused of such trespasses must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Watching this latest chapter of Woody Allen’s private life play out in public these past few weeks, I’ve shed a tear, not for Woody, but for the increasingly sorry state of American journalism, in which the line between tabloid exploitation and serious reportage has grown so blurry as to become almost invisible, and even the lowest standards of human decency seem to have been sacrificed in the name of increased Web traffic. Once upon a time, it was said that the truth could sometimes be stranger than fiction, but what happens when we can no longer tell the one from the other?

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 118

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. mortrefuge says:

    Where as I agree that we can all make a judgement based on Allen’s relationship with Soon Yi and how that damaged Mia Farrow and her family, I do not agree that we are required to blindly accept the open letter from Dylan with out a critical eye. Whether or not Mia deliberately planted a false memory into Dylan could never be determined once Mia decided to interview Dylan on videotape over a 24 hour period to get her story rather than calling the police immediately so that they could have conducted an unbiased forensic interview with her and gather evidence. Many people have pointed out that because of the detail in her open letter and the new information she presented that it made her letter credible and moving. However one only needs to note that the allegations in the letter are almost 100% from Maureen Orth’s original 1992 article. Whether or not she had read the article in the 20 years since the incident, or used the article to form the basis of her letter cannot be known. Unless of course someone asked her. But of course that would be attacking the victim.

  2. Howard Beale says:

    Educate Yourselves! Just Read the Original Custody Ruling THEN Opine on Woody Allen’s guilt or lack thereof, the judge’s words are shocking. This reveals the machinations of Allen to spin his way out.

  3. Melpub says:

    It’s this article and others like it that perpetuate hysteria. Because I believe Dylan Farrow–because she is very believable–does not mean that the Oscars should be affected or that the art of Woody Allen is on trial, or should be (is it possible, in Puritan America, to separate the man from the art?) The art may reveal, in context, a number of warning signals about the behavior of the man–but it is still art, it stands on its own, and should be judged on its own merits.
    Dylan Farrow deserves our support, which means that we lend her an ear, we applaud her courage in telling her story, and we are grateful to her for the heads up–parents, keep your kids away from this guy.

  4. de24356 says:

    I think the author should arrange himself with Alec Baldwin who wrote a very cultural pessimistic text in the New York Magazine in which he gives the guilt for his own mistakes the media and the internet.
    Perhaps the people who most cry because of guilt or hysteria of something should perhaps thinking about their own behavior too. Especially in this case of Mr. Foundas.

    To criticizes something is one thing but not to take a precise research is the other. Here he takes the risk to defend a child abuse and a probably child abuser…

    and his text does not include the feelings from the victim. with no word. and that´s a shame for someone who thinks from himself that he is a serious journalist.

  5. JBP says:

    The slough of responses to Mr. Foundas’s very sensible article essentially supports his thesis about the deplorable mob psychology driving this debate.

    • Jo Anne says:

      Foundas’ article is polemic, arrogant and offensive.

      • Chris O says:

        To you perhaps, I find Foundas’ article to be one of the more rational debates on the matter. I fail to see how it is offensive. Because he does not concur Mr. Allen must as an accused child molester be treated with repugnance?

  6. Chris O says:

    Dylan Farrrow stated in her open letter in the NYTs that Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. Why have the “other little girls” not come forward? Considering the publicity this case has generated I would think that by now they would have. By comparison, in England the recent Jimmy Savile sex scandal which received extensive media coverage resulted in several scores of individuals who claimed that they suffered sexual assault and abuse by this individual as children or young people.

    • R. P. says:

      But the Savile case illustrates a point exactly opposite to the one you are attempting to make. Recall that out of all Savile’s victims–and there were reportedly hundreds of them!–none of them spoke to the press until well after the man had died. Not a single one.

      One wonders if more facts will similarly be revealed after Allen’s passing.

      • Chris O says:

        According to the Wikipedia site on Jimmy Saville:

        During Savile’s lifetime, sporadic allegations of child abuse were made against him dating back to 1964,[95] but only became widely publicised after his death.

        Your source for stating – none of them spoke to the press until well after the man had died?

  7. Josh says:

    Dismissing Woody and Soon-yi’s relationship as a simple attraction of an older man to a much younger woman, and ignoring the position of authority he’d held in her life for the previous decade or so, since she was around 9 years old, is some kind of willful blindness. It undermines any point you might try to make here.

  8. Frank Lee says:

    Mia DID notify authorities once she brought it to Dr. Coates which required Coates by law to notify the police. Except Coates notified Allen FIRST! This is against HIPPA.

    She was first notified on August 5th.

    “Ms. farrow also notified Dr. Coates, who was still treating Satchel.””It sounds convincing to me, doesn’t it to you. It is so specific. Let’s hope it’s her fantasy.” Dr. Coates immediately notified Mr. Allen of the child’s accusation then contacted New York City child welfare Administration. “Mr. Allen began this action for custody.” AUGUST 6TH. Allen Vs Farrow dated June 7, 1993.

    • Howard Beale says:

      This letter from Woody’s 15 year old ‘son’ Moses speaks volumes. It is part of the record of Woody Allen’s suit for custody of the children as a response to the report of his abuse of Dylan.

      “…you can’t force me to live with you. . . . you have one 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.

  9. mortrefuge says:

    Mia should have taken Dylan to the authorities after she confirmed that Allen had his face in her lap, was breathing on her legs and was holding her by her behind. Instead she spent the next 24 hours getting Dylan’s accusation on video tape. Because of that we will never know how much Mia’s concern, her belief that Allen’s attention to Dylan was sexual and anger over his relationship with Soon Yi affected Dylan’s statements and in the end even her memory.

  10. Frank Lee says:

    Samgeimer why do you care whether we state our opinion ?? What difference does it make in your life to come on here and tell others what to think or how to express their opinion?

    I say that is hypocrisy. OH I just read your last line of course but it is ok for you to spew YOUR venom and hatred toward something so completely off topic to smear and has no factual bearing on the issue of child molestation in this case….

    So that is the way you work. GOT IT.

  11. samgeimer says:

    Wow, none of you know what happened. None of you were there. None of you even know if any of the “facts” you have read or heard are true. What a colossal waste of your time and energy. I suggest that you all go back to worrying about your own lives, over which you have some control. Stop spewing all this ridiculous venom in all directions, and take a look at yourselves. The only lesson here is that if you think someone molested your 7 year old daughter, you call the police, immediately, period. And if you don’t then you have failed you child. There is nothing that can change the past, so maybe you should all be talking about a certain Farrow’s new TV show, wasn’t that really the point of all this. He is the one looking for attention with a sarcastic tweet about his 7 year old sister’s molestation, yuck!

    • samgeimer says:

      Because I’ve spent 36 years listening to “interested individuals” repeat ridiculous lie after lie about myself, my mother and Roman. I know a little about it, but by all means, continue with this highly educated and informed discussion. Your “opinions” are sure to add value to society. I have always really enjoyed having my rape be used for the benefit and publicity of others, it feels awesome. It is just sad all the way around.

      • cuppy says:

        Nail on the head: “You cannot choose not to prosecute a pedophile and then demand that they are not given the benefit of the assumption of innocence.” Exactly.

      • samgeimer says:

        I have no hard feelings against any of the people who wrote letters in support of Roman, not then, not now. However, the “what if it was your daughter?” personally aimed at actors who have worked with Mr. Allen seems rather ironic to me. I found Ronan’s tweet vulgar and inappropriate and think using twitter to bring public awareness to such serious matters is in very poor taste. My point is, if you aren’t involved in it, you do not and cannot know what happened, all the heated debate is ugly and useless and will never bring any good to anyone. You cannot choose not to prosecute a pedophile and then demand that they are not given the benefit of the assumption of innocence, which is no a trivial matter. It is important to our society and to our legal system. We all must live with the choices we make. I truly hope the Dylan was not as offended by Ronan’s timely tweet and the attention it has brought to her family as I was. I am very happy for the family I have especially in light of watching this ugly public battle. We would all do well to have our own opinions and shut up about it. Yes I know, that will never happen. But at least I know what I don’t and can never know, unlike that masses of “commenters” who do a disservice with all their self important opinions.

      • Frank Lee says:

        My apologies I assumed you were referring to your self as Moses. As your response was vague. I followed what happened to you. I can not condemn what predators like Roman did enough! There is an inner circle of Hell for this man. I have great empathy for you and what you went through.

        That said Mia made the WRONG choice in the matter of defending Roman at that time. Mia probably she wishes she could take back given her own circumstances.

        That does not change the fact a child now adult is speaking out claim THIS as her truth. The evidence in the case is very damning. I do not think you have sexual abuse cornered and can speak on everyone’s behalf as to what they should or should not do. Every persons experience is there OWN.

        Then to go further and insinuate that Ronan’s show is the reason behind the Dylan outing her story is just DISGRACEFUL. YOU of all people should know not find ulterior motives in the face victims claims.
        That is sick. Yuck.

        You asked to think about the families? I am. I am thinking they think this is you using this as payback time for Mia speaking positively about Roman in the past. I am thinking they knew all this would come out. I thinking they think very little about what you think or have to say at this point regarding the molestation of the 7 year old girl named Dylan their sister and daughter. I am thinking they are relieved that people are finally believe the curly haired little girl named Dylan who told the truth all those years ago.

      • samgeimer says:

        Mr. Lee, My name is Samantha Geimer, I was the minor victim in the Roman Polanski sex scandal in 1977. Who are you, to comment on any of this? My experience with “public opinion” on matters which are gravely misunderstood by almost all who take the time to comment, is shall we say, vast. Before you crucify all who dare to admit they don’t really know what happened and should not judge, you should consider the feelings of the families you may affect with your words. “Mia was kind enough to write to the probation department to say in part “Roman was a brave and brilliant man important to all people” after my rape, so perhaps reserving judgment on matters we are not involved in is the best thing we can all do.

      • Frank Lee says:

        I’m sorry you are saying you are??? Who Moses?? Doubt it.
        The same Moses who wrote:

        “…….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 SONS DREAM.”

        So what changed Moses?
        From the little boy who was damaged goods from a fathers betrayal. Eager for ANYTHING, ANY attention from Allen… Are we still blaming the little ones??

        Why do you feel the need to tell your sister she lied and that you somehow have authority over HER VOICE. HER EXPERIENCE?

        You do realize not all children in a family are molested. Most in families blame the victim and challenge their voice… so a “Moses ” stance it NOT unusual.

        And PS it wasn’t YOUR RAPE. IT WAS Dylan’s molestation.. In fact she wasn’t raped… she was molested. you would know this if you weren’t posing as Moses.

        Get a life.

  12. Jo Anne says:

    Judge Wilk, the precising judge in the Allen’s custody case against Farrow found that Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her” and that Allen was a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive father”

    I don’t think anybody will ever find out what happened in 1992, but given the fact Allen already used bad judgement in starting a sexual relationship with the 35 year younger daughter (and sister of his own daughter) of his girlfriend, I would be very suspicious to let him anywhere around my children.

    By his own admission Allen stated in a 1976 interview with People magazine:

    “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.”

    Mr Foundas – the “kangaroo court of public opinion” has every bit a right to state their opinion!

    • Frank Lee says:

      Exactly Jo anne…thank you. It is like Leslee Dart Woody Allen’s publicist has hired out writers of various papers to do pro Allen write ups. We all have the right to state what we believe is the truth. So basically the writer is say he can can have a positive opinion of Woody it but no one else should have or be allowed to have a negative opinion of Woody. Way to do a celebrity spin! ha!

      What a crock!

      • Jo Anne says:

        I am sure publications like Variety are not fond of social media, where everybody expresses what their opinion is on things. The old way of “we write it and you just have to suck it up” just does not work anymore in 2014 and that’s a good thing.

    • cuppy says:

      Mr. Foundas is not questioning one’s right to express an opinion–just the consequences–and wisdom– of doing so and in certain situations and platforms.

      • Frank Lee says:

        Nope he referred to those, in the “kangaroo court of public opinion”,” Just imagine what fun the moralizing Twitterverse could have had with the hasty 1924 marriage of Charlie Chaplin.”

        These are all public forums where people are speaking their own mind no editors involved. IT IS A PUBLIC FORUM. So, yes he is referring to US forming a negative opinion on Woody.

        This writer has gone beyond his sphere, he should not be dictating what we should think or feel because they disagree with his views. Period… what is this the KGB Variety mag??

  13. mortrefuge says:

    Let’s be real. Most cases of child abuse involve multiple instances over a number of years. In this case Dylan herself states it only happened one time and the rest was just everyday weirdness (I’m referring to the November 2013 Maureen Orth article). But let me ask just one quick question. The baby sitter (Mia’s best friend’s, Casey Pascal’s) said she saw Allen holding Dylan with his face in her naked lap and said she was shocked, and that Allen looked comfortable. But I have never heard what happened next. Did she remove Dylan from that situation? Did she tell one of Mia’s babysitter’s? According to some reports the incident in the attic happened AFTER she witnessed this event. Was Allen so arrogant that even after the baby sitter witnessed his FACE IN HER NAKED LAP that he further took her up to the attic to sexually assault her with his finger? And why did a physical examination taken just days after this event was the pediatrician unable to find any physical injury that supported the allegation? AND why did it take 24 hours for Mia to get Dylan’s allegation on videotape?

    • ledenjak says:

      1) Don’t confuse serial pedophiles with child molesters. That doesn’t do a service to anyone.

      All child molesters are not pedophiles. All pedophiles do not molest children. Child molestation can happen just once or to just one child.

      Saying that if someone isn’t accused of being a serial pedophile that he cannot be a molester is either ignorance or deliberate obfuscation.That’s like saying if a person accused of murdering a single person isn’t accused of a string of serial killings then that is proof he must not be a murderer because the only people who kill are serial killers. It’s hogwash.

      2)… yeah, I was going to address the rest of your misinformation but like others I suspect you’re a shill, so not going to waste my time.

    • Frank Lee says:

      His views always leaving me with the impression that are disturbing and lacking in any factual information.

      Blind dedication of a shill? Perhaps?.

    • de24356 says:

      And it seems to me that you want to calm down and trivialize child abuse mortrefuge. That is the impression which I have with your comment here.

      That is the sad impression that I have from you.

      • mortrefuge says:

        de24356, and I’m afraid you’ve lost any ability to objectively look at the actual facts of this particular case.

    • de24356 says:

      i think probably it was after the abuse that the nnay saw this. He was perhaps satisfied. the reaction from the nanny is also understandable. she is shocked. what should she do?

      and Mia Farrow is a mother. She wants to protect her children. So she took this on videotape. And 24 hours after this is also understandable. First her daughter told her from the abuse. Than she went to the pediatrition, spoke with an psychologist…

      • Frank Lee says:

        She never disowned Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was 19 years old at the time she found out about their relationship. Mia is still Soon-Yi’s legal mother.

      • mortrefuge says:

        And that goes to the heart of the problem. Mia should have taken Dylan to the authorities after she confirmed that Allen had his face in her lap, was breathing on her legs and was holding her by her behind. Instead she spent the next 24 hours getting Dylan’s accusation on video tape. Because of that we will never know how much Mia’s concern, her belief that Allen’s attention to Dylan was sexual and anger over his relationship with Soon Yi affected Dylan’s statements and in the end even her memory.

      • cuppy says:

        If she wanted to “protect her children” why did she beat Soon-Yi on the head in a rage, inform all the other children of the troubling details, and promptly disown her? Soon-Yi was also her child. There is plenty of questionable behavior to go around here.

  14. mortrefuge says:

    Okay. Here is a question for any social workers or experts in the field of child abuse. If you were told that the victim’s allegations were videotaped over a 24 hour period by the victim’s mother who was in the middle of custody and child support negotiations with her ex-lover to whom she was pretty angry, would that color your thinking about those allegations? Of course it wasn’t 24 hours of video. Only the allegations were videotaped. Would it matter whether or not a physical examination taken days after the event showed no signs of physical injury that supported the allegation that the victim was sexually assaulted by the perpetrator’s finger? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15011223

  15. Robert Denis Byrne says:

    Woody Allen was able to present his version of this story many years ago but Dylan Farrow, who was a child at that time, was not. I applaud Dylan for stepping forward to present her version of what Allen termed at that time “a non-event.” If in fact it was a non-event, as he termed it, why would he have invested so much time in mounting a PR offensive against the allegations?

    I disagree with you Mr. Foundas. I think that the substantive facts that were suppressed over 20 years ago are now coming to light, thanks to the exposure this story is receiving. Please note that I used the term substantive facts, not the kind of titillating misinformation that you evidently think is propelling this story. You also refer to Woody Allen’s private life as if the allegations of child abuse corroborated by the adult survivor of that abuse is something that should be concealed. Is that the purpose you think good journalism should serve?

    What message is being sent to children when we attempt yet again to squelch the voice of someone who survived to tell the tale of her sexual abuse? Can children believe that their voices will be heard when they confide that they are being abused to a trusted adult? No one is inventing anything here and nothing is being blown out of proportion. This is not about tabloid journalism. Please check the facts — all of them.

    Dylan Farrow was given access to an open public forum and courageously stepped forward to candidly share her painful memories of being molested as a child. She deserves our full and thoughtful attention, just as Woody Allen has been granted the benefit of doubt.

  16. Tony S. says:

    Not only did they find that Woody was a neglectful parent but his physical obsession with Dylan had progressed into a full blown cause to have a medical intervention. His own pych Dr. Coates said :

    “”She testified that she worked with Mr. Allen to help him to understand that his behavior with Dylan was inappropriate and that it had to be modified. ”
    This was in regards to his inappropriate behavior shoving his thumb in her mouth and “reading to her in his bed in his undershorts and by permitting her to suck on his thumb.” —Allen vs. Farrow June 7, 1993

    That said he did not live in Mia’s house! But would take his pants off to do this. UGH.

    • mortrefuge says:

      The psychologist thought his attention was inappropriately intense but did not characterize it as sexual. That was all Mia and her camp. And allowing a 3 year old to suck your thumb is not the same thing at all as forcing your thumb into their mouth. And why do you keep cherry picking statements to make your points? And do you REALLY not know what the word inconclusive means?

      • de24356 says:

        Dylan said that he was molesting her many times before the abuse did occur. She didn´t like it when he touched her and so and so on.

    • Disgusting! Reading to his child in bed – horrifying. And in his undershorts no less. I certainly never lay in bed with my child in my underwear – actually I did, as have most parents.

      • ledenjak says:

        Most parents? No.

      • Frank Lee says:

        Yeah he dropped his pants to read to her in bed at her home in bed… which he did not live in.
        Friggin disgusting and disturbing. Why could he not just sit on the bed?? Crawling underneath the covers?? He wasn’t even her father yet.

        YES DISTURBING and disgusting.

  17. cuppy says:

    It seems like some of the judge’s unfavorable findings regarding Woody Allen’s relationships with his 3 children–not bathing them, not dressing them, not knowing the intimate details and ends and outs of their lives basically–are actually contradictory to the character traits and actions that one might expect of a predator or pedophile. I am not saying these are not faults, just that they don’t seem to describe a pedophile. Wouldn’t a pedophile be offering up his time to perform exactly these types of activities with the child in order to insidiously influence and prey upon her or him? Just a thought.

  18. mortrefuge says:

    Busted? Hardly. Per page 3 of an interview with the prosecutor: Police found hair fibers in the crawl space consistent with Allen’s, but forensic specialist Dr. Henry Lee, chief of Connecticut’s state crime laboratory, believes the evidence could not conclusively place Allen in the attic. http://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/Connecticut-Today/September-2013/Mia-Farrows-Vanity-Fair-Interview-References-1997-Connecticut-Magazine-Article/index.php?cparticle=3&siarticle=2#artanc

    By the way this was a reference that was used in Maureen Orth’s November 2013 article. Nowhere is it stated that Allen’s fingerprints were found in the attic. Investigators used this as a way to intimidate Allen into making self-incriminating statements, which apparently they did. But they never had anything to back it up.

    • Tony S. says:

      Busted … exactly! His hair was found on a painting and P.S. the Vanity fair article was fact checked otherwise I guarantee you Vanity Fair would be facing charges for libel and slander. I however didn’t get my info from Orth’s article nice try..

      Keep trying though ! You should really be checking your priorities instead of going to great lengths to defend the facts in the case that were already proven. Can you explain Woody’s reason for investigating the entire police department using former CIA and DEA to dig up dirt to waylay the case not exactly the actions of a man who is innocent.

      But hey look no further that the June 7, 1993 Supreme Court Allen vs. Farrow document and the May 4, 1995 which upheld Judge Wilk’s decision.

      • Frank Lee says:

        The officers did not find his DNA inconclusive. Such lies.

        “Police found hair fibers in the crawl space consistent with Allen’s, but forensic specialist Dr. Henry Lee, chief of Connecticut’s state crime laboratory, believes the evidence could not conclusively place Allen in the attic.

        Just a few weeks after the Aug. 4 incidents, Allen tried to set preconditions for an interview with the state police. One of the preconditions was that any statements made by Allen could not be used to impeach him. The state police did not comply.”

        “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.”

        WOODY ADMITS TO BEING IN THE CRAWL SPACE. The same crawl space that his hairs that were confirmed consistent by the crime lab.


        You left that out didn’t you????? Why are you lying??? A lie by omission is still a lie.

      • mortrefuge says:

        Do you really not know the meaning of inconclusive?

  19. Tony S. says:

    Really anyone with good sense would review the documents themselves Allen Vs. Farrow dated June 7, 1993 read all 33 pages they conflict entirely with Woody’s defense. In addition read the last appeal Woody made in May, 4, 1995 which UPHELD Judge Wilk’s ruling of the 1993 court ruling. The 1995 ruling and went further to state they are refusing Woody visitation and custody Dr. Moreau challenged Woody’s position in it’s entirety.

  20. mprical says:

    The NYT totally did themselves a disservice by involving themselves – took themselves down several rungs on the respectability/credibility ladder.

    No one paid attention to the Vanity Fair article because it is silly picture rag and is clearly accepted as such by anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

  21. Tony S. says:

    Nice try at spinning history or rather His-Story. The 33 page document proved the Yale team incompetent at best grossly negligent and unwilling to testify to back up their claims. That aside Allen’s hair and finger prints were found in the attic. We CAN place Woody in the attic he lied to police officers about. Making a stand against against this type of crime is far from a “mob hysteria” or a “Kangaroo court”. Maybe the writer could live not taking a stand with that I know I couldn’t.

    Ps. Stacy Nelkin was a 17 year old High School girl when he dated he at 42! It does matter it does set a precedence these are just the relationship he admitted to. Geez. Variety do some fact checking.

    • mortrefuge says:

      Actually, per Maureen Orth’s 2013 article, the investigators were never able to conclusively place Allen in the attic. If you could provide a link to any article that states they were able to or even found Allen’s fingerprints there, I would appreciate it. Mia Farrow admitted in court testimony that there was no evidence of injury that supported the allegations. And it’s part of the court document that Dylan’s accusation came out of a 24 hour period when Mia was getting Dylan’s story on video tape.

  22. Carlie Shterzer says:

    This sounds good and all, but for the fact that we have the 33-page ruling from the family court judge, and the New York Supreme Court ruling, which found cause to revoke parental rights from Woody Allen.

    • suzanne rovertson says:

      Woody Allen,s parental rights were never terminated.

    • Tony S. says:

      Yeah I will. It came from the retired police officer in the case. Woody denied profusely to the police he ever even entered the closet which led to the attic because of his claustrophobia. When officers told him they had the fingerprints he later admitted being in the attic .

      Feel free to google it though. They found his hair in the attic I believe in more than one place 1 was on a picture the other was on the floor. Woody later admitted his finger prints might be there when grabbing the kids from the attic or giving them a soda. The police then said well you would have to enter the closet to get to the attic..


  23. Dale Hopson says:

    Mia is just pissed Woody has been her son-in-law for two decades…

    • Elly says:

      Put down the pitchforks and look in the mirror. Unbelievable.The science to confirm a DNA hair match did not even exist at that time.That and the “fingerprinting the attic” are part of the
      endless cycle of misinformation that keep spewing in these sections from people who cannot just make peace with the truth.You don’t know what happened.
      If they could have prosecuted they would have.If you don’t like his films.Don’t watch them.If you think they should be boycott.Do so.
      Just stop cherry picking facts , making things up and believing it’s true because you read it in VANITY FAIR.
      Or pouring over court documents and taking them out of context and ignoring evidence you don’t
      like the sound of.Like the Yale/New Haven team.
      Give it a rest people and wish all involved peace and healing

      • Frank Lee says:

        Ha say’s you! I suggest to take that mirror and tun it around you are defending Woody Allen a prev.

        1. First the info is not just in Vanity Fair.. it is many publications with verifications from the officers involved.

        2. Second Vanity fair is facts checked I don’t know why the Allen Camps is set on Demonizing a very reputable magazine which has been around longer than most.

        3. Third You can’t tell anyone what to DO ALLEN CAMP.

        4. Fourth I don’t think you even know what cherry picking is. …. Qutes from the actual documents does not constitute cherry picking.

        5. Fifth Just because YOU don’t like the judges ruling regarding the sanitizing the Allen Yale team did that IT IS ignored.

        6. Sixth The Yale team had ZERO conclusive ideas and refused to testify and back up those claims ie “Hypothesis” in a court of law. I suggest you reread the Yale report it said Hypothesis not FACT! haaaaaaaa..

        Allen Vs. Farrow June 7, 1993

        “I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John Leventhal. ” “The unavailability of the notes, together with their unwillingness to testify at this trial except through the deposition of Dr. Leventhal,compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and therefore less credible.

        7. Seventh Jujdge Wilk’s Ruling “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.”-Allen Vs. Farrow June 7, 1993

        8. Eighth All of the trial rulings were upheld by the final court in May 4, 1995

  24. mortrefuge says:

    de24356, how do you provide “evidence” for a non-event? The Yale New Haven team were the experts from the Yale New Haven Hospital Child Abuse Center. That’s their field of expertise. Why would the police have commissioned the report in the first place if they weren’t the experts? Maureen Orth’s original article in 1992 states that it was in there hands to determine if there was evidence of abuse. They concluded there wasn’t. The prosecutor stated that he “thought” there was probable cause but has never been able to produce any evidence to support that the abuse occurred.

    • Elly says:

      Frank Lee
      you sound very personally invested in this case .Yale/New Haven stands by the well researched report.The 2 social workers met with Dylan 9 times and concluded that she appeared to have been coached and there was no credible evidence of abuse.This team was hired by the prosecutors office…not by some imaginary “Woody Allen Camp”.The judge chose to ignore it and was very sympathetic to Mia Farrow.He overstepped his bounds and was sanctioned for it.Mia actually named one of her children after this Judge.
      Why are people who refuse to believe celebrity gossip rags,find Dylans timing suspect (and question the ring of truth in her words),believe in innocent until proven guilty part of some “Allen Camp” conspiracy??

      It’s called being fair and admitting we do not know what we do not know.
      Soon Yi Previn has been treated monstrously from Mia Farrow and her father Andre Previn. After she was forced out and shunned by her family …she was Mia’s daughter as well) ..her father Andre Previn said in an interview that she was “Dead to him”.What of this child abuse to daughter .
      So so sad.

      You pick things to believe.Fill in the gaps with fiction.If people read it or hear it enough times they think
      it is true hence the authors reference to the “Kangaroo court” of public opinion.
      Sad all the way around.

      Loved the article.Thank you for the balanced perspective.

    • de24356 says:

      “Non Event”. that are the same words which used Woody Allen in his 60 minutes Interview. Child abuse- a “non – event”- and then he coughed artificially

    • Tony S. says:

      No the Yale team were not experts. They consisted of 2 social workers and 1 pediatrician. They would neither testify their claims were verifiable, nor would they show their faces in court. They were not credentialed to be determining if Dylan’s claims were a result of child abuse or were not. The team wouldn’t even give definitive answer. They cited it was “inconclusive” and that they had 2 “hypothesis” .

      Which means educated guess not a FACT and even so they had veered out of their lane of expertise and threw away crucial notes of Dylan’s interview (against HIPPA) so as to have their position all but dismissed by Judge Wilk. The last court in May 4, 1995 Allen Vs. Farrow upheld Judge Wilk’s ruling and took it one step further and flat out refused visitation which is almost never done in custody cases unless they are dire such as in this case. They cited Dr. Moreau an independent therapist appointed by the court and agreed by both Petitioner (Allen) and Respondent (Mia)

  25. Darling Me says:

    I certainly have no idea what happened between Woody and Dylan. My question is: Why does Woody and Soon-Yi’s “adopted” daughter Manzie look like Woody? Soon-Yi is clearly not the biological mother, but the teen is a petite redhead with brown eyes, a prettier version of Woody Allen!

    • Carlie Shterzer says:

      Do you mean the same Yale New Haven experts who were on Woody’s payroll and who refused to testify under oath? The judge threw out their study because he didn’t find them credible, and because there was no a child abuse expert on the panel.

      • de24356 says:

        The Yale New Haven team made such a bad work that they destroyed their own facts before the court could see it. Their conclusion was inconclusive and not reliable for the Court.

  26. Marisa L says:

    Another Allen apologist who apparently has not read the formal court document regarding Dylan’s claims and custody disposition. This 32 page legal document exposes a plethora of Mr. Allen’s inconsistencies and outright mistruths.

    • de24356 says:

      I think he never read the important things in this case. Wether the original Custody Decision paper from the Court or the Investigations from the Police of Conneticut. The reports of the witnesses…. nothing of it. he seems to be completely blissfully ignorant. that´s my impression of this strange article and from the writer of it.

  27. de24356 says:

    The “…thoughtful article” who is in the end a defending of a probably child abuser…

    who criticizes other forms of journalism who bring much more facts in this case which this article brings only in a silver lining.

    that´s a very sad thing. but the article want to show the people that he is elevated. that he is above this. and that´s sad too.

  28. GKN says:

    Mjkbk, the present situation evolved after Reagan abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” in journalism in 1987. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html) And if you think about it, you will see that indeed the situation has only gotten worse and worse ever since.

    Even the thoughtful article above brings on only an onslaught of more of the same from people who still haven’t understood a word of it. i.e., the difference between hard evidence and their ‘feelings’.

  29. Mjkbk says:

    For some time now, I have been wondering about exactly this, the “sorry state of American journalism, in which the line between tabloid exploitation and serious reportage has grown so blurry as to become almost invisible”……especially in more recent years, as more mainstream news outlets began routinely publishing speculative infotainment stories about celebrities, written by gossip journos, as actual NEWS items.

    It was almost as if a different set of criteria came into use for “news” writing about entertainment personalities and other celebrities.

    Once that journalistic line was crossed–and was blessed with success–it became inevitable that tabloid-type reportage by the mainstream press would spread to other areas of the news.

  30. kublakhaan says:

    To conflate lusting after twenty somethings with having sex with an adopted daughter is sick. Even as a teacher it was clear it would have been exploitive and predatory to cross that line. Any man who does what he did and claims he sees no down side seems capable of anything.

  31. mortrefuge says:

    Honestly, if you look at all of the records and carefully read both of Maureen Orth’s articles and even read the judgement from the custody hearing, you will see that there was no evidence to support that Dylan Farrow was sexually assaulted by Allen with his finger. The physical examination by Dylan’s pediatrician showed there were no injuries consistent with the allegation. The investigators admit they were never able to conclusively place Allen in the attic. The prosecutor, Frank Maco, says he had enough evidence to take Allen to trial but to this day has never stated what that evidence was. The Yale New Haven report which reported that no abuse occurred, so thoroughly “debunked” by the judge and prosecutor, was never retracted, I’ve seen no evidence that it was legally challenged, negatively peer reviewed and Yale New Haven stands by their report and their investigators to this day. And Dylan herself was not a good witness. For example, the baby sitter who saw Allen’s face in her lap said she was shocked and that Allen appeared comfortable and Dylan was staring vacantly in the direction of the tv, Allen himself says he had knelt down to talk to Dylan. But Dylan, when asked, said that yes, it occurred and she did not like it, no, he was breathing in and out on her legs. When asked why she didn’t get up, Dylan replied that she tried to but Allen was holding her behind. Again according to the court documents, Mia proceeded, over the next 24 hours, to get Dylan’s story on video (24hours!). And, according to Mia’s testimony, she kept remembering things up until 11 days before the Yale New Haven report was complete. She remembered seeing Allen and Soon Yi having sex (in graphic detail), she remembered Allen had grabbed her crotch when she climbed up of a bunk bed and she remembered that Allen shoved her face in a plate of hot sphagetti and threatened to do it again. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Mia planted false memories into Dylan on purpose, I think it was more of a self-fulfilling prophesy because she was so convinced that something had occurred.

    • Elly says:

      For the millionth time.Soon Yi Previn was NOT Woody Allens adopted daughter.She was in no way his daughter and he was not her “father figure”.She had a mother…Mia Farrow and a father… Andre Previn.
      She was of legal age,she is a graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a teacher .They have been married and settled for nearly two decades.
      Stop making things up.

    • de24356 says:

      child abuse – a self fulfilling prophecy?- what a sick commentary.

      • Tony S. says:

        You do realize there was no penetration? Dylan stated he digitized her. That is what the doctors determined physical penetration. Read the 33 page document of the Supreme Court Allen Vs. Farrow June 7, 1993.

      • mortrefuge says:

        Yes. Mia suspected child abuse. Mia expected child abuse. Over the 24 hours she video taped Dylan. Dylan loved her mother and wanted to help her. Mia got child abuse.

  32. W Tan says:

    First, the accusation isn’t “fatherly indiscretion,” it’s rape of a child. Second, the presumption of innocence is merely an obligation in the court of law. People and society are free to disagree. That he was never convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. And Allen was already caught in multiple lies about his presence in that attack. If he was found to have lied about that, why believe anything he says?

    • mortrefuge says:

      And yet investigators admitted they were never able to conclusively place Allen in the attic.

      • mortrefuge says:

        Marisa L. Allen said he might have popped his head in the there. Hair that might have been his were found on a frame. But because of where they were found they could not place him there conclusively.

      • Marisa L says:

        Woody Allen’s hair was found in the attic. Upon this discovery he admitted he had been there at least twice.

  33. Allen should be sitting in an American prison with Roman Polanski—two Hollywood perverts who deserve each other.

    • mortrefuge says:

      And yet the investigators admitted they were never able to conclusively place Allen in the attic.

    • cuppy says:

      And this from a lawyer!!?? Did you not swear an oath to honor and uphold the American justice system–which operates on the principle that one is innocent unless proven guilty?

      • cuppy says:

        Yes, of course Polanski is the “easy case”–a no-brainer, in fact, since he confessed to the horrible crime and was found guilty in a court of law. But the Variety article is not about Polanski. It is about the folly of the “court of public opinion” and journalism’s support of such, specifically in regard to allegations about Woody Allen. Two different circumstances that should not be lumped together irresponsibly.

      • Thank you, Cuppy, for your comments. I assume you have a real name.

        The easy case is Polanski. He is a fugitive from American justice; and the sooner he is caught, the better.

        Allen is being tried in the “court of public opinion.”

    • samgeimer says:

      Yes! America does not need courts or laws, imprisonment on public opinion!

      • samgeimer says:

        Thank you Timothy, as the woman who was the minor and the victim in the Polanski case, I appreciate the lesson his status. I am often amazed at how many people seem to “know” so much more than I do.

      • cuppy says:

        So, let’s imprison all people who might have committed a crime–or even those who are deemed “the same as” a confessed criminal–especially with no hard evidence.

  34. de24356 says:

    But for you it is “hysteria”. don´t kidding me… Child abuse has nothing to do with “hysteria”. Child abuse is a serious case and a heavy crime in the society and in Hollywood also and as a journalist you have the duty to take research in a absolute serious and neutral way.

    and you write fromr the “…increasingly sorry state of American journalism”, from the lowest standards of human decency”, shame on you…

    you make it no point better. Look at your article.

  35. Journalism is not in a sorry state. There have dozens of highly intelligent and informative articles about the Dylan/Woody situation- so many people have come forward with their own tales of sexual abuse, there have been amazing essays about the dynamic of it all- you just can’t recognize it because you are stuck in the past, have outdated notions about what can be said or not said, or perhaps you just don’t have the vision to appreciate the future.

  36. de24356 says:

    Prosecutor de Maco said: “… a child abuse probably did occur”. The court and the prosecutors decision was to end investigations and take Allen not to the court to protect Dylan and the emotional healing of her. That is the truth. They didn´t want to have Dylan for the court. They knew what the lawyers of Woody Allen would have done with that 7 year old child.

    • samgeimer says:

      What kind of prosecutor, human being or mother would let a man who molested a 7 year old child walk away? No matter the cost to Dylan, who could do that?

      • Bradmeister says:

        Prosecutors could have allowed Dylan to present her case via videotaped testimony if they really thought she was too fragile to appear in court. If they had probable cause to charge Woody Allen with child molestation, then they should have done so to protect other children from potential harm. But the reality is that they didn’t have probable cause (much less evidence that would have resulted in a conviction), and that’s why they elected not to prosecute.

      • de24356 says:

        they have decided it. and so it was. sometimes bad people don´t came in prison because of different reasons. that´s the reality…

        she was seven years old, very vulnerable… it was an understandable decision. to protect a little child is a noble reason.

  37. de24356 says:

    I think the only tear I have is for this poorly written article without facts and any evidences. But the “so called film critic” say the allegations “…aren´t true”. How are you so sure about that. Because you are a fan of Woody Allen. Because his films made a lot of money. But hey, when you are a fan from Woody Allen, then it´s necessary to read the facts and not give here an article with no more than speculations.

    this is a great article: it is short and shows how this guy really is. a liar….


    • mortrefuge says:

      It actually should read 10 assertions that I won’t take questions on. Did the investigators provide information to Maureen Orth for her original 1992 article? She claims that the Yale New Haven report is not credible based on the opinion of the judge and the prosecutor. However Yale New Haven stands by the report and it’s investigators to this day. It’s very convenient that we are not allowed to see the complete report to judge whether or not it seemed “credible” and neither the Judge nor the prosecutor were experts in the field of child abuse. The fact is that the investigators were never able to conclusively place Allen in the attic (all that was founds were a couple of hairs on a frame that could have been Allens). The doctors did not find any physical evidence that supported the claim that Allen physically assaulted Dylan with his finger. None. And here’s one more thing. Did Dylan use the 1992 Orth article as the basis of her “open letter”? In the 2013 article she says that she doesn’t remember much but she remembers what happened in the attic and what she was and wasn’t wearing. She also states that it only happened one time and the rest was everyday weirdness. Compare that to what she says in the open letter.

      • de24356 says:

        the court itself and the Judge found the “result ” not reliable for the court. Because the team had destroyed their results and were unwillingly to testify it for a court.

        there are another reason. their conclusion that a child abuse did not occur had no evidence. The girl was 9 times there. When she spoke she spoke about the abuse, than about dead heads in the attic and the magic hour. The Yale team made than the conclusion that a child abuse did not occur. Because of the fantasy of the child. But this in the end as a proof is absolutely not reliable for the court.

        The Yale team were two social worker who hadn´t much experience with child abuse and a pediatrician which never saw Dylan directly who leaded the team.

  38. samgeimer says:

    The fairness of our justice system is more important than the fate of any individual citizen. It is a shame that it seems to be in shambles and public interest in shocking crimes or accusations far exceeds any interest in the integrity of our courts.

    • What fantasy world do you live in? Most pedophiles are never prosecuted. Most wealthy people who commit crimes hire teams of lawyers to ensure that they never spend a day in jail. Have you noticed how many people who’ve spent their entire adult lives in prison are now being released because of advocacy groups forcing the criminal justice system to consider new DNA evidence, which exonerates the prisoner. Our Justice system is better than nothing. But, we cannot afford to judge a person’s trustworthiness and character based solely on whether that individual is a convicted felon as determined by the courts.

  39. cuppy says:

    This is a wonderful summation!! (And, I am sure your Comments section will fill up with posts that do nothing but prove your point!)

  40. Binky Li says:

    Very well written article, and as an attorney who has watched with interest the witch hunt perpetrated against Woody Allen with seemingly no credible evidence, just a cry for “justice”, it gratifies me to see the press tell it like it is: the Press created this mess, now clean it up!

  41. I think Woody is a great filmmaker and comedy writer, but he needs to not be let off the hook for his transgressions just like everyone else. Talent is not above the law.

  42. Bucky Wunderlick says:

    This is gross.

    • Andrea Pullman says:

      I know Woody personally-He made part of a movie in one of my homes. He is an honest, hard working, kind man. He is adored by all who work for him and is fair to everyone. My experience with him was superlative. I Have a sixth sense about people and I don’t believe for one second he did this.. And how dare people judge him and try him-where you there??? NO!!!. Bette Midler said ” The only problem with success is no ONE is happy for you,” I believe that is the situation here-jealousy has reared it’s ugly head.
      Woody is a genius and a wonderful human being and he is a great husband and father in his long term relationship now —–get over it!

      • mprical says:

        Wow! How come you don’t work for law enforcement with your ESP child molestation skills? Don’t you care about all those children you could be helping? Don’t just keep it to yourself.

      • mortrefuge says:

        Yet the investigators were never able to conclusively put Allen in the attic. I don’t see anywhere that Allen’s fingerprints were ever found in the attic. I’ve read that investigators said they were going to take fingerprints and Allen said he MIGHT have been there but I’ve never read that fingerprints were ever actually found. And, per Mia herself in her testimony, admits that there was no sign of injury to Dylan that supported Dylan’s claim. As Woody Allen, himself, stated 21 years ago; The prosecutor will claim there is evidence to convict him, he will never, somehow, be able to produce them. Here we are 21 years later and he never has.

      • de24356 says:

        Woody Allen-

        Contrary to what 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft asserted in his 1992 TV interview with Allen, the filmmaker was initially quite uncooperative with both Connecticut and New York police. He spent several months refusing to submit to interviews. At one point, he “tried to set preconditions” before sitting down with the Connecticut side. “One of the preconditions was that any statements made by Allen could not be used to impeach him. The state police did not comply.”

        Another precondition involved having Maco witness Allen making his statement in front of law enforcement. Worried that this would needlessly complicate his possible prosecution of the case (the defense could potentially put him on the stand during a trial), Maco refused.

        2. When Allen finally sat down for an interview with Connecticut police in January 1993, the session lasted almost four hours. One of the focal points was the incident in the attic. (Dylan: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over. I didn’t like it…Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.”)

        Despite first claiming he had never been up there (“Were you ever in the attic” – “No” “Were you ever in crawl space?” “NO”), “[p]olice found hair fibers in the crawl space consistent with Allen’s” and even fingerprints, physical evidence that placed him at the scene of the crime but didn’t necessarily prove culpability, as one CSI expert noted in the article. Allen than in the questioning conceded that not only was it possible that “he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda… it was” also “possible that [his] prints would be found there.” That said, because he kept going back and forth with his answers, the “police characterized Allen’s statements as “inconsistent.”

        that means he lied and changed his story in an official police questioning.

        At least 10 private investigators were “hired by different lawyers and subcontractors”, all of them on Allen’s payroll, to dig up dirt on Maco and the Connecticut police in order to discredit their investigation. “The private detectives included former FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents” who were particularly focused on “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.” Ironically, some of the PIs were “former state cops who were friends with Mucherino.” The article doesn’t mention if they found anything useful.

        Several Connecticut police officers believed that it was Allen’s team who started “the false rumor” that someone in law enforcement ”was trying to sell a videotape of Dylan” making her accusations directly to her mother, Mia, ”to the tabloid media.” A trooper was investigated by Internal Affairs over this but was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, if it’s true that the defense was responsible for this wild goose chase, the dirty tactic proved effective. As a result of the IA affair, the investigation into the abuse claims was suspended for 10 days before being reactivated. Maco told Connecticut Magazine, “About this time, I was told there was a campaign to disrupt the investigators, being orchestrated out of New York.”

      • mprical says:

        Can you prove your claims? Do you have a copy of the police report you can provide?

More Film News from Variety