Saint Woody Allen
There are those who call the accusations of sexual abuse against the filmmaker a witch hunt, but the case is far from clear; It contains disturbing data.
I have been witnessing with growing awe the beatification of Woody Allen for weeks. I've seen him, before my eyes, levitate toward heaven, hoisted by several columnists and commentators. With some exceptions, in most of these arguments, there are two curious circumstances. On the one hand, there is a strong, scandalized complaint from those who call this a witch hunt and who say that the #MeToo movement is so dogmatic that it is torturing poor Allen without any evidence. On the other hand, there is a biased ignorance surrounding the circumstances of this case. This worries me because I see admired, even loved, colleagues simplify this subject down to a level in a way they usually do not for other matters.
To begin with, it is surprising that they are all so convinced about Allen's innocence because the subject is a cursed and poisoned swamp. Though certainly I am not sure of anything. Some claim that Allen was found not guilty, which is a mistake. There was no verdict because there was no trial. The medical examination of the girl in question, Dylan Farrow, who was 7 years old, was negative. (Of course, fondling, which is what Allen was accused of, does not leave any trace.) Furthermore, a report from the Yale-New Haven Hospital commissioned by the state's attorney, Frank Maco, concluded that the videotape, in which the girl talks about the abuse, was edited and manipulated, and either Dylan Farrow made everything up, or she was coached by her mother. I must remind you that the proceedings took place in the midst of a row between Allen and Mia Farrow as a result of his relationship with her adopted daughter. In short, Judge Elliot Wilk did not find conclusive evidence of abuse and closed the case.
Up to that point, everything seems very simple. But let us start where it gets messy. It turns out that the Yale-New Haven report is signed by two social workers and a pediatrician, who was the head of the team but who never saw Dylan Farrow. All the notes of the investigation were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which is unusual. The social workers refused to testify before the judge, and the only testimony in the case came from the pediatrician. For all these reasons, the investigation was not considered reliable by either the prosecutor who had ordered it or by the judge who said the report was "sanitized and, therefore, less credible.” As for prosecutor Maco, he declared that he had not pursued the case because of the fragility of the child victim, although there was probable cause to bring charges against Allen. (The filmmaker filed a disciplinary complaint against the judge for these statements and lost.. In addition, and although there was never a trial for the alleged fondling, there was indeed a trial to determine custody of Allen's children. Wilk, the same judge who closed the Farrow abuse case, said things like, “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen´s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan...” and “We will probably never know what occurred on Aug. 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen´s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” (The full text of the judgment can be found on the internet.) Farrow won custody, and the judge denied Woody visits to her daughter. Allen filed two appeals against the judgment, which he also lost, and had to pay Farrow $1 million in legal expenses.
There is still a lot of garbage to tell, but it does not belong in this article. There are additional accusations against both Allen and Farrow, as well as cross attempts to discredit supporters of both sides in the case. It's the usual misery between two crazy people who hate each other. In any case, I do not write this to demonstrate that Allen is guilty (when in doubt, I lean more toward his guilt, but this is irrelevant) but to prove that the case is far from clear, and that those who accuse him are not dogmatic and delirious witch hunters, but that they are basing accusations on disturbing data. Although, the worse thing is to realize in light of this scandal the ease with which social inertia makes us automatically support the character in power and not pay enough attention to the complaints made by children regarding abuse or incest.
I have been witnessing with growing awe the beatification of Woody Allen for weeks. I've seen him, before my eyes, levitate toward heaven, hoisted by several columnists and commentators. With some exceptions, in most of these arguments, there are two curious circumstances. On the one hand, there is a strong, scandalized complaint from those who call this a witch hunt and who say that the #MeToo movement is so dogmatic that it is torturing poor Allen without any evidence. On the other hand, there is a biased ignorance surrounding the circumstances of this case. This worries me because I see admired, even loved, colleagues simplify this subject down to a level in a way they usually do not for other matters.
To begin with, it is surprising that they are all so convinced about Allen's innocence because the subject is a cursed and poisoned swamp. Though certainly I am not sure of anything. Some claim that Allen was found not guilty, which is a mistake. There was no verdict because there was no trial. The medical examination of the girl in question, Dylan Farrow, who was 7 years old, was negative. (Of course, fondling, which is what Allen was accused of, does not leave any trace.) Furthermore, a report from the Yale-New Haven Hospital commissioned by the state's attorney, Frank Maco, concluded that the videotape, in which the girl talks about the abuse, was edited and manipulated, and either Dylan Farrow made everything up, or she was coached by her mother. I must remind you that the proceedings took place in the midst of a row between Allen and Mia Farrow as a result of his relationship with her adopted daughter. In short, Judge Elliot Wilk did not find conclusive evidence of abuse and closed the case.
Up to that point, everything seems very simple. But let us start where it gets messy. It turns out that the Yale-New Haven report is signed by two social workers and a pediatrician, who was the head of the team but who never saw Dylan Farrow. All the notes of the investigation were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which is unusual. The social workers refused to testify before the judge, and the only testimony in the case came from the pediatrician. For all these reasons, the investigation was not considered reliable by either the prosecutor who had ordered it or by the judge who said the report was "sanitized and, therefore, less credible.” As for prosecutor Maco, he declared that he had not pursued the case because of the fragility of the child victim, although there was probable cause to bring charges against Allen. (The filmmaker filed a disciplinary complaint against the judge for these statements and lost.. In addition, and although there was never a trial for the alleged fondling, there was indeed a trial to determine custody of Allen's children. Wilk, the same judge who closed the Farrow abuse case, said things like, “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen´s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan...” and “We will probably never know what occurred on Aug. 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen´s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” (The full text of the judgment can be found on the internet.) Farrow won custody, and the judge denied Woody visits to her daughter. Allen filed two appeals against the judgment, which he also lost, and had to pay Farrow $1 million in legal expenses.
There is still a lot of garbage to tell, but it does not belong in this article. There are additional accusations against both Allen and Farrow, as well as cross attempts to discredit supporters of both sides in the case. It's the usual misery between two crazy people who hate each other. In any case, I do not write this to demonstrate that Allen is guilty (when in doubt, I lean more toward his guilt, but this is irrelevant) but to prove that the case is far from clear, and that those who accuse him are not dogmatic and delirious witch hunters, but that they are basing accusations on disturbing data. Although, the worse thing is to realize in light of this scandal the ease with which social inertia makes us automatically support the character in power and not pay enough attention to the complaints made by children regarding abuse or incest.
Previous article![]( "Your Sanctions Are Screwed Up")
