… 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. [Judge Elliott Will, from Woody Allen 1992 custody suit, which he lost]

Woody Allen unloads on Mia Farrow in a weird rant in New York Times.

Woody Allen unloads on Mia Farrow in a weird self-absorbed rant in New York Times.



AND SO it continues, with Woody Allen “speaking out” in the New York Times, saying it will be his last comment on the subject. We should all thank the gods for that. The judge in the 1992 custody case found Woody Allen to be “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive” and it seems those characteristics are still in abundance today.

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit.

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit, via Vanity Fair.



It takes a lot of nerve for a man who ended up seducing one of the adopted children of the woman he was supposed to be in love with to respond to the continued claim of abuse of one of the seduced girl’s siblings by railing about the woman’s alleged affair with a former husband. I realize that sentence is tortured, but it’s fitting the plot line of this saga.

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that. – Woody Allen

Maureen Orth has been covering this story for Vanity Fair for a very long time and she blows Allen’s rebuttal apart.

8. Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place. First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible.

9. The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen.

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit.

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit.



One big problem with Woody Allen’s response in the Times is that he leaves large chunks of truth out of his version. Another problem is that the Yale-New Haven team Woody Allen cites evidently refused to testify at the 1992 custody hearing and wouldn’t avail the court to their notes. Neither doctor in that team had child abuse expertise. Another doctor with extensive expertise in child abuse cases, whom the court consulted, had “reservations about the reliability of of the report.”

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit.

From Woody Allen 1992 custody suit.



The behavior of Satchel Farrow towards Woody Allen detailed in the custody case is not something that would make anyone trust Allen’s judgment with any child.

Dylan Farrow has responded to Woody Allen’s response saying she will not be silenced. As the custody case attested in 1992, there’s no way of really knowing what happened. Only Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen know. That she’s strong enough to make her case is a good sign for her, no matter how you may feel about this story. It’s got to give her a sense of peace, because she’s no longer harboring her secret, which she is adamant happened.

Woody Allen’s behavior toward’s Mia Farrow in seducing Soon-Yi is another issue that throws a dark shadow across Mr. Allen’s credibility, because of what this act did to the siblings. There has always been something very tawdry about how this relationship manifested, which begins with Allen pulling a family and siblings apart. Can anyone doubt there’s something wrong with a man’s moral compass who would do something like this and never understand the impact it would have on the siblings left behind?

It reveals a callousness to Woody Allen that makes it very easy to believe that something’s wrong with him, the way he processes relationships, but also his sexual impulses. These issues something he’s been working through in his movies his entire career, many of which are film classics.

The Woody Allen that comes through in the 1992 custody case, as well as the details on Dylan Farrow’s story, adding Allen’s behavior with Soon-Yi, make it very easy to believe that he did indeed do exactly what Dylan Farrow has accused him of doing and has absolutely no remorse whatsoever for it, because he’s blotted it completely out of his mind.