Woody Allen on Trial

Comments

i'd go if i could. the films are wonderful regardless of woody allen's personal demons

it's a tough conundrum negotiating innocent until proven guilty while honouring dylan's accusations. but that's technically where it's all at.

as for the love and death reference i do not think you can take that literally. it's in a fictional film. it's a joke.

that'd be like saying brett easton ellis is a misogynist murderer due to his books, or nabokov is a hebephile because he wrote lolita, or polanski is a devil worshipper because of rosemary's baby. you can't make direct correlations between art and artist in good faith.

that said, art/artist do sometimes blend. but i don't think one can be evidence of the other unless it is admittedly factual or confessional. for example, autobiography, memoir, confessional lyricism, etc.

on February 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM

He has made some excellent films, for sure (and some absolute shit). The problem is that he never should have had the opportunity to make those films after we knew what he was up to. That they never should have been made doesn't change the quality of the films, but it does make them a lot harder to enjoy.

MacCrocodile on February 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM

@2 - Weren't most of his films (and all of the films at the Grand Illusion) before anyone had any reason to even suspect anything. As best I can tell, the original allegations were made in 1992. And it is worth pointing out that we don't "know" what he was up to. We may have suspcisions, but only a couple people truly know, and we aren't among them. If it was really known that he had done anything wrong he would have had to stop making movies while he was in prison (or I guess go on the run like Roman Polanski).

brent.b on February 12, 2014 at 10:31 AM

I'll pass on this one.

"Boycotting the films of Woody Allen in effect means boycotting the films of Mia Farrow, and in this shitshow, you're either on Woody's side or Mia's."

I don't like either of those people at all, but I do feel awful for Dylan and am morbidly curious about Soon-Yi. I always thought Woody Allen was overrated, but thought someday I'd try to gain an appreciation for his films. I don't think I'm willing to do that anymore.

I love the Grand Illusion. I'll be back with bells on once this festival is over!

tabletop_joe on February 12, 2014 at 10:35 AM

@3 - The one that was hard for me was Blue Jasmine, just last year. It was a beautiful movie, but as far as I'm concerned, it never should have happened.

MacCrocodile on February 12, 2014 at 11:22 AM

"Boycotting the films of Woody Allen in effect means boycotting the films of Mia Farrow, and in this shitshow, you're either on Woody's side or Mia's."

Only if you buy into Woody Allen's framing of this as part of a custody battle. (The custody battle came afterwards.)

I'm on Dylan's side, personally.

Let_Love_Rule on February 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM

I find it easier to conceive of businesses who would rather keep their employees happy in exchange for good work than of businesses that exploit employees for bottom dollar, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't happen.

TheMisanthrope on February 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM

We need to not only boycott his films as an accused child molester but also his actors.

Are we really going to honor people who enable a man accused of child molestation??? These are the same accusation lodged 20+ years ago Cate Blachett knew everyone knew about the accusations.

I for one do not need a judge and jury to presume his innocence. I read the complete 33 page Supreme Court documents, listening to Casey Pascal as eye-witness testimony and Dylan's testimony I do not need any more info to be convinced that child abuse did occur on behalf of Allen.

The judge agreed:

"the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse DID occur."

454/$$ on February 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Woody Allen's Own Words

I’m doing a socialogical study of perversion – I’m up to child molesting. - Bananas, 1971

If I was caught in a love nest with fifteen 12-year-old girls tomorrow people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him. - 1976 Interview

Honeymoon Motel produced in 2011:
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—

Stardust Memories 1980, Sandy talking with 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.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dyl…

Also there's this:
http://defamer.gawker.com/the-internet-d…

on February 12, 2014 at 1:47 PM

on February 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM

My apologies for the double post.

on February 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I've read a lot about this, including the huge court ruling. Things do not add up. What troubles me more than even Dylan's wrenching letter, is this: how could anyone conclude that not prosecuting Allen, if indeed he was guilty, was the right thing for this young girl?

Think about it. Not only do the court documents say that an allegedly inappropriate behavior(s) took place between Woody and Dylan (based on testimony from Mia), but there was also an alleged eye-witness, Casey Pascal, who saw Woody do what Dylan claims he did to her.

So even if the child were fragile, as I suspect were true, how can you NOT go after Woody based on all of that -- having probable cause, having an eye-witness, having some sort of established pattern of intensely inappropriate behavior, and testimony from the child? It is absolutely absurd. Which is why I remain torn, disturbed but unconvinced Woody is guilty. You also have to assume Woody's wealth and power were enough to sway a team of professional social workers and psychologist, allegedly "loyalists," from Yale/New Haven to falsify a report directly in his favor (a serious charge from Orth & Co., who haven't provided any such evidence). You also have to believe his legal team would risk their law licenses to falsify a lie detector test in Woody's favor -- which he did pass after logically turning down a lie detector test from the police, who typically use those to hammer confessions out of people after illegally interrogating them without the presence of an attorney.

None of it adds up to me, despite what an obvious creep he was.

paulwashere on February 12, 2014 at 2:08 PM

@12 -- The Yale/New Haven team wouldn't have been required to "falsify" anything. They issued a report giving their opinion that no molestation occurred. Opinions by nature aren't true or false.

And if Woody Allen's wealth and power weren't factors, what made the social workers who wrote the report unwilling to testify? What influenced them to destroy all of their notes prior to the trial? What persuaded a doctor who'd never seen Dylan to sign off on the report?

None of that adds up either, in my mind.

Amanda on February 12, 2014 at 4:28 PM

There's some inconsistencies on both sides, but I think most of the evidence indicates that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth. It isn't a he-said-she-said thing, she has witnesses that corroborate some of her statements while Woody Allen's been changing his story about what happened that day over the years.

And while I can believe that maybe someone would make something like this up as part of a heated custody battle, I have a harder time believing that they'd keep trying to bring it up 20 years later if that was the case.

Also, Jesus, just watch Woody Allen's films and his pedophilia sometimes just oozes off the celluloid, as David Schmader said.

redemma on February 12, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Sexual abuse of women and girls is frighteningly pervasive; all women, girls, boys, and men in jail should feel that there is a receptive authority to report abuse. Dylan Farrow's allegations were thoroughly investigated at the time by a panel of expert doctors at The Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut at the behest of Connecticut State Police to determine if sexual abuse had taken place. In 1993 after 6 months of investigation and interviews they wrote a confidential report that UNEQUIVOCALLY stated multiple times that Woody Allen DID NOT sexually abuse Dylan Farrow. It's essentially the only evidence in the case and the reason Woody Allen was never arrested nor tried nor convicted:
-"It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen." 3/17/1993
-"We can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused" 3/17/1993
The report goes further in its explanation of how a 7 year old girl could believe she was sexually molested, and while their conclusion is not definitive the suggestion is very clear that the panel felt Mia Farrow likely "coached" or "influenced" the false allegations out of her daughter (That's unbelievably sick btw).
Read the 3/17/1993 Yale-New Haven report (only two public pages, information dense) for yourself: http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com…
Woody Allen is a falsely accused child molester!

CC-Haus on February 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Folks seem to have a need for Woody Allen to be guilty...

Keekee on February 13, 2014 at 9:29 AM

I'm not on Woody's side or Mia's side. I'm on Dylan's side. I didn't hear the original allegations in1992, but when I heard about him dating and then marrying Soon-Yi he and his art were lost to me. That loss is sad, but it is nothing to what Dylan said happened.

catpantsclub on February 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I wonder how many people who express outrage at Woody Allen still call themselves Catholic.

Pope Peabrain on February 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM

It's right there in the Constitution: "innocent until tweeted guilty."

TomJohnsonJr on February 13, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Here's what doesn't add up to me.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like.

As long as she could remember. So the allegations were made when she was seven, and these things were going on for...five years? And this is in a house full of people and not one person noticed?

And then there's the brother who said that nothing happened. And even Ronan (formerly "Satchel") who says he believes his sister, but has he provided direct witness and testimony.

Another thing is you have here a big change in status when Woody was kicked out. For example, if a father goes up to his daughter, picks her up, and blows a big mouth fart into her tummy, would he be accused of child molestation. Ok, now how about if a stranger did this?

I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out.

That last one is the creepy one. Did anyone else witness or document this since it was happening her "whole life".

So, part of this is Woody lost his "father status" because of his actions with his adopted step-daughter, so all cards were off the table.

But were the things she listed, in the context of a father and a kid, abnormal, or just interpreted as abnormal post-facto because of the trauma he caused?

None of this is good by the way, but I would encourage everyone to see the 2013 Oscar nominated film, "The Hunt".

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on February 13, 2014 at 10:00 AM

@16, that's what I was thinking. Amazing how some people can read a few articles in a couple of newspapers and blogs then make a definite decision about guilt or innocence.

Cato the Younger Younger on February 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM

It is a testament to the insanity of our culture that we think this family matter is "our business." We will never, ever know what happened unless Mia or Woody confesses. So are we going to she-said/he-said this to the end of time? I can feel terrible for Dylan, who is clearly scarred by her insane parents, but still love her parents' films. And the sins of the father clearly do not color Mia perception of their films together, as she agreed to have her clips used in the Golden Globe tribute to him.

Related: I don't know if it is featured in the festival, but I happened to re-watch A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy last weekend. I had forgotten how terrific it is. I don't think there is a 1980s Allen film I don't adore.

mitten on February 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM

@21 I don't need or expect anything "definitive," to come to a strong conclusion about Allen's guilt, merely common sense. If it looks like a pedo, (check)talks like a pedo, (check) and acts like a pedo, (check) well, damn, it's probably a pedo! Of course I can't say "for sure," but we all know that people who want to defend pedos will do it even if there are eyewitnesses and video. (See: Jerry Sandusky & R. Kelly.)

The brainwashing theory really beggars belief. (It reminds of Illuminati type bullshit. If Mia Farrow's brainwashing game is really that tight, the C.I.A. needs to recruit her, ASAP.) It's been decades, and Dylan is very clear and unequivocal about what happened. She sounds steady and her words have the ring of truth. Allen, on the other hand, sounds like every creep I've ever met.

Let_Love_Rule on February 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Good piece, David.

Linguistic point: Allen's piece in the NYT was not an editorial. Those can only be written by the editors. What he wrote was an op-ed.

NotYourStrawMan on February 13, 2014 at 11:13 AM

"numerous jokes and plot points around the sexual desirability of children." Can anyone corroborate this? I can't think of any instances to support this claim. Seems a little suspect.

Of course this is the internet, and we are having a trial! Facts need not apply.

Senor Guy on February 13, 2014 at 11:13 AM

25: Here you go.

David Schmader on February 13, 2014 at 11:27 AM

25: Also, that's not definitive. (One Esquire left out: Annie Hall reference to a super-hot threeway with 16-year-old twins interrupted by a phone call.)

David Schmader on February 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Allen's Broadway Danny Rose is probably my favorite movie (along with the original Bad News Bears) and I have always found myself on "his" side when the topic of these allegations come up.

I also have questions about enjoying art by people who were criminal/despicable (Polanski, Kazan, Picasso, Tupac, etc...)

But I will say that after reading Dylan's letter and this piece:

http://gawker.com/woody-allen-is-not-a-m…

I think I changed my mind. I think Dylan is telling the truth.

Per Bernstein on February 13, 2014 at 11:46 AM

@16 -- I think it's quite the opposite, actually. Hollywood has supported Allen for the past 20 plus years since these allegations were initially made. He's added to his millions and his awards during that time, so he hasn't exactly been hard done by. The industry will likely continue to back him, same as it's done with Roman Polanski.

@20 -- Many people are molested by a parent in secret for years. There
are no eye witnesses in the vast majority of child molestation cases. That's the terrible nature of most child abuse.

Amanda on February 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM

I don't see any reason to think Dylan is lying, the problem is I also don't see any reason to think she knows the truth. For all the power eyewitness testimonials and personal memories have, they are notoriously unreliable - many people have had their lives ruined by memories of satanic cults they were involved in as children, alien abductions, demonic manifestations, and yes, child abuse, which almost certainly never happened. Implanting memories is a well studied and well known phenomenon.

Some of my most vivid memories of childhood I know never happened. Two were dreams I thought were memories until later reflection, and the third was a memory I was coached into believing happened to me - I still remember it vividly to this day. In fact, it happened to my brother - my mom had misremembered it as happening to me, told me about it, and later video evidence proved it never happened as I remembered it. Fortunately none of these memories were traumatic, but they help to illustrate the point. What we remember, especially what we remember from a young age, is narrative cobbled together from reality, what has been related to us, and fantasy filling in the blanks.

I don't know what grain Dylan's memories sprouted from, but they are very vivid, filled in experiences at this point, especially compared to the patchy, shifting memories she gave at the time. That would seem to indicate a lot of blanks have been filled in and work has been done setting the structure - that's not saying Dylan is lying, that is what minds do.

The real question is where that initial, patchy memory of abuse came from - from an event with Woody Allen, or from the mind of Mia Farrow.

HollowMan on February 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

At the risk of being disgusting...I really don't even know what the abuse was in the attic, and I don't see how guilt can be determined without at least analyzing and applying inductive reasoning to each step.

I have to focus on the one specific instance, since that seems to be the only real act that would be considered a true crime (things like putting his head on her lap are sketchy, at the edge of what a playful father would do, but not criminal...they suggestive of what lead to the alleged crime, but not hard evidence).

This is what I gather from the accounts, with question marks added where there are no details or answers, including Dylan's (the op-ed by itself is not specific enough):

(1) She was led up to the "dim, closet-like attic" alone.

(2) No one else saw or knew that she was up there

(3) This happened during daytime (?)

(4) Where did it happen (location of house)?

(5) Woody told her to lay on her stomach and play with an electric train set (was there one there.

(a) Why was a complete working model railroad set up in a "dim closet like" attic?

(b) If there was a train set there was it a place that she and/or her siblings would often visit to play? Or was it just up there gathering dust?

(6) At that point she said she was abused.

(a) Did Allen perform some type of act with himself while he watched her?

(b) Did he touch her in any way?

(c) Did he fondle her?

(d) Did he touch any sexual part of her?

(e) Did he penetrate her?

(f) Did he penetrate her using his own sex organs?

I'm really trying to understand what the hell actually happened!!

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on February 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM

@ 12 neatly sums up the conundrum. It makes no sense that Mia Farrow would knowingly let Allen off the hook if she believed he had molested her daughter, even after he agreed to no visitations. Remember, the charges were dropped once he signed off on that.

@ 13, "opinions" in legal matters must be as truthful as the ones giving them can be, so there's a bit more weight to what's called an opinion there than what we call an opinion in everyday use. In other words, we can regard them as sworn testimony and legal evidence. You have to provide counterevidence to dismiss their credibility.

Matt from Denver on February 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

.."the testimony given at trial" I'm surprised a judge called it a "trial" as there never was one.

There was an investigation and Allen was NEVER charged with anything.

westello on February 13, 2014 at 1:53 PM

@32 -- The Connecticut state police didn't consider the opinion of the Yale/New Haven team to be reliable, nor did the state attorney or the judge who oversaw the custody case. As far as I know, there were no grave consequences for any members of that team, so it's not as if they put their careers at stake in order to side with Woody Allen, as someone above suggested.

Amanda on February 13, 2014 at 2:26 PM

#34

It may seem suspicious that Woody Allen would have chosen his own lie detector team; however, let me remind you that he is Jewish (and paranoid), and was dealing with a rich shiksa who not only had wealthy connections, but had been married to Mob icon. And it was Connecticut in the 1990s. A paranoid person like Allen would have been scared shitless about going up against Connecticut law enforcement on a child abuse charge back then.

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on February 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM

@34 - I've seen people mention this before, but did anyone say why? Other than, "they destroyed their notes."

Collin on February 13, 2014 at 4:55 PM

@1 gets it right, imo. In either case, it's a tragedy. Either Allen is being smeared with a false memory or an innocent child was molested.

I've been watching Woody Allen since he was doing stand up on TV. I love his sense of humor and many of his movies.

An investigation was done and he was not charged. Revengeful ex-spouses (or partners) are capable of amazing cruelty that spares not even their own children (I've seen this first-hand). Some people even kill their kids to make their partner suffer.

Nothing can be done now. I still like Woody and his movies.

Linda J on February 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM

@36 -- The judge who oversaw the custody case mentioned in his ruling that the Yale/New Haven team had destroyed their notes prior to issuing their report. He didn't say why they would do this, but he considered the report to be less credible due to the unavailability of these notes.

Amanda on February 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM

@38
The custody battle was after Woody Allen was cleared. The custody judge you quote felt that Woody Allen and Soon-Li's relationship was so completely unacceptable and disgusting that he couldn't believe the conclusion that Woody Allen hadn't molested Dylan Farrow.
Woody Allen didn't of course. Read the report:
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com…

CC-Haus on February 13, 2014 at 11:39 PM

the us capitol was built through the horror and crime of slavery. the art from the romans that is in the british museum, or the coliseum we admire when going to rome, was built on the horrible crimes of the roman empire. fucking borgias hired artists, too, we admire that art.

in the race to show yourself to be more sensitive and morally superior, it's an ez cheap thing to do to declare that because of sin X, you won't look at, admire, pay for, art product Y. but look around your home, likely you have some art built on a crime, too. this moral highgrounding is sooooo selective it's really about patting yourself on the back.

fact is, none of us were there, and we cannot know what happened, and the sifting of all this circumstantial not too probative evidence is just confirmation bias big time. I like Audubon paintings. of the birds? well, he was a Frenchman born in a slave society who benefitted from the plantation system in lousiana, does this mean my trumpeter swan poster has to be taken down, stomped on and thrown in the trash can? I admired soviet ballet under the USSR which was a government that was all crime. If you are going to be consistent on this, about 75% of all art historically was made by or paid for by or is now exhibited by criminals, really, the british took stuff from Greece through force! and we go admire it in the british museum. the Versailles palace was built by grinding peasants into the ground. the fucking Vatican art collection is that of a huge criminal pedophile organization are you not going to go to see the Sistine chapel roof? see his movies, don't see the movies, it doesn't make you party to rape folks. any more than admiring a Viking rune makes you party to their rapine and looting and enslaving.

on February 14, 2014 at 2:16 AM

"It makes no sense that Mia Farrow would knowingly let Allen off the hook if she believed he had molested her daughter, even after he agreed to no visitations."

In order to spare the trial to her daughter, she could have. Safety was there, justice could wait. She could have feared the justice further victimizing the child. How many rape victims don't go to the police ?

My own maternal grandmother burned the letter my pedophile father once wrote, where he related my words ad acts to protect myself from him. Thankfully there was a copy, that will help my children escape from any contact with him... She did that out of "trying to get rid of bad memories".

sissoucat on February 14, 2014 at 7:31 AM

@12 It was in the 90s, not today. Everybody shied away from pedophile stuff, more so if it was incest.

It did not happen in the US - but a divorce judge was shown the letter I mention @41 in 1988. Her answer to my mother : "I'm giving you full custody and I'm taking away his parental authority. I can't take away his visitation rights without having to give some written explanation in the divorce proceedings - so this is what we'll do, I'll give you power to not agree to visitation, and I'm advising you in private, to never agree to it".

Not "this letter of his is solid proof of at least attempted incest, here is what you do to prosecute that bastard."

sissoucat on February 14, 2014 at 7:38 AM

Custody battles are rife with accusations of sexual abuse. It is one of the main tools in the lawyer's toolbox. False accusations specifically in custody battles are enormously common. Manipulation of children to testify accordingly is a well documented phenomenon. Check out "Innocence Lost," a Frontline documentary. Research the McMartin case, the Kelly Michaels case, and so many others. A recent ruling in France required a retrial in which the children would not be permitted to testify as they had in the original trial because the court found that all the children had been so severely coerced and persuaded by the prosecution into believing they had been abused. The problem is that some people, including prosecutors and attorneys, don't really believe in the need for proof - they see the need for proof as a pesky obstacle to justice. Instead they "feel" the guilt in their gut, based on their disposition or their history or what they've read about abuse generally, and so feel justified manipulating the evidence to bring about a conviction.

NikG on February 15, 2014 at 7:34 AM

Allegations of child sex abuse are rife in custody cases. False accusations are one of the main tools in the lawyer's toolbox. Many judges have commented on it including one in a documentary I recently watched. Also the background of this case was the child abuse hysteria of the 80s and 90s, well documented. In so many of those cases on appeal it came to light that prosecutors, psychiatrists, and law enforcement, manipulated, bullied and coerced children into believing they had been abused and into testifying to abuse in order to gain convictions.

If you are unaware of this widespread phenomenon, watch "Innocence Lost," a Frontline documentary, and read up on it in newspaper articles around the web. Just recently in France a conviction was vacated and the case remanded to trial. The appellate court took the unusual step of forbidding the children to testify in the retrial because it found that the prosecution had severely pressured and bullied and brainwashed them into believing they had been abused. This common practice occurred in the Kelly Michaels case in NJ which you can easily learn about with a little googling, also the Little Rascal Daycare case, and so many others, including dozens in Belgium. This longs series of cases involving false accusations even gave rise to a series of studies on false memory implantation. I am surprised by the posts on this page which show no cognizance of this phenomenon whatsoever.

There is a very good reason why in our justice system accusation does not equal guilt.

Be wary of how quickly and upon what flimsy evidence you judge Woody Allen. If you are ever involved in a custody battle, you may find yourself standing in his shoes.

NikG on February 15, 2014 at 7:47 AM

How many times does it need to be said that this all started BEFORE the custody battle, BEFORE Mia knew he was seeing Soon Yi. He was caught by a sitter being inappropriate with the girl BEFORE all that, and he voluntarily agreed to therapy for it, again, BEFORE he and Mia were even 'on the rocks.'

The custody battle is irrelevant, as much as the he-man woman haters club wants it to be otherwise.

Also, it is really annoying to hear that "false molestation charges are rife in custody battles." How ignorant does someone really have to be to believe that?

http://www.americanhumane.org/children/s…

http://arnotinteractive.com/lundybancrof…

Let_Love_Rule on February 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM

And as far as false accusations "being one of the main tools in the lawyer's toolbox" GTFOH with that shit. There are standards for practicing law, and you'll lose your ability to practice quickly pulling that kind of crap.

Don't believe me, ask any judge, prosecutor, or cop: true accusations going undisclosed and/or unpunished is the sad reality in the vast majority of family law cases, NOT false accusations and/or illuminati brainwashing b.s.

Let_Love_Rule on February 15, 2014 at 9:14 AM

@NikG "A recent ruling in France required a retrial in which the children would not be permitted to testify as they had in the original trial because the court found that all the children had been so severely coerced and persuaded by the prosecution into believing they had been abused."

That's not recent, it was more than 10 years ago. It's the horrible Outreau cases. And what you're citing is the defense PR, disseminated to the media during the proceedings.

Actually, the second trial found that all the children (12) had indeed been raped, but couldn't find by whom. It found that it was not by the people the children had accused of raping them (their parents, a justice worker and a priest). Only 4 of the parents were confirmed as condemned.

How the defense attorney obtained this reversal of ruling for the parents (and also $300.000 of wrongful conviction for each of them) is by scaring the children shitless during the second trial, so that they were in a shock and unable to testify. The kids received no compensation whatsoever for having been raped.

Nowadays the eldest kids are of age, and they have told what happened in the courtroom behind closed doors : this defense attorney, named Eric Dupond-Moretti, mimicked abusing them (sodomy) and yelled at them stuff like "so it's what you're saying happened? Eh ? Eh ? Where did the accused put his dick ? You're a liar ! He never put his dick in your asshole !" which left the traumatized kids speechless... so the accused were exhonerated.

The ex-culprits made media tours, accusing the kids of having lied about having been raped. In France there is no law punishing people who accuse the victims of a crime, even if a trual has found they were victims, of not being victims.

sissoucat on February 15, 2014 at 12:23 PM

45: The one alleged criminal act allegedly happened after Woody's affair with Soon-Yi became known to Mia.

David Schmader on February 16, 2014 at 11:29 AM

"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."

could Woody Allen really beat anyone up? I bet that girl's mother could've taken the simpy little runt.

on February 17, 2014 at 7:20 AM

25: i count 4. that too many for you?

doubleyouranger on February 18, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Woody Allen on Trial

A Festival of His Films, During a Season of Renewed Accusations

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

More In Film/TV

The Seattle Roots of Your Lucky Day

Six Films You Need to See at Make Believe Seattle

What the Hell Is Make Believe Seattle?

Leave the World Behind Is, as Usual, About a World We Do Not Want to Leave Behind

The (Theater Formerly Known as) Cinerama Will Reopen in December

The Most Radical TV Today: True Detective: Night Country and The Kitchen

Editors' Picks

When Gomer Pyle Married Rock Hudson

The Seasons' Canon Took My Head Off

The Sounds of Seattle on Death Cab for Cutie's Transatlanticism

Seattle's All-Star Sweeps Remind Me of the Time the Pope Visited Harare

Issaquah: A Modest Paradise

Seattle's Crackdown on Low-Level Crime Targets the Poor, Mentally Ill

Popular Articles

SIFF Unveils Full 2024 Lineup

Stranger Suggests: Cat Power Sings Dylan, Eric Kim, Massive: The Power of Pop Culture, Squatters’ Cinema, and Free Daffodils

What the TV Show The Diplomat Tells Us About Seattle Progressivism

The (Theater Formerly Known as) Cinerama Will Reopen in December

What the Hell Is Make Believe Seattle?

Film Review: Todd Haynes's May December Is a Lifetime Movie With a Semiotics Degree

Netflix's 3 Body Problem Turns Out to Be Porn for Conservatives

Support The Stranger

A Festival of His Films, During a Season of Renewed Accusations

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

More In Film/TV

Editors' Picks

Popular Articles

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!