Buried among 1500 comments on the NYT (and counting), there was this comment copied below. Very, very intriguing.

(Woody Allen Speaks Out By WOODY ALLEN FEB. 7, 2014).

Annie

New York City 8 hours ago

1. I saw the video – any reasonably sane person — trained or otherwise — would tell you that that little girl was not making it up. Not a chance.

2. If the files of the NYC child welfare agency could “talk” and ever came out it would be a very very bad day for Woody Allen.

3. Same goes for the polaroids Woody took of Soon-Yi. Very naked/nasty pictures of her spread eagled on a bed.

4. As Dylan, the grown-up, rightly says, the final “legal” word comes not from Connecticut but from NY. Doesn’t “grossly inappropriate” say anything here? The state of NY ruled he should have zero contact with his children – zero. Why did he stop fighting for them?

5. Re: Point 2. Ask Woody’s sister what she knows. Her names everywhere in the NYC files.

6. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not-guilty of murdering his wife. Legally speaking he, too, is innocent. Yeah, right.

=================

First, I had read a dismissal of the video because it had been “home-made” by Mia, i.e., there are edits. Unfortunately, we can only speculate inanely about it without seeing it. But this is a person who claims to have seen it. Has the video been destroyed as well?

But then, aside from the video that has been debated by other people, this is what struck me: “Ask Woody’s sister what she knows.

What does she know? And are we in Joe Paterno territory here?

Wow.

And after talking to Allen’s sister about “what she knows,” would Allen’s sister accept to take a polygraph by the police, I wonder?

Other new thoughts: speaking of polygraphs,  couldn’t we ask Soon-Yi to take a polygraph? Not only would I want to know more about her experience in her Farrow family, but I have a whole list of questions that I would want to ask her about how her incestuous relationship with Allen developed. From the very start of it. I think we’ll find muck, lots of it. At what age did Soon-Yi start having sex and with whom? Had she allowed men to take naked photographs of her before Allen? How old was she when Allen started taking naked photographs of her? Did Allen normally leave said photographs of her on their living room mantle for all visitors to see – or was it a special “gesture” by Allen targeting Mia’s visit?

And, another point, what this case also highlights is the pathetic functioning of these adoptions agencies. Walk into one of them with a bag of money, and no matter how dysfunctional, you can not only walk out with one kid, but with more than one.

====================

Added 10/Feb/2014

I had also thought the very same as this comment below on Moses’s statement, but never blogged about it. He sounds horrendously biased, having the kind of profile that defends abusers based on his own personal interests:

SydneyTexas 12 hours ago

“Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.””

IF this is true, Moses, as a family therapist, should be tossed from the profession.To speak for Dylan with such certainty and to assert that the presence of love and absence of fear are conclusive evidence of a lack of abuse is appalling. Many child victims believe the abuse to be normal; what is there to fear? Predators will do and say anything to get what they want. If they can get it willingly, all the better.

The more Woody talks, the less I believe him. And the court records paint a much different picture.

=======================

I’m not saying that Moses cannot dispute the abuse claim. It’s the rationale he gave for it that shows the man is an unconscionable professional, with no knowledge of sexual abuse dynamics. A disgrace to his profession and yet, aside from a comment here and there, has anyone really demanded any action against him for his attitudes and views?

That’s why the psychotherapy profession can hide within its midst so many charlatans and evil doers.

======================

ETA Feb. 12, 2014.

A commenter also noted this:

I read in the November 2013 Vanity Fair article that Dylan Farrow’s case file disappeared from the New York Child Welfare Authority

You can find the article here.

In New York in March 1993, Paul Williams, who had been honored as Caseworker of the Year in 1991, and who was handling Dylan’s case for the city’s Child Welfare Administration, was suspended after being suspected of leaking to the media. According to a New York Observer article at the time, Williams claimed his office had faced pressure from City Hall to drop the case—a charge denied by then Mayor David Dinkins. Williams, who spoke twice to Dylan, is said to have “absolutely” believed her.

Williams was eventually reinstated, in September 1993. Today, according to someone close to the matter, the case file is nowhere to be found, although it would ordinarily have been marked “indicated” to signify that it merited further attention—a potential red flag in allowing someone to adopt children.

This case stinks.

I also read some of the reviews for this book: Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal by Kristine Groteke and Marjorie Rosen (May 1994)

It was written by one of the baby-sitters who was there. Can’t know if what she says is true, but it seems she provides a lot of information about the family.

From Booklist: “It’s Woody and Mia as seen through the eyes of their children’s baby-sitter. No, it’s not a segment of A Current Affair; in fact, it’s several notches above that. Still, the topic being what it is, readers will want answers to questions like, What is he, nuts? or What is she, nuts? Groteke actually delivers at least some of the goods we’ve all been waiting for. Here’s the background: just before the scandal broke, Groteke, a Connecticut neighbor of Farrow’s, came to spend the summer as a nanny. Over the next several years, she became both friend and confidante to Farrow; thus, while her manuscript was not vetted by the actress, it does tell her side of it. Groteke, however, tries to be fair to Allen. She does not presume to say whether he molested his adopted daughter, Dylan, but she does describe what happened on the day when the alleged abuse took place, and she also comments on Allen’s fawning devotion to Dylan (to the exclusion of his son, Satchel). The details of those horrific months when Farrow’s family was torn apart and relentless reporters dogged their every step make for fascinating reading. Groteke’s account of the custody hearing itself proves especially interesting, as does the appendix, which reprints Judge Wilk’s entire judgment, devastating in its opinion of Allen. There are surprises here, too. For instance, we learn that even after Farrow found the nude pictures of Soon-yi, she still continued to see Allen, have dinner with him, and speak constantly with him on the phone. When Groteke asks how Farrow could have stayed with him even before the Soon-yi affair, considering he verbally attacked her, wanted nothing to do with her children, and refused to marry her, Farrow talks about Allen’s brilliance and how superior she felt him to be. So maybe they were both nuts. Ilene Cooper”

Actually calling them “nuts” is a total cop-out, calling them “nuts” doesn’t hold them morally accountable for anything. Who cares if they were nuts? They were trash of people in many ways, with deeply warped ideas about sexuality and relationships, apparently some of which were criminal.

And the other thing is: the “Annie” who wrote the NYT comment speaks as if she has read the files. Not only that, she speaks in the present tense: “Her names everywhere in the NYC files.” Like if she had just read the files, you know, as if she has a copy. Maybe it’s just a matter of how she expressed herself. Or perhaps someone still has the files.

Advertisements