Saturday, February 8, 2014

UPDATED: Statement Analysis: Woody Allen Denial Published

I have previously analyzed Woody Allen and have concluded deception.  Given his prior statements, it is challenging to analyze this statement without allowing prior statements to enter my thinking.  In 1976 interview with People magazine, he said:  

 "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 fifteen 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would 

think,  yeah, I always knew that about him.  Nothing I could come up with would 

surprise anyone.  I admit to it all."


Not only does he affirm interest in sexual activity with children, but allows for himself to be so thought of, that people would not be surprised.  
He allows himself to be "caught" with the possibility:  "if."

He now wishes to portray a denial of molesting Dylan.  




 Here is his full text denying molesting Dylan.

Does he issue a reliable denial?

A reliable denial consists of three components:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "didn't" (or did not)
3.  The specific allegation

If a denial has more than three components, it is "unreliable", just as it is if it has less than three.

An innocent person will tell us, early and without qualification that he did not do it.  In prior statements, we found that the subject (Woody Allen) avoided say he did not touch, nor molest Dylan. In analysis (and investigations) there is a rule:
"If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he did not do it, we are not permitted to say it for him."


Woody Allen Speaks Out

By WOODY ALLEN FEB. 7, 2014
Mia Farrow, Woody Allen, and their children Dylan and Ronan, January 1988. Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images


TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.

I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” 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.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

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.NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?

Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

THE FORM:   The statement consists of 1857 words.  

When viewing a truthful statement, we measure its form, specifically when an event is addressed.  Research has shown that a truthful statement will be close to the following percentages:

1.  25% will be the pre-event (Introduction) 
2.  50% will address the event
3.  25% will be post event 

The overwhelming number of deceptive statements are heavily weighted in the introduction 

The purpose of the statement is to deny the allegation of inappropriately touching Dylan.  Although the molestation is a past event, and the day of the molestation is not specifically addressed, we do recognize the following:  

There are 1690 words used before the allegation is addressed.  

This indicates that it took 91% of the letter used before denying the molestation.

THE DENIAL

"Of course, I did not molest Dylan."

The denial comes late in the statement and it begins with:

"Of course, I did not molest Dylan."

When someone says "of course" they wish for us to take for granted that something is true.  It is to violate the reliable and simple denial by additional words.  

"Of course, I did not molest Dylan."

Also, it should be noted that some pedophiles are able to pass a polygraph when the word "molest" is used.  

Everyone has a personal, subjective internal dictionary.  The pre screening interview for the polygraph is to decode this, and enter into the subject's language.  I once saw a pedophile pass his polygraph (only to reoffend) because the polygraphed asked, "Did you molest ____?" to which he said, "no."

The polygraphed had not reviewed the transcript of the initial interview as the subject's own language was to say "tickle" and "play with" his victim.  Had he been asked, "Did you touch _____ on the chest?" or "Did you tickle ______ on her chest?" he would have failed had he said, "no."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is a very strong denial.  When later pressed, Clinton said that "sexual relations" is intercourse.  This was why he was able to deny having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, because he did not have intercourse with her. 

Had he been asked to define "sexual relations", and then asked to define "sexual contact", he would not have been able to lie outright and would have had to choose to say something else.  It is very rare for anyone to lie outright. 

In reading an old interview from the 1970's from Woody Allen, his sexual discussion concerning young girls would likely convince readers that he does not believe that sexual contact with a child is a "molestation" or "molesting" a young girl.  

There are exceptions to the rule of Personal, Subjective, Internal Dictionary:  pronouns, articles, and objective time on a clock. 

Pronouns are instinctive.  We use them so often, from the earliest age, that we are 100% reliable:  we do not need to think out whether to use "I" or "we", and we do not own with a possessive pronoun that which does not belong to us.  Therefore, when OJ Simpson said, "To those of you who believe in my guilt", we recognize that he took ownership, via pronoun, of "guilt."

The Statement

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. 


Note that he found the idea "ludicrous" but not untrue.   Since he does not tell us it is untrue, we will seek to learn if "untrue" is in his personal vocabulary in the statement. 
Note what one refers to in the negative as very important.  He "didn't" give it a second thought.  What was his first thought?

This is the perfect place to issue a denial.  The innocent do not wait, nor hesitate, nor need to qualify their denials.  

He next claims to be enemies with Mia Farrow.  Yet he uses the pronoun "we""


We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Note he uses the word "of course" which means that we are to believe him without question.  Note also he says he "hadn't" rather than "didn't", with "hadn't" often used to describe something that had not taken place yet.  
As we seek to learn his own wording (personal, subjective, internal dictionary; see below) we note he uses the word "misconduct."

Note that it "should seem" to the most skeptical mind "highly unlikely" is not to say that it is untrue.  

We always note a need to persuade, as well a need to attack the accuser.  In this case, the subject says of those who do not agree with them that they are not of "the most skeptical mind" nor use "sheer logic."

The innocent often say so, and do not feel the need to persuade, nor the need to ridicule anyone who disagrees, nor attack the accuser (Mia Farrow).  

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested

We note that he says "I had abused Dylan" with the term "abused" used, rather than "molestation"nor "misconduct"

Please note that after investigating many child abuse cases, I have not met a doctor who ever concluded that someone had "not been molested."  This is because unless the perpetrator injures the child, including the stretching internally, nothing will be seen.  A doctor can say that there is no evidence of penetration, but cannot conclude that a child had not been molested. 

This should be noted and should be considered as part of his need to persuade. 


Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. 

Please note that he refers to Dylan as a "child."  This is closely associated with child abuse.  It can be the language of perpetrators, just as it can be the language of teachers concerned with child abuse.  

In Statement Analysis, a direct lie is very rare, yet there is a rule that should be noted:

"No man can lie twice."

No subject can say "I didn't do it", then look upon the lie, referring directly to it and say "I told the truth" with the pronoun "I", the past tense "told" and the word "truth."

It is psychologically impossible for anyone to "lie twice" in an open statement while speaking for oneself.  

Note here:  


The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. 

He does not say "the police investigated" but that they only "started"; therefore, we should consider that the investigation that "began" continues in the mind of the subject. 


I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. 

First note that he calls it a "lie detector test" and not a "polygraph."  Police administer the "polygraph test" and not a "lie detector test."
1.  Note that he did not say "I took a lie detector test" but 
a.  "willingly"
b.  "very willingly"

These are two qualifiers to taking the polygraph.  It should be questioned who talked him into it.  Some lawyers will "polygraph-shop" and take test after test until they find the appropriate language to produce a positive result (the Ramseys did this, then had the polygrapher sign a non-disclosure contract that he cannot even reveal what questions he asked).  

2.  Note "of course" is again used where he wants us to accept the results without question, even though he, himself, uses additional language. 

3.  "because I had nothing to hide" is to avoid the most simple and straightforward:

"because I told the truth."

This would have been a very powerful statement but he is either unwilling, or unable to bring himself to say so, therefore, we cannot say it for him. 

UPDATE:  Woody Allen refused to take the polygraph from the police, instead found a private "lie detector" test. 


I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

Use of "untrue":  this is a strong statement and that she was not underage (depending upon which law in thought of), should be believed.  He does use "untrue" in his personal dictionary (see above) 

Please note that there are two areas within a statement that are highlighted in the color blue as the highest level of sensitivity:  

1.  The leaving or departing of a place
2.  The reason "why" something is done, when not asked. 

When someone who is not asked, "Why did you...?" but feels the need to explain why he does something, it is of the highest sensitivity in a statement. 

Here, we find that he has the need to explain why he has added an anecdote to his statement, making it very sensitive to him. 

Instead of issuing a reliable denial, he instead presents a case where he was accused of being with an underaged woman (a desire he admits in his 1970's interview) which was likely technically untrue. 

This is to say that he could not have molested Dylan because he was with a person of legal age many years ago.  

It is similar to saying "I could not have robbed this bank, because 20 years ago, I legally withdrew money."


Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

This is to report the conclusion of the investigation, and not to issue a reliable denial.  This is a report that concluded belief that Allen did not molest Dylan.  Please note that the investigation took "months", which the subject adds.  

In false accusations, the child enters the language of the adult.  I found it took only a single interview to learn this. 

Please note the use of quotation marks within the statement as he is quoting the report. The quotation marks close the report above. 

Could it be any clearer? 

Please note any questions in an open statement.  


Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. 

Please note that the subject refers to himself in the 3rd person, as if it is part of the report, but he does not have it in the report itself.  It is written as if it is in the report.  


This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

Note that the expert opinion of the initial report in contrast to the expert opinion of the judge who had the report, yet still concluded indefinite response, being ridiculed by the subject.  We note the need to ridicule as "very irresponsible"

But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. 

Passivity noted. 

Please note that he does not say "I knew because I didn't do it" but uses the pronoun "we", instead of the personal and strong "I."  They knew it only because "it had been determined" which is passive. 

Note also that "no abuse had taken place" is also passive.  

UPDATE:  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.


Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. 

Note the need to add the age of "Soon-Yi", of whom he was in the role of father, and entered into a sexual relationship with, echoing the relationship he had with Dylan.  

Please note:  In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that 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.”


He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. 

Please note the need to add in Mia's age in comparison to himself. 


In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.

I was heartbroken. 

This is a very strong statement that uses the pronoun "I" and has no need to persuade.  It should be believed.  He feels no need to persuade us that he was heartbroken and is n example of truth.  

It should also be compared with his other statements where he uses additional language and indicates a strong need to persuade. 

Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” 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.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

Note that the subject reports "and sexually molesting my sister" without the need to rebut the molestation via denial.  This is another place to deny.  

The mother kept the children from the man who had molested one of them. 

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? 

Note the question in an open statement.  It may be that he directs a question to himself. 

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.NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

 Note that the need to disparage the accuser outweighs (in context) the denial.  Please note that this was the method of Lance Armstrong.  

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? 

She is not a "girl", "little girl" ,etc, but the word "child" is used again.  


Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. 

1.   Please note the need to explain "why" is highly sensitive.
2.  Please note in Dylan's description, she used sensory language, which indicates memory is in play.
3.  Please note that "tiny, cramped enclosure" is also the subject using sensory language.  This likely confirms the veracity of Dylan's statement.  
4.  Please note the need to excuse the location, rather than deny the activity. 

Updated notes:  The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them.

At least three adults gave sworn testimony that Allen had taken Dylan to the attic space.  

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.


The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

"Undoubtedly" is the same as "of course", where the subject wants us to believe something without question.  

Please note the agenda is "shabby" rather than false. 

Please note that comparing "more like Mia than Dylan", he is acknowledging that Dylan is possibly like Mia, whom he is disparaging throughout the statement. 

After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?

Please note the embedded words "I molested her daughter" are not the words of entering into Mia Farrow's language, but "belief."

Please note the questions within the statement.  

Please note he refers to himself as a "molester" at the Golden Globes. 

Of course, I did not molest Dylan. 

Please see specific analysis on the denial. 

I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

Note that he does not say he doesn't want to discourage victims using the strong pronoun "I", but that he uses the vague "no one"
Note that there are "people" who are falsely accused" but does not say it is him.  These are examples of distancing language, like the 3rd person reference above. 

Analysis conclusion:

This is a lengthy reply.  I have read his statements from the 70's and have read his denials.  I, too, observed his relationship with Soon Yi, of whom was a child who was specifically groomed by the role of fatherhood Allen took upon himself.   It is unexpected that he expects the public to accept that he raised, as a daughter, a child and then "fell in love" with her, as if it was beyond his control.  This is projection of his own belief system where he does not seem to understand that the public sees the natural subordinate role of a child to that of a father figure, and how this is, de facto, exploitative.  

Allen consistently avoided issuing a reliable denial from the beginning, and here he dedicates the strong majority of his words at disparaging his accuser, something that the deceptive and guilty are in need of.  Like Armstrong, he ridicules his accuser.  Like Armstrong he ridicules the accusation.  Like Armstrong, he points to a non-event as "proof" of innocence. 

Like Armstrong, he cannot issue a reliable denial.  

Like Armstrong, he is unable to say "I told the truth" regarding his denial. 

The "scorched earth" policy was something that many deceivers use.  Note that this was recently the practice of Alex Rodriquez, someone who gave unreliable denials about performance enhancing drugs.  He was suing everyone, including MLB and his own union, as a tangent that cost him a fortune in legal bills, only to withdraw everything in defeat.  

He is left to ridicule his ex as "proof", but in the multitude of words, we find him deceptive.  

For Mia, he molested one sister, and the other needed protection.  

Dylan has told the truth. 
Woody Allen has not.  

That Dylan (and Mia Farrow) bear scars is the expected. 

In analyzing Dylan's accusation, she gives strong linguistic evidence of telling the truth.  She has suffered her entire life, as have those who love her, due to the actions of Woody Allen.  

You can read analysis of her statement HERE

He would have us believe she is a grown "child" under her mother's control rather than the courageous woman she is.  

To see Allen address accusation click HERE where he calls it a "non event" rather than deny it reliably. 

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.

When asked if there is any truth to touching Dylan in her private area, he answers the question with a question about it being "logical" or not.  He asks, "does it make sense?" He even says "If I wanted to be a child molester, I had many opportunities in the past."

If you were accused of molesting a child, would you allow for "opportunities"?  "Spectacular embellishment" is not only qualified by "spectacular" but it is an "embellishment", that is, an exaggeration of what took place.  This presupposes something took place. 

He speaks the language common to predators.  

UPDATE:   33 page report is found HERE

Woody Allen's language choice allows for him to be viewed as a pedophile.

To this, my analysis agrees. 

Woody Allen is a pedophile who sexually molested Dylan Farrow. 


Peter Hyatt 

68 comments:

  1. Peter, every person has a gift within themselves. It is up to them to explore and find out where it lies within oneself. This is your gift, statement analysis, especially in the subject matter of sexual abuse, rape, and the aftereffects victims' endure. Peter carry through with your work in this very delicate area. Your work is a beacon of light that draws out many to the surface to live again the innocent life they were all promised by their existence on this earth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. His own description of the situation is clear, even if buried in a sentence:
    " a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her"

    ReplyDelete
  3. My above post has a KerseyJane (Curtsey)- an act of civility, respect, or reverence for you and your work, Peter. You are doing a great job, keep up the good work!!:-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is your best analysis yet. To know that someone can see their truth has to greatly help the abused. Thank you!

    A couple of things I note:
    ...Woody Allen describes his relationship with Mia Farrow as "going out with". What minimalization! They had a biological child together, and adopted a child together.

    ...The entire tone of the piece is one of disparaging Mia for being emotional, over the top, "raging". I don't believe Woody Allen understands normal human emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read this in the NY Times last night an instantly knew it was deceptive. No denial until the very end and then the words "of course." Also, constant use of the word "child" set off all my alarms. Woody Allen molested Dylan. Thank you for this blog; it has truly given me some great tools for analyzing statements.

    And Woody Allen will never convince me that his relationship with Soon-Yi was not predatory. Soon-Yi was adopted as a seven-year old who had grown up on the streets with a druggy, prostitute mother. Woody Allen was sniffing around her when she was still a minor. He saw her for what she was: vulnerable and confused about what parental affection even was. I do not care that they have been married for 16 years; it does nothing to mitigate that fact that a man in is 50s was going after a teenager who was the daughter of his longtime girlfriend. I do not even care that they both really "love" each other now. That relationship should never have even happened to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PS Some people on the NYT comments have pointed out that NO ONE would brush off an accusation of child abuse and not "give it a second thought." Again, this is him trying to persuade. Any person falsely accused of sexually abusing their own child would be freaking out. They would be stressed, worried, angry, sad, etc. Even an innocent person would not brush that off. Ridiculous! I have noticed over the years that guilty people will try and act as though they are not concerned about an accusation - like it is no big deal. This makes no sense to me. I would think that anyone, regardless of guilt or innocence, would be truly stressed about being accused of a serious crime.

    I knew a man who was falsely accused of rape. The entire process (acquitted at trial) took over an entire year of his life. He was mega stressed, could not sleep, could not focus on school, etc. Even after it was all over, he fell into a depression. He took the accusation VERY seriously and took two lawyers with him to ANY meeting having to do with the accusation. Even though he had excellent evidence that the rape did not happen (jury deliberated for about 10 minutes), he was still positively wrecked with anxiety.

    ReplyDelete
  7. off topic BBM

    TOWN OF BELOIT, Wis – An hour after a woman reported her newborn son missing from a Wisconsin home, police were questioning her step-sister -- found with a prosthetic pregnancy belly, baby clothes and a stroller, but no baby, according to court documents.

    It was more than 24 hours after Kayden Powell went missing before authorities discovered the infant, less than a week old, in a plastic storage crate outside an Iowa gas station, miraculously alive and well despite frigid temperatures.

    Kristen Smith of Denver had pretended to be pregnant, went to Wisconsin and stole her step-sister's baby from his bassinet as his parents slept, court documents say. Then, as police closed in on her, she allegedly abandoned the infant, who was swaddled in blankets.

    Federal prosecutors in Madison charged Smith with kidnapping Friday afternoon, hours after an Iowa police chief found Kayden.

    "He's strong," the newborn's great-uncle, Mark Bennett, said of the boy. "I'm glad that baby is still living instead of in a ditch somewhere on a strange highway."

    The discovery of the infant shortly after 10 a.m. Friday capped a frantic search that involved police officers in Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa.

    It began after the boy's mother, Brianna Marshall, called police around 4:30 a.m. Thursday to report her newborn had vanished from Bennett's home, where she and the baby's father, Bruce Powell, had been staying, according to police and the affidavit.

    Marshall said Smith had left the house a couple of hours earlier to return to Colorado. While police were at the house, Smith called on her cellphone. She told police that Marshall and Bruce Powell were planning to move to Denver on Saturday to live with her and she had Kayden's clothes in her car but didn't have the boy.

    Police told her to pull over for questioning. An officer met her at a Kum & Go gas station near Interstate 80 in West Branch, Iowa. She was arrested about 5:30 a.m. on an outstanding Texas warrant, but she denied any knowledge of Kayden's whereabouts, the affidavit says.

    A search of her cellphone revealed emails in which she said she gave birth on Feb. 5, according to the court document. A search of her Facebook page turned up postings in which she claimed she was pregnant.

    Smith didn't appear pregnant, according to the affidavit. A pregnancy test that was administered while she was in custody came back negative, U.S. Attorney John Vaudreuil said.

    Meanwhile, dozens of officers began searched for the child at possible stop-offs along Smith's route from Wisconsin to Iowa. West Branch Police Chief Mike Horihan decided to check the area around a BP station about 500 yards from the station where Smith was arrested. He heard a baby's cries and discovered Kayden in a closed storage crate alongside the building. The newborn was responsive and healthy, the chief said.

    "I had tears in my eyes," BP station manager Jay Patel said, recalling his reaction to the police chief telling him that the infant had been found. "It's good news, but it's sad, too."

    Temperatures in West Branch, about 180 miles southwest of the Town of Beloit, dipped below zero Thursday night into Friday. They were still in the single digits when the baby was found.

    "Surprisingly with the weather the way it was, he was surprisingly healthy," Horihan, the Iowa police chief, said. "To be honest with you, that's not what I expected."

    ReplyDelete

  8. The baby was taken to an Iowa City hospital, where he was reunited with his parents and released Friday evening.

    Online court records didn't list a defense attorney for Smith. She faces life in prison if convicted.

    Police interviewed Smith again after Kayden was discovered, the affidavit said, and she admitted she had taken the baby and left him at the BP station.

    Bennett, the baby's great-uncle, told The Associated Press he first met Smith on Thursday night, when he came home and found her, his mother and the baby's mother and father in his house. He said his mother later explained to him that Marshall and her step-sister had the same father but different mothers.

    He went to his room in the basement. When he woke up, the baby and Smith were gone.

    He said he kept telling Marshall that Smith had to have taken the child, but Marshall refused to believe it. The baby's bassinet was 2 feet from the parents' bed and he found a paring knife on the ground next to it.

    "I could have woke up to a bloody mess," Bennett said.

    He said he hopes Smith gets locked up for life.

    "You stole him like you're stealing something from the grocery store," the great-uncle said. "Nobody in their right mind should have thought of that."

    Smith appears to go by multiple names and has had run-ins with the law in multiple states, authorities said. The Texas warrant stems from a felony indictment charging her with tampering with government documents late last year while she was in jail in Colorado.

    A spokesman for the Arapahoe County, Colo., sheriff's office declined to discuss the details of her arrest there. A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office in Tarrant County, Texas, said it's not clear why Colorado authorities released Smith instead of sending her back to Texas.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/08/suspect-in-6-day-old-boy-kidnapping-faked-pregnancy-court-papers-say/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Typical "star"mentality,they think they have the"right"to do what they want to whoever they want.Ie "Elton John"he speaks to people (not as/not famous"like dirt.If he wasn't a famous singer he'd get knocked out.(me).

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's quite the treat to have lengthy statements from both sides of an argument to compare and analyze. It is obvious that Dylan was honest, and Woody was not.

    Something that stood out to me was in his second paragraph:

    "Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."

    He assumed this would be dismissed because he had never been accused of molestation prior to this? Why would he even say that? As if someone who has never been accused is incapable of committing a crime.

    I feel like him saying that indicates that there were situations prior to Dylan, or even prior to Soon-Mi, that went unreported. He introduces the idea that there were other victims that didn't report him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great analysis, Peter. Thank you!

    One thing that truly irks me and I see both from WA and people commenting on the case is the reference to Soon-Yi only as "Mia's daughter" (because her legal father was Andre Previn).

    Conveniently left out of this identifier is the fact that she was also WA's CHILDREN'S SISTER.

    This fact seems to be constantly overlooked.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree that that relationship between the children is important to us... but it doesn't matter one bit to Woody Allen because Soon-Yi was adopted. Since there is no genetic relation, he doesn't find it inappropriate at all.

    In my opinion, WA doesn't consider the girls sisters. He says that he and Soon-Yi reached out to Dylan many times only to be rebuffed by Mia Farrow. He puts he and Soon-Yi on the same level, reaching out to a little girl... I'd bet that if Dylan did have a relationship with those people, Soon-Yi would be in a mothering role, not a sister role. How would she be able to be in a sister role AND in a wife role to the little girl's father. It just doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but what about Soon-Yi's view? She has implied discord and distance between her and Mia. It is quite possible she did not have familial feelings. Even some biological children feel that way.
      Maybe not the happy band of boys and girls after all...consider what Moses has said.

      Delete
  13. What a strange little creepy person allen is.

    Good for Mia believing her daughter, taking the steps she did to protect her.

    (Never did like his movies, no matter what the reviews, stopped watching them years and years ago.)

    The "family" picture shows a very unhappy Dylan. Now we know why.

    And good for Dylan daring to continue to talk knowing what she will be faced with. I hope her life has improved and her radar protects her in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. 
    The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out."
    __________

    He says of the attic in Mia's house, "I'd never go to" - never is not no. He then places himself in the attic "one or two times" SHE asked me. It is because of Mia he was ever in her attic. He again uses logic to persuade/convince, because "I'm a major claustrophobe". He wants us to suspend belief in Dylan's claims because he is a major claustrophobe and the attic is a "tiny, cramped, enclosed spot…" I find it unexpected he would refer to the attic as a "spot". I'm uncomfortable with his description of the attic in general.

    Where Dylan references her body position (in the attic) in her statement, Woody Allen references body position in the attic as "where one can hardly stand up…" This seems to me to add veracity to her statement. He is keenly aware to mention this about the attic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is a direct quote from a 1976 People Magazine article:

    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."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Those are statements made by Woody Allen. Kinda puts any questions to rest, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  17. thank you...I have added the quote.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There is no reliable denial. In where he wants the reader to think there is a denial, there use of someone else's words/language:

    Moses said: "Of course Woody did not molest my sister."

    A bit later, Woody Allen uses Moses's words "Of course, I did not molest Dylan."

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation , “we will probably never know what occurred.”"

    "The molestation" is not in quotes. It seems he is admitting the molestation happened.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OT, Leanne Bearden case

    Josh Bearden said the couple shared a profile on the site CouchSurfing.org and that he has checked for activity on the account to “see if she was planning some sort of escape.”

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Global-couch-surfing-network-now-part-of-5211152.php

    Escape?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Woody Allen was secretly taking nude photos of Soon-Yi and having trysts with her when she was under age.

    Did he "fall in love" with his step-daughter Soon-Yi to keep her silent about the events that he orchestrated?

    Woody Allen has issued a typical response from a child molester.

    Call the victim a liar, disparage her publicly, and blame her mother for breaking his heart by putting Dylan up to this public accusation.

    Poor, poor,Woody Allen, exposed for the monster that he is.

    Dylan Farrow ran and hid from you when she was little, Woody but you always managed to find her. She is not hiding from you anymore, now you are the one who is running scared from her.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Twenty one years ago, when I first heard that Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation..."

    He doesn't even mention Dylan Farrow's name, like she was just a non-entity in the break up.

    Woody would have us believe that he has the evidence, gathered by Yale professionals, who have attested to the fabrications and false statements told to them by a seven year-old girl.

    Wow, Woody, an arsenal of Yale professionals, highly paid attorneys and your wealth, versus one little seven year-old girl? Isn't that a little extreme?

    Dylan Farrow must have been one dangerous, menacing, little "child" back then when she knew you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. O/T Youtube video interview with Paul Bernardo where the interviewer directly asks Paul Bernardo if he killed Elizabeth Bain (still missing since 1990). His reply begins with "Now that's a loaded question." He doesn't answer the question right away but does state that he did not. Can anyone chime in on their opinion on this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6F4_KIU55I

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan."

    **********************************
    Is anyone else disturbed by his use of the word "smells"? Wouldn't the expected be that the actions SOUND "a lot more like Mia than Dylan?"

    And, what about his adopted children with Soon-Yi?

    ReplyDelete
  25. when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester
    he tells us he is un the early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman he was going to marry and in the same breath he tells he picks THIS moment to embark on a career as a child molestor.

    He tells us a career as a child molestor indicating multiple and long term molestation. this is embedded.
    Why use career and all it implies rather than say he didn't molest any child. This is close, that is distancing, he puts himself close to a career of child molesting

    Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story
    A change in language is a change in reality. Before the icecream he refers to Dylan and the benial, after the incecream Dylan now becomes the child.
    Child in language can indicate abuse tough it is not a definitive, we would need to see if or when it changes. Dylan becomes THE CHILD which is distancing and unexpected,
    Is he distancing himself because the truth is now out?
    Why THE and not my or our child?
    This is further distancing and again unexpected.
    Is he distancing himself from his victim, She no longer Dylan, rather she becomes THE CHILD.
    Watch changed?
    Her story.

    ReplyDelete
  26. An interesting article in Esquire magazine suggests it was all there in Woody Allen's movies if we had only known to look.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-movies?click=smart&kw=ist&src=smart&mag=ESQ&link=http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-movies

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lemon said:

    He wants us to suspend belief in Dylan's claims because he is a major claustrophobe and the attic is a "tiny, cramped, enclosed spot…" I find it unexpected he would refer to the attic as a "spot". I'm uncomfortable with his description of the attic in general.
    ___________

    Ding! I think now we know why he picked the attic. He made the family think he was freaked out by the attic, so that they wouldn't ever think to look for him there when he was "missing."

    ReplyDelete
  28. please see the updated article, especially Vanity Fair's link to the judge's decision.

    It explains the deception in Woody Allen's statement and why, for example, he took a "lie detector test" instead of a "polygraph."

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dylan Farrow's response to her molester's statement:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552

    ReplyDelete
  30. "... spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence."

    So there were several pieces of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In hindsight, Woody Allen has more red flags than the gas company! Read this gem!

    THE MATURING OF WOODY ALLEN
    April 22, 1979
    By Natalie Gittelson
    New York Times Magazine


    He has various platonic "letter-writing relationships" with young women, "when they read out as serious and substantial." His youngest correspondent is an 11-year-old girl, whose letter was precocious in the extreme, Allen says. "I wrote her back, 'If you're really the age you say you are, it's phenomenal. But if you're not, don't write to me again and waste my time.' Finally, I met her whole family. They all came to see me, including her mother. She's a nice, intelligent girl. She's 11."

    ReplyDelete
  32. who did the lie detector test?
    was it a police run one, an FBI one or a private one?

    if the latter then he likely polyshopped and we don't know what questions were asked ( think the ramsey's)

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/36738

    Yep, Dylan says Woody Allen refused the State Police polygraph and hired his own expert.

    ReplyDelete
  34. To be fair, I would like to see SA on Dylan's statements (as well as Mia's) over the years to see what the inconsistencies & embellishments are.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thanks, Peter, for the info from Vanity Fair on the judges' decision.

    I read it all. It is revealing as to Woody's abnormal focus on seven year-old Dylan.

    Woody Allen has been a destructive force in the Farrow family and still is.

    I wonder if he and Soon-Yi live in separate residences.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Woody denied being in the attic, but when confronted with evidence that his hair was found in it, he changed his story to, I might have stuck my head in there a couple of times.

    Woody blames Mia for the accusations of child molestation, but, Dylan's Pediatrician reported the abuse to police after Dylan told him about it according to the documents.

    Several witness' testified to Woody's abnormal focus on Dylan and his inappropriate behavior towards her.

    Woody, you are despicable and lewd. What kind of man does the mother and her underage daughters in secret?



    ReplyDelete
  37. Good catch Lemon!

    Yes the word "spot" is troublesome. So what spot would you choose Woody? An attic is an attic or a room, not a "spot". Sounds like he's got lots of experience picking "spots" for.....?

    and Theresa that is definitely a plausible setup scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1004566#.UvcIgv3FuFI

    this story told by terry elvis about two men who just threatened his other daughter is weird. why was terry "leaving" his work with no keys or cell phone. and why dose he give no description of the two men who harrassed him???

    ReplyDelete
  39. Note where Woody Allen chooses to start his "statement" (nod to Peter,here). He begins his lengthy narrative with the break-up and immediately begins attacking Mia's character. It's interesting that he forgot to mention the reason that precipitated the "terribly acrimonious break-up, with great enmity". It's also interesting to note how much emphasis and value he places on reason and logic, as he tells this very-detailed story.

    Fact Check: Woody and Mia had a 12 year sexual relationship, involving 12 years of innumerable family outings, activities and situations. Soon-Yi would have been 9-10 yrs old in the beginning, meaning that any "reasonable" adult (using Woody's word here) recognizes that a male in that position is Mom's boyfriend and is acting as, and is perceived by the children as an authority figure (and usually perceived by the children as somewhat of the father figure of said family unit, considering the length of the relationship). Woody had nude pictures of, to a "reasonable" person, his 21yr old step-daughter Soon-Yi. He claimed this was acceptable because Soon-Yi was "Mia's stepdaughter", not his. Note the lengths Woody will go to to deceive others. If he truly believed that himself, he would not provided any care whatsoever for Soon-Yi from age 9-10 to 18, as she belonged solely to Mia (per his own words).

    He briefly and awkwardly skirts the issue much later in the piece-still vehemently attacking Mia, minimizing his behavior( eliminating Soon-Yi's obvious back-stabbing betrayal altogether. It's laughable that he wants to point out Mia's "lying" and "false representations", feigning outrage and hurt...while he was sleeping with her daughter behind her back for who knows how long?!!

    This whole piece is nothing more than spin,spin, spin. It hinges on his internal vocabulary and his careful turning of phrases. He would utterly fail in an unscripted verbal interview or police interrogation. No wonder he must resort to initial releases from an employee, followed by a rambling storyline promoting him as the beleagured, long-suffering, persecuted victim of a vengeful ex-lover.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paragraph 2 begins with "I 'naively' thought...". Woody Allen is anything but naive. By stressing how unconcerned he was in the first paragraph, he clearly shows us that he was aware that a court would likely find his sexual relationship Soon-Yi suspect and likely evidencing a sexual interest in young girls = very damaging to his reputation/career/income.. She was, for all intents and purposes, his step-daughter for 12 years. Clearly, Woody had issues with social, emotional, and familial boundaries and had no trouble violating them. Pedophilia wouldn't be a stretch, given that Dylan wasn't biologically his either.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation." Note: Never been accused is not "I did not molest Dylan/any child.". A child molester I knew had never been accused before he was accused either. Just because you've never been accused, doesn't mean you've never done it. It usually just means you've never been caught before.
    "I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct."
    Going out? That's what you call a 12 year sexual, personal, and professional relationship, involving countless family outings with your blended family? Note : Woody says never [reporting in the negative] did she suggest [soft, passive language] to me anything [How does one not suggest anything?]resembling [pedophiles often claim contact was simply a misunderstanding; they were actually attempting to hug,tickle,play,comfort, etc.] misconduct [As Peter noted- change in language-softer, passive misconduct as opposed to molesting]. What is Woody's definition of molestation? Misconduct? I'm betting that careful and selective pedophile grooming isn't considered either of those. He's "open minded" (his words), remember?
    It's interesting in interviews that he appears to hold fatherhood in little regard, being quoted with comments like he wasn't interested in having children and any fool could be a father.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Note Woody talks about police beginning an investigation and then he talks about taking "a lie-detector test"... but nowhere does he say who administered the test. Did he take a polygraph? Was it administered by a police officer? Normally, a person says something to the effect of "I went down to the police station. They hooked me up to a polygraph machine/lie-detector and asked me a bunch of questions.".
    He says, "Of course passed"[wants the reader to take for granted because Woody Allen says its so] and "I had nothing to hide" [reported in the negative and how can one hide "nothing"?].

    I wonder if Allen would have been so solicitously complimentary of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic if they had found him guilty? Paragraph 5 is dedicated to promoting the theory that he's being picked on because he's a celebrity, since we all know what paragons of virtue all those saintly celebrities are (especially ones who cheat on their long-term girlfriend with her own child). Are we to believe Woody (who's told us in so many words he lacks normal boundaries) and Soon-Yi that they waited until she was 18-19 to have sex? Right. Soon-Yi, adopted at 7, likely suffered from Reactive Attachment Disorder and never fully bonded emotionally with Mia. In a blended family, resulting from multiple marriage, multiple partners, multiple adoptions,plus a sole biological child, Soon-Yi likely was lost in the mix. Numerous pictures depict Soon-Yi alone in the crowd, so to speak. She'd be the perfect target for a pedophile predator's grooming.
    Which ties in with my earlier comments, why would a man who professed no interest in having/raising children and a contempt for fatherhood, involve himself for 12 years in what he characterizes as a so-so personal and professional relationship with a mother of 7? Getting a woman never seemed an issue for Allen. What would a so-so mother of 7 have that other women didn't? Unsupervised daughters and a too trusting, distracted Mom?

    ReplyDelete
  43. In paragraph 6,we hear the distinctive "he didn't like me" whine, as Allen basically asserts that the judge was picking him with a "he never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi". It's everyone's fault but Woody Allen's.
    Note that the majority of this letter is full of references to how important, famous, intellectually superior, blameless, and persecuted Woody Allen is. It is all about Woody's pain, with a marked lack of compassion for the havoc/upheaval/public humiliation and embarrassment he personally inflicted on all the children with his self-gratification with their step-sister. This letter is essentially an "Everybody's picking on me. Woe is me." defense. In his own mind, whatever Woody wants should be his for the taking; look who he is. He wants to live in a world with no consequence and he's angry that Mia specifically would not let him.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Clearly, he believes Mia should have no problem with him sleeping with both her and her daughter...he doesn't. He didn't anticipate her going public in 1992. My guess- he seriously underestimated her and likely thought as a producer he could intimidate her into silence (no work). He *thought* he'd neatly tied up the Dylan problem too and he's not liking that he can't control that, hence the personal attacks.
    "Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go [[would never is not "I didn't go"] to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up [not "I can't stand up"; note the word "stand" in relation to Dylan's allegation of laying]and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did [admits that he had, in fact, been in the attic multiple times], but quickly had to run out."

    Throughout the piece, Woody subtly disrespects Dylan, but in paragraph 12 Woody openly disparages the victim by calling into question her motive? Why is he so threatened at this late stage of his game and career by a 22 yr old accusation? It's not like he's an up-and-coming producer wanna-be. He's rich, has a portfolio of successful movies behind him, a network of movie critics/studio heads/colleagues/talk show hosts/fans that adore him, and he's successfully adopted 2 daughters with Soon-Yi. The level of personal retribution 22 years later, absent a reliable straight-forward event-specific denial, should be an enormous red flag waving wildly. Does he think he should be above reproach and that's really what angers him?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thank you, Peter, and all who've commented here. I appreciate the analysis.

    Reading Peter's analysis of Dylan's statement and the Judge's statement in the 1993 custody battle convinced me of Allen's guilt, but I really appreciated this analysis of Allen's response.

    The man should rot in jail the rest of his life. I feel for his other victims, which there undoubtedly are. Perhaps it will take a number of victims stepping forward, a la Jerry Sandusky, to put Allen away for good.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Finally,if you were accused of molesting any child (much less your adopted daughter), would you respond with " The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive." Dispositive? Merely, not positive? Where is the angry, instantaneous first-person, event-specific denial?

    "Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting."- Would you for a moment entertain the notion that any part of such a serious accusation is "interesting", when your reputation/custody of your children/career were at stake?
    "Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way." -Who talks like this?
    Seriously?
    "No one [he doesn't say that he doesn't]wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but [negates what's been said right before this word]one [not "you, the audience"]must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused [not "I have been falsely accused]and that is also a terribly destructive thing.
    I'm sorry to hog the blog here. The more he talks, the deeper he digs. Just my opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I find it interesting (and sad) that I have seen not a single photo of Dylan as a little girl in which she looks happy.

    I know some children are solemn and serious by nature but really, not a single smiling young Dylan?

    (Disturbingly, I have also looked for, but not found, too many smiling photos of the daughters he adopted with Soon Yi.)

    I also find it interesting that in the same family photos, WA is almost always holding Dylan, his adopted child, rather than Ronan, his supposed biological child.

    Especially considering the great lengths he has taken to parse adopted vs. biological to justify his relationship with Soon-Yi.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Just as aside here, but in researching this whole story, I found it very disturbing that in many pictures of him with Soon-Yi, he is "grabbing" her by the arm right above the elbow (as opposed to gently interlocked arms or holding hands).

    It is equally disturbing that their Asian daughter Bechet often looks detached (in the background, standing apart from the rest, the only family member with a consistently blank or angry expression) and is the only other family member that is pictured with Woody holding her arm in the same manner.

    The hold is indicative of control/possession/dominance, as opposed to tender hand-holding, gently loped arms or guiding a lady through a crowd with a gentle hand on her elbow. I find it concerning on Soon-Yi's part, but slightly alarming on Bechet's (in light of Woody's admitted lack of boundaries and Dylan's accusations). Just my opinion. Done.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This is a minor thing, and I don't think it necessitates any change in your analysis, but you wrote, "Note also that "no abuse had taken place" is also passive."

    This is incorrect. This is a past perfect statement in the active voice. "To take place" is a synonym of "to occur," both of which are intransitive verbs, meaning they cannot be made passive.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Somewhat OT, but something I need an answer to:

    When someone says, "Nothing could be further from the truth," and "Truly..." and "The truth is..." and "Truth is...", those are unreliable statements, because they do not say, "I did not do [thing]."

    But what exactly do they point to?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Submor

    Not Peter, but I *think* the concept behind the "No abuse had taken place" being passive, is that abuse doesn't just happen by itself. In order for abuse to occur, someone has to be perpetrating the abuse. When Woody states that "No abuse had taken place.", he is using passive language. He is distancing himself from being the source of abuse.

    The other issue is the word "abuse". So far in this rebuttal letter, Woody himself has termed it: molestation, misconduct,abuse,molested,abuse,molestation, abuse, molested, abused, molestation,molested, sexually abused, molester(in reference to himself), molest, molested,and abuse. It changes names 16 times, not including when he is directly quoting someone. Why? In Woody's internal dictionary, what does he, himself, consider abuse? Misconduct? Molestation? What is his definition of molester? It's a lot like how human beings have a hierarchy of sins. People tend to sort sin into levels, ranging from "little" lies to "outright" lies. It makes us feel better (not so guilty) if we can minimize and justify why we did what we did. Sexual predators are no different- they minimize and sort their sins into levels too to convince themselves and others that they're "not so bad".

    I knew one who married a divorced mother of 2, with a young daughter. He molested her, said she was promiscuous, and said it was all her fault-she came onto to him. Right. Every 8-9 girl "wants" an middle-age, balding, portly, arrogant, braggart, abusive step-father that breaks furniture and doors when he gets mad. It's such a turn-on. NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  52. O.k., not quite done. LOL

    Thinking this through, there's something else significant missing from Woody's denial. In cases of familial molestation, the accused parent almost always invokes the other parent as part of their defense with "Wouldn't the mother have known if her daughter/son was being molested? If I did it, wouldn't she have known/been able to tell something was wrong?"

    Note also Woody Allen uses 1857 and only once does he write the words "Mia lied" (see if you can find it-Haha!). Hint: It isn't even a statement, it's a question. So, he can't even bring himself to state Mia lied or is lying. That's huge!

    ReplyDelete
  53. "we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted."

    It was odd he needed to mention the kids are adopted, not biological. (He does refer to the adoption process later, but it is an afterthought).

    This is what I wonder:

    Was his decision to get kids through adoption (rather than biologically) influenced by his thought that it was ok for him to have sexual relations with Mia's daughter (his current wife) because she was adopted, not biological?

    If he is sexually attracted to his youngest kids, does he (again) convince himself it's OK, and he's not a predator, because they are not biologically his?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Foolsfeedonfolly,

    Aye, as I said, it's a minor thing. I agree with you that Allen "is distancing himself from being the source of abuse" there. Public perception of passive constructions are often shaped by silly edicts passed down from oversimplistic style guides, and I fear that the label often makes it harder to achieve a deeper understanding. In this case, I agree that his distancing is the important factor. While I wouldn't dream of putting myself forward as an expert on statement analysis, it's still possible to "own" one's responsibility in the passive voice. It's not so common, which is perhaps why the passive voice gets such a bad rap, but it can be done! (I just couldn't resist using that passive.) See e.g., example 22 on page 9 of this article: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf

    I have nothing to add to your comments about abuse aside from my agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  55. In the 2ed paragraph he says "I hadn’t molested Dylan".

    ReplyDelete
  56. submor said...
    This is a minor thing, and I don't think it necessitates any change in your analysis, but you wrote, "Note also that "no abuse had taken place" is also passive."

    This is incorrect. This is a past perfect statement in the active voice. "To take place" is a synonym of "to occur," both of which are intransitive verbs, meaning they cannot be made passive.
    February 9, 2014 at 3:17 AM

    When spoken of a specific allegation by a specific accused subject, it is passive as it avoids any responsibility.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete

  57. to "fools feed..

    And how did you like Mia's creative Adams family card to allen??

    ReplyDelete

  58. I think allen confuses the terms "claustrophbe" and "pedophile".
    .

    ReplyDelete
  59. I believe Woody. I feel sorry for poor Dylan. Mia is a wack job. Classic how she takes the daughter to a doctor in order to get them to report it. Classic.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thank you for the analysis, Peter. Plain and simple, I see Woody Allen a perverted exhibitionist. I don't watch his movies and I have always wondered why stars like Diane Keaton would align herself with him the way she does.

    As per Corey Feldman (RIP), H'wood has a reputation for using and abusing minors (and whomever else wants to be a "star" (casting couch)) which supposedly continues to this day. So I'm not surprised he has not been shunned.

    Polanski also comes to mind. He is also hailed by the entertainment industry.

    It sickens me that people are so desperate to be famous that they will align themselves with *anyone*. It's as if it's a "given"/socially acceptable and everyone just tows the line, else they are the ones shunned.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Here is a link about what Corey Feldman and a couple of other "child stars" had to say about Hollywood

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/30/experts-pedophiles-in-hollywood-even-bigger-problem-than-in-corey-feldmans-day/

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree that WA chose the attic to molest Dylan because he believed he would not be looked for there, if he was noticed missing.

    I also believe there was a more practical reason, which reveals his predatory mindset. As the highest point in the home, the attic provided a 'safe spot' for WA to victimize Dylan. No ground level windows where someone could walk by and see in, and no chance of someone walking directly into the room and catching him in the act. In the attic anyone coming in would have to climb either stairs or ladder to enter, and that would give Allen time to disguise his actions.

    I pray that the renewed interest in his crimes against Dylan will result in Allen's current 'adopted' children, (fair game in his mind) being removed from his custody before they are victimized. (Hopefully they have not already fallen victim to his sick perversions).

    ReplyDelete
  63. Great analysis Peter--you carefully and skillfully untangled the knots of Woody Allen's manipulative argument against the charges Dylan made against him, and you revealed the truth of what a liar he is.
    As someone who has had to contend with an evil, manipulative and skillful deceiver my whole life (abusive parent), I thank you for putting Woody Allen is his place.
    You made it look easy in this analysis, but it is very difficult to untangle the lies if a skilled deceiver and reveal, in plain language, the nature of their deception, as you have done here.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks Peter and all.

    The comment about the fact that Allen specified that his daughters were adopted IS especially troubling.

    Dr Lillian Glass has an excellent analysis of the body language of Woody with Dylan and with his daughters and with Soon-Yi in her current blog. Very insightful.

    I worry about the girls and what they may have to say in a few years. This man is a danger.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wow, I just looked at Dr. Lillian Glass' body language blog, and what I can't get over is how much the two daughters look like Soon-Yi and Dylan! Wow. The pictures of them with Woody made me very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If Dylan believes herself she has been molested, then her statements are worthless.

    I hate Woody Allen. I will not let that cloud my judgement, though.

    I don't think Dylan was molested. I don't think that Woody Allen is a pedophile, but I think he is attracted to children aged 13 and older, who has gone through puberty, aka an ephebophilia.

    Dusgusting either way.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Another wow. I know screenplays are not statements, but I wonder how fiction writing can or can't be used in analysis.
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-movies

    ReplyDelete

...