Republican for U.S. Senator
you can call Andy:
you can email Andy:
you can write Andy at:
fax (866) 707-2639, or
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Blogs/web sites (partial):
To become a regular subscriber to
our emails please send an email to AndyNewHampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
Martin looks at the Woody Allen media firestorm and “defends” Allen against
questionable charges of child abuse
February 10, 2014
Over the past few days there has been a media
feeding frenzy over twenty year-old child abuse allegations lodged against film
producer Woody Allen by actress Mia Farrow. On Saturday (February 8th) both
national network TV shows had stories on the Allen-Farrow battle; the New York
Post had a two-page spread (see Group link # 1 below). The New York Times Sunday
published Allen’s response to renewed accusations of abuse (Link #1).
What I find outrageous is the way the media, and
especially so-called “legal experts” who appear on cable TV channels, have
sought to convict Allen and defend Farrow. In the following pages I layout a
contrarian analysis of the controversy.
In 1992 Woody Allen was accused of sexually abusing
a daughter he had adopted with Hollywood star Mia Farrow. There
was a vicious custody case. Twenty-two years later, all of the lawyers and
participants are rehashing the dispute. There is a marked anti-Allen hostility
in the media; that antagonism has been ginned up by Mia Farrow’s friends such
as the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof who recently published an “open letter”
from Allen’s adopted daughter accusing Allen of sexual abuse.
I have looked in vain for some coherent defense of
Allen. Allen's former attorney did a creditable job on CNN but was attacked by
that network’s resident legal airhead, Sunny Hostin. With the following analysis
I hope to place in context why I believe the evidence tilts in Allen’s favor.
Be aware that other than Woody and his daughter, no one knows what happened
between the two. And there are serious grounds to question whether even today
Dylan Farrow even knows the truth.
1. Defending the Constitution vs. defending bad individuals
One of the most mischaracterized phrases from Shakespeare
is the line “let’s kill all the lawyers.” Those who hate lawyers (I am in that
club as to many attorneys) use Shakespeare to suggest lawyers are inherently
evil. Shakespeare intended to convey exactly the opposite point. Shakespeare
believed that evil people wanted to “kill the lawyers” because lawyers defend
the Constitution, lawyers defend unpopular clients and lawyers are trained--at
least in theory--to stand up against the “king” or, today, our oppressive federal
and state governments. Not many of today’s lawyers meet Shakespeare’s lofty
As a young law student I was attacked by the
Illinois Supreme court for helping expose corrupt judges on the court. The
court launched into a three year investigation of my sex life, my finances and
more, all with a predetermined purpose of discrediting me. Two judges were
forced to resign from the court after it was exposed they had taken bank stock
bribes. I was punished for telling the truth and exposing corruption. It was an
incredible baptism under fire for a new law graduate.
Over the decades I have stood up for unpopular persons.
People who work in government often think they are imbued with a sacred mission
and perfect knowledge to impose their prejudices on the public. That is not the
case. The legal system is very imperfect, very corruptible and very prone to political
and celebrity influence. The Woody Allen/Mia Farrow case is fascinating because
both of the antagonists are celebrities with their respective fan clubs.
Let me also make one thing clear: my legal defense of
Allen is not a defense of Allen’s conduct as an adult. Allen’s behavior towards
Soon-Yi Previn was despicable but, ironically, suggests he was not guilty of
child abuse. For Mr. Allen to state that his “heart” controlled his actions towards
Ms. Previn (now Allen’s wife) was disgraceful. However wrongful Allen’s
personal behavior towards a 19 or 20 year-old woman, Allen was not accused and
is not accused of doing anything illegal with Previn. Rather, we must remain
focused on the charges against Allen: that he abused his seven year-old adopted
2. The child sex abuse prosecutions of the
Wall Street Journal editorial writer Dorothy
Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer Prize in part for exposing unfounded child sex abuse
prosecutions. The most abusive prosecutions occurred in liberal Massachuseets.
The Gerald Amiraut child abuse trials consumed decades. Children’s accusations
of “magic rooms” and other nonsense were all found to be coached by adults (see
Group Link #2 below).
Amazingly, in all of the current verbiage about
Allen and Farrow, no one has ever mentioned the irrational child abuse
environment of the 1990’s even though false charges of sexual abuse had become
a national scandal at the same time when Allen’s behavior was being evaluated.
Likewise, in Wenatchee Washington, more bizarre and legally
unfounded child sexual abuse allegations were prosecuted and ultimately found
to be fraudulent (Group Link # 2 below). The bottom line: children in almost
every state made false accusations of child abuse; these imaginary or
exaggerated accusations triggered an avalanche of unfounded and legally
improper prosecutions. Sunny Hostin, who was only too willing to convict Allen
on CNN, apparently does not have the slightest awareness of the history of false
child abuse prosecutions in the 1990’s.
3. Kramer v. Kramer triggers a tidal wave of
While it is always difficult to precisely establish
a “date” when the legal “climate” changed, the film “Kramer v. Kramer” involved
a custody battle between two parents and may have been the turning point when
fathers began to fight for custody of their children. Although there may have
been a nascent “father’s rights” movement before Kramer v. Kramer, the
Hollywood movie triggered efforts by more and more fathers to seek legal
custody. Today, in 2014, fathers’ rights are not yet on a par with mother’s
rights but fathers enjoy many more protections than they did prior to Kramer.
Immediately in the wake of the fathers’ rights movement
there was a counterattack by attorneys representing women in family court or
(as they are called in New York) in matrimonial matters. So long as fathers paid and did not contest
custody, child abuse was apparently virtually nonexistent. As soon as fathers
began to seek custody, all of a sudden dads became child abusers and sexual
Today false accusations of child abuse are an
endemic problem in the state courts. Contrary to what CNN dingbat Sunny Hostin
says, most accusations of child abuse are false. The false accusations originate
with mothers, not fathers. Mothers can be incredibly malignant in coaching
their helpless young children to hate their fathers. Children are
impressionable and they can be taught to say almost anything and everything. In
bitterly contested divorce cases sexual and child abuse accusations are almost
a routine form of pleading.
In fact, the “false accusations of child abuse”
industry has become such a threat to the functioning of the judicial system
that many states have enacted penalties for these bogus accusations. And
psychologists have created a new explanation for the divorce-related victimization
of children: Parental Alienation Syndrome (see Group link #3) Parental
“brainwashing” is an accepted medical fact.
Neither Sunny Hostin nor any of the media’s other
so-called experts have even mentioned Parental Alienation Syndrome and the cumulative
impact of brainwashing on impressionable children (Link # 3) in discussing the
4. Who were/are the good guys in the Allen/Farrow
Once you place Mia Farrow’s 1990’s accusations of
child abuse in the context of the bogus child sex abuse prosecutions and the
growing evidence of parental alienation syndrome, the battlefield tips in Woody
So who were the “good guys” and who were/are the bad
guys in the ongoing imbroglio?
Th good guys were the staff at Yale New Haven Hospital who found that Dylan
Farrow had not been abused. The Yale staff found that Dylan had difficulty
distinguishing fantasy from reality. Please note the apparent clarity of Yale
New Haven’s findings in what was at best an opaque situation. New York political hack “Justice”
Eliot Wilk nevertheless threw out the carefully reasoned findings of the
hospital and substituted the judge’s own personal bias in the Farrow/Allen
5. Who were the bad guys in the Allen Farrow sex abuse
A. At the top of my list of current bad guys are
bogus media “experts” such as Sunny Hostin and others, who pontificate on the
Allen/Farrow situation without any historical knowledge or practical appreciation
for celebrity litigation. Hostin is not the only legal jerk, but she is among
B. Frank Maco, the prosecutor who raped the
Perhaps the biggest “devil” in the current brouhaha
is retired Connecticut prosecutor Frank Maco who accused Allen of child abuse but refused to
prosecute. Under our system of justice, prosecutors do not get to “convict”
defendants by merely accusing them of crimes. They have to produce evidence.
While Maco has always maintained he acted to protect
Dylan Farrow, his claim is a barefaced lie. If Yale New Haven had found credible
evidence of abuse, the State of Connecticut could have easily
prosecuted Allen with expert testimony. But there was no expert testimony. So
Maco decided to “convict” Allen by accusing him of sexual abuse (“probable
cause”) without allowing Allen to defend himself. And we accuse foreign
judicial system of lacking due process? Connecticut state courts are notorious
for fostering false prosecutions.
Violations of due process and outrageous
prosecutorial abuses also exist in every jurisdiction of the U. S. Frank Maco
should burn in hell for raping the Constitution and violating his oath of
office as a public official. And, no surprise, when Allen complained about the
injustice of being accused of a crime without any opportunity to defend
himself, the clubby Connecticut judicial system protected the perjurious prosecutor Maco.
C. Justice” Eliot Wilk, a devious political hack
New York’s mayor recently ran for office by promoting a “tale of two cities.” Indeed,
there are. There is the veneer of Broadway, the financial district and Central Park. And there is the underlying
infrastructure of sleaze, corruption, incompetence and greed characterized by New York City and State governments.
The local judicial system is especially corrupt and prone to improper
influence. “Justice” Eliot Wilk ignored the findings of Yale New Haven Hospital and imposed his own
version of reality on Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.
Divorce (matrimonial) court judges are known by
their personal biases. Some judges are grossly pro-woman and others are
balanced or pro-man. But they are biased. Allen was the victim of a biased
court system and a “justice” who was currying favor with one side of a
two-sided celebrity couple.
6. Celebrity “mothers” and their narcissistic
A. The Farrow stable of adopted and natural
I am not sure even today I can sort out how many
natural children Farrow had and how many she adopted. While the liberal media
love to lionize Hollywood celebrities for adopting children, there is no way any woman - let alone
a celebrity - can properly “mother” a brood of a dozen total strangers. More
likely, the children mothered each other. Most of Farrow’s children were
adopted, and many were third world adoptees.
Adopted children have special needs. They are ripped
from their original families and left helpless with new parents. Being dumped
in a household of a dozen unrelated children would be emotionally disorienting
for any child. So, no, Mia Farrow was never the "Madonna" the liberal
media portrayed her to be. Farrow was a complete flake. When adopted parents
are mentally unstable as in Farrow’s and Allen’s case, anything can happen.
B. Adoption is not cost-free and stress-free for
Soon-Yi Previn is the “stepchild” in the Allen
Farrow custody war. Soon-Yi has no birth certificate and even her age is
uncertain. She is a lost child in the truest sense of the term. Soon-Yi knew
Andre Previn as her “father.” Farrow held up Allen as an authority figure. It
is not surprising, though it is deeply distressful, that Soon-Yi developed an
attraction for Allen. She had not bonded to either Farrow, Previn or any other
“parent.” In fact, Soon-Yi was in all probability clinically motivated to
attract Allen precisely because she was desperate for a “parent.”
A responsible adult would have gently discouraged
Soon-Yi’s interest. But Allen succumbed. Allen's deformed ego could not
distinguish between a helpless child and his own sexual gratification. Because
Woody eventually married Soon-Yi, she has been forgotten in the drama over
Every adopted child, even when placed in a loving,
stable single-child family home, faces severe emotional challenges. The liberal
media have never questioned how Farrow parented a dozen unstable and
emotionally vulnerable children. Obviously, she did not. And when Farrow’s own familial
hegemony was challenged by the supremely narcissistic actions of Woody Allen,
she exploded and accused Allen of sexual abuse only a few months after Farrow
had vouched for him in court as a good father.
I don’t know for sure if Woody Allen is a sexual
abuser. But I am certain that the egoistically ascendant Mia Farrow was a
massive emotional abuser of her stable of a dozen helpless kids. No person can
properly parent a dozen special needs children, all at a time when she is
distracted by celebrities, Hollywood projects and a contemporaneous boudoir of
her sexual partners such as (by Farrow’s own admission) Frank Sinatra and
Mia Farrow for “Mother of the Year?” Not in 1992 and
not in 2014. Why Farrow’s cronies in the media such as Kristof continue to
provide her with a platform to abuse Allen is impossible to know. The more you
know about Mia Farrow, the more she becomes just as creepy as her adversary
C. The narcissistic film producer
What can you say about Woody Allen? I have never
seen any of his movies. Perhaps the best phrase to describe Allen is one
attributed to Senator Claire McCaskill, who said Bill Clinton was a good man
“but she didn’t want her daughter around him.” I can’t judge Allen as an
artist. But as a 51 year-old man, playing around with a 19 or 20 year old, whom
he met through his “wife” Mia Farrow, Allen was creepy. That Allen eventually
married Soon-Yi Previn dos not excuse his conduct. Although often
misrepresented as Allen’s “daughter,” Soon-Yi was never Allen’s “daughter;” she
was the product of a prior celebrity adoption by Farrow and conductor Andre
No one will ever know what happened. But in a family
where every child and all the adults were in therapy, how can you sort our fact
from fiction? Whether at Farrow’s behest or Allen’s behest, every child was
receiving mental therapy. Were they all defective children? Doubtful. The
children were victimized by defective parenting. It would be impossible for the
emotionally unstable and utterly narcissistic Mia Farrow to properly parent a
dozen children under any circumstances, even if they were all her natural kids.
But adoptess have special needs. Multi-cultural third world adoptees have even
more complex needs.
Dumping a dozen unrelated and emotionally vulnerable
children in a household superintended by two goofy adults was and is a
prescription for disaster. So Farrow in reality had assembled a virtual
menagerie of children to satisfy her own emotional fantasies. When Farrow added
the similarly narcissistic input of her “partner” Woody Allen, who never lived
with Farrow and “parented” by long distance from across Central Park, the children were vulnerable to being
unduly influenced in a lurid custody war.
I can defend Woody Allen because he was obviously
victimized by corrupt legal systems in Connecticut and New York. His own emotional
instability and sheer weirdness made him vulnerable to temptation. But there is
not remotely sufficient evidence to support the accusations of sexual abuse lodged
against him and blandly accepted by media dopes such as Sunny Hostin and
As always, I invite your comments, reactions,
suggestions and support!
ujntsman wasd reelected in November, 2008. A few
monrths later he resigned to serve
his president,” Barack Obama. SDo whyh was it so terrible that Palin resigned
and Hutsman served evenless of his secondterm? Can I say “double standard”
What os this show us? Whetyher thessue s
resigfnaitonsor religion,th emedia shamlessly create double standards tgo favr
theiiberal medioa pets (fulldisclosure; I am ot aliberalmedia pet).
CONTACT: Andy Martin (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329; E-MAIL: AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not
just the underlined portion):
[Group link # 1]
[Group link # 2]
[Group link # 3]
Andy is a
legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk
television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s
family immigrated to Manchester 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where
he played as a small boy. He has forty-six years of background in radio and
television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask”
[www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film "Obama: The
Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and
publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with
more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to:
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of
Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City
University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the
latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by
Andy Martin 2014 – All Rights Reserved
Labels: Andy Martin, CNN, Dylan Farrow, Mia Farrow, Nicholas Kristof, sex abuse, Sunny Hostin, Woody Allen