My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Sunday, February 09, 2014

Andy Martin looks at the Woody Allen media firestorm and “defends” Allen against questionable charges of child abuse

News from:
Andy Martin
Republican for U.S. Senator

you can call Andy:
 (603) 518-7310

you can email Andy:

you can write Andy at:
fax (866) 707-2639, or
P. O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742

Blogs/web sites  (partial):

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.


Andy Martin looks at the Woody Allen media firestorm and “defends” Allen against questionable charges of child abuse

February 10, 2014

Dear Reader:

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 standards.

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 daughter.

2. The child sex abuse prosecutions of the 1980’s-1990’s

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 custody wars

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 predators.

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 Allen/Farrow battle.

4. Who were/are the good guys in the Allen/Farrow wars?

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 Allen’s favor.

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 custody wars.

5. Who were the bad guys in the Allen Farrow sex abuse wars?

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 the worst.

B. Frank Maco, the prosecutor who raped the Constitution

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 “adoptions”

A. The Farrow stable of adopted and natural children

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 children

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 Dylan Farrow.

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 others.

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 Woody Allen.

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 Previn,

7.  What probably happened?

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 others.

As always, I invite your comments, reactions, suggestions and support!

Andy Martin


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” again.

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).
MEDIA CONTACT: Andy Martin (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329; E-MAIL:

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]

# 4


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” [] and he produced the Internet film "Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” []. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” 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:

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and he is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. He is currently sponsoring See also;

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

[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: , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home