You might want to ignore misdirections based on the custody case judgement between Allan and Farrow?
The Truth About Woody Allen (Part I)
https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/
There are some voices who misrepresent the meaning of the fact that in the custody trial of Mia Farrow's children that Woody Allen was not given custody and attempt to imply the judge made the decision to award customer to Mia Farrow based on suspicion of Woody Allen being a danger to them. The excerpt below explains why that it was, and why it in no way accuses or condemns Woody Allen of the child molestation that Mia Farrow accused him of at the time of their vicious split.
PM: The judge’s findings in the custody case paint a pretty unflattering picture of Woody as a father.
RW: ... this judge’s statement pertains to a custody trial, not a criminal case. As I’ve said, there was never a criminal case against Allen because the state had nothing to go on once the Yale Report came in — even though the prosecutor would still say there was “probable cause.”
... this document you mentioned is the judge’s decision in the custody case.
... I can understand the judge’s custody decision. I could effectively argue with any number of his specific points, but as far as his final decision, awarding custody to Mia was not so outrageous.
... it wasn’t based on the allegation about Dylan.
... The judge’s big issue was that Woody remained in an intimate, sexual relationship with Soon-Yi, who, adopted or not, was still the sister of Dylan and Satchel.
... He [the judge] could not see awarding custody of two children to Allen, when he’s [Woody Allen] in a relationship with their sister. Fair enough.
... a big part of most custody decisions is, “who has maintained custody prior to the challenge?”
... And that, of course was Mia. Woody never even lived in the same apartment as she and the kids.
... That’s about 80% of the ball game right there, as judges don’t like to disrupt that precedent without very strong reason. The judge cites legal precedents for this in his ruling.
There are facts upon facts, pages upon pages through 30 years of this "scandal" and how every time Woody Allen gets public mention in the media the Farrow family gets to, or is allowed to, dump the same unproven and discredited accusations out to the public to smear Woody Allen, when the facts of this case have been investigated thoroughly but have not been reported on for two reasons. One is that the loudest voices are Farrow's problematic story that is not refuted or documented where she is allowed to tell it. The other is that there are many details that are so complicated that to actually tell the truth now the truth cannot get through to the public, unless someone makes a real effort to listen.
I think for those people swept up in an imagined connection of this case to the #MeToo movement, there are reasons the Woody Allen is coming to be more believed over time. That is that typically in a #MeToo allegation multiple serious charges come out over time. This was one event, investigated and found to be groundless.
Second, often at least some of the multiple #MeToo accusers have verifiable evidence or witnesses. In Woody Allen's case there have been no other charges in a public life that has lasted so far about 60 years, and there were no witnesses despite the accusation was during a time when the house was full of people and children, with supervisors specifically told by Mia Farrow to be on the lookout and not let Woody and Dylan be together alone.
It is a sad miscarriage of justice, and a slander, that Woody Allen cannot get the reality, ugly as certain aspects of it may be, presented to the public free of falsehoods and bias as Mia/Dylan/Ronan Farrow have done these last weeks with their produced reiteration of verifiably false and misleading facts, and call it a documentary. share