Lying by omission is when a person leaves out important information or fails to correct a pre-existing misconception in order TO HIDE THE TRUTH from others.
The people below have written an article about Woody Allen’s sexual abuse allegation and “forgotten” to mention:
– the two teams of independent experts on sexual abuse who have investigated the allegation for months and found it no credible
– Moses Farrow’s testimony: “I was present for everything that transpired in our house before, during, and after the alleged event.”
When a “journalist” forgets either of these two facts – usually both – you should immediately stop giving it any credibility. The probability this fake journalist is misleading you only one time is close to zero.
Alissa Wilkinson
Woody Allen’s strange, delayed new movie, explained
A “review” for A Rainy Day in New York. A great part of the review is about Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegation. Alissa Wilkinson forgot both the two investigations and Moses Farrow’s testimony.
Many people pointed out that Alissa Wilkinson was misleading her readers and followers but it seems she’s also a coward: she didn’t answer.
In fact, Alissa Wilkinson has used her fake review to spread many lies: select the tweet below to open it in Twitter and read the full thread.
Guess who has a new movie out? That’s right: Woody Allen! Except it’s been delayed by years. I explained why, and why it matters. https://t.co/rYvjHyAniE
— Alissa VVilkinson (@alissamarie) October 8, 2020
Marlow Stern
An interview with Mariel Hemingway. It’s not just about Woody Allen but just with the choice of the title, you know that the “journalist” wants to attack Woody Allen:
Mariel Hemingway Reckons With Mental Health, Woody Allen, and ‘Manhattan’: ‘I Was a Kid’
Marlow Stern tries desperately to get some bad comment from Mariel Hemingway about Woody Allen but the “Manhattan” star has only sweet words for the director: “Woody Allen was wonderful to me. Did he like me? Yeah, he liked me. I didn’t have a relationship with him though. He respected that I didn’t want to have that. I was too young.”
And of course, Stern writes:
The role has been thrown into sharper relief given the subsequent abuse allegations against Allen—by Babi Christina Engelhardt, the 16-year-old model who inspired Manhattan, and Allen’s adopted daughter Dylan Farrow, who claims he molested her when she was 7.
Not a word about the two investigations, not a word about Moses Farrow’s testimony. Not even the usual: “Woody Allen has always claimed his innocence.” !
Furthermore, Stern has selected Babi Christina as the inspiration for Manhattan. But Stacey Nelkin is by far, a more commonly accepted hypothesis.
Amy Zimmerman
Amy Zimmerman has “reviewed” Dylan Farrow’s book, Hush. The review seems a pretext to bring Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegation. Amy Zimmerman wants to be sure her readers believe that Woody Allen has molested his 7 years old adopted daughter, so she forgot both the two investigations and Moses Farrow’s testimony (she also forgot that before 2014 and the open letter in the NYT – published thanks to Nicholas Kristof, Mia Farrow’s close friend – the toy train never existed.)
RELATED CONTENT. Did the Attic Abuse Allegation Came From a Song ?
Clémence Michallon
Clémence Michallon has written an “article” about Ronan Farrow, Rosanna Arquette and Woody Allen. The shameless #MeTooWitchHunt groupie has “forgotten” the two investigations who have cleared Woody Allen and Moses Farrow testimony.
But as liars love to lie she also added that “Mr Allen’s behaviour toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate” and “measures must be taken to protect her”.
Why do you think Clémence Michallon didn’t quote the full sentence?
Adrian Horton
Adrian Horton and The Guardian have forgotten the two investigations and Moses Farrow’s testimony. They also bleat that Mia Farrow was Woody Allen’s wife.
Meanwhile, The Guardian has “a small favour to ask”: they want your money to pay Adrian Horton.
Jada Yuan
Jada Yuan has published Dylan Farrow Would Like to Reintroduce Herself for Elle Magazine: she doesn’t know Dylan Farrow has a brother called Moses Farrow who was present on August 4 – is it because he’s Asian and Dylan has said he’s dead for her? – and just like Dylan or Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair, she’s manipulating the Supreme Court Document:
The judge gave Mia full custody, finding that the testimony proved “that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
Why do you think Jada Yuan is not quoting the full sentence?
“The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
As everyone can see, Woody Allen is one of four people whose testimony is considered credible. Woody Allen has ALWAYS denied the allegations against him, so it is not a testimonial about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse: Woody Allen didn’t testimony against himself.
RELATED CONTENT. 14/20 – According to the supreme court document, the grossly inappropriate behavior wasn’t Sexual
Ditto for Dr. Susan Coates who said that according to her Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan. Same for Dr. Leventhal who was leading the Yale-New Haven Hospital team, and said that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan (he suggested that Dylan could have invented the assault or could have been coached or influenced by her mother, Mia Farrow). – Read More
Ale Russian
When she wrote her article for People about Dylan Farrow, it wasn’t enough for Ale Russian to forgot the two investigations and Moses Farrow, – is she also misandrist and racist? – she also added Frank Maco’s lie.
RELATED CONTENT. 15/20 – Maco’s Full Statement Contradicts his “Probable Cause”.
Frank Maco never said what the “probable cause” was, nor in 1993, nor in 2014. Anybody reading the full statement instead of isolating “probable cause” understand that the true reason Frank Maco wanted to “avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution” was because “even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.”
In others words, Maco was sure to loose against Woody Allen: he had zero evidence and even his own experts against him.
Nelson Oliveira
Nelson Oliveira has writtenWoody Allen says those boycotting him ‘are making a mistake,’ weighs in on #MeToo movement for Daily News.
Ronan Farrow — who is known for investigating allegations of sexual abuse, including the Harvey Weinstein case — believes Allen did molest his sister.
Not a word on the two investigations by two teams of experts on sexual abuse who found Dylan Farrow not credible, not a wort on Moses Farrow’s testimony:
I was present for everything that transpired in our house before, during, and after the alleged event.
Nelson Oliveira is a liar.
G. Allen Johnson
G. Allen Johnson has written a review: HBO’s ‘Allen v. Farrow’ takes riveting look into notorious accusations of child sex abuse.
Not a word on the two investigations by two teams of experts on sexual abuse who found Dylan Farrow not credible, not a word on Moses Farrow’s testimony.
And even worst, the old Maco’s lie:
But the most compelling voice in “Allen v. Farrow” is Dylan herself. Perhaps the most fascinating part is when she confronts the clearly conflicted Maco, who had said that there was compelling evidence that Allen committed sexual abuse, but declined to press charges because he felt the trauma of putting Dylan on the stand would be too much for the child.
G. Allen Johnson is lying about Maco’s lie: Maco never said there was compelling evidence, but “probable cause“. BUT…
RELATED CONTENT. 15/20 – Maco’s Full Statement Contradicts his “Probable Cause”.
Anybody reading the full statement instead of isolating “probable cause” understand that the true reason Frank Maco wanted to “avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution” was because “even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.”
In others words, Maco was sure to loose against Woody Allen: he had zero evidence and even his own experts against him.
Liz Shannon Miller
Liz Shannon Miller has written a review : A One-Sided Story, but a Pretty Damn Convincing One.
Not a word on the two investigations by two teams of experts on sexual abuse who found Dylan Farrow not credible, not a word on Moses Farrow’s testimony.
“This is in part because the Farrow side of things is supported with some thorough and damning evidence…”
Which ones? The two teams of experts who found Dylan Farrow not credible? Moses Farrow’s testimony? The toy train invented in 2014 or Dory Previn’s songs? Mia Farrow refusing to pass a polygraph test? And what about Dylan Farrow’s multiplying lies as an adult, even editing the court document?
Liz Shannon Miller is a liar.
Marlow Stern (again)
Marlow Stern’s name already appears in the present article about Muriel Hemingway.
Now, Marlow Stern has published Allen v. Farrow’ Is a Horrifying Indictment of Woody Allen.
‘Allen v. Farrow’ is absolutely harrowing, and as thorough an examination as we’re probably going to get into Woody Allen’s alleged child molestation of Dylan Farrow and grooming of Soon-Yi https://t.co/Ma3o5O20PH
— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) February 16, 2021
And guess what: not only he’s supporting all the Farrow clan’s lies but again, he forgot Moses Farrow’s testimony !
And just like the Farrow clan – Mia, Ronan, Dylan – he’s trying to link the relationship Woody Allen had with young women to the alleged sexual abuse of a prepubescent child.
RELATED CONTENT. Confusing a Prepubescent Child and a Teenager May Suggest Pedophilia.
Lorraine Ali
Lorraine Ali has written a “review” about the HBO documentary Allen v. Farrow: “HBO’s devastating ‘Allen v. Farrow’ is a nail in the coffin of Woody Allen’s legacy”
Not a word on Moses Farrow, not a word on the two investigations who have cleared Woody Allen.
But some manipulative lies, as if the “review” was written by Mia Farrow herself.: “The hardest moment to get through in the entire four-hour series, though, is a video of 7-year-old Dylan, shot by her mother on the family’s camcorder, describing what happened when Allen “hid” with her up in the attic of their Connecticut country home and touched her “private parts.” She’s a young grade-schooler with messy summer hair, baby teeth and a cute pot belly. She’s upset telling her story. She’s even mad.”
RELATED CONTENT. 10/20 – Mia Farrow Videotaped Dylan in Many Days.
Why do you think Lorraine Ali forgot to say that Mia Farrow videotaped Dylan in many segments and many days and took her two times to the pediatrician before Dylan told him that Woody Allen had touched her private parts in the attic?
Why do you think that Lorraine Ali forgot to say that the tape had undeniably been stopped and restarted several times and there was even a splice?
Why do you think that Lorraine Ali forgot to say that the nanny Monica Thompson testified in sworn affidavits that “the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next? Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”
Why do you think that Lorraine Ali forgot to say that all experts on sexual abuse, even the one payed by Mia Farrow, criticized the videotape?
Robin Abcarian
Robin Abcarian is a columnist for the LAT: she has published “Is your mind made up about Woody Allen? Watch this documentary”
Not a word about “Moses Farrow: A Son Speaks Out”, of course.
Not a word about how the video was realized: the tape had undeniably been stopped and restarted several times and there was even a splice.
Not a word about how the videotape was received : all the experts on sexual abuse, even the one payed by Mia Farrow, criticized the videotape.
Robin Abcarian wrote “Maco explains, almost tearfully, that he did not want to drag her through the trauma of a trial after she had already been through so much.” Maco’s lie has been debunked again and again, his full statement contradicts his claim to have a “probable cause” (he never said which one) to prosecute Woody Allen: the true reason he wanted to “avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution” was because “even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.”
In others words, Maco was sure to loose against Woody Allen: he had zero evidence and even his own experts against him.
Woody Allen sued Maco: a panel judged Maco’s actions to be “was inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial” and also “violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. The case ran until 1996. Maco was suspended for much of that time, losing his living, and costing the states hundreds of thousands of dollars in defence.
Robin Abcarian is a liar.
Brian Lowry
Brian Lowry is a senior writer for CNN, focusing on everything from TV streaming to film news.
He has published ‘Allen v. Farrow’ renews questions about Woody Allen, and separating art from the artist.
The title implies that Woody Allen is guilty: if Woody Allen is innocent, why one should separates art from the artist?
Not a word on Moses Farrow’s A Son Speaks Out, not a word on the two investigations who have cleared him, just the usual and lazy “Allen has staunchly denied that he ever abused Dylan.”
There is worse:
Arguably, the most illuminating section details a 1993 hearing in which Allen sought custody of his and Farrow’s three children.. The judge issued a damning ruling against him, writing that Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate.”
Just like so many despicable liars before him, Brian Lowry isolates two words from the full sentence:
“The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
As everyone can see, Woody Allen is one of four people whose testimony is considered credible. Woody Allen has ALWAYS denied the allegations against him, so it is not a testimonial about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse: Woody Allen didn’t testimony against himself.
RELATED CONTENT. 14/20 – According to the supreme court document, the grossly inappropriate behavior wasn’t sexual
Ditto for Dr. Susan Coates who said that according to her Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan. Same for Dr. Leventhal who was leading the Yale-New Haven Hospital team, and said that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan (he suggested that Dylan could have invented the assault or could have been coached or influenced by her mother, Mia Farrow). – Read More
Furthermore, Lowry doesn’t seem to know that the Supreme Court document was publicly available since many years.
And also:
“Allen declined to be interviewed for the documentary…”
Brian Lowry forgot to say that… :
“Woody and Soon-Yi were approached less than two months ago and given only a matter of days ‘to respond.’ Of course, they declined to do so.”
Jackie Strause
Jackie Strause is the author of Dylan Farrow on ‘Allen v. Farrow’ Response: “The Truth Is Something That Cannot Be Changed”.
Not a word on Moses Farrow’s A Son Speaks Out, not a word on the two investigations who have cleared Woody Allen, just the usual and lazy “Allen has denied ever having been sexually inappropriate or abusive.”
The rest of Strause’s article is just repeating the lies of the Farrow and their friends: the fact that “Allen v. Farrow” is openly a one sided hit job against the due process who cleared Woody Allen isn’t a problem to the fake journalist, all on the contrary.
Maria Fontoura
Maria Fontoura wrote for Rolling Stones How the Media Failed Britney Spears and Dylan Farrow.
Not a word on Moses Farrow’s A Son Speaks Out, not a word on the two investigations who have cleared Woody Allen.
But there are worse lies:
But let’s be clear about what he was setting out to defend: As the docuseries lays out using court filings, police reports, and witness testimony, investigators in two states believed a crime had very likely been committed against Dylan.
Meredith Blake
Meredith Blake wrote for the LAT How HBO’s new doc uses never-before-seen video to make its case against Woody Allen.
Not a word on Moses Farrow’s A Son Speaks Out, not a word on the two investigations who have cleared Woody Allen.
These aren’t Meredith’s only lies:
Several child abuse experts also weigh in on Dylan’s videotaped account in “Allen v. Farrow.” Citing Dylan’s consistency, specificity and willingness to correct her mother, they find her believable.
All experts on sexual abuse, even the one payed by Mia Farrow, criticized the videotape.
Not only the tape had undeniably been stopped and restarted several times, but there was even a splice. In her book, Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal, page 127, Kristine Groteke, who admitted that she praised Farrow as a devoted parent while disparaging Allen as rude and antisocial, wrote:
“There was a splice, Mia explained, that cut out some tape inadvertently capturing Dylan’s private parts, and which, Mia felt, was “inappropriate” to show. The tape had undeniably, however, been stopped and restarted several times.”
Alexis Soloski
Alexis Soloski wrote for the NYT Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and What Popular Culture Wants to Believe.
Not a word on Moses Farrow’s A Son Speaks Out.
But there is worse:
On the other side is the testimony, in court and for the camera, of babysitters, family friends and Dylan herself. The judge in the custody trial ultimately labeled Allen’s behavior “grossly inappropriate.”
Just like so many despicable liars before her, Alexis Sololki isolates two words from the full sentence:
“The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
As everyone can see, Woody Allen is one of four people whose testimony is considered credible. Woody Allen has ALWAYS denied the allegations against him, so it is not a testimonial about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse: Woody Allen didn’t testimony against himself.
Ditto for Dr. Susan Coates who said that according to her Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan. Same for Dr. Leventhal who was leading the Yale-New Haven Hospital team, and said that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan (he suggested that Dylan could have invented the assault or could have been coached or influenced by her mother, Mia Farrow).
In reality, Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior refers to Dr. Susan Coates’ observation: “I understood why she [Mia Farrow] was worried, because it [Mr. Allen’s relationship with Dylan] was intense, … I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child.”
As so biased has he was against Woody Allen, Justice Wilk was forced to state that “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”
Why do you think Alexis Soloski isolated “grossly inappropriate” and forgot “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.” ?
And why do you think she lies “…the testimony, in court and for the camera, of babysitterS…” when Nanny Monica Thompson said she was pressured by Mia Farrow to support molestation accusations against Woody Allen? And that another baby-sitter had serious doubts about the molestation accusation?
