Open Letter to Mira Sorvino

enero 11, 2018

Open Letter to Mira Sorvino

I am not Nobody or, rather, I am one of the millions of people who live in what has been called "Western democracies". A relatively recent type of society in the history of humanity that has among its basic pillars the maxim that states that every person is innocent until proven otherwise; with the fundamental principle that proclaims that only through a procedure established by law and that ensures the right of defense, a person can be condemned. But I read your open letter regarding Woody Allen and I see that for some everything has changed; You have directed - or someone has directed - your attention to some data and you have judged and condemned without possibility of defense. Even more serious, you already announce that your decision is irrevocable, so there is no possibility of appeal either. Maybe you tell me it's just a personal statement based on your own convictions, which are just words ... as words were those that Harvey Weisntein poured into the ears of directors and producers condemning you without possibility of appeal, ruining your life. Congratulations Mila, it took you very little to become him.

I suppose that among the facts about which you have been struck is, for example, that the prosecutor had evidence against Woody Allen, but decided not to use them. I'm sure you recognize this phrase

A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance.

It's what everyone knows, right?

But do you recognize

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. (Note: Athough Justice Wilk was not as certain as the Yale-Clinic that abuse did not occur).

(…)

My review dealt ultimately with determining the existence of proof necessary to establish a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. While arguably such a case may exist considering the allegations in the warrant application, I acknowledge that the nature of the evidence (as mentioned earlier within this decision, the majority of which was considered in the New York Supreme Court] is fertile ground for defense attacks and would not have the same probative force as it did in the New York Supreme Court

custody case.

Both correspond to the document in which Fran Maco resigned to take criminal action against Woody Allen. Both explain that not even in a procedure without presumption of innocence and in which evidence that would not have probative force in a criminal proceeding was admitted, could the judge reach the conclusion that the abuses had occurred. Not that there was evidence to condemn Woody Allen and not be used to protect the girl, is that there were not.

But all this already does not matter to you. They have directed your attention on the data of the "accusation" and have not even contrasted the defense data Did you know that the expert himself called by Mia Farrow to testify in the custody trial declared under oath that

"unfortunate" that Mia, and not an objective and trained evaluator, videotaped Dylan's testimony, mainly because the way she focused on specific things could possibly "set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child." In short, he said. "I don't think it helps matters, I think it complicates matters."?

Did you know that Dr. Herman himself indicated at the trial that the evidence was inconclusive? And that, once again, he himself stressed that there was no point in questioning Dylan again? Have you wondered why?

We are not talking about state experts (such as Yale-New Haven Hospital), or experts from Allen's defense. We're talking about Mia Farrow's trusted expert. What a professional paid by Mia Farrow to defend with a tooth and teeth his position recognized twenty-five years ago that he could not say, you say it now.

I know that none of this matters now, not only because of the specific case of Woody Allen, but because if you, who have suffered an unjust persecution, are so willing to persecute in the same way someone you should be personally grateful to. What can we expect from the future? I hope it's not too cold in the Ninth Circle.