When facing the analysis of the custody case judgment, we must take into account both the petitions of the parties and the standard of proof necessary to accredit them. At this time we will focus on the most controversial facts in relation to Woody Allen and the two most important allegations related to him are:

1.- That Woody Allen sexually abused Dylan Farrow on August 4, 1992.
2 .- That the behavior of Woody Allen with Dylan Farrow was abusive and the behavior of Woody Allen with Satchel was harmful to the child.

Being a custody procedure in the state of New York, the applicable  standard of evidence was the "preponderance of the evidence" defined as "the greatest weight of the evidence" which may be 'slight' and which need not be 'Sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt', or also "the proof need only show that the facts are more likely to be than not so". That is to say, in the custody procedure, the judge could declare the existence of sexual abuse - and the other accusations - despite the existence of reasonable doubts that it really had happened. The only thing necessary was that the accusation would show that the abuses were more likely than the opposite.

That means that Mia Farrow faced the burden of proof in the following terms: she only had to show that there was evidence supporting her accusations slightly higher than the evidence that sustained that no abuse occurred, although it left room for doubt reasonable that they had not occurred. 

If the judge arrives to consider that it was more probable that Allen had abused of Dylan than the opposite, it would have declared in his sentence that abuses had taken place. This fact is fundamental to interpret the sentence and is repeatedly omitted in all the interpretations that Dylan, Ronan, Orth or any of its branches perform of the judicial proceedings.

There is no doubt that Wilk never came to the conclusion that the evidence in favor of the existence of abuses was greater than the evidence against. The same can be said about the appeal court, whatever it is that we want to give the concrete words it is not possible to conclude that they thought that the abuses had probably occurred, and it is not possible because you can not interpret the sentence against its literal tenor and  it is clear without any doubt that Mia Farrow failed in the burden of proof that corresponded to her regarding the facts that she alleged.

- Respect for the existence of sexual abuse the sentence of Wilks indicates:

The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse. I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.

 Without needing to analyze at this moment the concrete meaning of this paragraph - which we have already mentioned in another entry - it is evident that the allegation of sexual abuse on August 4 against Woody Allen is not proven, which means that this accusation  burden of proof has not passed; that is, the evidence in favor of carrying out abuses by Woody Allen on August 4 is inferior to the evidence against the existence of sexual abuse by Woody Allen to Dylan Farrow.

- Regarding that Woody Allen's relationship with Dylan was abusive before August 4, 1992 and that Woody Allen's relationship with Satchel was damaging to Satchel, the ruling indicates.

  • That Allen's conduct in relation to Dylan is inappropriate, ruling out that it is abusive.
  • That Allen's relationship with Satchel is not harmful to the child.

As in the previous case, the custody case ruling means that Mia Farrow failed to provide evidence that would allow the existence of abuse to be, even a little more likely, than the absence of abuse.

Any interpretation of the sentence that seeks to maintain that the judge considered that sexual abuse had occurred is radically wrong. In the same way, whoever maintains that the custody procedure was proven abusive behavior by Allen made Dylan seriously misrepresent the outcome of the custody trial.