THE REAL REASON WHY WOODY ALLEN WAS NOT PROSECUTED in 1992/93

WHY WOODY ALLEN WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR THE ALLEGATION OF ABUSE IN 1992?

In a previous post of the blog we have explained the true meaning and scope of the statement of decision of Frank Maco in relation to the prosecution of Woody Allen, in this one we will briefly investigate the real reasons that led Frank Maco to recognize that prosecuting Woody Allen was a questionable prosecution, and the reasons why any request for prosecution would have been rejected by the judge. Let's examine briefly the real reason why it was impossible to prosecute Woody Allen.

Frank Maco makes his decision counting on the results of the prosecutor's investigation and the results of the evidence obtained in the custody trial. The summary of the results is as follows:

1 / The team of experts from the Yale New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic designated and paid  by the prosecution and the State of Connecticut concluded that no sexual abuse had occurred.

2 / The prosecution's team of experts concluded that Dylan's narration in the recording made by Mia Farrow was the result of leading questions by Mia Farrow, or the child fantasy.

3 / The expert appointed and paid by Mia Farrow in the custody trial concluded that the evidence was not conclusive of sexual abuse.

4 / The expert appointed by Mia Farrow concluded that Dylan's narration in the recording made by Mia Farrow was influenced by Mia Farrow's questioning, which had focused on specific questions and had made them in a way that "set a tone for a child about how to answer"

5 / The expert appointed by Mia Farrow in the custody trial told the judge that there was no point in questioning the girl again.

6 / Although the place where the abuse was alleged to have occurred was carefully examined by the police in search of something that proved that Woody Allen was there, it was not possible to find any trace or other tissue or anything else that show it

These we just briefly describe are the conclusions of the experts who would act on behalf of the accusation. As can easily be seen, the conclusion drawn from the statements of the prosecution experts varies between "not guilty" and "proven innocent." The prosecution did not have a single expert to declare in favor of guilt and his own experts decided without any doubt for the innocence. 

In these circumstances it is easy to understand that Woody Allen would never be prosecuted. Can someone imagine a trial in which the experts of the accusations declare in favor of the innocence of the accused? Does anyone really believe that a judge would allow that to come to trial?

I do not ask the reader to believe me, I only ask you to contrast the information. Check it and think about it.