RE-UPDATED 04/08/2018 The truth about the ten "Undeniable Facts" of Vanity Fair in relation to the allegation of sexual abuse of Dylan Farrow against Woody Allen.



Every time I look for information about the case, one of the first links that I get is that of




And every time I've seen it I thought it was an amazing mixture of half truths and falsehoods, collected and presented as unquestionable truths that seriously distort the reality of the facts. We are going to make a brief tour of each of them. It does not pretend to be a detailed analysis but simply to call attention to the way in which the facts of the article are twisted and to contrast the conclusions that the article suggests with the real facts.

1. Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse.
 Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician, who was bound by law to report Dylan’s story of sexual violation to law enforcement and did so on August 6.

The truth is that it seems absurd to argue about this issue. Mia Farrow asked her lawyers how to file the complaint with the police and her lawyers told her to go with the child to the pediatrician for him to make the report. In fact, Mia explained to the pediatrician the object of the visit before he saw Dylan and as the girl did not narrate abuses they arranged a new visit the next day. The purpose of the visit was exclusively for the girl to tell the pediatrician about the alleged abuses to follow up on the complaint. Normally it is not commented that between one visit and the next Mia Farrow spent the entire day interrogating the girl and recording different fractions of that interrogation. The forensic psychotherapist expert Mia Farrow took to the custody trial to testify in his favor, Dr. Herman, told the court that he considered:

"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."?(1)

Only after being questioned for hours with questions that, according to Mia Farrow's own expert, indicated to the girl how she should respond, Dylan Farrow made a first statement of the alleged abuses to the pediatrician.


Although Mia Farrow indicated that Dylan complained of pain in the vagina, in none of the visits to the pediatrician did a physical examination. The girl with pain in the vagina is in the pediatrician twice and is not examined until four days later  (2). If nothing else, this fact is clear evidence that the only reason for the visit to the pediatrician was to manage the complaint to the police
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 169.




(2) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 130-31





2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public*.* Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.


A simple review of the facts detailed in the sentence allows us to verify that Allen was not receiving therapy for inappropriate behavior. The Judgment identifies in its beginning those who were principal witnesses

This  trial  began  on  March  19,  1993.  Among  the witnesses  called  by  petitioner  were  Mr.  Allen;  Ms.  Farrow;  Dr. Susan  Coates,  a  clinical  psychologist  who  treated  Satchel;  Dr. Nancy Schultz, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan; and Dr. David  Brodzinsky,  a  clinical  psychologist  who  spoke  with  Dylan and  Moses  pursuant  to  his  assignment  in  a  related  Surrogate's Court  proceeding.  Dr.  John  Leventhal,  a  pediatrician  who  was part  of  the  three-member  Yale-New  Haven  team,  testified  by deposition.  Ms.  Farrow  called  Dr.  Stephen  Herman,  a  clinical psychiatrist, who commented on the Yale-New Haven report.
What follows are my findings of fact.  Where statements or observations  are attributed  to witnesses,  they are adopted by me as findings of fact. 

That is, the two child psychologists, Dr. Coates and Dr. Schütz were therapists of Satchel and Dylan respectively. None of them was Allen's therapist, so Allen was not receiving therapy for his inappropriate behavior. Different thing is that, as children's therapists, Drs. Coates and Schütz will involve the parents in the therapy and discuss with them what could be the best way of behaving of the parents. This was the way the therapist did their work, as we can see in the court decision:


Dr. Coates continued  to treat Satchel through the fall of 1992.  Ms. Farrow expressed to Dr. Coates her unease with the doctor  seeing  Mr.  Allen  in  conjunction  with  Satchel's  therapy. On October  29, 1992,  Ms. Farrow  requested  that  Dr. Coates treat Satchel  without  the  participation  of  Mr.  Allen.  Dr.  Coates declined,  explaining  that  she  did  not  believe  that  she  could treat Satchel effectively without the  full participation  of both parents.  


Within these councils, taking into account the testimony of Dr. Coates, undoubtedly some behaviors were treated that, without any kind of sexual component, the therapists considered could be improved.

Why do we know that we are talking about behaviors without any kind of sexual component? First, because Dr. Coates said so:

I  understood  why  she  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  . . .

She  testified  that  she  worked  with  Mr.  Allen  to  help  him  to understand  that  his  behavior  with  Dylan  was  inappropriate  and that  it  had  to  be  modified.  Dr.  Coates  also  recommended  that Dylan  enter  therapy  with  Dr.  Schultz,  with  whom  Dylan  began treatment  in April 1991.

And in the second place because the judge - nothing predisposed in favor of Allen - assumes it as a "finding of facts", as one of the facts that he considers proven and that are the basis of his sentence.It should be noted that the Judgment does not include any expert opinion to consider that Allen's inappropriate behavior with Dylan could have some kind of sexual component, neither Dr. Coates, nor Dr. Schultz, nor Dr. Herman nor Dr. Brodzinsky stated that what are called "inappropriate behaviors" of Allen could have a sexual component. and the judicial decision of appeal expressly states that none of the professionals who intervened in the trial judged Allen's conduct to be of a sexual nature. 


 Mr. Allen maintains that his interest in and afection for Dylan always has been paternal in nature and never sexual. The various  psychiatric  experts  who  testified  or  otherwise  provided  reports  did  not  conclude  that  Allen's  behavior  toward  Dylan  prior  to  August  of  1992  was explicitly sexual in nature. However, the clear consensus was that his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present.

We will examine this question in more detail when analyzing the "undeniable fact" 5


Although Mia Farrow did take advantage of the start of Dylan's therapy to tell Dr. Coates the behaviors that caused her concern, neither did she indicate that these behaviors could have any kind of sexual connotation, or that she worried about that reason. .

Finally, it is evident that if there were problems of sexual inclination from a father towards his daughter, or from an adult towards a four-year-old girl, they would not be treated in therapy with a child psychologist. The sexually innocuous nature of Allen's so-called "inappropriate behaviors" is evident from the simple fact that he is "treated" by a child psychologist. 

Until in January of 1992 the relationship jumped to shreds Mia Farrow never behaved like a mother worried about Allen's sexualized behavior towards her daughter. In fact, Mia Farrow identifies without a doubt the discovery of Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi as the moment when she began to think that there might be some kind of sexual nature in Allen's behavior with Dylan. Until that moment she had never thought about it.


Now  I viewed  his  behavior  with  Dylan  in  a completely  different light.  I  no  longer  believed  he  could  control  himself.  I  no  longer believed  he  was  dealing  with  his  problems  responsibly,  I  was  no longer  sure  that  his  "inappropriate"  and  "intense"  behavior  with Dylan  was  not  sexual.  At  exactly  what  point  does  it  become  child abuse? (1)


 It never prevented or hindered Allen's relationship with the girl and Mia Farrow accepted that Allen adopt Dylan in December of 1991 by making a sworn statement of his qualities as a good father. Allen's access to the girl was not restricted until after the break. (2).

The "undeniable fact" seeks to establish the existence of some relationship between Allen's behavior and the instruction not to leave him alone with the girl. It is not true. The alleged inappropriate behaviors date back to 1987 while the instructions for not leaving him alone with Dylan are from January 1.992 (according with Mia) or June 1992 (acording with Kristi Groteke), when the discrepancies between Allen and Farrow following the rupture (which had occurred in January 1992) and relations with the children were increasing.

It is necessary to indicate that the relation of Allen with Dylan always developed of public form, in the common stays of the house or the rooms of the own Mia Farrow and in presence of her. Allen never bathed the girl or took care of any kind of hygiene task of the same, nor he helped her to get dressed or undressed or took charge of any kind of task that supposed or required to be alone with the girl. Allen never slept with the girl nor the girl ever spent a night at Allen's house.

On the other hand and to finish, it is possible that all this question does have some relevance, but for a fact that is not usually mentioned. If we assume that Woody Allen decided on August 4, 1992, to sexually abuse his daughter, we must be aware that he knew that Dylan had two weekly therapy sessions and that one of the things that may be treated in that therapy were the behaviors that could bother the girl (the so-called "inappropriate behaviors"). In those circumstances, only an abuser totally incapable of controlling his instincts would commit the rashness of sexual abuse. If there was something in Allen's earlier or later biography that would allow us to characterize him as that type of sexual abuser, this fact would be meaningless. But there is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)"Mia Farrow. A memoir. What Falls Away" pag 281
(2)"Mia Farrow. A memoir. What Falls Away" pag 283

Perhaps,  as  my  son  Moses  believes,  deep  inside  Woody  there was  an  unfathomable  and  uncontrollable  need  to  destroy  everything good  and  positive  in  his  life,  and  so  he  tried  to  destroy  our  family. For  him  to  have  sex  with  one  of  my  children,  a  child  he  had  known as  my  daughter  since  she  was  eight  years  old,  was  not  enough:  he had  to  make  me  see,  graphically,  what  he  was  doing.  What  rage  did he  feel  against  me,  against  women,  against  mothers,  against  sisters, against  daughters,  against  an  entire  family?  The  pictures  were  a grenade  he  threw  into  our  home,  and  no  one  was  unharmed.


After  January  13,  I  didn't  leave  him  alone  with  any  of  my  kids.


3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.
 Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.


Vanity Fair gives the impression that Allen was asked for a test, he refused and made another one on his own. It's false. In the first place, Allen passed a polygraph test before August 20, 1992, (1) and on that date he made the results available to the authorities. On that date the police had not addressed him yet at all. Allan's lawyer just confirmed to Cathy Young that he was never asked to submit to a test. In the newspapers of the time, this petition does not appear in any way to Allen; the source of such information is unknown, as Mareen Orth had recogniced to Cathy Young:



For instance: Orth’s 2014 listicle of “10 undeniable facts” about the abuse allegation states that “Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.” Yet Allen’s lead attorney at the time, Elkan Abramowitz, issued an emphatic denial by email in response to my query. “The answer,” Abramowitz wrote, “is a categorical no: he was neither asked, nor did he refuse, to take a polygraph test administered by the Connecticut State Police.” When I contacted Orth to ask for the source of the information, she replied in an email that it “came from multiple sources and was fact checked (sic) by Vanity Fair.” (Allen passed a lie detector test administered by a prominent examiner hired by his own legal team, Paul Minor.)
Read more: https://forward.com/opinion/395553/woody-allens-innocence-should-be-a-feminist-cause/

There is a detail that is necessary to highlight. Orth replies to Cathy Young that the history of the polygraph had "multiple sources", which means that the only reasonable source to give credibility to this story did not confirm these facts: Frank Maco.


In the little more than three lines of this "undeniable fact" Frank Maco is the only person identified as the source and possibly the only one who could confirm the news, since he was directing the investigation. In the same way that Maco can affirm that Mia Farrow was never asked to pass a lie detector (by the police), he could affirm, if it were true, that Woody Allen was asked. But we just knew that it is not like that. That Frank Maco did not confirm to Orth that Woody Allen was asked to pass a lie detector. If Maco could confirm one thing but not the other, it seems evident that what he could not confirm is false. The police never asked Woody Allen to pass a lie detector.




______________________________________________________________________________

(1)





4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”


Allen lost the custody trial and won the adoption nullity trial. He also won the research opened by the New York Child Welfare Service. It is true that she lost the appeal of the custody trial, but it is still a single trial and Mia Farrow did not even appeal the nullified adoption judgment that she lost.


1.- Judge Wilk also made another statement that is usually overlooked when commenting on this court ruling

In  a  society  where  children  are too  often  betrayed  by adults  who  ignore  or  disbelieve  their  complaints  of  abuse,  Ms. Farrow's  determination  to  protect  Dylan  is  commendable.  Her decision  to videotape  Dylan's statements,  although  inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable

So Dylan's recording by Mia Farrow compromised the investigation of possible sexual abuse. The judge considers it understandable, even commendable, and assures that it was something provoked without any intention; But how and why was the investigation of the alleged sexual abuse compromised? Judge Wilk does not give any explanation, however, through the book by Kristi Groteke we have a relatively broad summary of the statement of the expert appointed by Mia Farrow, Dr. Stephen Herman, and in one of the points of it we can read as he considered:

"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."?[i]

That is, there was agreement between Woody Allen's experts, the statement of Dr. Leventhal Yale New-Haven Hospital and the expert of Mia Farrow in which the questions with which Mia Farrow questioned Dylan indicated to Dylan a concrete form of answer. This is the reason why the recording made by Mia Farrow compromised the investigation of abuses.

To what extent is it compatible that the questions asked by Mia Farrow commit the investigation to guide Dylan's answers and, at the same time, do not imply a sign of coaching the declaration of the girl is an issue that does not seem easy to solve. In any case, if the investigation of abuses was compromised, it is worth asking: Why? Why does asking the questions in a "suggestive" way compromise the investigation? Because those questions and those answers can alter the narration of the child and fixate on his memory as if they were facts lived. This is why Dr. Herman-let's not forget, the expert paid by Mia Farrow-expressly indicated in the trial that there was no point in asking the girl again.

This  trial  included  the  observations  and  opinions  of more  mental  health  workers  than  is  common  to  most  custody litigation.  The  parties  apparently  agreed  with  Dr.  Herman's conclusion  that  another  battery  of  forensic  psychological evaluations would not have been in the children's best  interests and  would  have  added  little  to  the  available  information. Accordingly, none was ordered

Twenty-five years ago all the professionals involved agreed that there was no point in asking Dylan again. What Dylan's memory could not clarify twenty-five years ago can not be clarified now.


2 .- One thing is that the judge considers that Mia Farrow did not coaching with Dylan and another that he believes that Allen sexually abused her. Judge Wilk concludes in regard the alleged abuses:

Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan remains unresolved. The  evidence  suggests  that  it  is  unlikely  that  he  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.

That is to say, the evidence indicates that it would not be possible to prosecute him with possibilities of success and the judge is not sure that the evidence conclusively proves that there were no abuses.

The judge does not doubt if the evidence goes so far as to prove that the abuses took place, what is doubtful is that the evidence proves completely and conclusively that the abuses did not occur. That means that the evidence points strongly to the fact that the abuses did not occur, but the judge understands that it is not possible to prove it so that there can be no doubt about it.

And he indicates later:

I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably  never  know  what  occurred  on  August  4,  1992.

The judge just said that he is not absolutely sure that the alleged abuses did not occur and, consequently, concludes that we may possibly never know what happened. The interesting thing about this conclusion is that the judge expressly indicates that it is the same one that the expert witness who declared in favor of Mia Farrow has arrived. That is to say, the sentence clearly and directly follows not only that the judge considers that it is not possible to prove that Allen committed the alleged sexual abuse but that not even the expert hired by Mia Farrow claimed that the evidence allowed to conclude that the abuse sexual had occurred

3.- One fact that is often overlooked in relation to these legal proceedings is that it was civil proceedings, in which Mia Farrow alleged the existence of sexual abuse of her daughter. Do you remember OJ Simpson? In a civil procedure in the US, the judge can pronounce on the existence of a criminal act without being subject to the principles of presumption of innocence or to the rules of admission and validity of the evidence of criminal proceedings. Recall what Frank Maco himself said about it in his statement September 24, 1993

To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations were considered in Justice Wilk's decision of June 7,I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared to a criminal prosecution. This decision should not be viewed as condoning the activities of Mr. allen which Justice wilk termed “grosslv inappropriate", but as a recognition of the degree of proof necessary to establish those acts as "criminal". For 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: although 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.


Maco is aware that Judge Wilks has given validity to evidence that would be dismissed in a criminal lawsuit and, even so, and despite not considering the presumption of innocence in his assessment, does not conclude that there were abuses. This is a fact usually overlooked in any analysis of these allegations of alleged abuses: Judge Wilk was much harsher with Allen than a judge in the criminal jurisdiction could have been and yet never came to claim that they had produced abuses. Maco and the judge know that he moves in an area other than criminal, that Wilk could decide that there had been abuses even if there were reasonable doubts that this was the case. But not even in that broader framework (which, let us remember, allowed to condemn OJ Simpson to a large civil responsibility) could the judge reach in conscience to give the abuses by proven. It is true that Allen lost the procedures of custody, but it is also true that in terms of abuses, no resolution indicated his guilt. On the other hand, as we hve already said, every time that the actions arising as a result of these events are reviewed, it seems to be forgotten that Mia Farrow simultaneously requested the nullity of Allen's adoptions of Satchel and Dylan and that Allen's lawsuit was won. In addition, the independent investigation conducted by the child protection services of the State of New York concluded that the accusations of abuse were totally unfounded. As far as abuse is concerned, the score is overwhelming in favor of Woody Allen







[i] Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 169.


5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”



However, the fact is that Wilk's mention of inappropriate behavior does not include sexually abusive behavior, but, in fact, expressly excludes it. Child abuse in the United States is defined by different state and federal regulations, although with some common characteristics. Child abuse is defined:


Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm
The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or The rape, and in cases of caretaker or interfamilial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.

Types of Abuse

 Nearly all States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands provide civil definitions of child abuse and neglect in statute. States recognize the different types of abuse in their definitions, including physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Some States also provide definitions in statute for parental substance abuse and/or for abandonment as child abuse

Although not commonly mentioned when assessing Wilk's court ruling, Mia Farrow had included in her answer to Allen's lawsuit the express claim that Allen's relationship with Dylan was at best inappropriate and, at worst, abusive.


The respondent maintains that the petitioner has shown no genuine parental interest in, nor any regard for, the children's welfare and that any interest he has shown has been inappropriate and even harmful. Respondent cites the fact that the petitioner has commenced and maintained an intimate sexual relationship with her daughter Soon-Yi Previn, which he has refused to curtail, despite the obvious ill efects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound efect it has had on Moses. It is also contended that petitioner has at best, an inappropriately intense interest in, and at worst, an abusive relationship with, the parties' daughter Dylan. Further, the respondent maintains that petitioner's contact with the parties' biological son, Satchel, is harmful to the child in that petitioner represents an emotional threat and has on at least one occasion threatened physical harm. Respondent contends that the petitioner's only motive in commencing this proceeding was to retaliate against the allegations of child sexual abuse made against him by Ms. Farrow.

Therefore, when describing the relationship with Allen as "inappropriate" Wilk not only says that he considers the relationship "inappropriate", he also says that he does not consider it abusive and, consequently, is excluding the entire range of behaviors that we have just seen when identifying abusive behaviors about children. It is impossible to assess Wilk's claim without taking into account the alternatives and, although it is true that one of the alternatives was to declare that the relationship was good or normal, it is also true that another of the alternatives expressly submitted to his assessment was that the relationship with Dylan was abusive. By calling it "inappropriate," Wilk decides and chooses, and does so by discarding that Allen's relationship with Dylan was abusive: Allen's behavior does not amount to abuse and, of course, does not constitute sexual abuse.

In this same sense, Dr. Coates pronounced in her assessment, assumed by Judge Wilk in the judicial decision, by declaring that Allen's relationship with Dylan was intense, in the sense of excluding others, but not of a sexual nature. This conclusion was accepted in a general way by all the experts.

The various psychiatric  experts  who  testified  or  otherwise  provided  reports  did  not  conclude  that  Allen's  behavior  toward  Dylan  prior  to  August  of  1992  was explicitly sexual in nature. However, the clear consensus was that his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present.

Allen's behavior showed an abnormally intense interest in Dylan, but always taking into account the meaning that the appeal statement itself clarifies from this expression: that he spent a lot of time with her and when he was with her, he ignored the other children. It is not an intense relationship in the sense of excessive physical contact or inappropriate or disproportionate, as other readings have wanted to see. It is an abnormally intense relationship because Allen dedicates a much larger part of his time to Dylan than he does to the other children and dedicates his attention to her exclusively. When assessing this conclusion, it should also be borne in mind that Allen did not under any circumstances spend with Dylan, nor with the children, a considerable period of the day.

It should also be noted that Wilk concludes that Allen's behavior is inappropriate based on the testimony of Mia Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Woody Allen himself (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). We already know that Mrs. Coates considered the relationship inappropriately intense, but it was not sexual in nature and that Dr. Levehntal considered it proven that no sexual abuse had occurred. Obviously, Allen himself described their relationship as belonging to a paternal love, without any kind of connotation of another kind. On the other hand, it is striking that neither Dylan's therapist (Dr. Schutz), nor Dylan's nanny during the previous two years, nor any of the nannies  witnessed Allen's inadequate behavior -in any of the senses-.

In any of the cases, the analysis of the decisions of the custody procedure leaves no room for doubt: Allen's inappropriate behavior had no sexual component and the intensity of the relationship does not refer to excessive physical contact, inadequate or of any other kind , makes reference to dedicating to Dylan much more attention than to the other children. Behaviors of child abuse are expressly excluded.




6. Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine

As we shall see, the allegations of abuse are no more consistent with the testimony of the witnesses than the version of the facts provided by Allen and issues of consistency of the statements themselves that must be taken into account are ignored. Finally, several of the statements are totally useless to assess the facts but they are presented - falsely - as if they corroborate the alleged abuses. Let's examine what we know of the three testimonies.

1 / Regarding the testimony of the nanny Kristi Groteke.

The first thing that needs to be clarified is that Woody Allen's testimony is equally consistent with that of the adults who were in the house. It is not that the nannies' testimony corroborates one version and contradicts the other. No testimony places Allen with Dylan alone during the alleged disappearance, nor did anyone see them climbing the stairs to the top floor of the country house, nor did anyone see them coming down. In fact, even more amazing, on August 4 nobody noticed that Allen and Dylan had been "disappeared" for those ten, fifteen or twenty minutes.

The nanny (Kristi Groteke) had commented with a colleague (Monica Thompson) the she had not lost sight of Dylan all afternoon. (I) This was stated by Monica Thompsomn and the nanny herself acknowledged it in her book of memories of those Times he wrote after the trial. (ii) How was it then concluded that Allen and Dylan had been "disappeared" for 15 or 20 minutes? Well, through a reconstruction of everything they had done that day that the three nannies made several days after the events. Apparently, as they came together to review what had happened on the day Kristi Groteke realized that there was a time when she looked for Dylan inside the house and when she did not find her, she thought she would be out with the other two nannies. She did not check it at that moment, but when reviewing the events between the three of them, they decided that at that moment Dylan was not out of the house and that between the time they saw Dylan for the last time and the moment they found her outside. of the house could have been fifteen or twenty minutes. Therefore, we have two groups of nannies (one composed of a single nanny, Kristi Groteke, and the other composed of two nannies) who are separated and do not communicate during the entire period of the alleged disappearance. An interesting fact of what we know is that at no time is it indicated that Dylan was missing "between 5 pm and 5:30 pm", to give an example. Why is it interesting? Because it indicates that when reconstructing the afternoon the nannies were not able to indicate what time it was in any of their clocks at the time of the supposed disappearance. Let's think about it: two groups of separated people, who do not communicate with each other and that each of them thinks that Dylan and Allen are with the other. How can they reach the conclusion that this was not the case if the group "A" Do not know what time he saw Dylan or Allen for the last time or what time he was looking for Dylan without finding her and the group "B" does not know what time they came to be with them neither one nor the other ?. Moreover, group "B" does not know at what time the nanny of group "A" thought that Dylan was with them. How is it possible to know that Dylan and Allen were 15 or 20 minutes unlocalized? Actually, it is not possible. If the group "B" does not know what time Dylan joined, or if she did it at the same time as Allen, it is impossible for her to know if Kristi Groteke was looking for them at that time. The only possibility of reaching that conclusion would be that both groups had clocks, that both had consulted them and, therefore, that they could tell us at what time -or between what times- the "disappearance" occurred. But is not the case. Therefore, the nannies had to use to reconstruct the afternoon their own subjective measure of time from a common event (perhaps the very separation of the nannies, which would be the last common event); being in addition two separate measures: on the one hand the subjective measure of the time of Kristi Groteke, alone in the interior of the house (what the hell does the nanny alone inside the house when they have given him express instructions to take care of Dylan is another question of some interest) and, on the other hand, the subjective measure of the other two nannies who are abroad and serving four children. I suppose it is evident that this way of reconstructing the steps taken on day 4 is enormously limited and subject to a huge margin of error - if it has any use, which is rather doubtful - and that is easily affected by the expectation of the people who carry out the reconstruction. If what you are looking for is a period of time in neither of the groups you saw Dylan or Allen, you will find it, whether or not it exists.

On the other hand, there are no concordant testimonies, what exists is a reconstruction based on separate testimonies. If Nanny A says "I think I saw Allen for the last time a half hour after X, then I looked for them and they were not" and Nanny B, "well I think I first saw Dylan about 50 minutes after X ", There is no agreement between those who manifest one and the other. What nanny B says does not confirm that nanny A actually saw Dylan 45 minutes after X, nor did nanny A say that B did not actually see Dylan only 30 minutes after X.

Finally, Dylan's narration of the alleged abuses is not fully compatible with the statement of nanny Kristi Groteke. According to the court ruling, the nanny looked for Dylan throughout the house before assuming he was out with the other nanny. Why did not Dylan hear about this search? Let's assume it's reasonable for the nanny not to go in search of the small attic, but she was definitely looking in the main room and if she searched and called Dylan, why did not Dylan hear him? Moreover, nothing in Dylan's narrative suggests that Allen heard someone looking for Dylan and asked the girl for silence, or stopped the train to avoid making noise.

This inconsistency is even more evident in the narration of abuses made on television in 2018.  Dylan says that Allen sat down behind me in the doorway. it´s suppoused that Kristy Groteke was in that room looking for Dylan. How could she not realize that Allen was sitting in the doorway to the attic?


The experiences of the Kristi Groteke during those days are interesting in many ways; one of them is that Mia never reproached her or asked how it was possible that Woody Allen had been alone with the girl despite her recent express instructions against. She did not ask if it was possible that it had happened: She told her it had happened and, after that and several days after the events, the nanny met with the other two people who were in the house and "rebuilding the afternoon" arrived at the conclusion that there was between 15 and 20 minutes in which none of them was with Dylan or Allen. (iii) As we have said, before being forced to "reconstruct" the afternoon because her boss had reported sexual abuse , the nanny had commented to a companion who had not lost sight of Dylan. None of the testimonies indicates that Allen and Dylan were together during that time, nor that they were found together or at the same time.

Kristi Groteke herself wrote about it in her book:

to tell the truth, in my heart I hadn't the foggiest notion of whether or not that molestation ever took place.

By the way, none of these testimonies contradicts the testimony of Moses Farrow in People, since no one asked the children to reconstruct the chronology of the day and the essential part of Moses' statement is much simpler: there was no train in that attic so it's impossible for Dylan to remember how the train made its way around the attic while Allen sexually abused her. Until today, no one has responded to this statement by Moses. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Monica Thompson already declared in 1993 that Moses had told her that she believed that Mia Farrow was responsible for Dylan's accusations. (Iv)

Kristi Groteke not only was neither fired nor reprimanded by Mia Farrow for leaving Dylan unattended despite her express orders, but she became her most trusted person in the care of the children for the following year and Mia Farrow delivered documentation and material to write a book.

2 / Regarding the testimony of the French tutor that indicates that Dylan was without underwear.

This testimony is presented as if it corroborated or was "consistent" with the existence of some kind of sexual abuse, however this is totally false. Dylan's narrative  never included in 1.992 a part in which Allen removed his underwear. According to Kristi Groteke, Dylan never explained what happened to the underwear. There is no mention of her in relation to the alleged episode of abuse or in the tape that Mia Farrow records, nor in the Yale New Haven sessions, nor in the sessions with the police. Obviously, if the absence of underwear has nothing to do with the alleged abuse according to Dylan's original narrative, then the absence of underwear can not be used to pretend to "validate" that the abuses existed. The absence of underwear - and the testimony of the French teacher about it - is simply irrelevant and neither confirms nor validates anything.

In fact, the absence of underwear which may indicate is that Dylan "slipped" to get rid of her without any of the adults noticed. Perhaps she had been stained and embarrassed, or perhaps she thought her mother was going to scold her if she looked dirty. The fact is that it seems that Dylan was able to get rid of her without any of her caregivers (or anyone) noticing. For a few minutes he disappeared to do whatever he wanted to get rid of his panties in such a way that they never met again. At what point would Dylan be free to go where he wanted and elude the vigilance of all elders? It seems that the ideal moment would be when Allen went to the w.c. In this way, it is perfectly possible that the two "disappeared" for a few minutes but were not together. In any of the cases, several of the minutes during which two days later it was concluded that Dylan could not be located, she had to dedicate it to what-he-wants-to-do with the underwear.

However, in 2.017 Dylan Farrow pens an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times: Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?. There she said:

Three eyewitnesses substantiated my account, including a babysitter who saw Allen with his head buried in my lap after he had taken off my underwear.

In 1992 and 1993 Dylan never explained that it had been her underwear, unfortunately for the credibility of the facts she relates, the new information she provides in 2017 fits very complicated with the facts we know. We know that Judge Wilk ruled out that abuses could have occurred in the TV Room and we also know why: because in that room there were at least five children, possibly six if we take into account Moses, and the nannies could enter suddenly and without  warning al any time. The same reasons that rule out sexual abuse in the TV Room rule out that Allen removed Dylan underwear at that time and place. 

The new information provided by Dylan in 2017 seems clearly erroneous and only casts more doubts about the authenticity of her story or about the memory she has of it, or about both. To let the reader choose which is the consequence that seems most plausible, I leave without changing the wording corresponding to the analysis of the facts based on the original story of Dylan.


3 / Regarding the testimony of the nanny who claims to have seen Allen with his head resting on Dylan's lap.

Once again, the way of presenting the facts leads the reader to think that there is some relationship between the episode in the TV room (the head resting on the lap) and the alleged episode of abuse, when it is not true. On  one hand, the judgment considers the episode in the TV room to be proven and does not consider it to be any kind of abuse; on the other hand, it should be evident that if it had been considered abuse the nanny would have immediately given the alarm (Mia Farrow tells us in her memoirs that this nanny was also clearly instructed not to leave Allen alone with the children). Finally and even more importantly, the ruling clearly states that there is no relationship, or even temporary continuity, between the television room episode and the alleged abuses. Indeed, Judge Wilk clearly states that "at another time of the day," which means that whatever happened in the TV room was not any kind of sexual abuse, nor did it result in any kind of sexual abuse. The reason for this fact seems clear when we know that in the TV Room were not Allen and Dylan alone, all the children of the house were there, watching the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" in the VCR. The nannies had been absent for a cup of tea, but Dylan, Satchel, the three children of Casy Pascal and perhaps Moses were in the TV Room with Allen and Dylan.(v)


In either case, there is neither "consistency" nor confirmation - nor, in fact, any relationship - between this testimony and the alleged episode of abuse.



Thompson said that the next day Kristie Groteke, Dylan's baby-sitter, drove her to the bus, and her fellow employee was "very upset."
"She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said
the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five
minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear."
[ii] Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 126.
The alleged molestation. Monica said, had occurred two days earlier, on Tuesday, August 4. 1992. However, Monica knew only the sketchiest details of what had supposedly transpired. .Although she had been working for Mia for seven years, they weren't close at all. and so I played dumb and agreed with her. Yes, I said, Mia must have been stretching the truth. And no. I didn't remember leaving Dylan alone with Woody.






[iii] Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 129.
The truth is, when we retraced our steps that day, there were only fifteen to twenty minutes in which Dylan was out of my sight, Sophie's, Casey's, or Alison's. Of course, those are the suspect "twenty minutes" when, Mia alleges, the molestation must have occurred.




Thompson added that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, another child Allen and Farrow adopted, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place.


"Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan," Thompson said in an affidavit.

[v] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/12/courtroom-notebook/51452c81-0b62-416e-96de-f704b4cade1b/?utm_term=.3cf5c5d04515

It was one of those babysitters who set all this in motion. Mia and two of her kids had gone out shopping with her friend Casey Pascal on Aug. 4, leaving Dylan and Satchel and the Pascal kids at Frog Hollow with a bevy of young caretakers. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was popped into the VCR while the sitters had a cup of tea in the kitchen. At some point Woody arrived to visit with his kids, toting large shopping bags from Toys R Us.

Alison Strickland, the Pascals' sitter, had gone in search of one of her charges and walked toward the video room. "I got to the doorway and Mr. Allen was on his knees in front of Dylan with his head in her lap," the young woman testified Friday. Dylan was on the couch, wearing a white dress with yellow sunflowers and "a blank expression." Talking with her employer that evening, Strickland recalled, "I told her I'd seen something at Mia's that day that was bothering me." It has been bothering people ever since.

[vi] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-farrow-woody-allen-me-too-20171207-story.html



7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand*.* The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.
All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention.
The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.


Two fundamental facts are forgotten:

The first, that the Supreme Court of New York expressly stated that it did consider and value the Yale New Haven Hospital report: 

Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the 
conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive.

The second is that a good part of the reasons alleged by Wilk refer to formal questions related to the way of participating in the process of the professionals who made the Report. Evidently, the lack of collaboration of the Clinic seriously harmed Allen. But what could prevent the professionals who made the report from declaring in the civil procedure? The answer seems obvious: the prosecution and police of the State of Connecticut that was the one that ordered the test to the Clinic and that kept the criminal investigation underway, either through a direct instruction, or by its own statutes and protocols. Of what there is no doubt is that in a criminal proceeding all the professionals who participated in the preparation of the report would have declared and explained and detailed any doubts about the specific statements of the girl, her method etc, etc ...

In commenting on this issue, it is often forgotten that the defense was not able to examine Dylan in any way, nor to appoint professionals to do so. All examinations were carried out by experts appointed by the prosecution, or by the social services carrying out research tasks. Despite this, all the professionals who examined Dylan came to the unanimous conclusion that there had been no abuse. In any case, and to what extent we know that it is a Report that remains secret for the most part and the answers given by witnesses and experts in the interrogations are only partially known; however, regarding Dylan's problems to distinguish between fantasy and reality, we must not forget that she began the treatment with Dr. Schultz, among other things because "she lived in her own fantasy world". Dr. Coates stated that Dylan was driven by fantasy when describing something as simple as an apple.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html

The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen's relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be "inappropriately intense," the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily "would be taken over by fantasy" when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/02/nyregion/psychologist-testifies-about-visitation-rights-for-allen.html

At the end of the day, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan, Dr. Nancy Schultz, began her testimony by reporting that Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow had taken the girl to her because of their concerns over her difficulties in communicating and the fact that she "lived in her own fantasy world."


8. Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place.
 First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible.


The facts did not happen that way and its correct clarification is more relevant than it seems. Allen is asked if he has ever gone to the place where the abuse was allegedly made. Allen said no, he did not even know where that place was. He was told that his hair had been found and said that he might have come to take a drink or something to one of the children. He was told that for that he had to go through some sort of closet and said that in that case he had never been there, in total safety. He was told that his fingerprints had been found in the attic and said he had never been there. The police told him that there were traces of him in the attic and he was adamant that he had never been there, that they could have found prints, but that he had never been there.

There are several issues that must be taken into account when assessing this fact. The first, that it is false that the police found Allen's fingertprints in the attic and that what he was trying to do was to get a statement from Allen acknowledging that he had been in the place of the alleged abuse. Allen maintained his flat refusal to have been there. What was not credible - because it was false - is that Allen's fingerprints had been found there, not Allen's statement. The way of presenting the facts - both the police and the journalists - is clearly biased and blatantly lacking in truth.



But the implications of this episode are even greater. The issue is that the police searched the attic and the access to the attic to the point of identifying a hair of Woody Allen, without finding any traces, or traces of any kind that would allow Allen to be located in that place. No traces of him, no footprints on his shoes, no traces of his clothes ... nothing. A single hair that, as the head of the laboratory declared, proved nothing. It should be noted how extraordinarily difficult it is for an adult crawling on the ground to leave no traces, traces or marks of any kind. Do not lean on anything when bending over or getting up. In any case, despite the meticulous search by the police, it was never possible to prove in any way that Allen had ever been in the attic. Which brings us to another question


Why does Woody Allen deny having ever gone to the attic? Suppose Allen had gone to the attic with Dylan and abused her. What would be the best statement for his defense? Well, to deny that he had gone there that day, but had been in the attic on other occasions. That way, any trace, object or whatever it could have left the day of abuse could attribute it to that "other occasions". However, if Allen maintains that he has never been there, if evidence is found to the contrary he would be arrested and formally charged immediately. Allen's statement only makes sense if it is made by an innocent man, or a very stupid culprit and very bad lawyers.


9. The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he didhave probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.”
 Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen.


What is not said is that Maco refused to put Dylan " through asn exhausting trial" becouse he knew that it was  QUESTIONABLE PROSECUTION.

 Maco explained publicly and in writing his position and, as we have seen, regardless of what could happen to Dylan he knew and said publicly that he had no evidence other than Wilk had and he knew that in a criminal trial they would not even be valid nor could they be interpreted with the freedom "against Allen" with which Wilks had interpreted them. I just did not have a case.

The full text of the official communication from the Office of the State Prosecutor adds essential information to better understand the facts, fundamentally in the paragraphs that are transcribed below.

The arrest warrant application contains evidentiary information the majority of which was subject matter in the New York Supreme Court custody trial of Allen vs. Farrow. To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations were considered in Justice Wilk's decision of June 7 1993, I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared to a criminal prosecution. This decision should not be viewed as condoning the activities of Mr. Allen which Justice Wilk termed “grossly inappropriate", but as a recognition of the degree of proof necessary to establish those acts as "criminal". For 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.


There are different criteria for admission and assessment of the evidence in a custody procedure and in a criminal procedure.

  • The first difference is that the criminal proceedings must prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, however, in the custody procedure is enough that the judge considers them proved, although there may be a reasonable doubt.
  • The second is that the evidence analyzed and assessed by Judge Wilk in the custody procedure      would not have the same probative force in the criminal jurisdiction. That is to say, that in the criminal jurisdiction there are more strict admission and evaluation criteria for the evidences than in the civil jurisdiction in general, and in the case of custody in particular.

That is, Fran Maco and the Office of the State Prosecutor are affirming that in the case of custody, evidence has been analyzed and valued that would be invalid in the criminal trial and that has been assessed without taking into account the presumption of innocence. Despite this, the judge did not have the conviction that the abuses had occurred. Frank Maco believes that, if even in these circumstances the judge did not consider that the abuses had taken place, to take a criminal action would  subject the child to the rigors of a very uncertain criminal proceeding.

In short, it is not that the prosecutor waived Allen's criminal prosecution for not victimizing the girl but thinking that he had sufficient evidence against him; he was aware that he did not have them and it was injustificable exposing the child to a QUESTIONABLE PROSECUTION. 



I trust this decision will be received in the spirit in which it has been announced r a genuine struggle to reconcile my responsibility to the interests and expectations of the community with my responsibility to avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution.

















Comentarios

Entradas populares