A Child Abuse Investigator’s View of the Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow Case

by Patrick Perion

Patrick Perion is a child abuse investigator in Illinois. In this article he gives his professional opinion on the Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow abuse case. The author notes that this post may be triggering. 

The subject of child abuse and in particular child sexual abuse, is not something that people like to talk about. Most people don’t like to even  think about it. Unfortunately it is real, it is happening right now, and frankly it shouldn’t be ignored.

This weekends open letter from Dylan Farrow to her father Woody Allen, and Hollywood in general, about the sexual abuse she suffered at his hand, set off a firestorm.  It is frank, it is heartfelt and it is powerful. It may also be triggering for some people. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you do so.

Since the post went up yesterday there has been an outpouring of support for Ms. Farrow and condemnation of Woody Allen.  There have also been numerous supporters of Allen asking for more “proof”.  Twitter and Facebook quickly rent down the middle by those survivors and their supporters, for whom Dylan’s accusations ring true, and those who either support Allen or want more evidence than just Farrow’s word.

Filmmaker and author Bob Weide, wrote a piece in the Daily Beast outlining questions, that might exonerate Allen.  The questions Wiede asks seem logical and objective.  They also illustrate how little  the average person knows about the disclosure, investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse.

As most of you know, I investigate child abuse for a living. I’ve been doing it for 20 years.  I’ve done hundreds of sexual abuse cases with thousands of victims.  I’m a certified forensic interviewer, advanced forensic interviewer and trainer of the forensic interview techniques.  It’s with this knowledge and training that I look at the Allen case.

A Botched Investigation

One of the first questions that people have had about the Allen case usually has something to do with Dylan’s disclosure.  In the original story in Vanity Fair in 1993 and in  the follow up in November, Dylan’s appeared to garbled and contradictory.  She told the first doctor that she spoke to that Allen had touched her shoulder.  The next day she disclosed a more descriptive account.

This often happens with the outcry of abuse.  In the Allen case, Dylan should NEVER have been questioned by a doctor in a hospital room with her mom there. Unfortunately, it was 1993.  Now children are interviewed in safe one-on-one settings, for the most part.  Doctors know that if a parent brings a child in for possible sexual abuse, they are to take the minimum amount of information they need for an exam and let the professionals do the interview.

Weide makes quite a point that the Investigative Team of 3 doctors who conducted a 6-month investigation concluded that no sexual molestation happened. They claimed in part that Dylan was an “emotionally disturbed child whose story became fixed in her head” or that she was coached or both.  They outlined inconsistencies in Dylan’s statement about being touched on the vaginal area.

The idea of a team of 3 doctors interviewing a frightened 7 year old child individually or as a group over 6 months is reprehensible. There’s a reason we do one interview on tape. Asking Dylan to relive and retell the account of her abuse over and over again victimized her even further.

It’s not shocking that she said first she wasn’t touched, then she was, then she wasn’t.  Children who are repeatedly interviewed about the same incident often change an answer to please the person doing the interview.  We see this in custody cases all the time. When the kids at mom’s they say they hate dad, when they’re at dad’s vice versa.

It’s not a giant leap to think that Dylan was confused and scared by these three adult men asking her questions about her private parts for SIX MONTHS.  It’s inconceivable to anyone who practices social work today.  It’s entirely possible that she was “emotionally” disturbed because of the way she was dealt with by people who should have known better.

Many people, including Weide point out that medical examinations were done and there was no evidence of trauma to the anus or the vagina.  This doesn’t rule out molestation.  In fact it doesn’t even rule out penetration. The vagina heals remarkably fast and any doctor who knows how to conduct a sexual abuse exam of a child will tell  you that.

Charming and Sneaky

Weide also seems to think that the fact that some of the abuse happened during the time when Allen had to be on his “best behavior” on visits precludes the possibility that he abused Dylan.  Again a common fallacy among those who don’t know a whit about how abusers work.

Abusers are charming. Especially when they are grooming the child.  Much of what Dylan described like getting under the covers with Allen, or Allen making her suck his thumb are mere precursors to abuse which could have followed.

In fact, the visits at the Farrow home would be the perfect time for Allen to abuse Dylan for the very reason that people think it was the worst possible time.  Nobody would expect Allen to do that while he was under intense scrutiny after his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn became public.

Weide also casts doubt on Allen being able to do it in a house full of children and nannies. Again abusers are good at what they do, and sexual abusers are the best.  Mikki Kendall, AKA @Karnythia, a feminist, mother and author pointed out on Twitter,  that only the sloppy or the stupid sexual abusers get caught.

Prosecution Questions

Prosecution of child sexual abuse is notoriously tricky. It’s no surprise that there was no criminal charge in the Allen case.  The prosecutor at the time, said he had probable cause to believe Dylan.  People wonder why charges weren’t pressed.  A valid question with no easy answer.

The first problem with prosecution is almost every child sex abuse case is the child’s word against the adults.  I mentioned forensic interviewing earlier.  We interview children in this manner to get a statement that is as credible as possible. The video of the interview is also a good tool to use to try to get a confession, and if there are charges filed, its an excellent tool for a judge and jury to see.

Once you get past the hurdle of the child’s credibility, there are structural concerns with the criminal justice system that make things difficult.  Some cases can linger for a year or two until they come to trial. In that time, the victim and the victim’s family may have decided that court may be too overwhelming.  Even in relatively quick cases, the family is hesitant.

Can you imagine the circus if Dylan Farrow had to testify against Woody Allen? Not only would she be dragged by a defense attorney, but Mia Farrow’s life and previous history would also be fair game.  Weide mentioned Mia Farrow’s previous affairs, imagine what an attorney that Woody Allen could afford would have done.

Another common misconception is that if there is no prosecution, there is no guilt. Every state has some form of Child Protective Services.  All of them have a name for reports of child abuse that are FOUNDED. In Illinois, we use the term Indicated. In other states they use Confirmed. The level of evidence in these founded reports is usually “reasonable person” which basically means  that a reasonable person would conclude that abuse or neglect occurred.

A friend on Twitter mentioned that he would like to believe that Allen is innocent until proven guilty.  Unfortunately for the overwhelming majority of these cases there is no court.  There is only the child welfare system and the findings of the professionals. Those cases are never made public due to confidentiality, but they are no less important than cases that go to court.

A Final Thought

Dylan Farrow’s statement this weekend opened up a lot of wounds. So many victims have their victimization dismissed by everyone from family to authorities, its not surprising there were a lot of angry outbursts.  Victims never really get over it no matter that other’s would like them too.

People seem willing to give Woody Allen the benefit of the doubt, and that is certainly their right.  Just keep in mind the raw feelings of a lot of people.  Keep in mind that there are an awful lot of people like Dylan Farrow, living with a horrible past and feeling like nobody believes them.

We’ve come a long way in the way we investigate and prosecute child sexual abuse.  If the Woody Allen case was investigated today, the outcome may have been completely different.  Given what we know, Dylan Farrow may have gotten justice.

This article was originally published at QuadCityPad’s Musings.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • mark pursel

    In an attempt to expose, confront, and stop DCFS abuse I have started the Liberty Scraps channel youtube. I will be seeking out and posting videos that highlight the fight against DCFS / CPS corruption. We must fight and scrap to maintain, preserve, and expand upon the few scraps of liberty our current police state allows.

    I am a 21 year police veteran and current police detective that has actively investigated hundreds of child abuse cases. I am also a victim of DCFS corruption. I offer the following advice: Do not ever speak to DCFS…When they come to your home, step outside and close the door behind you…Collect their business card and listen to the allegation against you…Then exert your right to reman silent and do so…Do not answer ANY questions. Do not allow them into your home. Do not allow them to see or interview your children. Do not sign anything. Do not provide them with ANY information about your children or family. If you have time, record the at the door encounter. If your children are old enough, teach them how to exercise their right to remain silent; children should exercise their right to remain silent if interviewed at school or if DCFS comes back to your home with an investigative warrant (school interviews can be avoided by home schooling your children). Any investigative warrant obtained solely on an uncorroborated anonymous allegation to the DCFS hotline is illegal; you should seek an attorney to file a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 if DCFS serves an illegal warrant on your home.

  • lizzy benjamin

    Hello I am lizzy , am out here to spread this good news to the entire world on how I got my ex husband back.I was going crazy when my husband left me and my two kids for another woman last month, But when i met a friend that introduced me to DR Agbalagba the great messenger to the oracle of DR Agbalagba healing home,I narrated my problem to DR Agbalagba about how my ex Husband left me and my two kids and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,24 hours later,My Ex Husband called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me and the kids before now and one week after my Husband called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in a very big company here in IRELAND were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact DR Agbalagba on his personal email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on: agbalagbatemple@yahoo.com and your problem will be solve…………………….

  • CrosbyTee

    Mia Farrow is a very messed up woman both mentally and emotionally so it should not be difficult to consider the possibility that she manipulated Dylan into thinking she was abused.

  • Ted Smith

    I agree that although we don’t want to talk or think about things like this happening, we can’t ignore it. It is really unfortunate that things like this happen. I suppose the way we can fight this is to not do it, and if we see someone else doing it, then report it.

    http://www.jpinvestigations.com/child-custody-investigation/

  • sandra martins

    GREAT MAN WHO HELP ME GET MY EX HUSBAND BACK

    I never use to believe in spell casting until i met Dr wellborn a powerful spell caster who helped me to be a happy person again. My name is Sandra martins and i reside in CANADA. After 3 years of Broken marriage, my husband left me with three kids. I felt like my life was about to end and i almost committed suicide, i was emotionally down for a very long time. Thanks to a Great spell caster called Dr wellborn which i met online on one faithful day when I was browsing CANADA Athrough the internet, i came across a lot of testimonies about this particular Great spell caster how he has helped so many people. he has helped people to bring back their Ex lover, some testified that he restores womb, cure cancer and other sickness, and so on. I also came across a testimony, it was about a woman called Amanda, she testified about how his spell made her to be pregnant after so many years of bareness and at the end of her testimony she dropped Dr wellborn email address. After reading all these, i decided to give it a try and i contacted him and explained my problem to him and he assured me that in less than 48 hours, my husband will call me and beg for forgiveness but i thought it will not work. When he had finished casting the spell, the next day my husband called me and he was begging for forgiveness just as Dr wellborn said. This is not brain washing and after the spell has been cast, i realized that my husband love me like never before and the spell caster opened him up to know how much i love him and how much love we need to share. We are even happier now than before. Dr wellborn is really a gifted man and i will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man. If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and a genuine spell caster to solve all your problems contact Dr wellborn now on wellbornspelltemple@gmail.com he will help you solve your problems. Once again thank you Dr wellborn for your good deeds.

    Sandra martins _CANADA

  • Vera Morgan

    I have just found the right one and the greatest spell caster on earth who has brought back my happiness and turned my world around by helping me get my ex partner and helped me get back my life cause i was totally frustrated after 6years of hardship and pain, a friend of mine buzz me on my email saying i should cheer up cause solution has come. At first i was like what are you saying, then she mentioned the name ‘EBOEHI’ and i must thank my savior Great DR EBOEHI who has play a very vital part of my life making me a great person and the most happiest person today you are a great man who is bless by powers with traditional healing spell caster, after Great DR EBOEHI has help me get my ex back he also help me recover what i have lost in past years i must thank him (Great DR EBOEHI) the life he has restored back for me and my happiness. Now i am doing well in my work and also with my partner, Great DR EBOEHI is a very great spell caster you need to know just meet him and with your problem and it will be over.. Email him via: (supernaturalspelltemple@gmail.com)

  • Vera Morgan

    i have to keep you updated because I’m simply AMAZED at the results of the spell you performed for me in getting my partner back to me in good health. Everything is going so well and EXACTLY how you said it would be. Even though it took a little time to fully progress, it was so worth it because things are just about at perfection! How you took my situation and completely turned it around to give me exactly what I wanted is beyond me, but something I will never question and just be completely grateful for me coming across you. God Bless you for helping so many people get what their heart desires. You truly gifted! you can also contact him for help as well (arigbospelltemple@gmail.com)

  • Vera Morgan

    I have just found the right one and the greatest spell caster on earth who has brought back my happiness and turned my world around by helping me get my ex partner and helped me get back my life cause i was totally frustrated after 6years of hardship and pain, a friend of mine buzz me on my email saying i should cheer up cause solution has come. At first i was like what are you saying, then she mentioned the name ‘EBOEHI’ and i must thank my savior Great DR EBOEHI who has play a very vital part of my life making me a great person and the most happiest person today you are a great man who is bless by powers with traditional healing spell caster, after Great DR EBOEHI has help me get my ex back he also help me recover what i have lost in past years i must thank him (Great DR EBOEHI) the life he has restored back for me and my happiness. Now i am doing well in my work and also with my partner, Great DR EBOEHI is a very great spell caster you need to know just meet him and with your problem and it will be over.. Email him via: (supernaturalspelltemple@gmail.com)

  • Christina Ignatiou

    It would be natural for a mother to question the other children, upon discovering the relationship with one of them. A mother who knows her child can detect the truth and whether or not her child has been abused. She will sense this not only through what the chid says but also what they do.

  • http://radicalfeministforlife.tumblr.com/ Wharves of Sorrow

    I hope Woody Allen dies soon. What a waste of skin.

  • nancy Alfred

    I am Mrs Nancy Alfred from Philippines . i was married to my husband, i love him so much we have been married for 9years now with two kids. when he went for a vacation he meant a lady called Jane , he told me that he is no longer interested in the marriage any more. i was so confuse and seeking for help, i don’t know what to do until I met my friend miss Mangmang and introduce me to a man called Esango Priest who cast a spell on her ex and bring him back to her after 3days. Miss Mangmang ask me to contact Esango Priest . I contacted him to help me bring back my husband . After three day my husband called and told me he is coming back to sought out things with me, Right now I am the happiest woman on earth for what this great spell caster did for me and my husband, you can contact Esango Priest on any problem in this world, he is very nice, here is his contact Email esangopriest@gmail.com He is the best spell caster

  • nancy Alfred

    HELLO to my friends out there i am testifying about the good work of a man who help me it has been hell from the day my husband left me i am a woman with two kids my problem stated when the father of my kids travel i never help he was living but as at two weeks i did not set my eye on my husband i try calling but he was not taken my call some week he call me telling me that he has found love some where easy at first i never take to be serous but day after he came to the house to pick his things that was the time i notice that things is going bad i help he will come back but things was going bad day by day i needed to talk to someone about it so i went to his friend but there was no help so i give it up on him month later i met on the the internet a spell caster i never believe on this but i needed my men back so i gave the spell caster my problem at first i never trusted him so i was just doing it for doing sake but after three day my husband called me telling me that he his coming home i still do not believe but as at the six day the father to my kids came to the house asking me to for give him the spell work to said to my self from that day i was happy with my family thanks to the esango priest of (abamieghe)esango priest he his a great man you need to try him you can as well to tell him your problem so that he can be of help to you his content email is this esangopriest@gmail.com indeed you are a priest thank you for making my home a happy home again. remember his email is esangopriest@gmail.com

  • keith

    Allen chose a mildly retarded ,ugly asian girl at the peak of her fertility over mia who was on the cusp of menopause. Never seen so much rage from bitter old hags

    • taryn

      Soon Yi wasn’t mildly retarded. She was severely abused as a child and spoke nothing but gibberish when she was found. She is probably average intelligence as far as I can tell (watch Wild Man Blues on youtube). The written statements she gave at the time are not something I can believe she wrote in her own words, but she was just a kid that was severely abused and had to learn language far later than most people.

  • keith

    Allen liked 17 yr olds not seven yr olds. He allowed the police to see all his therapists notes. He was in therapy all his life. With the evidence so strong in his favour it is truly disgusting that this witchhunt continues. Put mia ronan and dylin in jail.

  • AnnaLynn25

    My only problem with this article is that I am always reading from Mia’s supporters that the Yale-New Haven team never actually interviewed Dylan. If this is the case then it blows the whole, “…idea of a team of 3 doctors interviewing a frightened 7 year old
    child individually or as a group over 6 months is reprehensible” out of the water. Can anyone confirm whether or not Dylan was interviewed by Yale New Haven or did they just conduct an investigation?

    • taryn

      No, she was interviewed many, many times. This is too bad, it’s not done today as we know a lot more about how to investigate these accusations than we did back in the 90s. What that might have referred to the fact that the Dr. Leventhal, the member who gave the deposition but never took the stand, never interviewed Dylan. A former SUNY law professor’s (McCann) view on the case:

      Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology

      By Charles Patrick Ewing, Joseph T. McCann

      However, the most damaging critique of the Yale-New Haven study was the fact that the original notes from the interviews and meetings had been destroyed and could not be examined to test the validity of the report’s conclusions. The destroying of raw interview notes is a major concern. Most agreed-upon ethical and professional standards for conducting forensic mental health evaluations call for experts to outline the basis for their opinions- which often include findings from interviews- and to preserve their records for examination later in the legal process. When a case is referred for a forensic evaluation, the experts must know that there is a strong possibility their records, opinions, and conclusions will be closely scrutinized in court. As such, forensic experts have an obligation to preserve their notes and records for later review.

      Since Meltzer and Herman were hired by attorneys for Allen and Farrow, respectively, it is understandable that they had divergent opinions about the quality of the Yale-New Haven examination and report in the case. What is more intriguing, however, is why the mental health professionals who actually examined Allen and his daughter and wrote the report did not testify at the child custody trial before Judge Wilk. In his final decision in the case, Judge Wilk noted that the members of the evaluation team were unwilling to testify, although the clinician leading the team gave testimony at a deposition. It remains unclear why the clinicians who performed the direct evaluation of the sexual abuse allegation were unwilling to testify, given the fact that they accepted the task of performing an examination where it was almost certain that they would be asked to testify in court. What is even less clear is the reason that members of the team were not subpoenaed by Allen’s attorney. One could speculate that because the child-custody trial took place in New York State and the experts were located in Connecticut, there may have been questions about jurisdiction. Still, the fact that the experts were not willing to testify, along with the fact that they had destroyed their notes, led Judge Wilk to view their conclusion with skepticism. He said in his final decision in the case that these factors, “compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.”

      • AnnaLynn25

        Thank you for the information. So much has been said about this case that a lot of the issues remain questionable on both sides. I’ve been blogging about this story and find it unfortunate altogether. I mostly sympathize with Dylan because no matter what side anyone takes it is a bum deal for her. In the end I hope there is some sort of resolution so everyone can move on – whatever that may be.

        • taryn

          Sure. The Yale team also said Dylan’s behavior was psychotic, based on erroneous info. (Sorry, I don’t have the source info for this at the moment, copied/pasted it and forgot to include the newspaper source. It’s a legit source, newspaper article, probably Associated Press)

          I’ll find the source and come back and include it later. Including this in the final report, describing Dylan’s behavior as psychotic based on an error is pretty appalling.

          Here is the relevant info:

          He cited as a “glaring error” the reports mention of Dylan’s psychotic behavior, citing a statement by the child’s psychologist, Nancy Shultz. Shultz denied ever saying that, yet “in the Yale report, it’s given as historical fact.”

        • taryn

          The Psychology Today comment section has interesting posts IMO from someone with a background in this. I would never copy and paste someones comments but if you want read what she wrote, look for Kelly Snyder, PhD here:

          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-inc/201402/woody-guilty-or-not/comments

  • Libtardsworstenemy

    Well, at least we have another biased opinion… completely ignoring all the facts and going by what they WANT to have happen, rather than what did happen… it is sad to see, but ridiculous statements like this “Given what we know, Dylan Farrow may have gotten justice” just irritates the living hell out of me..

  • GreggyMark

    All I need to know about the case is that their nanny, Monica Johnson, quit over pressure from Mia who wanted her to lie about the case. And the other son. Moses, who said the abuse didn’t happen, that Dylan was excited to see her father, until Mia started saying bad things and that she “brainwashed” the kids. Case closed.

  • Cjr Udek

    If you want to see something sick and twisted, google the following:

    “Mia Farrow” “Valentine’s Day Card”

    That’s from the woman who raised Dylan Farrow. It’s a wonder Dylan isn’t locked up in a psychiatric ward today.

  • Cjr Udek

    Patrick Perion writes, “People seem willing to give Woody Allen the benefit of the doubt, and that is certainly their right.”

    No, Patrick. That is certainly HIS right. If we do not give accused persons the benefit of the doubt, we do our entire society a disservice.

    In this article, Patrick paints a picture that Dylan Farrow *could* be telling the truth. Yes, that’s true. But that also means that Dylan *could* be telling a lie or relaying false memories. I await the author’s (or ANYONE’s) proof that that’s not the case.

    The case in favor of Woody Allen is far stronger than the case for Dylan Farrow. Those who investigated the case made that determination, and that’s why there was no trial despite the presumption of guilt that usually exists in child molestation cases.

  • Sophie

    Patrick, I would hope that it also the case that women interview children who are female? I would have thought this would now be obvious? I’m not sure, as I don’t live in America, but in Australia, female victims of sexual abuse, or alleged female victims of sexual abuse, (regardless of age) are always interviewed by female police officers, female social workers, and female sex abuse ‘experts’. Isn’t it obvious that a little girl who has (or may have) been sexually abused by a man, is not likely to want to open up to a strange male?

    • taryn

      Yes, they were both female. The male member gave the deposition but did not testify in the trial. He never interviewed Dylan. (Dr Leventhal)

      None of the Yale team, one man and two women, would agree to appear in the trial.

  • Jill Friedman

    What I don’t get is how anyone can believe that Moses could be a reliable witness as to what happened to Dylan, that day or any other day. Certainly his statement that he never saw Woody abuse his sister, and that he does not recall her being afraid or hiding from him would never be considered relevant in an investigation. He has no way of knowing one way or another what happened when he wasn’t in the same room with them. Plus he was a kid, involved in his own life, not observing and interpreting interactions between his father and sister. In fact, his statement of absolute confidence that he knows for sure makes him less credible to me.

    • taryn

      What he said is that “they were all in public rooms” so he doesn’t say he was in the same room exactly. I sure never paid attention to where my younger siblings were when I was 14, unless I was the only person responsible for them.

  • Liliana

    Excellent article. unfortunately there are a lot of people like Mr. Allen without any remorse.

  • Lilly

    It wasn’t just that there was no sign of trauma. It said she was “intact” meaning, I assume, still a virgin.

    • JR

      You can’t tell if someone is a virgin by examining them.

      The hymen does not “pop” or “break” – it’s a ring of skin that is flexible and stretchable. It’s actually muscles around the vaginal opening that create a feeling of tightness, not the hymen at all.

      The hymen does change after childbirth, but it may not have any noticeable changes from sex.

  • Dago T

    Replace “Paterno” for “Allen” all my fellow libbies, and see if you come to the same knee-jerk conclusions you came to a few years ago. Have fun!

  • Bob

    Oh and one more thing… As for the “inappropriate” behavior between Allen and Dylan before the alleged abuse, it was “inappropriate” in that he focused on her to the exclusion of her siblings. The siblings other than Satchel (who by all accounts Farrow kept away from Allen) and Moses (who did spend time with Allen) were not Allen’s children. They had a father, Andre Previn. It makes perfect sense that when Allen was visiting with *his* children, his attention would be focused on *his* children and not on Andre Previns.

    Moreover, Farrow’s claims here are totally inconsistent. On the one hand she wanted to keep Allen away from Satchel and separate him from Dylan. On the other, she wanted a cohesive family unit that included Allen as well as the Previn children, and therefore complained that Allen did not focus attention on the Previn children. Indeed, the reason Allen spent time with Soon-Yi at all is that, according to Mia, she asked him to.

    Here is an alternative theory: Mia Farrow is a deeply narcissistic person who has adopted so many children in order to satisfy her own needs. She wanted the family to cohere in a way that disregarded the complexity of it, but when an actual emotional relationship developed between Allen and Dylan, Farrow was threatened by it. Put into perspective the degree of her rage at the discovery of the Soon-Yi relationship: Her anger was directed at him, but the romantic part of their relationship had largely ended five years earlier, and she’d apparently (unbeknownst to Allen) never been monogamously involved with him. Taking that into account, the ferocity of her anger reveals a disturbed personality.

    • lena mcfarland

      Here’s an alternative theory:

      There was no big custody battle.

      Mia Farrow was always going to be the primary parent. The children lived with her, not with Allen. As the custody ruling showed, Allen was a disinterested parent at best who didn’t know the names of any of the children’s teachers or what rooms they slept in or their favorite breakfast cereals. Mia Farrow was never going to lose custody to Woody Allen. And when Woody Allen and Soon-Yi first set up house together, did they (did she) really want her siblings/his children underfoot? I doubt it.

      Here’s an alternative theory that makes sense given the timing and Allen’s decision to have sex with/marry Soon-Yi. Maybe the “custody battle” only was a result of Woody Allen’s take-no-prisoners “best defense is a good defense” response to the allegation of sexual abuse.

      Maybe if there had been no sexual abuse allegation, Allen would never have filed for custody (he didn’t sue for custody until AFTER Dylan told her story to the pediatrician).

      So the idea that the “custody battle” was a reason for making up this molestation charge might not make sense. There was no custody battle until after the allegation.

      Woody Allen is a narcissist who had sexual fantasies about at least of his girl children. Why not a second one?

      • Libtardsworstenemy

        “Woody Allen is a narcissist who had sexual fantasies about at least of his girl children. Why not a second one?”

        Makes perfect sense. Men, in general that are attracted to 19-year automatically are sexually attracted to 7-year old girls. The stretch is not that long It’s pretty much the same thing. There is really no difference. I expect that women also see 7 year-old boys in the same sexual way they see 19-year-old boys… you just make absolute sense.

        With respect to the Allen v. Farrow case, it would require us to just ignore all the facts and pretend something we want to happen, happened, but then again, why not. Who cares about facts when you can have tabloid journalism.

        • lena mcfarland

          Woody Allen knew Soon-Yi when she was eight. He didn’t meet her for the first time when she was 18. When was Allen first sexually attracted to Soon-Yi? Do you know? Does it make sense to claim that you know?

          If his sexual interest in Soon-Yi was born, out of nowhere, for the first time on her 18th birthday or shortly thereafter, then your comment makes perfect sense. Sort of.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Well, I suggest you read the timeline and facts of the case. Woody was encouraged to hang out with her by Mia when she was 19 which eventually led to them falling in love.

          • lena mcfarland

            The only “fact” about your timeline comes from a guy accused by one daughter of sexual molestation at age seven.

            I don’t know what age Soon-Yi was when Woody Allen started having sexual fantasies about her, let alone fell in love with her. There aren’t many men who fall in love with their daughter’s sisters when they turn 19, so we don’t have many witnesses about when Allen fell in love, other than Woody Allen.

            You can choose to believe him about that timeline, but like I said before, he has lied about several “facts” about the sexual molestation allegation with Dylan Farrow, so I consider him to be a less than reliable witness of anything when it comes to daughter figures and sexual behavior. And if you think Soon-Yi is the perfect witness, she put out a P.R. statement through Woody Allen’s publicist shortly after they got together saying that she had never considered Allen a father figure. Did Soon-Yi write this statement on her own? Did Allen’s publicist help her? If you don’t have information, then you’re just spreading hearsay. My question is whether or not Soon-Yi considered Allen a father figure, why did he not consider her a daughter figure since he’d known her since she was ten and took trips with her mother to Europe where she was one of the children and he was one of the adults. He dated Mia Farrow for over a decade and knew Soon-Yi as a child. So why wasn’t she a daughter figure to him? Was Dylan figure a daughter figure to him, or someone that he could see himself (at age 19? 18?) falling in love with?

            So many questions. So few answers.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Again, explain, like I am 2 years old and that you REALLY need to convince me, why Mia wanted to continue making films with this “sexual predator” after she found out?

            Regarding the rest, you clearly have not read the documents from the court, but PLEASE answer my question.

          • keith

            Mia said had no interest in soon yi until she was 21. You seem to think being attracted to 21 yr old is the same as being attracted tro 7 yr old.
            Perhaps you are a ped if you can’t see the difference

        • lena mcfarland

          By the way, here are facts you have to ignore in order to believe Allen: he lied about passing a lie detector test. Or he passed one, but it was given by his own people and not by the D.A. (he refused to take one offered by the D.A.). He lied about Mia Farrow refusing to take a lie detector test. She was never accused of anything (by the D.A.–of course she was accused of many things by Allen) and therefore never offered one.

          He lied about not being in the attic where Dylan said he had sexually assaulted her. He said he was too claustrophobic to ever enter that space and then, after his hair was discovered where Dylan claimed he had sexually assaulted her, he thought he might have stuck his head in once or twice. The D.A. found him not very credible on this point.

          Allen lied about there being a custody battle before Dylan made her accusation. He was not in the middle of a custody battle on the day he visited Dylan at Farrow’s place. He only filed for custody after he was accused of sexually molesting Dylan.

          If Allen is the innocent man accused here, why does has he needed to make these little fabrications to make his case? Can’t Allen rely on the facts (true fact that is, not fabricated ones by himself or his defenders) alone to exonerate him?

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Let’s assume all that is true. Explain, like I am 2 years old and that you REALLY need to convince me, why Mia wanted to continue making films with this “sexual predator” after she found out?

            You do realize that there was NEVER any case against Woody for sexual molestation, so making statements like “the D.A. found him not very credible on this point” is highly irresponsible.

            “He was not in the middle of a custody battle on the day he visited Dylan at Farrow’s place.” Yes he was. Why don’t you learn the FACTS of the case. The custody battle had been going on for months before the legal case was filed. You do realize custody battles can take place outside of court between individuals, lawyers, arbitrators etc?

            Actually you are the one that is making fabrications here, but I really have little time to refute everything you wrote. Just answer my first question so I believe it…

          • lena mcfarland

            I haven’t made a single fabrication.

            There was an investigation of whether or not Allen molested his daughter Dylan. The D.A. said he did not bring the case forward due to concern over Dylan Farrow’s well being. There certainly was an investigation.

            It would be a fabrication to suggest that there was no investigation at all.

            Next, Mia Farrow was not a perfect person or a perfect mother. Ironically the judge said that her worst decisions in parenting had to do with her decision to stay with Woody Allen. So Farrow’s bad parenting decisions do nothing to prove or disprove Allen’s guilt. It’s not a zero sum game between parents. A child is more likely to be abused when both of the parents are seriously flawed. Farrow was flawed in her decision to continue with Allen even when she thought his single-minded attention toward Dylan was inappropriate enough to bring it up with his therapist. This was long before Allen got together with Soon-Yi, and before there was any custody disagreement.

            Are you also aware that three adults in the household who supported Dylan Farrow’s testimony of abuse? They noticed she and Allen were missing for twenty or thirty minutes, one woman saw Allen with his face in Dylan’s lap, and noticed that Dylan was not wearing any underwear.

            It’s not a he said/she said case. It is a she said (Dylan), she said, she said, she said (adult women including babysitters and a tutor), he said. And the D.A. found Allen not credible for telling lies about not being in the attic at all because of his claustrophobia even though a hair sample of his was found there later.

            It’s Woody Allen who continues to fabricate facts to support his innocence. He was in the attic around the timeframe indicated, and there were three adult witnesses and one child witness that supported the child’s story of molestation that happened on the day he said he couldn’t possibly have done this terrible thing.

            I think Allen lives with himself by staying in a state of permanent denial. It doesn’t mean that he’s telling the truth to himself or to others. I believe Dylan Farrow because she has little to gain and a lot to lose by telling the truth. And because three adult women supported her story when it occurred. Dylan Farrow is an adult now and she was seven at the time of the allegation. Seven is old enough to know yourself what happened. And she has been telling a consistent story for decades now. Unlike her father who changes stories when it suits him, such as claiming Mia Farrow refused a lie detector test. She was never offered one by the D.A. so that’s simply a lie.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            I am still waiting for an answer to my question that I would believe. Explain, like I am 2 years old and that you REALLY need to convince me, why Mia wanted to continue making films with this “sexual predator” after she found out?

            I am not gonna go back and forth on the facts of the case, which you don’t have, because clearly you haven’t read the court documents.

            Your believing Dylan is just based on absolute NOTHING other than WANTING to believe it and ignores all the evidence to the contrary, like the 6-month investigation that found NO molestation took place. The medical doctors found NO evidence of molestation. Allen has continued to adopt children without issue. He was never prosecuted for this. But I don’t wanna argue over that. I want YOU to answer my above question. “bad decision” is not an answer in this case.

            If you think for a single minute that this is the first time a woman has brought up FALSE allegations of abuse to gain custody or to smear her husband.boyfriend, you need to check history.

            One more question. “There certainly was an investigation.” What about that investigation for 6 months did you find was not believable. I.e. what do you KNOW that would contract their findings?

          • lena mcfarland

            I’m not going to debate someone who names himself “libtard’sworstenemy” and proceeds to present a flawed defense of Woody Allen.

            You simply refuse to acknowledge the points I’ve made. Mia Farrow being a bad parent doesn’t say anything about whether or not Woody Allen is guilty or not. If Mia Farrow was a better parent, it’s unlikely that she would have stayed with allen as long as she did.

            You do not mention that the six month investigation was found to be flawed by the D.A. involved with the dispute. Why is that? And you do not mention the testimony of three adult women in the house who supported Dylan Farrow’s story, why is that? And you do not mention the fact that Woody Allen lied about not being in the attic at all during that timeframe, and lied about taking a lie detector from the D.A. (he took a lie detection test from his own legal team instead) and he lied about Mia Farrow refusing to take a lie detector test. Why are you mentioning none of this in your Allen defense?

            Since you aren’t reading what I’m typing anyway, I might as well save my fingers the extra work it takes to type. You certainly have an answer that satisfies you, and I guess that’s enough for you to overlook every piece of evidence that does not support your conclusion.

            There’s no paper trail to prove that Allen wanted sole custody of the children before Dylan’s story of sexual molestation. He filed papers AFTER, not Before he was accused of abuse. There’s nothing to suggest that Allen actually wanted custody–meaning the judge found that in addition to molestation allegations, Allen had no knowledge about his children’s favorite breakfast cereal, their teachers, which bedrooms they slept in, who their friends are. This is not the way a parent normally acts who wants custody. If a parent wants custody, male or female, at least they usually know their children. They know their children’s teacher’s names. They know which bedrooms their children sleep in. To have no such knowledge is definitely not going to help you to prove yourself fit as a parent. It’s also unusual that not only did Woody Allen lose custody to Mia Farrow, he was also asked to pay all of her legal bills. Again, this is not normally how this sort of thing goes. Especially for someone with Allen’s wealth and clout.

            I think it’s unlikely that Allen ever wanted sole custody of his children. I think it’s likely that Allen only filed for custody in order to say that Mia Farrow made the whole thing up because she was a bitter lover seeking revenge etc. Did Allen really think that he and Soon-Yi would have custody of the rest of Soon-Yi’s siblings after they got together? What an odd fantasy that would have been.

            I think Allen never wanted custody. I think he used custody as an alibi when he had no other against the four females (not including Mia Farrow) who would have testified against him.

            I’m not answering anything further though so type whatever you wish. I doubt that you will ever stray from your conclusion that Allen is wrongly accused. You’re overlooking a lot of evidence he’s guilty, but that’s your affair, not mine.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            “I’m not going to debate someone who names himself “libtard’sworstenemy” and proceeds to present a flawed defense of Woody Allen.”

            And yet you go on to debate me ad nauseum. If you are not gonna answer me, then let’s end this now. I already told you I assume everything you write is true, so just answer me that one question. Constantly reiterating the same points over and over doesn’t negate the fact that I am still waiting for an answer. We both know why you won’t answer, because that little nugget of a fact that Mia wanted to continue working with Woody AFTER she found out he had an affair with Soon-Yi and his alleged molestation suggest only one thing: That Mia didn’t care that much about his affair AND she didn’t believe the molestation charges, which makes sense since she was the one that made them up. But I want you to explain otherwise so I can believe it.

          • lena mcfarland

            Ad nauseum you refuse to acknowledge anything I typed. You didn’t answer my questions, while I did answer yours more than once. Mia went on to make films with Allen because she’s a flawed person. And denial is usually a state that more than one person lives in where there is any sort of child abuse.

            Got it?

            Mia Farrow’s flaws do not equal Allen’s innocence. An adult Dylan Farrow claim’s Allen’s guilt. Why do you insist on bringing up Dylan Farrow’s mother at this point? And why don’t you just say you don’t like my answer instead of saying I haven’t answered you? Meanwhile you’ve answered not a single one of my questions.

            You’ve answered your own question to your own satisfaction so clearly you’re wasting your own time in asking me questions that I do not answer in the same way that you do.

            This is definitely not a debate. I’m simply typing what is true to me. I have no evidence so far that you have a capacity for listening.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            “Mia went on to make films with Allen because she’s a flawed person”

            Sorry, don’t buy it for one second. Also, Mia didn’t go on to make films with him. And if she is so flawed, maybe so flawed she would fabricate a molestation story to get back at the man she hated?

            Second, couple that with a 6-month investigation that found the allegations untrue. The medical doctor found them to be untrue. No charges were files. And you can make excuses all day for that, but those facts remain, so your belief in just fantasy.

            Why do YOU ignore the findings of the 6-month investigation? What did they do you didn’t think was enough? Why do YOU ignore their findings that Dylan did not see the difference between fantasy and reality?

            I asked you ONE question. I didn’t ask for a rehashing of the talking points on the web against Woody. I really COULD spend time going point by point, but I am not interested quite frankly. There was an investigation by the Connecticut authorities that found NO molestation occurred. You or anyone else who disagree with that is living in a fantasy. Deal with it.

          • lena mcfarland

            That investigation was found flawed by the judge who oversaw the custody dispute. I agree with the judge that the study was flawed. Their notes disappeared as to why they reached their conclusions.

            As I’ve stated before, I agree with the judge that the study you refer to was flawed.

            ” I really COULD spend time going point by point”

            No, I doubt that you could. That would be debating. And you’re not interested in a debate. You’re interested in repeating your points while ignoring my points. The fact that the judge involved found that study to be flawed means nothing to you, I suppose.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Well, the judge was an idiot. Sorry even the 3-judge penal at the appellate court said that he was wrong about the investigation. But a flawed investigation, assuming you and the judge are right, does NOT mean the conclusion was wrong – that there was no molestation.

            And no, I can’t have a debate with someone who already made up their mind based on EMOTIONS and ignoring the facts of the case.

          • hendl

            I read the Family Court Judge’s decision, and BOTH decisions of the courts it was appealed to. SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE any of the appeals court showed where the first Judges decision was wrong. Quote the part of the decision to me. The first Judge was NOT an idiot. PLUS- the standard used by a Judge in criminal matters is much higher than used by a judge in civil matters. And Family court Judges almost NEVER find that a parent gets NO visitation whatsoever. And both Appeals courts agreed with him! once again, I don’t know whether Woody abused her. But I know these decisions and what they say.
            Also, you are quote emotional yourself in your responses. We All Are.

          • keith

            Allen was being punished for what he did with soon yi. Clearly allen has a normal sex drive if he would give up family and reputation to be with girl he loves. Allen was a normal horny guy doing what any other guy would do if he had the money. Men stay with their hag wives because they don’t want to lose half their assets and live in poverty.

          • hendl

            Keith – My gosh – what happened to you? I am truly sorry, because it is obvious some woman(en) really traumatized you. Please get some help -

          • keith

            I get the feeling you know allen is not a pedophile but you think he deserves punishment for not staying chained to mia the hag. It is not the mans fault that women turn
            Into hags at 30 while men get young girls even at 80.

          • hendl

            Well, Keith you are just proving more and more re: how hurt you have been. If you had Bothered to read what I have written, I have said countless times that I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER ALLEN ABUSED DYLAN. I think, more and more, that you were married, that your ex became ‘ugly’ as you call it, and mistreated you, hurting you badly. so sorry.

          • lena mcfarland

            Also a medical doctor did not find the allegations to be “untrue.”

            That’s a patently false statement.

            When you examine the vagina of a child who has been penetrated by fingers, which was the allegation, there is rarely physical evidence.

            You can say that the doctor did not find physical evidence of abuse, but it’s dishonest to claim the doctor “found them to be untrue.”

            That sort of fabrications does Woody Allen no favors whether it’s him saying it or his defenders.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Do you understand the concept of INNOCENT until proven guilty? Apparently not, because you have already guilty before ANY shred of evidence to the contrary. Woody does NOT have to prove his innocence as you keep alluding to. The Prosecutor has to prove guilt, and since there never was a case against him, he is innocent. You don’t like that, go move to North Korea.

            If the doctor didn’t find any evidence, that means the allegations cannot be found true, thus under our legal system Woody is innocent.. BWT, I just looked into this case about 2-3 weeks ago knowing really nothing about it, or having an opinion, but have found so much irresponsible people, like yourself, casting guilt on a person who was never charged and where the underlying investigation found him to be innocent. Quite frankly it is usually women that hold that opinion. Because they are usually at the mercy and abuse of men, so therefore any allegation against a man must be true because it is true in other cases. Rather repugnant if you ask me.

          • lena mcfarland

            There is no physical evidence when someone sticks their fingers into a vagina. Even if true, there isn’t physical evidence of that sort of molestation.

            Do you know how a vagina works? Maybe not. There would not be any physical evidence unless she was seriously cut or bruised.

            However, there was enough evidence that the molestation took place, according to the DA, to go to trial (evidence from three adult witnesses and from a hair sample in the attic from Woody Allen and from Dylan’s testimony) but because the D.A. didn’t want Dylan to suffer any more than she already had he decided not to bring the case forward.

            So legally Allen is innocent. So technically he doesn’t need you jumping around to defend him. But it’s nice for him that you’re willing to work for free. Carry on.

          • hendl

            1. Mia stopped making movies with Woody because: HE DIDN’T LET HER. He called Diane Keaton, and she agreed to ‘step into’ the parts that he had written for Mia in upcoming films.
            2. That expert investigation? The team was made up of three ‘experts’ TWO social workers and One medical doctor, who was a pediatrician. There was no psychiatrist or psychologist. The investigation went on for months, as you said. However the M. D. NEVER even interviewed Dylan or ANYONE. And No One else on the team EVER interviewed Mia or ANYONE who had said they had seen some possible abuse. AND – it was the M.D. who wrote the report – bizarre.
            As to an exam of her ‘vagina’ – sexual abuse can take MANY forms. AND the vagina can heal quickly. Also, if he had raped her by penetrating her vagina with a very small item – there would have been NO sign of rape.
            Look – I don’t know whether Woody did what some allege he did. BUT this ‘team’ is a joke. Also – in the time period in which this investigation went on – investigations of this kind were HIGHLY unsophisticated. This ‘report’ would never have been accepted today.
            Fortunately, the Judge in the Family Court case realized this. He gave their report little weight, noting that NOT one of the experts would testify at the hearing before him, that ALL of their notes supporting their conclusions in the report were destroyed, and that the author of the report had not interviewed even one person.
            SO – *I have answered some of your questions- so answer me this – WHY did none of them testify?
            why, ‘coincidently’ were their notes all destroyed? Why did the actual report author Never interview a single person cited in the report? And don’t bother responding with ‘You never read my email; You know nothing of the case; etc, etc. ‘ I’ll ignore any of that, as it deserves to be.

          • keith

            Why did she ask for 8 million to settle? Why did she allow pics of herself in woody tribute? Ronan is a faggot and dylan should be in psych ward

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            What are you telling me for?

          • keith

            I’m endorsing what u r saying. He is not a ped because he chases ladies with pubic hair so it really is unnecessary to argue this further.
            People should be sued for defamation at this point. I despise jews especially in entertainment but women are out of control.

          • hendl

            An anti-Semitic Sexist. Who hurt you SO badly in ur life that would say such UGLY things??

          • keith

            the truth is often ugly. Some of us have to be adults and see the world as it is not how you would like it. You r nothing more than an ignorant child.

          • hendl

            Once again Keith, PLEASE get some help. Your horrific generalizations about ALL women and all Jews, and all Gays, and others, has shown me how horrifically you have been hurt. It must be SO hard to spend your days in such pain. Please – get some help.

          • keith

            Not only are u intolerant of people with views contrary to your own but you actually see it as a medical
            condition. Reminds me of stalin who p ut his opponents in psych hospitals

          • hendl

            YoU are very intolerant of others’ opinions. And yes, for your sake, you need to get help.

          • hendl

            Look, I don’t believe that either Allen or Farrow are candidates for ‘Parent of the Year’, by a long shot. That being said, she probably wanted to appear in that film for: MONEY. She had umpteen (I lost count) kids to support, along with nannies, maids, two big houses (NYC and CT), and on-and-on. She also was set on Revenge, and this money, and Woody having to act with her, would give her more revenge. BUT this still doesn’t mean that Dylan was not abused, OR that Woody did abuse her. Like I said, both of these ‘parents’ are not the greatest.

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Sorry, but I don’t accept the arguments by some that if there is no evidence to suggest something happen, it still could have happened. If someone claims to be form outer space and you can’t prove otherwise, doesn’t mean there is a chance they are from outer space. I believe in evidence. And in the instant case, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the allegations wee true. Not a scintilla of it. This is not the case where there was a trial over abuse and there was a ton of evidence to suggest the allegations were true, like in the OJ case. I accept the findings of the Connecticut authorities 6-month investigation. I simply don’t understand why others even question it.

          • taryn

            There are problems with the Yale New Haven study. I’ll list all of them with sources if you sincerely want to read them.

            What I don’t understand is why the same people who are aware of definitive cases of negligent investigation/false testimony in criminal trials like McMartin will dismiss all criticism of YNH.

            Associated Press
            (Sun Journal April 28 1993 Massachusetts)

            “one “glaring error”: the report made mention of Dylan’s psychotic behavior, citing a statement made by the child’s psychologist, Dr. Nancy Shultz. Although Shultz denied ever saying that “in the Yale report,” it’s given as historical fact,”

          • hendl

            So, exactly on WHAT date did this ‘custody’ battle begin, according to you? AND btw, just because their lawyers had discussed custody/visitation issues, doesn’t mean that they had a ‘battle’ going on. Just means ‘discussions/negotiations’. I’ve done them; I know.

          • taryn

            As far as the thing about 7 being different than 17, it is and it isn’t. I Exclusive pedophiles are only attracted to children, but nonexclusive pedophiles are also attracted women. (or boys and also men) That’s a misconception I definitely believed until I read up on it.

      • hendl

        Your idea is interesting, EXCEPT that when Woody lost the custody/visitation with Dylan battle, his lawyers appealed TWICE (losing each time). this is expensive, but maybe fits into your argument that he was into this for ‘how it looks to the public’.

      • taryn

        Yes, WA filed for custody after the molestation charges, not before. And his therapy with Dr Coates to modify his inappropriate behavior towards DF was years before Mia found out about Soon Yi.

      • taryn

        timeline:

        January 13, 1992 – Mia Farrow discovers that Allen is having an affair with Soon-Yi. They break up.

        August 4, 1992 – The alleged sexual molestation took place.

        August 6, 1992 – Woody Allen is informed of the allegations.

        August 13, 1992 – Allen files for sole custody of the three children.

        • lena mcfarland

          Actually the timeline, as you call it, began on a trip to Paris in 1987-1988 where Mia Farrow said that Woody Allen wouldn’t give Dylan any of her own space.

          According to court custody documents , “During a trip to Paris, when Dylan was between two and three years old,
          Ms. Farrow told Mr. Allen that ‘[y]ou look at her [Dylan] in a sexual
          way,’” according to the decision. “You fondled her. It’s not natural.
          You’re all over her. You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.” She was suspicious of Allen because he’d read to Dylan in bed while in his underwear and permitted “[Dylan] to suck on his thumb.”

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/10/inside-the-shocking-custody-case-court-documents-that-shed-light-on-the-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-saga.html

          This was years before there was an affair to Soon Yi to discover, and before there was a custody agreement regarding a break up. But the revised timeline you mention is definitely the one Allen is advocating for people to believe.

  • Bob

    This article is, seriously, garbage. The author’s description of the Yale team’s investigation and of the original complaint is completely wrong. It seems that the author read a few news reports, put 1/2 and 1/2 together, and got 5.

    A small dose of reality: The only evidence that Dylan was abused is her own statement, made when she was 7 years old. Two psychotherapists who had been seeing Dylan before the alleged molestation, and afterwards, concluded that no abuse occurred. Dylan was an emotionally disturbed child (in fact, it appears from the court decision that *every* child in the Farrow household was emotionally disturbed) who liked to make up stories and was overly protective of her mother. The Yale team concluded that no abuse occurred. Of the people who were present and old enough to remember when the abuse supposedly occurred, none (other than Dylan) says that it took place. The babysitter who was there says it didn’t happen, but that Mia Farrow tried to get her to lie about it. The only sibling old enough to remember says it didn’t happen.

    So the *only* evidence against Allen is the statement from Dylan, an emotionally disturbed child who liked to make up stories, who was overly protective of her mother, and who had been living for months in a house where (we know from Mia’s admitted conduct) rage against Allen over the relationship with Soon-Yi was a consistent undercurrent. Dylan did not, as the author claims, tell the story after a pediatrician-encouraged second visit. There is absolutely no dispute about the facts here: Without Dylan making any accusation, Mia took Dylan to a pediatrician to see if she had been abused and the answer was no; over the following 36 hours Mia videotaped Dylan claiming that she was abused; the tape has numerous cuts and breaks consistent with coaching by Mia; the following day Mia took Dylan to the pediatrician again and then Dylan repeated what was on the tape; trained investigators who interviewed Dylan outside of Mia’s presence concluded that her story was rehearsed. And Mia has admitted to perjuring herself during the custody case.

    As for the famous conclusion by the Connecticut prosecutor that he had “probable cause,” two points: 1) Probable cause is a legal term. It means there is enough evidence think a crime *might* have been committed. Dylan’s statement alone would be probable cause. The standard is minimal. 2) The prosecutor was seriously criticized and rebuked by Connecticut’s legal ethics board for having made the statement.

    This statement by the author: “In fact, the visits at the Farrow home would be the perfect time for Allen to abuse Dylan for the very reason that people think it was the worst possible time.” reveals all. The author comes from the school of investigation where any action by the subject of the investigation is evidence of guilt. If the incident supposedly took place at a time when there wouldn’t be witnesses, that’s consistent with the incident occurring. And if it supposedly took place at a time where there were lots of witnesses and it would be very hard to get away with it, that would be an even better time.

    G-d help anyone investigated by this author.

    • QuadCityPat

      Thanks for reading, and thanks for the critique. Sorry, I did not mean to characterize Allen’s visits to the home as evidence that he in fact did something, just that it’s not exculpatory either. Some child abusers do abuse children houses full of people, or YMCA’s or whatever. Weide tried to point out that Allen would have had to been on his best behavior. While this is true, its also true that some abusers would see this as a perfect opportunity.

      • taryn

        That you for the article. Do you know of any other similar cases to this one. Where an adult comes forward to say the accusations she made as a
        child are true?

    • Libtardsworstenemy

      I agree 100%. I think there is a general theme among people that help victims of abuse that all accused must be guilty because they see actual abuse daily. I see that some Farrow supporters have themselves been abused and they then apply what happened to them to what they want to have happened to Dylan.

      And don’t let the down votes bother you. It is usually from people who have no guts to confront the perfect good argument and set of facts you laid out.

    • hendl

      No. 2 is incorrect: “Abramowitz (Allen’s lawyer) lost two ethics complaints against the Connecticut prosecutor who found probable cause to arrest Allen.”

  • Melpub

    That Dylan Farrow was molested by Woody Allen, and that she did not get a bargain with either parent, seems clear. But her mother now wants to do the right thing–that is a huge support for her. There are mothers who say, “it only happened once,” or “it didn’t hurt you.” Mia Farrow made enormous mistakes leaving Dylan in the same house as Allen, but now she understands those mistakes and wants to help Dylan.
    http://www.thecriticalmom.com

  • Roby83

    Hateful mothers who ruin children by using them for false accusation must be prosecuted

  • JUSTinNow

    All I need to know about this case came from Woody himself in a 1976 interview with People magazine. The focus of the interview was on Woody’s life and personal viewpoint.

    Woody said:
    “I try to have sex only with women I like a lot,” Woody explains
    solemnly. “Otherwise I find it fairly mechanical.” (He has little
    interest in family life: “It’s no accomplishment to have or raise kids.
    Any fool can do it.”)

    He goes on: “I’m open-minded about sex. I’m not above reproach;
    if anything, I’m below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest
    with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always
    knew that about him.” Allen pauses. “Nothing I could come up with would
    surprise anyone,” he ventures helplessly. “I admit to it all.”

    • keith

      U have a low iq

  • rebeccagavin

    I, too, have investigated child abuse, though not for such a long period of time as the author. I have otherwise worked in child welfare for a total of 8 years, so I am very familiar with the process. I agree that the methods used at the time were atrocious, and that given what we now know, the investigation would have been entirely different. However, I would like to offer some observations of my own about Mr. Perion’s essay.

    Minor point, but for an investigator, I find it curious that Mr. Perion characterizes those who interviewed Dylan as 3 men…3 doctors. In reality, Dylan was interviewed by two women, once with a doctorate in social work and the other with a master’s degree in social work. Dr. Levanthal reportedly never actually spoke with Dylan. This may seem trivial, but as an investigator, it is important to get details correct, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that the investigation was driven by fact, and not emotion, and was thorough.

    I disagree with Mr. Perion’s dismissal of the argument that the unlikeliness of the time and place of the alleged molestation is a factor that suggests that molestation probably did not take place. I agree that for an experienced, serial pedophile, the heightened scrutiny, and the presence of so many people probably wouldn’t be a hindrance. However, to the best of anybody’s knowledge this was the first and only time Mr. Allen allegedly molested anyone. It seems to me to be a very odd time and place for a first time molestation, due to the high likelihood of being caught and the stakes for Mr. Allen if he were caught. Mr. Perion uses a stereotypical characterization of pedophiles as “charming”. In my experience, some pedophiles are charming and some are far from it. However, another often cited characteristic of pedophiles is that they rarely have only one victim. In this case we have the advantage of 20 years subsequent to the evaluation, and the fact that the alleged perpetrator is very well known, and the accusations were widely publicized. No other alleged victims, either before or after the alleged incident with Dylan, have ever come forward. However, no group of people is monolithic, not even child molesters.

    Mr. Perion doesn’t really address any of the other circumstances surrounding the accusation, he truly does seem to assume guilt based on Dylan’s statement. However, it has been reported that Mia Farrow long contended that Woody Allen had sexually inappropriate behaviors towards Dylan, to the extent that she had engaged a therapist to work with Woody and Dylan around that issue. I find that very bizarre. If you truly think that your significant other is sexually attracted to your child, you don’t initiate therapy while continuing to allow access. Not only that, but you don’t go on to have 2 more children with the person you suspect of having pedophilic tendancies, and then support that person’s adoption of the non-biological children. Yes, mothers have been known to inadvertently allow ongoing abuse because of denial, or financial dependence on the abuser. But by all accounts, Mia Farrow is an extremely sophisticated and well educated woman, who had more than one therapist involved with her family at the time. This incident allegedly occurred in the wake of the McMartin preschool allegations, when there was much higher awareness of child sexual abuse than ever before. If the therapist had any suspicion that grooming or abuse was taking place, she would have been mandated to report it. Furthermore, I have heard it claimed that Ms. Farrow told all babysitters to never leave Allen alone with Dylan. But given that this alleged molestation occurred 2 years after the revelation of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, I find it unconscionable that when Allen was coming to the house to visit his children, Ms. Farrow went shopping, instead of maintaining a protective and reassuring presence for Dylan. Also, if all babysitters were instructed not to leave them alone, how was it that one of them walked by and says they saw Allen’s head in Dylan’s lap. That is certainly not how supervised visitations are conducted.

    In my opinion, assuming all the information I have about the situation is true, I would have to say that if Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow, then Mia Farrow is a world class enabler, and I find it hard to understand why Dylan is so protective of her. It is perfectly obvious that if the alleged molestation took place, both parents failed her.

    The last thing I want to say is that, having worked in the field, I know that professionals are very invested in believing victims. After all, no one goes into that line of work with the intention of disproving children’s stories of abuse. However, I have observed this to become “knee jerk” assumptions on the part of the professionals, be they investigators, doctors, lawyers, or whatever. I am aware of a situation in a church where an attorney who had prosecuted child sexual abuse for many years, became aware that the minister had taken a group of boys, including his own son, on an uncahperoned camping trip. Even though none of the boys made any allegations, and, in fact, denied any wrong doing, the attorney, who was also a mother of children at the church, pressed the matter further and further, demanding that the minister be fired, and ultimately taking her family and leaving the congregation. I tell this story to illustrate that many years of dealing with the sick and inexplicable world of child abuse, can lead perfectly normal and competent professionals, to the point where they see the possibility of abuse when it is not there. Especially given the disgusting propensity for divorcing couples to fling around accusations, and involve the child welfare system and even family court in trying to parse out what really happened.

    None of what I say should be construed to mean that I think Dylan is lying. I simply do not know. What I do think is apparent, is that this family was incredibly dysfunctional. I don’t think it’s safe to take anybody’s word for what happened at this point, and it’s a crying shame that this has become such a public spectacle. I hope everyone involved has a good therapist.

    • QuadCityPat

      Thank you for reading and for your thorough and informative critique. I did have some inaccurate information about the 3 person interview team. You are correct, that it was an MD, a PhD and an MSW. The larger point, and I’m sorry I didn’t clarify this better in the piece, was that in my opinion, multiple interviews over 6 or 7 months is bad practice in today’s way of doing things. They were ultimately either reinforcing false memories which would harm Allen, or misreading true memories which would harm Farrow.

      Again thank you for your insight and thoughtful responses throughout the comments. I hadn’t got back to you before now, because I’ve been swamped with other things.

      It seems like you got out of Social Work and I’m a little envious. Thanks again and have a great day.

  • alex rater

    In light of these allegations, mr Allen’s adopted daughters need to be checked on by child protection agency to determine if they have been violated by him.

    • M.L.

      Really? You don’t think the adoption agencies and courts fully vetted Allen and Soon-Yi before they granted the adoptions?

      Why on earth would you want 2 girls with absolutely no indications of abuse to be dragged through an investigation? That would be truly detrimental to these girls who are probably suffering enough just dealing with the scandal that Mia, Ronan and Dylan have foisted upon them.

      • Libtardsworstenemy

        Because people are idiots and like to just make up stuff, mostly because they have personal feelings towards Woody, the same way people thought Michael jackson was weird so he must be a child molester.

    • Melpub

      Everyone’s concern should be those daughters. Watching a round table discussion of reporters, including Barbara Walters blibbering away about what a devoted father he looked like to her, I wondered where she gets the arrogance–or is it her lack of experience–to fail to perceive what kind of a man he is. Well, she’s the woman who complained about being uncomfortable sitting next to breastfeeding women on airplanes.

  • jonathantiersten

    Did you see the Valentine’s card? You don’t mention anything of Mia’s motivation. You make wild leaps of faith with regard to ‘all sex abusers’. I don’t know what your job is like (it must be awful) but to lump together and categorize seems like a bad investigative strategy. Mia has admitted to infidelity (Ronan’s birth father question). Moses Farrow (a social worker) has stated that Farrow is a pathological liar. I don’t discount Dylan’s story and Woody is definitely creepy sexually (just watch his movies), but he is being slandered publicly for something that was not and will not be prosecuted. Mia is hurting Dylan all over again and for what? Closure? Retribution? Attention? The real victim here is and always will be Dylan, regardless of how this ends up. I don’t see how her mother is looking out for her best interests.

  • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

    http://youtu.be/Ubt6weqJWM0 This is explosive.

    http://youtu.be/YQkb7vSW9mQ?t=22m55s Full discussion, Mia’s connections to the NYT is brought up.

    • lena mcfarland

      This seems like a guy getting paid by Woody Allen.

      • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

        Or perhaps you’re getting paid by Mia? It’s not like she hasn’t got connections, being once married to Ol’ Blue Eyes.

    • lena mcfarland

      This guy wants us to believe he is credible, but Dylan Farrow is not credible.
      It’s easier for me to trust the memory of a seven year old girl than it is for me to trust the reasoning skills of a t.v. sex abuse “expert.”

      The worst of his points are that there’s no physical evidence of the molestation. There usually is not. Putting your fingers in a vagina usually does not create a scar, sometimes even penetration leaves no scar. So the lack of physical evidence is not indicative of anything.

      Second, there were witnesses among the staff that Allen had his head in her lap, and that she was not wearing underwear, and that she was missing for 20 to 30 minutes that day with him. And he was questioned about the attic and said due to his claustrophobia he never would have entered there. After they found a hair sample of Allen’s, he claimed he might have stuck his head in once or twice…

      In other words, there is more evidence than her word to examine. And as for the custody battle, it’s a serious allegation to say that Mia Farrow would have told her daughter (falsely) that she was molested only for custody. Mia Farrow would have won custody anyway, without the Dylan allegation because of the Soon-Yi affair, as the actual custody agreement makes clear. Mia Farrow had no motivation to make up an allegation of sexual abuse because she was never in jeopardy of losing custody of her children to woody allen. no one has ever suggested that Allen wanted custody of the children–until after this allegation came out he sued for custody conveniently so he could claim there was a custody battle.

      But when he got together with Soon-Yi, did he really want to have his other children under foot (her siblings) while they were newly a couple? I doubt it.

      There was never a contentious custody battle. Woody Allen has never shown much interest in children. Dylan Farrow’s story didn’t change anything about the fact that Mia Farrow was always going to be the primary parent. Woody Allen had only formally adopted Dylan and Moses one or two years earlier. The custody ruling shows the many, many, many ways in which Allen was a disinterested parent at best (he didn’t know any of his children’s teacher’s names, bedrooms they slept in, breakfast cereals etc). The molestation charge didn’t change the outcome of the “custody battle.”

      The “custody battle” itself may have simply been a “best defense is a good offense” strategy to the charge of sexual abuse.

  • sarahbrave

    Vanity Fair has cleared up a lot of the bullcrap that is being blogged everywhere about the case. Please read the TEN FACTS about this case. Even the 33 page custody decision is now up. PLEASE STOP POSTING FALSEHOODS JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE READ THEM SOMEWHERE. Vanity Fair is well respected for accuracy and Woody Allen would sue the pants off them if they were not really TEN FACTS

    • Libtardsworstenemy

      “Woody Allen would sue the pants off them if they were not really TEN FACTS” You apparently don’t know much about anything. You mean sue now and having to prove he didn’t do it in a legal battle that can take years? Are you okay? I mean, seriously…

      But do explain why Mia Farrow wanted to continue making films with Woody after she allegedly believed he was child molester. Explain that to me…. so I believe you..

  • Xavier

    Then doesn’t that chalk up to a failure to prosecute, a negligence being that the accused would likely be a publicly noted figure and/or have the limelight for a number of years and having impact in the alleged victims life for some time. Yet, that was a different decade.

  • Keith Williams

    Just pointing out that the investigators were not three male doctors. Two of the investigators were female. I also have a problem with the fact that WA was never accused of any other molestation other than Dylan as far as I know. It is also apparent that Mia Farrow is a nut job and was even violent towards the children. It seems to me that she has coached Dylan and that she may in fact be the abuser.

  • Xavier

    Belief is subjective. Many articles come at this event with leaning to one side or the other, few with objective details and relating the story so that in the court of public opinion, people form their own through the exploration of the documentation available. In some forums, people quote things incorrectly regarding adopted vs birth, Soon-Yi Previn instead of Dylan Marrow, marriage where there wasn’t, when the custody battle ensued, whether memory is volatile or fully intake for such abuses, and inflate or deflate the talking points to drive home their opinions as fact, or even get Mia’s brother mixed into the history. Details that sway at least the court of public opinion. A lot of people see their own past abuses in this, others without said abuses have to seek the details as evidence, and that clashes with instant support, pitting reasonable people against each other. One of the few facts is that this is a tragic family. My opinion is there shouldn’t be a time limitation on a victim’s right to seek legal judgement and its for the law to decide the merits of such allegations as to have a balance of the scales for either a real victim or a falsely accused, which ever may be. As for the laws, actively participate in the crafting of said laws, just don’t complain about them, be a part of a balanced solution that prosecutes the guilty after determination of such and is there to prevent, if not support, those who’ve been victimized, and for the rare cases where the allegations are false, deals with that appropriately as well.

  • kissyface

    i believe Dylan

  • deckbose

    I am stunned that any so-called professional would make unsolicited public speculations on a case he has not investigated except to read the internet play-by-play. This guy should either keep his mouth shut or have his license revoked.

  • Popgirl

    For such an important article by an expert, I would think you would have had it proofread. There were puncuation errors and grammatical errors evident throughout.

    • rebeccagavin

      I don’t think that Weide’s article was ever presented as an exhaustive and objective research piece. In fact, Weide said that he was responding in Woody’s stead, as he didn’t think Woody was going to respond..

  • Donna

    I have a problem with people saying that Dylan couldn’t possibly
    remember or maybe she was talked into saying this because her mother
    coached her. I’m 60 years old and I remember the very first time I was
    molested. I was age 4 and it was my uncle “Bud.” Second time was my
    brother’s friend, then my brother; third time was my girlfriend’s
    father; fourth time was my father, he asked me to go to bed with him and
    “tickle” his back which really meant tickle something else. That was
    horrifying and gross, but it didn’t stop there it continued until I was
    14. I lost my virginity at age 12 (just going by how much it hurt) and
    when I was so ashamed and scared I asked him what would happen if I told
    someone. He said there were many children who had died during sleep
    because their nightgown had crawled up around their neck and strangled
    them, oh yeah, that was so comforting. Oh there is so much more to my
    story, but it really sickens me that people don’t believe Dylan, people,
    who have been molested, don’t just bring up molestation out of no
    where. I didn’t talk about my molestations until I was having panic
    attacks and couldn’t stand being touched or hugged by men, even
    innocently and didn’t want to leave my house, I stayed to myself. When I
    decided to seek counseling I was 36 years old. My counselor was very
    good and helped me through this, but I lost all of my family on my
    father’s side in the process, my mother left years ago. They called me a
    liar, slut and whore because I was making false accusations against my
    father and brother. So any of you who think this whole thing is made
    up, think really hard about that. Also, I have to say that I am really
    afraid for Allen’s two adopted girls (why not boys?), something people
    don’t seem to be thinking about. God Bless you Dylan, stay strong.

  • Jean Oston

    I for one believe her. I can remember a lot of things when I was 7, and they were not dramatic. Why is she speaking now? Something triggered alright. They giving him praise, and she knowing what he did to her. She has children of her own now. Maybe she just felt as if she wanted the world to know out of her own mouth, that this is not a good man.. There is a lot of things that Mia Farrow probably did wrong, Dylan is a grown woman, she says they are her own memories. Why shouldn’t we believe her? But we see with our own eyes he married his daughter, adopted are not. That’s one sick minded man.

  • hendl

    Important: The Judge said, one reason he decided

    NOT to let Woody have visitation with Dylan, is that he couldn’t rely much on the report by the ‘experts’ who had
    already determined that Woody had not abused her, for 2 reasons:1) NONE of the experts testified at this (later) trial; 2) ALL of the
    experts’ notes, on which they had based their findings, were Destroyed. As a former family law lawyer, I
    have NEVER seen a family law trial where the experts who had made prior
    (or any) pertinent findings DID NOT testify. This was the ONLY expert
    report that, for certain, would have supported Woody’s contentions that he deserved custody, and/or visitation. His lawyers were
    the best; the fact that they did NOT compel those experts to testify is
    BEYOND bizarre. Can’t prove it-but I’ll bet there was SOMETHING in
    either the notes and/or the (possible) ‘testimony’ that was bad for
    Woody.

  • hendl

    Important: the family court judge gave a VERY rare ruling that Woody could have
    NO visitation with Dylan whatsoever. As a lawyer who used to practice
    family law, I myself have never seen this. Normally, the Judge tries to
    arrange visitation of some sort, such as ‘supervised visitation’, where
    Woody would be able to see Dylan, if even for an hour or two, but with a
    specific adult present AT ALL TIMES. And – to top this off, Allen appealed this decision twice and lost both times.

    • Libtardsworstenemy

      Apparently you didn’t read the case… I hope you never get to defend me…..and you know only less than 20% of cases are over turned, but

      • hendl

        I didn’t read WHAT in the case? Apparently, YOU didn’t read my post – Have YOU practiced family law? I have. As to the no. of cases ‘overturned’, Woody had the top lawyers in the original case. Give me ANY good reason why they did not put those experts on the stand.

        • Libtardsworstenemy

          What case did you think I was talking about? The Allen v. Farrow case. What witnesses? There was really no chance Woody was gonna get custody. Again, did you read the case? Even though I believe Woody is completely innocent of the molestation charges, he was not even close to being a parent, and that is why he got denied.

          • hendl

            You say bizarre things. Your explanation as to why the ‘experts’ did NOT testify was because Woody knew he would lose the case. Oh yes, makes perfect sense. If he knew that, HE WOULDN’T HAVE FILED THE CASE FOR CUSTODY/VISITATION. He was paying one of the lawyers $1,000/hour, for starters. And: oh, yes, the trial went on and on he put MANY WITNESSES on the stand to prove his case, even tho, according to you, he ‘knew’ he would lose. So he only decided NOT to have the experts testify because of this knowledge. And, he did enter their report into evidence, even tho he knew he would lose. Hey, I hope no one ever sues you – I ‘know’ you would lose for sure.

  • queensplate

    the question remains why does Dylan revisit this after this period of time ?

    • hendl

      Because if she had truly been abused, it is still a vERY sore point with her. SO whenever Woody’s name is mentionned, she probably feels anger – especially when he receives an award. It is like rubbing a lot of salt in a very festered wound.

      • queensplate

        So what is the inference ? Or is this just a coin toss ?

    • Michael Crichton

      Because he was in the news for receiving a Lifetime Achievement award at the Golden Globes. Naturally, she found this irritating, that someone who she honestly believed molested her is getting fawned over. Whether Allen did it in reality or whether Mia Farrow brainwashed her, Dylan’s actions were perfectly reasonable.

  • smh

    And since you are a social work professional, perhaps you can offer insight as to why either of them are allowed to adopt…

    • QuadCityPat

      That is one of the great mysteries of the world. So much dysfunction.

      • Libtardsworstenemy

        It’s actually not a mystery. It is a simple explanation. That not a single person investigating this found the allegations to be credible and they have found Woody not to be an abuser.

        • smh

          why did they let mia keep hoarding kids?

          • Libtardsworstenemy

            Not sure. Ask them. whoever let her do it.

  • aer

    For the sake of argument…
    If he is innocent, how the heck could he ever prove it? As far as I can see, nothing. Seems like he submitted and was cooperative with the investigation, submitted to a lie detector… what more could he do? What can he do to clear his name exactly?

    I realize lie detectors are crap really, btw.

  • Steven Kovar

    Guilty or not guilty, we’ll never know now, but I have to question the integrity of the New York Times in publishing what amounts to – at best – a cloudy she-said/he-said 20 years after the fact, and at worst, character assassination of Allen and several other people. She can publish an open letter on her blog, but any serious newspaper should question the ethics of printing a one-sided attack piece in which the claims are impossible to verify. I hope for both of them that the accusations are untrue, but in any case, the train left twenty years ago on this. NYT clearly put page views and hype above ethics in printing this.

  • Taylor Greeson

    This article sets up a strange dichotomy with child abuse “survivors and their supporters” on one side, and anyone who supports Woody on the other. It’s not that cut and dry. I was molested at the age of 12 by an older man. Now at 33, I am still discovering – often at the most unexpected times – how deep a psychological and emotional scar that abuse on me. When I read Dylan’s statements they do not trigger much because, to me, they do not ring true at all. It’s hard to identify exactly what it is, and of course this is only my own personal intuition based on my own experiences, but the more she talks about the alleged abuse, the less I believe it. I only point this out because the article assumes that all survivors of child abuse are outraged at our society’s willingness to let rich and well-connected Woody Allen get away with horrible abuse. Well I, for one, am not – because I don’t think the abuse ever happened.

    • hendl

      So sorry for what you have undergone.

      • Taylor Greeson

        Thank you.

        I feel extremely fortunate that I have a support system of family, friends, and loved ones. And I am doubly lucky in that I am also able to see a therapist to help in the recovery process. So many people are left without anyone to talk to about the very real mental health issues caused by abuse.

    • Kelman Beaumont

      I am the same. The more I hear Dylan speak about the abuse, the less I believe it occured. At first it was the passive voice used in her original letter. She doesnt spek of her experience with a personality or any distinction. She recounts the events dismissively and with no attachment. Now I was ready to accept this as just her nature until she recounts the effects of the abuse on her later. When detailing the trauma of living with that abuse, it is very personal. Very intimate and very active. Her details of the abuse feel regurgitated. Even when talking about staring at the train, it rings hollow.

  • Carol Avery

    Excellent, thank you.

  • Thoughts from San Francisco

    “no matter that other’s would like them too.” ???wow, someone needs an EDITOR. Thanks for the essay though, very interesting.

    • QuadCityPat

      No kidding, I re-read that sentence after this was published, yeesh. I was pretty irritated with myself for that one!

  • 1bestdog

    What a horrible article. He assumes Allen’s guilt, disregards that Mia Farrow was very much in the room throughout the process and leave out convenient facts such as Allen passed a lie detector test.
    On Mia’s payroll too?

  • Robert Miller

    There was an article in the NY Times in 1993 regarding testimony in the custody trial of a Dr. Coates who had been the family therapist for Ronan (whatever his name was at the time). Her description of Mia Farrow is illuminating. Coates went as far as to warn Allen not to go to the Farrow estate because she felt that Ms. Farrow was a danger to herself and Mr. Allen. She described Farrow’s bizarre and agitated actions (Farrow sent a valentine to Allen with skewers through pictures of her children and a steak knife through her own picture). Allen at the time had told Coates about death threats that Farrow had made against him.

    This is the immediate background to the alleged molestation. When Farrow called up Dr. Coates and told her that Dylan had told her about Allen molesting her Farrow was remarkably calm, which is peculiar considering that she had verged on hysterics in the months prior to this development.

    Allen discounted Coates warnings and did go to the Farrow estate to visit his children to his everlasting regret. But to think that after months of Farrow threatening to kill him, sending him valentines with steak knives through her picture, and Coates’ warnings, that Allen thought that this would be the perfect time to start molesting Dylan stretches credulity.

    I agree with the author that techniques for interviewing possible molestation victims has improved over the last twenty years, but there are a lot of presumptions made in the article. Did three grown men interview her at the same? Were they all men? Were different interviews and medical exams conducted at different times? Does the author even know how these interviews were conducted? When was the medical exam performed in relation to the date of the alleged molestation? If the author knows these things then he should have specified them in the article. I hope he didn’t presume.

    What everyone should know is that memories are very malleable. Readers of science pages on the internet know that every month or so another new insight into memory formation shows how unreliable memories are. Having twenty years of one parent attacking another parent will certainly affect a child’s memory. So while Dylan’s essay is moving, there is no way to include it or Ronan’s quips as any kind of legitimate evidence. Ronan was four or five at the time and so any memories he has have been firmly molded (or created) by Mia Farrow. The oldest child, Moses who was fifteen at the time, has claimed that their mother brainwashed the family to hate Allen. He also claims a clear recollection of the day in question and says that no one, specifically Allen, had taken Dylan to a private place at the estate to molest her.

    Ultimately, while we won’t ever know, I’d suspect that this was an act of revenge by Mia Farrow against Woody Allen. I would suggest that a fuller understanding of Allen and Farrow’s childhoods might offer clearer insights into how they came to be who they are. We know that Farrow’s older brother is serving a ten-year sentence for child molestation. Was there molestation in her family when she was a child?

    In any case, while this recent eruption has given the internet a lot of hits I am afraid that very little light has been shed on this decades-old event.

    • hendl

      When the allegations re: the abuse of Dylan were first revealed, Moses said that Woody was a horrible person, that he was capable of anything, and something to the effect that he wished Woody would kill himself.
      So, Moses has been a real flip-flopper re: his opinion re; Allen and any abuse of Dylan.

      • M.L.

        Yes, Moses has flip-flopped and he has the perfect explanation: That his mother was poisoning the children and demanding they speak badly about their father. Moses was under her control and now he isn’t. Simple.

  • OL

    Water seeks its own level Mia Farrow is just as guilty as Woody Allen Common she defends Polanski who drugged raped sodomized a 13 year old. girl . Mia states he is my Friend. Mia Farrow knew about Dylan but still allowed him to adopt her. Mia Farrow waited TOO long and then when Sexual Abuse could be used for her advantage she proceeded. I think Both Mia and Woody are pedophiles and they are text book cases. The Children suffer with disgusting people like both of them. Woody Allen Mia Farrow & Polanski Will soon be joining Fellow pedophile Michael Jackson in hell,

  • Jeannette Moore Wall

    Woody Allen will never admit he did anything wrong in regards to this or to the whole Soon-Yi affair. By his words and his actions he has a whole “what’s the big deal” attitude about taking naked pictures and dating this girl, she was only about 19 when it is supposed to have started, that just smacks of disregard for others. Much like Roman a very strange attitude towards what is proper or decent when dealing with a child. I resent that they look at those who cry foul as being crazed, I resent that they did get away with it and I resent there are so many more like them out there.

  • David Bennett

    A few questions:

    * If Allen is such a bold abuser to molest his
    child on visitation at his ex-girlfriends house certainly he would have a
    history of such abuse. Why aren’t there other victims stepping
    forward? Certainly Allen is wealthy enough that the lawsuits alone
    would bring them out of the wood work. But they haven’t. Why?

    * Why are there no other adults who were present in the house that day
    that corroborate the story or even the possibility of an opportunity for
    a molestation?

    * What about Mosses Farrow’s statements? Why
    would a licensed family therapist and brother of the alleged survivor
    risk going on record speaking out against the allegations?

    Personally,
    I think there is a lot of transference going on here. People want him
    to be guilty so badly they just can’t look at the facts objectively.

  • sarahbrave

    I would just like to state that Dylan Farrow was 7 years old, not 3 or 4. There is a big difference, in my opinion, in “coaching” a 4 year old and “coaching” a 7 year old, wouldn’t the latter be much more difficult? Also, I don’t consider Mia Farrow to be a “Hollywood Narcissist”, she is one of the greater humanitarians in this country if not the entire world. A little research and you may well agree. Time magazine 2008 certainly did.

    • M.L.

      Mia may be a great humanitarian, and I agree she is, but that doesn’t preclude her from being angry and spiteful enough to coach her daughter…as the expert investigators concluded back in 1993.

      And while I agree that there is a difference between coaching a 3/4 year old and a 7 year old, a 7-year old can still be coached. Especially if Mia was, according to her son Moses, a scary and abusive mother.

      • Popgirl

        The truth is always in the middle. I would never ever take everything Moses says as 100 percent truth.

        • M.L.

          Yeah, I never really liked that saying about the truth being in the middle. Facts are facts. Whether Allen did or did not molest Dylan is not somewhere in the middle of Yes and No. Either he did or did not.

          Now opinions…those are subjective and should be considered from all perspectives. Moses’s claims that his mother was abusive and forced the kids to lie are definitely worth scrutinizing. Although I can’t imagine his motivation for lying or embellishing at this point.

      • sarahbrave

        That was not the conclusion. Please read the TEN FACTS

        • M.L.

          Yeah, sorry sarahbrave I don’t know what you’re talking about.

          I can create an article called “ELEVEN FACTS”….but that doesn’t make them true. And if you think you know what is a true fact then I pity you.

  • RLPulliam

    Baloney. Dylan’s brother, Moses Farrow, said it never happened…that Dylan never said it happened in his presence. It was always Mia going on and on and on about Woody being a child molester. This was “after” Soon-Yi and he married. I’m thinking that child abuse investigators are as guillty as anyone else of “encouraging” a story be told whether there is a story to tell or not. Physical evidence of abuse is one thing. Encouraging a child to accuse someone of molestation is encouraging the child to crave attention.

    • Veritas

      I agree. Moses said of his sister/ “She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible.” .

  • cathy mathipoulos

    Thank you for a well written article that points out the issue of child abuse/molestation. This is a very personal matter for me. I would never have thought it possible in my family in a million years….but it did…and it was a family member that I loved…..and I had to face all of these issues and more and the guilt and depression that follows is overwhelming. Time helps heal however there are children out there that have no where to turn and are disbelieved and generally the PERPS find support from other family members. It is a very sad situation and their is one person to blame and only one….the PERPETRATOR!

    • eriannamoric

      I want to testify of the good work done by a faithful Dr Akim, a spell caster. in my life I never thought there is such thing as love spell intercession. my problem started nine months back when the father of my kids started putting up some strange behavior, I never knew he was having an affair outside our matrimonial home. it dawn on me on that faithful day 19th of April 21st 4:23pm when he came to the house to pick his things that was when I knew that situation has gotten out of hand and he then told me he was quitting the marriage which I have built for over five years, I was confused and dumbfounded I called on family and friends but to no avail. two months after I started having problem with my kids welfare rent-age and all of it, I really went through hell. until a day I was browsing on the internet and I happen to meet a spell caster I never believed on this but I needed my man back so I gave the spell caster my problem at first I never trusted him so I was just doing it but you know a problem shared is half solved after a 2 days my husband called me telling me that he his coming back home and that was all. now we are living happily.contact him on this email:(bestlovedoctor@yahoo.com

  • lkcnskldj

    Thank for this piece and for the work that you do.

  • Eileen Apple

    My issue is why now. Woody Allen is to get an award and all of a sudden come charges of abuse. I could see if there was nothing happening and she was in therapy and finally decided to deal with it head on, but this is not the case. To me this sounds more like a woman scorned who has brainwashed her own child in order to get back at her ex. do I think anything happened I don’t know, but I do know the timing is very suspicious. Most people think that Mia and Woody were exclusive, they were not. They never even lived together. First get the facts then make judgement. Could he have still done this yes, but without the whole story out in the open there will never be an answer as to innocence or guilt. Mia has always said how he abused her children but one of their children is now taking Woodys side and saying Mia made them believe what they now know are lies. Has this been done to this child as well? Too many people are accused of things without all the information. This to me is unfair and unjust. Both sides of each child should be heard but the media is not asking the other child anything which to me is quite a slanted false view. Once again, yes it is possible he did it, but is is also possible he did not. It is just if you are going to put this out there get it all out there both sides.

  • eclecticbrotha

    I’m stunned that a criminal investigation in a molestation case was conducted by three doctors and not three detectives?

  • Anastasia

    Thank you Patrick for having the moral fortitude to get involved in the debate and write this well considered piece! My greatest concern was for Dylan Farrow and the countless and spineless men (journo’s) trying to victimize her all over again. She is no longer a child but a woman who can finally stand up for herself – to even suggest that she is still Mia’s puppet (as Weide takes 5,000 words to do) is to diminish her capacity as an adult – a woman doesn’t stand up in front of the world at 28 without having good cause (already having experienced the serious fallout once before too). Watch the old 60 minutes interview with Woody Allen about the case – the truth is there for all to see.

    • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

      “A gigantic industry has been built on a total non-event”

      You’re right. The truth is there.

      • Anastasia

        He couldn’t look the interviewer in the eye and not once did he show genuine concern for Dylan, nor did he even once say outright “I did not molest my daughter”. These are not the behaviour of an innocent man or a decent father either.

        • Badgerite

          Actually, he says that “I did not molest my daughter” a lot. Him not saying it in that interview is not particularly significant. Plus that is in all probability an edited interview. Who knows what he said in its entirety?

  • FlackOps

    Molesters
    feed on people doubting the victim and go to great measure to foment that
    doubt. Want proof? Here’s an email exchange between me and the guy who molested
    me when I was a kid. http://flackops.blogspot.com/2014/02/dylan-tarnished.html

  • M.L.

    An additional point…if Dylan was being groomed and the behavior she mentioned did occur, wouldn’t there have been some signs along the way? Changes in behavior, mood, eating, socializing? Again…I have no experience so I’m asking an expert.

  • M.L.

    Even if the investigation was botched it doesn’t mean he’s guilty, anymore than OJ Simpson’s botched investigation meant he was innocent.

    But my question for Pat is this: Don’t sexual predators, particularly pedophiles, have histories and patterns of abuse? I read that by the time a pedophile is caught he/she has abused an average of 13 children. Isn’t it telling that no one before or since has made such allegations against him? Wouldn’t accusers (real and fake) be crawling out of the woodwork right now? Just asking….

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      No, they don’t always crawl out of the woodwork (not the best metaphor to use really). Going public as a victim is hard enough without challenging a very powerful and popular public figure.

      • M.L.

        Yeah, bad metaphor. I certainly don’t mean all victims just suddenly raise their hands. But it seems fairly common these days….especially with high-profile figures….for at least a few to come forward. Michael Jackson, certain priests, etc.. And it’s still early so it could still happen.

    • Synthmatrix

      And he was allowed to adopt 2 girls.

    • Nk

      Yeah, since its not like anyone attacked the credibility of the first known victim’s story.

      • M.L.

        Well like I said, I don’t think all or even most victims would come forward. But one, two? Victims do come forward, even knowing their credibility will be questioned. That’s how the system/life works and how it should work for all parties. And she wasn’t attacked initially, her claims were investigated for 6 months. And from what I’ve seen Dylan Farrow has far, far more supporters and advocates than naysayers. And way more supporters than Woody Allen has or will ever have.

        My initial question was asked to gain a better understanding of how a pedophile operates. The author said they’re clever and sneaky, but made no mention of the bigger picture. The patterns, history, psychology of these people. Does Woody fit the pattern? If there are exceptions to patterns, does he fit any of the exceptions? After decades of studies can we look to more ‘soft’ evidence of his guilt? Bottom line…does he fit the profile?? I know he makes movies about older men and younger women, and certainly his personal relationships indicate his attraction for younger women. But is that enough? It may make us uncomfortable, but it’s not pedophilia.

        • Anthony Chan

          Read this and then, tell me if Woody Allen “fits the profile” (whatever the heck that is)?

          http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/05/woody-allen-12-year-old-sex-interview-pedophile/?adid=hero8

          • M.L.

            “Whatever the heck that is”? There are profiles for pedophiles, like any deviant behavior.

            I’m wondering if the EXPERT who wrote this article thinks Woody fits the profile. Certainly his comment from 1976 is disturbing, but can we label him on that alone? I don’t know, maybe yes maybe no. I think the human psyche is too complex to say simply having a thought (creepy as it is) translates to deviant behavior/action.

        • Josh

          It’s not just that he’s “attracted to younger women.” He violated serious moral boundaries by beginning a relationship with a teen who was the daughter of his longtime girlfriend and the sister of his own children. He had been a daily part of that family from the time Soon-Yi was 9. That relationship speaks volumes about the man’s character.

          • M.L.

            Poor character does not a pedophile make. How many millions of us would be in jail if poor character were the only measure of guilt?

          • Josh

            I didn’t say he was a pedophile. I don’t know for certain that he is. But I object to people minimizing or dismissing how he began his relationship with Soon-Yi, comparing it to Mia’s relationship with Frank Sinatra, or dismissing it as simply a matter of “the heart wants what it wants” or “between two consenting adults” because that shows a lack of understanding of the transgression he committed.

          • M.L.

            And I didn’t minimize or dismiss his relationship with Soon-Yi. I just didn’t elaborate on it because it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether he’s a pedophile.

            If this discussion is just about whether Allen ‘transgressed’ by dating someone he knew since she was 9 then okay. Soon-Yi didn’t think he transgressed at the time and 20 years later she still doesn’t. But he’s not being accused of transgressing, he’s being accused of something much more heinous.

            So unless there is some connection between dating a much younger woman, even one he’s known since she was 9…and molestation…I’m not sure what your point is.

          • Josh

            To my mind, when you say “dating a much younger woman,” you’re leaving out too much. And while it doesn’t prove anything, I think it’s more relevant to the question of whether or not he could be a child molester than all the things his defenders bring up about Mia’s adultery or her relationship with Sinatra or her feelings about Polanski or her brother being a convicted pedophile.

          • M.L.

            I’m not sure I agree Josh. His relationship with Soon-Yi MAY be relevant to the issue of pedophilia, but it may not. I don’ t know, I’m not an expert. But fair enough, I agree that Mia’s relationships and her brother’s behavior are completely irrelevant.

            I know you may not be referring to me, but I’m not exactly an Allen ‘defender’. I’m just not ready to conclude the abuse happened based on what I’ve seen/heard so far.

          • Josh

            That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            You’re really reaching for nothing, aren’t you?

        • Popgirl

          His obssession with Dylan from the moment he became part of her life is disturbing, beyond distrubing, for a grown man. His obssession with her was so strong and his lack of boundaries and even awareness how wrong it was to the point it was demanded he speak to a therapist does speak to his behavior having the ability to escalate. I guarantee you if that was your child and your family member showed such odd and worrisome behavior you would have kept him away. Mia has her own issues that she allowed this man to adopt Dylan showing the behavior he already had exhibited towards Dylan way before the “day in question.”

          • M.L.

            Popgirl – Allen’s ‘obsession’ with Dylan is probably the most disconcerting issue to me as I view this drama. But I still can’t make the leap from obsession to molestation, and I don’t see how anyone else can either. If that was true I’d be having sex with my little poodle-mix right now…and I’m not.

    • Anthony Chan

      How would you take this interview in People magazine 1976,in which Woody Allen brought up participating in a hypothetical orgy with fifteen 12-year old girls? Telling,don’t you think that he has pedophile tendencies?

      http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/05/woody-allen-12-year-old-sex-interview-pedophile/?adid=hero8

      • M.L.

        I take that comment the way anyone else would…disgusting and disturbing.

    • Ches

      How many accusers have spoke out against know child abuser roman polanksy and why would they?. If a man can admit to drugging raping and sodomy of a thirteen year old and not only escape jail but win Oscars why would any victims come forward???????

      • M.L.

        Because Ches, sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t, but sometimes they do. Dylan did. If I’d been living with something like this for 20 years I don’t know what I’d do. I may want to try to forget or move on. Or I may see an opportunity to finally get the scumbag that did this to me. If just one other victim came forward it would be an enormous boost to Dylan’s story, and if I were that one victim I just might want to get it out there and see him publicly hung once and for all. Right now it’s ‘she said, he said’. But if it becomes ‘she said, she said, she said, he said’…well, that’s a whole different thing. I imagine there are just as many victims of abuse that want justice/revenge as there are that want privacy. And if you’ve noticed, the more famous the person the more people that tend to come forward with real and phony accusations.

  • Robgb

    Sorry, but putting all of the hysteria aside and forgetting this is even about Woody Allen and his daughter, it’s a bit disconcerting to me that an expert in the field would find it necessary or acceptable to comment publicly about a case in which he was not involved and apparently has no firsthand knowledge of. Offering opinions and expertise about child abuse in general is one thing, but this is something entirely different and, to my mind, distasteful.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Well, insofar as he stated his intention was to shed some light on erroneous things being said online and most of his comments were hypothetical “ifs” and “considering that” kind of stuff, I don’t think he stepped over the line. It’s important that professionals who actually know what they are talking about clear out the BS that anonymous commenters spew online.

      • Robgb

        When you use terms like “a botched investigation” and you were neither part of nor present during the investigation and, as far as I can tell, do not have access to or have studied the official record (I may be wrong about that), that seems a bit prejudicial to me. I have a feeling the doctors who conducted the investigation would beg to differ. But I may be wrong about that, too.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Actually, a good portion of the investigation is documented and publicly available…and he’s right it was botched…almost perfect example of how NOT to investigate charges of child molestation.

    • QuadCityPat

      Thanks for reading. I have read and reviewed the doctor’s findings. Its been available for 20 years. Botched does seem a little judgmental. In my opinion it was botched because of the way the girl was interviewed and that she was interviewed by so many people including her mother. That’s just not done now. The 6 month period of investigation by the doctors easily could have reinforced the trauma she thought she had suffered thereby also being unfair to Allen.

      • Robgb

        Fair enough.

      • j hentai

        here’s hoping you keep up the good work

      • smh

        Where is the Dr.’s report?
        Do you have a link?
        I cannot find an unedited version.

      • rebeccagavin

        If you have read the doctor’s report, how is it that you didn’t pick up on the fact that Dylan was actually interviewed by 2 female social workers – one a Ph.D. and the other an MSW. The doctor that was deposed, Dr. Leventhal, never actually spoke to Dylan. And the assumption of guilt comes in when you confound the suffering of all victims with the suffering of Dylan, and talk about “justice for Dylan”. I can’t tell if you are being coy, or truly in denial about your lack of professionalism here.

      • smh

        So I guess you are lying then.

        Disappointing.

        • QuadCityPat

          Did I not reply to a question? Sorry if that’s the case. I haven’t kept up on comments in a few days.

        • QuadCityPat

          If your referring to the doctor’s report, I have read edited online versions but read the whole thing in a training several years ago. I don’t have a link because it was a hard copy. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. Thanks again for reading this is a link to the court findings and there is a PDF of the full court report at the bottom. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

          • smh

            So you had access to the Yale New Haven Report although both parties stipulated to have most of it sealed (which is what I read in an archived NYT article)?

          • QuadCityPat

            I went back and looked in my training materials. It was the unsealed part, that someone had written a critique of. I thought I remembered that it was the whole thing, but no just the unsealed part that was also part of a peer review manual.

            The paper I spoke of also dissected the Doctor’s testimony in the deposition.

          • smh

            Can you share with us the author/title of this paper and the peer reviewed journal in which it was published?

          • QuadCityPat

            I can, I left the materials at the office after I responded to you earlier. I will get the information tomorrow or Friday depending on my schedule. I hope the author has it on line now, so I can link it.

            The court testimony of the doctor was also part of a training workshop, but that was a copy of what I linked you too at Huff Po, and then a sort of Q and A and teachable moments work shop as the instructors took us through points of the testimony that they thought relevant.

            That particular workshop was at a Champion for Children Conference 5 years ago, and it’s focus was more legal ie how to testify, etc, than focusing on the social work aspects.

            Thanks for the great questions, have a great day.

  • Synthmatrix

    I’d like to know what the author thinks about Mia Farrow’s brother being recently convicted of child molestation. I have a few thoughts about this. First of all, is it true that pedophiles often abuse their siblings and, if so, could Mia have been a victim? It would explain her sexual promiscuity, which has a strong link to being a victim of sexual abuse. She also exhibits a lot of signs of Narcissist Personality Disorder which is also linked. I don’t know if her brother had access to her children, but we should be asking that question. Also, could Mia have projected her experience on her daughter? Is the story so detailed and upsetting, because it did happen – not to Dylan, but Mia? And also, regarding her defense of Roman Polanski, who was accused very clearly and explicitly by the 13 year old in the 70s and has maintained her story ever since, is this a typical reaction? I look forward to your thoughts.

    • alexandra

      I think you ask some very good questions. I have been in the child welfare field for almost 20 years-10 of them exclusively in child abuse/neglect investigations-and I have to disagree with the author’s take here. I startled in 1995 and it was not the dark ages-I was taught the forensic interviewing system he refers to.
      Without rehashing every detail that has been published-my gut feeling as an outsider but with somewhat more knowledge than most lay people- is that MIa committed what used to be called PAS(Parental alienation syndrome). Informally I call it “sex abuse on the brain” and mothers in custody fights do indeed do this. Call it a mother bear instinct or a malicious slander-take your pick I guess. But I have seen it often(my sample is of course skewed given my job). And the children definitely suffer long term consequences.

      • Synthmatrix

        Thank you alexandra! The method you were taught was created as a response to the McMartin Preschool scandal, which only concluded in 1990, which I’m sure you know. Interviewing changes would have been in their infancy in 1992, I suppose.
        I was wondering if you could comment on the links between child sexual abuse and NPD – I’ve read there may be a link. Also am I wrong in judging Mia as having NPD? Her sexual promiscuity is well known being involved in several adulterous relationships, and I know that’s linked. Also, her defense of Roman Polanski: is that strange to you? Also what is the possibility of Mia being a victim of her brother – is that common?
        (Sorry for the barrage, but the author seems to have had lots of time to respond to everyone else but not to me).

      • Jutiz

        Thanks for bringing up PAS invented by Dr. Richard Gardner, who advised mothers of sexually abused children to use a vibrator to divert their pedophile partners away from their children. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html

      • rebeccagavin

        Yes, I spent 8 years in Child welfare, 2 of those as an investigator, and I take exception to the author’s conclusions as well. Not only PAS, but if the molestation actually occurred, Mia Farrow is a world class enabler. This was one dysfunctional “family”.

  • Badgerite

    My problem with this post: he ASSUMES guilt. If you assume a ‘botched’ investigation, you are starting from the point of assuming guilt. I don’t think that assuming guilt constitutes an investigation. You can ‘explain away’ discrepancies based on the fact that you are dealing with a 7 year old. But you do have to explain them. And the explanation he gives assumes guilt. You can just as easily put an interpretation on what happened as that of a sensitive child absorbing the attitude or her mother toward Woody Allens’s relationship with her other daughter ( a girl of 18 to 21 years of age) and the 7 year old child reinterpreting her relationship with him in that light. What’s more, grooming bespeaks a relationship other than a parental one. If a parent is affectionate toward their child, how does that translate into ‘grooming’. Yes, pedophiles have been known to groom their victims. But parents have been known to be solicitous and affectionate toward their children. What’s your point? One cannot help but notice that the idea of incestuousness and child molestation entered the picture only when Woody Allen’s relationship with Mia Farrow’s other daughter became known to her mother. That that was the genesis of the whole affair. And before that, there were no such allegations or even intimations of any such grooming. As an investigator, one would think, you could not just not notice what was going on in the family at the time and the mother’s adamant reaction to the relationship of Mr. Allen with her other daughter. In that kind of situation, you cannot assume guilt. You do have to consider the alternatives that support the defense. He says it himself. A young child will change their story to please the person they are talking to. So how then is it not entirely possible, if not likely, that a child, in the face of a great emotional disruption in the family that is blamed on the father, would absorb the attitude of her mother and custodial parent in hopes of ‘making it better’ for her. That she would reinterpret her whole relationship with her father in that light. And interpret events as abuse. Improper touching. etc. That this would become the family history. And that the 7 year old would absorb this as reality. Whether it was or not.
    And even the idea of ‘grooming’ bespeaks a predator. Not an isolated event during a breakup involving the father going off with the daughter of a jilted mother. Which is what this was.
    It is hardly the kind of conduct one could applaud. But it is not child abuse. And they have since married and have adopted two daughters of their own.
    In this particular scenario, remembering how bitter their break up was and how allegations of this sort surfaced then and only then, I do think you need a higher standard of proof. Not a lower one. Because the scenario itself calls to mind ways in which a child could absorb as reality something that may not have actually happened.

    • QuadCityPat

      Thank you for the honest feedback, and it did read like I was prejudging guilt. To clarify. The investigation was botched from the start because of the way it was handled by all the professionals, not because of the outcome of the investigation.

      Cases like the Allen/Farrow cases are exactly why forensic child sex abuse interviews were developed.

      I can’t definitively say what happened, I certainly have my opinion. Be that as it may if the investigation was done by today’s standards the outcome would be far more conclusive, in my opinion.

      • Badgerite

        I also had another problem with the case. And that is that Mia Farrow, when she found out about the relationship between Soon-Yi and Allen, would question, as any mother would, when that relationship started. And I think she thought it had possibly been going on long before she knew about it and believed this to have been a case of grooming and child abuse. I doubt that was the case and certainly the Allen’s family life would belie such an allegation but I think she thought that. And I think she genuinely thought she and her family, including Soon-YI, had been preyed upon. And then she probably started questioning her youngest as to her suspicions. And that surely can affect a child’s view of past events. And I think that is why the allegations started then and only then.
        If a mother and the custodial parent strongly believes that abuse has gone on, that attitude will surely be communicated consciously by questioning and unconsciously by a certain fearfulness and concern, to a child that young. And it would only be natural for the child to absorb that discomfort into themselves as to the relationship. And reinterpret that past relationship and all subsequent events in that kind of emotional context.

        • Josh

          But according to Dylan and Mia, Dylan was the one who approached her mother to ask whether Mia’s father had behaved in a similar way toward her. Dylan more recently said that Mia did not want to believe her claims at first. Of course, they could both be lying.

          • Robert Miller

            How do you assess Dylan’s independence from her mother’s recollections? She was seven years old.

          • Badgerite

            That is the issue. She was seven. Children are not dumb. A lot of communications between people is non verbal. You can get a sense of discomfort yourself, just from being around someone who is uncomfortable.

          • Nicole Dashiell

            I was 8 and I remember perfectly well what happened.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I have clear memories from that age–but what’s disturbing about this argument is that it’s equal opportunity against anything implicating Allen–whey, it could easily have been emplanted by the sorcerous Mia Farrow! It works an any part of the story you don’t like–that seems to be the original med team’s methodology.

          • Badgerite

            Well, there is no way to know, really. And this is what they tell you you are not allowed to say. But I think it is actually the case.
            Her brother, Moses, who is a family therapist now ( gee , I wonder why) has a differing memory of how Dylan responded to her father than Dylan’s memory. He also remembers that she and her father were never alone the day of the events in question.
            Dylan Farrow’s response was, “He’s dead to me”, and “He is a BETRAYER OF THE FAMILY”. Seriously, what the hell is up with that. Not, “He’s my brother and I love him but he’s wrong”.
            This bespeaks a certain family orthodoxy that you are not allowed to stray from.
            I’m not saying they are lying. Certainly not Dylan, who was only 7 at the time. I’m saying, no matter what her memories are, there is enough doubt surrounding them, that we really cannot know what happened. And to expect the public to be unquestioning and thereby inflict on Woody Allen the punishment she feels he never got, ( which sort of flies in the face of all the publicity this got way back when ) is unreasonable. As far as I can tell, the girl has a good life. I understand the need to vent. And the public will surely listen. But to expect them to listen unquestioningly, especially after how her brother describes their home life, is just more than anyone has a right to.

          • ronp12

            You brought out such a good point that Mia’s response to Moses supports both his and Allen’s claim she is highly manipulative. If there was no polygraph test of Mia to determine whether or not she was telling the truth – unlike the one Allen took which showed no deception – that could reveal a great deal regarding whether this has been an actual ‘manipulation’ of the child by Farrow, rather than Mia’s original assertion that it was a ‘molestation’ by Allen.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            i regret to say polygraphs can and are fooled. No judgment intended, but self-involved weirdos like Woody Allen are just the type likely to pull it off. Meanwhie, Mia had IMMEDIATELY had Dylan taken in for a rape check on first suspicion, and had that test bizarrely botched., and they appear to have given her a false negative. Would you be in the mood for another expert test, under the circumstances (I am assuming that Mia believed Dylan’s accusation of molestation). I’d be done, no offense to the often useful polygraph.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Also, Allen refused to take the police polygraph, you may like to know. He took a privately administered test the police refused to accept as evidence. For some reason, the police saw no reason to ask a polygraph of Mia at any point.

          • Badgerite

            Polygraphs are not accepted as evidence at all in criminal cases.
            They might be used for investigative purposes but they are not used as evidence. I believe O J Simpson’s was admitted as evidence in the civil trial for wrongful death.

          • Sophie

            Polygraphs are not even used in countries other than the USA, and even in the USA, they are only used in certain states. I am not American, and ‘taking a lie detector’ test does not exist in my country, and we therefore don’t refer to them. They are the stuff of American crime shows, and people forget that they are not an infallible, or scientific reliable test of who is telling the truth. There are many variables, such as just feeling nervous about the case itself, that may give a bad reading, but are not indicative of a lie. That’s why many lawyers advise their clients not to take a lie detector test, even when convinced of their innocence. They are really the stuff of melodrama, and television sets lie detectors up to be far more common. and far more significant, than they are in the real world,

          • Badgerite

            As I understand it, they can be beaten if you know how.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            In retrospect, the evidence of what really happened was probably available to all of them. If my older brother, who was closer to my father, publicly made the incredibly condescending judgment that I was ‘wrong’ about whether I had been molested (assuming I had), when I had a detailed memory of discomfort (obviously kept secret from the rest of my family), yet my older brother confidently asserted based on twenty year old memories of a day much, much less significant to him, that I was delusional about memories that had shaped my life, I can easily understand being completely enraged.

            ‘He’s dead to me’ is farther than I’d go (but I’m to emotionally involved, am I? However, it wasn’t out of keeping with Moses’ peremptory, arrogant dismissal of Dylan’s charges; Moses claims to love his brother, but there’s not a bit of brotherly empathy or sympathy is his outright rejection of memory–of horrible actions unpunished– we can assume has been a defining viewpoint of Dylan’s life. Nor Does Moses seem to try to soften the blow; rather, it’s about asserting dominance and standing with Dad. The statement of love reads as hollow as a violin.

            I’ve known siblings like that, and though I’d respond in a classier manner, Moses, as quoted here comes across as a dick sticking it to little sis where she’s vulnerable. A private conversation where he tried to heal this erring memory would have been the mature thing from a therapist. I see nothing but an older brother being a dick…and I must wonder if he is not a very poor therapist.

            As for the last accusation, NO ONE has ever asked that the court or public listen unquestioningly. The PROBLEM is that, as shown by the analysis in this article, the establishment and sometimes the public have not listened with a decent semblance of FAIRNESS–this article describes how the methods used in ’93 to interrogate Dylan could hardly have given any but flawed and contradictory results. Yet the official report described the witness as having been manipulated heavily–even though the lead investigator (see other articles) freely admitted he had no evidence whatsoever to that effect.

            In that context, I would feel betrayed by a sibling who made such arrogantly confident statements about the night in question twenty years past. Perhaps try putting yourself in the context of a person who’s received no justice for twenty years, and never will, and imagine how you’d feel toward a sibling who didn’t hesitate to claim you were delusional about the issue. I would be angry, and justifiably so, I think.

          • Badgerite

            Most everyone in the world has and does experience injustice at usually various stages of their life. As I said, there are celebrities who have opened up about terrible abuse they received as children. Abuse that did not end until, basically, they grew up or the parent died. They tell their stories, but they don’t expect the public to ‘punish’ anyone for them. The truth is that to me the “He got away with it” sounds more like it came from the mother all of her life, than from any actual internal need that would be expected.
            Here’s the deal. This is a dead case. The statute has run. The Judge at the custody hearing was clear that the evidence he was aware of would not support a conviction. And he could be presumed to know the evidence.
            What they are trying to do is circumvent the legal system to get some kind of misguided revenge that they somehow feel entitled to. That is not an admirable or , for me, an acceptable thing to do. We have these rules in the legal system for a reason and the reason is that in the long run they serve the interests of justice.
            And attacking Moses Farrow, who certainly has done nothing to deserve attack, does not change that.

          • Liz

            You don’t know what attempts Moses may have made to communicate with Dylan and the rest of the family. He is 36 years old now, educated in exactly the sort of family dynamic involved in this situation and absolutely more invested in this situation than you are. He was there on the day of the alleged incident and if Dylan’s 7 year old memories are respectable, his 15 year old memories are equally so. I understand Dylan appearing angry but I understand Moses appearing unsympathetic, as well. At some point, people get worn out with drama.

          • taryn

            He wasn’t listed in the court papers as present in the house on August 4th. and several books place him in the woods outside the home during Allen’s visit.

            It’s referenced on page 283 of this WA biography. I can look up the exact quote when I have time.
            https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/meade-woody.html

            “Those present were Ms. Pascal’s three children; Ms. Stickland; Kristie Groteke, a babysitter employed by Ms. Farrow; Sophie Berge, a French tutor for the children; Dylan; and Satchel.”

            http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

          • Liz

            ok, so he isn’t listed as being in the house at the time of the alleged incident. He wasn’t “in the woods” the entire weekend nor the 12 years Allen and Farrow were a couple. He has a perspective that the rest of us don’t have. He remembers how Allen related to Dylan, he remembers how his mother reacted to the betrayal by Previn and Allen. I give his opinion on the scandal a lot more credence than the general audience of internet posters.

          • taryn

            It’s not that he’s speaking up for WA, saying MF was abusive and controlling and he doesn’t believe DF. That’s fine. Read his statement, he also gives WA an alibi for that day. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister.” “The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces.” That is saying it was impossible for WA and DF to be alone together on Aug. 4th, that he was there the entire time and it never happened. Also, he was so sure DF was never alone with WA yet he’s not sure how many people were in the house?

          • Liz

            If his impression is that they were never absent from the group, it doesn’t really matter how many total people were there that day. Moses is expressing his opinion and his feelings and in that regard is no different from the rest of us — he doesn’t KNOW if WA molested DF, either. But I still place a higher significance on his impressions than I do on my own or on yours. He knows those people, he lived with those people, he has direct experience with all of them — AND — he has higher education in just this area of study, the family and its dynamics. He knows what to look at, what to look for, he knows what is possible and he knows how they all acted, not just that one day but for all the years before that and all the years after that.

          • taryn

            I’m sorry but that isn’t how I interpret his statements.

            “he doesn’t KNOW if WA molested DF, either”.

            He does say that though. He says he knows. He said “of course Woody did not molest my sister.” “no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces.” I don’t know how else you could read that. Just as KG stating that Dylan and WA were out of her sight for 15 to 20 minutes. Both are statements of fact, not opinion.

          • Liz

            No apology required for your interpretation :) Regardless of what Moses says, he still doesn’t KNOW. His statements are still only opinion and impression. When he says “of course, Woody, did not” that is his presently held opinion, when he says “no one … was off in any private spaces” that is his impression from memory. Certainly two contradicting memories are not both facts, so KG and Moses can’t both be correct when their memories oppose each other. Almost all the information available about this day is “alleged,” very little is established as “fact” beyond who was present at the gathering that weekend. The story is all something someone says they saw, says they thought, says someone else says, saw or thought — the very reason (regardless of the “official” statement) why no charges were brought and no case was prosecuted over 20 years ago. Until WA confesses or DF recants, this story remains an unsolved mystery to everyone but them.

          • taryn

            I think DF’s “I don’t know where he gets this, we were given time outs sometimes” reads more like an absence of knowledge than a statement of fact, compared to what Moses said. But I do agree with a lot of what you are saying here, FWIW. And thank you for including DF as a witness to what happened, whether she is telling the truth about it or not.

          • Talacocheta

            So you’re giving his statements more importance than the mental health professional whom Woody Allen was seeing who said that he should NEVER be alone with Dylan ever again because of his inappropriate thoughts towards her?

            Moses wasn’t there 24/7, and he is contradicting statements made by unrelated adults who said that Allen fondled Dylan while she was naked after a bath, and that he did other awful things. He’s wrong about Dylan and Allen being missing because they were, and unrelated adults have said so.

          • Liz

            Show me the documented source of your contention and I’ll consider it — otherwise, I’ve not heard or read any such thing. I’m pretty sure you have mashed up several separate reports. All your other allegations, as well, are convolutions of things that have been said, suggested, alluded to, etc. I’ve already pointed out, if you have conflicting reports, you don’t have the facts — “unrelated adults having said so,” not withstanding. I’ve stated several times, I don’t think Moses KNOWS what happened — but his opinion is certainly better than yours or mine and I’d even credit him over some other “mental health professional” on the basis of his experience with the family.

          • Tee

            My father’s friend molested me in my own kitchen, while my father went to the bathroom. It took all of 20 seconds. He couldn’t possibly account for every minute and that’s all it takes.

          • laserbabe

            I caught my 12 year old brother molesting my 5 year old sister, when I was 10, and was called a liar by by brother, then my mother, and then entire family. I caught him again and was again told I had better stop lying. They completely gaslighted me. They betrayed me. They maintain the story that I made it up, and their story still stands.So much for the brother’s version of what happened. I left home the minute I could and have never looked back. They are dead to me.

          • Badgerite

            Sorry to hear it.

          • Chloe Blue

            So very sorry.

          • Talacocheta

            Good for you for trying to stop his abuse! I’m sorry that your family didn’t listen. You’re a good sister for trying to protect your younger sister. <3

          • Talacocheta

            Adults not related to the family can account for Dylan and Allen missing for about 15 minutes. Moses wasn’t in charge of watching his sister, nor was he in the same room with her the entire time, so he wouldn’t know if she went missing or not.

            Not to mention, I grew up in the same household that my brother did, yet he doesn’t remember the abuse that we suffered like I do; he is 5 years younger than I am. If you asked him, he would say that our home life was much nicer than it was. But if you asked my sister, who is only 1 1/2 years younger, she would agree with me as to how bad it was. Age does make a difference and Moses was a lot older than his sister, so it’s possible that he wasn’t caring where she was or what she was doing at the time.

          • Badgerite

            Yeah, here is the problem with this. Until the ‘evidence’ is tested at trial, a witness is examined and cross examined, you really don’t know what the evidence is. Trials are not just to present the evidence. Trials are a place where evidence is developed and fleshed out. I have seen comments here that link to stories of people who quit their employment with Farrow because they say she pressured them to lie. But these are stories. Without a trial, there has been no real opportunity to test them.
            There have been people commenting here about the ‘forensic evidence’ of a hair in the crawl space without even the tiniest awareness that that is evidence only of the fact that Allen had been in that house or had contact with someone who had been in that house. That is how insignificant that piece of ‘evidence’ is. ( Dr. Henry Lee is the person who provided that assessment, by the way,in case you doubt that. Connecticut was his home base.) At trial that would be made clear by expert witnesses. On the internet, forget about it. People treat that as incriminating when it just simply isn’t.
            Woody Allen was the only person in this whole affair who was willing to take a lie detector test. No it is not evidence admissible at trial but it is also not nothing. Mia Farrow would not take one. Even one administered by someone she had hired. They say, “Yeah, but he hired the tester and he wouldn’t take one given by police.” Well, given what the police were doing, I think that was absolutely the right decision. And here is what the police were doing. They interviewed him for 3 hours during which time they told him that they had found his fingerprint in the crawl space. They were lying, of course. But police are allowed to lie to a suspect to try to trip them up or illicit a confession. Why do you think there are so many people convicted by confessions who are later cleared by DNA evidence? However you would think that type of questioning would be reserved for cases where there is a dead body, or a missing person, or a drug deal. It is clear that they were not conducting an investigation. They were conducting a prosecution. I can just hear it.
            Police: So you were never in the crawl space, then, Mr. Allen?
            Mr. Allen: No, I’m a claustrophobe.
            Police: Mr. Allen, what would you say if I told you that we found a fingerprint belonging to you in that crawl space?
            Can you tell us how it could have gotten there if you were never in there?
            Mr. Allen: I don’t know. Maybe I left it when I handed one of the children a can of soda or something. I don’t know.
            Police: So you were in the closet by the crawl space. But I thought you told us you were a claustrophobe. Is that a lie, too, Mr. Allen.
            This type of exchange in questioning is the support for a claim by the police of ‘inconsistencies’ in Woody Allen’s statements to them. No one in their right mind, let alone being advised by an attorney, would have taken a lie detector test administered by these guys for the attitude of the tester can affect the response.
            It has also been stated in articles by Vanity Fair and others that Allen and Dylan were in therapy to address his issues with her.
            In other words, he agreed he had a problem. In actual fact, as brought out by testimony at the custody hearing, ( I won’t say trial, because that is not really what it was) the psychologists in question were contacted to address Dylan’s problems communicating and her tendency to be “off in her own world”.
            This was brought out in the hearing, but I have never heard it portrayed that way in the press or on the internet. But that is the testimony under oath of the psychologist as to why Dylan was in therapy. Dylan was the focus of the therapy. Not Woody Allen. According to the shrink’s testimony, that is why they were hired. Indeed, the judge in his decision, made no mention of Woody Allen as being the cause or reason for the therapy. And that would have been a relevant issue to his ruling. So where did that come from in the press? And where did the story in the press in 1993 that the Yale-New Haven team had found the Allen/Dylan relationship to have “sexualized overtones” come from? Because it certainly did NOT come from the Yale-New Haven teams assessments.
            And, while we are at it, why would a claustrophobe pick a ‘crawl space’ ( not attic, mind you, but ‘crawl space’) to satisfy some urge. Well, he probably wouldn’t. But a child, when thinking of something secret going on, would. Especially if that was where the children went to get away from their parents and have their own space.
            As to Mia Farrow, during the end of her relationship with Allen, she was sleeping with Frank Sinatra who is the father of Ronan. She represented to Allen that Ronan was his child when she had to know there was at least a possibility that he was Frank Sinatra’s child. She has never seemed to think, either then or since that time, that Allen had a right to know that Ronan might not be his son. So, great humanitarian or not, I think most people would agree that that is something Allen had a right to know and that she withheld that information from him. He only just found out the truth of that recently.
            I wonder how the custody judge would have assessed that fact, if he had known it at the time of the custody HEARING.

            Tell me something else. Why did the police investigating the case have doubts as to Dylan’s viability as a witness in the first place? Is it because she had made statements that were inconsistent in terms of timeline or events with other statements as the Yale-New Haven team assessment said? The judge in the custody hearing notes that in one of her statements to police she alleged that Allen and Soon-Yi had sex while she was present in his apartment. That he pushed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti.

            Dylan now says she remembers all of this. But other than the attic/crawl space incident, everything she describes that is so awful for her to bear is pretty innocuous, mundane, ordinary stuff. He took her with him when he played in his jazz band.
            Oh the humanity. He read stories to her in bed in his shorts.
            He let her/made her suck his thumb. ( The custody ruling say “permitted” her to suck his thumb.)
            You know, my brother did the same thing when he couldn’t find the pacifier when my nephew was little. Neither one suffered life long disability.
            All of that is thrown out as ‘evidence’ of something. It is not.
            The attic/crawl space incident is something wholly out of the ordinary in their relationship as viewed by other people. Allen did not even dress or bathe the children. And he certainly could have. The therapy they were in was for her. Not him.

            Ok, you add to all of this the fact that Mia Farrow, during that time had a newborn who was taking up her attention. And according to testimony at the custody hearing, both Dylan and Allen were sort of pushed off to the side. She didn’t have time for them. All of a sudden, this adopted child who mommy had stopped paying that much attention to, was the center of mommy’s world. That would be pretty powerful stuff for a 7 year old.
            As to Moses, I consider his assessment of his relationship with his mother to be the more potent ‘testimony’ on his part. It kind of agrees with Soon-Yi’s apparent estrangement from her mother even before the affair. That there may have been, as Allen claimed, a difference between Farrow’s affections for her adopted children verses her biological ones. She rescued them, for sure. But maybe she didn’t quite love them. At least not the same. And children can sense that. That is why I think the sudden flash of sun of the mother’s intense interest on Dylan could have had quite an impact. Suddenly, she became the center of everything in the family. And everything that has gone on in the family and her life since then has reinforced the story of abuse such that she finds abuse everywhere and in ordinary and mundane things that parents regularly do.
            In other words, taken in its entirety and without benefit of a trial to flesh out the evidence, I think her memories are suspect.

          • taryn

            “The attic/crawl space incident is something wholly out of the ordinary in their relationship as viewed by other people. Allen did not even dress or bathe the children. And he certainly could have. The therapy they were in was for her. Not him.”

            “Ok, you add to all of this the fact that Mia Farrow, during that time had a newborn who was taking up her attention. And according to testimony at the custody hearing, both Dylan and Allen were sort of pushed off to the side. She didn’t have time for them. All of a sudden, this adopted child who mommy had stopped paying that much attention to, was the center of mommy’s world. That would be pretty powerful stuff for a 7 year old.”

            Woody Allen absolutely was in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan. Where are you getting this?

            Also, Dylan was only 2 years old when Satchel was born. Where are you getting that she was 7?

          • Badgerite

            Two people were seeing Dylan. Dr, Coates testified that Mia Farrow talked to her about her concerns but she observed nothing sexual in their relationship. This was from the custody hearing. Also from the custody hearing was testimony by the Dr. Schultz who said she was contacted to try Dylan for problems with communication and “being off in her own world.” I am getting that particular tidbit from a link that Taryn sent which was a New York Times report on the custody hearing testimony.
            The other stuff about Mia Farrow’s attentions being diverted to her newest child was also from the decision of the custody hearing.

          • Badgerite

            What’s more, dear, I keep hearing about these “witnesses”. Someone says someone says that someone said. yet none of these ‘witnesses’ seem to have been called or been willing to testify for Mia Farrow at the custody hearing. It would have been relevant and therefore admissible. So why weren’t they called.
            Only two reasons I can think of. Either they were not willing to testify or their testimony had vulnerabilities that would have been exposed on cross examination by Allen’s attorneys.
            It is called Due Process of law. You have a right to face your accusers in a fair forum. This was a forum that would not have required Dylan to testify at all. And yet these witnesses who could verify her story were not called. That is also very odd.
            Unless, their testimony was not as billed or not reliable for some other reason.

          • Badgerite

            Additionally, now that I think about it, why was there no forensic evidence to support Dylan’s telling of events that day. According to her, she and Allen spent 15 to 20 minutes in a ‘crawl space’ with him and her on the floor and him kissing her all over, etc.
            They found A hair. One would expect that at some point or many points this claustrophobe would have put his hand print, finger print, on the floor, on the wall, on a box. No prints of any kind belonging to him were found. And they looked.
            One would expect lots of his hairs to be in the crawl space and they found A hair. Those facts are not really consistent with her story.
            So the forensic evidence really does NOT support this.

          • Badgerite

            No I don’t think they are ‘lying’, but like I said, the suspicion in her mother because of how she perceived Allen’s relationship with her older daughter, surely had to permeate the household. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. Things had to have been said. Feelings communicated. Consciously or unconsciously. Daddy had done something wrong. Maybe to me. etc.
            What I am saying is that when someone attacks or challenges the statement, “We can’t really know what happened.” , well, the truth is we can’t. And certainly, we can’t with respect to what she claims happened to her in the New York Times piece. One of her brothers disputes it. And he was surely old enough to have an independent memory of events and what went on in the household. ( I believe Ronan Farrow was a baby at the time.) The atmosphere created. And when Dylan Farrow says she feels he ( Woody Allen) got away with it, the implication is that we, the public, are now to punish him for her. And to me, there is just no way that that should be the focus of any of this. Because, (and I know you are not allowed to say it but I will say it anyway) we can’t really know what happened. Memories, especially of a 7 year old, are malleable and subjective. And because there are two families involved in this. Mia Farrow’s other daughter ( also ‘dead to them’ I suppose) is not actually dead and did indeed marry him and they now have 2 adopted children. I’m sorry if she feels she needs him to be publicly punished, but I just don’t think that is appropriate or serves any real purpose. If she wants to vent and get it out, ya know, go ahead. But tongue lashing people for having relationships with or admiration for the work of her ex father does not seem to me to be called for, reasonable, or appropriate.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Except we can, as at this point there’s an abundance of evidence, and we are only blocked by the statute of limitations.

          • Badgerite

            You are ‘blocked’ by the statute of limitations for a reason. We have the policy in law for a reason and that reason is the interests of justice.
            The interest of the party involved to a fair trial will be seriously jeopardized over time. That is why the policy exists.
            Trial by internet or the press is not a trial. It is a lynching.

          • Jill Friedman

            No, it is not a lynching. We are simply discussing and sharing our thoughts and opinions, which do not have the power of life or death over anyone. The reason the standard of proof is so high in a criminal trial is because so much is at stake for the defendent. In a civil trial the burden of proof is less. Since this is no trial at all we have a perfect right analyze the evidence and draw conclusions.

          • Badgerite

            Except that no defense is really presented. The ‘evidence’ is one sided and unquestioned. You have a right to gossip at the water cooler too. But usually it doesn’t end up in the New York Times.

          • Jill Friedman

            People have been presenting a defense during the discussions and in.articles and WA got to respond in the NY times. If anything WA has fame and money on his side. He’s legally innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court which will never happen. We do have a right to express our opinions.

          • Badgerite

            It is not the same. There can be things that happen at a trial, during cross examination that uncover evidence that would never be known without that. I can attest to that first hand. So when someone talks about ‘examining the evidence’, it is as if they know all the evidence and what they really know is each sides story without any real testing that occurs at trial. And frankly, I don’t see why our opinions should matter in this. Unless one side is trying to have the public punish the other. And I think that is fundamentally unfair.

          • Jill Friedman

            If you don’t think our opinions should matter, why are you posting your opinion? And what abput accusations that Mia deliberately implanted false memories in her child’s mind, lied to the doctor and police investigators and continues to lie about it today? Those are very serious charges. Are you also opposed to those comments?

          • Badgerite

            Yes, I am. I don’t like being involved in this kind of thing. Especially something that is personal and involves people I don’t know. But there you are. That is what this type of personal attack brings about.
            This is not something Woody Allen asked for. This is something the Farrow family seeks. And I find this attack on Woody Allen some 20 years after the fact, offensive. Especially given the Yale-New Haven team’s assessment of what occurred, which people seem to dismiss out of hand. I do not do so. They are the independent professionals who dealt with this first and first hand, at the time when it happened.
            By the way, in the interests of accuracy, I did not say I thought that Mia Farrow intentionally implanted false memories in her head. But I sure as hell know that it is possible to do so consciously or unconsciously.

          • Thawed Cave Bear
          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Thus, nearly all of Allen’s supporting ‘facts’ are….half-truths or falsehoods.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            “of course, they could both be lying.’ …And, there you are. That sort of assumption is exactly what the defense’s case depends on.

      • Badgerite

        Probably so. But one of the reason for the change in interviewing techniques you describe were previous cases like the McMartin PreSchool case in California. http://www.mercedsunstar..com/2011/07/21/1976652_mcmartin-preschool-abuse-case.html
        The case got wild media attention and parents were sent a form letter asking them to question their children as to possible abuse. Allegations and stories multiplied, interviews were conducted and taped with questions by the interviewer that were clearly leading the children and the case/cases fell apart in court. But not before the McMartins were destroyed financially and emotionally.
        From the article:

        “Properly questioning youngsters is the key to finding truthful information that could either put a molester in prison or exonerate a wrongly accused person, said Myers. (John Myers, a Pacific McGeorge School of Law professor whose specialty is investigating and litigating child abuse cases) But interviewing children about sexual abuse can be tricky, he and other said.”

        “Young children, they said, are vulnerable to “suggestive questioning”, in which the interviewer coaches a child into saying things that incriminate the accused person.”

        New standards were put in as much to defend the rights of the accused as well as to protect those of the child. And in this case, the child’s first response to the doctor certainly could have been what really happened.
        After that interview, the girl was most likely more closely questioned by her mother. In short, the fact that the interviews were ‘botched’ could have caused as much harm to a defendant as to a victim. There is no way to tell that her first answer was not the true answer and an interval of time in the custodial care of a parent who had been questioning her closely about the events in question ensued and her story changed.

        • QuadCityPat

          Thanks for mention McMartin, that’s why we tell parents NOT to question their child too much or at all unless the child brings it up. Our forensic training is a direct response to how badly McMartin was messed up. And you make my point exactly when I say botched I mean the repeated questioning of the child by the 3 doctor panel could have reinforced a false premise.

          • Badgerite

            I know you do. But to me, the botched part happened when the custodial parent started interviewing and taping the child herself. This is per se corruption of evidence. And there is no way around that. And, as described by others, that was a continuing thing. And there is no way to know, other than corroborating physical or testimonial evidence, that what she first told the Doctor, (he touched me on the shoulder) wasn’t the truth.
            Dylan Farrow maintains that her memories are real. But there is a reason that we submit these questions to a jury as the triers of fact and not a panel of experts. And that reason is life experience.
            My own life experience is that I have seen this occur, not with a child but with an adult, up close and personal. I KNOW it can happen. I have seen it. So, yes, I would want corroborating evidence. That was not present in this case and all the factors were present for corruption of the child’s memory and that is why the case did NOT proceed.

          • QuadCityPat

            Totally agree with you that Mia should not have taped or interviewed Dylan. We tell parents not to question their children beyond the first disclosure. After we’ve interviewed the kid, we tell parents not to ask the child questions about it unless the child brings it up. Mia is just as guilty of screwing this up as anyone.

          • steppen

            if there was indeed something to screw up by the investigation. Investigations need to be science not opinion and to me that means rational…without bias. One such bias is giving past conclusions too much weight.

          • scottrose

            Moses Farrow alleges being at the CT house during that court-mandated visit from Woody, having Woody in his sight during the entire length of the relatively brief visit, and that Woody and Dylan were not ever alone together at the house that day.

          • Badgerite

            I know. And this is from someone who, because of the court order in the custody dispute, until very recently, has had nothing to do with Woody Allen since that day. And someone who was a lot older and able to have an independent memory of events at that time. Why are his memories suspect? Why is he now, ‘Dead to me’, according to his sister. Personally, I think you can see the influence of what went on in that household just from that statement. I could see saying,” My brother is mistaken but he is my brother and I love him. ”
            But, “He’s dead to me. He BETRAYED THE FAMILY.”
            What’s up with that? If he is stating what he honestly remembers, how is that ‘betraying’ anyone. Let alone ‘the family’.
            Those are loaded terms she’s using. That bespeak a certain psychology. I can’t help but notice. And why does she need Woody Allen ‘to pay’. She says things like, “He never paid for what he did. He got away with it.”
            He lost custody of his children and his name was pretty much mud for years. And if any molestation was happening, it ended then.
            Another words, if what she says is true, the world came to her defense. Why all the bitterness? Toward her brother, no less,
            who clearly didn’t do and hasn’t done anything wrong?

          • scottrose

            And, when you consider that Moses Farrow alleges that as a child, he was a victim of domestic violence at Mia Farrow’s hands, of beatings, of towering rages from her against him — for Dylan to call him a “liar,” and then to curse people merely because they are skeptical of her allegations, is the height of hypocrisy.

          • Badgerite

            I’m not skeptical in the sense that I think she or her mother are intentionally lying. But I am skeptical of the fact that Dylan Farrow expects the world to punish Woody Allen for her when we aren’t even sure that he did anything. And her being older does not take away that doubt for reasons I have already gone into.
            And the thing is, there are other people involved. Woody Allen and her ( probably also ‘dead to her’ ) former sister have a family as well. It just seems to me that if she has problems with the idea she has that “he got away with it” she should find a better way to deal with it than through what was a public attack on him. ( and on his family).

          • taryn

            Moses, who would never forgive Woody for sleeping with his sister, deliberately snubbed him by disappearing into the woods that day.
            p 284
            The Unruly Life of Woody Allen (Scribner)
            By Marion Meade

            Two other books give the same account. This was written, obviously, before Moses gave his recent interview. Not a tabloid source, she’s a well regarded biographer.

          • Badgerite

            So he was at the house that day, wasn’t he?
            Personally, I think Moses would know where he was that day better than any ‘biographer’. It was, after all, his life.

          • Jill Friedman

            If he ran into the woods then he whole timr

          • Badgerite

            “If he ran into the woods”. Well that is the point, isn’t it. There are a lot of “if”s here and there are because none, NONE of this was tested in a court of law. A custody hearing is not a trial. It is a custody hearing. The man did pass a lie detector test and that is not without any weight as people seem to like to pretend and I’m quite sure the same people who say that is meaningless would be saying just the opposite if he had failed one.

          • Sophie

            You have to remember that many of these children came from biological backgrounds that were far more abusive than anything Mia Farrow could have aimed at them. As such, it’s impossible to know whether their feelings about being abused stem from their earliest years, or their time with Mia Farrow. After-all, most of the Farrow children don’t report this kind of abuse.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            AGAIN, if you remembered being molested clearly, and a relative with contingent memories disagreed with this publicly, damaging your case with the public, the only justice you’ll get after suffering quietly for twenty years, you might be angry beyond imagination as well. how is that hard to understand?!

          • Badgerite

            There is no evidence that the ‘forensics’, which would have been the physical exam, were “botched”. The physical exam showed no signs of abuse. It was not “botched”. The interviews were “botched” as much be Mia Farrow as by anyone since it is highly inappropriate for a person who:
            1) put a note on Woody Allen’s bedroom door when he was staying with them for the night that said “Child Molester” ( referring to his relationship with Soon-Yi),
            2) who struck her daughter Soon-YI on the face and on the shoulders when she admitted her relationship with Woody Allen to her,
            3) “gave Mr. Allen a family picture valentine with skewers through the hearts of the children and a knife through the heart of Ms. Farrow,
            4) and where this little family drama was played out in front of small children, which it was, at tense dinners and such,
            to be interviewing any of her children with respect to claims of sexual molestation since she viewed the relationship he had with Soon-Yi, who was not a child, as child molestation.
            If you actually read the 1993 custody case, there were issues of him not wanting children, him not being comfortable with a relationship with her children from previous relationships, her wanting children, her focusing on the children and distancing from him, then him focusing on the children whom he had known as babies ( Dylan and Moses). Her pushing him away, him focusing on the children, etc. If you actually read the custody case, it comes off as very involved to say the least. The instances of him reading to Dylan in bed in his under shorts and “permitting” her to suck his thumb ( not making her do so ). are not that unusual behavior as would warrant claims of child abuse. There were issues between her and Soon-Yi. Issues with Satchel. And you also can’t help but notice that the judge got a few significant things wrong, in hindsight. As to a criminal case, there is just no way, with this kind of familial upset and conflict going on that anyone in the middle of it, let alone a 7 year old, could be unaffected. Indeed, one of the reasons that Moses had no contact with Woody Allen as a result of court decision was a letter he wrote which stated that Woody Allen had “betrayed the family” by his relationship with Soon-Yi. Sound familiar? (see family valentine with skewers through the hearts) And unlike, Ronan Farrow, Moses was older. A teenager or close to it. He could be said to have a more independent take on what occurred. And a lot of what he says now supports what Woody Allen said in his petitions to the court and the judge considered unpersuasive. About the atmosphere in the household at the time and since. But the judge also characterized Mr. Allen as using Soon-Yi without regard to her long term welfare, and I think in hindsight that was clearly not the case.

            And yes, that kind of anger toward her brother is hard to understand as he is expressing what he lived through. Is he not allowed, then, to have his own memories?
            She had a right to say what she needs to say and other people have a right to question it. Including her brother.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            You haven’t actually read the article, have you.

          • taryn

            WA’s different accounts of whether he was ever in the attic:

            – in the second quote in case anyone is confused by the term crawl space:

            “According to her account, she and Daddy went to the attic (not really an attic, just a small crawl space off the closet of Mia’s bedroom where the children play)”
            http://gawker.com/what-you-should-kn…ins-1500274468

            Q. What did happen in the house?

            A.” It was a Wednesday two weeks ago. I came in the midafternoon for a visit. Allegedly, I took her in the attic, according to what the child-protection agency told me was the allegation, and did unspeakable things to her. But nothing at all happened. Nothing. In light-years I wouldn’t go into an attic, I wouldn’t even know how to find Mia’s attic. I’m a famous claustrophobic. And I would not molest my daughter.”

            http://content.time.com/time/magazin…160439,00.html

            Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half-hour interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.

            But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.

            But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that his prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent.

            http://www.andythibault.com/columns/…20Apr%2097.htm

            Yale didn’t know about Allen changing his story regarding hair found in the attic.

            http://www.nhregister.com/opinion/20…len-mouthpiece

          • Badgerite

            The Gawker link was just a rehash of the twitter stuff that went on during the Golden Globes Lifetime Achievement Award and the fact that Woody Allen did Dylan, when she turned 18, pictures he’d kept of the two of them.
            Link 2 – Time – Error – Page not found
            Link 3 – Error – Page not found
            Link 4 – Bad request

            Like I said, people who support this thread keep trying to turn the internet into a courtroom. It won’t work. It is not a courtroom.
            For one thing, it was mentioned that a hair of his was found in the crawlspace. Not a fingerprint. I don’t think that is true and what’s more most of your links bad and the one that isn’t has nothing about forensic evidence of any kind in it.
            What your story does show is that the children went into the crawlspace a fair amount. But it is unlikely that an adult would.
            But if you were a child, that may be the place you would pick to claim something happened there as it is where you would go to be in your own world. Isn’t that so?

          • taryn

            “The Gawker link was just a rehash of the twitter stuff that went on during the Golden Globes Lifetime Achievement Award and the fact that Woody Allen did Dylan, when she turned 18, pictures he’d kept of the two of them. ”

            Yeah, and that’s not why I listed it.

            This is what I put before the Gawker quote, to explain why I included it (it’s in my post above, you can read it there too, which would save me the trouble of having to explain it to you.)

            “- in the second quote in case anyone is confused by the term crawl space:”

            Gawker was only included because it gave an explanation of the attic actually being a crawl space. If I explained that the attic and the crawl space are one and the same I assumed you would ask for a source.

            Sorry about the bad link. You know you can always Google something if it’s an exact quote and it will pull it right up for you if it’s online. Takes a few seconds though.

            “The Heart Wants What It Wants”

            By WALTER ISAACSON Woody Allen Sunday, June 24, 2001

            Read more: “The Heart Wants What It Wants” – TIME http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,160439,00.html#ixzz2wGui3UOf

            Q. What did happen in the house?

            A.” It was a Wednesday two weeks ago. I came in the midafternoon for a visit. Allegedly, I took her in the attic, according to what the child-protection agency told me was the allegation, and did unspeakable things to her. But nothing at all happened. Nothing. In light-years I wouldn’t go into an attic, I wouldn’t even know how to find Mia’s attic. I’m a famous claustrophobic. And I would not molest my daughter.”

            “For one thing, it was mentioned that a hair of his was found in the crawlspace. Not a fingerprint. I don’t think that is true and what’s more most of your links bad and the one that isn’t has nothing about forensic evidence of any kind in it.
            What your story does show is that the children went into the crawlspace a fair amount. But it is unlikely that an adult would.
            But if you were a child, that may be the place you would pick to claim something happened there as it is where you would go to be in your own world. Isn’t that so?”

            The whole point of my post is that Woody Allen lied about being in the attic. That is why I quoted the two conflicting versions Woody Allen gives. The first in the Time article, the second in the police interview. You’re not even attacking what is relevant. You don’t seem to even understand why I posted it. It’s pretty obvious to me, apparently not to you. He lied about whether he was in the attic. You are just purposely wasting my time. Complaining links that are laughably easy to find on you’re own. This is basic information. It’s not obscure. You should have read this already. I shouldn’t even have to give the links, you should be familiar with it.

            If you don’t think people should be discussing this online then why do you keep posting about it? And if you want to post about it you’re going to have to put some time into researching it.Try to keep up. Look, I know I’m being rude. I’m usually not this rude but I’m tired of people that will only look at this with extreme confirmation bias.

            Read the time quote above- not only does he say he wasn’t there, he says “I wouldn’t even know how to find Mia’s attic.”

            Then in the Connecticut police interview:

            Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half hour interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.

            But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.

            But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that he is prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent.

            This is the article referenced, I don’t know why the link doesn’t work for you but it’s been referenced a lot online.

            Woody, Mia and Frank Maco

            The Litchfield County state’s attorney thought he’d seen it all – and then he ran into Mia Farrow and Woody Allen.
            BY ANDY THIBAULT
            Connecticut Magazine, April 1997

            http://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/Connecticut-Today/September-2013/Mia-Farrows-Vanity-Fair-Interview-References-1997-Connecticut-Magazine-Article/index.php?cparticle=3&siarticle=2

            http://www.andythibault.com/columns/CT%20Magazine%20-%20Apr%2097.htm

          • Badgerite

            Lady, your links were bad and I am not a mind reader so I had no idea what “point” you were making. You are posting to my comments. Not the other way around. I have no obligation to google anything. If you can’t be bothered to test your links before you post them, then don’t post them.
            But I read the articles and the truth is, as I have commented before, that a hair found anywhere in a house where a person has resided or stayed is conclusive of nothing since fibers and hairs attach easily to clothing and tend to travel. Quoting from your link:
            “Police found hair fibers in the crawl space consistent with Allen’s, but forensic specialist Dr. Henry Lee, Chief of Connecticut’s state crime laboratory believes the evidence could not conclusively place Allen in the attic.”
            Well, of course not. All that would be required for a hair of his to travel to the attic is that he be present in the house or have contact with someone present in the house.
            Anyone who doesn’t know that that particular bit of ‘evidence’ means nothing, knows nothing about fiber evidence.

            And the police did not find any evidence of Woody Allen’s fingerprints in the crawl space. What they were doing in telling him they had is something police are allowed to do when interviewing a suspect and that is lie to them about the evidence they have to see if they can get them to confess.
            Most people don’t know that the police are indeed allowed to lie to them and I suspect Woody Allen was in that group and thought they actually had found such a print. He then tried to think of how it could have gotten there. This is hardly an unusual or incriminating reaction to being lied to as to what the evidence actually is.

            And the more people post articles that try to convince me of Woody Allen’s guilt, the more things I see wrong with the child’s story. So, according to Dylan, and the babysitter, Allen took her underpants off in the TV room, with a lot of people around.
            The babysitter noticed that her underpants were off and that Allen’s head was in her lap in a suggestive way and didn’t think to intervene or put her pants back on? According to Dylan, he then took her up to the crawl space and told her he was going to take her to Paris and put her in a movie.
            “And he would tell her mother and psychologists, etc, that Allen touched her with the tip of his index finger several times that day.” Several times? So it wasn’t just in the attic. And no one saw this several times?
            She also told police that he had smashed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and that Allen and Soon-Yi had had sex while she was in the same apartment.
            No, I don’t think he smashed her face into a plate of spaghetti.
            No I don’t think that Allen and Soon-Yi had sex while she was in the same apartment.

          • taryn

            Dr.Susan Coates, the therapist who was treating Woody Allen for his inappropriate behavior with Dylan, and testified in his defense, would not say in testimony that he should have unsupervised visitation. This was a therapist paid for by WA, who testified for him, not Mia Farrow. And even the Yale NH report reported that his relationship with Dylan had a “sexualized overtone.”

            Although Dr. Coates testified that she believed Mr. Allen posed no threat to Satchel, she seemed more equivocal when it came to his relationship with Dylan. She said that she believed “it’s extremely important that Dylan have contact with her father,” and she advocated another round of therapy for both father and daughter. But she also acknowledged under cross-examination that if Dylan had been abused, she would limit visitation “in some extreme way.”

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

          • taryn

            And the more people post articles that try to convince me of Woody Allen’s guilt, the more things I see wrong with the child’s story. So, according to Dylan, and the babysitter, Allen took her underpants off in the TV room, with a lot of people around.

            Sigh, no, read the testimony from the trial reported in the NY Times.

            Where did you get that there were lots of people around?

            Sitter Questions Allen Actions With Daughter

            By PETER MARKS
            Published: April 10, 1993

            On the afternoon of Aug. 4, 1992, Alison Stickland, a baby sitter, was walking by the television room in Mia Farrow’s summer home in Connecticut when, she testified yesterday, she looked in and noticed something strange.

            There, sitting silently on the sofa, she said, was 7-year-old Dylan Farrow. The little girl, she said, was wearing a white dress and a blank expression. And kneeling before her in a way that bothered Ms. Stickland, she said, was the girl’s father, Woody Allen.

            “I got to the doorway, and Mr. Allen was on his knees in front of Dylan, with his head in her lap,” said Ms. Stickland, a baby sitter for the children of one of Ms. Farrow’s oldest friends, in testimony in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. She said that his face was turned toward Dylan’s body.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/10/nyregion/sitter-questions-allen-actions-with-daughter.html

          • Badgerite

            The Yale-New Have report reported no such thing. A newspaper report reported that the study “reportedly” commented that his relationship with Dylan had a “sexualized overtone.”
            Of course, the Yale New-Haven team had not interviewed Woody Allen, they had only interviewed Dylan. How they could even have made such a conclusion without doing so would have been problematic to say the least. But I’m pretty sure the judge would have mentioned it in the custody decision if they had. And he certainly did no such thing.
            In fact, what that ‘sexualized overtones’ crap sounds like is Mia Farrow. And I suspect someone leaked her conclusions as those of the report. Because the report concluded no such thing or the judge surely would have mentioned that in passing in his decision as it would be a support to his ruling.
            Quoting from the Times article:

            “Lawyers for both sides presented Dr. Coates with a myriad of hypothetical situations…..”
            An if, then question is not quite the same as what is your expert opinion as to the true nature of their relationship.

            And:

            “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”.
            Kind of like the conclusion that the Yale-New Haven team had reached.

            Also, the Yale New-Haven team did not INCLUDE Woody Allen’s hired therapists, as one article you linked to stated.

          • taryn

            The Yale-New Have report reported no such thing. A newspaper report reported that the study “reportedly” commented that his relationship with Dylan had a “sexualized overtone.”

            No, that is how they described relationship with her. The “reportedly” was in People, but that is what the YNH said. And there are many sources for this, it wasn’t hearsay, it was reported during the trial. They found his innocent of the molestation, but it is undeniable that they characterized his relationship with D Farrow as “having a sexualized overtone.”
            Not “reportedly.”

            Newsweek magazine, April 19, 1993

            Woody Allen, who had been accused by
            his ex-lover Mia Farrow of abusing their daughter, Dylan, 7, announced
            that an investigation by a team of specialists at the Yale-New Haven
            Child Abuse Evaluation Clinic found that no abuse had occurred. The
            Yale report did criticize the “sexualized overtone” of Allen’s behavior
            of the girl, but the team was not convinced by Farrow’s chief
            evidence: her own videotape of Dylan allegedly making the
            accusations.

          • taryn

            The Yale-New Have report reported no such thing. A newspaper report reported that the study “reportedly” commented that his relationship with Dylan had a “sexualized overtone.”

            No, the YNH study did report that.

            More dramatic signs that professional and popular opinion on child abuse may be swinging back toward a middle ground came late last month in two highly sensational cases. Woody Allen, who had been accused by his ex-lover Mia Farrow of abusing their daughter Dylan, 7, announced that an investigation by a team of specialists at the Yale-New Haven Child Abuse Evaluation Clinic found that no abuse had occurred. The Yale report did criticize the “sexualized overtone” of Allen’s behavior with the girl, but the team apparently was not convinced by Farrow’s chief evidence: her own videotape of Dylan allegedly making the accusations.

            http://www.newsweek.com/rush-judgement-191610

            “Also, the Yale New-Haven team did not INCLUDE Woody Allen’s hired therapists, as one article you linked to stated.”

            You’re misreading that. It did not say that the YNH team INCLUDED Woody Allen’s hired therapists.

            This is what the article stated:
            “The Yale team used psychologists on Allen’s payroll to make mental health conclusions. “That seems like a blatant conflict of interest; they should have excluded themselves,” Schetky says.”

            The YNH team interviewed Woody Allen’s hired therapists. They used those interviews in their investigation and final conclusions. Dr. Coates and Dr. NS were on Woody Allen’s payroll. They were interviewed by the YNH team. They used this information when they made conclusions about Dylan Farrow’s mental health. The team consisted of Dr. Leventhal and two social workers. There were no psychologists or psychiatrists on the YNH team.

            That is stated in the article:
            “No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel.”

            “Lawyers for both sides presented Dr. Coates with a myriad of hypothetical situations…..”
            An if, then question is not quite the same as what is your expert opinion as to the true nature of their relationship.

            This was not a response to a hypothetical question. That was her opinion on visitation between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow without applying any hypothetical situation. Her opinion was that Woody Allen had not molested Dylan Farrow. Dr. Coates also specifically said in testimony that she was not an expert in child sexual abuse expert and her opinion as to whether WA abused Dylan should not be considered as one. She also did not recommend unsupervised visitation between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow. She recommended more therapy for Dylan and WA before any unsupervised visitation took place. Dr. Nancy Schultz was the one who recommended unsupervised visitation.

            And:
            “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”.
            Kind of like the conclusion that the Yale-New Haven team had reached.

            They did come to that conclusion about Dylan Farrow in their final study that said no sexual abuse occurred. Dr. Leventhal admitted he had made an error in coming to that conclusion, but only later. The YNH investigation submitted their findings without that correction.. Dr. Leventhal never interviewed Dylan Farrow. That was done by the other two members.

            “Leventhal himself later admitted, in sworn testimony in the custody case, that he made several mistakes during the course of the investigation. One of those was his false characterization of Dylan’s active imagination as a thought disorder.

            In the Yale report, Leventhal cited what he called “loose associations” by the child. He said she talked about looking in a trunk and seeing “dead heads.” When advised that Mia Farrow had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or a thought disorder.

            The pediatrician also attempted to categorize Dylan’s banter as “magical thinking,” citing her vivid description of a sunset. However, after being advised that Mia Farrow described the dark sky upon leaving New Haven in the evening as “the magic hour,” Leventhal said he was “less concerned” about the incident as an example of “loose thinking.”

            http://www.andythibault.com/columns/CT%20Magazine%20-%20Apr%2097.htm

          • taryn

            “Of course, the Yale New-Haven team had not interviewed Woody Allen, they had only interviewed Dylan. How they could even have made such a conclusion without doing so would have been problematic to say the least. But I’m pretty sure the judge would have mentioned it in the custody decision if they had. And he certainly did no such thing.”

            No, you are quite wrong. He was interviewed by each member of the team and there were multiple dates given for these interviews with Woody Allen. They also interviewed Dr. Susan Coates, so they would have her description of the behavior he was working on with her to modify.

          • Badgerite

            Ok. Show me the link. Where are you getting that from, exactly.
            And please make it a good link. One that actually works.
            Along with something other than a report in a paper, which is not exactly authoritative. Dr. Coates said that Mia Farrow expressed those kinds of concerns to her. That is it. At no time can I find anything that says he admitted to any such feelings. And as I gave you the quote before from Dr. Schultz as to why she was contacted and I got that from a report as to testimony by her at the custody hearing that was from a link provided by YOU you should be able to find it yourself. It was that last line of the New York Times article you linked to.

          • taryn

            “Of course, the Yale New-Haven team had not interviewed Woody Allen, they had only interviewed Dylan. How they could even have made such a conclusion without doing so would have been problematic to say the least. But I’m pretty sure the judge would have mentioned it in the custody decision if they had. And he certainly did no such thing.”

            It’s from the Yale New Haven Report. 11/17/92, 11/30/92, 1/7/93

            Interviews of Woody Allen by Ms. Sawyer, Dr. Hamilton, and Dr. Leventhal

            http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

          • Badgerite

            Did you even read the document? Nowhere in it is there any reference to “sexualized overtones”. Nowhere. Quite the contrary. In fact you previously linked to a site that claimed the team’s assessment was wrong because they didn’t interview ‘witnesses’. And what you linked to now says they did interview the 2 babysitters. So you are basing your assertion on a newspaper report that circulated at the time as opposed to what the clinic actually said in its assessment.

            Quoting from their assessment:

            “In summary, Dylan presented an intelligent, verbal 7 year-old whose story telling was quite elaborate and fantasy-like at times and who manifested loose associations in her thinking. She appeared confused about what to relate to the interviewers and was very controlling of what she would say. In her statements and her play she elaborated interrelated themes. She was upset by the loss of her father and Soon-Yi and worried that her father might take her from her mother’s care. She felt protective of and worried for her mother. Dylan was very much attuned to her mother’s pain and her mother reinforced Dylan’s losses and her negative view of her father.”

            “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4,1992.—- Our opinion was reinforced by the additional information that we gathered throughout the rest of the evaluation.”

            This is in line with what I felt was probably at the root of this.
            The impact on a 7 year old of the extreme upset in the ‘family’ and its impact on her mother who considered Woody Allen a “child molester” because of his relationship with Soon-YI.
            And her being “attuned to her mother’s pain”.
            Over 20 years time, that pain has become the family Bible.
            What did Ronan Farrow tweet on the night of the Golden Globe award? About how disgusting and abnormal Woody Allen and Soon-YI’s relationship was to him even though they have been married now for 17 years, have 2 children and an intact family of their own. And he did this, even though he was probably about 4 years old when this all happened and his memories of his ‘father’ and his ‘sister’, who he sarcastically called his “mother” have to be very dim indeed. To me, this shows an obsession in the family that has persisted for 20 years with the initial ‘injury’ of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter having an affair and falling in love. For that is the way Woody Allen has always described their relationship and time has borne that out.

            The clinic evaluation continues:

            “In developing our opinion, we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.”
            “While we conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we cannot be definitive about whether the second formulation or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse. The major reasons for our opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused are the following:
            1) There were important inconsistencies in Dylan’s statements in the videotape and in her statements to us.
            2) She appeared to struggle with how to tell about the touching.
            3) She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statements, and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke.
            4) Her descriptions of the details surrounding the events were unusual and were inconsistent.”

            Now a polygraph test is not unimpeachable. And here is a link for you.
            http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2935/how-accurate-are-lie-detector-tests
            “Do lie detector tests work? Depends on how you define work.
            Probably the most comprehensive look at polygraphs accuracy is a 2003 report from the National Academy of Sciences. After examining 57 polygraph studies, the NAS concluded: ” In populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in counter measures, specific incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. ” Their analysis of the 30 most recent polygraph data sets showed an overall accuracy of 85%, and an analysis of seven field studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89%.”
            To pass a lie detector test is not conclusive for the reasons that article talks about but it is certainly not nothing.

          • taryn

            “Did you even read the document? Nowhere in it is there any reference to “sexualized overtones”. Nowhere. Quite the contrary. In fact you previously linked to a site that claimed the team’s assessment was wrong because they didn’t interview ‘witnesses’. And what you linked to now says they did interview the 2 babysitters. So you are basing your assertion on a newspaper report that circulated at the time as opposed to what the clinic actually said in its assessment.”

            But that is not all 40 pages of the report.

            If Newsweek reported that the YNH criticized WA’s relationship with DF as having a “sexualized overtone” I’m going to assume they didn’t pull that out of thin air.

            I’ve read it closely enough to know neither Alison Sticktland nor Sophie Berge were in the YNH interview dates given. Only Kristin Groteke was. Yes, it said they met with two babysitters, but the names of those babysitters weren’t given.

          • Badgerite

            I would not assume that at all. I remember Newsweek’s reporting during the Ramsey case. It was terrible.
            As I said, any witnesses that Mia Farrow had to support her claim of abuse could and should have been called as witnesses at the custody hearing. If they were not, then they are not witnesses. Period.
            A report in a paper or a magazine is not evidence. It is a report reporting hearsay as truth. Also not evidence.
            The conclusion of the report is quite specific as to what they believe did and did not happen and why.
            It doesn’t just criticize the child’s story for ‘magical thinking’ it also criticizes inconsistencies as well as the rehearsed demeanor of her statements.
            At no time did the clinic interview Woody Allen and Dylan together. Another words they made no personal observations themselves as to their relationship. What the report may contain is someone else’s assessment such as Mia Farrow’s.
            But the clinic was quite clear in their conclusion and it does not support Mia or Dylan Farrow’s story.
            Nor does the forensic evidence. And there should have been some if Woody Allen spent that time with her in the ‘crawl space’.
            Nor does the family story line that Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi anything bordering on molestation of her by Woody Allen.
            Moses and Soon-Yi’s statements agree as to their relationship with their mother and the extreme emphasis placed on accepting her view that Woody Allen was a child molester.
            And the actions and statements of her two grown children (Dylan and Ronan) rather bear that out.
            The woman won a custody hearing. Nothing more.
            His claims about the police are borne out by the way they approached their interview with him and things they have said that really are over the line in terms of what they are supposed to do when concluding an investigation that did not result in charges being brought.
            Enough, already.

          • taryn

            It is impossible to know what happened and we will probably never know. You’ve stated before that you find the ongoing discussion over the case unacceptable so I will try to explain IMO why the standard online defense of WA bothers so many people. It’s not because they automatically assume guilt.

            “Implanted memories” are not at all common in children over 5. At DF’s age (7) it is far, far more likely that (if the allegations were false at the time) it was a coerced accusation. The empirical evidence for this is undeniable. Yet almost every argument in WA’s defense blames MF for the accusations even now. Do you understand why anyone who has a past history of abuse or knows someone that does might have a problem with this? No matter what you believe, denying that that Dylan Farrow even knows what happened is ridiculous. Yet that is what I’ve seen people do time after time. Dylan Farrow is 29 now. She’s accountable for what she’s said as an adult, not her mother.

          • Badgerite

            Are you kidding me. As I have said, I have personally seen them in adults. It just depends on the person.
            Steven Cook was an adult when a therapist led him to believe he had been sexually molested by Cardinal Joseph Bernadine when Cook was a high school seminarian. When time conflicts arose that not only called his memories into question, but made them damned near impossible, he recanted and said he could no longer be sure his memories were accurate.
            The psychologist who managed to extract the description of the man who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart from her little sister who was present that night said that she did this by making sure that no one disturbed her memories by questioning. Because improper questioning could easily alter them.
            This isn’t about anyone else’s past history of abuse. This is about a specific case and the allegations surrounding it.
            And in that regard, I found Moses Farrow’s description of the household he grew up in quite telling. Please don’t tell me he didn’t grow up in that household. I’m pretty sure he did.

          • taryn

            I don’t know what you’re replying to here. What I said was that false allegations are far more common than false memories in custody cases, yet the “standard online defense” almost always contends Dylan Farrow has false memories.

            “This isn’t about anyone else’s past history of abuse. This is about a specific case and the allegations surrounding it.

            I said nothing remotely like this. My comment was about the online discussion specifically, not the case itself.

            And in that regard, I found Moses Farrow’s description of the household he grew up in quite telling. Please don’t tell me he didn’t grow up in that household. I’m pretty sure he did.”

            What I’ve previously posted has nothing to do with his memories of abuse.. It was asking why he isn’t mentioned in the custody ruling as present in the house on Aug 4th and why a book written over a decade ago states he wasn’t inside the house on that day.

            “The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces.”

            Woody Allen’s own testimony at the custody trial disputes this.

          • Badgerite

            And I have said that I didn’t find Moses accounts of that days events to have been what I found interesting or telling about his comments. I find his description of the atmosphere in the household to be telling and supported by Soon-Yi and by Ronan Farrow’s actions as a child and his statements now.

          • taryn

            I don’t even know what you’re replying to here. My entire post was about the fact that false allegations are far more common than false memories of abuse in custody trials. Yet the standard online defense is that DF has “implanted memories”.

            “This isn’t about anyone else’s past history of abuse. This is about a specific case and the allegations surrounding it. ”

            I never said anything even remotely like this. My point was specifically about online discussions, not the case itself. I never equated this case with anyone’s past history of abuse.

            “And in that regard, I found Moses Farrow’s description of the household he grew up in quite telling. Please don’t tell me he didn’t grow up in that household. I’m pretty sure he did.”

            I’ve never said anything about his abuse not being valid. What I have asked is why in the custody papers is he is not listed as present in the house that day, and again why was it stated he was not inside the house in a biography written over a decade ago.

            “The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. ”

            Woody Allen’s own testimony at the trial contradicts this statement of Moses.

          • Badgerite

            I’m not replying to you any more because from my end of it, this ‘discussion’ is done. I have said my piece about it. I don’t really have anything more to say. If you do, say it to someone who hasn’t already outlined to you in detail why it is that I don’t find the Farrow’s current campaign against Woody Allen to be an acceptable use of ‘star power’.

          • taryn

            That’s fine. I am going to correct a few dates in one of your posts but please don’t look at it as a personal response, I just want the correct dates to be noted.

          • taryn

            About the polygraph test, correct me if I’m wrong , but Woody Allen wouldn’t have to disclose previous failed polygraphs set up through his lawyers from my understanding? Those other polygraphs would fall under lawyer-client privilege?.

          • Badgerite

            No, it would not be covered by attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege refers only to communications between you and your attorney. Not an independent third party hired to do a polygraph. So, no.

          • Badgerite

            I will amend my former reply to be more accurate. A polygraph test would only fall under attorney client privilege if his attorney had arranged for the test. If Woody Allen did that himself, it would not. Either way. However the company that gave the polygraph would be under no such obligation, I shouldn’t think, unless they signed some kind of agreement to that effect.
            Either way, your making stuff up again.

          • taryn

            Woody Allen did not arrange for the test, his attorney did.

            Direct quote, page 383: “at one point, his legal team arranged for him to take a lie detector test”

            source: Authorized biography:

            Woody Allen: a Biography

            by Eric Lax

            “The only polygraph a client should take is one administered by a polygraph examiner hired by the criminal defense team. This makes the examiner subject to the attorney/client privilege and protects the results (good or bad) with the attorney work-product doctrine. ”
            http://www.gustitislaw.com/forensic-evidence/the-client-and-the-polygraph/

            “Either way, your making stuff up again.”

            Where? Show me one post. I have absolutely never “made stuff up” and you know that.

          • Badgerite

            It doesn’t even matter. Upon further reflection it dawned on me that any privilege that might have attached to lie detector tests that were arranged by anyone’s attorney would be considered waived if the client themselves made any significant portion of those results public, which Woody Allen surely did.
            So, I am correcting you because you are indeed wrong on that point. It is called Waiver of Privilege by Voluntary Disclosure.

          • Badgerite

            Adendum. Additionally, there are usually provisions in statutes that provide an exception to the privilege if the privilege is being used to perpetrate a fraud. So, Woody Allen could not divulge positive results from one test and then assert a privilege with respect to another negative test if one ever existed.

          • Badgerite

            Fingerprints.

          • taryn

            ??? Quote what I said. You can’t.

          • Badgerite

            You said Woody Allen had made inconsistent statements. Or the article said it. Either way, it really isn’t true. And you are just nitpicking now. So, adios. Hasta la vista. Arrivederci.
            Bye now.

          • taryn

            Oh this post. Yes this is me making stuff up AGAIN, not even close, but whatever.

            bye then

            WA’s different accounts of whether he was ever in the attic/crawl space:

            “The Heart Wants What It Wants”
            By WALTER ISAACSON Woody Allen

            http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,160439,00.html

            Q. What did happen in the house?

            A.” It was a Wednesday two weeks ago. I came in the midafternoon for a visit. Allegedly, I took her in the attic, according to what the child-protection agency told me was the allegation, and did unspeakable things to her. But nothing at all happened. Nothing. In light-years I wouldn’t go into an attic, I wouldn’t even know how to find Mia’s attic. I’m a famous claustrophobic. And I would not molest my daughter.”

            Woody, Mia and Frank Maco

            The Litchfield County state’s attorney thought he’d seen it all – and then he ran into Mia Farrow and Woody Allen.
            BY ANDY THIBAULT

            Connecticut Magazine, April 1997

            “Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half-hour interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.

            But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.

            But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that his prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent.”

            http://www.andythibault.com/columns/CT%20Magazine%20-%20Apr%2097.htm

          • Badgerite

            Bye now. Hope you get over whatever.

          • Badgerite

            That’s the one. The police lied to him about finding his fingerprints in the crawl space ( which by the way, they should have if what Dylan said was true) so Allen tried to find a rational explanation for that, knowing he hadn’t been in the crawl space.
            There is nothing inconsistent about that. And I wouldn’t take a lie detector from those guys either.
            I now consider this topic exhausted. Take care.

          • taryn

            The polygraph was arranged by his legal team.

            page 383, Woody Allen: A Biography
            Eric Lax (authorized bio)

            The only polygraph a client should take is one administered by a polygraph examiner hired by the criminal defense team. This makes the examiner subject to the attorney/client privilege and protects the results (good or bad) with the attorney work-product doctrine.
            http://www.gustitislaw.com/forensic-evidence/the-client-and-the-polygraph/

            “Either way, your making stuff up again.”

            I have never done this. I was asking a question here, not stating anything as an absolute fact. And I have always provided the source for anything I’ve posted before. If you consider those sources biased (Orth), or often inaccurate (Newsweek, Associated Press reports) that’s fine, but that isn’t “making stuff up.”

          • Badgerite

            You were implying that Woody Allen somehow got a positive result after getting negative results that were somehow protected by attorney-client privilege.
            The results would not be protected by attorney-client privilege because Woody Allen himself, by divulging results, would have waived that privilege.
            Though I couldn’t find a specific site relating to Connecticut law on this issue, there are other states that have considered the issue and one of them is Wisconsin.
            https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/905/11
            That would be section 905.11 of the Wisconsin Statues
            “Waiver of Privilege by Voluntary Disclosure.”
            “A person upon whom this chapter confers a privilege against disclosure of confidential matter or communications waives the privilege if the person, or his predecessor, while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication.”
            Oregon has a similar provision:
            Another words, if you give a press conference and release to the world the results of your polygraph test, and especially so in the context of a criminal investigation, which would probably qualify as a judicial setting, it is a good bet that no privilege will attach to anything relating to any polygraph tests you have taken after that press conference.

            Like I said, if he had flunked the lie detector test that would be considered as evidence by the same people on the internet who diminish it as evidence because he passed it.
            He is criticized for not taking a test administered by the police as if that calls into question the validity of the test administered by independent testers and then you provide a link that shows precisely why Woody Allen would have declined to take a test administered by the police. If the police were lying to him about fingerprints, and according to one of your links, they were indeed doing that, and then claiming his attempts to try to think of reasons why fingerprints that did not really exist were found where they were not found constituted ‘inconsistent statements’ shows precisely why he was right not to take a polygraph administered by people who were seeking to prove him guilty rather than seeking to find the truth of the situation.
            Attorney Bob Shapiro, famously contacted F.Lee Bailey as to how to proceed when his client O.J. Simpson was in the midst of badly failing a privately administered lie detector test.
            Bailey advised him to stop the test immediately. Why?
            Because attorney’s are not allowed to perpetrate a fraud on the court. Too much knowledge is not a good thing for an attorney representing the guilty.
            Woody Allen didn’t fail ANY lie detector tests. Period.
            If so, the information would most assuredly not be protected privileged information since he opened the issue up to the public himself via releasing the results at a PRESS CONFERENCE. It is a waiver of the privilege because of voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party and in this case to a third party being the press. If ever there was a case where the privilege would be lost it is where the client himself would stand and announce something to the press himself.

          • Badgerite

            As to my portrayal of Ronan Farrow as being steeped in a hostility to Woody Allen, well what would you call it?
            He kicked him in the shins a lot as a young child and his tweets on the night of the Golden Globes demonstrates to me that he still wants to do that. Only verbally. Not only did he attack Woody Allen but he also attacked Soon-Yi and their marriage and family as somehow abnormal and disgusting. Now, seriously, he was 4. How much of a relationship would he have had to Soon-Yi to complain that his ‘sister’ was his ‘mother’. Kicking him in the shins still. And Soon-Yi Allen as well.

          • Badgerite

            Know what else I can’t help but notice. A tendency of these two kids to lash out not just at Woody Allen but also anyone around him. Like Soon-Yi and her kids. And Dylan goes after Hollywood in general and some people by name. It is like they have been steeped in this their whole lives and that is called indoctrination. It is why people send their kids of religious schools when they are kids.

          • M.L.

            Wow cave bear (man) you are making a lot of leaps and assumptions.

            Tell me, how many memories do you have at 7 years old? Probably very few or none. My childhood memories are solely from family photos and anecdotes. Hmmm…….

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I h ave a few, sir, tho none so vivid as being molested. Try this, though:
            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Please name a leap or assumption.

          • rebeccagavin

            Why is Dylan entitled to an uncontested case with the public, 20 years after the fact? Moses is not the one that made this public to start with.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            The world came to defense…? In what way? Was her accuser given any sentence? Of course not.

            And now that the court of public opinion has reversed its verdict, based on a decades’ long publicity campaign…what?

          • hel

            Moses wasn’t there on the day, one just has to read court documents that actually listed all people present at the Farrow home on that day and the witness statements to see that Moses wasn’t at home when the alleged abuse occurred. Perhaps Moses has false or faulty memories?

            How about analyzing WA and his gross abuse of power in his relationship with Soon Yi, a girl who would no doubt have a raft of issues, attachment being one after Mia had found her as an abused orphan from Korea. Take into account that she was 7 or 8 when WA and MF began their 12 year relationship. His excuses as to why he had taken pornographic photos of Soon Yi’s genitals are barely credible.Sexually explicit photo’s left by WA for Soon Yi’s, mother or siblings to find, doesn’t anyone else find this incredibly manipulative, what was WA thinking. WA regards these photos as modeling shots. Come on! how much ‘persuasion’ does it take to convince a young shy girl to expose her self in such a way to her mothers partner. If you took the names away, just joe blogs down the street, you would be looking at a man who you would think had groomed two girls in the one family. this is a man with no moral or ethical compass!

          • Badgerite

            Moses lived there. Where else would he be. That is what I said.The list of people present did not include the people who lived there, one of whom would have been Moses. Moses was a teenager ( someone said 14) at the time. Dylan was 7. And you can see this in the pictures. He was old enough to form his own memories.
            Does a child of 14 believe in Santa Claus? Does a child of 7?
            There is the difference.
            If you actually READ the custody decision, the Judge notes how little WA was interested in having children at all. As the court states, he viewed Mia Farrow’s children as an encumbrance that would get in the way of their time together. This is why he kept his own apartment. He did not want to be involved in the children’s lives. Mia Farrow wanted to have his child. He was reluctant. He agreed to Dylan’s adoption but with the restriction that he would not have custody or responsibility for her. When she came into the family as a baby, that changed. After that, he enthusiastically agreed to adoption of a second child but before that could happen, Farrow became pregnant with Satchel.
            He was cordial with Moses, who was a baby when he and Farrow started their relationship, but had next to nothing to do with her other children including Soon-Yi. They barely spoke. This is from the court decision. He had season tickets to the basketball games and she asked if she could go with him and that is when their relationship started. I don’t know if you have ever seen them together. But they talk. Like any couple. And they seem happy.
            She confided in him. She did not confide in her mother.

            Your ‘grooming’ explanation for his relationship with Soon-Yi is not supported
            1) by Soon-Yi herself ( When Mia Farrow confronted her with the pictures she clearly did so with the intent of having Soon-YI renounce her relationship with WA and claim to have been ‘groomed’ and lured in sex. Soon-Yi told her they were having an affair. She would not turn on WA and say she had been molested or abused , even though that is what Mia Farrow clearly wanted her to do, telling her she knew it was not her fault.) When she wouldn’t say that it was his fault, when she said, instead, that they were having an affair, that is when Mia Farrow struck her.
            2) their subsequent relationship ( WA is 77 now. I think one can assume that this is the woman he will be with for the rest of his life. He gets older. She gets older. They are still married, with 2 children of their own.

            And the judge himself, although he did not dismiss the allegations, gave his opinion that the case presented was not a strong one that could succeed in court.

            And do you think this is a man who slammed her (Dylan’s) face into a plate of hot spaghetti and told her he would do it again?
            And do you think that he could have convinced Soon-Yi to have sex with her little sister (Dylan) looking on?
            These are statements that Dylan made to the Connecticut State Police. I don’t think these things ever happened. And if they didn’t happen, how do you explain that?

          • taryn

            You do know that Woody’s supervised visits with his son Satchel (now Ronan) were suspended because Woody Allen picked him up by his neck and threw him onto a couch? This is documented in the second trial (the appeal, 1996, which Woody lost). The only reason there is documentation of this is because his visits with his son with court ordered to be supervised.

            http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow

          • Badgerite

            Actual quote:
            “He and the boy had never gotten along. As I reported in the 1992 Vanity Fair story, Ronan, at three, had kicked Allen and Allen had twisted the child’s leg until he screamed. According to court testimony in the second trial, in June 1996, Ronan’s psychiatrist testified that on a supervised visit to Allen’s apartment in 1995, Ronan, then 7, reported that he had kicked Allen, who then grabbed him by the neck with both hands and threw him down on the couch.”

            First off, that is not Woody Allen’s son, that is Frank Sinatra’s son.
            I got eyes. So I have to believe that Mia Farrow, humanitarian deeds notwithstanding, is capable of not being completely honest as I don’t believe she ever told Woody Allen she was still sleeping with ‘old blue eyes’. while they were together.
            But that is a complete aside. I appreciate her good works. Very much so. Who wouldn’t . But that has nothing to do with this dispute.
            Woody Allen isn’t the only person that Ronan had a compulsion to kick as a child. Please see the custody decision and notice that when Mia Farrow decided that the therapist whom Dylan had been seeing and who determined that there was no sexual component to the relationship of father and child, could not be trusted, and this therapist next came to the house, Dylan and Ronan put glue in her hair, cut her dress and Ronan kicked her.
            Now, what could this woman possibly have done to ‘make’ Ronan kick her other then get on the wrong side of his mother. This tends to lend credibility to the argument that Allen makes that Farrow’s influence is what caused the hostility toward him.
            Doesn’t it? What’s more, the aggressor in ALL of these instances was Ronan. And Ronan and Dylan were rather close, as children and now. And that would explain where Dylan got the idea and made a statement to police that Woody Allen had slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti. Doesn’t it?
            From the impact on her imagination of watching and hearing about incidents between WA and Ronan. But in those instances, Ronan was always the aggressor, usually kicking him in the shins. I would have to say, I don’t believe Woody Allen slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti. By all accounts he doted on her and she never kicked him in the shins. And I also don’t believe that Soon-Yi and WA had sex while she was in the apartment with them.
            These are statements she made to police. If they are not true, and I do not believe they are, then her memories cannot be trusted.
            This is a person who, when her sibling Lark died at 35, fell into a deep depression and started cutting herself. Please don’t tell me, as the article you linked to, tries to do, that that is Woody Allen’s fault. That Woody Allen has “blood on his hands”. And that kind of behavior demonstrates to me someone who could definitely be seriously affected by the upset in the household caused by the affair between Soon-Yi and Allen.
            Other things stand out. Like why would you tell a 7 year old you were going to take them to Paris and put them in a movie? That would be an inducement maybe for a 18-21 year old, but not for a 7 year old. And you wouldn’t even be thinking that way with a 7 year old.
            No matter what they say now, the simple fact is as a case, this would have failed at trial. Especially if the child refused to say anything on the stand. Which apparently she would have. You can chalk it up to fragility. But that fragility is sort of the point.
            This is a fragile personality who could, indeed, get severely impacted by the upset in the household and the difficulties in her parents relationship at the time. As, clearly, did Ronan.
            What’s more, for someone who had a history of hostility, even as a child, to use his current position in the media to give vent to that hostility is not really ethical.
            Something else in the article struck me. Andre Previn referring to his adopted daughter as someone who “doesn’t even exist”.
            Ah, but she does exist, doesn’t she. And she is a wife and mother. And in all the times that they have been seen in public what is on display between her and her husband is happiness.

          • taryn

            If I respond to this are you going to accuse me of holding a trial on the internet?

            “No. I don’t. Because this isn’t a trial and cannot substitute for one.and that is my point. A trial is the procedure whereby evidence is not only presented, but developed. Everyone commenting here and trying to turn this into a trial seems to miss that point. Think how much more convenient, less costly and ‘efficient’ it could be if we just held ‘trials’ on the internet.
            Unless, of course, it is you being tried.
            We do not try people by newspaper articles and we do not try them by the internet. And there is a reason for that.”

            It’s hypocritical for you to post this in response to my post above when you do exactly the same thing here.

          • Badgerite

            Sue me.

          • taryn

            OK, Mia Farrow is an adulterous, lying slut. Noted.

            Woody Allen physically abused *Frank Sinatra’s* son when he “grabbed him by the neck with both hands and threw him down on the couch” during a supervised visit. And*Frank Sinatra’s son* Ronan, at three, had kicked Allen and Allen had twisted the child’s leg until he screamed.

            I have a little brother. Kids do stuff like this occasionally. You give them a time out. Have you ever been around a three year old, or a seven year old? I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, that he deserved to be picked up by the neck and thrown on the couch? Or have his leg twisted until he screamed?

            “Woody Allen isn’t the only person that Ronan had a compulsion to kick as a child.”

            “Dylan and Ronan put glue in her hair, cut her dress and Ronan kicked her.”

            “Now, what could this woman possibly have done to ‘make’ Ronan kick her other then get on the wrong side of his mother.”

            Please go back and read the custody ruling. You are getting the facts wrong. I have an a&p exam tomorrow and don’t have time right now.

          • Badgerite

            I don’t respond to people who put words in my mouth that mischaracterize what I have said. Which you did. And rather egregiously so.

          • taryn

            Well at least I don’t make up things to make my point.

            Tell me where in the custody ruling Satchel (Ronan) kicked Dr. Nancy Schultz? You can’t, because it never happened.

            “I don’t believe Woody Allen slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti.”

            And I don’t change words around to suit my argument. The correct word is “pushed,” not slammed.

            “She also told the state police that Allen had pushed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and had threatened to do it again.”

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/10/inside-the-shocking-custody-case-court-documents-that-shed-light-on-the-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-saga.html

            You don’t think it happened because she didn’t do anything to him, like Satchel, a 7 year old boy who kicked an adult man in the shins? And then this man picked up his son, sorry Frank Sinatra’s son, by the neck and threw him on the couch? He could have seriously injured him.

            “What’s more, for someone who had a history of hostility, even as a child, to use his current position in the media to give vent to that hostility is not really ethical.”

            History of hostility????????

            because:

            A three year old boy kicked a man who then twisted the 7 year old boy’s leg until he screamed.

            This boy and his sister “put glue in Dr. Schultz’s hair, cut her dress, and told her to go away.”

            (from the custody ruling, what he actually did, he never kicked Dr NS)

            At seven he kicked WA in the shins, and WA picked him up by his neck and threw him on the couch. And lost supervised visitation with Satchel.

            That’s your history of hostility??

            You are insane. That’s it, I can’t even. Why bother.

          • Badgerite

            Ok. I reviewed the ruling again and the part about him kicking the therapist is in error. However, if a child kicks you hard in the shins then I can understand the response. The history of hostility is there nonetheless. What’s more having read the “The heart wants what the heart wants” link, I think I agree with Woody Allen’s assessment of his and Farrow’s relationship, especially since Ronan is clearly Frank Sinatra’s child.
            Their relationship was already over. And it sound to me like Soon-Yi spoke about her relationship with her mother much the same way that Moses Farrow now does.
            Lady, I didn’t ask you to bother.

          • Talacocheta

            So you think that an appropriate response to a 3 year old kicking you in the shins is to twist that child’s leg until he or she screams? Or pick him or her up by the neck and throw him or her onto the couch at age 7? I really hope you don’t have children! Or if you do, someone who knows you recognizes these posts and calls CPS on you. If you have children, they need to be protected.

            It’s really something that you’re calling the kicks a “history of hostility,” but not Woody Allen’s overreactions to the kicks.

          • Badgerite

            Well, that is the description. Let’s look at this, shall we.
            What makes you think he only kicked him once. I’m guessing that he was KICKING him in the shins and Allen grabbed his leg almost as a reflexive and defensive action to get him to stop doing it. Don’t you think? Who knows what the actual incident was like? Not you and not me. We were not there. And I don’t think Mia Farrow would be someone who’s account I would trust.
            Oddly enough, Allen was still granted visitation rights. The child received no medical treatment. I think this has, like most of what has been presented in print and on the internet, blown out of proportion to further the proposition that Allen is a nasty man.
            Everything in his life since he got out of that situation tends to argue against that. Why they even let this ‘abusive’ man adopt children. Go figure. I thank God I don’t have to put my fate in the hands of a jury with someone like you on it. Have a good one.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, after Ronan did what he seemed to do a lot which was kick Allen in the shins. And that is not Woody Allen’s son and I believe Mia Farrow was well aware of that at the time. Far from ripping apart a happy family, even the custody decision notes problems that existed between Farrow and her adopted children Soon-Yi and Moses that predate the Allen/Soon-Yi affair.

          • taryn

            No, he wasn’t there. Read the books written about this, it happened decades ago. Three books mention that Moses left the house that day before WA arrived. Read all of the testimony reported in the newspapers. Read the two different testimonies given in court of the lap incident reported in the NY Times. Both Woody Allen and A Stickland testified to this in court. In both versions Moses wasn’t mentioned. It doesn’t matter which version you believe, neither supports Moses as witness to the events that day. He has never been mentioned as being in that house by anyone on the day of the alleged molestation, and isn’t included as present on August 4th in the custody decision. You need to do more research. Please mention one book, one newspaper article, anything that supports this.

          • Badgerite

            No. I don’t. Because this isn’t a trial and cannot substitute for one.and that is my point. A trial is the procedure whereby evidence is not only presented, but developed. Everyone commenting here and trying to turn this into a trial seems to miss that point. Think how much more convenient, less costly and ‘efficient’ it could be if we just held ‘trials’ on the internet.
            Unless, of course, it is you being tried.
            We do not try people by newspaper articles and we do not try them by the internet. And there is a reason for that.

          • taryn

            Really? Because I thought my posts would put him away for life. Oh my god,obviously this is not a trial. It’s a discussion. It’s called Disqus. If you don’t think people should be discussing this then why are you here?

          • Badgerite

            Because you type stuff and his the reply button to stuff I posted about a month ago or so. I have pretty much stated my opinion on this subject already. You are using my previous comments as a vehicle for yours.

          • taryn

            “Moses lived there. Where else would he be. That is what I said.The list of people present did not include the people who lived there, one of whom would have been Moses. He was there that day. His mother was shopping.”

            I don’t understand your point here. Mia was out shopping. She lived there. She was not included in the list either. This list was referencing those who were present in that house. If Moses deliberately snubbed Woody by disappearing into the woods that day why would he be listed as present either?

            “On August 4, 1992, Mr. Allen travelled to Ms. Farrow’s
            Connecticut vacation home to spend time with his children. Earlier in the day, Casey Pascal had come for
            a visit with her three young children and their babysitter, Alison
            Stickland. Ms. Farrow and Ms. Pascal were
            shopping when Mr. Allen arrived. Ms.
            Farrow and Ms. Pascal were shopping when Mr. Allen arrived. Those present were
            Ms. Pascal’s three children; Ms. Stickland; Kristie Groteke, a babysitter
            employed by Ms. Farrow; Sophie Berge, a French tutor for the children; Dylan;
            and Satchel.”

          • Badgerite

            They don’t even mention him. As out in the woods or anything else. He lived there.

          • Sophie

            That would all be very reasonable, if Dylan had not been sexually abused by Woody. However, if she was sexually abused by Woody, it would be far too painful for her to have a ‘reasonable’ reaction to Moses’s statement.

            I don’t think the average 15 year old boy pays an enormous amount of attention to where each and every person is on a given day, and although I’m sure that Moses believes he is telling the truth, I believe his memory on this matter is more likely to be wrong, than Dylan’s memory of a highly significant event. After all, given that Moses didn’t know about these allegations on the actual day they were said to occur, he would have had no reason whatsoever to have vigilantly watched everyones movements on that day. He could very well have missed Dylan and Woody going off together for fifteen minutes, and that’s obvious.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, I believe that was my point. That Moses believes what he says just as she does. He is speaking from his heart and honestly. And the reaction of “He’s dead to me” and calling him a “betrayer of the family” (especially that one as it is the same phrase he used in his letter to the judge in the custody case stating why he did not want to have anything more to do with Woody Allen only he was referring to his relationship with Soon-Yi) seems to me, not an understandable one. And it repeats a phrase that had to have originated with the mother and had to have originally started with the affair with Soon-Yi.
            As I said, I have personally seen memories created or altered by people. This isn’t theoretical to me. But even if it were, do you remember the case of Elizabeth Smart. When she was kidnapped, her younger sister , about 9 , was in the room and saw the man who took her. The expert who interviewed her to retrieve that memory described on a talk show once how easily that memory could have been altered or destroyed. And that was a 9 year old.
            And I find that the Yale-New Haven teams assessment of what had and had not occurred is simply dismissed out of hand by people. And I don’t think it can be.

          • taryn

            No, it’s not dismissed out of hand. There are valid reason Judge Wilk found it inconclusive and his findings were upheld on appeal.

            Minds on
            Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology
            By Charles Patrick Ewing, Joseph T. McCann

            However, the most damaging critique of the Yale-New Haven
            study was the fact that the original notes from the interviews and meetings had
            been destroyed and could not be examined to test the validity of the report’s
            conclusions. The destroying of raw interview
            notes is a major concern. Most
            agreed-upon ethical and professional standards for conducting forensic mental
            health evaluations call for experts to outline the basis for their opinions-
            which often include findings from interviews- and to preserve their records for
            examination later in the legal process.
            When a case is referred for a forensic evaluation, the experts must know
            that there is a strong possibility their records, opinions, and conclusions
            will be closely scrutinized in court. As
            such, forensic experts have an obligation to preserve their notes and records
            for later review.

            Since Meltzer and Herman were hired by attorneys
            for Allen and Farrow, respectively, it is understandable that they had
            divergent opinions about the quality of the Yale-New Haven examination and
            report in the case. What is more
            intriguing, however, is why the mental health professionals who actually
            examined Allen and his daughter and wrote the report did not testify at the
            child custody trial before Judge Wilk.
            In his final decision in the case, Judge Wilk noted that the members of
            the evaluation team were unwilling to testify, although the clinician leading
            the team gave testimony at a deposition.
            It remains unclear why the clinicians who performed the direct evaluation
            of the sexual abuse allegation were unwilling to testify, given the fact that
            they accepted the task of performing an examination where

          • Badgerite

            What was upheld on appeal was the Judge’s custody decision.
            Nothing else. That is all that would be considered. Did his decision comport with the law. And even I would say that it did.
            Woody Allen was trying to upend an existing custody arrangement. To take a child away from the mother and custodial parent Woody Allen had to show a reason for this or at least that he could be counted on to provide a good home to the child. Someone who was reluctant to even be involved in the lives of the child’s siblings, who was more of an absentee, theoretical father, who only stayed over when it suited him and who was also having an affair with the child’s sibling? There was no chance in hell. Throw in the allegations of molestation, true or not, and it is game over.
            The standard in a custody case is the best interest of the child.
            The judge has broad latitude in making that decision so, of course it would be upheld on appeal. That has no implications at all for his opinion of the molestation charges. Woody Allen would have lost regardless. And the decision would have been upheld regardless. You and others are trying to turn a custody case into a criminal trial. And there is simply no comparison.

            By the time of the custody trial the criminal trial, I believe, was already off the table. Wasn’t going to happen. So, at that point, whatever notes had been compiled of the interviews with the child could and probably would have been destroyed when the decision was made not to prosecute.
            The issue decided at a custody trial would have been wholly different than what they were assessing for a criminal trial.
            And it would have been improper to try to turn a custody trial into a criminal trial. They just aren’t the same thing.
            To say that one thinks a child’s story probably isn’t true, hardly means you can add anything to the question of who should have custody of the child. Especially so in this case because of all the aforementioned factors. It would not be likely to have any real impact on the outcome to say that the allegations were not true. So what the judge would have needed them to testify for is beyond me. All they could have testified to is that in their professional opinion they did not believe the allegations to be true but they could not say they were not true beyond any doubt. So what. Where child custody is involved, the law will err on the side of caution. It might have tipped the balance if all things had been equal. But as was noted by the Judge, all things were not equal in terms of parenting.
            What’s more, a person who commented on this thread posted a link and one of the links at the link went to a scholarly article criticizing the practice of expert witnesses in such cases merely stating their opinions and not allowing the jury to assess how that opinion was reached. So this is hardly the only case where that has happened. If it has reached the level of criticism in a scholarly paper, it was a more common practice than just in this case.

          • taryn

            “By the time of the custody trial the criminal trial, I believe, was already off the table. Wasn’t going to happen. So, at that point, whatever notes had been compiled of the interviews with the child could and probably would have been destroyed when the decision was made not to prosecute.”

            re: your other post, final reply

            The Yale New Haven team destroyed their notes before the decision about a criminal trial was made.

            Allen v. Farrow Custody Ruling- dated June 7th, 1993

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

            Frank Maco’s statement regarding his decision – September 24, 1993

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/204662575/Statement-of-Decision-9-24-1993

          • Badgerite

            When the decision was announced does not necessarily coincide with when the decision was reached. But either way, a clinic of that sort has issues of confidentiality to deal with all the time. I don’t think it too unusual that files of interview notes are destroyed as a matter of course.
            You are looking for something that shows bad faith or a compromised attitude on their part. I don’t think that can be inferred.

          • taryn

            If you interviewed a child who described that the attic in which she was molested had dead heads in it would you try to find out if the was any possible reason she would say that? The Yale New Haven team included this in there FINAL DECISION without ever looking into it further. As a layperson with no experience in this kind of investigation this is incredible to me.

            “Dylan was having difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality.” This is a key mantra for Abramowitz and Team Woody. However, Leventhal admitted that claim was erroneous. In the report, Leventhal cited what he called “loose associations” by the child. He said she talked about looking in a trunk and seeing “dead heads.” When advised that Mia Farrow had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or a thought disorder. The pediatrician also attempted to categorize Dylan Farrow’s banter as “magical thinking,” citing her vivid description of a sunset. However, after being advised that Mia Farrow described the dark sky upon leaving New Haven in the evening as “the magic hour,” Leventhal said he was “less concerned” about the incident as an example of “loose thinking.”

          • Badgerite

            Again. People trying to make the internet or a newspaper article into a courtroom. It cannot be done.
            It is not a fair forum in any sense of the word.
            Here is what happened. When they were preparing her for testimony, she refused to say anything. You have no trial at that point. This wasn’t a decision made because of her fragility so much as a decision made out of necessity. The fact that she wants to testify now, 20 years later and in the New York Times or over the internet, hardly turns either of those things into a fair forum where the accused has all the rights that would adhere in a trial setting.
            But, as to your specific point, she was interviewed several times for long periods of time. I have a feeling the assessment of the team that interviewed her was based on more than a sunset and some heads with wigs on them.
            Say, for instance, the story about the her face being slammed into a plate of spaghetti or the one where Soon-Yi and Woody Allen were supposed to have had sex while she was in the apartment with them. This is what she told police. I imagine there were similar instances in her interviews with the Yale-New Haven team.

          • taryn

            At least have the guts to blame Dylan for what she’s said. She’s telling the truth or she isn’t. Implanted memories? Read the actual testimony given at the McMartin trial. Or I guess I should just post it here so you won’t have to go to the effort. Yes, that case was a travesty. If you read what the children testified to you’d realize they have no idea of what they are saying because they don’t have memories of the abuse. Read the transcripts of Kee Macfarlene asking them questions, which is like a textbook on brainwashing. Then read the court testimony and tell me how well it worked.

          • taryn

            Because nothing places him in that house that day except what he has said recently. He was very anti Woody Allen at the time of the trial. He is not listed as present in the 33 custody decision. No books written afterwards mention him as present and several specifically say he was not in the house during Woody Allen’s visit. He has never been mentioned as there that day in any interview Woody Allen gave to describe his version of the events in the years following. Until just recently, in his own interview, no one has ever mentioned Moses as being there that I’m aware of. If you can find a source for his presence other than his recent interview please let me know.

          • Badgerite

            Any evidence Moses was there? How about Moses. He should know where he was, even if no one else seems to.
            One of your comments says that a biographer did indeed place him at the house but that he “ran into the woods because he was mad at Woody Allen”. So, he was, indeed, there, at the house, even if no one noticed. Isn’t that right?

            The therapist who was seeing Dylan and Woody Allen said their relationship was intense in that it was too exclusive but she also said she saw no sexual overtones.
            What report you are talking about I have no idea. There is no link and I suspect you are making it up.

          • taryn

            OK, that is a direct quote from a 1993 newspaper article. One of the many articles that were .printed during the time of the trial. (The Daily Gazette, Schenectady, NY. March 23, 1993).

            http://www.dailygazette.com/

            It was reporting on the Yale New Haven study which found no evidence of sexual abuse. I can’t “make up” a newspaper article that has been published in 1993. I wouldn’t “make up” anything, I’m not convinced WA is innocent, or guilty. Without seeing the transcripts of what DF said in interviews at that age it’s difficult to know what to think, but the YNH has serious problems. If you can’t admit that you’re not being honest IMO.

            The sex abuse report says Allen “has had disturbed relationships” with Dylan and his biological child, Satchel. His relationship with Dylan, it says, “had a sexualized overtone.”

            “had a sexualized overtone.” the newspaper article is quoting from the findings of the Yale New Haven study.

            How you interpret that is up to you, they also found him innocent of sexual molestation. If I can’t find a suitable link online I’ll scan the entire article and upload it, if you actually want to read it. But I’m not making anything up. I’m not someone trolling because I want everyone to think WA is guilty. I’m discussing what was written at the time. The Yale New Haven study also found MF’s relationship with DF disturbed, but the “sexualized overtone” is what they said about WA’s relationship with DF.

            In the fall of 1990, when Farrow asked Dr. Coates to evaluate Dylan to
            see if she needed therapy, Farrow “expressed her concern” that “Allen’s
            behavior with Dylan was not appropriate.” Dr. Coates observed, “I did not see
            it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded
            everybody else.”

            (from the court case)

            This refers to Dr. Susan Coates, who treated WA to modify his behavior with Dylan. This is from

            This is what I asked you: “If you can find a source for his presence other than his recent interview please let me know.”

            “Any evidence Moses was there? How about Moses. He should know where he was, even if no one else seems to.”

            You could have just said no, I don’t have one.

          • Badgerite

            Your “direct quote” from the Daily Gazette from ‘1993’ has an article in it that states,
            “David Brenner, frequent ‘tonight’ show guest dies”
            There is nothing in what you linked to about Woody Allen or the case or anything dating from 1993.

            One of your comments stated that some biographer stated that he was there but he ran into the woods because he was mad at Woody Allen for his affair with Soon-Yi. Or did you forget that.
            I cited your own comment back to you. He clearly was at the house that day, according to your own comment.

          • taryn

            Obviously the link isn’t going to be for 1993. It’s just a link to the newspaper online. Because you accused me of making this up, I said if I couldn’t find a suitable link I’d scan and upload the original article.

            People magazine:

            By ELIZABETH GLEICK

            UPDATED 04/12/1993 at 01:00 AM EDT • Originally published 04/12/1993 at 01:00 AM EDT

            “Among other things, it reportedly states that Allen’s relationship with Dylan has a “sexualized overtone.”

            “The trial began March 19, one day after a team of child-abuse experts from Connecticut’s Yale-New Haven Hospital found that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan, as Farrow had charged last August when her disintegrating relationship with Allen burst into the news. But according to a newspaper account, the hospital’s still unreleased study is only part of an ongoing investigation into the abuse charge, and it leaves troubling questions. Among other things, it reportedly states that Allen’s relationship with Dylan has a “sexualized overtone.”

            http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20110140,00.html

            What about this sentence says he was in the house that day? It says he was in the woods. How does house equal woods to you? He also wasn’t mentioned in the custody ruling as present in the house on Aug 4.

            ” deliberately snubbed him by disappearing into the woods that day”

            Moses, who would never forgive Woody for sleeping with his sister, deliberately snubbed him by disappearing into the woods that day.
            p 284
            The Unruly Life of Woody Allen (Scribner)
            By Marion Meade”

            “On August 4, 1992, Mr. Allen travelled to Ms. Farrow’s Connecticut vacation home to spend time with his children. Earlier in the day, Casey Pascal had come for a visit with her three young children and their babysitter, Alison Stickland. Ms. Farrow and Ms. Pascal were shopping when Mr. Allen arrived. Ms. Farrow and Ms. Pascal were shopping when Mr. Allen arrived. Those present were Ms. Pascal’s three children; Ms. Stickland; Kristie Groteke, a babysitter employed by Ms. Farrow; Sophie Berge, a French tutor for the children; Dylan; and Satchel.”

          • Badgerite

            An excerpt in a 1993 newspaper that says “reportedly” is not authoritative anyway. It is like hearsay. I remember the case and I remember that particular phrase being ‘reported’ as well.
            The problem is that it is clear that the actual Yale-New Haven report said just the opposite as it was cited by the judge in the custody decision and I think he might have noticed if the report said anything about “sexualized overtones” in it. In fact it came to quite the opposite conclusion. What’s more, I it is my impression that at no time did the team interview Mr. Allen or Allen and Dylan Farrow together. How could they make any determination of their relationship and its “sexualized overtones” without even observing them together. And that something like this was put out in the press at the time, I’m guessing by the authorities pursuing the investigation, actually tends to support Mr. Allen’s contention that the authorities involved were looking to pursue the case whether the evidence justified it or not.
            Other things (provided by your links) that the authorities investigating this case said do not make sense.
            1) In one of the links the authorities criticize the Yale-New Haven team for reaching the conclusion they did as to the reliability of the allegations without interviewing anyone other than Dylan. Without talking to any of the ‘witnesses’.
            Well, actually, their function is to assess the psychological make up of the child. Assessing witness statements would be the exclusive purview of the prosecutors and the jury, were the case to actually get to trial. So, this is a criticism without merit and it is odd that the police would make it because they would know this. It also makes it look like they were a little to eager in this case.
            2) They also claimed that the Yale-New Haven team were consulted only to assess whether the child would be a ‘good witness’ and that somehow in assessing the underlying claim and psychological state of the child, they had exceeded their authority. Well, that is just crap. You don’t consult a Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to determine if a child is a good witness.
            That would be what the prosecution team would do. You consult because their expertise is child sexual abuse. Having seen quite a lot of it and being well versed in what to look for would be their area of expertise. And that is what you would consult them for. Then they proceed to also blame on the Yale team the fact that the child stopped talking to THEM when the subject of abuse was brought up. Uh huh. I don’t think that is particularly credible.

            As to Moses, I’ll take him at his word. I think he knows where he was that day and he has no reason I can think of to lie.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            And the paid servants contradict this report. All of them report an absence of 15 minutes or more.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Untrue, ma’am. DA and judge both desired the case to proceed. Mia Farrow nixed it because of publicity nightmares (or, if you’re a cynic, because she thought she’d lose)

            But, yes, I agree that Mia shouldn’t have taped Dylan. Asking is another thing. What parent wouldn’t immediately begin asking critical questions, even if they damage procedure later? It’s human nature, no?

          • Badgerite

            Please see judges statement in 1993 custody case.
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
            Quoting here:

            “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.”

            You will notice that the team of psychologists who interviewed her at the time ( which involved more than one person) believed the evidence supported the conclusion that NO sexual abuse occurred.

            Quoting from the case:

            “On December 30,1992, Dylan was interviewed by a representative of the Connecticut State Police. She told them —at the time Ms. Farrow calculates to be the fall of 1991—that while at Mr. Allen’s apartment, she saw him and Soon-Yi having sex. Her reporting was child like but graphic. She also told the police that Mr. Allen had pushed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and had threatened to do it again.”

            And the reason why this statement which Dylan made at the time could not be accepted as true is because there would have been another person present at the time ( Soon-Yi Previn) who could and would say, no that did not happen.
            So, if everything she said at the time was the product of an unadulterated memory, unaffected by her mother’s attitude, then this memory should also be true. And there would be an adult who was there who could confirm it and that adult would be her sister. And if Soon-Yi Previn does not confirm that (and I suspect that she did not) , then her memories are suspect, aren’t they?
            And how is it that this ‘memory’ didn’t make it into her New York Times piece? And the answer is it is not part of the family gospel because someone else who say conclusively that they were there and it did not happen.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I’ve read Farrow’s response to Woody’s letter, which is devastating, and the Judge’s statement in the Custody case, which judges Woody as being severely dishonest and irresponsible as regards children, including Moses, and only interested, suddenly in the young Dylan, who Mia complained he was looking at in a non-fatherly way, not giving her enough space or otherwise behaving appropriately. In contrast to Woody’s lies, Mia did not accuse him to the police, though–the case was initiated by the local pediatrician.

            People have every right to question the case further, for instance by noting that the judge considered the medical team which ‘exonerated’ Allen did so on the basis of extremely little evidence. They were not trained in child abuse, and the pediatrician who wrote the report had never met Dylan. A modern expert has written of their gross irresponsibility in the case.

            Most of the material any of you need to make up your mind on this is readily available in Vanity Fair online, byte google works, too.

            Dylan has written a response to Woody’s response, which is devastating in its simple notation of how much his public case has for twenty years relied on half-truths and things which can only be described as incontestable lies. This, combined with the original judgment (which shows more lies by Allen) of giving custody to Farrow is quite ample evidence that Woody Allen is guilty as sin, in addition to having been amazingly successful in playing society for 20 years, using the ‘vengeful lover’ card. We, as a society, should be embarrassed we fell for it, and you moreso for continuing this absurd defense (example:Moses’ statements, by the way, disagree with those of the nurses’ in charge of the children’s’ whereabouts that day.).
            Just check out Dylan’s brief response noting Allen’s various lies and inconsistencies, it’s plenty enough.

            Dylan’s accusation, by the way, of the actors working with Allen, is in no way false. Anyone working with an obviously guilty party (and, having read the documents I’ve read over the last 48 hours, including the child-molestation investigator’s assessment of the original, invalid, inaccurate, methodologically absurd report) and gaining thereby is guilty of helping him maintain his place in acceptable society. I’ve been shocked to find out just how much evidence there was implicating Allen, and am comfortable referring to him as a presumed criminal. Under those circumstances, we all bear responsibility for having supported him and helped him keep his social place all these years, but especially those respectable actors who work in his movies, and the people who fund and distribute them (one of whom is a friend–I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to the next time we have to see each other). Dylan, KNOWING Allen’s guilt in a way the rest of us can’t had every right to make her statements that way, and the idea Baldwyn put forward it’s just a family affair (as opposed to part of the criminal code} is inaccurate and, IMO, absurd.

          • Badgerite

            “One of them is a friend.” Uh huh. So you are not impartial in your comments at all. Or in your assessments. And how close to this are you, anyway? But I digress.

            The accusation: “As mandated by law, Dr. V.J. Kavirajan, the Connecticut pediatrician to whom Dylan repeated her accusation, reported the charge to the Connecticut State Police.”
            As I understand it, this is the doctor who was first contacted and who did the initial physical exam which found no physical signs of sexual abuse. The one who asked Dylan where she had been touched and she responded by indicating Woody Allen had touched her on the shoulder. The doctor, in short, who had “botched” it. She was taken to this doctor and examined for signs of sexual abuse by Mia Farrow so in actual fact Mia Farrow would have been the primary actor in starting this investigation.
            “In furtherance of their investigation to determine if criminal prosecution should be pursued against Mr. Allen, the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital.”
            And what about that title screams inexperienced in terms of assessing the validity of child sexual abuse charges to you?
            This was a team of well trained and experienced psychologists who interviewed Dylan, probably multiple times and their conclusion was that no abuse had happened. Probably because she made charges like that of Soon-Yi and Woody Allen having sex in front of her and him smashing her face into a plate of hot spaghetti. If all of her memories are accurate and cannot be questioned, then this has to be accurate also. And I really don’t think it is. So there is mentioned right there in the custody case an instance of abuse alleged that in all likelihood never happened. Not to mention the ‘smashing the face into a plate of hot spaghetti’ would be a little inconsistent with the ‘grooming’ meme. But it would be consistent with other issues in the household at that time. Something a 7 year old could and would absorb and make part of their own memories.

            The 1993 decision a custody case. Not a criminal case. And Woody Allen was the person who instituted the action and was seeking to upend the existing custody arrangement. Woody Allen was seeking to take custody of the children that he viewed as his children away from Mia Farrow
            The people who cite this case are somehow trying to use this decision as a criminal pronouncement on Woody Allen when actually it is a legal pronouncement that Mia Farrow was not an unfit parent and taking custody of her children away from her was not justified. The burden was on Woody Allen to show that somehow Mia Farrow having custody of the children was not in the children’s best interest and he failed to do so. Woody Allen’s main contention in doing so was that Mia Farrow’s response to his affair with Soon-Yi was and would have ill effects on the children. Given Moses recent statements one would have to wonder if the Judge in this decision got it right.
            I can find no pronouncements from the judge in the case that Woody Allen was ‘lying’. He did make a lot of pronouncements as to Woody Allen’s reluctant or even non involvement with the children and their siblings. How he didn’t know their pets names, didn’t know about and had no interest in their relationships with their other siblings, never went to teacher/parent conferences, and had no real involvement in the daily activities of their lives. The Judge’s main conclusion seemed to be that Woody Allen was more of an ‘absentee’ parent then a real one. That his involvement in his children’s lives was on his terms and when he felt like it and that he presented no evidence as to why the best interests of the children would be served by taking custody away from Mia Farrow. The evidence Woody Allen presented as to the anger felt by Mia Farrow’s in reaction to his affair with Soon-Yi and its affect on the children did not impress the judge as he saw that anger as justified and the relationship as a shallow and purely sexual one that would involve Soon-Yi eventually being abandoned by him. That, of course, did not happen.
            He did not deny Woody Allen visitation rights but found that due to the allegations made those visits should involve supervision. That was it. And in a custody case the Judge is allowed great latitude in determining what is in the best interests of the child and is certainly justified to error on the side of caution. :

            “Mr. Allen has demonstrated no parenting skills that would qualify him as an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel. His financial contributions to the children’s support, his willingness to read to them, to tell them stories, to buy them presents, and to oversee their breakfasts do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance and care in their lives. These contributions do not excuse his evident lack of familiarity with the most basic details of their day to day activities.”

            And if someone is trying to use this custody decision which merely kept the custody arrangements that were in existence intact and meant that Mia Farrow could keep custody of the children whom she and Woody Allen had in common, as some kind of legal pronouncement of guilt, that is simply a dishonest thing to do. Period. That is not what the case or the decision was about. There were no criminal charges made against Woody Allen because they were not warranted. The fact that the girl who made them as a 7 year old child is making them as an adult changes nothing. That the events she experienced as a young child in that family may have traumatized her, I do not doubt. But as to what it was that traumatized her, ( her family did split apart in a rather nasty way that the children in that household were not shielded from) I don’t think we can know.
            I know we cannot know to a legal certainty.
            It is a family affair at this point. And not part of the criminal code. For one thing, the statute of limitations is in place for all crimes but murder for a reason. That reason has to do with the interests of justice. It cannot and should not be so easily discarded as that. Memories can be affected over time.
            That is the point of a statute of limitations after all. That the interests of determining the truth of what happened in any given instance will be adversely affected with the passage of time. Dylan Farrow has been in her mother’s custody with no contact with Woody Allen for the overwhelming portion of her life. I’m sure she has been in therapy and that therapy would be based on the idea that what was alleged, actually happened. This would be a tremendous reinforcement for a child.
            That some twenty years after the fact, when Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn now have a family and children of their own, the Farrow family now wants to use their position to try to exact punishment or revenge (depending on your view of this case) to me is appalling. And no reputable news operation should be a party to it. What’s more, I think it will not serve the interests of anyone. Not even Dylan Farrow.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            “”One of them is a friend.”

            You’re misinterpreting something (well, a lot, actually, but let’s stick here.). I know no Farrows.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            That’s great, very logical….because Allen smashed Dylan’s place in a plate of food after the fact as a threat that she’d better keep quiet, this invalidates the pattern of ‘grooming’ observed in documents from earlier years. Great logic.

          • Badgerite

            You missed or intentionally didn’t mention the most important fact there. That Dylan Farrow claimed to police that Woody Allen and Soon-Yi had had sex in front of her at his apartment. The Judge described her recollection as “childlike but graphic”. So the accusations here would not just be against Woody Allen, if true, they would also be against his wife, and her (dead to her) sister, Soon-Yi. And I find it rather interesting that her description was “graphic”.

          • taryn

            How is this destroying his reputation? I think his relationship with Soon Yi did that. None of this is new information. There are as many people that put all of this in the context of Mia Farrow out for revenge as there are people who suspect Dylan is telling the truth.

            His version of their relationship has some problems, too.

            His version given to the court, from the custody papers:

            Until 1990, although he had little contact with any of the Previn children, Mr. Allen had the least to do with Soon Yi. “She was someone that didn’t like me. I had no interest in her, none whatsoever. She was a quiet person who did her work. I never spoke to her.” In 1990, Mr. Allen, who had four season tickets to the New York Knicks basketball games, was asked by Soon Yi if she could go to a game. Mr. Allen agreed.

            During the following weeks, when Mr. Allen visited Ms. Farrow’s home, he would say hello to Soon Yi, “which is something I never did before.”

            wiki’s version:
            In 1991, when the relationship began, Allen was 56 and Previn around 19.

            (I assume the date is approximate bc no one knows her real age.)

            from The Unruly Life of Woody Allen by Marion Meade:

            She (Soon Yi) made a point of inviting him (Woody Allen) to her Sweet Sixteen party and on her next birthday, he invited her and several school chums to a lavish dinner at the Russian Tea Room.

            One evening in January 1990, the New York Knicks were playing the LA Lakers at the Garden. On assignment for the National a sports publication, a freelance photographer named Dominick Conde was strolling around fishing for celebrities. Right before half time, he spotted Woody and Soon They were holding hands. Using a long lens, Conde took three shots. When he came back after half time “they were still holding hands so I shot three more frames.”

            A week or two after Conde photographed Woody Allen and Soon Yi, another observant Knicks fan happened to see the couple at a Sacramento game seeing Woody Stroke Soon Yi’s hair and kiss her cheek. The fan tipped off Cindy Adams, gossip columnist at the NY Post.

            ( CA phoned WA’s secretary with this info, according to CA’s version she was told Soon Yi was an old family friend. CA said she laughed at that, replied “she’s not that old.” Some mention of SY/ WA was made by CA in the NY Post.)

          • Badgerite

            How is this destroying his reputation? Pardon if I interpret her piece in the New York Times and her brother’s twitter comments as personal attacks but that is what they are, after all.

          • taryn

            Wait, what are you talking about? Soon Yi would back up Woody Allen’s version of events? Because everyone knows she’s an impartial witness. Yes, that would settle this whole thing once and for all.

          • Badgerite

            Like I said, they aren’t just accusing Woody Allen. They are also accusing and attacking Soon-Yi and her family.
            She would be as ‘impartial’ as anyone else in this story.
            And she would certainly provide reasonable doubt.

          • Kelman Beaumont

            I appreciate a clear well thought out discussion with insight. Thank you, you’ve made my day

        • Jutiz

          Oh great. Ralph Underwager has entered to room.

      • scottrose

        Dylan is accountable for her own behavior now and she made a false public accusation that Cate Blanchett and other actors somehow are complicit in not only child abuse but in the abuse she alleges occurred against her person. That was a despicable (if also laughable) tactic. Cate Blanchett never did a bad thing to Dylan Farrow, and Dylan’s fatuousness in pointing a finger of blame at her hardly increases her credibility on other points.

        • 1bestdog

          She’s playing it for all she can. Like every pic of her is so “victim.’

        • Thawed Cave Bear

          Cate Blanchett participated in the continued film-making of Allen, regardless of the fact that he’s a criminal who hasn’t served his time, if you actually look at the evidence. Blanchett’s name was used in the purpose of making a point about the larger industry that enables him, a point correct. How is that out of line.

          • ronp12

            You can say a great many things, but they do not have weight simply because you say they should.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I’m searching for an argument there. Let’s skip that. Try looking at all the evidence that’s suddenly again available on the net, and see what you find.

          • fool

            The problem with not having enough humility to admit you don’t know exactly what happened, is that you wind up holding your conjecture based stitch-up job, on your personally affronted lap, in the waiting room, with the rest, hoping for your chance to ‘prove’ the unprovable.

          • Badgerite

            Well said.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Too bad that’s not the case here, where we have an adult witness, whose memory appears clear and very extensive, bearing none of the traits of implantation–unless you’re saying she’s genuinely lying, about which accusation…right. Then there’s the multiple supporting witnesses, including one incident in which abuse was observed by actual eyes(!), then there’s Woody’s alibi proven false, and material evidence in the case (Woody’s hair in the room he’d never supposedly been). Less important witnesses, all willing to talk of Woody’s ‘creepy’ behavior…

            I could go on, but…I forget, it’s all just a stitch job, isn’t it.

            You’re all so superior. And you don’t bother with basic research. Fool, it’s not I who lacks humility, you silly, silly person.

          • Badgerite

            Let’s just let pass the statute of limitations and the interests of justice that it serves and go right to the “adult witness” BS.
            This is not an “adult witness”. That would be an independent, fully functioning adult when the memories were formed. That would be an adult witness. And even in that situation, mistakes of memory can happen. We are talking about someone who was 7 when the memory she is relating was formed. There has been nothing but reinforcement for that memory by her custodial parent, her family, and I’m guessing whatever therapists since she was 7 that she has seen. And I’m sure she has seen a few.
            Other verifying witnesses. Not really. Contradictory witnesses would be more like it. Hair in the room of a house where Woody Allen often was present. How damning? It isn’t damning. Have a hairs, will travel. Since he was often present in the house, his ‘single hair’ could have traveled to any room where anyone in the house had been and that includes the help.

          • Badgerite

            “—a criminal who hasn’t served his time—-”
            Says who? What court? What jury? When was the jury selected and when was the vote taken. When was the sentence pronounced?
            And this is my objection to all of this. Trying someone in the press or on the internet violates every rule of the fundamental fairness required by due process of law. And that is WAY out of line.

      • Allswell

        Out of curiosity, how specifically was the investigation botched? The Yale team was court appointed, as it should have been. Much has been made of the fact that the reporting doctor, Dr. Leventhal, never interviewed Dylan. However, two therapists who worked directly for him, both females, interviewed her extensively. Makes sense to me that the female docs would handle this particular type of interview instead of the male. The one thing that stands out as unfortunate and perhaps “botched” is the fact that Yale therapists destroyed their notes. However, perhaps this is normal protocol when it is determined that law enforcement will not be bringing charges. It’s unclear at this point. Judge Wilk’s opinion was written in such an obviously biased, unprofessionally emotional manner that it is rendered unreliable. What does stand out is that both Mia Farrow and Woody Allen are adults lacking in character, judgment, maturity. Both put their own agendas, whims above the needs of others, most notably their own family members. It speaks volumes that they agreed to create a bio child together even after establishing that he wanted no parental responsibility and she merely wanted his genetic contribution and was fine with bringing a child into this world knowing it was already rejected by its father. Furthermore, even though Mia claims to be concerned by Woody’s inappropriate behavior with Dylan, she nonetheless suggests and sponsors his adoption of the girl. Additionally, after “warning” the family, many of whom were impaired minor children, that Woody should never be alone with Dylan, Mia has no problems skipping off to go shopping with a pal, If I were afraid an adult might harm or compromise my kid, you can be damn sure that when said adult was in our presence, I’d stand my ground and not go anywhere so as to protect my child. I certainly wouldn’t leave random sitters or minor children to stand guard. Woody strikes me as a selfish, manipulative, cruel man. Ditto Mia. However, I find her behavior more reprehensible than Woody’s because she firmly believes that she has the right to obliterate anyone who angers or crosses her. If she were more concerned with Dylan’s healing and well being than in destroying Woody, than she and her Norman Bates son would not have reduced Dylan’s suffering to suspiciously timed snarky tweets where they disingenuously refer to her as “a woman.” That is the behavior of a bitch and her boy hell bent on taking down a successful enemy and NOT the behavior of a loving, sensitive, concerned mom and brother who respect and honor the privacy and healing of a daughter. Mia’s and Norman aka Ronan’s vindictive antics on twitter and in the press revictimize Dylan and keep her mired in a place of abuse and rage.

        • Thawed Cave Bear

          There’s an article on this…I’m too tired to repeat again the details of what a crap investigation it was. Google and read from the expert please.

        • taryn

          Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology

          By Charles Patrick Ewing, Joseph T. McCann

          However, the most damaging critique of the Yale-New Haven study was the fact that the original notes from the interviews and meetings had been destroyed and could not be examined to test the validity of the report’s conclusions. The destroying of raw interview notes is a major concern. Most agreed-upon ethical and professional standards for conducting forensic mental health evaluations call for experts to outline the basis for their opinions- which often include findings from interviews- and to preserve their records for examination later in the legal process. When a case is referred for a forensic evaluation, the experts must know that there is a strong possibility their records, opinions, and conclusions will be closely scrutinized in court. As such, forensic experts have an obligation to preserve their notes and records for later review.

          Since Meltzer and Herman were hired by attorneys for Allen and Farrow, respectively, it is understandable that they had divergent opinions about the quality of the Yale-New Haven examination and report in the case. What is more intriguing, however, is why the mental health professionals who actually examined Allen and his daughter and wrote the report did not testify at the child custody trial before Judge Wilk. In his final decision in the case, Judge Wilk noted that the members of the evaluation team were unwilling to testify, although the clinician leading the team gave testimony at a deposition. It remains unclear why the clinicians who performed the direct evaluation of the sexual abuse allegation were unwilling to testify, given the fact that they accepted the task of performing an examination where it was almost certain that they would be asked to testify in court. What is even less clear is the reason that members of the team were not subpoenaed by Allen’s attorney. One could speculate that because the child-custody trial took place in New York State and the experts were located in Connecticut, there may have been questions about jurisdiction. Still, the fact that the experts were not willing to testify, along with the fact that they had destroyed their notes, led Judge Wilk to view their conclusion with skepticism. He said in his final decision in the case that these factors, “compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.

      • Liz

        But you DID “definitively” say what happened in your final sentence that today “Dylan Farrow might have gotten justice.” meaning that she had not gotten justice with the previous investigation. The viewpoint of your judgment is completely apparent — you DO think Allen abused her and your assessment of the evidence is biased in that direction.

      • Cjr Udek

        You did not do a good job of keeping your opinion from showing. Yours was a very lopsided review. What about the evidence that children (especially children) can confuse what they’ve heard or imagined with reality? What about the sick pup that was Dylan Farrow’s mother? What about the OTHER Farrow… the one that is now in jail for child molestation? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, you know. What about Moses Farrow’s condemnation of his mother and defense of Woody Allen? What about Dylan’s statement that her father had hurt her by . . . not putting her mother in his movies anymore? How about the overzealous prosecutor who was nearly disbarred because of his violations of Woody Allen’s rights? How about that molestation cases are the ONLY offenses where convictions often occur despite a total absence of evidence, and yet the Woody Allen case didn’t even go to trial despite the huge career boon it would have been for the prosecution? How about the improbability that a known claustrophobe would lead a child into, in her words, a closet-like attic space? Or that child molesters are almost never one time offenders… yet there have not been any other accusations against Woody Allen, either before or since he supposedly molested Dylan?

        I can go on and on. This thing is leaker than the Titanic.

      • taryn

        Could you explain the notes that the Yale New Haven team destroyed. They are just personal observations taken down in the course of the interview, basically? But all of the interview transcripts, especially Dylan’s, would be preserved.

    • Virginia Pelley

      I think when he said the investigation was botched he was referring to how a doctor interviewed Dylan about it with her mom in the room. He says that later investigations of child sexual abuse got more sophisticated, one on one interviews with child psychologists that are recorded, but that wasn’t the case with Dylan. He also said that the 6 mos of interviews she endured were probably horrific. Kids will sometimes lie to minimize the abuse. Like, suppose she felt intimidated by a particular doctor, maybe she didn’t feel comfortable getting into the details with him or her. Talking about molestation is incredibly embarrassing and gross. Even for adults sometimes.
      I didn’t get from reading that that Patrick was assuming anything. What I got from it was that he thinks it could have happened. And that as a professional in this field, he’s pointing out that some of the reasons people are dismissing her claim don’t necessarily discount abuse.
      I wish he had talked about how common it is for people who have false memories to hold them throughout adulthood. I’m curious about that.
      Also, no worries about her allegations staying allegations. Statute of limitations long ran out.

      • QuadCityPat

        Thanks Virginia. I didn’t talk about false memories because I honestly know very little about it. I can usually can ferret out if a child has been coached, which doesn’t happen as often as people think. I’m sure some studies have been done about false memory, but I don’t know the numbers.

        • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

          You need to do some research, since you are obviously too ill-informed about False Memory syndrome to write this article. Google Elizabeth Loftus, an expert in the field. Start there.

          • QuadCityPat

            I don’t deal in false memories, I deal in objective fact. The focus of this piece was how the system screwed up the entire case. If Dylan had false memories they were reinforced by shoddy investigation techniques, thereby hurting Allen. If her statements are true then the shoddy investigation hurts her.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            I see. So you aren’t interested in educating yourself so you can be better qualified to write about things like this in the future. Good to know.

          • Jutiz

            http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/memory-research.html “January 15, 2010: Loftus’s anti-repressed memory defense is shot down again in child-rapist priest case.Commonwealth v. Shanley. “

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            Good ‘ol Liz Library. No conflict of interest there.

          • Jutiz

            So you already know about the Liz Library. That’s very telling.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            LOL That’s a very telling feminist non-issue to try and make a point.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            This is from the actual court transcripts of the most recent trial, which Liz >Library also cites, but conveniently leaves out details with an ellipsis:

            “The Commonwealth responds that the theory of the case was not exclusively limited to the validity of the theory of dissociative amnesia because the victim was never actually diagnosed with that disorder. Instead, the jury were entitled to reject the testimony regarding dissociative amnesia, the purpose of which related to the victim’s credibility regarding the delay in reporting the sexual abuse, and still find that the victim had remembered the sexual abuse in reliable detail.”

            Liz Library left that part out hoping that weak-minded Feminists such as yourself would squeal with glee over it and not bother to read the whole thing. This doesn’t amount to a “shooting down” of Loftus’ general thesis, since she acknowledged general forgetting & remembering could also happen. Well within the confines of her view, the court decided the case based on other criteria than disscociative amnesia, while acknowledging her general point and her expertise. It’s all there in black & white.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder#Therapist_induced

            The prevailing post-traumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders is contested.[8] It has been hypothesized that symptoms of DID may be created by therapists using techniques to “recover” memories(such as the use of hypnosis to “access” alter identities, facilitate age regression or retrieve memories) on suggestible individuals.[14][15][16][30][36] Referred to as the “sociocognitive model” (SCM), it proposes that DID is due to a person consciously or unconsciously behaving in certain ways promoted by cultural stereotypes,[30] with unwitting therapists providing cues through improper therapeutic techniques. This behavior is enhanced by media portrayals of DID.[8]

          • Badgerite

            The fact that such a defense is not valid in all cases does not mean it is valid in NO cases. That is a logical flaw. You aren’t proving anything by that. Or that it doesn’t happen. I have seen it happen myself. I know it can happen.

      • Krud

        Just as big an issue as false memory is “gaslighting,” or trying to confuse the child into thinking nothing happened and that they’re making it up.

        • Badgerite

          And which doctor would have had an interest in doing that?

          • Krud

            Hopefully none of them. But I have known people in positions of responsibility and/or power that weren’t above that sort of thing. But if it *isn’t* false memories, then this would be another possibility, if we’re going to speculate. (Which I’ll admit I’m not sure we should be doing, but here we are.)

          • Badgerite

            And I have known a personal situation where the person experienced false memories of sexual abuse. And the telling was quite dramatic and believable, came at a time of great conflict in a foundational relationship, and I believe as a product of that conflict. To bridge a severe rift. When there is a alleged victim of abuse, all other considerations or grievances are put aside.
            And the stories were completely false. The relationship survived and later flourished. But those memories had nothing at all to do with anything that really happened. And this was an adult.

          • Krud

            I’m sorry to hear that. So I think we’re agreed that both are possibilities. It’s a bad situation all around, really, with no real definitive stance to take without potentially doing a huge disservice to someone. In most situations like this, I tend to take a sort of fence-straddling objective view. It just happens that I have a bias toward this case where I’m inclined to believe Dylan.

          • Badgerite

            I said I have known of a personal situation. I did not say I was emotionally effected by it. It didn’t involve my parents. Except that I developed a more skeptical attitude toward outward appearances than I might otherwise have. I don’t know that I have a bias so much as a greater appreciation of how false memories can occur. Jessica Winter in Slate asked the question as to false memories, “And how does that happen?”
            And I thought, really, you don’t know? There was a decade or so when people who went to shrinks were convinced by the shrinks that their parents had been involved in and used them as children in rituals of satanic worship. ( It was all the rage, just as child abuse allegations in preschools were for a time) People would go to them with feelings of depression and come away with stories of abuse and Satanic worship at the hands of their parents. We had a court case here in town years ago for malpractice based on just such a scenario.
            The shrink lost. And yet the woman involved believed it for a long time. I think her husband dissuaded her, eventually. So, false memories being implanted in another person ( adults) by a person in authority ( not even a parent) is actually well documented. Jesus, what else do you call ‘negative’ campaigning. This is a well documented tendency in people to absorb into themselves other people’s perceptions if enforced over and over again. And when someone describes their brother as a “betrayer of the family” because he has a differing memory of events ( and you can tell by the pictures that he was a much older child at the time and less easily influenced) it sounds as if there is an enforced family orthodoxy from which you are not allowed to vary.
            It is true, that actual molestation is also possible. But then Ms Farrow ( Dylan) in response to her brother Moses having memories that contradict hers, says things like,
            “He’s dead to me.” and ” He is a betrayer of the family.”
            Well, what are they, the mafia? His memories, I’m sure, are honest ones. It isn’t a question of believing that Dylan Farrow is lying. It is a question of the reliability of her memory of the event in question. And that is the issue. Nothing in the court documents alleges what she alleged in her New York Times piece. And that is why when they criticize someone for saying , “We can’t really know what happened”, by saying “Well, I’m telling you what happened because I remember”, I’m afraid I cannot go along with that. Memories, attitudes, especially those of a child are malleable. Easily affected. Especially so in a bitter situation like that family was in at the time. Now she has her life and Woody Allen has his. Each have families. Someone is guaranteed to be done a disservice by the very nature of the debate and the public forum chosen.

          • Krud

            Ah, okay. I misunderstood “personal” in this context, thank you for clarifying. Also, I agree with most of your points, and I don’t agree with the way in which much of this has transpired; that element is one I haven’t weighed in on much.
            And you’re right, memories are malleable. I’ve seen multiple mentions of false memories, which might apply in this case, for all I (and anyone else) know. But I wanted to be certain that gas-lighting was also mentioned, because it’s just as real, just as possible, and just as emotionally damaging. It is, in a way, the flip-side of false memories, only it’s taking real memories and making the person (usually but not always a child) doubt their validity.
            And *if* (huge if, as I acknowledge that this is hypothetical and we have no real way of knowing) her memories are accurate, then she was a victim of gas-lighting, and siding with Woody would, in effect, be reinforcing that. Yes, false memories happen. Yes, people lie. Yes, people cover things up. Yes, humans do a lot of messed-up things. None of that really solves the issue. Ultimately, the choices are “not get involved” (which, really, is probably the wisest course, one which arguably none of us in this comment section has taken), or “side with one or the other.” I more or less waived my right to objectivity the moment I joined the conversation, and in hindsight I almost regret that, because I think most of us have entered the dialogue with a point of view from which he haven’t budged and aren’t likely to in the future. I have read some interesting things, from you and others, and have (hopefully) added some worthwhile two cents, but really we’re just shouting into the wind about something that’s none of our business. Should any of this impact his Lifetime Achievement Award as a movie director/actor? No. However messed up his life may or may not be, it doesn’t really translate to his work. I mean, it’s not like they’ll ever give a Lifetime Achievement Award to someone whose movies were awful but who “had a personal life above reproach.” Anyway, this comment got away from me a bit.

          • Badgerite

            Can’t argue with any of that. Appreciate your reasonableness and your comments. Be well.

          • Jutiz
          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            Oh wow, I can copy/paste a link and it has a buncha smart-sounding stuff. I are really smart!

          • rebeccagavin

            How is that long list of links proof that gaslighting of kids by professionals is common. To which article are you referring?

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            I’m sorry you had such an imposition in the personal circle of your life, but it doesn’t address the abundant evidence we have available in this case.

          • Badgerite

            It does, in fact. I don’t even have to consult personal experience with this one. There are the McMartin school cases in the 1980’s, a spate of cases involving ‘recovered memory’ of abuses by parents in ‘satanic cults’. The ability to adopt memories that never occurred is well documented.

          • 1bestdog

            No. There you are.

      • Badgerite

        You don’t think he is assuming guilt? Here is a quote from a reply he made to one of my comments.

        “For me to disbelieve a child who is claiming sexual abuse, I need to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is lying.”
        That is assuming the charges are true unless the defendant can prove that they COULD NOT be true. That is assuming guilt.
        And yet he notes in his post that a child can be easily influenced either by fear and intimidation or by a desire to please the interrogator.
        And there is the difficulty. Who is actually doing the ‘claiming’.
        There were a whole spate of cases in the 1980’s that involved children claiming sexual abuse in a preschool environment. One in California. One in Minnesota. In these cases, it came out that the parents questioning of their own children brought about allegations that were proven false. And one case in West Virginia involving a young teacher whose whole life was all but destroyed before the truth came out. I don’t think you can assume in these cases. Each case is its own world and must be looked at closely for evidence which corroborates or does not corroborate the charges. There have been too many cases where people’s lives were destroyed based on allegations of something that did not actually happen.

        • Constantine

          This is not one of those cases. This is a child revealing abuse by a (previously) beloved media figure, and she must have had some sense that the world would be against her in her claims. What we know of Allen is that he is so devoid of boundaries he engaged in a sexual relationship with his adopted daughter. That says a lot about him. Based on what we now know, I find your skepticism and defense of Allen here rather disgusting. You’re part of the problem. I pray nothing like this ever happens to a child of yours.

          • Badgerite

            And how do you know that ‘this is not one of those cases’?
            If you charged with abuse every 40-50 year old man who found love with a 21 year who was NOT his adopted daughter than you would be putting a lot of people in jail. I remember the events, you couldn’t be unaware of them, while they occurred. At the time I thought he acted disgustingly and I also thought Mia Farrow’s charges were motivated by revenge. I no longer think that about either of them. Woody Allen married Soon-Yi PREVIN and they have been together ever since and have 2 adopted daughters of their own. I see what Mia Farrow did as a somewhat justified concern that someone she thought had been preying on her older daughter also may have preyed on her younger one. I do not think that is what happened. But I believe she believed that.
            I view the whole thing as a giant human fuck up and that is what humans do all the time. I don’t think there are any monsters in this one. And then, of course, there is Moses Farrow who recently came to the defense of Mr. Allen as well.
            Is he ‘disgusting and part of the problem’ as well? Personally, I think he has more knowledge about the people and the events of this case then you or I will ever have.
            Here is the thing about Woody Allen. He is not beloved by me.
            I have no ax to grind here except that I know the internet and personal attacks in opinion pieces are not the proper forum for this. I believe in the legal system. And I believe in the standards of the legal system. And I do not think those standards are a ‘problem’ for people seeking what is true and just and knowable.

          • lana del taco

            Actually you’re a huge part of the problem by perpetuating the myth that Soon Yi was Allen’s adopted daughter.

          • Constantine

            That’s the important distinction to you, that she was legally adopted by Farrow and not by Allen? So it’s ok to have sex with the child of his girlfriend? Would you let Woody babysit your daughter?

          • lana del taco

            Yes because you made an untrue statement. It’s a very important distinction because left uncorrected implies that Allen was involved in an incestuous relationship with his daughter and that simply is not true.

          • Anthony Chan

            It has now emerged in a 1976 interview Woody Allen gave to PEOPLE magazine, he brought up his participation in a hypothetical orgy with fifteen 12-year old girls.Google that up and then tell me he can babysit your children.

          • Badgerite

            You know, he is a comedian.
            “I’m open minded about sex. I’m not above reproach. If anything I’m below reproach.”
            And now it is where it has belonged from the start. As grist for
            TMZ. I’m sure that will help all victims of abuse. Because that is what TMZ is all about.
            And now that Moses Farrow, who is a family therapist, has openly questioned that any abuse happened to his sister. His sister’s response is, “He’s dead to me.”
            I guess we are really getting somewhere here.
            We have determined that you would never let Woody Allen babysit your kids ( though I don’t think that is a real possibility ) and that this particular family is hopelessly fucked up.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            “That’s the important distinction to you, that she was legally adopted by Farrow and not by Allen?”

            LOL Yep. You are misinformed and you made a misinformed statement. You are so hell-bent on railroading him that you’ll hang your hat on anything, despite the fact that Soon-Yi was not a child when they were dating. It’s you that needs to reconsider your motives, here.

          • Constantine

            I don’t need to railroad anybody. For those whom Dylan’s statements are not enough, I offered Woody’s lack of appropriate boundaries: having sex with your girlfriend’s daughter. If you see that as irrelevant to this issue, I hope you’re never on a jury.

            Bubble: perhaps you could explain why Mia’s sexual history is relevant to Dylan getting sexually assaulted by Woody.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            I hope you’re never on a jury if you would try to railroad a man based on circumstantial evidence, which is what you’re doing.

          • Constantine

            A statement by the victim is not circumstantial. Somebody who happened to be in the same location at the same time a crime was committed is an example of circumstantial evidence.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            Ummm… you’re the one who drug Soon-Yi PREVIN into the argument. She wasn’t there, therefore what happened between here and her husband while courting is circumstantial to Dylan’s charges.

            Call this a #DERP on your part.

          • Constantine

            You mentioned “railroading based on circumstantial evidence.” What damns Woody is the testimony of Dylan, not his immoral behavior with Previn. If a jury had trouble believing he would do such a thing, a prosecutor would bring forth evidence of his character. His relationship with Previn is such evidence.

            But hey, if you can’t make the point, confuse it.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            LOL Keep spinning your wheels trying to make something out of this.

            A good defense attorney would have that thrown out of court as irrelevant.

            And it *is* circumstantial, which you keep avoiding.

            And… “Immoral” based on what?

            She was over age…

            She is not a blood relative…

            Not even an adopted one.

            The only thing that makes it possibly immoral is that Mia is pissed for being dumped for the younger stuff.

            And that would not hold up in court for one second.

          • Jutiz

            Woody Allen was stupid to file for child custody. He lost and for good reason.

          • Badgerite

            He lost because the law was not on his side in this kind of dispute. He had not wanted children and was reluctant to be involved in their daily lives and he wanted to upset the existing arrangement and take custody away from the custodial parent, their mother. He had no chance even without the allegations of molestation.

          • Badgerite

            Seriously. They have been married for 16-17 years and have two children. How is that ‘immoral’?

          • Badgerite

            There is no legal boundary there. Both consenting adults. They chose each other. And that is not evidence of anything. It is not completely irrelevant as it goes to motive as to why Mia Farrow would either suspect or coach her daughter into believing she had been abused.
            It is not really very relevant to proving that Woody Allen did abuse her.
            As is noted, Mia Farrow took up with a much older man when she was 19.

          • mrlumpy17 .

            I don’t know what happened, but it is particulaly strange for a man who has been around his girlfriend’s children to suddenly begin dating and subsequently marry one of her daughters when she becomes legal age. If his relationship was so bad with Mia Farrow, and “knowing she was delusional” one would think he would have been more circumspect in pursuing a relationship with Soon-Yi .

          • Badgerite

            One would think, but that is not really evidence of anything. People differ as to how they exercise common sense. If they exercise it all.

          • Bubble Genius

            So, Mia marrying, at 19, Frank Sinatra, her mom’s ex-lover. That’s okay, then?

          • Taylor Greeson

            No, she was actually adopted by Mia Farrow and her ex-husband, Andre Previn. Woody Allen was not even in the picture when Mia Farrow adopted Soon Yi. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, yes, I would let Woody Allen babysit her.

          • Popgirl

            Wow. You don’t even know the man and you would let him babysit your daughter? What a dad. I would let no man babysit my daughter ever unless it was someone like my father or my brother, only those two. No nice man down the street who probably seems fine by me knowing him casually is going to babysit my daughter, because you can never be sure. And read all the posts from all the women who were sexually abused when young all over the internet. It was always someone the family thought they could trust or their own parent or step-parent.

            The statistics are staggering. One in four girls is sexually abused before the age of 14. One in six boys. The most common ages of children when sexual abuse occurs are between 8 and 12.

            But you go on and say you would let your little girl be babysat by a stranger you only know by his celebrity. I bet your wife would think differently and be a protective mother.

          • Taylor Greeson

            Okay. We definitely need to unpack this comment a bit.

            My post was in response to the hypothetical (and intentionally provocative) question: Would you let this man babysit your daughter? (posted above by Constantine) I think the question can be more specifically broken down to: knowing everything you know about this case, would you trust Woody Allen not to molest your daughter?

            Let’s step into this fantastical, hypothetical world in which I need a sitter for my imaginary daughter. If I am in the position in which I am able to contact Woody Allen and ask him to babysit for me, then I think we can reasonably assume that in this fantastical, hypothetical world he would not be a stranger.

            Now, if you asked me: would you let a total stranger babysit your child, obviously the answer would be no. But again, I don’t think the original question was posed as a hypothetical query about one’s willingness to let celebrities babysit their children, but rather a rhetorical question aimed at encouraging Allen sympathizers to ponder Dylan Farrow’s harrowing account on a far more personal level and really examine whether or not they can truly believe that Woody Allen is innocent.

            I have weighed all of the currently available information and have given myself time to think deeply and critically about this case, and after much thought my own final feeling is that Woody Allen is not a child molester.

            Regarding your other points:

            – About 30% of sexual abuse victims are molested by a family member, so leaving your child with your father or brother (even if you think you know them really well) is not a guarantee that your child is safe. Luckily, the majority of people are not sexual predators, so statistically it’s more than likely that your dad and brother are not child molesters. But you can never be sure.

            – You chide me for your assumption that I would let a stranger babysit my child, and then in the couple of sentences you accurately point out that most people are not actually molested by strangers, but rather by someone their family knows and thinks they can trust. I’m not 100% sure what point you were trying to drive home. My opinion is that people should only leave their children with people they trust, but parents should also be aware that just because they trust someone or are related to them, it does not guarantee that that person is incapable of doing harm to their children. Parents and professionals who work with kids should strive to create secure environments in which a child feels safe to approach a caring adult for help – even if the person abusing them is their own mother or sister or uncle or cousin or a close family family friend, etc.

            – I agree with you that the statistics are staggering. As one of the 1 in 6, I also know how deep and long-lasting the trauma of sexual abuse can be, and how long the emotional scars can take to heal. I was 12 when I was molested, and like so many others, the man who molested me was a close family friend. Luckily in my case I have found a support system in my loved ones. I am also very fortunate and grateful that I am able to see a therapist for help. Too many victims are left without anyone to turn to for help with the mental health needs that often arise because of this kind of trauma.

            – Lastly, I am gay and do not have a wife.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Your judgment is that Allen was not a child molester? Try this, sir:

            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

          • rebeccagavin

            The important distinction is that of fact vs fiction. If you are going to make declarations, be sure you know the facts. In this case, the fact that he was never her father, and never “parented ” her is significant. They never lived in the same house, and really had no real relationship when she was growing up. And no, I would never allow anyone against whom allegations have been made, babysit any child. But that doesn’t speak to his guilt in any way.

          • Badgerite

            You do know they have been married now for 16-17 years and have two children. And when seen in public during this time, at basketball games and such, they mostly just talked to each other and looked happy.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            ‘father figure’. That do it for you? I know the legalities are important…

          • Badgerite

            Not only did they allow Woody Allen to ‘babysit’ children, they allowed him to PARENT children, his own to be specific, again. Or did you not notice that. And those children and their mother have never charged him with abuse of any kind. “babysit” He has children, for God Sake.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            ah, yeah…AFTER the settlement he could’t parent children…well…not those children. Oh: for God Sake.

          • Badgerite

            Not really. According to the testimony at custody trial, they barely talked.
            And the fact that WA did not accept the children of Mia Farrow’s extended family as his children, kept his own apartment because of it, viewed them as an encumbrance on their relationship, etc, are ‘legalities’ to you. He was no ‘father figure’ to her. You keep saying you read the custody decision but there seems to be a lot in that decision that you did not read.
            “father figure” —- citation please!

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Didn’t say that, dude, though the amusing assertion that Allen couldn’t possibly have been a father figure is amusing. But the citation is very easy to get, notwithstanding your silly accusations that maybe I haven’t read it. If you want it: once source is google. That said, you don’t conduct this discussion in a rational manner, and so, as I’ve told you, I’m out. Peace.

          • Badgerite

            There is no such cite. I was being sarcastic.
            Peace.

          • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

            Soon-Yi is NOT Woody Allen’s adopted daugther!

          • 1bestdog

            Soon yi was NOT his adopted daughter. She was Previn’s, the man Mia stole from his wife at roughly the same age Soon Yi was. Mia was the role model for all sorts of bad behavior.

          • Badgerite

            If you actually read the custody decision, it is clear that Woody Allen never accepted or treated Mia Farrow’s extended brood as his own even minimally. It was a point of contention between them.
            Apparently he kept a separate residence which he went back to at night because of the issue of the children. He didn’t initially want any.
            He never adopted Soon-YI. She was not biologically or legally his daughter. According to court records, they barely spoke.

        • Jutiz
      • Jutiz

        The so-called “false memories” movement is a legal strategy to protect pedophiles from criminal prosecution in child sexual abuse custody cases. The False Memory Foundation was founded by Ralph Underwager in 1992 along with Pamela and Peter Freyd to counter their adult daughter’s claim of child sexual abuse. Underwager said in an interview with Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia that pedophiles can say with boldness that “it’s part of God’s will.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Underwager

        • http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne Kevin Wayne

          It’s also something that has won more court cases than it has lost. Although Idk of any association between Underager & Loftus. But too mny court decisions have been overturned to dismiss it, and too much of the psychological community holds a dim view of recovered memory therapy to dismiss it as well.

          PS, nice job copy/pasting what you wanted to prove a point:

          “Underwager and his wife’s comments were in the context of their view that the best prevention programs for sex-abuse of children were those that focused on stopping the actions of abusers. Underwager later claimed that “radical feminists who have self-styled themselves as sex-abuse experts” had taken the interview out of context and misrepresented his answers, reiterating previous statements that he believed “sexual contact between an adult and a child is [n]ever acceptable nor can it ever be positive.” Underwager and Wakefield had specifically stated that sexual contact between adults and children is always harmful in their 1994 bookReturn of the Furies.”

        • Badgerite

          Like I said, ma’am. Ain’t no ‘so called’ about it. I saw it first hand, once.
          And that was an adult. I sure as hell think it could easily happen with a child of 7. I’m not part of a ‘movement’. Except I believe in fairness and the judicial system and not in trial by internet of press.

        • Badgerite

          Ma’am, I am not a ‘movement’ and i have seen this kind of thing personally happen to people I know. It’s not a strategy. It is a fact.

    • mtw1407

      And you assume the victim is guilty of lying. Allen was not “Affectionate towards their child” – Allen’s creepy behavior was noticed by a list of witnesses. A therapist described it as “grossly inappropriate:” Making Dylan suck his thumb, hovering over her every time he saw her, putting his head in her lap, etc. It’s all in the court documents.

      • Badgerite

        Yes, and her brother remembers her as always being happy to see him.
        And remembers them not being off alone during that visit. He also remembers conditions in that household that could also be called a bit creepy and even coercive when dealing with his mother.
        I’m not really assuming anyone is lying, as such. Clearly, that household had it’s issues all around. I’m saying there is enough doubt here that this really should NOT be grist for the public.
        Period. If what she alleges happened, it ended then. And she has had a lifetime to recover. And if the worst that happened to her is what is alleged in those court documents, well she should be able to deal with it without all this. If it went beyond that, one of her parents came to her defense and it ended then. And frankly, that is an ‘if’ and will have to remain so for me because of things that case doubt on her memory of events.

        • CaraSimon

          “She has had a lifetime to recover”? Wow, man. You are messed up.

          • Badgerite

            And that would be a IF, as in if her memories are true, which I doubt. See reply above to Thawed Cave Bear,
            Frankly, I find ‘Trial By Internet’ to be profoundly offensive and ‘messed up’.

          • Thawed Cave Bear
          • Badgerite

            1) Mia went to the pediatrician with allegations who was then, by law, required to report it to the police. So, bullshit point.
            2) He was ‘in therapy’ to placate Mia Farrow. Woody Allen did not initially want kids. He agreed to her adopting Dylan only if he would not be involved. When Dylan came into the house as a baby he changed his mind. And readily agreed to the adoption of another child. Before that could happen, Mia got pregnant with Satchel. When Satchel was born Mia had less time for both Dylan and Allen and the two spent more time together. (This is from the custody decision) Mia Farrow was the one who complained about their relationship. Not Dylan. He saw a therapist to placate her. The therapist involved noted that his and Dylan’s relationship as intense but not sexual.
            3) Not really of consequence one way or the other since polygraphed are not allowed as evidence in court.
            4) There is no real significance to this. What he challenged was her custody of the children they had in common and that was not going to be overturned. Likewise , the prosecutor did nothing wrong unless it would be defamation. He was in error that he had probable cause. As the judge noted specifically in the custody decision, the case had little to no chance of succeeding at trial due to the expert testimony of the Yale-New Haven Clinic on Sexual Abuse and their assessment that no abuse occurred.
            5) Yes, that’s right. Mia Farrow was the person who brought this up. Not Dylan and not the help. The judge also noted that Woody Allen never bathed or dressed the children. That’s odd for a pedophile to pass up the opportunity to bathe and dress and fondle his naked kids, isn’t it?
            6) Maybe. Maybe not. In the judge’s custody decision, he didn’t even list Moses as among the group of people present that day. So the list he gives of who was present is not exhaustive. Apparently Moses didn’t count. Just because one person didn’t know where someone else was doesn’t mean another person there wouldn’t. In fact one of those witnesses says she didn’t think they were with the group of people outside. They might have been, mightn’t they. And that group might have included Moses. Isn’t that right. There is also testimony from ‘the help’ that dispute this.
            7) As to Dylan repeating her ‘story’ correctly: the custody decision also states on Page 15 Dylan Farrow’s saying that Woody Allen and Soon-Yi ( her sister) had had sex in front of her in Allen’s apartment and that he slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and threatened to do so again.
            In other words, if her memories are to be believed, she also charged her sister, Soon-Yi in having engaged in sexually abusive behavior.
            8) I don’t consider this particularly damning one way or another.
            9) Probable cause is not the standard of proof needed for a conviction. Probable cause is a pretty low standard of proof.
            Something akin to ‘It may be so”.. As the judge noted in the custody decision, such a case was unlikely to succeed at trial.
            10) Irrelevant to anything.

          • IHateFatChicks

            She wasn’t abused you ridiculous half-wit of a simpleton. Please stop, before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than you already are.

        • Popgirl

          Unbelievable. You have no clue what recovering from sexual abuse is to make such a statement and shows that you are completely biased. Talk to sexual abuse victims and they understand her pain.
          And I find the household dysfunctional too and Mia with many issues, but it amazes me that you gloss over Woody’s bizarre behavior towards Dylan. From the beginning of their relationship it was very disturbing. And it was documented many times and worrisome, and he even went to therapy for it at Mia’s request. The fact he saw nothing strange about it is horrifying because it means he has no boundaries. And I question Mia as a mother staying in that relationship with Woody, because no man is worth an obssessive relationship with a young child to the point he has to go to therapy.
          I have no clue if he molested her on the day in question, and as someone who works in the court system and have been involved in molestation cases, I think Woody would have never been convicted. There wasn’t enough evidence and no physical evidence. Everything doesn’t come into evidence, and the jury wouldn’t even see a lot of what internet posters might think they would see. Do I think he was inappropriate with Dylan and it was escalating? Actually, yes, I do. Do I know if something happened that day or all of what she said happened that day? No, I dont’ know because of all the surrounding hoopla going on and probably why a jury would find him not guilty. It doesn’t mean he’s innocent. It just means that there isn’t enough to prove him guilty.

          • ronp12

            You have decided you know the truth. You don’t.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Truth is readily apparently for anyone willing to look through the evidence, which is ample.

          • ronp12

            It will be apparent in a court of law what evidence is ample or not. Truth is yet to be determined – by you or anyone else.

          • Badgerite

            The statute of limitations has run on this. These allegations have seen all it will ever see of a courtroom. This is now trial by press internet/press account. Which, to me, is unacceptable.

          • Badgerite

            Really. Did you know that Dylan also claimed to investigators that she had been at Woody Allen’s apartment and watched her sister, Soon-Yi, and him having sex. And that he also slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and threatened to do so again.
            These were statements she made to the Connecticut State Police.
            Of course, they did not act on these because, one, they are a bit over the top and two, her 18-21 year old sister could deny that any of that was true.
            I, myself, think Mia Farrow was over reacting a bit. He read to the child in bed in his under shorts. That doesn’t sound too abusive to me or even creepy. He “permitted” ( the judges language) the child to suck on his thumb. If you read the custody decision, the story is a lot more involved. And a custody decision is based on the judges assessment of all factors to determine the best interest of the child. So a lot of evidence that would not make it into a criminal case is laid out there. http://www.scribd..com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
            Woody Allen clearly had not wanted her many children from her other relationships and prior adoptions to be a part of their relationship. He thought of them as foster kids. Not his kids. Not even his kids siblings. So him focusing on the children whom he deemed to be part of his family as opposed to her “foster care compound” as the judge says Allen described it, was an issue of contention between them. Their relationship was troubled. It rubbed off on the children who were a part of it. Read the whole thing a couple of times through and tell me that this is so clear cut as you think.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Documentation requested re Con. State Police allegations.

          • Badgerite

            If you read the custody case, you didn’t read it very thoroughly.
            Page 15 top of page in scribd link above.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Remind me, who won that ruling? I have read the document, and it is withering in its opinion of Allen.

          • Badgerite

            It is withering in its opinion of his parental involvement. It is also withering in its assessment of Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi. And the judge was clearly wrong about that. Wasn’t he? In fact, my own opinion, is that it tainted how he viewed all the rest of the evidence. Like everyone else at the time, he did not think the relationship was a permanent one. He was wrong. He was also quite wrong about what would have been in the best interest of Moses Farrow. And in his assessment of the atmosphere in the household.
            As to the allegations of sexual molestation, he did not dismiss them out of hand, but they also were not the determining factor in keeping custody of the children with Ms. Farrow.
            It was simply that the Judge found Mia Farrow’s behavior at the time justifiable due to the fact that Woody Allen was having an affair with her older daughter.
            The case is entitled Allen v Farrow. The plaintiff who brought the case was Woody Allen and he was seeking to take custody of three of the children AWAY from Mia Farrow. According to the judge he failed to prove any reason why that would be in the best interests of the children.
            That is it. That is what that case was about. Nothing more.
            He questions the conclusion of the Yale-New Haven Clinic on Child Sexual Abuse but he does not conclude it is wrong. And, he cannot do that. And he also mentions that 7 year old Dylan told a representative of the Connecticut State Police that Woody Allen and Soon-Yi had had sex in front of her in his apartment. This would also, then, implicate Soon-YI in the abuse. Wouldn’t it? This isn’t just about Woody Allen. This is attacking his entire family,

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            It doesn’t even mean there wasn’t enough to prove him guilty. Farrow just didn’t want the prosecutors to pursue the case and put her family in celebrity hell.

          • Badgerite

            You will note that the Judge himself, in the custody case, states that this is not a case that could succeed at trial.
            He specifically states that. The prosecutor could have pursued it. As the saying goes, “You can indict a ham sandwich”, but a conviction takes a lot more. And certainly there would have been questioned raised as to Dylan’s account. Certainly that little aside about them having sex in the apartment and she seeing them do so would be something Soon-Yi could have contradicted in court.
            Frankly, their case was more believable back then, when people did not believe that Woody Allen was just using Soon-Yi. I think that is a tougher sell now.

          • ronp12

            One does not need to have been personally abused to understand abuse, anymore than one needs to have personal experience with any crime to know what crime is. What one does need to determine if a crime has been committed and to determine guilt or innocence if an alleged offender is to be charged, is facts in evidence, trial and judicial outcome.

          • Badgerite

            I believe the operative words here are “at Mia’s request”. The therapist involved saw no sexual overtones in their relationship. She depicted it as intense but non sexual. He never bathed the child. He never dressed the child. He read stories to her in bed in his undershorts. He didn’t pay a lot of attention to the kids he didn’t view as his. How is that “not able to control those behaviors”. He focused on her, more than the two boys that he and Ms. Farrow had in common, (Moses and Satchel) and he did so at a time when Mia Farrow was , according to the Judge in the custody case, focusing on taking care of her newborn Satchel and had less time for Dylan as well as WA. And no, there isn’t enough to prove him guilty. And that is important. Because your comment seems to me to, again, assume guilt. The Judge in the custody case was not completely convinced by the Yale-New Haven teams assessment, but he did not dismiss it out of hand as everyone now seems to do. And their assessment was that no such abuse had occurred.

        • Nicole Dashiell

          I think all that needs to be said is: I liked seeing my abuser too because I loved him. I didn’t understand what was going on and was uncomfortable about the abuse but still loved the person.
          Other adults did remember them being alone. Yes Mia Farrow’s household sounds odd. That doesn’t mean the abuse didn’t happen.
          A “lifetime” of 20 years to recover? With a court of public opinion constantly telling her she was lying and having her abuser be publicly lauded? There are old women who are not over their abuse. Thankfully, I can assume you have never been a victim of child sex abuse, but it doesn’t go away. Ever.

          • Badgerite

            And did she also witness Soon-Yi and Woody Allen having sex at his apartment once? And do you think he slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti once and threatened to do it again?
            These are supposed incidents that she told the Connecticut State Police about.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Is that all you got, in response to anything substantive? …But let me change the subject, and what about this spaghetti incident…?

          • Badgerite

            Well, I do. Page 15 of the custody decision. Top of page.
            Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993.
            This was about Soon-Yi and Woody Allen having sex in front of her while at his apartment. Now personally, I don’t think that ever happened. And if it didn’t where did the “graphic details” come from? What’s more, it seems to have fallen off of her the radar screen in her recent recounting of memories.

          • Badgerite

            Yah, I don’t think the ‘spaghetti incident’ ever happened anymore then I think Soon-Yi and Woody Allen were observed by Dylan having sex in his apartment.
            But I do know what did happen.
            Mia Farrow confronted Soon-Yi about the pictures she had found. She told her that she blamed Woody Allen for this and it was not Soon-Yi’s fault. Until Soon-Yi admitted the affair to her. And then she blew up and hit her on the face and shoulder. (Whose description of her does that sound like? I’ll answer that. Moses description) She was perfectly happy to forgive Soon-Yi if Soon-Yi would depict Woody Allen as someone who had ‘preyed’ upon her. When she refused, Mia Farrow flipped out and struck her.
            This is all in the custody decision, by the way.
            Soon-yi had confided her loneliness to Woody Allen. Not her mother. She confided in him. And she never confided in her mother. There were problems in their relationship, I think, long before Woody Allen entered the picture.

          • Badgerite

            And how do you distinguish that from a child who just likes seeing the person? And the truth is that you cannot. Up until now, there has been no court of public opinion. People have just gone about their lives. Woody Allen is 77. Married for all this time to her (dead to me) sister and they have two kids. No one has put Mia Farrow or certainly Dylan Farrow ‘on trial’. They have made a rather public attack on Woody Allen, Soon-Yi and their family.
            There are children in the world who grow up on garbage dumps.
            This girl has had and still has access to the best help money can buy, I’m sure. And what really harms someone who is abused is when nothing is done to stop it. Just assuming for a moment that abuse actually occurred, which I think was NOT the case, the bitterness towards Hollywood and her brother seem to me a little self absorbed. The world is full of tragic stories. We are watching them play out now in Syria and other places. It just seems to me that using the New York Times to resolve her personal issues is not
            1) called for and 2) the best way to resolve those issues, whatever they are.
            There are still innocents involved in this.

          • Badgerite

            “Other adults remember them being alone”
            That isn’t really accurate. What ‘other adults’ (some and certainly not all) remember is that they did not know where they were for a period of time. Either of them. The together part is just assumed. What that actually means is that they cannot conclusively disprove the allegations. Nothing more than that. A woman who worked in the household at the time, quit because she said she was pressured to testify to this and would not do so. Moses statements would support those of the woman who quit.
            You know, there have been no small number of celebrities who have shared stories of terrible abuse at the hands of a parent when they were children. Darrell Hammond, Tyler Perry, and more. And these were children that no one, at the time, thought of helping. Certainly not the authorities. And yet I can’t think of a one who ever said something like, “They got away with it”. Or who sought to use their power to insist that somehow the world should ‘punish’ this person for them. To me, it seems an odd thing to want. Especially now. WA is 77, married to her sister, whom I’m sure she hardly knew, and has two kids of his own. What exactly does she expect the world to do and how exactly would that be helpful? ( And this all assumes that there is no doubt as to the truth of her accusations and now as then, I think it is clear that there is all kind of reasonable doubt. )
            I keep asking for someone to tell me if they think that Soon-Yi and Woody Allen had sex in front of her once, as she alleged to police, but no one says they think that happened. And if that didn’t happen and it was something she alleged, what does that say about her memories and her accusations.

          • taryn

            Sitter Questions Allen Actions With Daughter
            By PETER MARKS
            Published: April 10, 1993
            On the afternoon of Aug. 4, 1992, Alison Stickland, a baby sitter, was walking by the television room in Mia Farrow’s summer home in Connecticut when, she testified yesterday, she looked in and noticed something strange.

            There, sitting silently on the sofa, she said, was 7-year-old Dylan Farrow. The little girl, she said, was wearing a white dress and a blank expression. And kneeling before her in a way that bothered Ms. Stickland, she said, was the girl’s father, Woody Allen.

            “I got to the doorway, and Mr. Allen was on his knees in front of Dylan, with his head in her lap,” said Ms. Stickland, a baby sitter for the children of one of Ms. Farrow’s oldest friends, in testimony in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. She said that his face was turned toward Dylan’s body. Standing at the Door

            Allen has his version of what happened too. He was on his knees in front of her, but only speaking to Dylan.

        • AGee

          Did you really just write “And she has had a lifetime to recover?”

          I respected your opinion until you said that. You, like Woody Allen, just want her to go away.

          • ronp12

            Your situation is not this situation.

          • Badgerite

            I want her to deal with this in some other way than Trial by Internet where there is one version of events put out and no chance of any real defense without making a public spectacle of yourself.
            I mean, I don’t respect someone who thinks the New York Times is the appropriate place for this. She seems to be trying to get the world to make a judgement about Woody Allen without really looking at the evidence.
            She also alleged, as a child, that Soon-Yi and Woody Allen had sex in front of her at his apartment once and that he slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and threatened to do it again.
            This is a statement she made to police at the time.
            And I don’t think one can assume that the interview conducted by the Yale-New Haven team, who came to the conclusive that no abuse occurred, was “botched”. There is no real basis to assume that. And it is an assumption being made. Quite frankly, given the above statements that she made to a representative of the Connecticut State Police, what could be in those notes of theirs that were destroyed ( and when a child is interviewed there is a certain confidentiality involved as much to protect the child and I have seen this in a criminal investigation as well) were similar statements made by her that could be disproved by the statements of another person present.
            I don’t say she has to ‘go away’. I’m saying I, for one, am not going to ‘punish’ Woody Allen for her because I have doubts as to the accuracy of her memories.

          • Badgerite

            Did I leave out the best help money can buy. And if that’s not enough, this is the real world and that will have to do. Expecting the world to punish Woody Allen for her without the ‘formality’ of a trial and due process of law in a fair forum is not OK. There is a statute of limitations on all crimes but murder for a reason and that reason is that with the passage of time, getting at the truth becomes harder.

        • Thawed Cave Bear

          Back to her brother again–her other brother supports every detail of her story, as do other witnesses, but that one older brother who who’s close to father woody always provides helpful details about what seraphim Woody Allen was around his children, regardless of what others, including the plaintiff, remember…

          • lawboy87

            Wait, you’re going with the brother who was 4 (FOUR) yrs old at the time as the one who likely has the best memory of what happened that day, as opposed to the brother who was 14 at the time? Really?

            It wasn’t just Moses, there were two nannies present that day and both of them have repeatedly reported that Dylan was not out of sight for more than 5 minutes of them that day. One has even claimed that Mia tried to get her to lie.

            And Moses had no contact with Woody for years, it’s only recently that he made an effort to reconnect.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            ” it’s only recently that he made an effort to reconnect.”
            But they have a relationship now, which I think it’s fair to say could be biasing.

            Ronan farrow, who I’ve met, briefly (he was a nerd at the time, with a different name–seems to have improved now, I guess), knows more than just memories of that day. He also has memories of his father which materially affect his judgment.

            Re: Allen not being out of sight, i’m impressed the maids can can remember such a trivial detail so specifically after 2 decades, however, the more salient factor is that this is a common technique of child abusers/molesters: carefully managing things so as never to seem gone long enough appearances are compromised.

            Overall, though, I trust not Ronan’s memory, nor Moses’, but I do trust the memory of the adult who has described in detail a long series of actions which were not previously part of the conversation, but which match uncannily the process sexual abusers’ go through to ‘groom’ a child for full abuse. How do you explain this? It’s a well known phenomenon known among investigators, Dylan’s story is an features unfortunately normal behavior of the sort. If you insist on vein a skeptic, as far as I can tell, the only plausible way you can explain it is to accuse Dylan of advance reading about the normal methods of molesters and then deliberately making up an elaborate series of lies over a long period to mimic a genuine case. No implanted memories or any such, deliberate, strategic lying selected deliberately to make a father figure seem as guilty as possible, completely premeditated. Call my a skeptic on THAT.

          • Badgerite

            Are you kidding. This kid has had therapy up the kazoo. I’m sure.
            Again. Do you think Woody Allen and Soon-Yi had sex in front of her once? Do you think he slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and threatened to do it again?
            These were statements she made at the time to a representative of the Connecticut State Police. So they have to be considered as part of her allegations. I suspect Soon-Yi and Woody Allen would both dispute this accusation. Is slamming a child’s face into a plate of spaghetti part of the ‘grooming’ process?

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            This document is far and away the most compelling ANYTHING on this subject. Take a look:
            http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552

          • Badgerite

            You want a compelling document? Read the 1993 custody decision. Several times.
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Uh, Badger…I have. And it IS compelling.

          • Badgerite

            You haven’t read it very closely. You asked me to provide “documentation” for the slamming the face into a plate of hot spaghetti allegation. It is in that decision, page 15, top, as well as the claim that Woody Allen and Soon-Yi had sex in front of her.

          • rebeccagavin

            How are more highly emotional statements by Dylan Farrow the most compelling “anything” in this case? I am not dismissing them, or questioning their value, but the most compelling “anythings” in this case are things that are factual and can be verified.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            ‘more highly emotive statements…’?
            You didn’t read the document, did you?

          • rebeccagavin

            I sure did. It’s very emotional.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            That is incorrect, lowboy. (excuse autocorrect on the name). The nannies contradict Moses’ story, saying the two were gone for more than 15 minutes. Nor have I heard that Mia tried to get them to lie….save from Allen’s publicist.

          • rebeccagavin

            Yes, one of the nannies, Monica Thompson (I believe) did allege that Mia Farrow pressured her to support the allegations, and quit her job because of it. She also said that the other nanny and her had discussed it and neither of them knew of a time when Dylan was out of their sight for more than 5 minutes.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Do you have a source, please?

          • rebeccagavin
          • Thawed Cave Bear

            The majority of the household staff support the ’15 minute gap’ account, however.’ And there’s one worker who alleges she saw…I don’t want to talk about it–an additional very inappropriate incident.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Not what the public record shows.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Can you provide a source for the allegations?

            That’s not meant as warfare. I just want to read the source, if you have it.

          • Badgerite

            Her other brother was an infant. Moses was a teenager, or almost, at the time. He has his own more independent memories.
            He does not need to rely on anyone else’s recounting.
            And he isn’t the only sibling who would probably dispute her accounts. She also claimed to Connecticut State Police that Soon-Yi and Woody Allen had sex in front of her at his apartment once and that he slammed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and threatened to do it again. And do you think that that is true, as well?

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            The help supports Dylan’s account, not Mia’s–they, too are old enough to form their own memories. So is 7, actually.
            Do you have documentation of the spaghetti incident? It’s just that I’ve come up against so much pro-Allen material the last few days that turned out to be…half-truths or obfuscations.

          • Badgerite

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
            Page 15 at the top
            Allen v Farrow custody ruling.

          • Badgerite

            Moses was 14, Ronan was 4.

        • Thawed Cave Bear

          Yet I’ve, just in reading these articles, found no less than three (THREE) headline shots in which Dylan looks profoundly uncomfortable when seated with or by Allen…

          • Badgerite

            Uh huh. Well, I guess that is beyond any doubt then. And in that shot of Mia Farrow, Woody Allen and the children on their 1987 trip abroad (Russia, I think) she has her head resting on his shoulder as he holds her pretty much like any parent would hold their kid. What’s your point.

          • Kelman Beaumont

            Here are three importants facts.

            Dylan Farrow’s open letter was wrong. If we are to believe that she remembers her abuse as vividly as she claims and with such clarity that there is no denying its absolute correctness then it should be infallable in every regard. However she claims that she sought her mother after the incident in the attic. But inversely, it was Mia who asked Dylan about the alleged abuse. This may seem a trivial detail but you can not claim the absolute certainty that she does and be wrong.
            Despite the allegations that Mia Farrow was so concerned about how Woody was towards Dylan, she still apparently allowed Dylan to stay with Allen in his apartment as she claims two incidents that happend in his apartment in which he allegedly shoved her head in a plate of spaghetti and that she witnessed he and Soon-yi being intimate. Now this seems at odds with her not wanting him and Dylan to be alone. And if he had this freedom of Dylan with him in the apartment with him, why did he wait to abuse her…. in her mother’s home. In a crawl space (keeping in mind that Allen is a claustrophe which everyone seems to ignore). During a period where relations between he and said mother were estranged. Why is this the first incident of alleged abuse instead of an enviroment in which he would have control of her and the situation?
            Woody Allen took a polygraph. Much is made about him refusing a polygraph by the police. To which I say so? He took and passed a polygraph. To which people respond “Well polygraphs aren’t even reliable”. To me this screams “presumption of guilt”. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented on Allen’s behalf. People believe he is guilty so he must be. Even if he took and passed the states polygraph, would that convince you? No. Polygraphs aren’t even reliable….. But if he took it and failed, how many people would be leaping to use it to lynch Allen? Despite the noted unreliability of it.

      • Kelman Beaumont

        It was the Judge, not the therapist who made that claim of ‘grossly inappropiate behavior’. In point of fact the therapist who was treating him states that she didn’t believe his behavior was inappropiate in a sexual nature but because his focus on Dylan prevented him from focusing on his other children Moses and Ronan.

        • Badgerite

          Congratulations. You actually READ the custody decision. The whole thing and in context.

    • Lilly

      I agree with you and thanks for saying it so well. Also there was a record in Mia’s collection “with my Daddy in the attic” a song about incest by Dory Previn. Not that this is any proof of anything, I just think its interesting and could be where the idea came from for the “attic” which was actually a small closet-sized attic space. and Woody Allen, is a famous and very fussy claustrophobic. and again none of that proves anything. There are just a lot of questions in my mind, for all the reasons you stated, and more.also there were many indications that Mia is not an honest person, one example being the possibility that Ronan is Sinatra’s son. Not that it excuses Woody for large mistakes he also made, but his subsequent long standing successful marriage leads me to believe that perhaps it was meant to be.also, Do pedophiles typically show no interest in children and babies as Woody did for years? He just doesn’t seem to fit the profile to me at all but you would know better Sir.

    • Sophie

      Why does it seem to be the case that the people who defend Woody Allen always come across as aggressive to me? This article is an opinion, written by an expert in the field. The writer is not sentencing Woody Allen to 20 years in prison, and as such, has every right to offer the ‘opinion’ that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth. The problem with these responses, that always seem to include CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE A POINT, is that they assume Woody Allen is innocent. I don’t think we can assume that Woody is innocent, or guilty. I’m not talking about convicting him. Yes, in a court of law, and if sentencing someone to prison, that person must be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. But we are not on a jury here, we are expressing opinions. And our opinions can include the belief that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth.

      • Badgerite

        “An expert in the field”. And so the Yale New-Haven Clinic for Child Sexual Abuse would be what? Amateurs. The police brought them into the case I’m sure BECAUSE ( I put it in caps because that is the way I would say it , with emphasis – its like talking) of their expertise and experience in this kind of case.
        According to other people who have looked into the process, the child was not interviewed by men but in a private setting at various times and by women.
        So. If that is wrong, what else in his assessment it wrong?
        What’s more, any methods developed that he would have been trained to do, would probably have been developed by such a place as the Yale New-Haven Clinic for Child Sexual Abuse. Don’t you think?
        You can believe what you like. People usually do. But to use the New York Times as a venue for a personal attack on someone and individually go after people for having any involvement with someone is not OK with me.

    • Sophie

      Empirical evidence shows that you can’t implant false memories into a child of seven. The child needs to be five or under. Of course- there might be the very odd exception, but it’s very unlikely. I think you’re forgetting that we are not on a jury here. If we were on a jury, I’d agree with you. The ‘allegations’ would need to remain allegations, unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      But this is the internet, and people are giving an opinion, and if someone’s instinct is that Dylan is telling the truth, then it’s Okay to put that forward on an internet forum. That is all this expert is doing, and I do find it interesting that every bone-fide child abuse expert that has written about this case, also seems to think that Dylan is telling the truth.

      • Badgerite

        Except, of course, the Yale-New Haven Clinic for Child Sexual Abuse personnel who interviewed her at the behest of the police contemporaneous with when the events in question are supposed to have occurred.
        Contrary to what I have heard on the internet, these people were not exactly amateurs and could be said to have had extensive experience since it was the focus of their professional discipline. I have read comments from people who claim extensive experience who state that she was interviewed by men. Not true. The interviews were done by women. So, I find the total dismissal of their conclusions to be based on the fact that you want to believe her memories are accurate.

    • Talacocheta

      Witnesses saw Allen fondling Dylan’s naked body after a bath; witnesses saw his actions with her. He was acting so inappropriately with Dylan that the mental health professional that he was seeing at the time deemed it so bad that he was never allowed to be alone with her again. (Most fathers aren’t prevented from ever being along with their daughters unless something is wrong!) These statements are from adults not related to the family, so it’s not just Dylan and Mia’s word that is being used in this case.

      • Badgerite

        Odd. The decision of the Judge in the custody ruling specifically states that Allen did not bathe or clothe the children. Any of the children. it would seem that if there were witnesses who contradicted that, that would have been the time for them to come forward.
        Again. You try to introduce ‘testimony’ on the internet. This is simply not a fair forum for such an endeavor. Anyone can say anything and there is no testing to determine the truth. That is my issue with this ‘campaign’ for there is no other word for it. A campaign against Woody Allen 20 years after no charges were brought because the authorities couldn’t rely on their witness who now wants to testify as if 20 years of extreme psychological ‘reinforcement’ of her memories hasn’t passed. It has.
        The time for credibility as to the charges was 20 years ago. Not now.
        As far as I’m concerned, whatever her difficulties, she must deal with them some other way than trying to get the world to punish Allen for her,
        via Vanity Fair, The New York Times, her brother, or the internet.

  • cricket

    This from an ‘anonymous” guest editor? Please name yourself and give your credentials. It seems this “guest” editor likes to use an article from filmmaker and author Bob Weide, but he fails to quote a VERY important aspect to this situation….”My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begun to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.”
    If the Farrows are sooo upset about these awards, why participate?
    To me, sorry, it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    • QuadCityPat

      Not sure why you think I’m anonymous. My name appears at the top of the this article and I outlined my credentials in the middle of the piece.

      • cricket

        My apologies sir…I was mistaken there. I am aware of and applaud your good efforts regarding child abuse. But I have to ask you this..Why would this have all been brought up, at this time, if it was not a concerted effort by the Farrows; WHY would Mia Farrow participate in tributes and documentaries about Mr. Allen?

        And as a child abuse investigator, would you give any weight to “Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.”

        • QuadCityPat

          My opinion of why now is that Golden Globes thing coupled with Bob Weide’s article may have been a trigger for Dylan. As Chez wrote, Dylan absolutely believes this happened, and it either did happen or Mia coached her and fixed it in Dylan’s head.

          As to Mia Farrow’s motivations, I don’t have the slightest idea what drives people like her or Woody Allen. The narcissism of Hollywood types is way too messed up for me to even venture a guess.

          Thanks for reading and the kind words.

          • cricket

            You’re more than welcome. I can’t even imagine how you deal daily with child abuse cases, most of which are horrifically true.
            What do you suppose would have happened when this was originally reported, if the parties hadn’t been in the public eye?

          • QuadCityPat

            I really don’t know. Back then, these cases weren’t uniformly investigated, there were no norms or standards for interviews. It may have ended up the same, we just would never have heard about it.

          • cricket

            Would the investigation be different today? I mean if the mother had come to the police with that type of tape. And it was found to be happening during a nasty breakup? Nowadays, wouldn’t the child have been appointed her own independent counsel by the court?

          • QuadCityPat

            Yes to all three, and there would not have been a 6 month investigation of the child’s psyche ordered by a judge. That still offends me.

          • cricket

            Offends me also. I fear that must have been one of the major factors in Ms. Farrow’s trauma.
            Thank you for answering my questions.

          • rebeccagavin

            Actually, the investigation by the Yale team was not ordered by the judge. The prosecutor asked them to determine if Dylan could be considered a credible witness due to her age and emotional state. For someone giving opinions as a professional, there seems to be a lot about the details here that you have wrong.

          • Jutiz

            While this is an old case, the guardian ad litem defended the perpetrator allowing him to win custody. There was physical evidence that he abused his girlfriends daughter. I’m seeing no differences between this case and recent CSA litigation. Wrightson v. Wrightson http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7118425974207494887&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr See this recent 2013 case also in Atlanta: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22786860/protestors-judges-are-putting-children-back-with-abusers

          • cricket

            Who was the guardian ad litem? And what credence would you give the children’s therapist at the time, Dr. Susan Coates, on her testimony that she had to warn Mr. Allen about Mia Farrow?

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

    • Kevin Keefe

      I think this inconsistent behavior of Mia Farrow is very telling. Allowing her clips to be used in the documentary and in the Golden Globes award montage, then tweeting that “Golden Globe tribute showed contempt for [her daughter] and all abuse survivors” is bizarre, to say the least. She cooperated with and therefore contributed to the tribute, then condemned it. Does she believe Woody is a monster who molested Dylan, or is she simply (understandably) enraged over his behavior with Soon-Yi, and continually lashing out? Dylan was 7 years old, and has been traumatized, no matter what the truth is. Mia has been an adult the whole period, and has not acted in a consistent manner.

  • judi

    I question this whole thing. Why now?

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I think it was because Allen was ballyhooed at a recent awards ceremony and that brought him into the limelight (he’s been pretty quiet lately), which in turn spurred Mia and her son to express their anger at Allen via Twitter. All of the buzz around that prompted Dylan to speak out.

      • ninjaf

        The cynic in me also notes that Ronan Farrow is embarking on a new hosting gig at MSNBC very soon.

        • Lady Willpower

          If you really think Ronan’s sister is spreading a false story about being molested just so he can get a show on MSNBC… I don’t know how to finish this sentence.

          • JozefAL

            Lady Willpower, I think you missed a key in ninjaf’s comment: “The cynic in me also notes….”

            But you do have to concede that there is NOTHING in Ronan Farrow’s CV that suggests he’s worthy of having a show on MSNBC, especially given his age. After watching his appearance on Bill Maher’s show last Friday, I can’t see why he got the gig. Yes, he’s very attractive but he’s not that articulate nor is he all that defined in his opinions (except perhaps with regards to Woody Allen).

          • ninjaf

            Thanks, Jozef. I don’t WANT to think that this is what is going on but why now?

            Why would Mia Farrow agree to her clips being used in the tribute to Woody Allen and then stir all of this up on twitter? With Ronan joining in? She easily could have said no (and should have said no, if she detests him and doesn’t want to see him celebrated). Why, after all of these years, would Dylan come forward now, less than a month before her brother debuts his show? These things can’t be completely coincidental. Someone is being opportunistic. I doubt it is Dylan. Is it her mother? Is it her brother? Is it the New York Times? This is an awfully old pot to be stirring just as one of the family is getting ready to attempt to launch a career.

            And the cynic in me can’t ignore those coincidences and not question the motives surrounding them.

          • judi

            Agreed

          • lana del taco

            Agreed! I watched Ronan’s appearance on Real Time and I was left dumbfounded and wondering how on earth he received a show on MSNBC. No previous experience as a journalist or political commentator. He wasn’t very articulate and had a high whiny voice that reminded me of Peter Brady going through puberty. If he continues to hurl unproven allegations at Allen, his journalism career will be short lived.

          • Josh

            Most TV commentators are so brilliant and insightful! They never get hired for their looks! I don’t get it! /sarcasm

          • lana del taco

            I would expect that on Fox News since they have no problem objectifying their commentators. Have you seen their “leg cam”? It’s ridiculous! MSNBC usually allows prospective host to earn their stripes by filling in as guest host. Ronan Farrow has done none of that MSNBC was so impressed with his resume and family name that they’re just giving him a show untested. On the other hand most of their midday host suck anyway so Ronan will fit in nicely.

          • Josh

            Amen, I can’t even conceive of that degree of cynicism, and I’m seeing it all over social media. I think it’s rooted in this hero worship of Allen. I don’t understand why people are as deeply invested in defending his character as they appear to be.

          • lana del taco

            probably for the same reason that you presume guilt. we’re all fans of Allen and based on the evidence and corroborating reports that Dylan is emotionally disturbed and had this idea of molestation implanted early on. I believe that Dylan believes she was molested. Allen says that he didn’t do it, and he passed a lie detector. I take him at his word.

          • Josh

            I don’t presume guilt. I have my suspicions but I’m not at all certain about them. There’s a difference — a huge one — between believing Allen is innocent and believing that Dylan is not just lying, but lying for the purpose of promoting some basic cable bullshit.

          • lana del taco

            I don’t believe that and I agree with you that its bullshit. There was alot of uncertainty about this case in 1993 and it remains today. I just don’t know how the Farrow’s ever intend to receive closure since Mia and the prosecutor decided not to put Dylan on the stand all those years ago.From an outsiders perspective I see that Woody has gone on to have a successful marriage, raising two seemingly well adjusted teenage daughters and a still successful movie career. Meanwhile the Farrows are releasing passive aggressive tweets and trying Woody in the court of public opinion instead.

          • Josh

            It’s true, he’s continued to make his crap films, and her showbiz career has petered out. She spends most of her time doing silly things like fighting against human trafficking and helping children affected by famine and other horrors in Africa and elsewhere. What a bitch.

            From Wikipedia:

            Farrow became a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in 2000 and is a high profile advocate for human rights in Africa, particularly for children’s rights. She has worked to raise funds and awareness for children in conflict-affected regions and to draw attention to the fight to eradicate polio.[14]

            Farrow in 2008

            In 2007, Farrow co-founded the Olympic Dream for Darfur campaign, which drew attention to China’s support for the government of Sudan. The campaign hoped to change China’s policy by embarrassing it in the run-up to the 2008 Summer Olympics held in Beijing. In March 2007, China said it would urge Sudan to engage with the international community. The campaign persuaded Steven Spielberg to withdraw as an artistic adviser to the opening ceremony. During the Olympics, Farrow televised via the internet from a Sudanese refugee camp to highlight China’s involvement in the region.[14][19]

            She has traveled to Darfur several times. Her third trip was in 2007, with a film crew engaged in making the documentary “Darfur: On Our Watch”.[20] Later in 2007, Farrow offered to “trade her freedom” for the freedom of a humanitarian worker for the Sudan Liberation Army who was being treated in a UN hospital while under threat of arrest. She wanted to be taken captive in exchange for his being allowed to leave the country.[21]

            Farrow has received several awards for her humanitarian work[22][23] including the Leon Sullivan International Service award.[24]She has set up a campaigning website, miafarrow.org. In 2008, Time magazine named her one of the most influential people in the world.[14][25]

            In 2009, Farrow narrated a documentary, titled As We Forgive, relating the struggle of many of the survivors of the Rwandan Genocide to forgive those who murdered family and friends.[14] To show “solidarity with the people of Darfur”, Farrow began a water-only fast on April 27.[26] Farrow’s goal was to fast for three weeks, but she called a halt after 12 days on the advice of her doctor.[27]

            Farrow testified in the trial against former Liberian President Charles Taylor in August 2010.[28]

          • lana del taco

            I well aware of all the good works she has done and I think it’s amazing. But when coupled with childish tweets aimed at her former lover, she comes across as petty and vengeful instead of simply taking the high road.

            Crap movies? Are you going to tell me that you weren’t moved by Cate Blanchett’s performance in Blue Jasmine? What was the last Allen film you’ve seen?

          • Kelman Beaumont

            You know whats telling? I would more likely believe Mia Farrow is a child abuser then Woody Allen. She has ingratiated herself into the life of several children through adoption or her charity work. These children are vulnerable and likely plyable making them rich for a predator. And Mia has two testimonies from both Moses and Soon-yi of abuse. That’s two children to Allen’s one.
            Here’s a thought. What if Dylan truly was abused? But what if she was abused by Mia Farrow and not Woody Allen. And what if she projected that abuse onto Woody Allen as the household was convinced he was a villain in their story. It would be an easy thing to believe really. Mia Farrow has a far more compelling profile towards being an abuser then Allen.

            Now do I believe Mia Farrow is an abuser? Well I have two witnesses, and a third who corroborates their story in Monica Thompson. Whose recollection of the day of the alleged abuse matches up with Ms. Thompson’s testimony even to the point where Ms. Thompson alleged that a young Moses didn’t believe the accusations against Mr. Allen. Don’t you think that’s significant?

      • judi

        Agreed…….BUT I also believe that Mia and Dylan may have deep seeded resentment for Mr. Allen. They are none too stable…….

        I think this whole family has problems.

        • sass

          You would too if you were molested and your father married your sister.

          • judi

            Uh…evenoneofhrbrother’s says her mom put her up to this. And the sister is not genetically a sister…… She’s adopted.

          • Josh

            Okay, so your feelings about adoption are at issue. You believe that adopted children are not REALLY your siblings/children. I consider the adopted children in my family to be, well, family members, just like those who are biologically related.

  • Nick L.

    In such cases, to whom should we assign the benefit of the doubt? I just don’t know.

    For what it is worth, I don’t think her brother and mother are doing her any favors. Their twitter campaign makes the whole thing seem more trivial and vindictive than any accusation like this ever should be.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I’ve said it before….they’re pissed off and I don’t blame them one tiny bit. That’s how any mother or sibling would be, even so long after the fact, if their child or sibling had been molested and the accused never convicted. Their anger is understandable.

      • Nick L.

        Yes, anger is understandable, though Mia’s continued support of Polanski makes me question her perspective. Still, their behavior seems self-serving and has certainly clouded the issue in public opinion. Maybe it is the difference between my lifestyle and theirs, but I can’t see that something like twitter would be the best outlet for my anger.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Anger is weird. It often comes out sideways, if you know what I mean. But I think everyone sort of agrees that Twitter was not the best place or way to bring this all up again. But it’s so darn ubiquitous and easy to use…we no sooner think a thought or utter an exclamation and we tweet it.

          • Nick L.

            I know what you mean, totally. The whole thing just seems odd and their behavior makes it more difficult for me to figure this thing out.

        • Lady Willpower

          Woody Allen also supports Polanski. Maybe you should attach equal suspicion to him for that.
          A lot of assholes in Hollywood support Polanski. They are all idiots for doing so.

          • JozefAL

            Except YOU would presume that Allen’s support of Polanski would be a case of “like attracts like.” How do you get around Farrow’s support of a man who is accused of doing FAR WORSE to a young girl than what she accuses Allen of doing?

            There’s a word for that: Hypocrisy.

          • Lady Willpower

            Please don’t put words in my mouth. Just go with the things I’ve said, not with what you think I believe. I was only pointing out that Mia Farrow’s support for Roman Polanski is identical to Woody Allen’s and that they’re both insane for doing so.

            And that their support for Roman Polanski is not relevant to whether or not I believe Dylan Farrow.

            Why are you so angry at me?

          • Nick L.

            You are absolutely right. It doesn’t reflect well on either of them. It just makes it hard to understand exactly why Farrow is angry with Allen. Is it because their relationship fell apart or is it because she thinks he molested her daughter? I don’t know, but there is hardly a person involved in this who doesn’t seem wrong (except Dylan). Even Ronan, who seems to be on a twitter self promotion tour by way of going after Allen; I have to ask why now and it is hard not to be cynical and see the guy is starting a new tv show.

          • 1bestdog

            His father Frank Sinatra who Mia lied to the world about for decades (so much for her honesty) knew about the accusations so why did he not go after Allen? IF he believed them.

        • 1bestdog

          She also supports her brother a convicted pedophile. They run in families. Was Mia abused?

          • Popgirl

            She has never supported him. Where? She hasn’t discussed it.

        • Popgirl

          Mia said she does not support Polanski and never stated she supported Polanski. She was subpoened to testify about a specific dinner she was at where he was and nothing more. She said the person who has publically supported Polanski is Woody.

          • Nick L.

            Uh, her testimony was very supportive of Polanski. She seemed to remember all the details that made Polanski sympathetic, but not much else.

      • Badgerite

        Anger at him, maybe, if the abuse actually happened. But anger at Hollywood?
        Anger at Moses? Anger at their sister who married him? I don’t think that is justified or valid.