Some caveats about the origin of Dylan's statements. Connecticut police interviewed her for weeks using highly biased techniques





I just read an old article on the Internet entitled "Woody Allen sex abuse allegations: Why I want to believe Dylan Farrow" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10614585/Woody-Allen-sex-abuse-Why-I-want-to-believe-Dylan-Farrow.html) and one of the arguments there has caught my attention:

There are false accusations when it comes to sexual assault and abuse: they are rare. Rarer even, than genuine convictions for abuse. When they do happen, as with the McMartin preschool case in the US, it is frequently because of the pressure of many adults and doctors surrounding the children and manipulating what they say. But everyone in Dylan's life, apart from her own mother, was telling her this didn't happen, that she wasn't abused. And yet the trauma is still clearly there.

What strikes me the most about this passage is that it contains an error in the identification of fundamental facts. I'm afraid it may be a very widespread error, so we'll make a brief summary.

1. Before making any accusation in front of strangers or repeating the allegations that she had suffered sexual abuse to the pediatrician, Dylan Farrow was interrogated by his mother on multiple occasions during the previous 24 hours. As a result of these interrogations, a videotape was concocted out of multiple fragments, in different places and at different times of day, regarding which Dr. Herman, the expert hired by Mia Farrow to testify in her favor in the case of custody, said that he considered

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

2. The Yale New-Haven Hospital team that interviewed Dylan on nine occasions concluded that no abuses had occurred, but they were expert interviewers who did not show approval or disapproval towards one answer or another. The same can be said about the tests carried out by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

3. Connecticut police, who strongly believed that the abuses had occurred to the point of ignoring the results of the Yale-New Haven Hospital team investigation, interrogated Dylan an unknown number of times using techniques —like the anatomical dolls with vaginas and penises— already widely discouraged at that time for anybody who was not an expert interviewer.

On weekends during the fall of 1992, the police would stop by Frog Hollow to talk with Dylan, bringing with them anatomy dolls. They would show her the dolls and ask her to point to the areas where her father had allegedly touched her. I remember in December, 1992, that Sergeants John Mucharino and Bea Farlickus arrived with the doll and that particular day Dyllan actually placed the male doll´s penis inside the female doll's vagina.[ii]

Two police sergeants (not two professional interviewers) conducted a multitude of interviews with the girl with anatomical dolls asking questions that assumed the existence of the abuses. Dylan was not asked "tell us what happened". She was asked "take this doll and tell us where your father touched you". Those interviews lasted for weeks. The girl had to hear for weeks that her father had touched her and that she had to say where. As far as I know, these interviews were never reported, nor their content, methods or results. The police interviews assumed the abuses had taken place before there was an analysis of Dylan's testimony that allowed to establish its reliability or credibility —previously and simultaneously to the study carried out by the Yale New Haven Hospital— and lasted, apparently, for several months. The constant presence of adults, authority figures —police officers— insisting on the existence of abuses and requiring confirmation is a totally anomalous element that undoubtedly influenced Dylan's testimony. As far as I know, not even judge Wilk was informed of these practices. For one thing, he makes no reference to them in the sentence.

4. After August 4, Dylan never had contact with her father, nor with anyone designated by her father. Although the appeal court ruling clearly stated:

It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such visitations should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS Court structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further review of Allen's visitations with Dylan would be considered after an evaluation of Dylan's progress.

The truth is that Dylan never saw her father again and was kept all her childhood in an environment in which she was assured that the abuses had happened.

5. Mia Farrow eliminated all involvement of Woody Allen in the therapies of their children and hired new therapists. We know something about the type of therapy that was given to Satchel and there is no reason to think that what Dylan received was very different. We are going to examine two text excerpts dealing with Satchel's relationship with his father supervised by social workers during the period in which the visits with Dylan were already suspended.

There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Mr. Allen and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large measure because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel, testified how "Mr. Allen would welcome Satchel by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he missed him." Also described by both supervisors "was a kind of sequence that Mr. Allen might say, "I love you as much as the river", and Satchel would say something to the efect that "I love you as much as New York City." […] Then Mr. Allen might say, "I love you as much as the stars", and Satchel would say, "I love you as much as the universe." Sadly, there was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Mr. Allen: "I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;" that when Mr. Allen asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip to California with Ms. Farrow, Satchel said "I can't, [because] mommy won't let me;" and on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted to stay with Mr. Allen longer than the allotted two-hour visit, "Satchel did say he could not stay longer, that his mother had told him that two hours was sufficient." Perhaps most distressing, Satchel "indicated to Mr. Allen that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see Mr. Allen anymore, and he indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see Mr. Allen."

A year after the ruling that included the interaction just mentioned, the visits were suspended and Woody Allen judicially requested that they be reinitiated. The trial was held in 1996. Vanity Fair picks up this part of the story:

At the end of the trial, in which both sides referred to Ronan’s “phobic reaction” to Allen, judge Wilk informed Ronan that he would have to resume visits with his father in the office of his psychiatrist —which Allen vehemently objected to. Ronan started heaving uncontrollably, collapsed on the floor in front of everyone, and had to be carried out. The judge ruled that Dylan did not have to see her father at all. Allen appealed again and lost.

Does it really seem that the children of the McMartin case were in an environment more predisposed to declare abuses than Dylan? 

[i] Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 169.
[ii] Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 172.

 LA CONDUCTA INADECUADA DE WOODY ALLEN EN LA SENTENCIA DE WILK Y APELACION

 WHAT EVIDENCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY REFERRED FRAN MACO BY SAYING THAT IT HAD NO PROBATORY FORCE?

A FIRST APPROACH TO JUDGE WILK'S DECISION THAT DOESN´T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY READ

 THE SUPPOSED AND IMPROBABLE REFUTATION THAT JESSICA WINTER MAKES OF BOB WEIDE

THE TESTIMONY OF DYLAN FARROW

 If you want to know more about what happened on August 4, 1993

ITHE DECISION OF THE PROSECUTOR OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, FRAN MACO, NOT TO INITIATE A PENAL PROCEDURE AGAINST ALLEN FOR THE ALLEGED ABUSES TO DYLAN FARROW


SOME CAVEATS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF DYLAN'S STATEMENTS. CONNECTICUT POLICE INTERVIEWED HER FOR WEEKS USING HIGHLY BIASED TECHNIQUES

RE-UPDATED THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TEN "UNDENIABLE FACTS" OF VANITY FAIR IN RELATION TO THE ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF DYLAN FARROW AGAINST WOODY ALLEN.

PRESENTATION





Comentarios

Publicar un comentario