RE-UPDATED 07/01/2020 The truth about the ten "Undeniable Facts" of Vanity Fair in relation to the allegation of sexual abuse of Dylan Farrow against Woody Allen.

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

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

In this sense, it is necessary to make a prior consideration. The origin of this piece of "undeniable facts" dates back to an article written by Maureen Orth in 1992 in  "Vanity Fair". On Mar 6, 2019 Maurren Orth gave an interview to the publication "The Ringer" in which she expressly acknowledged that the original article was rejected by the "Vanity Fair" fact chekers and that its publication was only allowed after Mia Farrow wrote a handwritten letter in which she promised to testify in court, if the magazine was sued, that what the article said was the truth "from her point of view". 

Whoever reads Maureen Orth's article should keep in mind that what she says is not published because it has been fact-hecked, but because Mia Farrow gave legal coverage to the magazine to tell her point of view. Not true facts, no true checked facts, but the truth from her point of view, which are very different things. (1)



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

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

"unfortunate"  that  Mia,  and  not  an  objective  and  trained  evaluator,  videotaped  Dylan's testimony, mainly because the way she focused on specific things could possibly "set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child." In short, he said. "I don't think it helps matters, I think it complicates matters."?(1)

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

Although Mia Farrow indicated that Dylan complained of pain in the vagina, in none of the visits to the pediatrician a physical examination was done. The girl with pain in the vagina is in the pediatrician twice and is not examined until four days later  (2). If nothing else, this fact is clear evidence that the only reason for the visit to the pediatrician was to manage the complaint to the police

On the other hand, regardless of the narrative that gives rise to the complaint, we know from Kristi Groteke that Mia Farrow did bring criminal charges against Woody Allen.(3)

(1) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 169.

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

(3) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 167


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

This statement is ABSOLUTELLY FALSE, as was proven throughout the custody trial and with the express denial of this fact by the Child Psychologist involved.

Coates testifed that Farrow and Allen were included in her sessions with Dylan and Satchel but denied that she was treating Allen for 'sexual problems.'(1)

Dr. Coates explained at the trial that she was not treating Woody Allen for any kind of sexual problem, that Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were included in their sessions with Dylan and Satchel and that Woody Allen was devoted to the little children ( to both of them, Dylan and Satchel, not only to Dylan)

'I saw that Mr. Allen was devoted to the little children and that he really wanted to be a major part of their lives and wanted help with his parenting skills,' she said. 'He was enormously committed to being a parent.'"(2)
This supposed "undeniable fact" is not only false but is perverse. It transforms the participation of a father in the therapy of his children and his desire to improve as a father in something totally different and opposite. Woody Allen went from being the devoted father of his children who wanted to help them and be the best for them (what really happened as described by the doctor involved) to be a pertutured being who needed treatment so as not to disturb the children. The latter, the version that has prevailed in the media and social networks, is totally false. Never happened.

In fact, the piece by Maureen Orth, without saying it expressly, conveys the impression that Woody Allen was in treatment for some kind of inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with Dylan. However, not only was Woody Allen not in treatment for his behavior with Dylan, but Dr Coates testified expressly that she "

"...never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward the girl." (3)

and that 

"Allen's relationship with Dylan was 'inappropriately intense' but denied that it was 'romantic' "(4)

It should be noted that the version of events provided by Dr. Coates (the real, not the distorted and spread by media and social networks) is consistent with the testimony of nanny Monica Thompson (who was Dylan's nanny for seven years and had to quit his job for this), with what the housekeeper of Mia Farrow for 13 years, Mavis Smith (who was then fired)said and even with everything that Kristi Groteke narrates in her book for having personally witnessed  and the Kristi's total surprise and disbelief  when Mia Farrow tells her that Woody Allen has behaved inappropriately.(Kristi was Dylan's babysitter for the last year before the allegation of abuse, and Mia Farrow's babysitter and trusted person throughout the process)

The falsity of Maureen Orth's claim can also be verified with a simple review of the facts detailed in the sentence. We can see that Allen was not receiving therapy for inappropriate behavior. The Judgment identifies in its beginning those who were principal witnesses

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

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

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

As we have said, Dr. Coates confirmed this fact in his court statement: Woody Allen was not in treatment and both parents were involved in Dylan's therapy.

Coates testifed that Farrow and Allen were included in her sessions with Dylan and Satchel but denied that she was treating Allen for 'sexual problems.'(1)

On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight that we have a direct testimony from Kristi Groteke in which she explains how Dr. Schütz talks with Woody Allen in the context of Dylan's treatment and in relation to Dylan's therapeutic situation to deal with one of the behaviors that caught Mia Farrow's attention.

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

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

I  understood  why  she  was worried,  because  it [Mr.  Allen's  relationship  with  Dylan]  was intense,  . . .  I  did  not  see  it  as sexual,  but  I  saw  it  as  inappropriately intense  because  it  excluded  everybody  else, and  it placed  a demand  on a child  for a kind of  acknowledgment  that  I  felt  should  not  be placed on a child  . . .

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

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

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

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

Although Mia Farrow did take advantage of the start of Dylan's therapy to tell Dr. Coates the behaviors that caused her concern, neither did she indicate that these behaviors could have any kind of sexual connotation, or that she worried about that reason. (5)

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

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

Now  I viewed  his  behavior  with  Dylan  in  a completely  different light.  I  no  longer  believed  he  could  control  himself.  I  no  longer believed  he  was  dealing  with  his  problems  responsibly,  I  was  no longer  sure  that  his  "inappropriate"  and  "intense"  behavior  with Dylan  was  not  sexual.  At  exactly  what  point  does  it  become  child abuse? (6)

 It never prevented or hindered Allen's relationship with the girl and Mia Farrow accepted that Allen adopt Dylan in December of 1991 by making a sworn statement of his qualities as a good father. Allen's access to the girl was not restricted until after the break. (7).

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

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

On the other hand and to finish, it is possible that all this question does have some relevance, but for a fact that is not usually mentioned. If we assume that Woody Allen decided on August 4, 1992, to sexually abuse his daughter, we must be aware that he knew that Dylan had two weekly therapy sessions in which the girl told the therapist about her concerns and the evolution of Dylan was evaluated and controlled. In those circumstances, only an abuser totally incapable of controlling his instincts would commit the rashness of sexual abuse. If there was something in Allen's earlier or later biography that would allow us to characterize him as that type of sexual abuser, this fact would be meaningless. But there is not.

(1), (2), (4) UPI Atchives, March 30 1993. Psychiatrist: Woody was committed to being a good father, Tracey L. Miller

(3) Asbury Park Press (Asbury Park, New Jersey)   ·  Fri, Apr 2, 1993 ·  Main Edition ·  Page 52

(5) "Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal." Kristi Groteke with Marjorie Rosen, Rd First Carrol  & Graf, 1994, pag 132-33
(6)"Mia Farrow. A memoir. What Falls Away" pag 281
(7)"Mia Farrow. A memoir. What Falls Away" pag 283

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


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

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

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

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

Do not forget that the fact chekers of "Vanity Fair" weren´t going to allow the piece to be published. So Maureen Orth, the author of the piece, is unable to point out what the source of the information is and the fact chekers were going to reject the piece. Keep it in mind.

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



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

The firts thing that must be said is that regarding the allegation of abuse Woody Allen WON each and every exhaustive court and legal battle. The allegation was dissmissed in the custody trial and that decision was uphel in every appeal. The allegation was considered unfounded by the social services and in the surrogate court. 

Even more important, if Allen's victory in all legal instances regarding the allegation of abuse was total, the victory in terms of expert opinions was overwhelming. The allegation was conclusively rejected by the experts of the prosecution  (Child Sexual Abuse Clinic):

was considered unfounded by the Social Services of New York (Child Welfare Agency)

and was found to be unproven and harmfull by the expert of the surrogate court (Dr. David Brodzinsky)

and it was not even supported by the expert hired by Mia Farrow (Dr. Stephen Herman),who said that the evidence was inconclusive ...

... and who cast serius doubts about how the allegation was elicited by the way Dylan was asked by her mother.

As for the absence of any credible evidence that Mia Farrow had coached Dylan, it is necessary to draw attention to some concrete facts, some of which prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Dylan was coached to testify against her father.

1.- On December 30, 1992, Dylan Farrow told the police that during the summer of 1991 she and her brother Satchel witnessed a sexual relationship between Woody Allen and Soon Yi, as we can verify this story was false and it is impossible for Dylan to invent it by herself. Someone coached her.

Let´s take a look at the facts

The story emerged after police gave Dylan anatomically-correct dolls in the course of an interview and she introduced the penis of one doll into the vagina of the other. When the police asked Dylan how she knew that the proper way to place the dolls was to insert one's penis into the vagina of the other, the girl explained that she knew it from having witnessed the aforementioned sexual encounter between Woody Allen and Soon Yi. Dylan  said: "I saw Daddy put his penis in Soon Yi..." and also "Daddies don´t do this" "Daddies aren´t supposed to act like boyfriends" (1)

There are at least two independent ways to prove that Dylan did not witness that encounter between Woody Allen and Soon Yi, which means that it was not through that experience that she discovered that the boy's penis is inserted into the vagina of the girl ; She did not discover for herself that doing that was "behaving like a boyfriend" and did not discover that it was something her father did with Soon Yi.

1 / The first way to demonstrate that Dylan Farrow did not witness a sexual relationship between Woody Allen and Soon Yi in the summer of 1991 is found in the Judgment of Appeal, which contains the conclusions on the date on which both began their sexual relations . It can not be forgotten that Mia Farrow initiated a legal proceeding to annul Dylan and Moses' adoptions by Woody Allen and that the basis of that claim was that Allen would have initiated his sexual relationship with Soon Yi before the adoptions (which ended in December 1991). The date of the beginning of that relationship was subjected to an intensive trial in the judicial proceeding and the conclusion was included in the sentence of appeal of the case of custody: Woody Allen and Soon Yi began their sexual relationship in December of 1.991.

In December 1991 two events coincided. Mr. Allen's adoptions of  Dylan  and  Moses  were  finalized  and  Mr.  Allen  began his  sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi Previn.

Woody Allen and Soon Yi began their sexual relationship in December of 1991, therefore Dylan could not have witnessed any sexual encounter in the several months previous. She did not get her knowledge about the boyfriend inserting his penis into the vagina of the girlfriend through that experience, nor could she have deduced from that non-existent experience that this was something that made a couple. Nor did she  learn this way that Woody Allen and Soon Yi “performed” that act in particular.
Therefore this also signifies that someone told Dylan the penis of the male doll should be inserted into the vagina of the female doll. Someone told her this was what a boyfriend does, and someone told her this was what Woody Allen was doing with Soon Yi, and a person also told her that it was wrong for Woody Allen to do it, because it is something parents do not do.

There cannot be much doubt that someone made up the story that Dylan had witnessed the encounter, and that Dylan repeated it, maybe even believed it. But, to be sure, as demonstrated above, it never happened.

2 / There is, at least, a second way to show that Dylan Farrow did not witness that sexual relationship and that the whole episode is a consequence of some form of coaching.

In September 1992, the Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale New Haven Hospital received a request from the Connecticut prosecution to analyze the testimony of Dylan Farrow in relation to the allegation of sexual abuse against Woody Allen.

The clinic conducted an investigation that lasted seven months and in March of 1992 they issued its report after having interviewed Dylan Farrow on nine occasions. Among the questions that the clinic professionals analyzed was Dylan's knowledge of sexual relationships and what she understood to be the relationships between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. The conclusion was clear:

For Dylan, girlfriend-boyfriend love was kissing and hugging. (2)

When the Yale New Haven team does their exploration, the love between boyfriend and girlfriend is for Dylan a matter of kisses and hugs. There is no mention of penises that are introduced into the vagina or that this behavior is specific to boyfriends and girlfriends. At the time of the exploration Dylan did not have that knowledge about sexuality, she did not know that the boyfriend introduced his penis into the vagina of the girlfrind, did not know that this was specific to the "boyfriends" and did not know that Woody Allen had done that with Soon Yi or that was something that was wrong.
Dylan's last interview at Yale New Haven took place on November 13 and Dylan's narration to the police on December 30. Between November 13 and December 30 someone instructed Dylan to tell the story as if it were a lived experience and narrate the police as a fact that she had witnessed something that never happened. Someone also indicated her the moral assessment that should be given to the story. Who could have reasons and occasion to do something like that?

3 / There are other elements that should make us doubt the story, for example, it is amazing that after being questioned by the police with anatomical dolls throughout the autumn, every weekend as Kristi Groteke tells us, in the last time, the last interview the police did,  Dylan supposedly made on her own initiative something totally new and different from everything she had done before, introducing the penis into the vagina and making a moral assessment of that behavior. The behavior of the girl caused the police to ask her "How she knew what went where", leaving clear evidence that in all the previous sessions she had not given any sign of having that knowledge.(3)

All the facts that have been exposed are accredited in the judicial proceedings and there is only one possible conclusion: Dylan was instructed to tell a story in which she narrated certain facts that had never happened; that someone explained to her some facts relative to sexual behavior that she did not know previously; and that she was told "this is what Woody Allen did with Soon Yi, and that it was wrong". Someone also convinced her to lie to the police, or convinced her to think that what she told them had really happened.The false story that someone had told her, Dylan narrated to the police as something she had lived and witnessed.

While it is true that none of the above proves that the allegation of abuse of August 4, 1992 arose in the same way, there can be no reasonable doubt that Dylan was instructed to lie and to present as true a fact that never happened and that could only happen if someone coached her into that story. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan remains unresolved. The  evidence  suggests  that  it  is  unlikely  that  he  could  be successfully  prosecuted  for  sexual  abuse.  I  am  less  certain, however,  than  is  the  Yale-New  Haven  team,  that  the  evidence  proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.

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

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

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

Wilk decided that the abuse was no more likely than the absence of abuse and expressly stated that the absence of abuse had not been established "conclusively". This means that the absence of abuse was proven under the standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence.

Proving a fact "conclusively" is beyond the requirement of any burden of proof in law. To condemn a person to death is not necessary to prove conclusively his guilt, it is only necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

No matter how critical Wilk is with Woody Allen in many matters and how little sympathy he felt towards him, he was forced to recognize in his judicial resolution that what was inferred from the evidence was that there was no abuse. That Woody Allen had proven his innocence, although he wanted to record that this test was not "beyond any doubt"

Let´s recall what Frank Maco himself said about Wilk´s decision in his statement September 24, 1993

To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations were considered in Justice Wilk's decision of June 7,I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared to a criminal prosecution. This decision should not be viewed as condoning the activities of Mr. allen which Justice wilk termed “grosslv inappropriate", but as a recognition of the degree of proof necessary to establish those acts as "criminal". For even Justice wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred. (Note: although Justice wilk was not as certain as the Yale-clinic that abuse did not occur).

My review dealt ultimately with determining the existence of proof necessary to establish a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. while arguably such a case may exist considering the allegations in the warrant application, I acknowledge that the nature of the evidence (as mentioned earlier within this decision, the majority of which was considered in the New York Supreme Court] is fertile ground for defense attacks and would not have the same probative force as it did in the New York Supreme Court custody case.

Maco is aware that Judge Wilks has given validity to evidence that would be dismissed in a criminal lawsuit and, even so, and despite not considering the presumption of innocence in his assessment, does not conclude that there were abuses. This is a fact usually overlooked in any analysis of these allegations of alleged abuses: Judge Wilk was much harsher with Allen than a judge in the criminal jurisdiction could have been and yet never came to claim that they had produced abuses. Maco and the judge know that he moves in an area other than criminal, that Wilk could decide that there had been abuses even if there were reasonable doubts that this was the case. But not even in that broader framework could the judge reach in conscience to give the abuses by proven. On the contrary, the abuses were disproved, although not conclusively

 It is true that Allen lost the procedures of custody, but it is also true that in terms of abuses, no resolution indicated his guilt. On the other hand, as we have already said, every time that the actions arising as a result of these events are reviewed, it seems to be forgotten that Mia Farrow simultaneously requested the nullity of Allen's adoptions of Satchel and Dylan and that Allen's lawsuit was won. In addition, the independent investigation conducted by the child protection services of the State of New York concluded that the accusations of abuse were totally unfounded. As far as abuse is concerned, the score is overwhelming in favor of Woody Allen

Finally, is necessary to mention the more than 1 million in legal fee that Woody Allen had to pay to Mia Farrow. I often see this fact repeated as if the high amount of the legal fee were a supplementary proof of the culpability of Woody Allen. They are not. The only thing that proves the high amount of the legal fee is the enormity of the resources that Mia Farrow put into play in the case of custody and we must remember that the only conclusion that could be reached regarding the allegation of sexual abuse after that enome amount of resources is that it had been disproved, although not beyond doubt.

(1) Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.,Dylan Saw It All 7-year-old says she watched Woody, Soon-Yi having sex .Author: By David Kocieniewski. STAFF WRITER;Date: Jan 13, 1993;Start Page: 5
Section: NEWS

(2) Newsday - Long Island, N.Y. Woody Says He's Cleared Report: No sign of sex abuse.
Excerpts From the Yale Report-(see end of text);Author: By Rob Polner and Wendy Un and Carole Agus. STAFF CORRESPONDENTS; Date Mar 19. 1993;Start Page: 05; Section: NEWS

(3) Kristi Groteke, Mia & Woody. Love and betrayal, page 172

More detail about the sources  here

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

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

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

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

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

Types of Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 / Regarding the testimony of the nanny Kristi Groteke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristi Groteke herself wrote about it in her book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Two fundamental facts are forgotten:

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Finally, when evaluating the expert evidence made in relation to the testimony of Dylan Farrow, it can not be forgotten that the expert chosen, hired and paid by Mia Farrow to testify on her behalf in the custody trial, did not support the accusation of abuse and explicitly stated that Mia Farrow had "complicated things" by questioning Dylan in a way that "set a tone for a child about how to answer"

As Juzge Wilk told the expert appointed by Mia Farrow

 "If we're going to use you as experts and you say,'Maybe it happened and maybe it didn't happen'.it doesn't mean anything in how we deal with the children or the parent"
Woody-Mia judge questions value of expert testimony

"So we don't know, from your reading of this, whether there's been abuse or there hasn't been abuse"

Not even the expert chosen and paid by Mia Farrow supported the allegation of abuse after analyzing the evidence. Dr. Stephen Herman charged a $ 3,000 fee for testifying in court and did not support the allegation of abuse. Despite her enormous resources and the large amount of money she makes in the search and hiring of an expert, Mia Farrow could not find a single one that said that Woody Allen had abused Dylan Farrow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Connecticut is a Judge who must decide if there is probable cause for a prosecution and the real cause why Woody Allen was not prosecuted is that the judge would never have declared the existence of probable cause with the evidence that was known. You do not have to believe Frank Maco or me, just review the evidence and think for yourself.

Let's examine briefly the real reason why it was impossible to prosecute Woody Allen.
Frank Maco makes his decision counting on the results of the prosecutor's investigation and the results of the evidence obtained in the custody trial. The summary of the results is as follows:

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

Assessment of Whether Dylan was Sexually Abused:
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 ourevaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4, 1992. Ourinitial impression was formulated in December 1992 before reviewing any outsidematerials and before meeting with anyone outside the family except the ConnecticutState Police and Kristie Groteke, a babysitter. Our opinion was reinforced by theadditional information that we gathered throughout the rest of the evaluation.

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

3 / The expert appointed and paid by Mia Farrow in the custody trial concluded that was not possible to conclude that there was sexual abuse. 

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

Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist called to testify
on Mia's behalf, has impressive credentials. He did a pediatrics
residency at the Mayo Clinic, an adult residency at Montefiore
Medical Center in New York, and a two-year fellowship in child
psychiatry at the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven. Board-
certified in both adult and child psychiatry, Dr. Herman noted
that it was "unfortunate" that Mia, and not an objective and
trained evaluator, videotaped Dylan's testimony, mainly because
the way she focused on specific things could possibly "set a tone
for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties
of a child." In short, he said, "I don't think it helps matters, I
think it complicates matters."

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

The parties apparently agreed with Dr. Herman's
conclusion that another battery of forensic psychological
evaluations would not have been in tho children's best interests
and would have added little to the available inforsation.
Accordingly, none was ordered.
6 / Although the place where the abuse was alleged to have occurred was carefully examined by the police in search of something that proved that Woody Allen was there, it was not possible to find any trace or other tissue or anything else that show it

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

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

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

On the other hand, neither is said that Maco refused to put Dylan " through an exhausting trial" becouse he knew that it was  QUESTIONABLE PROSECUTION.

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

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

The arrest warrant application contains evidentiary information the majority of which was subject matter in the New York Supreme Court custody trial of Allen vs. Farrow. To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations were considered in Justice Wilk's decision of June 7 1993, I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared to a criminal prosecution. This decision should not be viewed as condoning the activities of Mr. Allen which Justice Wilk termed “grossly inappropriate", but as a recognition of the degree of proof necessary to establish those acts as "criminal". For even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred. (Note: Athough Justice Wilk was not as certain as the Yale-Clinic that abuse did not occur).
My review dealt ultimately with determining the existence of proof necessary to establish a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. While arguably such a case may exist considering the allegations in the warrant application, I acknowledge that the nature of the evidence (as mentioned earlier within this decision, the majority of which was considered in the New York Supreme Court] is fertile ground for defense attacks and would not have the same probative force as it did in the New York Supreme Court custody case.

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

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

That is, Fran Maco and the Office of the State Prosecutor are affirming that in the case of custody, evidence has been analyzed and valued that would be invalid in the criminal trial and that has been assessed without taking into account the presumption of innocence. Despite this, the judge  concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was that there was no abuse. Frank Maco believes that, if even in these circumstances the judge did not consider that the abuses had taken place, to take a criminal action would  subject the child to the rigors of a very uncertain criminal proceeding.

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

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


  1. Maureen Orth is the widow of that sycophant masquerading as a reporter, Tim Russert, or "Mr. Rubber-Stamp" as Louis Lapham called him. Russert didn't speak to power -- he gave it a rim job!


Publicar un comentario

Entradas populares