The assessment of the prosecutor on the evidence in the custody procedure and a question for Fran Maco
One of the most amazing things about all the issues
related to the alleged abuse of Woody Allen to his daughter Dylan Farrow is the
absolute lack of interest of journalists to explore the multiple
inconsistencies surrounding the accusations. Let's focus today on some of those
that surround one of the characters more virulently opposed to Allen: Fran
Maco.
Just a few weeks ago journalist Nicholas Kristof
published his article Woody Allen Meets #MeToo in which he recorded a
conversation he himself had with Fran Maco. In it, Kristoff was once again
asking about the existence of probable cause against Allen in the 1993
investigation and Maco once again tells him there was. It is amazing, if not
hopeless for anyone with a minimum critical sense and a little curiosity, that
no one has ever asked Fran Maco exactly what that "probable cause"
was. It seems that he only grants interviews to journalists willing to ask him
the same thing over and over again; that journalists are willing to do it (or
do not think of anything else) is a sad sign of the times. In any case, the
question is that there is an even more relevant issue than the identification
of the probable cause, and it is something that nobody has ever asked Maco
either. Allow me to return to the statement of September 24, 1993 in which Fran
Maco said:
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.
The nature of the evidence is a fertile ground for the
defenses and would not have the same probative force in another court. Evidence
that is by its nature a "fertile ground for the defense" is an
evidence that does not establish a firm relationship between the facts that are
intended to be accredited. Evidence that the prosecutor himself anticipates
would have no value before another court is evidence that has been interpreted
in a biased manner in this court. That is, the Prosecutor himself is telling us
that after having reviewed in detail the procedure and Judge Wilk's sentence,
he concludes that Wilk has taken into consideration evidence that does not give
a firm proof of the facts declared proven and, even more, it would not have
probative force in another procedure. This is that there is a reasonable doubt
that the facts developed as it appears in the finding of facts of the sentence.
This is not the conclusion of Woody Allen's lawyers, it is the conclusion of
the Connecticut State Attorney whose animosity towards Allen does not require
further clarification for anyone who knows the case minimally.
But what are these evidences and what specific facts
are we talking about? It is evident from what we have seen so far that, even
for a ferocious enemy of Allen, Wilk's sentence assumed as proven facts some
that were based on very little rigorous evidence that would not have force in a
criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is about:
1.- Evidence related to the facts declared proven in
the Wilk Judgment
2.- Evidence that harms Woody Allen and
3.- Evidence related to the allegations of abuse (if
they were not related to the latter, Maco would not have to worry about the
assessment they could make of them in the criminal procedure)
In principle, there are only three evidences that fall
into this category:
1.- Video recording of the interrogation of Dylan
conducted by Mia Farrow.
2.- The testifying statements according to which there
were between fifteen and twenty minutes in which none of the nannies was with
Dylan or Allen.
3.- The statements of Mia Farrow and some close
witnesses regarding Allen's inappropriate behavior.
Let's briefly examine each of the possibilities.
1.- The video recording of the interrogation.
The recording of the interrogation that Mia Farrow
made to Dylan for a full day before she first declared the existence of abuse
before the pediatrician is a test of the trial and, no doubt, there were many
doubts about its validity as evidence. First of all, it is a recording with
multiple interruptions in which it is impossible to know what happens before
starting the camera and after switching off. On the other hand, at least one of
the fragments was recorded on top of a previously recorded part and Allen's
experts concluded that there were more irregularities (Mia Farrow's experts
said the opposite and it seems that the Connecticut police also pointed out
that considered that the tape had not been manipulated).
However, although Judge Wilk takes the tape into
consideration, the truth is that he acknowledges that the recording of Mia
Farrow could compromise the investigation of abuse and also the testimony of
Mia Farrow's own expert indicated that Mia had asked the questions in a way
that I could "set a tone for a child about how to answer". On the
other hand, Wilk says he is not fully convinced that the evidence shows that
the abuses have not occurred, which rules out a significant influence on the
outcome of the ruling. It seems reasonable to look elsewhere.
2.- The testifying statements according to which there were between fifteen
and twenty minutes in which none of the nannies was with Dylan or Allen.
As has already been pointed out on some occasion, the events of day 4 are really complicated to understand. Two nannies are in charge of two children for two hours with the express order not to allow them to be alone with Allen, however, in that period one of the children and Allen disappear for fifteen or twenty minutes And nobody realizes ! Two days later and after submitting the complaint Mia Farrow, the nannies meet and one of them says that at one point she was looking for Dylan throughout the house and when he did not find her she thought that she would be out with the other nanny. So you have to believe that one of the children disappears and the nanny does not look for it until you find it, but assumes that it will be with the other nanny and does not bother to check it. She stays alone for an indeterminate time, without taking care of anyone and when she goes out to the garden they are all outside and nobody notices that something has happened. Nobody knows at what time the supposed disappearance could have occurred or at what time they "reappeared". No one saw Allen and the girl leaving or entering the house together, nor did he see them go up or down the stairs that gave access to the upper floors. The supposed fifteen or twenty minutes are an amalgam and an integration of the testimonies of the three nannies that discards the testimony of other nannies (Monica Thompsosn stated that Kristi Groteke had confirmed on day 6 that on day 4 nothing happened, that she did not he lost sight of Dylan) and that he must give for totally abnormal good behaviors. In her Mia & Woody book, Kristi Groteke acknowledges that the conversation took place and, although she does not admit the exact terms reported by Monica Thompson, she does point out that in that conversation she told her partner that she had not lost sight of Dylan throughout. the afternoon
On the other hand, the interpretation of these testimonies is what makes the possibility - however minimal - that abuses occur and - very especially - is one of the fundamental reasons that lead Wilk to affirm that Mia Farrow did not He commissioned the directing of Dylan's demonstrations voluntarily. Without Wilk's specific interpretation of this set of testimonies, the conclusion would have been that there was no opportunity for abuses of any kind to occur and, therefore, that the facts denounced had never happened.
3.- Finally, there is the possibility that Maco refers to Mia Farrow's own testimony regarding Allen's "inappropriate behaviors". After all, just a few months ago, in December of 1991, Mia Farrow made an affidavit about Woody Allen in the adoption procedure of Dylan and Moses. Judge Wilk expressly decided not to take it into consideration and to omit that either Mia Farrow had lied in the affidavit before the adoption judge, or she was lying in the custody trial. There are no more possibilities.The lie under oath is usually very severely considered in the United States and venal treatment of Wilk to that of Mia Farrow is at least strange.
However, despite the influence of the story of Mia Farrow in the custody trial, it can not be forgotten that Wilk does not even consider the possibility that these behaviors constitute any case of sexual abuse. Therefore, it is not possible that Fran Maco considers that the judge has given them a greater probative force than they would receive in a criminal trial. In any case, I would have given them the same: none for criminal purposes.
In short, everything indicates that the evidence that would not have the same probative force outside of Wilk's court that Fran Maco refers to are those related to the existence of a period during which Dylan was unlocalized. Although they were not, in any case it is significant evidence relating to the allegations of abuse, so much that the prosecutor is aware when reviewing the actions of the Wilco trial that this has given them a probative force that could not be achieved in criminal proceedings .
As has already been pointed out on some occasion, the events of day 4 are really complicated to understand. Two nannies are in charge of two children for two hours with the express order not to allow them to be alone with Allen, however, in that period one of the children and Allen disappear for fifteen or twenty minutes And nobody realizes ! Two days later and after submitting the complaint Mia Farrow, the nannies meet and one of them says that at one point she was looking for Dylan throughout the house and when he did not find her she thought that she would be out with the other nanny. So you have to believe that one of the children disappears and the nanny does not look for it until you find it, but assumes that it will be with the other nanny and does not bother to check it. She stays alone for an indeterminate time, without taking care of anyone and when she goes out to the garden they are all outside and nobody notices that something has happened. Nobody knows at what time the supposed disappearance could have occurred or at what time they "reappeared". No one saw Allen and the girl leaving or entering the house together, nor did he see them go up or down the stairs that gave access to the upper floors. The supposed fifteen or twenty minutes are an amalgam and an integration of the testimonies of the three nannies that discards the testimony of other nannies (Monica Thompsosn stated that Kristi Groteke had confirmed on day 6 that on day 4 nothing happened, that she did not he lost sight of Dylan) and that he must give for totally abnormal good behaviors. In her Mia & Woody book, Kristi Groteke acknowledges that the conversation took place and, although she does not admit the exact terms reported by Monica Thompson, she does point out that in that conversation she told her partner that she had not lost sight of Dylan throughout. the afternoon
On the other hand, the interpretation of these testimonies is what makes the possibility - however minimal - that abuses occur and - very especially - is one of the fundamental reasons that lead Wilk to affirm that Mia Farrow did not He commissioned the directing of Dylan's demonstrations voluntarily. Without Wilk's specific interpretation of this set of testimonies, the conclusion would have been that there was no opportunity for abuses of any kind to occur and, therefore, that the facts denounced had never happened.
3.- Finally, there is the possibility that Maco refers to Mia Farrow's own testimony regarding Allen's "inappropriate behaviors". After all, just a few months ago, in December of 1991, Mia Farrow made an affidavit about Woody Allen in the adoption procedure of Dylan and Moses. Judge Wilk expressly decided not to take it into consideration and to omit that either Mia Farrow had lied in the affidavit before the adoption judge, or she was lying in the custody trial. There are no more possibilities.The lie under oath is usually very severely considered in the United States and venal treatment of Wilk to that of Mia Farrow is at least strange.
However, despite the influence of the story of Mia Farrow in the custody trial, it can not be forgotten that Wilk does not even consider the possibility that these behaviors constitute any case of sexual abuse. Therefore, it is not possible that Fran Maco considers that the judge has given them a greater probative force than they would receive in a criminal trial. In any case, I would have given them the same: none for criminal purposes.
In short, everything indicates that the evidence that would not have the same probative force outside of Wilk's court that Fran Maco refers to are those related to the existence of a period during which Dylan was unlocalized. Although they were not, in any case it is significant evidence relating to the allegations of abuse, so much that the prosecutor is aware when reviewing the actions of the Wilco trial that this has given them a probative force that could not be achieved in criminal proceedings .
Therefore, the first question that any journalist
interested in knowing the facts would have to formulate to Maco would be: What
are the evidences to which you referred in your declaration of September 24,
1993 when you said that they were fertile ground for the defense and that they
would not have (in a criminal procedure) the same probative value that Wilk had
given them?
I hope someone does, someday.
----------------------------
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."
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.
THE SUPPOSED AND IMPROBABLE REFUTATION THAT JESSICA WINTER MAKES OF BOB WEIDE
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
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
THE TESTIMONY OF DYLAN FARROW
A FIRST APPROACH TO JUDGE WILK'S DECISION THAT DOESN´T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY READ
A FIRST APPROACH TO JUDGE WILK'S DECISION THAT DOESN´T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY READ
WHAT EVIDENCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY REFERRED FRAN MACO BY SAYING THAT IT HAD NO PROBATORY FORCE?
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario