The supposed and improbable refutation that Jessica Winter makes of Bob Weide

febrero 09, 2018

The supposed and improbable refutation that Jessica Winter makes of Bob Weide

Among the sources of information and "analysis" that are cited in social networks in support of the accusations against Allen is repeated with some frequency the "refutation" that Jessica Winter made of some pieces by Bob Weide in defense of Allen. Let's examine it briefly to see if it presents any fact or argument that really weighs the accusations.

earlier this week in Slate, I took issue with Robert B. Weide’s much-passed-around Daily Beast piece defending Woody Allen against accusations of sexual assault that have been made by his daughter, Dylan Farrow, who recently wrote an open letter in the New York Times detailing her memories of the alleged abuse. Many readers have criticized my piece for focusing on Weide’s rhetoric and tone, not his facts. So here’s a just-the-facts second pass clarifying five key points that Weide fumbled.

Okay, we'll examine the facts. Only the facts.

No. 1: The sexual-abuse allegations did not happen in the midst of a custody battle.

In his Daily Beast piece, Weide refers to “Mia [Farrow]’s accusation—used during their custody battle for their three shared children—that Woody molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan.” He also suggests it’s unlikely that Allen would have molested Dylan “in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior.” Many of Allen’s defenders have floated the possibility that Mia Farrow concocted the allegations to use as leverage in the custody battle; Steve Kroft suggests just this scenario in the introduction to a 1992 60 Minutes interview with Allen. In that segment, Allen tells Kroft that it would have been “illogical” to molest Dylan “at the height of a very bitter, acrimonious custody fight.”

The problem with this line of reasoning is that Dylan Farrow’s allegations did not emerge in the midst of a custody battle. According to Phoebe Hoban’s 1992 New York magazine story, as of early August 1992—eight months after Mia Farrow had discovered Allen’s sexual relationship with her daughter Soon-Yi Previn—Allen had been “prepared to sign a 30-page document that virtually precluded his seeing the children he doted on without a chaperone.” Then, on Aug. 4, 1992, Dylan told her mother that Woody Allen had sexually assaulted her in Mia’s Connecticut home. At that point, Mia and Dylan went to Dylan’s pediatrician, who reported the allegations to authorities. Allen did not sue for custody of Dylan and her two brothers, Moses and Ronan, until Aug. 13, 1992, a week after he was informed of Dylan’s accusations.

The information provided by Jessica Winter is seriously inaccurate. Not only is it evident that if they had not signed the agreement the custody issue was still pending and that the mere fact of delaying for eight months any possibility of agreement already gives an idea of the complexity of the negotiations, but that the accusation of abuses it occurs on Allen's first weekly visit to children after Mia Farrow learned that Allen was continuing his relationship with Soon-Yi. Mia Farrow thought that Allen's relationship with Soon Yi had been broken in January of 1992 and on August 1 she learned that they were still seeing each other (or that they had seen each other again, for that matter it is the same). As soon as she found out, she telephoned Dr. Coates to ask her to help her find a way to stop him (Allen). Three days later Allen made the next visit to his children. Mia Farrow was furious and hurt with Allen as she had never been before and the same can be said about the house staff who lived with her. Furthermore, during the following years Mia Farrow always refused to let Dylan keep visits with her father if he did not break his relationship with Soon-Yi, so it seems evident that the agreement she was willing to sign when she thought that Allen did not keep Relations with Soon-Yi was not willing to sign it once she learned that those relationships continued (or had been resumed). To pretend that the denunciation of abuses arises in an atmosphere of agreeable agreement for the custody is to falsely falsify the facts. The accusation arises when Mia Farrow is more hurt and desperate.

In any case, Allen's visit was supervised. Two nannies (Nancy Groteke and Sophie Berge) took care of two of the children (Dylan and Satchel) for about two hours. The nannies were not only instructed not to leave the children alone with Allen, but knew that Mia Farrow was especially furious since she had received the news on day 1. They were nannies, not housekeepers or cooks. They were two nannies who had to take care of two children for only two hours and it is assumed that one of those children (Dylan) was missing for fifteen or twenty minutes without either of them noticing. They also had an express mandate to watch Allen, and Allen was supposed to have disappeared at the same time and nobody noticed.

In a June 1993 decision, Acting Justice Elliot Wilk of the New York State Supreme Court found “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. Mr. Allen’s resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

However, the same judge notes that the recording of Dylan that Mia Farrow made committed the investigation of abuses.

Her decision to videotape Dylan's statements, although inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable.

How can a recording commit an investigation of abuses? The answer is given by the expert who intervened on behalf of Mia Farrow who acknowledged that:

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."?

Is it possible to indicate to the girl a way of answering but not doing "coaching"? Even more Is it possible to indicate to the girl a concrete way to respond and that this is not a sign of coaching? For the judge, yes, but in reality it is not possible. If Mia Farrow asked her daughter for a whole day questions that indicated a way of answering it is impossible to say that this is not a sign of coaching. The judge may say that it is only an indication and explain why it does not go further. But asking continuous questions in repeated interviews during a full day, in some way indicating to the girl a way of responding is - without any doubt - a sign of coaching. On the other hand, the only report in the records of some professionals (the Yale New Haven Hospital team) had studied the situation, interviewed the Dylan and Mia Farrow and expressly stated that coaching was a possibility. The judge can think what he wants from the report and the team, but what he can not say is that this is not a sign. Without going into the conclusions of the Report, it expressly states that each time the girl comments on the subject of abuses she does it together with a/ the relationship of Allen with Soon-Yi and b/ his poor, poor mother who I would have lost a career in Allen's films. Again, the judge will be able to assess what he thinks, but it is absurd and contrary to the reality of the facts that he denies that this is an indication of coaching.

No. 2: The Connecticut state’s attorney stated that he had probable cause to bring charges against Allen.

Weide writes that Allen “was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.” In fact, the Litchfield, Conn., state’s attorney, Frank Maco, in consultation with Mia Farrow, decided in September 1993 not to press criminal charges, despite having “probable cause,” in the belief that a trial would further traumatize Dylan. At that point, Allen had already been denied not only custody but any visitation rights—supervised or unsupervised—with Dylan, per Wilk’s decision in June of that year. (As the New York Times pointed out at the time, “Mr. Maco's remarks about the case were criticized by some legal scholars, who said it was an unfair attempt to have it both ways by claiming victory without taking the case to trial.” Maco was later rebuked by a state Grievance Council for his actions, though it did not find that Maco had violated any provision of Connecticut’s code of conduct for lawyers.)

The commenter omits several essential facts. First, that the sentence limits Allen's right of visits only temporarily, since all the experts - yes, all the experts, including Mia Farrow's - and especially the independent expert of the court considered that the relationship with Allen was fundamental for the correct development of the child.

It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS Court structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further review of Allen's visitation with Dylan would be considered after an evaluation of Dylan's progress. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. May 12, 1994)

On the other hand, it omits the true motive stated by Fran Maco in his written communication of September 24, 1993. 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 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.

Therefore, we know that the prosecution did not have - in essence - evidence other than that which had been analyzed in the custody procedure and that in the case of custody the judge did not conclude that there was abuse, so the prosecutor is aware that:

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 tested, although there may be a reasonable doubt.
The second is that the evidence analyzed and assessed by Judge Wilks in the custody procedure would not have the same probative force in the criminal jurisdiction. That is to say, that in the criminal jurisdiction there are more strict admission and evaluation criteria for the evidences than in the civil jurisdiction in general, and in the case of custody in particular.

That is, Fran Maco and the Office of the State Prosecutor are affirming that in the case of custody, evidence has been analyzed and valued that would be invalid in the criminal trial and that has been assessed without taking into account the presumption of innocence. Despite this, the judge did not have the conviction that the abuses had occurred. Fran 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.

No. 3: Dylan Farrow’s testimony was not marred by “inconsistencies.”

“There were problems with inconsistencies” in Dylan’s narrative, Weide writes. On Aug. 4, when a physician asked Dylan where her father had touched her that day, she pointed to her shoulder; she explained to her mother later the same day that she was embarrassed to talk about her private parts. After that first doctor’s visit, however, her story remained consistent, detailed, and specific.

This can only be described as absolutely false.

1 / In the original story of Mia Farrow Dylan narrated two episodes of abuse (the first in the TV room and the second in the attic) and one of the two episodes (the one in the TV room) had to be discarded and has disappeared from the narrative and - apparently - the memory of Dylan. One of the two narrated episodes had not occurred. Is a false episode not an inconsistency?

2 / The narrations of the alleged episode of abuse during 1992 were inconsistent and contradictory. To determine it we have to do a joint analysis of different sources. The first is how little we know about Yale New-Haven Hospital Report. According to the report:

There were important inconsistencies between Dylan's statements recorded by his mother between days 5 and 6 and what Dylan herself narrated to the Hospital team, as well as among the various narrations made at the Hospital. These inconsistencies affected essential elements of the narrative. The doctor gave an example of the inconsistencies:

"Those were not minor inconsistencies," he said. "She told us initially that she hadn't been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn't."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

The narration of the abuses was little spontaneous, excessively controlled and reflective and suggested that something rehearsed was being repeated.

This lack of spontaneity is aggravated by some manifestations of the girl:

At one point, he said she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories."

The description of the details surrounding the alleged abuse was unusual and inconsistent. The newspapers of the time expand this information a little.

Dr. Leventhal said it was "very striking" that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with "one, her father's relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother," who had lost a career in Mr. Allen's films.

Definitely. In the first session Dylan said that she had not been touched in the genital area (that there had been no abuse); in the second, Allen had touched the genital area (which had been abused) and in the third session he said again that Allen had not touched the genital area. On the other hand, beyond the fact that the testimony may seem spontaneous and learned, it is striking that the girl considered it appropriate to indicate "I like to cheat on my stories." and that on all the occasions in which he mentioned the abuse he would be paired with Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi and with the career of his poor, poor mother.

The second source is Connecticut Magacine, which has been reproduced multiple times later and whose last origin is in the Connecticut police or prosecutor's office.

http://www.connecticutmag.com/the-connecticut-story/mia-farrow-s-vanity-fair-interview-references-connecticut-magazine-article/article_4327cac7-ffef-5eb5-9c19-fdaf70e84855.html

According to this source, Dylan's most complete statement regarding abuses would be the following:

“He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over.”

This fragment of the story appears in quotation marks in the original articles and in all the occasions that have been reproduced. We find a more extensive explanation about its origin in: http://cooljustice.blogspot.com.es/2018/01/dylan-farrow-profile-in-courage-i-want.html

For three consecutive weeks, she said Woody Allen violated her sexually. Among her statements to investigators: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” In several of the other sessions, Dylan Farrow mentioned a similar type of abuse. When she did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.

rom what seems to be inferred that this story was made by Dylan on three occasions, that on two other occasions (first and third interview) she said that no abuse had occurred and that in four other interviews (there were nine in total) she recounted some type of different abuse. It should not be necessary to say that in the case of a single episode, narrating different types of abuse is an inconsistency in the narrative and, evidently, an inconsistency with what Dylan Farrow now narrates. In total, of nine interviews in three he narrated the type of abuse that he now remembers and in six he told something different. In fact, there are inconsistencies between the narration that he repeated three times in 1992 and the one he has exposed in 2014 and 2015.

The latest version we have of the abuses is that provided by Dylan herself, in 2014 and recently in January of 2,018.

Let's start with the one in 2014

when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

And now the one in 2018

He instructed me to lay down on my stomach and play with my brother’s toy train that was set up, and he sat behind me in the doorway. And, as I played with the toy train, I was sexually assaulted.”

She continued: “As 7-year-old, I would say he touched my private parts. As a 32-year-old, he touched my labia and my vulva with his finger.”

Evidently these two narratives have many things in common. In the two Allen asks Dylan to lie on his stomach and play with the train while he allegedly put a finger in her vagina and whispers things. The second specifies that Allen was sitting. We will repeat the narration that Dylan made more consistently during 1992:

“He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.”

If we did not know by Dylan herself - and by all the circumstances of the case, since Allen never saw Dylan again after August 4 - that there was only one supposed episode of sexual abuse, we would think that it is two different stories. Even three.

In two of them there is no train: in one Allen forces the girl to lie down in different positions and in the other there is no mention of lying down; in the third there is a train with which to play and that focuses Dylan's attention and she remains the whole episode lying on her stomach and watching the train. Regarding the first narrations, the pain and the fact that Allen kissed her all over her body and left her soaked (how could she do it while he was sitting and she lying down?) Have disappeared. Even more significant: the original complaint clearly and expressly indicated that Allen had inserted his finger into Dylan's vagina, however in 2.018 there is no introduction of the finger into the vagina and the abuses are made with touching the vulva and the lips. They are totally different behaviors, both from the legal and the material point of view.

It is not necessary to resort to the report of Yale New Haven to be able to affirm that the narration of abuses of Dylan undergoes important variations between a narration and has evolved throughout the time, omitting some details and incorporating new details, several of them incompatible among themselves

Agosto 1992

He was kissing me…I got soaked all over the whole body…I had to do what he said. I’m a kid, I have to do whatever the grown-ups say…It hurt, it hurt when he pushed his finger in [my vagina]…He just kept poking it in…” [H]e said the only way for me to be in the movie is to do this.

Septiembre/Noviembre 1992

2014/2018

No. 4: The unsuspicious nanny was outnumbered.

Weide makes a lot out of a deposition by a nanny in Allen’s employ, Monica Thompson, who stated “that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges,” and that another nanny, Kristie Groteke, had told her that she “did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes.” Weide does not mention that Groteke herself testified that she lost track of both Dylan and Allen for 15 to 20 minutes on Aug. 4. Weide does not mention the testimony of babysitter Alison Stickland, who, on Aug. 4, witnessed Allen “kneeling in front of Dylan with his head in her lap” (a detail recounted in Dylan’s open letter). Weide does not mention that Sophie Berge, a tutor, later noticed that Dylan was not wearing underwear.

Quite the contrary, Monica Thompson's narration was corroborated by Kristi Groteke in essence. Kristi Groteke had commented with Monica Thompson that she had not lost sight of Dylan all afternoon. This was stated by Monica Thompson and Groteke recognized it in her book of memories of those times that she wrote after the trial. 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 afternoon that the three nannies made several days after the events. Apparently, when they got together to review what had happened that day, Kristi Groteke realized that there was a moment when she looked for Dylan inside the house and did not find her; then she thought Dylan would be out with the other two nannies. She did not check it right away, but while reviewing the events together, the three caretakers 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 fifteen or twenty minutes may have passed.

Therefore, we have two groups of babysitters (Kristi Groteke, on one hand, and the French tutor and the other nanny, on the other) who are not in the same place and do not communicate during the entire period of the alleged disappearance. An interesting fact is that at no time is it indicated that Dylan was missing, "between 5 pm and 5:30 pm", for example. Why is it interesting? Because it indicates that in their reconstruction of 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 us think about it. There are two separate groups of people who do not communicate with each other, and each one thinks that Dylan and Allen are with the other. How can they reach the conclusion that this was not the case if group A does not know what time she saw Dylan or Allen for the last time nor what time it was when she looked for Dylan without finding her, and group B does not know at what time they came to be with them? 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 by themselves? Actually, it is not possible. If group B does not know what time Dylan joined, nor whether she did it at the same time as Allen, it is impossible for them 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 did consult them and, therefore, that they could tell us at what time —or between what times— the "disappearance" occurred.

But that is not the case. Therefore, in order to reconstruct the afternoon, the nannies had to use their own subjective time estimates starting from a common event (perhaps the very separation of the nannies, which would be the last common event). Those time estimates were independent of each other. On the one hand, we have the estimate provided by Groteke, who was alone inside the house (a question of some interest here is: given the fact that she had received explicit instructions not to lose sight of Dylan, what was she doing inside the house by herself?). On the other hand, we have the subjective time estimate provided by the other two caretakers, who were outside the house in charge of four children. Needless to say, this way of reconstructing the steps taken on day 4 —if it has any use at all, which is rather doubtful— is enormously limited and subject to a huge margin of error, since it is easily affected by the expectations of the people who carry out the reconstruction. If what you are looking for is a period of time in which neither of the groups 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 around" and nanny B says "well I think I first saw Dylan about 50 minutes after X", there is no agreement between those two declarations. What nanny B says does not confirm that nanny A actually saw Dylan 45 minutes after X, and what nanny A says does not rule out that nanny B did not actually see Dylan only 30 minutes after X.

Finally, Dylan's account 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 she was out with the other nanny. Why did not Dylan hear about this search? Let us assume it is reasonable for the nanny not to go to the small attic to look for her, but she definitely checked the main room and if she searched and called Dylan there, why did not Dylan hear her? Moreover, nothing in Dylan's account suggests that Allen heard anyone looking for Dylan and asked the girl to keep silent, or stopped the train to avoid making noise.

Kristi Groteke's experiences during those days are interesting in many ways; one of them is that Mia never reproached her or asked her how it was possible that Woody Allen had been alone with the girl despite her recent explicit instructions against it. She did not ask her whether it was possible that the alleged abuse had happened: she told her it had happened. And several days after the events, the nanny met with the other two people who were in the house to "reconstruct the afternoon" and arrived at the conclusion that there were between 15 and 20 unaccounted minutes in which none of them had been with Dylan or Allen (iii). As already mentioned, before being forced to "reconstruct" the afternoon on account of her boss's sexual abuse allegations, the nanny had told a colleague that she 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. The essential part of Moses' statement is much simpler: there was no train in that attic so it is impossible for Dylan to remember that a 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 he believed Mia Farrow was responsible for Dylan's accusations (iv).

Kristi Groteke was neither fired nor reprimanded by Mia Farrow for leaving Dylan unattended despite her express orders: rather, she became her most trusted person in the care of the children for the following year, and Mia Farrow delivered documentation and materials for Groteke to write a book.

2. The French tutor testimony that Dylan was without underwear

This testimony is presented as if it supported or was "consistent" with the existence of some kind of sexual abuse. However this is totally false. Dylan has never indicated that Allen took off her underwear. According to Kristi Groteke, Dylan never explained what happened to the underwear. There is no mention of that fact either in relation to the alleged episode of abuse or in the tape that Mia Farrow recorded, nor in the Yale New Haven sessions, nor in the sessions with the police, nor in any of the modern versions of the story that Dylan has provided. Obviously, if the absence of underwear has nothing to do with the alleged abuse according to Dylan's own narrative, then the absence of underwear cannot be used 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.

Moreover, what the absence of underwear may indicate is that Dylan "slipped away" to get rid of it unobserved. Perhaps she was embarrassed because the underwear was stained, or perhaps she thought her mother was going to scold her if she got dirty. The fact is that it seems that Dylan was able to dispose of her underwear without any of her caregivers (or anyone) noticing. She may have disappeared for a few minutes in order to discard her panties in such a way that they would never be found again. At what point would Dylan be free to go where she wanted and elude the vigilance of all elders? It seems that the ideal moment would be when Allen went to the toilet. In this way, it is perfectly possible that the two "disappeared" for a few minutes but were not together. In any case, she had to dedicate several minutes of the period in which she had been supposedly out of the adult's radar to do away with her underwear.

3. 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 the one hand, the ruling considers the TV room episode to be proven fact and does not consider it to contain any kind of abuse. On the other hand, it should be evident that, if abuse had taken place, the nanny would have immediately sounded 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, nor even temporary continuity, between the television room episode and the alleged abuses. Indeed, judge Wilk clearly speaks of "at other 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. From what we know, it is reasonable to suppose that, had the abuse taken place, the nanny would have warned her colleagues, that they would all have entered the room and that they would have left the place together.

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

[i] http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

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.

[iv] http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

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.

No. 5: The head of the Yale team investigating the allegations never spoke to Dylan Farrow.

Weide quotes at length from a sworn deposition by John Leventhal, the pediatrician who led the Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic’s investigation of the allegations. Leventhal’s deposition hypothesized either that “these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind” or “that she was coached or influenced by her mother.” But Leventhal himself never interviewed Dylan Farrow, nor did he interview her mother or any of the child care workers present at Mia Farrow’s home on Aug. 4, 1992. Dylan was interviewed nine times over a six-month period by Julia Hamilton, who had a Ph.D. in social work, and Jennifer Sawyer, who had a master’s degree in social work. Neither Hamilton nor Sawyer would testify at trial, and Leventhal would only testify via deposition; as Weide points out, they also destroyed their notes on the investigation. (Diane Schetky, a professor of psychiatry and past editor of the Clinical Handbook of Child Psychiatry and the Law, itemized other irregularities in the Yale investigation in this 1997 Connecticut Magazine piece.)

The Yale team met with the police and the prosecutor, Fran Maco, for preliminary information. They collected more information from one of the detectives, John Mucherino, to handle all the data that the police had. Between September 18 and November 13, they conducted a total of nine separate interviews with Dylan and his mother, Mia Farrow. On October 14, they interviewed Dylan's nanny Kristi Groteke and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Woody Allen. Finally, they met with Mia Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. According to one of the fragments of the report circulated by the network, also interviewed the other nanny present on August 4, Alison Stickland, and the two psychotherapists who treated the children, Drs. Coates and Stcuhtz

It is true that Dr. Levehthal did not personally interview Dylan, but the pediatricians do not have special training in forensic interviews and the Yale team used qualified personnel to interview them. That's why it's called "team" and it's made up of several people.

Regarding the criticisms of Diane Schetky, we will analyze them one by one as they appear in Connecticut Magazine -something it is possible that she did it, but since we are with it we will not let it go-

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

This is simply nonsense. In fact, the psychologists Allen paid for depended on Mia Farrow to continue, or not, in her work. They had been hired by Mia Farrow and depended on her to continue doing their work and to "charge" Woody Allen. On the other hand, they were the therapists of the two children (Dylan and Satchel) and it must be obvious to anyone that they should report the children they were treating twice a week. To say that the therapists should have "excluded themselves" is a nonsense that reflects a total ignorance of the situation: they were called to testify before the prosecutor's expert. How could they "exclude themselves" without refusing to cooperate with justice?

• Custody recommendations were made even though the team never saw Allen and any of the children together. “I’d sure want that information,”

We do not know enough about the report to make any specific statement, but if the visits were interrupted by the allegation of abuse and the Yale New Haven team concluded that there had been no abuses it´s logical and obvious that the team should recommend that the visits will resume.

Schetky says.• The team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims.

This is false. Not only did the Yale New Haven team interview Kristy Groteke and babysitter Alison Stickland as well as Mia Farrow herself and she received the police data, but there is no witness to corroborate the abuse. Any.

• The team destroyed its notes. “I don’t know why they would,” Schetky says. “They shouldn’t have anything to hide, unless they’re in disagreement.”

I do not know the protocols of the Yale New Haven Hospital, but at that time in the child protection service of the State of New York all reports were destroyed when the result of the analysis of the case was "unfounded", destroying the file itself. (Admissibility of Indicated, Unfounded and Expunged Reports of Child Abuse or Neglect and Their Use by Attorney for the Childs in Custody Litigation BY: Charity Phipps, David French (Fall 2005) UPDATED: Gabriella MacDonald (2014). It is very possible that the protocols of Yale New Haven were similar, in any case, it was not something extraordinary or that could surprise a professional at that moment - although with time we have come to consider it an incorrect practice-

• Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan. “How can you write about someone you’ve never seen?” Schetky asks.

A good question to ask Dr. Schecky that she had not even seen the Yale New Haven report. In any case, the report was drafted as an inter-judge agreement of all its members - as is usual in these cases - and Dr. Leventhal assumed the conclusions as his own as a result of them.

• The night before Leventhal gave a statement to Farrow’s attorney, he discussed the scenario with Abramowitz, the head of Allen’s legal team, for about 30 minutes.

I suppose explaining to Abramowitz that none of his companions was going to appear and that they would not testify at the trial. The report was issued months before this meeting, unless the laws of causality have changed in the Universe it is not possible to vary the Report that was already presented.

• The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions, she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.

That is to say, in three of the interviews Dylan's narration coincides (at least in the type of abuse) with what Dylan narrates today. In six of the interviews no. That is inconsistency. Only 3 of 9.

In his 1993 state Supreme Court decision, Wilk found that testimony “proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” In May 1994, the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court cited a “clear consensus” among psychiatric experts that Allen’s “interest in Dylan was abnormally intense.”

She forgets to mention that Wilk's own court ruling indicates that Allen's inappropriate behavior had no sexual component, which is assumed by the appeal decision. Allen's interest in Dylan had no sexual component.

My colleague Dahlia Lithwick wisely cautions against trying this case again in the court of public opinion. But it’s also worth remembering that—no matter how Robert Weide wants to spin things—Woody Allen did not fare well at all when actual courts of law looked at the facts.

In a court, Dylan Farrow's allegations would be dismissed, without any kind of doubt. That is why she does not initiate civil actions: because she would lose them.

In short, the alleged refutation is a document that disregards known facts, omits fundamental information and presents false information as if it were true. If someone considers that this trial is too harsh and that some of Jessica Winter's statements are backed up by the facts, I have no objection in contrasting their doubts with mine in the comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRESENTATION

Ronan Farrow's memory

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE NANNIES.

THE TESTIMONY OF DYLAN FARROW