UPDATED 10/16/2018 THE TESTIMONY OF DYLAN FARROW
THE TESTIMONY OF
DYLAN FARROW
We are going to
make a brief presentation and a brief analysis of what we know about the
testimony of Dylan Farrow.
The first
narration that Dylan made of the alleged abuses was made to her mother, Mia
Farrow, on August 5, 1992. Mia Farrow left a record of what the girl said in
her memoir:[i]
I hung up the phone and asked Dylan, who was sitting at the
foot of my bed, "Did Woody have his face in your lap yesterday?"
He had been told by the therapist not to do precisely that thing.
"Yes," she said.
I had just been videotaping the baby, so I grabbed the camera.
Dylan went on to say that he was breathing into her, into her legs.
She told me he was holding her around the waist and that when she
She told me that Woody had taken her upstairs into the attic,
and that he had touched her private parts with his finger. "Don't
move," he had said to her. "I have to do this. If you stay still, we
can go to Paris. Don't tell."
"He was kissing me," Dylan said. "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
movie? He just kept poking it in . . ."
foot of my bed, "Did Woody have his face in your lap yesterday?"
He had been told by the therapist not to do precisely that thing.
"Yes," she said.
I had just been videotaping the baby, so I grabbed the camera.
Dylan went on to say that he was breathing into her, into her legs.
She told me he was holding her around the waist and that when she
tried to get up he "secretly put one hand here"—she pointed—
"and touched my privates, and I do not like that one bit." She told me that Woody had taken her upstairs into the attic,
and that he had touched her private parts with his finger. "Don't
move," he had said to her. "I have to do this. If you stay still, we
can go to Paris. Don't tell."
"He was kissing me," Dylan said. "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 . . . he said the only way for me to be in the movie is
to do this. I don't want to be in his movie. Do I have to be in his movie? He just kept poking it in . . ."
As can be seen,
in this first narration sexual abuse begins in the TV room, where Allen is
supposed to hold Dylan when she tries to stand up and touch her in their privates
in a disguised way, and continue in the attic. Recall that noted in this regard
Judge Wilk's Judgment:
Ms. Farrow
testified that after
she hung up the
telephone, she asked
Dylan, who was
sitting next to
her, "whether it was
true that daddy
had his face
in her lap yesterday." Ms. Farrow testified:
Dylan said
yes. And then
she said that
she didn't like it one
bit, no, he was breathing into her, into her
legs, she said. And
that he was holding
her around the
waist and I said, why
didn't you get up
and she said she tried to but that he put his hands
underneath her and touched her. And she showed me where
. . . ".
Her behind.
Although the
narration is very similar, the express reference to touching the private parts
of the girl disappears and, in any case, this episode also disappears from
Dylan's narrative. We know from the memories of Mia Farrow that not only were
her nannies warned not to leave Allen alone with the children, but Casey
Pascal's nanny was also. Obviously, if at any time she saw Dylan alone with
Allen, she would tell her fellow nannies that they would go immediately to the
TV room. Whatever the case may be, it must have been very clear from the
description of events that day that there had been no abuse in the TV room.
Before taking a
final position on the remaining story of Dylan, it is necessary to remember
that in the original story two episodes of abuse were narrated and that one of
the two episodes had to be discarded and has disappeared from the narration and
- apparently - from the memory of Dylan. One of the two narrated episodes had
not occurred.
The two most
extensive versions of the content of the recording, as far as I know, are those
provided by Kristi Groteke and that of Mia Farrow herself, which has already
been transcribed. I transcribe below that of Kristi Groteke:
It
is
chilling. It begins
with Dylan sitting on
Mia's bed. Mia, holding the video camera,
is not in
the picture, but
we hear her asking
Dylan questions like.
"Where did Daddy
take you?" And Dylan
answers, "He took
me to the attic."
Mia asks several more
questions while Dylan
sits on the
bed. Then the scene
shifts to the
lake. Now we
see Dylan lying in
one of the
lounge chairs by
the water. Mia
asks her questions like
"Where did he
touch you?" And
Dylan, whose legs are
slightly open, says,
"He touched me
here, and he touched
me here, and
he touched me
here." Each time
she says this, she
points to her
genital areas. During
this scene, Dylan seems
manic and distracted,
and there are
many interruptions. She
gets up from
her chair often.
Occasionally, too. Tain runs
into the picture
to play, blocking
Dylan from view. Finally,
one distraction too
many, Mia stops
the tape. When she
starts it again,
Dylan tells her
that she wishes that
Andre were her daddy. 'Mommy,
it hurts there, it
hurts there." she says
and holds her
genital area. Mia
pauses, she sounds very
upset, and Dylan
says something about
Woody putting his finger
inside her. Dylan
says again. "It
hurts." Toward the
end of the tape
Dylan repeats her claim
that Woody has taken
her to the
attic and has
told her that
if she doesn't move, if
she lies very still, he
will take her
to Paris and
put her in his
next movie. Then
she says, a
serious expression on her
face. "I don't
want to be
in the movie,
and I don't
want to go to
Paris." The tape
closes as Dylan
looks at Mia and
asks, "Mommy, did
your daddy do
this to you?"
Without going
into other considerations at the moment and always taking into account the
obvious limitation that comes from having only partial impressions of the
testimony and not the full testimony, there are two facts that draw attention
if we put them in relation to other data: the first one is described as a
painful experience and the second that no mention of a toy train appears
anywhere.
It is striking
that it is described as a painful experience, not because Dylan was examined in
the pediatrician without being able to find even a hint of irritation in the
genital area, but because Mia Farrow did not take Dylan to perform a physical
examination. until August 9. According to Kristi Groteke:
So in
Dr. Kavirajan s office
on August 6, Dylan
repeated her original
accusation of abuse.
That evening, said Mia,
"when I put
her in the
bath, she wouldn't
sit down. In
the bath she
said her vagina
hurt."
Pain in the area
of the vagina can indicate, for example, a urine infection; However, when
Dylan goes to the pediatrician, she only narrates the alleged abuses and the
pediatrician does not perform any exam, not because of the possible abuses, but
simply because of the pain. Even without thinking that my daughter had been
sexually abused, if she complains two days in a row of pain in her vagina to
the point of not being able to sit in the bathtub, you can be sure that she is
at the doctor that same day. If I think that my daughter has suffered sexual
abuse and refers pain in the vagina, you can believe that the doctor examines
it immediately. The delay in the physical examination is something absolutely
amazing and extraordinary.
As for the fact
that no toy train is mentioned, what is striking is the contrast with the
narration of the abuses that Dylan does today.
Regarding
Dylan's testimony to the pediatrician, as far as we know, she limited himself to
saying that Allen had touched her, indicating the first time in the back and
the second time the next day that in his private parts. Without more details.
The next news we
have about Dylan's testimony comes from 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."
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 that the genital area had been touched (which had been abused) and later she said again that Allen had not touched her 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.
According to Connecticut Magacine, which has been
reproduced in other sources
Dylan's most
complete statement regarding abuses would be as follows:
“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.
From what seems
to be inferred that this story was made by Dylan on three occasions, that on
two other occasions 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.
The latest
version we have of the abuses is that provided by Dylan herself, in 2.014 and
recently in January of 2.018.
Let's start with
the one in 2.014
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
of 2.018
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 and 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 one
there is a train with which to play and which focuses Dylan's attention, and
she remains the whole episode lying on her stomach and watching the train.
Regarding the first narrations, the pain disappeared and the fact that Allen
kissed her all over her body and left her soaked has disappeared too. 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.
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.
“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.”
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.” (…) “…he touched my labia and my vulva
with his finger”
Another difference: the underwear
Dylan's narrative never included in 1.992 a part in which Allen removed her 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. It should be noted that Dylan was specifically asked for her underwear in 1992. Mia Farrow asked her expressly if her father had removed her underwear.
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.
Dylan's narrative never included in 1.992 a part in which Allen removed her 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. It should be noted that Dylan was specifically asked for her underwear in 1992. Mia Farrow asked her expressly if her father had removed her underwear.
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.
The evolution of the testimony of Dylan Farrow . In the last column, in red, the parts of the testimony that have changed or are completely new compared to the initial one.
Initial Statement to Mia Farrow. Recorded
on video
|
Narration of the custody trial.
|
Statement in YNH, according to
various sources, especially Connecticut Magazine.
|
Declarations from 2.014
|
The abuse begins in
the TV Room, where Dylan claims that Woody Allen touched her private parts
|
The reference to the
fact that Woody Allen touched her private parts in the TV Room disappears
|
There is no
reference
|
There is
no mention of touching in the TV Room. The episode has disappeared from the
story.
|
Dylan says that she
took off her underwear because it was wet, although she is asked expressly if
her father asked for it.
|
-
|
There is no mention
|
Dylan says
her father took off her underwear in the TV Room.
|
She says that Woody
Allen kissed her
|
-
|
She says that Woody
Allen kissed her
|
Dylan does
not describe Woody Allen kissing her.
|
Woody Allen talked
to her
|
-
|
-
|
Woody Allen talked
to her
|
She says that her
whole body was soaked.
|
-
|
There is no mention
of being soaked.
|
Dylan does
not describe or mention at any time having been soaked.
|
She does not say
anything about lying down
|
-
|
She says that Woody
Allen forced her to lie down and change her position, face up, face down,
sideways ...
|
She says
that Woody Allen told her to lie face down to play with an electric train and
she stayed in that position playing with the train
|
She said that Woody
Allen insert his finger into her vagina and kept poking
it in
|
-
|
She said that Woody
Allen insert his finger into her vagina
|
She said
that Woody Allen did not insert his finger into her vagina. That he did touch her lips and vulva.
|
Dylan says it hurt
when Woody Allen kept poking his finger in her vagina.
|
-
|
She says nothing of pain
|
She does
not describe pain
|
There is no mention
that she was playing with an electric train.
|
-
|
There is no mention
that she was playing with an electric train.
|
Dylan says
she was playing with an electric train and that she focused on it throughout
the abuse.
|
[i] "Whar Falls Away", Mia Farrow, Doubleday 1997.
(ii)This is what Monica Thompson declared in her testimony as a witness before the court (Newsday Feb 2, 1993 "Nanny Blasts Mia"):
Although it is even more relevant that this specific question appears in the transcript of the tape and was identified as inadequate by the expert Richard Marcus in the trial (Newsday, Apr 7, 1993, "Abuse or Hug? Molest debate at Woody-Mia trial."
(ii)This is what Monica Thompson declared in her testimony as a witness before the court (Newsday Feb 2, 1993 "Nanny Blasts Mia"):
Although it is even more relevant that this specific question appears in the transcript of the tape and was identified as inadequate by the expert Richard Marcus in the trial (Newsday, Apr 7, 1993, "Abuse or Hug? Molest debate at Woody-Mia trial."
LA CONDUCTA INADECUADA DE WOODY ALLEN EN LA SENTENCIA DE WILK Y APELACION
WHAT EVIDENCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY REFERRED FRAN MACO BY SAYING THAT IT HAD NO PROBATORY FORCE?
A FIRST APPROACH TO JUDGE WILK'S DECISION THAT DOESN´T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY READ
THE SUPPOSED AND IMPROBABLE REFUTATION THAT JESSICA WINTER MAKES OF BOB WEIDE
WHAT EVIDENCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY REFERRED FRAN MACO BY SAYING THAT IT HAD NO PROBATORY FORCE?
A FIRST APPROACH TO JUDGE WILK'S DECISION THAT DOESN´T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY READ
THE SUPPOSED AND IMPROBABLE REFUTATION THAT JESSICA WINTER MAKES OF BOB WEIDE
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
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario