Let's briefly examine the already famous piece by Ronan Farrow. Although it is practically impossible for Ronan to keep any real memory of his father from the time before the break with his mother, in the article he pours enough inaccuracies to make it necessary to review it. With the exception of a couple of fragments that do not deal with allegations against Allen, the original article is reproduced and commented on below..

Despite Dylan Farrow's damning allegations of sexual abuse, the director of Cannes' opening film today remains beloved by stars, paid by Amazon and rarely interrogated by media as his son, Ronan Farrow, writes about the culture of acquiescence surrounding his father.

Lets go see it.

"They're accusations. They're not in the headlines. There's no obligation to mention them." These were the objections from a producer at my network. It was September 2014 and I was preparing to interview a respected journalist about his new biography of Bill Cosby. The book omitted allegations of rape and sexual abuse against the entertainer, and I intended to focus on that omission. That producer was one of several industry veterans to warn me against it. At the time, there was little more than a stalled lawsuit and several women with stories, all publicly discredited by Cosby's PR team. There was no criminal conviction. It was old news. It wasn't news.
So we compromised: I would raise the allegations, but only in a single question late in the interview. And I called the author, reporter to reporter, to let him know what was coming. He seemed startled when I brought it up. I was the first to ask about it, he said. He paused for a long time, then asked if it was really necessary. On air, he said he'd looked into the allegations and they didn't check out.
Today, the number of accusers has risen to 60. The author has apologized. And reporters covering Cosby have been forced to examine decades of omissions, of questions unasked, stories untold. I am one of those reporters — I'm ashamed of that interview.

Here we can clearly see the first and fundamental difference between the case of Bill Cosby and Woody Allen: in the case of Woody Allen there have been no omissions, or questions that were not made. The case against Allen was examined in 1992/93 in full detail and at that time all the pertinent questions were raised - in addition to many irrelevant ones. That the answer does not like Ronan Farrow does not mean that the question was not asked.

Some reporters have drawn connections between the press' grudging evolution on Cosby and a painful chapter in my own family's history. It was shortly before the Cosby story exploded anew that my sister Dylan Farrow wrote about her own experiences — alleging that our father, Woody Allen, had "groomed" her with inappropriate touching as a young girl and sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old.
For example, questions of the existence of "inappropriate touchings" and "grooming" were examined in detail by both Judge Wilk and Prosecutor Frank Maco and all the experts who testified in the custody trial, including the appointed by Mia Farrow, Dr. Herman, and the independent expert appointed by subrogated court, Dr. David Brodzinsky. Before reviewing the judicial and forensic conclusions we must take into account two things 1 / that a custody trial is the framework in which greater importance is given to the protection of minors and 2 / that it is not a criminal trial; that is, that accusations of inappropriate touching and grooming should not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", with which the judge considers them proven (although there is a reasonable doubt) is sufficient to declare that they have existed.
The conclusions were the following: there was neither grooming nor inappropriate touching of Allen to Dylan. The so-called inappropriate behavior of Allen towards Dylan consisted in making excessive demands of the girl's time and even if the court considered it inappropriate or grossly inappropriate,  ruled out qualifying it as abusive. The experts' judgment was similar: Allen's behavior with Dylan was not sexual in nature.
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. (…). 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. 
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 make up abusive behaviors about children, among which are, without any doubt, inadequate touching and grooming. It is impossible to assess Wilk's claim without taking into account the alternatives and the main alternative 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.
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.

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 as we are, witnessed Allen's inadequate behavior -in any of the senses-.

Being in the media as my sister's story made headlines, and Woody Allen's PR engine revved into action, gave me a window into just how potent the pressure can be to take the easy way out. Every day, colleagues at news organizations forwarded me the emails blasted out by Allen's powerful publicist, who had years earlier orchestrated a robust publicity campaign to validate my father's sexual relationship with another one of my siblings.

It should be noted that Allen's sexual relations with Soon Yi were not validated by a "robust advertising campaign"; they were validated by several incontestable facts. The first, which despite being very unpleasant and inappropriate for many people, were not and are not contrary to the law. Allen was not the father, nor the adoptive father, nor the stepfather, nor did he perform father functions with Soon Yi, in any of the senses. The second, that in the relationship (or lack of relationship) between Allen and Soon Yi since Allen began his relationship with Mia Farrow until his relationship with Soon Yi began, is expressly ruled out by judicial resolution any possibility of grooming or abuse to Soon Yi while she was a girl, or even underage teenager. Allen's  relationship  with  Soon  Yi  was  painstakingly  examined  in  two different  court  proceedings:  Judge  Wilk's  custody  procedure  and  the procedure initiated by Mia Farrow to nullify Allen's adoption of Moses and Dylan.  In  both  procedures,  all  the  evidence  proposed  by  the  parties  was conducted,  especially  Mia  Farrow,  who  wanted  to  prove  that  the  date of Allen's  relationship  with  Soon  Yi  was  prior  to  the  adoption.  In  the procedure of nullity of the adoption the files of the therapist of Soon Yi were acceded. These are the conclusions:
1.- Until 1990 Allen and Soon Yi ignored each other and rarely addressed each other. As Judge Wilk states: : 
Until 1990", although he had had little contact with any of the Previn children, Mr. Allen had the least to "do with  Soon-Yi.  (Soon-Yi 19- 20 years old)

2.- Between 1990 and September 1991, Allen and Soon Yi attended some basketball games at Soon-Yi's request and occasionally greeted each other at the house. In 1991 they spoke in a friendly way about various topics.(Soon Yi 20 years)
3.- In September of 1991 Soon-Yi entered Drew University and began to speak with Allen daily by telephone. (Soon-Yi 21 years)
4.-  In  December  of  1991  Allen  and  Soon  Yi  started  a  sexual relationship.(Soon Yi 21 years)

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.

The third, that this relationship has led to a marriage that has lasted 25 years and in which they have adopted and raised two girls and Soon Yi has developed her own independent career. Despite all the previous points, if Allen had left Soon Yi in 1995 and spent the last 25 years jumping from girl to girl I could not say in his defense that he fell in love with Soon Yi, but the fact is that they have shared all These years together and everything indicates that, indeed, he fell madly in love with her.
Those emails featured talking points ready-made to be converted into stories, complete with validators on offer — therapists, lawyers, friends, anyone willing to label a young woman confronting a powerful man as crazy, coached, vindictive. At first, they linked to blogs, then to high-profile outlets repeating the talking points — a self-perpetuating spin machine.

The truth is that everything sounds very impressive, but it is absurd. It is enough to verify the lack of response from that "machinery", for example, to the very poorly founded and highly biased works of Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair. Zero.

I believe my sister. This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father's strange behavior around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behavior that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations.
Ronan, since you were three years old, your father only saw Dylan on supervised visits. You can not remember anything from when you were five years old, because by then your father had not seen your sister at all for months. He stopped seeing her when you were four years old. You do not remember your father climbing into your sister's bed, because Allen did not even live in the same house. Allen was sleeping in his apartment on the other side of Central Park, he was not there at night climbing up on any bed.

On the other hand, please, Ronan, think a little. Let's forget that you can not remember any of that. Just think a little; Do you think a pedophile secretly sneaks into a child's room in the middle of the night and climbs onto her bed to force her to suck his thumb? Do not you realize that this memory that you have, besides being false, is absurd?

You father was not on theraphy focused on inappropiate concuct with children. You just have to read Wilk's court ruling to prove that none of the therapists mentioned were your father's therapist.

But more importantly, I've approached the case as an attorney and a reporter, and found her allegations to be credible. The facts are persuasive and well documented. I won't list them again here, but most have been meticulously reported by journalist Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair.

The facts that Ronan mentions are neither well documented nor persuasive. The place where the facts were thoroughly examined and documented was the ward of the custody trial and, as we have seen, the result of this detailed analysis was that Allen's behavior with Dylan was not abusive and that the inappropriateness of the relationship it had nothing to do with behaviors of a sexual nature or inappropriate touching. Regarding the general reliability and the "meticulousness" of Orth's work, I refer to:


The only final legal disposition is a custody ruling that found Woody Allen's behavior "grossly inappropriate" and stressed that "measures must be taken to protect [Dylan]."

As we have seen, Allen's inappropriate behavior means that he made excessive demands on the child's time and not that there was any kind of abusive behavior, any kind of inappropriate touching. In relation to the allegations of sexual abuse what the sentence says is:

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.

On May 4, The Hollywood Reporter published a cover interview with Woody Allen, quirky auteur. To me it is a sterling example of how not to talk about sexual assault. Dylan's allegations are never raised in the interview and receive only a parenthetical mention — an inaccurate reference to charges being "dropped." THR later issued a correction: "not pursued."

There was lack of evidence even for starting a prosecution

The correction points to what makes Allen, Cosby and other powerful men so difficult to cover. The allegations were never backed by a criminal conviction. This is important. It should always be noted. But it is not an excuse for the press to silence victims, to never interrogate allegations. Indeed, it makes our role more important when the legal system so often fails the vulnerable as they face off against the powerful.

The press should not silence the victims, but neither should it falsify the facts and it can not become a speaker of twisted facts and falsehoods. That an accused being rich or famous does not mean that he is guilty, if the journalist carries out his investigative work, he can discriminate between well-founded and unfounded allegations. The problem arises when it does not do so and substitutes the investigation for personal interest
Here is exactly what charges not being pursued looked like in my sister's case in 1993: The prosecutor met with my mother and sister. Dylan already was deeply traumatized — by the assault and the subsequent legal battle that forced her to repeat the story over and over again. (And she did tell her story repeatedly, without inconsistency, despite the emotional toll it took on her.)

Ronan invents some facts and misrepresents others. That is the problem when the press - the journalist - instead of investigating becomes an uncritical supporter of a cause. We know from the judicial investigation that Dylan was not traumatized by the alleged abuses and that she told the story without any kind of emotional involvement. Independent judicial expert Dr. Brodzinsky determined that Dylan was victimized by the loss of her sister, not by the alleged abuses. We also know that Dylan told her story of great inconsistencies that affected core elements of the alleged aggression, sometimes denying the abuses, sometimes narrating different abuses, which were reflected in the Yale New Haven report and recognized by the appeal ruling. .According to the report:

There were important inconsistencies between Dylan's statements recorded by her 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 in the third session 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 she mentioned the abuse she 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:

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 (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.
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 her 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”

The longer that battle, the more grotesque the media circus surrounding my family grew. My mother and the prosecutor decided not to subject my sister to more years of mayhem. In a rare step, the prosecutor announced publicly that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Allen, and attributed the decision not to do so to "the fragility of the child victim."

Similar  statements are  repeated every time reference is made to the decision not to take a criminal action against Woody Allen, causing the impression that the prosecutor considered that he had sufficient evidence that Allen had abused Dylan but did not undertake the criminal prosecution so as not to force harm to the girl by forcing her to testify. Frank Maco himself has encouraged this interpretation every time he has had access to a means of communication, and Ronan Farrow is doing the same. However, the reality is more complex and the true reasons alleged by Maco actually lead to a totally different conclusion from the one that Ronan tell us.

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 proved, 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 criminal proceeding that is impossible to win.

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.

My mother still feels it was the only choice she could make to protect her daughter. But it is ironic: My mother's decision to place Dylan's well-being above all else became a means for Woody Allen to smear them both.

As Frank Maco said:
I have conferred with the child and her mother they concur with my decision. Even if the mother disapproved of my decision, I would still hold to my decision to spare the victim, knowing that my responsibility and duty in that regard extends to the child-complainant alone.
If Frank Maco said the truth, your mother had no choice. She had no choice because Frank Maco knew that it was a questionable prosecution; that not even in a custody case was able to prove any kind of abuses.

Very often, women with allegations do not or cannot bring charges. Very often, those who do come forward pay dearly, facing off against a justice system and a culture designed to take them to pieces. A reporter's role isn't to carry water for those women. But it is our obligation to include the facts, and to take them seriously. Sometimes, we're the only ones who can play that role.

That’s right: include the facts and take them seriously. The facts were included and were taken very seriously in 1.992, and you are not even able to recognize that the very same Frank Maco said that the prosecution would be questionable, that he was aware that there was evidence that would not have the same probative force that they had in the custody case. You fail to include the judge Wilk´s conclusion about the alleged abuses. You falsify reality and facts by mixing facts that have never been investigated with those related to your sister's accusations, which were carefully and thoroughly examined 25 years ago.

(…)But the old-school media's slow evolution has helped to create a culture of impunity and silence. Amazon paid millions to work with Woody Allen, bankrolling a new series and film. Actors, including some I admire greatly, continue to line up to star in his movies. "It's not personal," one once told me. But it hurts my sister every time one of her heroes like Louis C.K., or a star her age, like Miley Cyrus, works with Woody Allen. Personal is exactly what it is — for my sister, and for women everywhere with allegations of sexual assault that have never been vindicated by a conviction.

Let's circumscribe ourselves to the case of Woody Allen. The allegations of abuse were investigated 25 years ago and while the professionals concluded that no abuses had occurred, the prosecutor left to undertake a questionable prosecution without possibility of obtaining a conviction and the custody judge, in a procedural environment in which there is no need to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he concluded that Allen's behavior was not abusive before August 4 and that he could not be sure that it was conclusively proven that the abuses had not occurred. Dylan can not be taken as a personal thing that someone works with your father, legally the case was closed 25 years ago and if you want to reproach someone, you would have to open it. Which she has not done. As Michael Caine said
Would I work with Woody Allen again? I see that he’s been accused of child abuse. If that’s true, I wouldn’t. No. But I mean, I read it, but there doesn’t seem to be any trials or anything

Tonight, the Cannes Film Festival kicks off with a new Woody Allen film. There will be press conferences and a red-carpet walk by my father and his wife (my sister). He'll have his stars at his side — Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, Jesse Eisenberg. They can trust that the press won't ask them the tough questions. It's not the time, it's not the place, it's just not done.
That kind of silence isn't just wrong. It's dangerous. It sends a message to victims that it's not worth the anguish of coming forward. It sends a message about who we are as a society, what we'll overlook, who we'll ignore, who matters and who doesn't.
What is wrong, what is seriously unfair is to continue comparing the cases of people who have not been able to access justice or obtain a fair investigation of their complaints with the case of Dylan Farrow. What is wrong, what is dangerous, is that the people who count the supports and the sufficient means to bring those who accuse before justice refuse to do it. What example, what message does it send to the victims and to society? As a society, we can not allow the idea that the accusations should be resolved outside the courts of justice. The rights of the victims are only protected in the countries where the principles of Western democracy are effective, the due process and the presumption of innocence among them. There is no state in the world without these guarantees in which the rights of vulnerable victims are more and better protected. Or is it that China, Iran, North Korea or Egypt better protect victims of abuse? Weakening the foundations of the system, the only system in the history of humanity, which allows the protection of victims is something that we can not afford if we want to maintain it. Is there someone who wants to lose it ?.

We are witnessing a sea change in how we talk about sexual assault and abuse. But there is more work to do to build a culture where women like my sister are no longer treated as if they are invisible. It’s time to ask some hard questions.
The issue with your sister is that she has never been treated as if she were invisible. No one can deny the need to end sexual harassment in the cinema and in all sectors of activity, but the victims are not "women like your sister". As for your sister's case, the difficult questions do not even ask you to make them, I have many suggestions but I'm just going to give you one. Have you thought about asking something to Manzie Tio Allen and Bechet Dumaine Allen, or are they invisible to you?