ALLEN V. FARROW You Don't Know What You Think You Know.
ALLEN V. FARROW
You Don't Know What You Think You
Know:
So imagine this: you’ve seen a
four-hour documentary on the Woody Allen case; you’ve read countless articles
in print; you’ve read endless posts on various social networks and you’re now
convinced that at last you have a clear idea of what happened, and that HBO’s
Allen v Farrow has helped to clarify
the facts.
Unfortunately, this is not the
case. I'm sure you've heard that the makers of Allen v. Farrow decided not to invite Woody Allen, his son Moses
Farrow, or his wife Soon Yi Previn to participate in the “documentary,” or
anyone else defending Woody Allen's position, and that many say that’s the main
problem with the documentary. Unfortunately, this is not the case either.
Very briefly, in this piece we
are going to examine some statements made in Allen v Farrow, not with the versions that Woody Allen, his
experts, his witnesses or his friends gave, but with statements, narrations and
conclusions made by the friends, experts and witnesses supporting Mia Farrow.
If you want to know Woody Allen's version of events, do not continue reading, because you will not find that here.
We will mainly use Mia & Woody:
Love and Betrayal, the 1994 book
by Kristi Groteke, the nanny who took care of Dylan on August 4 and who
steadfastly remained by Mia Farrow's side throughout the trial; Mia Farrow’s
own 1997 memoir, What Falls Away; the
court’s decisions and conclusions; and the words of various people who remained
by Mia Farrow's side throughout the trial.
The most impressive novelty
in Allen
v Farrow are the notorious video recordings of the young Dylan Farrow, who
in July 1992 had just turned seven. Mia Farrow videotaped Dylan in 12 fragments,
with a duration of 15 minutes. The recording was made over a 24-hour period,
between August 5 & 6 of that year. While the makers of Allen v Farrow chose to
show only about three minutes of the recording, in 1992 the complete videotape
was examined by all experts who intervened in the case, including one hired by
Mia Farrow, Dr. Stephen Herman.
Dr Herman was Mia Farrow's hired
expert in 1992. When Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn were married in Venice in
1997, Dr. Herman made a public statement on behalf of Mia Farrow. He has an
open office in Connecticut just minutes from Mia Farrow's home and has
participated in the documentary Allen v
Farrow, though he is not asked anything about the videotape. His commitment
to Mia Farrow's cause is undeniable and has endured over three decades. So
what, you may ask, did Dr. Herman say in 1992 about Dylan's videotape?
Dr. Herman analyzed the videotape
and came to the conclusion that “it didn't help matters” and that in fact, “it
complicated matters.” More specifically, Dr. Herman highlighted that the way in
which Mia Farrow “had focused on specific questions could set a tone for a
child on how to answer." Based on statements made by Dr. Herman at trial,
the judge in the custody case stated in his decision that Mia Farrow's decision
to videotape Dylan, although understandable and commendable in his judgment,
had compromised the investigation of abuse.(1)
That the videotape did not constitute
reliable evidence of sexual abuse and that it had been done in a way that
influenced Dylan's testimony is not a conclusion of the “Woody Allen PR
apparatus,” nor of the experts hired by Woody Allen, nor of the experts at
Yale-New Haven. It was the conclusion of Dr Herman, the very expert hired by
Mia Farrow to testify on her behalf at trial.
I cannot say why in the
documentary Dr. Herman is not asked about the videotape that he viewed and
professionally assessed in 1992. In the documentary, the videotape is reviewed
by other professionals. However, according to Allen v Farrow researcher Amy Herdy, the videotape used in the
making of the documentary is about 11 minutes long, while the duration of the
tape analyzed in 1992 was 15 minutes. The documentary does not mention or
explain this difference. (2)
The fundamental thesis of Allen v Farrow is that in 1992, the
investigation proved Woody Allen had abused Dylan, and that only his power and
influence saved him from prosecution. We’re going to put this premise to the
test by briefly examining the evidence that existed in 1992 but we will focus
exclusively on the conclusions reached by professionals hired by Mia Farrow:
her attorney Eleanor Alter and the aforementioned Dr. Stephen Herman, an expert
in the field of Child Forensic Psychiatry.
Mia Farrow spent $1.6m on the
custody trial, and in this endeavor we can reasonably state that she hired
professionals who would best represent and defend her interests. Eleanor Alter
was one of the most important divorce attorneys. Some months before, she’d
appeared on Charlie Rose as one of
the most important (and most expensive) divorce attorneys in the USA. Not only
did she represent Mia Farrow, but they also went on to develop a friendship.
In her closing statement at the
custody trial, Alter admitted that it was possible there had been no sexual
abuse, but also that Dylan sincerely believed it had happened (3). A few weeks
later, when Judge Wilk's sentence was made public, Eleanor Alter explained her
conclusions in more detail to Charlie Rose: it was not possible to know if
there had been sexual abuse and everything could be a fantasy or a projection
of Dylan(4).
Dr. Herman told Judge Wilk that
"it could have happened, or it could not have happened,” and that it was
not possible to reach a conclusion. He didn’t say that the hypothesis that
there’d been abuse was more likely than the opposite. (5)
The two, both Alter and Herman,
stressed it would never be possible to know what had happened or even if something had happened. When it’s not
possible to know whether an allegation has happened, it must be rejected.
Without question, both Eleanor Alter and Dr Herman were saying that Dylan's
claim should be rejected.
Below, we will briefly examine
the conclusions of the custody trial regarding the allegation of abuse. The
custody judge, Elliot Wilk, was very critical of Woody Allen, and at the end of
the procedure, Mia Farrow changed the name of one of her children to honor him,
so we must conclude Wilk cannot be considered a friendly or close source to
Allen in any way.
In a custody trial in New York,
the judge may make a factual finding of sexual abuse with a minor's testimony
made out of court if there is any other evidence that tends to support the
reliability of the allegation. The standard of proof is the preponderance of
the evidence, and the law expressly establishes that the rules on admission of
evidence of the criminal jurisdiction will not be applied. The judge has great
freedom to assess whether the evidence supports the existence of abuse. (6)
While ultimately Judge Wilk
rejected the abuse allegation, he also concluded that he was not sure that the
evidence conclusively proved that there was
no abuse. Ultimately, there was no evidence that proved the reliability of the
accusation, so the allegation had to be rejected, but neither was it possible
to prove beyond any doubt that there was no abuse.(7) In any event, importantly,
the preponderance of the evidence supported the contention that there was no
abuse.
The appeals chamber also confirmed
that the evidence was inconclusive and that the allegation should be rejected.(8)
Finally, we will briefly review
the conclusions of Connecticut prosecutor Frank Maco in his statement of
decision of September 1993. Maco expressly acknowledged that choosing to
prosecute Woody Allen would be "questionable," (9) and that the evidence
available to him was essentially the same as that of Judge Wilk (10) and that Wilk
had rejected the allegation of abuse under a standard of proof much more
favorable to the prosecution than that of the criminal jurisdiction.(11) Maco goes
further and affirms that the nature of the evidence is fertile ground for the
defense and that the evidence would not have the same force in a criminal
procedure that it had in the custody procedure.(12)
In short, Maco does not criticize
Judge Wilk's assessment of the evidence, but praises it; at the same time, he
recognizes the evidence against Allen would not have probative force in a
criminal proceeding. Taking into account that Maco knows that the allegation
has been rejected in the custody trial, which means that it does not even reach
the preponderance of the evidence, it is evident that Maco knew that there was
no chance of obtaining a conviction.
Another point on which Allen v Farrow dwells is Woody Allen's
supposed obsession with Dylan, which, the filmmakers contend, led him to behave
inappropriately with her. To prove this, statements are seen and heard from
people close to Mia Farrow, including best friends and family. However, the
documentary neglects to mention that there were people privy to details of the
childrens’ daily lives who, while firmly on the side of Mia Farrow, reveal a
very different version of events.
Kristi Groteke was Dylan's
babysitter on the day the abuse allegedly happened. She had been hired the year
before and looked after the children, especially Dylan and Satchel, six days a
week. (13) Kristi was Mia Farrow's main domestic support throughout the trial, as
well as a key witness on August 4. When Kristi left her babysitting job, Mia Farrow
provided her with material to write a book. Kristi then wrote a book that “was
not intended as an objective account of
what happened,” but rather one where she “wanted to recount [my] observations
of how the Farrow family struggled to survive the devastation of Woody's
betrayal. I was in the midst of it all,
and even for me, a bystander, the toil
was terrible.”(14)
Kristi recounted in her book the
day to day events at Mia Farrow's Connecticut home and how Woody Allen behaved
when he visited the children. Mia often used this time when Woody was with the
children to do other things. “When Woody
came over during the day, he
would usually spend the entire afternoon with Satchel and Dylan, showering them with his
attention.(15) He was supportive and sweet.”(16) Kristi never witnessed anything inappropriate, and when Mia Farrow told her
that Woody Allen had abused a child (although she later referred to the Soon Yi
issue), Kristi couldn't even imagine who it was.
"What I wanted to tell you," she said, "is that Woody sexually abused one of the kids." She might as well have said "The Martians have landed." For a moment, I simply couldn't grasp the implications. Then I began to focus. And I wondered, Was it Satchel? Dylan? "Who?(17)
In fact, Kristi is very clear in her book: after one year of babysitting 6 days a week, she had no reason to suspect that Woody Allen might do something inappropriate to Dylan.
I didn't know any reason to be suspicious, nor did I really believe that Woody was capable of doing anything salacious" (17b)
Regarding the allegation of abuse,
Kristi said “to tell the truth, in my
heart I
hadn't the foggiest notion of whether or not that molestation ever took
place.”(18)
We
also know from Kristi Groteke that her babysitting partner, Monica Thompson,
sincerely thought from the first moment that nothing had happened to Dylan.(19)
Mavis Smith had been Mia Farrow's
housekeeper since 1979, when she came to New York, and before that she had been
the housekeeper for Mia’s mother, Maureen O’Sullivan. Smith expressly declared
before a judge that Woody Allen was a good father (20), and was recorded in a
telephone conversation held on 15 August - ten days after the abuse allegation
surfaced - saying that Mia Farrow was unfairly using the children in her battle
against Woody Allen, and that she [Smith] couldn't say anything, for fear of
losing her employment, and with nowhere else to go.(21) (22)
None of the people who cared for
the children on a daily basis, or who worked daily at Mia Farrow's home,
claimed to have witnessed any kind of inappropriate behavior by Allen with
Dylan.
In the documentary, Mia Farrow
explains how a famous psychiatrist who lived in her building called her to tell
her that there was something strange in the relationship between Allen and
Dylan, how she and Allen spoke with the psychiatrist and how she directed them
to a therapist who started to treat Allen.(23) This whole story is false, and we
know it from Mia Farrow's own testimony in 1992 and from what she herself
recounted in her 1997 memoir.
In her memoir, Farrow recounts
what she’d already said in 1992,(24) which also appears both in Kristi Groteke's
book (25) and in Maureen Orth's notorious Vanity
Fair piece (26). It was the same that she told to Juzge Wilk in Court and it was a findng of fact in the Court Ruling (27): in 1990, the couple sought out a therapist for Satchel and
selected child psychiatrist Dr. Susan Coates. Months later, they decided to
have Dr. Coates evaluate Dylan, and it was in the course of that evaluation that Mia Farrow first
commented to her that she was concerned about the intensity of the relationship
between Allen and Dylan.
Also in the documentary, a
witness tells us that she used to visit Mia Farrow's house in Connecticut every
day, and that Woody Allen was there from before Dylan woke up, until Dylan went
to bed.(28) They wish to convey that Allen was obsessed with the girl and was
always with her, that the girl was never left alone, that she couldn't even
play with other children because Allen was always present. However through
Kristi Groteke's book we know that when Mia Farrow
went to Connecticut on weekends Allen did not accompanied them; he stayed in New
York and if he visited them in Connecticut, he didn't spend the night there. And when Mia Farrow went to Connecticut for the summer or other long
periods, Allen went there just once or twice a week and never came before the kids were
up and going about their own activities. Allen arrived in the afternoon and did
not spend the night in Connecticut; he would always return to New York. That
afternoon that Woody Allen spent in Connecticut he spent with Dylan and
Satchel.(29)
Two of the most glaring omissions
in the documentary are interrelated, and they involve Dylan, Woody Allen and
Soon Yi. The first omission is not stating the conclusion of the judicial
investigation, that the relationship between Woody Allen and Soon Yi began in
December 1991.(30) In fact, the documentary tries to make the viewer believe that
the relationship between Allen and Soon Yi started when she was in high school.
This is false. To make the viewer believe it, they don’t limit themselves to
manufacturing biased and out of context testimonies, but they also omit the
conclusions of the judicial investigation and they also omit that Soon Yi was
20 years old in high school.(31)
The second omission is even more
glaring. The documentary fails to mention that in December 1992, Dylan told
police interviewers that she had seen a complete sexual relationship between
Woody Allen and Soon Yi in the "warm months" of 1991.(32) Dylan used
words like "penis," "vagina," she attached some anatomical
dolls and made a vivid account of the story, accompanied by comments and
valuations. "Daddies aren't
supposed to act like boyfriends." However, the relationship between Woody
Alen and Soon Yi did not begin until December 1991 and this meeting never took
place. (33) In fact, the adult Dylan Farrow doesn't seem to remember it at all (neither Ronan). No
one has explained how this story could arise, how and why a seven year old girl
described a sexual encounter that had not yet existed, as if it were something
she’d seen. Tellingly, the documentary decided to omit it completely.
While this is but a brief review,
there is ample further testimony from Mia Farrow's witnesses, medical experts
and attorneys that seriously question the narrative that the documentary
advances, and that’s precisely why
they’ve been omitted.
For example, Mia Farrow recounts
in her memoir that she changed her will so that Dylan would remain in Allen's
custody should she predecease him. (34) There’s also the matter of the proposal she
made to Allen to resolve the molestation matter privately, which Allen rejected
(which is confirmed in the testimony of Mia Farrow's lawyers)(35) (36); or the fact that
Mia decided on August 4 not to sign
the custody agreement BEFORE knowing anything about the abuse allegation (we
know this through Mia Farrow's attorney)(37); or that on August 1, Mia was thinking
that she should marry Allen, and that
he would become Dylan's father and live in the same house as the girl. Also
never explored is that the allegation of abuse arose from Allen's first visit
to the children after Mia Farrow learned that his relationship with Soon Yi was
still ongoing.
Finally, it must be noted that I
have not even cited ONE single witness or expert appointed by Woody Allen, not
even those appointed by the Connecticut prosecutor.
Do you think you know the story
after watching the documentary? You don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) We learn of these statements from Dr. Herman at trial through Mia Farrow's trusted babysitter, Kristi Groteke. In 1995 Kristi wrote a book with the material Mia Farrow had provided her. Mia Farrow not only told Kristi her version of her events, but she gave her access to trial transcripts and testimony statements that Farrow had collected. In her book, Kristi takes literally the conclusions of Dr. Herman on the videotape.
In his court ruling Wilk noted that Dr. Herman criticized the YNH team for concluding that there was no abuse when, in his judgment, the evidence was inconclusive. Wilk also expressly stated that the videotape made by Mia farrow had compromised the investigation of the allegation of abuse-
"Her decision to videotape Dylanñs statememnt´s, althougth inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable."
(2) Amy Herdy explained to the L.A. Times how they had watched the videotape together with Dylan, and she expressly points out that the duration of the videotape was roughly 11 minutes
However, in 1993 the experts analyzed the videotape and it was stated in court that the duration of the videotape was 15 minutes.
(4) Eleanor Alter expanded on this same issue in an interview conducted by Charlie Rose on June 7, immediately after Judge Wilk's court ruling was known.
Eleanor Alter en el programa de Charlie Rose el 7 de junio de 1.993.
Alter expressly pointed out that the allegation maybe a fantasy or projection of Dylan. Charlie Rose asked Eleanor Alter about her opinion and she categorically refuses to say that she believed there had been abuse and repeats that it could all be a fantasy or projection of Dylan.
In the same interview Eleanor alter told Charlie Rose that Wilk's court resolution was even better than what she expected, if the court resolution that dismissed the abuse allegation was better than Alter expected, it is clear that she did not expect, in no way, that the allegation of abuse be upheld.
(5) Dr. Herman was the expert hired by Mia Farrow and, even so, his expert testimony did not support the accusation; it is something absolutely extraordinary.
When an expert is hired to testify in a trial, it is not only that the expert is predisposed to testify in favor of whoever hires and pays him, but that among all the possible experts you choose the one who can best defend your interests in the trial. When the person who seeks and chooses an expert is someone like Mia Farrow, with sufficient influence and resources, you can be sure that she has used the best expert opinion to favor her procedural situation. If the expert hired by Mia Farrow did not support the accusation of sexual abuse, it can only be because they did not find any reputable expert who did ... and because Mia Farrow and Eleanor Alter agreed to bring in an expert who did not support the accusation of abuse.
(6) Virtually everything you need to know about the matter is in MATTER OF NICOLE V. 71 N.Y.2d 112 (1987).
In New York any Family Court can and must make a decision about child sexual abuse when there is an allegation of sexual abuse. The standard of proof that is needed to conclude that there is child sexual abuse in a Family Court is “preponderance of the evidence”, The usual rules of criminal evidence do not apply. Unsworn out-of-court statements of the alleguied victim may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect. In short: the corroboration requirements of the criminal law are not applicable to the Family Court,so and evidence of no value in a criminal or Civil Court can be used so the unsworn out-of-court statement of a child can be corroborated by any other evidence tending to support their reliability.
It is evident that these rules of evaluation of the evidence in the custody trial were known by the Judge, by the lawyers, and even by the prosecutor Frank Maco. All of them knew that for a factual finding of abuse, in order for the factual finding that Woody Allen had abused Dylan to be made, any other evidence that would tend to support the reliability of the allegation had to be presented at trial. Wilk dismissed the abuse allegation, Eleanor Alter did not expect a factual finding of sexual abuse to be made, and Frank Maco acknowledges that he analyzes Wilk's resolution and benefits from it in terms of the assessment of the evidence: all three knew that no evidence had been presented that would tend to prove the reliability of the abuse allegation.
(7) Wilk stated in his court ruling that he was less certain that the Yale-New Haven Tean "that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse"
(8)
"While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected"
(9)
"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"
(10)
"The arrest warrant application contains evidentiary information the majority of which was subject matter in the New York Supreme Court custody trial of ållen vs. Farrow."
(11)
"To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations were considered in Justice Wilk's decision of June 7, I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared to a criminal prosecution. (...) . For even Justice wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiarv standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred."
(12)
"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."
(13) "Within a week, my three-day kob became a five-six day assinment. That suit me fine."
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal, page 35.
(14) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 11.
(15) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 35.
(16) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 38.
(17) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 109.
(17b) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 79.
(18) Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 23.
(19)
" I asked her, "Monica, what happened? What's going on?" She shrugged and said, "I don't think anything happened. I think Mia is exaggerating. She's triying to make you feel bad for not staying with Dylan the entire day."
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 126.
Afterward, Kristi describes a short conversation with Monica Thompson. "Afterwards, Kristi describes a brief conversation with Monica Thompson on August 6, 1992, in the course of which Kristi "played dumb" and told Monica that on the 4th "I didn't remember leaving Dylan alone with Woody"
Beyond acknowledging how she had told Monica that she hadn't lost sight of Dylan on the 4th, Kristi's testimony shows us that after spending the 5th and 6th at the house with the Farrows, Monica Thompson honestly thought nothing had happened.
(20)
'"Do you think Mr. Allen was a good father?' Abramowitz asked her.
-'I think so,' Smith replied."
(...)
Allen's attorney Elkan Abramowitz read a portion of the transcript of the phone tape in which Allen asked Smith if in all the 13 years she had worked for Farrow she had ever seen him do anything sexual with his adopted daughter, Dylan, 7, whom he is alleged to have abused, or his biological son, Satchel, 5.
'Oh, God, no, never!' she was quoted on the tape. 'I'm an honest person. I can't lie against you.'
(21) "
'"Did you tell Allen you were afraid that if you told the truth you'd lose your job?' asked Abramowitz, after reading a quote from the transcript in which she asked Allen, 'If I give testimony against her, where do I stand? I have no job.'"
(22) Mavis Smith was taped 10 days after the allegation arose saying that Mia Farrow had been unfairly using the children in her cutody battle against Woody Allen.
(23) Allen v. Farrow, chapter 1.
"One day in our apartment building, there was a very famous psychiatrist. Her name was Ethel Person, I mean, much-printed, very respected therapist. Andshe called me, andshe said, "Mía, I saw something of Woody, the way he greeted your daughter, Dylan." And l'm like, "Yeah?" And she said, "There was something off." And l'm like... Then the floodgates opened for me.
The fact that she saw this, I thought that he would listen, you know, and that it would really mean something to him. So I asked, and he agreed to see a person she recommended.
The therapist told me that the behavior was inappropriate, but that it wasn't sexual. It could be perceived as sexual by others, by me, and even by the child. But it wasn't sexual. It was just that he had never been around children, and that it was his way of expressing affection, and that he must leam how to behave with a child. And when he would do things, the therapist told me to say, "Could you not do that?" And he then would just say, "I, you know, was showing affection. Never for a second was any of it sexualj" And he relieved my anxiety by saying, "You know, you're right. "When you see something like that, it's good ifyou tell me, and I won't get mad at you anymore." And I felt it was under control."
(24) In her memoir, "What falls way", published in 1997 Mia Farrow told a totally different story in which Dr. Person had no involvement. There was also no recommendation that Woody Allen see a therapist, nor did Allen go to any psychologist, nor was it ever said that his behavior could be perceived as sexual.
"A psychologist who was already helping another child in the family (Woodv believed everyone would benefit from therapy) witnessed only one brief greeting between Woodv and Dylan, but it was enough for her to mention it to me, and express her concern that Woody's attitude was "inappropriately intense, becanse it excluded everybody else; and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child."
"That was nothing." I told the therapist, and the years of fear, disbelief, silence, and denial welled into words. I told her all of it, and I prayed she would be able to help.
To my great relief, the therapist began to work with Woodv, to help him to imderstand that his behavior with Dylan was "inappropriate" and li
had to be modified. Now many of the things that had so disturbed me seemed to improve. She made him stop putting his hands under Dylan's covers, stop putting his face on her lap, stop the constant caressing, stop hunting Dylan down, stop having her sucking his thumb.
Although the therapist addressed the specifics, she was unable to modify the overall wooing quality of Woody's approaches, his own neediness expressing itself to Dylan. And if I left a room with Woody and Dylan in it, when I returned, I was still likely to find him doing those same things again.
At least now, when he got mad at me, he was more likely to come around later and say, "Look, I'm reallv sorry. You're right to tell me when this kind of thing happens. Just tell me. It’s ok."
At any rate, Satchel entered a course of therapy with Dr.Coates, a gender-identity specialist, (...)Shortly afterward the couple asked Dr. Susan Coates to evaluate Dylan. The little girl was unusually shy, they both agreed. In addition, claimed Woody, "She was having problems distinguishing between fantasy and reality." Mia ftercely disputes this. "I never saw such a problem with her," she told me, pointing out that it was something Woody put into the shrinks' heads.At the time that Dylan went in for her evaluation, Mia told Dr. Coates that she worried about Mr. A]len's behavior toward the child. Dr. Coates had an occasional chance to observe it in person. Once she was at the apartment when Woody greeted Dylan, who had just come home from school, and, as Mia tells it, the doctor expressed concern to Mia.
(26) In her Vanity Fair piece Maureen Orth also told the story without Dr. Person..
"Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia´s apartament to work with one of her other children, has only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woody´s agreeing to address the issue througth consueling."
(27) As a resolt of the testimony of Mia Farrow in Court, judge Wilk stated in his court ruling:
In June 1990, the parties became concerned with Satchel's behavior and took him to see Dr. Coates, with whom he then began treatment. At Dr. Coates' request, both parents participated in Satchel's treatment. In the fall of .1990, the parties asked Dr. Coates to evaluate Dylan to determine if she needed therapy. During the course of the evaluation, Ms. Farrow expressed her concern to Dr. Coates that Mr. Allen's behavior with Dylan was not appropriate.
(28)
Allen v. Farrow
Priscilla Gilman: I first met Mia and Dylan and Ronan in 1987, when I started dating Matthew, one of Mia's oldest sons. And I started going over there every afternoon and spending evenings with them, even without Matthew. So, I became extremely close to those little kids. (overlapping chatter) (indistinct singing)
♪ ♪
Dylan: Priscilla definitely, you know, formed a very close bond with the family. She was just there all the time. She was practically another sister.
(children chattering)
Priscilla Gilman: When I would go over there, I would feel, oh, like I'm immersed in this bustling, warm, diverse, loving family. And there was lots of laughter, and funny stories. And Woody was there every morning before the kids woke up. He was there every night until they went to sleep. I thought he was a great father.
Priscil Gilman's testimony attempts to give the impression that Woody Allen was obsessed with Dylan. That Allen was there "every morning before the kids woke up" and "every night until they went to sleep".
Of course, several problems arise. The first one that Priscilla herself tells us that she went to Mia Farrow's house "every afternoon," so she didn't know if Woody Allen had been in the house before the children wake up. Priscila is not narrating what she saw, but what she has been told. The second, that what Priscila says is not true.In fact, accordin to Kristi Groteke Priscilla used to be with the family just on weekend and with her boyfriend Matthew
The older kids, Matthew and Sascha, both twenty-one at the time, their girlfriends Priscilla Gilman and Carrie Englander, and Soon-Yi, nineteen back then, came up most weekends too.
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 42
In fact, almost everything Priscila says is false and the testimony of Krtisti Groteke is good proof of it, as we will also see below.
(29)
It was in keeping with the rest of their arrangement that he only come up to Bridgewater two days a week, usually returning the same night.
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 43
On Sunday nights during the school year of 1990 and 1991, she pointed out, when she returned from Connecticut, Woody would be in her apartment, watching basketball games on TV, often together with Soon-Yi, although he had Lever ever waited at Mia's house for her to return from Connecticut before.
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 97
Woody only occasionally spent the night at Frog Hollow. was never really at home in the country.
Mia & Woody. Love and Betrayal. page 41
(30) "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."
197 A.D.2d 327 (1994)
Woody Allen, Appellant, v. Maria V. Farrow, Also Known as Mia Farrow, Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
May 12, 1994
"The beneficiary, Soon Hee Oh, aka Soon Yi Oh, is a native and citizen of Korea with a presumptive birth date of October 8, 1.970"(...)"... the beneficiary was transferred to the care of St. Paul's Orphanage, at 1-76, Myung-Dong 2-ka, Choong-ku, in Seoul, where she currently lives. The Seoul Family Court established a Family Census Register (legal birth document) in her behalf on Deecember 28. 1976, with a presumptive birth date of October 8, 1970."
"Dylan told detectives she was in Allen's Fifth Avenue apartment during the summer of 1991, when she peeked through a bedroom doorway and saw the 57-year-old filmmaker lying naked on top of Previn, then 20."I saw Daddy put his penis in Soon-Yi . . . ," Dylan told police, according to Farrow's lawyer. "They were making noises like snoring."(...)
Dylan replied by explaining how she and 5-year-old Satchel Allen once saw Allen and Previn embracing on the terrace of his Fifth Avenue apartment. Dylan told police that Allen and Previn then went into a bedroom and told her to "go away, we want some privacy."But Dylan said she returned, and watched their their sexual encounter from outside the room."Daddies don't do this," she told police, according to the statement. "Daddies aren't supposed to act like boyfriends." "Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.Dylan Saw It All 7-year-old says she watched Woody, Soon-Yihaving sex[CITY Edition]uthor: By David Kocieniewski. STAFFWRITERDate: Jan 13, 1993Start Page: 5Section: NEWS
"Woody Allen has sex with Soon Yi Previn, his ex-lover Mia Farrow´s daugther, whike his two youngest children wayched, Farrow´s lawyer charged in Court yerterday"(...)"...Alter reported that Dylan told Connecticut police that she watched Allen "put his penis inside Soon Yi´s vagina" while she and Satchel were in Allen´s Fifth Ave. apartament.(...)"Dylan told police she and Satchel were at Allen´s apartment during the warm weather months and saw Allen ad Previn hugging on the terrace..."Daily News (New York, New York) ·Saw dad, Soon Yi in bed: Woody kid.By Larry Hackett-Wed, Jan 13, 1993 · Page 277
On December 30, 1992, Dylan was interviewed by a representative of the Connecticut State Police. She told them— at a time Ms. Farrow calculates to be the fall of 1991—that while at Mr. Allen's apartment, she saw him and Soon-Yi having sex. Her reporting was childlike but graphic.
"... in 1990 he would suggest that I amend my will so that in the event of my death, the care and custody of all my minor children would be left to him. I thought it was a beautiful and brave and generous gesture for which I was immeasurably grateful. Immediately I redrafted my will"What Falls AwayMia Farrow
For child support, including household help: $17,000 a month until the youngest of the children turned 21, roughly $2.5 million factoring in inflation and interest. For tuition, assuming all three went to college: $800,000 to $900,000. Plus unspecified medical and, yes, psychiatric expenses. There might be a damage claim for Dylan, who had accused her father of molesting her. And some compensation for Mia Farrow, who'd earned $300,000 a year for her roles in Allen's annual films and was entitled to that sum for five to 10 years now that she was out of a job.(...)"I felt as if we'd been stabbed in the back," Dershowitz said. On the plane home to Cambridge, he began drafting an angry " letter that he faxed to Allen via his attorneys. "Frankly Woody, it was a stupid and destructive thing to do. It escalated matters at a time when there was a real potential for resolution," Dershowitz wrote in the letter, entered into evidence today. Again professing his regard for Allen's work, he wrote, "I do not want to see your career and your life destroyed. Right now you are on that road and something must be done to head it off" for everyone's sake. He is unsure whether Allen ever read the letter, but the meeting he proposed to try to avoid legal confrontation never took place, and Dershowitz abandoned his mediator role for that of Farrow's advocate.
The Washington PostDERSHOWITZ: WOODY WOULD NOT BUDGEBy Paula Span April 16, 1993
Alan Dershowitz: Sure, oh yeah. I think it was a pre-emptive effort to deflect attention away from what inevitably he believed was going to come out. I think he was wrong. I don't think it ever had to come out. If he had not filed that suit, I don't think anybody would know the story today and I think it would be resolved quietly behind the scenes.
"On August 4, just hours before the document was to be delivered to Allen and Farrow for signing, says Weltz, Farrow called him and says she had some disturbing news. Later, she would allegue that Allen had molested Dylan in the attic of her Connecticut home during his visit that day"
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario