THE INTERVIEW THAT WILL NEVER BE

 

THE INTERVIEW THAT WILL NEVER BE

I have allowed myself to make use of the questions Robert Weide answered in "The Interview that Never Happened" to give my own answer to those same questions, not because I think Robert Weide's answers are incorrect, but because I believe it is possible to pose the answers in another way. Obviously, no one will ever give me an interview on this subject, but perhaps for those who read it, my small contribution may help to shed some light on the issues raised.

Q: During the scandal -who had the louder PR machine? Mia or Woody? Or were they equally strong?

 That is a question that anyone must be able to answer for themselves.

I'm going to pose ten fundamental questions about the facts regarding the allegation against Woody Allen and  two possible answers, and depending on which answer you choose - and which you think most of the public would choose - the answer to the original question will answer itself.

 

1.- Before August 4, 1992:

(a Woody Allen was in therapy with a psychologist for inappropriate behavior with Dylan

b) Woody Allen participated in therapy with his children and showed his desire to be an important part of their lives and improve his parental skills to be the best possible father,

 

2.- In relation to the YNH report, the courts concluded that:

(a) It was unreliable and should not be taken into consideration.

b) It should be taken into consideration to investigate the allegation of abuse.

 

3.- The prosecutor Frank Maco decided not to prosecute Woody Alllen  because:

(a) Although he thuoght he had sufficient evidence to prove Allen's guilt, he wanted to spare the child the rigors of a court proceeding.

b) The evidence against Woody Allen that the judge in the custody case had examined was essentially the same as what Maco had, and even in the custody trial, despite having a much more favorable standard of proof for the accusation than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the allegation had not been upheld. Maco acknowledged that the evidence would not even have the same probative force in a criminal proceeding and said it was unjustifiable to subject Dylan to the rigors and uncertanties of a "questionable prosecution".

 

4.- When Soon Yi started  her relationship with Woody Allen, she  was:

- 17 years old or younger.

- 21 years old

 

5.- Woody Allen had a parental role with the children of Andre Previn, Soon Yi among them

a) Yes. He was like father to all of them

b) No, he ignored them and did not raise or helped to raise any of them in any way.

 

6- Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi was made public:

a) By Woody Allen, probably in an attempt to divert attention from the abuse allegation.

b) By the Farrow family, even before the abuse allegation was made public.

 

7.- Dylan and Satchel's nannies, as well as domestic staff at Mia Farrow's home, stated that:

a) Woody Allen behaved inappropriately with  Dylan and that he only paid attention to  her and ignored Satchel.

b) Woody Allen was an attentive and loving father to both of them and played with both of them whenever he came to the house.

8.- The story told by Dylan has:

a) Remained constant and without variations or contradictions from day one until today.

b) Suffered  many changes and was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies from the outset.

9.- The expert hired by Mia Farrow in the custody trial concluded and stated in Court that

a) There was abuse or, at least ,it was very probable that there was abuse, and that the YNH team was biased against Mia Farrow and Dylan.

b) It was not possible to say if there was abuse or not and the YNH team was not biased.

 

10.- The expert hired by Mia Farrow in the custody trial concluded and stated in Court that

a)The videotape that Mia farrow made of Dylan was made ”in very sensitive manner” and it was very useful in order to know what really happened.

b) The videotape was made in a way that “set a tone for a child about how to answer” and it just complicated matters.

 

In every question above “a)” is wrong and “b)” is right. If you have answered “a)” to any of these questions, you have been led to the wrong conclusion in that specific issue, either by misinformation, or by a PR  team, or a combination of both.

If you have answered "a)" to most of the questions, your knowledge of the facts is based on false or seriously biased information. Whether this is the result of the action of a powerful PR team or your own bias is for you to determine but you can be sure that the PR team that influenced you is not that of Woody Allen.

And if you have answered all questions "b)"? Then you have a real idea of the facts and whether you have done so because of the influence of Woody Allen's PR stream or because of sources of information that have informed you correctly, it is up to you to find out.

 

What have you answered? 

Q: Instead of publicly railing against Allen, why can't Dylan simply pursue him legally again and bring sexual assault charges against him? (In the Deadline interview,1 Amy Ziering didn't seem to know why.)

 

This is an interesting point and one that urgently needs to be clarified. Dylan herself has stated publicly on several occasions that the statute of limitations prevents her from going to court, however this is not true. It is urgent to clarify this fact because it is such a notorious case that this false information may deter victims of sexual abuse who could go to court and do not do so because of the false perception that the statute of limitations prohibits them from doing so.

 The Statute of limitations for a civil action regarding damages caused for sexual abuse of a minor in Connecticut "is 30 years from the date such person attains the age of majority."

 As to a criminal case, In Connecticut, the kidnapping has no statute of limitations when is done with intent to inflict sexual abuse. “The act of taking the minor victim to the attic for the purpose of committing a sexual assault would be a kidnapping in the first degree for which there is no statute of limitations”, as the former Connecticut prosecutor Proloy K. Das stated.

 Victims of child sexual abuse in Connecticut should know this. So the issue is not only why Dylan is not legally prosecuting Allen, but why bogus excuses are being used to justify her not doing so even though it may create confusion for victims of child abuse in Connecticut.

I don't think there can be any doubt that nothing would damage Allen's reputation (and net worth) as much as a convicting court judgment. A criminal conviction would undoubtedly send him to jail for the rest of his life. Either one, civil or criminal, would be a definitive vindication for the Farrows. But to do so they would have to allow the story they tell to be truly investigated and all the falsehoods and omissions that can be spouted with impunity in the media to be checked in court. 

On the other hand, although it is something they have never publicly acknowledged, the certain and undoubted fact is that in the custody trial, Judge Wilk first and the appellate panel later concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was that there had been no abuse. With such rulings in a proceeding in which the evidence was examined first hand and in which as many as seven experts testified, including Mia Farrow's retained expert, Dr. Stephen Herman, and the independent expert appointed in the case to annul the adoptions, Dr. Brozinsky, it is very difficult to believe that any action has even the slightest chance of succeeding. In this regard, one should not forget the assessment of the evidence against Allen made by prosecutor Frank Maco, in several paragraphs of his 1993 statement of decision that everyone forgets to mention: 

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 evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred (…)

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.(…)

 This last paragraph is particularly telling considering that in the New York Supreme Court  custody case the allegation was dismissed. 

So, why don't they take legal action against Allen? The only answer I can give is that it is evident that they have good reasons for not allowing their version of the  story to be contradicted and they don't want their version of the facts to be confronted with the evidence. 

If it were otherwise, why lie about not being able to sue him?  

Q: Connecticut State Prosecutor Frank Maco calls the Yale New Haven Report "a runaway evaluation". Investigation notes were shredded, and the hospital allowed Woody Allen to announce the findings of the report at a press conference, and didn't hand it over to Maco. What's your take on all of this? Is it unusual in a child abuse case to interview the subject nine times (which Yale New Haven did)?

 

Let's start with the most elementary: the expectation created by the YNH Report was enormous, the prosecution itself and Mia Farrow's lawyers had been in charge of creating that expectation, some emphasizing that no decision would be taken until they had the report, and the others repeating that YNH were the best specialists in the country in the investigation of child sexual abuse and that their report would be conclusive. With dozens of reporters hovering around the area and waiting outside the Hospital I guess someone tried to bring some order so that they would not roam all over the hospital and get it over with as soon as possible. Allen made some brief statements and Mia Farrow made even briefer ones. I seem to recall that Eleanor Alter did as well. Of course, those responsible for handling the media at YNH had no access to or knowledge of the contents of the confidential Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Report, and if the outcome of the report had been otherwise, we would have seen Mia Farrow announce their findings from the steps of YNH.

On the other hand, before announcing the outcome of the report to Woody Allen and Mia Farrow jointly, YNH told the State Police. The police phoned Mia Farrow and told her that they already had the Yale New Haven team's findings. In other words, the State Police knew the outcome of the report before the parties did, and Mia Farrow knew the outcome of the report before Woody Allen did. This is one of the facts that became known following the publication of the book by the nanny, Kristy Groteke, who recounted in her memoir as:

On the evening of St. Patrick's Day, March 17, Mia's case received a huge blow when the Connecticut police telephoned Mia to inform her of the Yale report's findings. Basically, they told her, the Yale team had concluded that Dylan, had been making up the molestation story.

 This is not the testimony of someone close to Woody Allen or an enemy of Mia Farrow, it is the testimony of the person closest to Mia Farrow during those months and leaves no doubt that - quite contrary to what is claimed in the documentary - the last to have knowledge of the contents of the Report was Woody Allen, and the first the State Police.

The destruction of the notes with the incorporation of their contents into the report was part of YNH's protocols, which were perfectly well known to the prosecution and the State Police. As you can see, none of them have ever accused YNH of having violated their protocols in making the report. Moreover, the YNH sessions were conducted in rooms with one-way glass, and usually the police were observing the session on the other side of the mirror, possibly with YNH personnel or even Dr. Leventhal or the team member not participating in the session. That the sessions unfolded as narrated in the YNH report is beyond doubt. It is not just the testimony of the YNH team members, but if that were not the case the police officers observing the sessions would have noted it, and Frank Maco would have noted it and the Farrow's would have known it from the first call on St. Patrick's Day and it would have been all over the newspapers and internet forums for years.

 On the other hand, you may have noticed that the documentary makes reference to various interviews conducted with Dylan by social services etc... but at no time is there even an original note of those interviews. What the documentary shows on screen, in all cases, are reports prepared after the interview. In these cases, the documentary makers have no problem in giving value to these reports and praising their authors. The fact that there is no original note or, as in the case of Paul Williams, not even the context, the questions or the answers that give rise to his report, does not matter to them in the least (Paul Willaims is specially and highly praised in the documentary), It seems that the absence of original notes only worries the documentalists when they do not like the results of the report.

The same goes for the number of interviews.

Dylan was interviewed by his mother 12 times in a 24-hour period. Again, you don't have to resort to anyone close to Woody Allen to know that, at times, Mia Farrow gave the impression that she was looking forward to the incident. Kristi Groteke recorded in her book how at times it seemed that Mia Farrow looked like she was looking forward to the incident

Still, I had been puzzled by the vigilance with which Mia herself had been watching for signs of molestation; it had sometimes seemed as if she were willing the incident to happen

 If the nanny detected that "it seemed as if she was willing the incidente to happen" in the way Mia Farrow behaved, what could Dylan have detected? The videotape recorded by Mia Farrow was done in a way that "set a tone for a child about how to answer," as Mia Farrow's own retained expert, Dr. Stephen Herman, testified at trial. If the things Mia Farrow said and did while she had the camera on could "set a tone for a child about how to answer," what is it reasonable to think about what she said and did when the camera was off? In any event, no one seems to care that the allegation of abuse arose when Dylan was interviewed 12 times in a period of 24 in a manner that "set a tone for a child about how to answer" and by a person who at times gave the impression that she was wishing there was a report of abuse.

The Connecticut police also interviewed Dylan with anatomical dolls during the weekends after the allegation surfaced and through the end of December 1992. 10 interviews? 12? 16? What we do know is that, unlike YNH they used anatomical dolls. Dylan's recollection of interviews in which she was pressured and which she recalls with discomfort are from the Connecticut Police interviews, not YNH. Apparently these interviews ceased as soon as Dylan, made a statement concerning Woody Allen and Soon Yi that would be used to prevent Allen's visits with the child.

YNH conducted 9 interviews, as can be seen in the excerpts from the YNH report that the documentary shows the sessions essentially consisted of letting the child talk and tell the things that bothered her, or simply what she wanted to say, without pressuring her. Repeat interviews essentially have two problems, secondary victimization and possible alteration of testimony. Nothing in the transcripts of the sessions points to either (and it should be remembered that we have only seen what the documentary filmmakers wanted to show us). On the other hand, the first interview was conducted with Dylan on his mother's lap, and discrepancies and inconsistencies have already arisen since then. As can be seen in what the documentary has shown us, the team tried to resolve these contradictions and inconsistencies by favoring the child's free account. It is Dylan's free account that leads YNH to conclude that there was no abuse. Undoubtedly 9 sessions are a lot and today many fewer would be conducted, but contrary to what the documentary pretends Dylan's inconsistencies and contradictions do not arise as a consequence of the repetitions of the interviews, they arise from the very beginning.  From the very first one. On the other hand, the interference caused by the interviews simultaneously being conducted by the state police with anatomical dolls could only complicate matters.  Not to mention that on October 30 Dylan recanted and said that Woody “didn't do anything; nothing happened." She changed her testimony again later, but it is obvious that that if there had been only 7 interviews Dylan's complaints would be much greater.

Q: Maco backed away from the case because it hinged on the testimony of a 7-year old girl, not to mention he didn't want to put Dylan on the witness stand and traumatize her. Why would he bail from such an important case if he had a substantial amount of evidence?

Maco dropped the case because he had no evidence to pursue it. He knew this and acknowledged it in 1993, but Maco's reading of his statement of decision since then and the press in general seems to have been dictated by Mia Farrow's PR team. Maco himself seems more like a press agent for Mia Farrow than a State's Attorney. 

That Maco had no evidence to prosecute the case is clear from his own Statement of Decision, in which he expressly states that the prosecution of Woody Allen would be "questionable". Maco expressly says that he does not want to subject Dylan to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution. It is always pretended that Maco thought he had sufficient evidence to convict Allen but did not do so to protect Dylan. That is not true, and it is not true under the terms of his own written statement. 

I trust this decision will be received in the spirit in which it has been announced -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.

 

What does a "questionable prosecution" mean? Did Maco have something like "a substantial amount of evidence"? We can see it in his statamenet of decision.

Maco claims that he has examined both the evidence before the police and himself as State's Attorney, as well as all of the evidence collected in the New York custody case proceeding.

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.

 

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: although Justice Wilk was not as certain as the Yale~C1inic that abuse did not occur)

 

In addition to the arrest warrant application, I have reviewed volumes of New York Supreme Court transcripts, a deposition, investigative reports and medical evaluations.

These sentences, taken verbatim from Maco's statement, leave no room for doubt: Maco has examined all the evidence, both the arrest warrant and the custody trial. Maco expressly states that most of the arrest warrant evidence is in the custody trial and also acknowledges that even in the custody trial, with a much more favorable standard of proof for the prosecution, the allegation of abuse could not be upheld.

Let us pause for a moment. What does Maco mean by "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"? In the custody case the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, while in criminal trial the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The latter is much more difficult to achieve than the former and, obviously, if an allegation has failed to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, it is impossible for it to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Maco expressly says that he has "benefited" from Wilk's observations, but Wilk concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was that there was no abuse. Let's be clear, if in the custody trial Wilk concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is that there was no abuse, for a criminal trial to succeed one of two circumstances had to be present:

1/ That Maco had evidence other than what was in the custody trial and, among that evidence, there was some key evidence.

2/ Maco believed that Wilk had misappraised the evidence and that, in fact, the preponderance of the evidence at Wilk's trial was that there was abuse. In short, that Wilk was wrong and should have found that there was sexual abuse.

But Maco is very clear, not only does he expressly say that the bulk of the arrest warrant evidence is in the custody trial, but he praises and "benefits" from Wilk's assessment of the evidence.

It is clear that Maco did not believe he had proof even to achieve a "preponderance of the evidence" that there was abuse, let alone a doubt beyond a reasonable doubt. Maco further states

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.

 

Maco's problem is not the child's fragility, the problem is that he knows he has no proof.

1/ To get a conviction he needs to prove the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

2/ The custody trial has reviewed essentially the same evidence he has and dismissed the allegation of abuse on the basis of preponderance of the evidence.

3/ The evidence against Allen, which was not able to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard at the custody trial, would not have the same value at a criminal trial.

 

That is, and allow me the comparison. If preponderance of the evidence is a bottle that looks like it is just a little more than half full and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a bottle that looks almost completely full, Maco recognizes that his bottle, not only is less than half full, but that in a criminal trial he would still get a good squirt out of it. Maco knows perfectly well that his bottle is far from being even half full, and that is why it is a "questionable prosecution" and why he drops the case. That he blames Dylan's fragility for his decision is an act of pure cowardice that has haunted Dylan for years.

 

And now, let's forget a little bit about Frank Maco. We are talking about a case where the State's experts have concluded that the evidence conclusively shows there was no abuse, a custody judge has dismissed the allegation of abuse, and the expert hired by the alleged victim has testified in the custody case that the evidence is inconclusive and that the child was questioned by her mother in a way that "set a tone for a child about how to answer." If it wasn't Woody Allen's case and if I didn't have the Farrow's in front of it, not even in this Metoo era would anyone spend a minute debating the issue of the “substantial amount of evidence”.

Q: Pricilla Gilman and Mia's bestfriend Casey Pascal appear in the docuseries. Were the two ever  called as key witnesses or deposed? They offer eyewitness testimonies in the docuseries ofwhat occurred in the Connecticut house.

 Let me be clear: the testimonies of Gilman and Pascal, which we will examine in more detail later, are just a way to hide the fact that the docuseries does not present in support of its thesis any statements from the people who actually spent all day at the Farrow home, taking care of the children and the house. The nannies and domestic staff at Mia Farrow's home; Kristi Groteke, Monica Thompson and the housekeeper, Mavis Smith.

Mavis Smith had been Mia Farrow's housekeeper since she arrived in New York, and had been housekeeper to her mother Maureen O'sullivan before her. Monica Thompson had been Dylan's nanny-and then Satchel's as well-practically since Dylan's adoption, and Kristi Groteke had been hired in the summer of 1991 and cared for the children five to six days a week. They, unlike Gilman and Pascal, were in the house on a daily basis and were - especially the nannies - in charge of watching over the children and paying attention to them. If Woody Allen had had the kind of behavior that the documentary pretends, they would have detected it. However, all three agree that Woody Allen behaved like a good father, that when he came to the house he played with Dylan and Satchel (with both of them, without any kind of "obsession" for the girl) and that, in fact, he was a good father. That was the testimony of the caregivers who were at the Farrow home every day (one five days a week, one six). Since that testimony does not fit the Farrow story or the docuseries, it is omitted. The viewer never gets to know that these people had far more daily contact with the family than anyone else, and certainly never gets to know what they testified to. The testimony of those who could actually tell what was going on in the Connecticut house is obscured and replaced by that of close friends of Mia Farrow's

Casey Pascal testified at the trial; as far as I know, Priscila Gilman did not and you will allow me to comment very briefly on her testimony in the docuseries. Perhaps Gilman's most extraordinary testimony is the one about how she claims to have seen Woody Allen, with total normality and in the middle of the house, allow Dylan to suck his thumb, however:

1/ In 1992 Dylan was interviewed many times about her father and the way Woody Allen behaved with her, and she never said anything like this, she never said she sucked his thumb.

2/ Neither the children's nannies nor Mia Farrow's household staff - nor Mia Farrow herself - ever saw anything like this. If Woody Allen allowed Dylan to suck his thumb in the middle of the house, with total naturalness and even with Pricilla Gilman present, it is strange that no one else ever saw anything similar,

3/ Neither at the trial, nor in her memoirs published in 1997, did Mia Farrow say anything that could relate to an incident like this. Did Priscilla Gilman see something like this and not tell Mia Farrow about it for the next seven years? We're talking about a girl who developed an extraordinarily intense relationship with Mia Farrow (she calls her, her "soul mother"), who is the daughter of the agent who published Mia Farrow's memoir and who was interviewed by Maureen Orth for her piece And she never told despite knowing about the controversy? 

It is hard to believe, and even harder to believe when you see that Gilman is used in the documentary to introduce falsehoods about the facts. As a brief example:

1/ It is false that Gilman visited the Connecticut house every day, as she claims

2/ Woody Allen visited the children in Connecticut a couple of days a week, arriving around noon or in the afternoon, it is absolutely false - as Gilman states in the documentary - that he was there every day from the time Dylan got up until she went to bed.

3/ Gilman says in the documentary that when Woody Allen gave the press conference in which he confessed his relationship and love for Soon Yi everyone was shocked because everyone thought that their relationship had ended months ago. It is false. Mia Farrow knew from August 1 (three days before the abuse allegation surfaced) that the relationship between Woody Allen and Soon Yi was continuing. Gilman is lying and all the Farrow contributors to the documentary know she is lying, and Mia Farrow in particular knows she is lying and it is impossible for the documentary makers not to know she is lying.

Why is Prisila Gilman lying? I don't know, but it is clear that her lies would not stand up in court, which may be one of the reasons the Farrow's are opting for a documentary rather than taking Woody Allen to court.

What can be said of Casey Pascal's testimony is not much different. In both cases, the issue is that the docuseries and the Farrow narrative have replaced the testimony of the people who were in the house every day and who took care of the children with the testimony of close friends of Mia Farrow's. Why? Because the testimony of those who did know the day-to-day life in the house does not support the story they want to sell us. 

Q: After the Yale New Haven's investigation found Dylan accusations uncredible; that she couldn't distinguish between reality andfantasy, as well as believing that she was coached by Mia Farrow — the NYC Child Welfare investigation by Paul Williams believed there was enough credible evidence to bring a prima facie case against Alien. Williams wasfiredfrom the department for not staying quiet about the case, and it was reported that the protection of Alien went all the way to the NYC mayor's office. Williams' own attomey Bruce Barón says “There was a strong political climate to shut things down". What do you know about this? Given that Woody put NYC filmmaking on the map -  did he or his lawyer Elkan Abramowitz have a lot of sway and power in the city?

 

The first thing that is necessary in order to answer that question is to establish the difference between a prima facie impression from a caseworker who is not a child abuse expert and the result of a full investigation by a team of specialists. The prima facie impression of the caseworker means that he thinks that the allegation needs to be investigated. The experts did the full investigation that must be done after a prima facie impression by a caseworker or a social worker. The investigation was conducted by the YNH team and they concluded that there was no abuse. It is not possible to compare one thing with the other, however you are right that that is what the documentary intends, that as much or more value is given to the prima facie impression of a caseworker than to the result of the investigation by the specialists. It is absolutely nonsensical. The most scandalous thing is that the documentary makers apply a totally different criterion to Paul Williams and YNH. Thus, the only thing we know about the development of the Paul Willaims sessions is a brief note after his second session with Dylan that reads:

Additional comments and/or corrections to previus reports.

Dylan informed staff member that Mr Allen inserted his finger in her vagina on one occasion. According to Dylan, the alleged incident of sexual abuse occurred in the attic of mother's country home in Connecticut: more, the child disclosed to staff member that she was afraid of the alleged perpretator - Woody Allen. 

 

These are not original notes from the session. We don't  know how the statement came about, whether it was in response to a question - or what question. We don't even know if the caseworker was the one who posed the question or if it was a spontaneous account by Dylan, Was Mia Farrow present? We know nothing. Yet all that is criticism of YNH is praise for Paul Williams. All that is doubt about the work of a team of three experts working in a room with one-way glass and with the police in the other room is blind faith when it comes to a single person conducting the interview alone (or with Mia Farrow present), taking or leaving no notes of the interview and - unlike YNH - not incorporating them into his report. By what objective standard can one question YNH's investigation and praise Paul Williams's? By what standard can one claim to give preference to the latter over the former?

On the other hand, Williams was heavily criticized by Judge Wilk. Wilk didn't understand that since the investigation of the abuse allegation was under Connecticut jurisdiction, someone in NY would repeatedly interview the girl about it. In short, what did Paul Willaims intend to do with his investigation? Advise the Connecticut prosecutor that he thought there was prima facie evidence for an investigation? The Connecticut prosecutor was already investigating. Was he planning to move the case to Family Court? But the case was already in Family Court as a result of the custody case before Paul Williams started his investigation. Why have the child go through a new investigation if there was already a criminal investigation underway and the case was already in Family Court? Judge Wilk didn't understand and Williams was unable to explain it to him. Eleanor Alter stepped in to explain that what Williams was investigating was not the allegation of abuse, since that investigation belonged in Connecticut, that what Willaims was investigating were other minor allegations made by Mia Farrow. But Wilk told them that was not what the caseworker was testifying to and that, in short, they were dodging answering his questions.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that when the social services investigation had not yet been closed Paul Williams attended a party throw by Mia Farrow, as a guest of Mia Farrow. It doesn't seem too appropriate, let alone a guarantee of independence and objectivity. In the height of incongruity, he went to celebrate a court ruling that dismissed the allegation of abuse that he claimed to believe to be true. If, as the docuseries says, he only cared about the child, what was there to celebrate? Otherwise, just imagine what the docuseries, and the Farrows, and yourselves, would say if Dr. Leventhal had attended a party hosted by Woody Allen before the investigation was closed (or after, or sometime in the last 50 years -the 20 before and the 30 after the investigation-).

Of course, Woody Allen did not have that kind of influence in New York. In fact, without any doubt his influence was far inferior to that of, say, Frank Sinatra, and does anyone doubt that, in addition to breaking legs, the old blue-eyed was willing to make a couple of phone calls? Mia Farrow had solved the small problem of there being a congressional law preventing her from adopting more foreign children with a phone call, Woody Allen lacked those kinds of contacts and no one has ever pointed to any example of a similar exercise of power and influence.

 Woody Allen was a semi-independent filmmaker who had gained some prestige with his work but whose recordings did not provide significant resources to the city and whose box office results could not compare to those of many other American directors. It cannot be ruled out, and it seems most likely, that someone in the Social Services department shared the criteria of Judge Wilk -who cannot be accused of being favorable to Woody Allen in any way- and Williams' refusal to follow the indications in that sense caused the problems between the caseworker and the Social Services that employed him. It cannot be forgotten that, despite the total confidentiality that must prevail in investigations, Williams made statements to the press and spoke publicly about the case.

In short, when Paul Williams' performance was so harshly criticized by Judge Wilk, when Wilk went so far as to say that in his own courtroom Williams was not answering his questions about the investigation, how must Williams' superiors who asked the same questions have felt? You didn't have to be a Woody Allen supporter or want to hide anything in the case to be very clear that Williams was acting inappropriately and not in the best interest of the child. Wilk clearly came to that conclusion, but the documentarians hide that fact from us because that would mean that the actions of the Department of Social Services were not the result of any conspiracy, nor of hidden Woody Allen supporters in "high places," but of Williams' own strange behavior for which he was unable to give a reasonable explanation, not even to the judge in the case. 

Q: Mia Farrow says in episode 3, "Woody could control the Yale people, and control somehow New York..." She says he told her 'It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what is believed." Do you believe these statements?

It is absolute nonsense.

We are talking about an allegation that Mia Farrow's retained expert, Dr. Stephen Herman, concluded that it was not possible to know whether abuse had happened that the evidence was inconclusive and that Mia Farrow had interviewed Dylan in a way that "set a tone for a child about how to answer". An allegation regarding which Mia Farrow's attorney, Eleanor Alter, stated that it was possible that it was all Dylan's fantasy or projection. A videotape in respect of which, once again Dr. Herman, pointed out that it did not help matters, that it complicated matters. In short, we are talking about an allegation of abuse that according to the terms of the expert's and the Farrow's lawyer's statements should be dismissed Were they also controlled by Woody Allen?

 

Leaving aside that it was Mia Farrow, not Woody Allen, who had personal relationships outside the investigation with people responsible for the investigation, the fact remains that even without taking into account YNH and having heard Paul Williams' statement, Judge Wilk dismissed the allegation of abuse, was he also controlled by Woody Allen?

This is simply a smear campaign, and the perfect implementation of the principle 'It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what is believed." I don't know who originally said the expression, but I know who has put it into practice to perfection. 

Q: The docuseries purports that Woody was with Dylan for 20 minutes in the attic; that's where he molested her. Can you comment on this?

There are a few things to remember. 

First, that Moses Farrow was 14 years old at the time of the events and has stated that this did not happen, that he kept track of Dylan and Woody Allen's whereabouts during the brief period between Allen's arrival and Mia Farrow's arrival and Allen was never alone with the girl . Second, that no trace of Woody Allen was found in the crawl space, even though it was thoroughly searched by the police. We are talking about a crawl space that an adult person must crawl into, remain seated, kneeling or half lying on the floor, and crawl back out. When Mia Farrow filed the complaint through the pediatrician the police told her that they were going to proceed to arrest Woody Allen, but they traced the crawl space and that arrest never took place. Can an adult person leave no trace of himself or his clothes in the circumstances described?  It seems clear that the police were certain to find traces in the crawl space that would allow them to confirm Dylan's story, but those traces did not turn up. In fact, there is no record that any trace of Woody Allen was found either in the crawl space or in any of the doors that had to be opened and closed to gain access to it. No one in the house saw them go up or down the stairs, nor did they go anywhere on their own, nor did they leave the house on their own.

The day after the allegation arose, Kristi Groteke told the other nanny, Monica Thompson, that she had not let Dylan out of her sight that afternoon. The version that the two nannies gave of this conversation is different. According to Monica Thopson, Kristi not only confirmed that she had not lost sight of Dylan, but that "She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen". In her version of the conversation, Kristi only confirmed that she said she had not lost sight of Dylan. 

Kristi Groteke herself relates in her book that it was only after all the nannies (and Casey Pascal, apparently) got together after the 6th and retracing their steps that they realized there had been a period of about 15 to 20 minutes when Dylan was out of sight of any of them. Leaving aside the difficulty of putting three witnesses together and calculating times when none of them was able to give a specific time for any event, it is highly irregular for three witnesses (four, with Casey Pascal) to come together to pool their testimony before giving it to the authorities. The alleged 20 minutes (we'll come back to that later) is not something the nannies became aware of on August 4, nor something that arose in a spontaneous narrative in the course of the police investigation. 

In any event, in their first statement to the police (after having "retraced their stteps) the nannies indicated that about 20 minutes elapsed between Woody Allen's arrival at the house and Mia Farrow's subsequent arrival and that they could not account for Allen and Dylan's whereabouts for 10 of those 20 minutes (on this point, the police records contradict what Kristi says in her memoir: the nannies' first conclusion after retracing their steps was about 10 minutes, not 15 or 20. Apparently, when it was alleged that Allen had had a  phone call and that the time at which Allison Stikland had claimed to have seen Allen and Dylan in the TV room was also in that period (all of which reduced the alleged 10 minutes of disappearance to virtually nothing), the nannies' time estimate changed and the time at which they estimated they had not seen Allen and Dylan went from 10 minutes to 20 minutes)

On the other hand, Kristi says she called for Dylan in every room of the house but when she couldn't find her she assumed she was out of the house and didn't look for her anymore. Leaving aside how absolutely extraordinary it is for a nanny to look for the child in her care and, not finding her, just assume she will be safe and well but somewhere else and stop looking for him; What is even more extraordinary is that she makes this assumption when the child's father is visiting, having express and direct instructions not to let him have unsupervised visits. It is necessary to emphasize that if Kristi had looked for and called Dylan in Mia Farrow's room, it is impossible that if Dylan was in the crawl space she would not have heard her (and it is very difficult to believe that Kristy herself did not hear the noise of the train running in the crawl space). On the other hand, if there really was an electric train set up in that crawl space that Dylan used to play with, how is it that Kristy "searched every room in the house" but did not look for the child in a place where she used to retreat to play? In Kristi Groteke's court testimony she makes no mention of any electric train in the crawl space that the children played with. Kristi describes to the judge what it was like and what was in the crawl space, but the electric train is never mentioned nor is it ever mentioned that it was a place where children played.  

So, and in answer to your question. No, Woody Allen did not spend 20 minutes, or 10, or 5, or 3 with Dylan in the crawl space. 

Q: In his ruling of the custody case of Allen v. Farrow, Justice Elliot Wilk says some disturbing things about Woody Alien; things which support Mia and Dylan's claims. Essentially: Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measure must be taken to protect her.. .It is unclear whether Mr. Alien will ever develop the insight and judgement necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately.. .Ms. Farrow is caring and loving mother.. .I'm not convinced that the videotape consists of any leading questions...there's no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan.  That's quite a damning ruling. And Woody Alien tried to appeal several times and lost (so the docuseries reports). Again, wouldn't such a ruling be in Maco's favor in his case against Woody? Don't you think this ruling, coupled with the Williams' scandal, just casts a lot of doubt about Woody Alien?

 

The first thing it is imperative to emphasize is that the ruling of custody does not support the allegations of abuse. Wilk dismisses the allegation of abuse, which means that Wilk believes that the preponderance of the evidence is that there was no abuse. Even more significantly, Wilk dismisses the allegation of abuse even though he disregards the YNH report in reaching his conclusions. That is, even excluding the YNH report the conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence is that there was no abuse. Let's not forget that Maco reviewed Wilk's court ruling and the entire record of the custody trial and concluded that Wilk had correctly assessed the evidence.

The family proceeding in New York is, of course, not a criminal proceeding, it is a proceeding whose purpose is the protection of children. That is why the law clearly states that the standard of proof for making a finding of fact of child sexual abuse is the preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, not being a criminal proceeding the law also clearly states that the corroboration requirements of the criminal law are not applicable to the Family Court, so evidence of no value in a criminal Court can be used in a custody case. In particular the Unsworn out-of-court statement of a child can be corroborated by any other evidence tending to support their reliability. If the allegation of abuse was dismissed it is because Wilk found that there was no other evidence tending to support their reliability.  The law especially provides that it will be sufficient to support a finding of fact or abuse "hospital or agency reports suggesting the parent committed the act or omission". Keep it in mind, "suggesting"; not "concluding that there was abuse" but just "suggesting". So there was not any hospital or agency report suggesting that Woody Allen committed the abuse. If Maco had any, it was not reliable enough to be sent to the court, neither to be mentioned in his statement of decision. Of course, no matter how unreliable a report may be you can talk about it in a documentary. In any case, the court ruling of Wilk is a very strong argument in favor of the innocence of Woody Allen: the conclusion is the preponderance of the evidence is that there was no abuse. The necessary condition for reaching that conclusion is that Wilk found no evidence tending to prove that the allegation of abuse was reliable.

 Of course, and you are absolutely right about that, Wilk is tremendously hard on Allen and, by contrast, holds Mia Farrow in the highest regard. But that fact only reinforces the importance of his dismissal of the abuse allegation: even though the judge's sympathies are very clearly defined and clear from his court ruling, he had to dismiss the abuse allegation. For an admirer to absolve you is one thing, for those who despise you to do so is quite another and much more conclusive.

As for Wilk stating that "Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measure must be taken to protect her" it is necessary to say at the same time that Wilk also indicates that Woody Allen's behavior was not sexual in nature. Wilk does not identify in any way what the "grossly inappropriate" behavior is, but he does point out that it is based on the credible testimony of Mia Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Woody Allen. The testimony of Coates, Leventhall and Allen was that there was no abuse and that the behavior of Woody Allen was not sexual in nature. Mia Farrow, while expressing her doubts and fears, also did not identify any behavior of a sexual nature. The behavior of Woody Allen that most concerned Wilk during the hearing was his relationship with Soon Yi. He asked specialists and therapists whether Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi could be considered abusive towards Dylan. He subsequently decided not to authorize visits from Woody Allen while he continues his relationship with Soon Yi. This was Wilki's way of "taking measures to protect Dylan," and it was related to Allen's relationship with Soon Yi, not to the fear of sexual assault.

 It is not true that Wilk says in his court ruling "I'm not convinced that the videotape consists of any leading questions". What he indicates is that he is not convinced that Dylan's testimony is the product of leading questions or the girl's fantasy. As Wilk himself says, he is "less certain (…) than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.". In other words, he does not believe that it is conclusively proven that there was no abuse, but he does believe that the videotape raises serious doubts about Dylan's testimony. Wilk expressly states with regard to Mia Farrow that "Her decision to videotape Dylan's statements, although inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable. That is, Mia Farrow compromised the sexual abuse investigation in questioning Dylan. Wilk thinks and says she did so "inadvertently"-. The difference between doing it "inadvertently" or doing it "on purpose" is the line between Wilk's conclusion and coaching. That is, Wilk finds that Mia Farrow influenced Dylan's testimony, whether it was inadvertently or not may say something about Mia Farrow, but, as far as the abuse allegation is concerned, that she did so means that Dylan's testimony resulting from that videotape lacks reliability. Wilk, it must be said once again, dismissed the allegation of abuse.

Wilk's assessment of Mia Farrow's behavior is different from the YNH team's assessment, of course YNH spoke with Mia Farrow specifically on this issue nine times and also in separate sessions went over the videotape with her and had several joint meetings with her and Allen, so Wilk concludes that his untrained judgment must be right and the experts' must be wrong. When an expert report comes to the conclusion that something is "likely" it is absurd to say that there is no evidence for it. But that affects the consideration of Wilk by Mia Farrow, not the allegation against Woody Allen. On this particular point the reference you make to the appellate ruling is really interesting. Wilk picked up in his own court ruling as:

 

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.

 

 

Dylan said that she saw Woody Allen and Soon Yi “in the warm months” of 1991. But the appellate division concluded that the relationship between Woody Allen and Soon Yi started in December 1991, how and why Dylan made this statements? Dylan saying that she saw a sexual relationship that did not happened must be, at least , a warning flag regarding some kind of influence in her testimony. This kind of invention makes impossible to say that there is no evidence of coaching. But, once again, this is related with Mia Farrow. Regarding the allegation of abuse the court upheld that it must be dismissed. Regarding the allegation of abuse Allen won in the court ruling and won in the appeal.

Finalmente, el propio Maco respondió a la última cuestión en su statement of decisión:

 

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 evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.

My review dealt ultimately with determining the existence of proof necessary to establish a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. while arguably such a case may exist considering the allegations in the warrant application, I acknowledge that the nature of the evidence (as mentioned earlier within this decision, the majority of which was considered in the New York Supreme Court] is fertile ground for defense attacks and would not have the same probative force as it did in the New York Supreme Court custody case.

 

The Wilk court ruling, and the entire custody trial, which Maco reviewed in its entirety (In addition to the arrest warrant application, I have reviewed volumes of New York Supreme Court transcripts, a deposition, investigative reports and medical evaluations.) is one of the key elements in Maco's decision that he could not prosecute Woody Allen. Maco knew that the Wilk court ruling did not support a criminal prosecution of Allen, but rather made it virtually impossible. That Maco had to review the entire custody trial before making a decision is also a good indication of how weak the evidence before him was, as he himself acknowledged (I acknowledge that the nature of the evidence (...) 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).

In reality, the elements of the 1992 investigation that are most often cited in support of Mia Farrow's and Dylan's accusations do nothing more than confirm Woody Allen's innocence.