DarkMark

The investigation and custody trial took place in 1992-1993. In the documentary there are two main pieces of information not previously seen: Paul Williams' notes and the train track drawing. Other than that they interviewed people who either claimed to have witnessed Allen's inappropriate behaviour, which was discussed in depth at the trial, or who repeated things they had testified to already without adding anything particularly new to the account, like the lap in the head incident. One piece of information which came out later than 1993 which is not addressed in the documentary, is Groteke and her book. It seems like an exceptional absence. The filmakers could have at least mentioned that, in her book, she claims at different moments that the minutes she lost Dylan that day were hardly at all, 5 minutes , 10 minutes, 15-20 minutes. I would think that being the only "fresh" testimony from an absolute protagonist, it would have been worth investigating. They could have asked her to describe what her recollection of Allen's interactions with Dylan were. They could have investigated the story of the nanny Thompson whose testimony partly substantiates Moses' current claims. Or the nanny Mavis Smith who said in court she could not remember telling Allen, who unbeknownst to her had recorded her on the phone, various less than pleasant things about Mia and how the household was run. None, not a one. So the documentarians spent 4 hours rehashing a lot of old stuff, but apparently none of the old stuff which might have perhaps leaned Allen's way.

Wilk was pretty harsh in his ruling even with respect to Ronan and Moses, neither of whom Allen was reported to have had any behaviour requiring particular attention. With Ronan he was allowed only few supervised visits a week. Moses was allowed to chose whether or not to see Allen. Allen's possible visitation with Dylan were supposed to be reviewed six months after the ruling. Yes, you are correct, Wilk treated him worse than a criminal. Because of Soon Yi. Not because of the abuse, at least that is how I interpret Wilk's specif phrase on the subject: "I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse" That to me does not sound like the phrase of a judge who is convinced of the abuse, rather he would not be as sure as them that it did not occurr. The appellate court actually spelled it out when explaining why they were still delaying Allen's supervised visitations with Dylan: "Petitioner, however, ignores the subject that Dr. Moreau deemed as deleterious to the resumption of any contact between him and Dylan — the continuation of his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi, the child's sister. Certainly, the available record is entirely contrary to Allen's position since both Dr. Bird and Dr. Moreau concur that Dylan remains deeply resistant to visitation with petitioner and that it would not be in the child's best interest to force her to see him" and "The trial court, having first solicited the opinion of Dylan's treating therapist and then having designated a neutral professional to investigate and report, found that visitation between Allen and Dylan would not, at the present time, be in the child's best interests, particularly since petitioner remains involved in a sexual relationship with her sister. The record herein, moreover, provides ample support for the court's decision to postpone the start of therapeutic visitation as being contrary to Dylan's emotional health at this time"

I don't believe the money angle was ever any part of Allen's spin. And frankly to me regardless of who it is, unless you don't trust the kids with the person, it is legitimate to entertain the thought of giving a child a father when the father is affectionate and can ensure the child's future economic stability, even if you're not sure the relationship will last. I'm not in the least saying it is wrong, or that Mia was a fortune hunter for herself, THAT is not one of the flags that what I've read in official documents, rather than puff pieces on Mia, raises for me. But I don't want to avoid the elephant in the room: I do entertain the notion that Mia may have picked up on something small, made it bigger and influenced Dylan in the process, out of anger and revenge. Regardless of the destroyed notes, we know that a team of prossionals gave their professional opinion that Dylan was not abused and was either coached or influenced or both. The documentary would like to dismiss them almost as quacks or people easily influenced by Allen ( in Connecticut?), but the head of that team is still the head of that team today and the man has received a number of professional awards for his work in the field of child abuse. And in his deposition he restated there were many inconsistencies in Dylan's statements, "Those were not minor inconsistencies," he said. "She told us initially that she hadn't been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn't.", He said the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality". and that: 'each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with "one, her father's relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother," who had lost a career in Mr. Allen's films.' Dr. Shultz, who was Dylan's therapist and who testified that she was brought in for therapy by Farrow and Allen because Dylan "lived in her own fantasy world", testified she did not think Dylan was abused. Mia Farrow fired her after the ruling, but not before Ronan and Dylan, in one of their last sessions with her, put glue in her head and cut her dress. Wonder what brought that about? Not one of the experts, on either side, called to testify during the custody trial ever stated that the tape proved or in any case strengthened the evidence of abuse. Quite the opposite. Yet to us it is obviously damning. I've yet to read of any case prior to this one where a parent , over a period of at least 24 hours if not days, taped his or her child making an accusation of abuse before taking the child to the authorities or a help center or a doctor. Those are things that for me raise flags.

No. I'm saying she was not really worried for Dylan, then or later. The Previn kids were provided for, Ronan was provided for and having Allen co-adopt them would provide for them. My point, or rather my opinion is that despite what she said in hindsight, she no longer was worried. What I do not find equally credibile is that she truly held a fancy, given her previous matrimonial experiences, and the fact that Allen had clearly shown no interest in marrying her or even of living together, they would be together "forever". As to a payout for playing along, there was something extremely akin to an attempt for a payout in exchange for Dylan's unavailability to testify. The lawyers got into a fight over the details, but that a meeting was held is not in doubt. Mia's lawyer Dershowitz, who WAS a friend of Epstein and one of O.J.'s lawyers, according to Allen's lawyers, tried to close the matter if Allen agreed to a sum of a 5 milion dollars. He refused. During the trial the lawyers went at each other over what was really said. Dershowitz obviously claimed it was not what Allen's lawyers claimed.

I am not quite sure that many who have seen the documentary would agree with your impression, which I share, that Mia "wasn't that worried about Dylan" and that "Woody's behavior had been called benign by his therapist and she accepted that".

Yes, I described one person who I'm not aware of having given sworn testimony of said behaviour in court. The other, Dr. Coates, testified in court what I wrote above. She also testified that Farrow called her on August 1 to rail against Allen. Farrow called him “satanic and evil” and pleaded with Coates to “find a way to stop him.” and that Farrow's anger at Allen after she found out he was having an affair with Soon- Yi was so 'out of control' that she warned Allen his life could be in danger. As far as the "explanation" for going forward with the adoption, in the documentary she says: "the reason I let him adopt them is because I thought that he was my life's partner and I believed in our future, and that we were going to go on, you know, and have a wonderful life" She's supposedly still worried of Allen's attentions for Dylan and also knows their relationship is basically based on work and coparenting and has been for years, yet she thinks he's her life's partner? This is no naive little girl here. This is someone who married a very famous much older man, divorced him, then got pregnant from another famous older man while he was still married and within a few years divorced him too. She and Allen weren't even married and I fail to see how one can be expected to believe that as a plausible explanation. That by adopting she would be able to count on child support , money for college, etc and that she was not really worried for Dylan sounds quite a bit more plausible.

I remember Casey Pascal. I am not aware of her testifying in the custody trial about witnessing inappropriate behaviour. Who else who frequented the household spoke of Allen's inappropriate behaviour since Mia originally spoke of it to Allen? Dr. Coates was treating Ronan and Dylan. Around 1990 Mia Farrow illustrates that Allen's relationship to Dylan is too intense, he gives her too much the attention. Dr. Coates agrees it is inappropriate for Allen to put all his attention on Dylan. So Allen also starts seeing Dr. Coates to address this. In December 1991, with Farrow’s willing consent, Allen formally adopts Moses Amadeus Farrow and Dylan Farrow. Perhaps Allen had learned to share his attention with the other kids? Why would Mia Farrow otherwise agree to the adoption? In the appeal ruling, one of the judges made it a point to write his dissent on the ruling by quoting the clear indications of an affectionate bond growing between Allen and Ronan.

Again, who is this everybody? It would have to be people working or living with the Farrow children. It would have to be someone who was there day to day who was there when Allen was there. It's not like Allen and Farrow lived together. Who, besides Mia, 3/4 year old Ronan and 7 year old Dylan are these people who can claim to have frequented their households when Allen was there to observe said grossly inappropriate behaviour? I doubt Mia's friends would likely be at Allen's apartment socially.

I read the book, not the cover, so I'm recounting my impression of the difference in the description of Allen's behaviour and his interaction with his kids, between her own experience and what Mia tells her. It's almost like she's talking about two different people. Apart from Mia, who else who spent a lot of time with Mia and the children, I mean day to day, was interviewed? That would be the nannies. Unfortunately none are interviewed, so I would say we are missing a lot of non partisan viewpoints.

Ronan , Dylan's brother, claims he remembers. Not about something done to him. He claims to remember Allen sneaking in the night to climb up the bunk bed to get to Dylan, not to do anything to him.. Just the fact that he is willing to lie about his age to make it more convincing, tells you a lot about him. And about the Farrows' easiness with spin.

Yes, the nanny of Casey Pascal, Mia's friend . NOT one of Mia's nannies.

No that is not what I meant. I had't actually thought of that. And I don't think they would be afraid of Mia, but rather of Ronan, and they should be. I implied that either none were willing to talk in Mia's favour, or, more likely, none were asked to begin with. Still, don't you find it at all odd that they did a lot of detective work to trace in England the nanny of a friend of Mia's who was there that day but otherwise could say little, the french tutor who was there that day who said she remembers Groteke looking for Allen and Dylan, but says nothing about Allen or Dylan's interactions, and don't interview the one person who was closest to Mia's household during that difficult time or anyone else working in that household? One of the reasons I suspect that is, is that in her book Groteke never seems to mention any inappropriate behaviour of Allen's nor describe any disturbing behaviour in Dylan until after the Soon Yi pictures are found. And all the disturbing Allen actions described are always her retelling of things described to her by Mia. In the book the time Allen and went missing is one time 10 minutes, another 15-20 minutes, in another she admits telling another nanny, who was not present that day (and who would later turn on Mia) hardly 5 minutes. I cannot stress enough just how tenuous this claim that Allen disappeared with Dylan for 20 minutes actually is and that is, in my opinion, the real reason why, together with the trenchant referral from Yale, Maco knew he had no case.

No, I'm trying to point out that the Farrows are/were equally spinning the facts, and one should not immediately disbelieve Allen because he's a creep, and somehow accept as truth whatever the Farrows say. All that talk of the visits Soon Yi may have made to Allen six months before the time Allen claimed the relationship began would change very little of anyone's idea of his creepiness, but have left many wondering if maybe Soon Yi was not even of legal age, while all the time Mia knew full well her age. If MF claimed Soon Yi was born in 1970, are we supposed to think Allen would have known different?

I don't know. I know nothing of law. But I linked the article by Thibault. You tell me what this passage refers to: Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken"

Just to clarify how inconsistent the timeline of that event is, someone captured a screenshot from the documentary, where the producers higlighted the apparent inconsistencies of Allen's statements as to having ever been in the attic. The producers failed to completely obscure the lines below, where two of the nannies (one actually a french tutor) stated to police Mia arrived about 20 minutes after Allen. That is the same nanny who supposedly could not find Dylan and Allen for 20 minutes, who was not reprimanded by Mia, who in fact stayed on when Mia fired two other nannies/help because she could not trust them. She wrote a book in 1994 about her time with Mia (and Allen), before during and after the custody trial. Where are these nannies? Sophie Berge, in the documentary , carefully avoids saying she looked for Dylan. All we here from her is: "Woody arrived while Mia was gone. I was told, ‘He’s too much with [Dylan],’ and the therapist said not to leave them alone together,” Berge says. “And on that day, when we were all out, half-inside, half-outside, lots of stuff going on… I remember Kristi, Mia’s nanny, calling out and asking, ‘Have you seen Dylan?'” She does not say that she was aware Allen was too much for Dylan, she is told. Mia Farrow had an army of nannies. Not one was willing to talk to the producers? They have the testimony of Mia's friend's nanny who saw the supposed improper head in the lap incident. Not exactly an insider's look of the goings on was she?

"There's multiple people saying that they lost track of both Woody and Dylan for about 20 minutes and were actively looking for them" That is absolutely not determined.All we know is that when the nanny of Mia's friend told her employer about the head in the lap incident, her employer called Mia (the day after the event). No mention of a missing Allen and Dylan was made on that day. By her own words, the story goes that when Mia's nanny Groteke, who had been entrusted with making surevAllen was never alone with Dylan, got together some time after (at leadt one day if not more) the event, she the friend's manny and the french tutor/nanny reconstructed that they supposedly lost sight of Allen and Dylan for 15-20 minutes. Groteke in hindsight said she looked in the house, did not find them and figured they were outside. There was no "scouring", no "people" were looking for Allen and Dylan.

I don't know anything about law. I thought that if Dylan wanted to file a new complaint herself as an adult, she could have. From what I understand of what you write, that is not the case. Are you sure?

As someone pointed out to me here, a person doesn't bring charges, the prosecutor does, on the basis of a complaint. Allen was never charged or tried, and Maco once said he believed the statute of limitations had expired, implying that before then it would have been possible to charge him had there been a complaint. So, yes, it could have been and could perhaps still be in Dylan's hands.

Ronan Farrow: "This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father’s strange behaviour around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behaviour that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations,’ his letter states." Now for starters Ronan was 4 when Dylan LAST saw Allen. And do you actually believe he rembers something that happened when he was 4 if not younger?

"I didn’t like when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear.” Farrow said she was 4 at the time. Perhaps it happened other times, who knows, but I find it a little difficult to believe she remebers this herself from when she was 4. The only difference is he was full clothed. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly is wrong about a parent fully clothed playing with his kid on the bed. There was never any mention of inappropriate behaviour in the bed: in this quoted example the inappropriareness clearly was the state of undress. If i can find it, there is another transcript from the trial where under questioning Mia Farrow also backpedals from claiming she had said Allen's behaviour was somehow sexual. And I'm sorry but Mia Farrow repeatedly said Allen had molested Soon Yi and there was a concerted effort to prove they had begun sexual relations before the time to imply she was a minor.

It's certainly possible that these transcripts are fake. I doubt it, though.

I thought I'd let it go, but I've decided I needed to substantiate my references to the importance of sworn testimony compared to statements in media. I have taken these from this article: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/the-rise-and-fail-of-ronan-farrow/; it is a very PRO Allen piece ; I include it because it would not be correct not to reference the source, not because I encourage you to read it. I would like you to consider what you have come to understand about Allen's behaviour, and then compare it to what is said when you have to give sworn testimony; perhaps this may clarify why some of us are still not so convinced that it isn't primarily Allen who is/was "spinning" the documents. The author may well have cherry picked the portions that corroborate his viewpoint, but, in my opinion, the documentary would likely have done the same if it had any to strengthen theirs. About him being in treatment for grossly inappropriate behaviour towards Dylan: Excerpt from courtroom testimony of child therapist, Dr. Susan Coates. (Allen vs Farrow, March 30, 1993.) About being in bed in his underwear with Dylan:Excerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.) About forcing Dylan to suck her thumbExcerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.) About trying to say Soon Yi may have been underage when she started "seeing" AllenExcerpt from courtroom testimony of Mia Farrow, viewing her own sworn affidavit that Soon-Yi Previn’s birth year was 1970, making her 21 when she became involved with Woody Allen. (Allen vs Farrow, March 25, 1993.)

Rationally, the episode to me does not sound logistically and timeframe-wise very plausible. Nonetheless a little jello always sticks to the wall.

I am quite sure she is. Sorry, but I am unwilling to spell out for you the one specific difference, I already put it in bold.

'For three consecutive weeks, she said Woody Allen violated her sexually. Among her statements to investigators: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over … I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” ' There is no exact timeline of that day. Since it was not a trial to determine if a crime was committed, there was not that attention to detail. Allen said he was mostly in the tv room, may have gone to the bathroom a few minutes or to the kitchen. It is not even clear when the head in the lap incident happened. In a criminal case there would have been sworn testimony as to where everyone was, at what time, what and if the 3 nannies said to each other that day, if there really was a concerted effort to look for allen and Dylan as Mia claims in that phone call "people scoured the house". Not much point going into all the inconsistencies here, since my impression is that for many here the abuse isn't even necessary to condemn Allen. However he seems still today to not be bothered by censure on his behaviour to Mia and her kids, but very much so for the accusation of abuse. As to statutes of limitations I will quote again the article above: Former Connecticut prosecutor: Kidnapping charges still possible for Woody Allen Feb. 3, 2014 NEW HAVEN – A former Connecticut prosecutor says the act of taking a minor to a secluded area for a sexual assault constitutes Class A felony kidnapping – a charge famed actor-director Woody Allen could still potentially face. “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,” attorney Proloy K. Das, a former state appellate prosecutor now with the Hartford firm Rome McGuigan, told the New Haven Register Monday. Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shepack, who succeeded Frank Maco, declined to comment. However, Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken.” Dupuis declined to respond to questions regarding the viability of potential kidnapping charges.