last thread needed about woody allen and his daughter

[roguevalley]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

Here is the findings of the judge who had to determine the case in 1993. It should allay some of the remarks made about Mia Farrow. Woody Allen is a sad self absorbed dink. But don't believe me. Read the judge's remarks.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

1. facts of the decision. liberals like facts.

And none of them would ever fall back on the old stereotype of "woman scorned" or "women lie" or "kids make stuff up"

(nota bene I never see that last one pulled out when it's a man talking about childhood abuse)

[Gothmog]

2. This is a fairly strongly worded opinion

I stand by my gut feeling about the accuracy of Dylan Farrow's account

[seabeyond]

3. his behavior grossly inappropriate and measure must be taken to protect her.

as i said, the verdict came in, just wasnt thru a trial.

no custody.
no visitation
no supervised visitation

that does not happen with a father unless his behavior is GROSSLY inappropriate.


oh yea judge, call out that woman scorned bullshit.

sexist tripe that has men gigglin'

[Nine]

8. That is incorrect. I don't think YOU read it.

Allen WAS granted supervised visitation with both Dylan and Satchel, Satchel's to begin immediately, Dylan's to begin within 6 months pending her progress in therapy. I can't cut and paste since it's a PDF but it's in there.

The reason Allen was not granted a custody change is that he did not prove that Mia was an inadequate parent nor that he would be a better custodial parent, and he could not prove that Mia deliberately planted the idea of molestation in Dylan's mind. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have granted the custody change either.

I think it's funny that the same people arguing that the fact that Allen wasn't convicted of anything doesn't prove his innocence, are saying that the fact that Allen didn't win a custody change does prove his guilt somehow. Even though this man is a judge, he's ultimately just another person with an opinion. He never said Allen was guilty of molestation, just that he wasn't as certain as the Yale-New Haven team that Allen's innocence was conclusively proved.

I also think it's funny how many oft-repeated claims by the Allen-is-guilty brigade are debunked by this document - that Allen helped raise Soon-Yi, that the Yale-New Haven team was on Allen's payroll, etc.

[seabeyond]

10. sounds to me like i am not wrong....

"After considering Ms. Farrow's position as the sole caretaker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that function and Mr. Allen's serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow," Justice Wilk wrote.

The judge, however, did not entirely close the door on any possible future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan, ruling that a therapist must be hired within six months to determine whether it would be harmful for Dylan to resume visits with Mr. Allen, whom she has not been permitted to see since August. "A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy," the judge said. In addition, while Justice Wilk denied Mr. Allen's request for unsupervised visits with his 5-year-old son, Satchel Farrow, he allowed him to increase the number of weekly supervised visits with the boy from two to three. As for Mr. Allen's third child, 15-year-old Moses Farrow, the justice said he would accede to the boy's wishes that he not be forced to see his father.

*

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote. On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

[Nine]

13. Your own link states that Allen was allowed supervised visitation with Satchel.

Here is what the ruling says about visitation with Dylan:

The therapist witnesses agree that Mr. Allen may be able to serve a positive role in Dylan’s therapy. Dr. Brodzinsky emphasized that because Dylan is quite fragile and more negatively affected by stress than the average child, she should visit with Mr. Allen only within a therapeutic context… Unless it interferes with Dylan’s individual treatment or is inconsistent with her welfare, this process is to be initiated within six months. A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan’s therapy.

That refutes your statement:

the verdict came in, just wasnt thru a trial.

no custody.
no visitation
no supervised visitation

that does not happen with a father unless his behavior is GROSSLY inappropriate.

[seabeyond]

17. I was referring to Dylan. Not the other two children. They are not the subject at hand

Dylan's molestation is the issue

[Nine]

22. And I posted what the ruling said about Dylan.

Visitation within a therapeutic setting to begin within six months. That would not happen if they were taking the molestation as fact. You are trying to twist the custody ruling into something it isn't and trying to make it mean something it doesn't mean.

[seabeyond]

24. "possible future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan"... that would be a maybe.

and it is a therapist must be hired within 6 months to see if it would be damaging to the girl.

again. another maybe.

i do not know if he ended up getting supervised visits. but at this point, the judge said no.... we will give it time, and see for the future. that is a pretty damn strong indictment. anyone who knows anything about the courts, gets that. courts do not deny the father his right. especially a celebrity and a rich man.

[seabeyond]

26. but regardless nine, of trying to pick out shit to argue. do tell us how good a man this allen was

and how horrible mia was.... how dylan was brainwashed, per the other threads you and others were in.

he is a piece of shit human being that has people defending him cause he makes movies. and was just a little girl after all. they are disposable.

[BainsBane]

12. I doubt anyone said the family court "proved guilt"

I could be wrong on that, but I assume everyone knows that legal guilt is determined by a criminal court. What this document shows is that the publicist's version that people have been repeating as though it were gospel is not accurate. The court did not find that Mia coached Dylan. The judge says there is no evidence for that and faults Allen for responding to the allegations about Dylan in the way he did. It says the New Haven finding is "unreliable." I'm still reading the document itself, so I can't comment on its entirety yet, but it clearly contradicts most of what has been said in defense of Allen, especially that Mia "brainwashed" Dylan and was an abusive mother.

My chief point has always been that we have Dylan's testimony from her letter in the NYTimes. The argument for not believing her was the allegations of brainwashing that Woody made in 1992 and Moses made in People magazine. The court refutes the charge of brainwashing. Allen's defenders will now have to find another excuse for refusing to believe the victim herself. And really, my chief complaint and that of many others I've read is the default disbelief of victims in favor of accused predators. That is the heart of rape culture and why so few rapes, whether of children or adults, result in conviction and jail time.

I believe Woody Allen is guilty, but I am not a court of law and have never claimed to be. I am one person with an opinion. I believe it because I believe Dylan. You want to decide Dylan is lying, your choice. But this document refutes the brainwashing excuse.

[Nine]

14. "the verdict came in, just wasnt thru a trial"

I don't know how else to interpret that other than that Allen is guilty because he didn't prevail in the custody hearing.

[BainsBane]

15. Okay, but I think it's mistaken to take that literally

Sounds like a flourish of a phrase to me, but Sea will have to speak for herself on that.

[seabeyond]

18. that would be the whole point of saying it did not go to trial, that it was the judge

that gave the verdict. and that was.... taking care of dylan.

i think that is pretty damn clear.

[roguevalley]

71. given that he said it he would then be required to show proof. he didnt because it didnt exist. if

It was true the burden was his to prove but the liar didn't.

[treestar]

65. being denied even supervised visitation

would be extremely rare.

[gollygee]

4. kick

Funny that this is the only Woody Allen thread to sink.

[Squinch]

30. Isn't it, though? It's also the only one that doesn't boil down to a statement of

"here's why you probably shouldn't believe Dylan was molested" posted by people who insist on their neutrality.

Funny how that works.

[Z_I_Peevey]

5. The link in the OP is well worth reading in its entirety.

so, kick

[BainsBane]

6. Totally refutes the publicists account that has been regurgitated around here like gospel

all to defend St. Woody.

[BainsBane]

7. "Ms. Farrow's chief shortcoming in regard to parenting"

"was her continued relationship with Mr. Allen."

No evidence that Farrow coached Dylan. None. That is the judge's ruling. He says at the very least his behavior toward Dylan was inappropriate. So much so that he denied even supervised visitation. Clearly the judge thought Allen was a danger to Dylan.

After all we've heard about "facts," will folks care about the actual court ruling, or is People Magazine still their definitive account of the event?

[Nine]

23. People Magazine? As opposed to Vanity Fair? (nt)

[BainsBane]

25. Dylan's letter was in the New York Times.

I don't know what you're referring to in Vanity Fair, but it is in general a better publication. That's not really the issue though. It's refusing to believe the victim herself.

[seabeyond]

27. and still you do not address the issue of GROSSLY inappropriate. a grown fuckin man

with HIS child. GROSSLY inappropriate.

has those words even registered yet?

[Nine]

34. That's one person's opinion.

The judge doesn't have a crystal ball. He didn't have any hard evidence that the rest of us don't know about. He heard lots of testimony from lots of people and he decided which testimony he wanted to believe, just like everyone else has been doing. Anyone who's ever watched a courtroom drama understands the importance of getting the "right" judge to hear your case, as two different judges can have completely different opinions about things. If you read the ruling all the way through, you see that the judge did a lot of picking and choosing about what testimony to believe:

Mr. Allen’s reliance on the affidavit which praises his parenting skills, submitted by Ms. Farrow in connection with his petition to adopt Moses and Dylan, is misplaced... I accord it little weight....

The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that (Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse. I am less certain, however than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse....

Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan... I have considered their opinions, but do not find their testimony to be persuasive with respect to sexual abuse or visitation....

Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or of the child’s fantasy....

So he rejected the testimony of the two family psychologists. He is skeptical of the conclusion of the State's own experts from the criminal investigation, he doesn't care about Mia Farrow's own affidavit about Woody Allen's parenting skills... that's a lot of evidence he is choosing to disregard. So, no, it means very little to me that some judge used a certain phrase. His opinion is nothing sacred.

[seabeyond]

35. wow. just wow. at the expense of a child. truly, fuckin amazing

[kwassa]

38. sorry, your view is no more valid than anyone else.

You like the judge, he validates your viewpoint.

but this critique is also on point, too.

[BainsBane]

44. The judge presents a "Finding of Fact"

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

It is not like everyone else's opinion. It is the legal record before the court. It makes clear the entire story Woody Allen and his publicity machine have spread all these years is false. There is no evidence for it. Yet there is evidence suggesting abuse, including the fact that Woody took Dylan away unsupervised (which he was not entitled to do according to custody arrangements, ie a court order) and when she returned she had no panties on. A nanny witnessed that. Told her boss, who then contacted Mia and told her. Mia knew nothing about the fact Woody and Dylan had been missing for a period of time that day when she first asked Dylan what happened. Dylan told her Woody touched her genitals. Dylan then told the same thing to the family doctor. She later told the same thing, outside of Mia's presence, to the therapist Schultz that Allen had hired. Schultz first lied and claimed Dylan hadn't said she was abused. A week later she called Woody and then the NY Child welfare office to report the abuse. So Nine's claim that she insisted that Dylan wasn't abused doesn't hold up. Dylan told her the precise opposite.

The Yale team refused to testify at the trial. The judge ruled their report was not in keeping with professional standards and therefore unreliable. A neutral therapist hired by the court, an expert in child sex abuse, saw no evidence of coaching or brainwashing. Allen was able to provide none. The entire story of coaching rests on Mia's utterance that she hoped Dylan was fantasizing, meaning at first she didn't want to believe it was possible for Woody to have molested Dylan.

The judge is not a random person on the internet. His is not just an opinion. He listened to testimony, reviewed all the documents, and heard from experts.

Woody Allen is not a convicted child molester, that is true, but the rest of the story he's been telling is entirely unfounded. People here have recounted his publicist's version of the story. Now you have a legal record to set the story straight.

For days we've been hearing how those who believe Dylan are not paying attention to "facts." Well now we have a legal finding of fact, literally, and you all claim it's "just another opinion." It is not just another opinion. It is the court record. You need to read it if you haven't already done so. This should be a cautionary tale for assuming rape victims and child abuse victims are lying.

[kwassa]

66. The judge presents a finding of HIS facts.

It doesn't mean that it is true. It means that this is HIS finding. If tried, it could be overruled on appeal, too.

If the Yale team refuses to testify, this does not invalidate their findings, either. His ruling that it was not keeping with professional standards sounds clearly biased, to me. Their report was inconvenient to his opinion.

It is his OPINION that Mia is telling the truth.

[roguevalley]

72. no.just no.

[kwassa]

77. Now, that is a substantive response.

[BainsBane]

79. That the team refused to testify means their finds are not evidence

That they did not follow professional standards means their findings are suspect.

The finding of fact is the legal record. Your opinion is not every bit as valid as his. He heard the testimony and evidence. You did not,

Mia is not the one making the accusation: Dylan is. Dylan told multiple people at the time of the assault including a therapist on Allen's payroll, who violated her professional ethics and the law by not only concealing that information but lying about it. There are witnesses that saw Dylan return from being alone with Woody with NO PANTIES. She first told her boss, who then told Mia. Mia did not even initiate the story. Your determination to put it on Mia is proven false by the legal record, by the witnesses who recounted what they say, by even the therapist on Allen's payroll who reported the assault to NY Child services.

There is NO evidence that Mia is lying. Woody Allen's publicity machine spun a web of lies. You want to believe it because he is rich, powerful, and male. You want to assume the child is lying because she is female. Be honest. All your determination to believe "Mia is the liar" based on zero evidence is your own bias, nothing else. It is the kind of bias against victims and in favor of accused perpetrators that is all too common. It is central to the propagation of a rape culture where 25% of our population (largely but not exclusively women) are sexually assaulted during their lifetimes and only 3% of those rapes result in conviction.

[kwassa]

83. What professional standards are you talking about?

Until I hear what standard has not been met, and proof that it has not been met, I have no reason to believe the judge's claim, and his willful disregard of this study.

As to Mia being a liar, she has means, motive, and opportunity to be exactly that. She is a woman of dubious ethical standards, speaking of standards, as to start relationships with wealthy, much older, powerful men why they were still married to other people, when she was very young. What she did to their wives was done to her by Woody Allen, and she was clearly furious about it and sought retribution, which is wildly ironic.

As to you guessing my motives, you don't have a clue, so you project.

I think Woody Allen is weird, but she is, too. It is a very squirrelly situation, but I don't doubt for a second that Mia could manipulate Dylan to say false things. I don't know that this happened, but children can be manipulated, and have been, as McMartin proved without a doubt. I think Woody would be a terrible parent to anyone, but that does not make him guilty here. Soon Yi and Woody have been married for 15 years, so there is something to this marriage. Unlike with Mia, they live together. The arrangement Woody and Mia had was just bizarre.

I don't know what happened with Dylan, but I also don't think that there is enough evidence to prove anything at all. You choose to believe Woody is guilty, all I am saying is I don't know, but I don't think the proof exists to show guilt, either, and this judge has not done it.

I also don't go to Woody Allen movies because I don't think his dramatic films are very good. I find them to be mediocre at best, even the ones the critics seem to like, like "Midnight in Paris". Actors flock to Woody because there are so few good dramatic roles in any American film, and that is more a reflection on the quality of American movies than anything else. So, don't worry about me supporting his movies by actually going to them.

[BainsBane]

85. Did you read the ruling? It does not appear so

The judge makes clear why the Yale New Haven team's report was not keeping with professional standards. Also that they refused to testify means it could not hold the weight of a state appointed expert who did testify and conducted a report in finding with professional and legal standards in child abuse cases.

I don't believe you consciously believe Allen out of bias. Rather you are not aware of your bias toward him. It would also appear that your bias is such that you can't even be bothered to read the ruling, or you would not have posed the questions you did about the New Haven team.

I find it odd you consider Mia of dubious ethical standards for having relationships with older men but not Allen for having them with underage girls, starting with Stacy Melkin. Or for taking nude pictures of and carrying on a secret affair with the sister of his children. How odd.

[kwassa]

94. I think that both of them have dubious ethical standards.

In a way, they deserved each other. I don't believe either of them, completely, and believe both had reason to lie about the other. That is what makes this entire case unknowable.

I don't favor Woody Allen. I just don't believe Mia.

and I read part, but not all of the judge's ruling. As I said before, he did nothing that couldn't be challenged in an appeals court, had this gone forward as a trial.

[BainsBane]

95. So I will summarize

The Yale team's problems: They destroyed their notes. There was no way for the judge to determine how they had come to their conclusions. They advised Woody be given custody without having observed Woody and Dylan together. They advised MIA seek therapy. That was outside of their purview and the judge believed it a violation of standards. In refusing to testify, they refused to submit themselves to cross examination on how and why they determined what they did. A witness who refuses to testify is not deemed credible because there is no way to examine the truthfulness of their claims.

Additionally, Nine's account above that you celebrated is highly problematic, to say the least. He cites Schultz as an authority, someone with no background in child sexual abuse, who lied about the fact Dylan had told her, outside of Mia's presence, that Woody had assaulted her. Schultz concealed that information for a week, despite being a mandated reported and legally required to report any signs of abuse to authorities. After a week passed, she then FIRST called Woody and then child services to report Dylan's statement that she had been abused. Nine's assertion that Schultz is an authority to claim there was no sign of abuse is clearly problematic. The question I and some others have is why Schultz was not reprimanded and or prosecuted for what was a clear and egregious violation of her professional responsibility and legal standing as a mandated reporter.

The remaining experts are the state appointed therapists who are experts in child sexual abuse.

Allen presented No evidence to the court to establish Mia had planted memories in Dylan. The entire allegation is based on Mia's utterance when she first learned what had happened that she hoped it was a fantasy.

The reason this issue is so important to me is not because Woody Allen is a celebrity but because of my broader interest in rape and child abuse. That so many people automatically assume rape victims are either lying or don't know what happened to them is precisely what allows so many rapists and child abusers to continue to reoffend with impunity.

False memories are very rare. False allegations are rare. Child sexual abuse is common place: 20 percent of girls and 5% of boys are assaulted as children. That has a devastating impact on their lives and on subsequent generations. The only way to stop it is vigorous prosecution of perpetrators. That will never be possible as long as people so easily disbelieve victims, particularly female victims.

[R B Garr]

96. "What she did to their wives was done to her by Woody Allen". Uh, no.

Not even close. Woody Allen had sex with Mia's daughter and the sister to his own kids. Nothing that Mia did with anyone else was like that. Adult relationships can and do fail all the time, but a mother's bond with her children is expected to endure a lifetime. What Woody did was end Mia's relationship with her daughter and force Mia to be more vigilant in protecting her other children. What else was she supposed to do under the circumstances.

This judge's findings for denying custody is all the "guilt" you need to know about this case. It's not a matter of his/her opinion. It's a legal proceeding and it should be accepted as the final outcome, and not some arbitrary and random opinion you can bicker with.

k&r this thread.

[BainsBane]

98. It's interesting

How so few of Woody's defenders want to engage in anyway with this court ruling. First we were told it was all about facts. Now that we have an actual legal Finding of Fact, it's just another opinion. Is that supposed to be believable?

[R B Garr]

100. No, it's not believable at all. They seem to be very invested in their positions

regardless of the facts and who presents them. And it's not like someone just sat down and typed out 30 pages of court documents. This case and its history were analyzed by subject matter experts over a period of time, and then those findings were ruled upon by a sworn officer of the court. What more?! Yet, they're always first in line to follow you around this message board and spam your threads to try and get you so riled that you'll say something they can alert on. That's the real priority. Sad.

Thanks for all your efforts with getting information out. I really do appreciate your intelligence and tenacity, and it sounds like there are quite a few others here who feel the same. I kind of gloss over some news stories sometimes, and it's nice to have a place like this with resources such as posters like you.

[Z_I_Peevey]

102. +1 n/t

[BainsBane]

103. Thank you

I very much appreciate your kindness and support.

[Nine]

39. That your reply came about 10 seconds after I posted shows me you didn't even read past the title.

And your tactic of trying to paint those who disagree with you as anti-child or pro-pedophilia is vile. That's Salem Witchhunt tactics: "If you don't agree with us that this colonist is a witch who should be burned, that means you're probably a witch yourself."

[RichGirl]

64. Lies harm children too.

Being used as a pawn harms children.

Accusing an innocent man destroys his life.

Looking at all the information my opinion is he didn't do it. That's my OPINION. Just as you have your OPINION.

The biggest problem in this case is that so many people seem to think their opinions are facts.

[BainsBane]

41. Your rapidly changing story

Dylan reported her abuse to Dr. Schultz, who first denied Dylan had said anything. Mia was not there at the time. A week later, Schultz evidently thought better of it, FIRST called Woody Allen, and then called child welfare. If there was no abuse, why did she report it to the child welfare office? Why did she first lie about what Dylan told her? You seriously want to give her credence over the judge?

The judge makes clear that those two therapists were very closely connected to Allen and rode in a chaffered limousine Allen had paid for.

The judge also says there was NO EVIDENCE that Mia coached Dylan. Dylan told the story to multiple people, even when Mia was not present. Clearly Woody Allen was not convicted. He is not legally guilty of child abuse. However, his daughter says he abused her. The babysitter witnessed the child come back from being alone with Allen--which was prohibited--with no panties on. All of this was contemporaneous, and it was the babysitter who told her boss, and her boss who then told Mia. The court has testimony to all of this.

That sounds to me like enough for a prosecution. I suspect that today he would have been prosecuted. The fact, however, that he wasn't doesn't prove that no abuse happened. It only says the prosecutor choose not to take the case. That is a long established pattern of rape culture.

So fact: Woody Allen has no legal conviction of child abuse.
Fact: No evidence of coaching or brainwashing.
Fact: Dylan says Woody Allen molested her. She told several people at the time and she gives the same account today.
Fact: A babysitter saw her with no panties after coming back with her father (something you previously insisted was not so)

The only remaining question is what and who do you believe and why. You previously went on and on about facts. Now you have cherry picked in unrepresentative ways quotes from the court ruling. Now you claim that the ruling amounts to only the judge's opinion. However, that section of the document is labeled "Findings of Fact." The judge picked and chose based on his assessment or reliability. You have picked and chosen based on your determination to exonerate Woody Allen. Suddenly facts are no longer important.

Stick with the fact there is no legal conviction. The rest just makes you look bad.

Spare me the personal snipe that you are tempted to use because your argument doesn't hold water. That tactic is transparent.

[Nine]

61. "Something you previously insisted was not so"

Not true. Here are my exact words:

"The missing underpants are a claim not a fact. It's a claim that has been disputed by at least one nanny."

I never disputed that a babysitter made the claim, only that there are competing claims.

I stand by my opinion of this ruling. There is no new evidence here against Allen. And this a custody hearing, not a criminal hearing against Allen. The judge has an opinion like everyone else. You are correct that his opinions are different in the sense that he has legal authority the rest of us don't have. But they are not different in the sense that his opinions can be regarded as some kind of indisputable Truth. Another judge might have come up with a completely different "Finding of Fact." This judge might have even come up with a different finding if he had not been prejudiced by the prosecutor Maco inappropriately sending the judge his opinion before the proceedings. You are giving entirely too much weight to the views of this judge. He is a human being, not a god. And we've seen many, many examples of bad judges - everything from the judge who tried to change that child's first name to the judge involved in the Cash for Kids operation to judges who have given slaps on the wrist to rapists. Would you argue that those judges have the Final Word on everything?

I think we're just going in circles here. Let's just agree to disagree.

[BainsBane]

43. The Yale New Haven team REFUSED to testify

Their examination was not in accordance with professional standards, as the legal ruling documents. They never observed Dylan with her father, yet recommended visitation anyway. They made a whole series of inappropriate recommendations, according to the judge and state experts. They also refused to testify, though one person submitted a deposition. There is no reason to grant that study any credibility. The fact they wouldn't testify is the crowning touch on that whole thing. It is not evidence.

Schultz totally discredited herself, as I indicated in my previous post. The judge also notes that she and Coates have no expertise in child sex abuse. Also, Schultz was the one who actually reported the abuse to the state of NY--a week after Dylan told her, after firs lying about it. These days that would be the end of her career and she could face prosecution. Therapists are mandated reporters. She did not report for an entire week after Dylan told her about the abuse. Your post completely ignores all of that.

The affidavit you speak of was written by Farrow for Allen's adoption of the kids years earlier. You read that. It was the only bit of evidence that Allen had to suggest he was a good parent. You use it to cast doubt on Mia, which is not how the judge referred to it. He discussed it in the context of the fact there was NOTHING to recommend Woody Allen as an acceptable father. Even Allen's own character witnesses refused to say he should have custody. The ruling makes that clear.

Not only that. The judge does not say Woody Allen could have visitation of Dylan in 6 months, as you claim. It says that the state experts felt Dylan would benefit from her father's participation in therapy and that should begin within six months. The order specifically forbade Allen from seeing Dylan outside a therapeutic relationship.

Allen got supervised visitation of Satchel. The judge refused to allow Allen to see Satchel without visitation because he thought Allen would continue to behave in destructive and inappropriate ways, not physically but emotionally. Allen had no concept what taking up with Soon-Yi had done to the family and didn't care. Woody made all kinds of comments about how the two girls were only adopted and therefore not real family members.

Moses was then 15 and the court said it would not force Moses to see Dylan. Unlike this week's account, The record shows that Moses was angry at his father for what he did to their family in marrying Soon Yi and how he had treated his mother. There is a letter from Moses in the court record that says: You married my sister. Everyone knows not to do that. You crushed my dreams (underscored).


You read what I did. Not only that, you have presented a manipulated and false interpretation of that document. Here is the direct link for everyone to read themselves.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

[chervilant]

53. You seem determined

to be relentlessly obtuse. Why?

I have been an advocate for survivors of relationship violence (including rape and child sexual assault) for more than thirty years. Survivors will say/do almost anything to protect their abuser -- until they develop the ego strength to acknowledge the trauma they've survived. In fact, Dylan's letter is an act of courage, particularly in a society that lionizes powerful white males.

RE: Mr. Allen's "alleged" parenting inadequacies -- rich and famous men do not lose their parenting privileges on a whim. And, adult survivors RARELY lie about their abuse.

I believe Dylan, and I stopped watching Allen's movies when he went public about his "relationship" with Soon-Yi. He's a warped, narcissistic little man.

[redqueen]

9. Kick

[Starry Messenger]

11. k&r

[thucythucy]

16. K & R

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. Kick

[LiberalEsto]

20. Thank you for posting this

It was very enlightening.
After reading the court document, I have no doubt whatsoever that Allen is the sick creep I think he is.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. You and me both - SO much worse than I had even thought

it could be. I have no idea why in the world she married this guy when he clearly had no interest whatsoever in her children to the point of refusing to live in the same house or even speak to them - and his obsession with Dylan pretty much right from the beginning should have sent off SERIOUS alarm bells.

I just can't understand why he isn't in jail right now and never was arrested in the first place.

[LiberalEsto]

68. Money, fame, power

I don't think she was ever married to him

[el_bryanto]

21. That is pretty damning. nt

[bravenak]

28. I'm glad he did not get custody.

The judge made the right decision there.

[seabeyond]

29. absolutely. or visitation. measures to protect dylan. nt

[bravenak]

31. It sounds like he was very inappropriate.

For a judge to not allow visits for six months is harsh to a parent. Especially, the fact that there was a psychiatric evaluation involved before he could see his child is very telling. I believe every word she said and I'm sure there even more to it.

[seabeyond]

32. that was even "a possibility". i do not know if he eventually got them or not. nt

[BainsBane]

33. The court document gives the events of the day Dylan says she was abused

Woody knew he wasn't allowed to be alone with Dylan. Mia had been concerned for years about how he interacted with her. Mia went out of the house and there were babysitters there to look after the kids. The nanny couldn't find Dylan or Woody for a period of about 20 minutes. When she came back, a baby sitter (not Mia's but one there with some other kids) noticed Dylan had no underwear on.
The woman didn't say anything at the time. A day or two later she told her own boss, the mother of the other kids there that day. That women called Mia and told her what the babysitter saw. Mia asked Dylan what had happened, and described what Allen had done, including putting his finger in her privates. Dylan said she tried to get away but he held her down. Dylan later told the same story to the family physician, and again to a therapist / doctor that had been hired by Woody Allen. Mia was not present. The therapist first claimed Dylan didn't say anything. Later she changed her story, FIRST called Woody Allen and then contacted the NY State child welfare office.

Sounds bad to me. I'm still reading the rest.

[seabeyond]

36. i didnt know there was more, than what was on the link. jumping back in

to get more of the story. thanks.

[TorchTheWitch]

48. it is at the link

Read the entire 33 page court document.

I want to know why that Dr. Schwartz wasn't investigated for first attempting to cover-up the abuse to authorities.

[BainsBane]

51. Me too. Why was she able to keep a license?

I'm assuming she did because the judge never mentioned any proceedings against her. Also something is up with that Yale team. Why would they refuse to testify? Why did they not do the examination in accordance with professional standards? Why did they not observe Dylan and Woody together?

[TorchTheWitch]

59. and why did they destroy their notes???

Something definitely hinky was going on there.

[cinnabonbon]

67. I want to know this, too!

It just sounds so wrong to me.

[seabeyond]

69. the lead a man, two women therapist.

the man did not see dylan. and if the women, or a woman concluded there was, the man or two over rode stating nothing happened. destroy the note. no cross examination. anyone opposed or differing view does not want to destroy the career and goes along. conclusion made.

take it or leave it.

the judge left it.

[Nine]

37. You're "still reading the rest"?!

You've been posting in this thread for three hours and you haven't even read it?! I read the entire thing before I posted one word. Amazing...

ETA - And I see Seabeyond hasn't read it either.

[BainsBane]

40. I'm also writing a report

reading something for work, and had to cook and eat dinner. What business is of yours anyway? I've read enough to know it shoots your entire defense of Allen out of the water. You don't address any of that or why you still insist Dylan should not be believed but are instead worrying about what I'm up to?


Sea just realized there was a link to a full document. She had only read the HuffPo article. She's got kids to look after, so don't start the clock on her. People do have responsibilities in life, you know.

Damn, now I really have to put it aside to get my work done.

[seabeyond]

42. after reading it all, i conclude with. even stuebenville rape on video had way too many people

denying it. and other places across the country and in canada.

if they got in on video, it would still not be good enough for some.

i am off.

[JI7]

45. and even when they finally admit to what happened they blame the victim

and say things like "why was she "fill in blank" .

[BainsBane]

46. Now it's "the court ruling is just an opinion"

No better than theirs. No, it isn't. It's a legal finding. It's calling a "Finding of Fact." Suddenly facts don't matter. Everyone online knows just as much as the judge who heard testimony and reviewed all the documents in the case. It is truly shameful. One person above cherry picked quotes out of context. Truly, it makes me sad. It suggests terrible things about our society and the intractability of rape culture.

[chervilant]

56. +1 -- Thank you

for this post and for your continued advocacy for survivors.

[seabeyond]

87. the extent to justify grossly inappropriate behavior while measure must be taken to protect a dylan

that some people will go to

[laundry_queen]

55. It is harsh

having gone through a divorce and talking to several lawyers, when I would ask about sole custody every single one told me that almost no one gets sole custody unless the other parent is a proven pedophile and even then there is almost always weekly supervised visitation. These lawyers told me that even abusive husbands can get joint custody, even with several arrests...the default for most judges is joint custody (with a custody agreement worked out that could be anywhere from 50-50 to 90-10 depending on the pre-divorce care of the children). So yeah, that there were no visits at all for 6 months is very damning in my eyes. It means there was a lot of evidence of wrongdoing that harmed the child.

[chervilant]

57. + a gazillion!

Add wealth to that equation, and it's even more damning that Allen was denied visitation.

I cannot stomach that arrogant narcissist. He should be held accountable for his crime.

[BainsBane]

99. Clearly the judge believed Allen a danger to Dylan

[Cha]

49. thanks rv.. from your link..

"While it does not conclude whether Allen molested Farrow, the ruling by Justice Elliott Wilk paints a particularly damning portrayal of Allen the father, describing him as "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive," and undercuts the claims that Farrow was "brainwashed" by her mother into inventing the tale of her sexual molestation."

"4. Allen's "self-absorption" and "lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault...warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children."

"5. Ultimately, "we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and...measures must be taken to protect her."

Pretty well sums it up. It's weird that Woody's and Mia's kid believes Dylan but their adopted kid believes Woody.

I'm guessing at one time a big happy family until all hell broke lose in a million different directions.

[BainsBane]

50. If you read thee whole ruling

You'll see much more, including a clear description of Dylan's account of the assault, when it happened, and who she told. The judge also goes through all the supposed experts that people have been claiming exonerated Allen. The Yale group refused to testify. One therapist on Allen's payroll concealed the fact Dylan had told her that her father had touched her in her privates for an entire week before reporting it to child services, only after letting Allen know. And she had previously lied and said Dylan showed no signs of abuse when Dylan had told her, without Mia being present, that her father had assaulted her. There was a witness that saw Dylan return without her panties after being alone for 15 minutes with Woody Allen, when Allen had already been prohibited by court order from being alone with the children.

The whole brainwashing story is entirely without evidence. It goes on and on. It's quite an eye opener. Definitely worth reading the whole ruling.

[Cha]

52. Thanks BB.. I have read most of those heartbreaking details in

other sources. I remember reading about this when it first happened back in '92. Right before the big hurricane on Kaua'i. And, then not so much over the years until now.

We all have our opinions from reading about things like this in the news.. and my thoughts were that I believed the little girl at the time and whenever Allen's name came up I would think about that and wondered what happened to her.

She'd have to be crazy to report it back then 22 years ago and still be obsessed with it now if those weren't her real memories, imo.

And, what was up with those nude pics of Soon Yi? "She wanted to be a model so she asked him to take nude pics"?


Woody Allen Denies Crossing Incest Line : Relationships: The actor-director says he was never a father to Farrow's children. He also says her daughter asked him to take nude photos.

August 23, 1992 | From Associated Press

Woody Allen says there are no incestuous overtones to his relationship with the adopted daughter of his ex-lover Mia Farrow, and that he took nude pictures of the young woman because she asked him to. "I am not Soon-Yi's father or stepfather," the filmmaker told Time magazine Friday in his first interview since the affair became public. "I've never even lived with Mia. I have never in my life slept in Mia's apartment. I was not any type of father to her adopted kids in any sense of the word."

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-23/news/mn-7319_1_woody-allen

Sounds to me like he protested too much..

[BainsBane]

54. The court record actually confirms Allen's account that he didn't act as a father

but he went on to say that distance wasn't enough to make it like a relationship between two consenting adults. He clearly says that Woody inappropriately took advantage of Soon Yi. The judge goes on to say that the relationship devastated Woody's own children and that Allen had no concept or concern that he had hurt them. He went on about how both Soon Yi and Dylan were adopted so they weren't Mia's real kids. (That's a flag about Dylan). They weren't really sisters, etc. Totally fucked up view. The judge reprinted a letter from Moses, then 15, that he wrote to Woody telling him how angry he was; that everybody knows not to have affairs with your kids sister; and that Woody and "crushed his dreams" (underscored). That is a completely different story from what Moses is telling now.

I learned a huge amount from that legal ruling that I had no idea about. I had no idea there was so much evidence of assault. I had no idea that Woody had made all the charges up about Mia and how unreliable the supposed experts were that people have been talking about on these boards this week. They have essentially been repeating what Woody's publicity machine pumped out, very little of which is true.

[Cha]

58. Right.. just because you're

not in the same house doesn't mean you can't be a father. "Not real kids because they were adopted"?! That's cold. that's an example of what I mean by protesting too much

I thought of something else.. Was he claiming he didn't act like a father to Ronan, too?

And, then when he made a big show of wanting full custody he was all ready to be a father even though he cared nothing about it for 12 years.

He wanted Soon Yi and didn't care who it hurt. they obviously were made for each other even though the whole thing stank to high hell. One of the more odd couplings, imv.

Yeah, Moses sure changed his tune.. I remember reading in Dylan's reaction to the heat of her open letter.. that it was truly hurtful.

[roguevalley]

73. he used an assumed name to call her and she had to leave a camp because of it

An assumed name

[BainsBane]

86. Yes

Thanks for posting this. It really is the definitive thread on the issue.

[Bonobo]

60. Oh dear, how to explain this:

One month before the alleged Dylan incident, Woody found this not pinned to the door at a birthday party (written by Mia)

"Child molester at Birthday Party!
Molded then abused one sister
now focused on youngest sister
Family disgusted"

Hmmmm, doesn't sound like what a normal person would write in that circumstance. But it DOES sound like what a person planning a criminal framing campaign would.

Crazy behavior from her including death threats.
Aug. 4th -she accused Woody of being a child molester
Aug 6-8th she talks about when do we begin our new movie

Does this sound normal?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woody-allen-defends-himself-on-60-minutes-in-92/

[roguevalley]

75. nice try

[DLevine]

62. Very enlightening. Thanks for posting this, roguevalley. nt

[roguevalley]

76. you are welcome

[cinnabonbon]

63. What I don't understand is

why he'd try to get custody of the kids, when he so ardently claimed that he wasn't anything like a father to them.

This case is awful. I hope that Dylan will find some way to heal. She deserves to be able to get on with her life.

[BainsBane]

88. To get back at Mia

The same reason he made those jokes about his ex-wife's rape.

[cinnabonbon]

89. I am hoping that is not the case

because that would make him a petty and narcissistic man, who doesn't care about how that would affect his children.

Then again, joking about a loved one's rape doesn't exactly imply that he's a warm and considerate person.

[seabeyond]

90. kinda what the judge called him. dylan made the accusation. the doctor called woody and

then later the cops.

woody then went for custody of the children, once there was an accusation made. in the past, it was agreed that custody was mias. she had no reason to believe woody would want custody. it was after the molestation accusation that he filed for it.

[cinnabonbon]

92. I suspect the judge made the right decision here

they seemed to look at Woody's lack of desire to get to know and take care of the children, the way he groomed some of his children and the way he didn't consider his adoptive children a "real" part of the family. A lot of warning signs.

Mia on the other hand, was at least was invested in the kids' well-being.

[Jefferson23]

70. Woody Allen did not sue for custody of Dylan Farrow until after her accusations were made known

to him.

Feb 7, 2014



No. 1: The sexual-abuse allegations did not happen in the midst of a custody battle.

In his Daily Beast piece, Weide refers to “Mia [Farrow]’s accusation—used during their custody battle for their three shared children—that Woody molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan.” He also suggests it’s unlikely that Allen would have molested Dylan “in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior.” Many of Allen’s defenders have floated the possibility that Mia Farrow concocted the allegations to use as leverage in the custody battle; Steve Kroft suggests just this scenario in the introduction to a 1992 60 Minutes interview with Allen. In that segment, Allen tells Kroft that it would have been “illogical” to molest Dylan “at the height of a very bitter, acrimonious custody fight.”

The problem with this line of reasoning is that Dylan Farrow’s allegations did not emerge in the midst of a custody battle. According to Phoebe Hoban’s 1992 New York magazine story, as of early August 1992—eight months after Mia Farrow had discovered Allen’s sexual relationship with her daughter Soon-Yi Previn—Allen had been “prepared to sign a 30-page document that virtually precluded his seeing the children he doted on without a chaperone.” Then, on Aug. 4, 1992, Dylan told her mother that Woody Allen had sexually assaulted her in Mia’s Connecticut home. At that point, Mia and Dylan went to Dylan’s pediatrician, who reported the allegations to authorities. Allen did not sue for custody of Dylan and her two brothers, Moses and Ronan, until Aug. 13, 1992, a week after he was informed of Dylan’s accusations.

In a June 1993 decision, Acting Justice Elliot Wilk of the New York State Supreme Court found “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen’s resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

No. 2: The Connecticut state’s attorney stated that he had probable cause to bring charges against Allen.

Weide writes that Allen “was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.” In fact, the Litchfield, Conn., state’s attorney, Frank Maco, in consultation with Mia Farrow, decided in September 1993 not to press criminal charges, despite having “probable cause,” in the belief that a trial would further traumatize Dylan. At that point, Allen had already been denied not only custody but any visitation rights—supervised or unsupervised—with Dylan, per Wilk’s decision in June of that year. (As the New York Times pointed out at the time, “Mr. Maco's remarks about the case were criticized by some legal scholars, who said it was an unfair attempt to have it both ways by claiming victory without taking the case to trial.” Maco was later rebuked by a state Grievance Council for his actions, though it did not find that Maco had violated any provision of Connecticut’s code of conduct for lawyers.)

No. 3: Dylan Farrow’s testimony was not marred by “inconsistencies.”

“There were problems with inconsistencies” in Dylan’s narrative, Weide writes. On Aug. 4, when a physician asked Dylan where her father had touched her that day, she pointed to her shoulder; she explained to her mother later the same day that she was embarrassed to talk about her private parts. After that first doctor’s visit, however, her story remained consistent, detailed, and specific.

No. 4: The unsuspicious nanny was outnumbered.

Weide makes a lot out of a deposition by a nanny in Allen’s employ, Monica Thompson, who stated “that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges,” and that another nanny, Kristie Groteke, had told her that she “did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes.” Weide does not mention that Groteke herself testified that she lost track of both Dylan and Allen for 15 to 20 minutes on Aug. 4. Weide does not mention the testimony of babysitter Alison Stickland, who, on Aug. 4, witnessed Allen “kneeling in front of Dylan with his head in her lap” (a detail recounted in Dylan’s open letter). Weide does not mention that Sophie Berge, a tutor, later noticed that Dylan was not wearing underwear.

No. 5: The head of the Yale team investigating the allegations never spoke to Dylan Farrow.

Weide quotes at length from a sworn deposition by John Leventhal, the pediatrician who led the Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic’s investigation of the allegations. Leventhal’s deposition hypothesized either that “these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind” or “that she was coached or influenced by her mother.” But Leventhal himself never interviewed Dylan Farrow, nor did he interview her mother or any of the child care workers present at Mia Farrow’s home on Aug. 4, 1992. Dylan was interviewed nine times over a six-month period by Julia Hamilton, who had a Ph.D. in social work, and Jennifer Sawyer, who had a master’s degree in social work. Neither Hamilton nor Sawyer would testify at trial, and Leventhal would only testify via deposition; as Weide points out, they also destroyed their notes on the investigation. (Diane Schetky, a professor of psychiatry and past editor of the Clinical Handbook of Child Psychiatry and the Law, itemized other irregularities in the Yale investigation in this 1997 Connecticut Magazine piece.)

In his 1993 state Supreme Court decision, Wilk found that testimony “proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” In May 1994, the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court cited a “clear consensus” among psychiatric experts that Allen’s “interest in Dylan was abnormally intense.”

My colleague Dahlia Lithwick wisely cautions against trying this case again in the court of public opinion. But it’s also worth remembering that—no matter how Robert Weide wants to spin things—Woody Allen did not fare well at all when actual courts of law looked at the facts.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_and_dylan_farrow_digging_deeper_into_misleading_coverage.html

[seabeyond]

80. in your face obvious good point. no desire for custody until AFTER the molestation accusation

which throws all the arguments upside down about why the horrible mia, the woman scorned, jealously went after her xlover, brainwashing dylan

damn

duh

custody had nOTHING to do with the accusation against allen but the detimented SPITE on his part to punish the kids and mia for having the audacity to call him out for molesting a 7 yr old child

wowser

thank you

[Jefferson23]

81. You're very welcome. There have been a few well sourced OP's but

unfortunately, a lot of misinformation..or incomplete information.

[me b zola]

74. K&R

[dipsydoodle]

78. Sadly it wasn't

.

[redqueen]

91. Unfortunately there are WAY TOO MANY people here engaging in faux-news type spin and mendacity.

[seabeyond]

93. yes. nt

[BainsBane]

97. Suddenly facts no longer matter

A legal finding of fact is now "just an opinion," the judge's no more valid than any one on the internet who wants to believe Woody's publicity machine. Barf is right.

[nomorenomore08]

104. I just don't get it. I just. don't. get it.

I was never inclined to proclaim Allen's innocence in the first place, but after reading/skimming much of that HP article, the evidence against him does seem fairly damning. Yet people still feel the need to knee-jerk defend the guy, no matter what.

[BainsBane]

105. Read the actual judge's finding

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

It's an eye opener. I was startled to learn how much of Woody's story is entirely without foundation and how much evidence there is that Dylan was abused.

[BainsBane]

82. The new game is the old game

To again divert attention away from Dylan toward Mia and ignore the court finding entirely.

Link to Judge's ruling, which including the Finding of Fact.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

[BainsBane]

84. Full legal finding of fact

following by an opinion and ruling.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. ...

The fact remains, allegations true or not, Dylan believes this happened, and that is a sign of at the very least a seriously messed up childhood. For any of us to question or form an opinion (since I'm guessing 99% of us don't know the parties involved) is irresponsible. I think the media-and all of us who somehow feel it is our right to be involved-aren't doing Dylan any favors. My heart breaks for what her childhood-and whatever she experienced-took from her. And that is all I will say or suppose. Because neither I, nor anyone else here, really does know.

...and I am *this close* to physically ill at the number of posts (this one included) on the subject. Enough already. Shut it down.