Home > 30 Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation, Dylan Farrow's Renewed Allegations About Abuse, Mia Farrow is a Liar, Mia Farrow Tweets That Woody Allen is a Pedophile, Ronan Farrow Tweets That Woody Allen Molested Dylan > Mia, Ronan and Dylan Farrow Revive 20-Year-Old Child Molestation Allegations Against Woody Allen – Authorities Declared the Accusations ‘Unfounded’ After a 14-Month Investigation, Which Concluded in 1993 (Updated 3/3/2014)

Mia, Ronan and Dylan Farrow Revive 20-Year-Old Child Molestation Allegations Against Woody Allen – Authorities Declared the Accusations ‘Unfounded’ After a 14-Month Investigation, Which Concluded in 1993 (Updated 3/3/2014)

February 8, 2014

Woody and Mia with Lark Previn, Satchel Farrow, Dylan Farrow, Fletcher Previn, Daisy Previn, Soon-Yi Previn and Moses Farrow in Europe 1988
The following is a timeline and summary of events surrounding Woody Allen’s child custody battle with Mia Farrow.

1. Although companions since 1980, Woody and Mia never married and never lived together; and by 1990 or earlier, they had grown distant from each other as each expressed concerns about the other’s relationship with their youngest children – Woody being overly devoted to Dylan Farrow (born on July 11, 1985 and adopted as a newborn) and Mia being overly focused on Satchel Farrow (Mia gave birth to him on December 19, 1987) and alienating him from Woody. Satchel’s psychologist testified during the child custody hearing in March 1993 that from his earliest years Satchel would aggressively resist Woody’s attentions: “Satchel would push him away, would not acknowledge him…. If he would try to help Satchel getting out of bed or going into bed, Satchel would kick him, at times had scratched his face. They were in trouble.”

2. Woody stayed aloof from Mia’s six children with Andre Previn, rarely even speaking to them; however, he was cordial to Moses Farrow, who Mia adopted at age 2 in 1980 (after her divorce from Previn in 1979). In 1990, Woody began acknowledging Mia’s adopted daughter with Andre Previn, Soon-Yi Previn (born on October 8, 1970 and adopted at age 7) after Mia encouraged him to take her to a professional basketball game because he had no one to go with.

3. In January 1992, Mia discovered that Woody was having a sexual relationship with 21-year-old Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi later admitted to Mia that she and Woody first had sex on his birthday on December 1, 1991 – in that same month, Woody’s adoption of two of Mia’s other children, Moses Farrow, 13, and Dylan Farrow, 6, was finalized.

4. Six months later, in July 1992, at her Connecticut country home, Mia had a birthday party for 7-year-old Dylan. After Woody retired to the guest room for the night, Mia affixed to his bathroom door a note which called him a child molester: “Child molester at birthday party, molded and abused one sister, now focused on youngest sister, family disgusted.”

5. Less than a month later, on August 1, 1992, Mia called her psychologist after having learned that Woody’s affair with Soon-Yi was continuing: she described Woody as “satanic and evil,” pleaded with her psychologist to “find a way to stop him,” and told her that a week earlier she and Woody had been discussing the possibility of getting married, which she was still considering.

6. Four days later, on August 5, 1992, Mia phoned her psychologist again: “in contrast to her agitated state in other calls,” she was “extremely calm” and told her psychologist that “Dylan had begun complaining that Woody had abused her.”

7. Also on August 5, 1992, Mia’s longtime best friend, Casey Pascal, called to tell her that, the previous day, her babysitter saw “Woody kneeling on the floor holding Dylan, with his face in her lap” after the two women had left their children in Mia’s Connecticut home with Woody and another babysitter to go shopping together. Casey also said that her babysitter claimed to have lost track of Dylan for about 15 to 20 minutes on August 4, 1992 and that they later discovered Dylan without any underwear.

8. Also on August 5, 1992, Mia was scheduled to sign custody papers: she had worked out an arrangement with Woody allowing him visitation, and he agreed to keep casting her in his movies. In addition, they’d keep going on their annual, two-week trips to Europe as a family, and to the outside world, they’d remain Woody and Mia. However, before those papers arrived, Mia called her lawyer and said something very bad had happened: Woody had taken Dylan up to the attic and molested her by touching her private parts with his finger. Mia testified: “She said he took her into the attic and that he touched her in certain places, that he inserted a finger partially” – suspiciously, a very specific observation and description from a child who just turned 7. Mia also testified that from the time Dylan was 2 1/2 or 3 years old, she feared that Woody had a sexual attachment to Dylan, but Woody’s lawyer cast doubt on her assertion that his behavior was inappropriate by showing that she had consented to his adoption in 1991 of Moses and Dylan.

9. Over the next two or three days, Mia videotaped (edited in-camera) Dylan accusing Woody of molesting her. Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson, said in deposition that it took Mia two or three days to videotape Dylan making the accusations, and at times Dylan appeared not to be interested in the process. “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,” Monica said. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

10. On August 5 and 6, 1992, Mia brought Dylan to her doctor for an exam – although there was no physical evidence of abuse, the doctor was obligated by law to report the allegations to authorities. Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson, said in a sworn affidavit: “The day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, Mia took Dylan to the doctor. When they arrived home, Mia said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor.’ She took Dylan back to the doctor, and when they arrived home, Mia told me that ‘everything is OK now – everything is set’.”

11. On August 6, 1992, Mia made similar accusations of Woody molesting their 4 1/2-year-old son Satchel, but later dropped the charges because “its substance was too insane even for the instigator to stay with.” Woody said: “I hoped that despite many conflicts and much anger, that with calm and compromise I could obtain an agreement in the best interests of the children. Then, suddenly and appallingly I was accused of having molested my beloved 7-year-old daughter and hysterically the next day of molesting my dear 4 1/2-year-old son.”

12. Mia and her cohorts, her longtime best friend Casey Pascal, Casey’s babysitter, Alison Strickland, and Mia’s babysitter, Kristi Groteke, all testified to the same story at the child custody hearing in March 1993, claiming that they lost track of Dylan for about 15 to 20 minutes on August 4, 1992 while Mia and Casey were out shopping, and that they later discovered Dylan without any underwear. Alison, Casey’s babysitter, also claimed that she saw Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap, which made her feel uncomfortable (Woody testified that his head was not in her lap, but that he had knelt down to talk to her). Casey said, “I had to call Mia [to tell her about Alison's allegations] and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.” Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson (who was not present on August 4, 1992, the day of the alleged abuse, and who resigned from her position in the Farrow household on January 25, 1993), said in deposition that on August 6, 1992, Kristi Groteke (Dylan’s babysitter beginning sometime in 1991) told her something different from what she later would testify to at the child custody hearing in 1993: On August 6, 1992, when Kristi drove Monica to the bus stop, she was “very upset;” Kristi told Monica “that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen.” Monica also said in deposition that on August 6, 1992, Kristi said: “The day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes and she did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.” Kristi Groteke resigned from her position in the Farrow household sometime after testifying at the child custody hearing in 1993: she immediately wrote a tell-all book about Mia and Woody, which was published in May 1994; in 1995, the book was turned into a mini-series by Fox Television, in which Kristi played herself.

13. Monica Thompson, Mia’s nanny, charged that: “Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan. For several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.” Monica also said in her deposition: “On several occasions Ms. Farrow asked me if I would be ‘on her side.’ Ms. Farrow has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.” Monica added that almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place: “Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Monica said in the sworn affidavit.

14. After the molestation reports were filed, Mia still wanted to work with Woody on the set of ‘Husbands and Wives.’ Mia also kept on with her plans to star in Woody’s next movie, ‘Manhattan Murder Mystery,’ and placed a call to meet with the wardrobe supervisor on August 9, 1992. The lead female role was written for Mia by Woody but Diane Keaton got the part following the abuse allegations; reportedly, Mia showed up for the first day’s shooting, much to Woody’s consternation.

15. After meeting on August 13, 1992, Woody felt Mia was trying to shake him down for $7 million, so on that day (seven days after he learned about the accusations), he began an action against Mia to obtain custody of their three children, Dylan Farrow, 7, and Moses Farrow, 14 (Woody’s adoption of them was finalized in December 1991) and Satchel Farrow, 5 (Woody’s biological son with Mia).

16. At the state police barracks in Litchfield, Connecticut, Woody was interviewed for 3 1/2 hours. He denied assaulting Dylan (Woody has always vehemently denied the abuse accusations). Accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior with a child are a very serious matter. Such accusations often lead to criminal investigations and referral to a child welfare or protection agency, and can result in criminal charges against the person being accused. The initial response of the person accused can have a significant, permanent impact on this situation. This is why you should avoid making any statements to law enforcement or other public agencies until you have consulted an attorney. Even making a statement of denial can be tricky in this situation if you have not obtained legal advice. If you try to say that you did not touch a child inappropriately, the other person may misinterpret your statement. You also may make a simple statement that seems innocuous, like admitting you talked to a child at a certain time or were alone with a child, only to have the statement used against you at a later time.

17. Woody denied ever having been in the attic of Mia’s country home, explaining that he wouldn’t even have known how to get to it [he "dislikes the country" and very seldom visited the home]. It was later clarified that the attic referenced by Dylan in her molestation allegations was actually a crawl space off the closet of Mia’s bedroom where the children sometimes played – after learning about this revised detail in the allegations and that “fibers consistent with his hair” had been found in the crawl space, Woody acknowledged that once or twice he had reached into the opening of the crawl space to grab one of the children or to hand them a soda, but he vehemently denied ever entering the crawl space. [Dory Previn, who was Andre Previn's wife at the time Mia became pregnant with his twin sons, wrote a song about Mia, “Beware of Young Girls” – when asked at the child custody hearing in 1993 about the song, Mia said: "I know that it referred to me." On the same 1970 album as that song is another song written and performed by Dory, titled, “With My Daddy in the Attic,” which is about an incestuous relationship between a father and his young daughter, suggesting a possible origin of the abuse allegations in the attic.]

18. Woody agreed to a polygraph examination (lie detector test) administered by a private polygraph examiner, which he passed – his lawyer advised him against submitting to a police polygraph examination since they are conducted for purely interrogation purposes. [Mia did not take a lie detector test but it is unclear whether it was because she refused or was not asked.]

19. Two teams of experts (the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and the New York State Department of Social Services) hired by authorities during a 14-month investigation in both Connecticut (where the original abuse accusations were filed) and New York (where second abuse accusations were filed) concluded that the reports of abuse were unfounded and ruled that no abuse had occurred. Read the Yale-New Haven Hospital report by clicking here.

20. Woody was never arrested, charged or prosecuted for any crime – there was no physical evidence of abuse, authorities concluded that the reports of abuse were unfounded, and a team of experts believed Dylan’s statements had a rehearsed quality and that she was coached by Mia.

21. Faced with a lack of evidence of abuse and the strong probability of coaching by Mia, the district attorney brought no charges against Woody – it was not because Mia “agreed to drop the charges” nor was it because the district attorney wanted “to spare a fragile complainant the trauma of a court appearance.”

22. In September 1993, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut, Frank Maco, held a press conference to announce that, while he had “probable cause” to prosecute Woody on charges of sexual molestation of Dylan, he was “dropping the case to spare her the trauma of appearing in court.” Woody filed complaints asking the state bar counsel to disbar Maco and requested that the State Criminal Justice Commission discipline him for making an accusation without producing an indictment – Woody condemned Maco as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible.” The grievance panel revealed that on the same day of his press conference, Maco sent a copy of his statement to the judge in Manhattan who would decide whether to void, at Mia’s request, Woody’s adoption of Dylan and Moses. The disciplinary panel found “Maco’s handling of the child-molestation complaint against Woody was cause for ‘grave concern’ and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Woody and Mia.” A professor and expert on legal ethics criticized Maco, saying: “You don’t declare the man guilty and then say you’re not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press. It’s a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights, in my view. I can’t overemphasize how remarkable this is.”

23. In 1993, Woody lost the child custody battle: in the ruling, the judge (disgusted by Woody and his relationship with Soon Yi) forbade his seeing Dylan and Moses and allowed court-supervised visits only with Satchel.

24. Just a short time after the custody ruling, Mia refused Woody any contact with Satchel, who Mia renamed Seamus, which he later changed to Ronan.

25. On October 5, 1994, Woody lost an appeal for relief from the custody ruling. Mia refused Woody contact with all three of the children (Moses, Dylan and Satchel Farrow).

26. In April 1997, Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut, told Connecticut Magazine that, over the course of the 13 months, 7-year-old Dylan told her mother, psychologists, doctors, social workers and police that Woody touched her – with the tip of his right index finger – several times that day on August 4, 1992. Maco recalled that Dylan said: “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.” The allegation is very specific and the language used to describe the alleged abuse is very mature, well beyond the life experience and knowledge of a child who just turned 7.

27. Mia went on to adopt six more children (she remains single to this day). Woody and Soon-Yi married in 1997 and adopted two children together.

28. In 1995, Soon-Yi earned her Bachelor’s degree from Drew University; in 1998, she earned her Master’s degree in Special Education from Columbia University – she is not developmentally challenged as Mia’s camp has proclaimed.

29. On January 12, 2014, Woody was honored with the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes: during the event, Mia and Ronan published tweets that brought the 21-year-old sexual allegations back into the headlines. A few months earlier, in both October and November 2013, Mia was featured in Vanity Fair articles where she rehashed her 1992 interview with the magazine about the molestation allegations; Dylan first went public with her story in the November 2013 Vanity Fair piece and then published an open letter in the New York Times on February 1, 2014, but with many new details.

30. On February 5, 2014, Moses spoke out in defense of Woody, saying: “Of course Woody did not molest my sister. My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Several years ago, Moses re-established a relationship with Woody and became estranged from Mia. Woody’s other two children with Mia, Dylan (who now goes by the name Malone) and Satchel (who now goes by the name Ronan) continue to shun him.

31. One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece in November 2013 was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be “Dylan Farrow Speaks Out” – what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, “Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.” What was Dylan’s trigger for renewing the allegations 21 years later? She wanted attention, says book critic Janet Maslin: “Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself. Of all the things that have been parsed by total strangers about what went on in that family, no one has ever dared to consider the sibling rivalry issues in there. It’s just too much to think about.”

32. Mia’s friend published an opinion about the renewed allegations at “The Common Ills” blogspot [http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2014/02/mia-and-her-brood-drag-whatevers-left.html] – it is a very interesting read.

Natural and adopted: Mia Farrow in 1978 with some of her children Mathew, 7, Sasha, 7, Soon-yi, 7, Lark Song, 5, Fletcher, 5, and Summer, 3
Mia in 1978 with her biological sons, Fletcher, 5, and twins Matthew and Sasha, 7, and her adopted daughters, Soon-Yi, 7, Lark Song, 5, and Summer Daisy Song, 3

The following are excerpts from J. Ross and J. Carro’s opinion in a brief submitted to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 12, 1994 (three judges concurred with their opinions); statements on June 7, 1993 from Judge Elliot Wilk (who presided over the custody hearing); courtroom testimony at the custody hearing in March 1993; the March 1993 report issued by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital; and information from other reports and news sources (marked with hyperlinks).

Yale Report

Woody and Mia met in the fall of 1979, around the time she adopted Moses [born with cerebral palsy, he was adopted from Korea when he was two-years-old].

They first were introduced in 1979 when Michael Caine brought Mia over to Woody’s table at celebrity-crowded Elaine’s. Mutual attraction was quietly nudged into love during a series of lunches and dinners arranged by Woody’s secretary. But Mia already had something of a crush, she said, since she had been struck by Woody’s photo on the cover of the New York Times magazine that same year. “He had such an interesting face,” she said. Woody had a bit more to say about Mia’s translucent skin and delicate cheekbones. “It’s impossible,” he said, “to photograph her when Mia is not being beautiful.”

According to an article in the New York Times in February 1991:

In the fall of 1979 Woody met Mia, who had seven children. He said: “Mia introduced me to a whole other world. Yet the two of us have so little in common that it always amazes us. We’re always marveling on why we threw in our lot together and stayed together as long as we have. I could go on about our differences forever: She doesn’t like the city and I adore it. She loves the country and I don’t like it. She doesn’t like sports at all and I love sports. She loves to eat in, early – 5:30, 6 – and I love to eat out, late. She likes simple, unpretentious restaurants; I like fancy places. She can’t sleep with an air-conditioner on; I can only sleep with an air-conditioner on. She loves pets and animals; I hate pets and animals. She likes to spend tons of time with kids; I like to spend my time with work and only a limited time with kids. She would love to take a boat down the Amazon or go up to Mount Kilimanjaro; I never want to go near those places. She has an optimistic, yea-saying feeling toward life itself, and I have a totally pessimistic, negative feeling. She likes the West Side of New York; I like the East Side of New York. She has raised nine children now with no trauma and has never owned a thermometer. I take my temperature every two hours in the course of the day.”

When they met, he was 43 years old and a critical and commercial success. His 1977 film, ‘Annie Hall,’ had won him Oscar nominations for best director, best actor and best original screenplay, a triple play managed only once before, by Orson Welles for ‘Citizen Kane.’ Woody won all but best actor.

She, 34 and divorced for nearly a year, was working on Broadway in ‘Romantic Comedy.’ (During her marriages, first to Frank Sinatra and then to Andre Previn, the composer and conductor, she was encouraged not to work.) One evening, Michael Caine and his wife came to a performance and afterward the three went to Elaine’s for dinner. Woody was there at his usual table; Caine stopped to say hello and introduced Mia.

She had actually met Woody in passing a party in California several years earlier and they once corresponded, she to tell him that she enjoyed ‘Manhattan’ and he politely to thank her. She had never seen him as a stand-up comedian, which he was in the early 1960’s, but she knew of him as a director, having also seen ‘Annie Hall.’

Then in April 1979, she noticed a picture of Woody on the cover of this magazine. He had on a scruffy sweater and was holding an open umbrella over one shoulder. She found the picture appealing and read the profile inside, concluding that he was “neat.” She tore off the cover and stuck it in her Random House Dictionary. (About seven years later – by then she and Allen had been together for about six years – she came upon the picture and had it framed. “I’m not in the habit of saving pictures like that, but I was a little lonely at the time and he had such an interesting face. It was a long winter,” she adds, shrugging.)

Some weeks after their encounter at Elaine’s, Woody sent her an invitation to his New Year’s Eve party (“I think practically everybody in New York got one,” she says). She went with Tony Perkins, who was in the show with her, and his wife. Woody pays attention to the smallest details of the few big parties he gives – he stewed over the paper stock of the Cartier invitations for this one. But he is an almost invisible host. He likes to fill a grand place like the Harkness House, a mansion turned for a time into a ballet school, with hundreds of guests but he doesn’t like to work the room. He greets everyone as they arrive. “If it’s me meeting people at the door, I have no entry phobia. The burden is on them.” Then once the throng is assembled, he more or less fades into the woodwork.

Mia had a good time at the party but only a few words with Woody. Afterward, she sent him a note of thanks and a copy of Lewis Thomas’s book of essays ‘The Medusa and the Snail.’ Woody had his secretary, Norma Lee Clark, call her (‘Gracious person that I am,’ he says) to thank her and suggest that they have lunch sometime.

In the spring of 1980, he invited Mia, again through his secretary, to lunch at Lutece. (Mia later made a needlepoint sampler of the date and event – April 17, 1980 – that hangs on the wall outside his bedroom.) More dinner invitations followed, always through Woody’s secretary. During the first several months of this routine, Woody never phoned Mia. He prefers not to speak on the phone to anyone unless he has to, and being invited through an intermediary didn’t bother her. “She never mentioned it,” Woody says. It was a slow courtship. “We would have dinner,” Mia says, “and we’re still having dinner.” [Click here to read the rest of the story.]

Woody, Mia, Dylan and Satchel

Woody, Mia, Dylan and Satchel
Woody, Mia, Dylan and Satchel

In 1984, Mia expressed a desire to have a child with Woody. After six months of unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant, Mia decided to adopt.

Mia legally adopted newborn Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow in 1985 [court documents and other records have conflicting dates on the exact day]. Woody began to spend some mornings and evenings at Mia’s apartment in order to be with Dylan [throughout their relationship, the couple maintained separate apartments in Manhattan], plus he visited Mia’s country home in Connecticut. He remained aloof from Mia’s other children except for Moses, to whom he was cordial.

In 1986 Mia expressed a desire to adopt another child; Woody was much more amenable to the idea the second time.

Before the 1986 adoption could be completed, Mia became pregnant with Satchel; Woody showed little interest in her pregnancy although he testified he was happy at the idea of becoming a father.

Because Woody showed little or no interest in the pregnancy, Mia began to withdraw from him during the pregnancy and, afterwards (Satchel was born on December 19, 1987), she did not wish Satchel to become attached to Woody.

Satchel’s psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, testified that she first met with Woody and Mia in 1990, as part of her preliminary evaluation of Satchel, whom she said was alienated from Woody at the time. She said the parents’ own relationship was “in considerable trouble,” with the two of them unable to agree on issues as small as whether or not Mia should keep a child’s thermometer in the house.

Coates also testified during the child custody hearing in March 1993 that from his earliest years Satchel would aggressively resist Woody’s attentions. “Satchel would push him away, would not acknowledge him…. If he would try to help Satchel getting out of bed or going into bed, Satchel would kick him, at times had scratched his face. They were in trouble.” Likewise, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel after the custody ruling, testified that Satchel had told his father, “I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;” plus Satchel “indicated to his father that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see him anymore, and he indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see his father.”

It was after the birth his son, Satchel, that Woody began to accompany Mia, the Previn children, Moses, Dylan and Satchel on family vacations in Europe (these trips were in 1987, 1988 and 1989) – Woody’s didn’t officially adopt Dylan until 1991, at which time he also adopted Moses.Woody claimed Mia became inordinately attached to the newborn Satchel to the exclusion of the other children. He said that after Satchel’s birth he began spending more time with Dylan, ostensibly to make up for the lack of attention shown her by Mia.

According to an August 1992 People magazine article:

The couple always maintained separate residences. Her apartment was half a mile across Central Park from his East Side duplex. “I like the arrangement,” Farrow said in 1990. “We have a good life.” They shared the moviemaking, of course, plus shepherding the kids around New York, occasional weekends at her country home (although Allen hates the country and often chose to stay in town) and suppers at his favorite hangout, Elaine’s. (Mia was always willing to say hello to people who would stop by their table there; Woody would stare at his feet.)

Since the birth of his son, he would get up at 5 A.M. to be at Farrow’s place when Satchel, Dylan and Moses awoke; by 10, he would be at work directing his latest movie and producing the next. At night he would return to her place to see the kids to bed, then head out with her for a bite to eat. (And, of course, he managed to maintain his strict regimen of psychotherapy, which goes back 25 years.) “She does all the work,” he joked, “and I skim off the cream, since I only see the kids at their best.”

Woody always seemed especially close to Dylan, says a friend who has regularly watched them during Allen’s Monday-night jazz gigs at Michael’s Pub in Manhattan, where he has played clarinet for 21 years. “Woody really adores her,” he says. “She would sit on his lap while he was playing, many times,” says the friend. “When they adopted Dylan, I noticed that he started to wear a tie, and I said, ‘What’s going on? You never wear a tie.’ And he said, “Well, Dylan likes to play with it, so I wear a tie.” [Click here to read the rest of the story.]

The record demonstrates that Mia expressed concern to Woody about his relationship with Dylan and that Woody expressed his concern to Mia about her relationship with Satchel. In 1990 both Dylan and Satchel were evaluated by clinical psychologists. Dr. Coates began treatment of Satchel in 1990; in April of 1991 Dylan was referred to Dr. Schultz, a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of young children with serious emotional problems.

In 1990 at about the same time that Woody and Mia were growing distant from each other and expressing their concerns about the other’s relationship with their youngest children, “Woody began acknowledging” Mia’s 21-year-old daughter Soon-Yi Previn [one of Mia's adopted daughters with her former husband Andre Previn] – “previously he treated her in the same way he treated Mia’s other children from her prior marriage, rarely even speaking to them.” Woody told Newsweek magazine in August 1992 that his relationship with Mia was over when he took Soon-Yi [who was born in Korea on October 8, 1970] to a New York Knicks professional basketball game in 1990 because he had no one to go with. The following are excerpts from that interview.

“Mia and I were going through the motions of a long-defunct relationship and, you know, I would get up, go there in the morning, play with my kids and then go to work. And then come back at night, play with the kids, put ‘em to bed. Mia and I had a civil relationship. We went out to dinner once a week, maybe, but we never did anything together. I was not remotely close to Soon-Yi. She is the adopted daughter of Andre Previn and Mia. I must have spoken to the other kids in that house a hundred times more than Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was a quiet person, and I never had any interest in her at all. None.

“And then once, when she was 20 years old or almost 21, one night I had no one to go to the basketball game with me, and she wanted to see a basketball game live. Well, I took her to the game and, we chatted and had a nice time. And she said some things to me about the family that shocked me, and she said, you know, you’re not over here enough, so you don’t really know, but it’s not what you think it is.

“And we talked, and we got friendly, and a month or so later I said I’m going to the game again, do you want to go? And we went and we had a nice time and, and gradually over a period of time a strictly talking relationship developed. And then only, only long after the relationship was finished with Mia did it very gradually drift into an intimate relationship.

“Soon-Yi is not part of my family. Soon-Yi has a very high-profile father; I was not a father figure to those children. I was a father figure to my own children, period. Those are the three in my will.”

Soon-Yi Previn and Woody Allen at a New York Knicks basketball game in 1990
Soon-Yi Previn and Woody Allen at a New York Knicks basketball game in 1990

In December 1991 two events coincided: Woody’s adoptions of Dylan and Moses were finalized and Woody began his sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi [she was born in Korea and adopted in 1977 – it is frequently reported that her actual birth year is unknown and is believed to be 1970 or 1972, but her birth date is October 8, 1970, which means she was 21 when she and Woody began their sexual relationship.

According to an August 1992 People magazine article:

As for Woody’s passion for Soon-Yi, it began on his 56th birthday, December 1, 1991. That, in any event, is the date that Mia’s attorney, Alan Dershowitz, cites as the first time that Woody and Soon-Yi had sex. “How do we know that?” Dershowitz asks. “Soon-Yi eventually had a long talk with her mother about it.”

The bitterness of the Allen-Farrow denouement burst into public view on August 13, 1992, when Allen, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan for custody of his and Mia’s son, Satchel, 4, and two children they adopted together, Moses, a 14-year-old Korean with cerebral palsy, and daughter Dylan, 7. “It has been tragic to watch what Mia has gone through,” said Mia’s mother, Maureen O’Sullivan when the suit was filed. “The truth of this story will soon be made public.”

Part of the larger story she referred to so darkly, it turns out, is that Woody has fallen head over heels for another of Mia’s seven adopted children, 21-year-old Soon-Yi, a sophomore at Drew University in Madison, N.J. With photos of his long, weary face illustrating lurid headlines on the front pages of New York City’s tabloids, the normally reclusive Woody felt obliged to do the unthinkable: talk about his private life to the press. He confessed to the new relationship – which Mia reportedly discovered seven months earlier when she came across nude photos of Soon-Yi taken in Allen’s East Side duplex – with a statement that was an unabashed valentine: “Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It’s real and happily all true. She’s a lovely, intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues to turn my life around in a positive way.”

For Mia, discovery of the affair was devastating, says her friend Maria Roach, 56, daughter of director Hal Roach and godmother to Mia’s daughter Lark, 18. When she coincidentally called Mia shortly after the pictures of Soon-Yi had surfaced, “I thought someone had died,” says Roach. Then Mia wrote her a letter full of heartbreak. “My vision has been unclear,” the letter reads, “and I have spent more than a dozen years with a man who would destroy me and corrupt my daughter, leading her into a betrayal of her mother and her principles, leaving her morally bankrupt with the bond between us demolished. I can think of no cruder way to lose a child or a lover.”

The betrayal, in Mia’s eyes, was all the more painful because of the lengths she had gone to to adopt Soon-Yi in 1977. Federal law then prevented U.S. families from adopting more than two foreign children. Mia already had Lark and Daisy, but she was finally able to bring Soon-Yi after launching an effort lobbying Congress to repeal the law.

Observes a source close to Woody: “I’m sure Woody had reservations [about starting a sexual relationship with Soon-Yi], but you don’t choose the people you fall in love with.” Besides, says the source, before his kids Dylan, Moses and Satchel were added to the family, he avoided being involved with Mia’s brood. He wasn’t around surrogate-parenting Soon-Yi and the others, says the source. Previn remained their father figure.

Mia sequestered herself at Frog follow, her Connecticut hideaway, reportedly too distraught to eat. She still loves Soon-Yi, says Maureen O’Sullivan: “A mother always loves her child.” Mia was to have starred in Woody’s next film, Manhattan Murder Mystery, but has since been fired. He has made it quite clear that he no longer considers Farrow his leading lady. “In the end,” he told reporters, “the one thing I have been guilty of is falling in love with Mia Farrow’s adult daughter at the end of our years together.” The new star of the film, by the way, will be Diane Keaton (the lead female role was written for Mia by Woody but Keaton got the part following the abuse allegations; reportedly, Mia showed up for the first day’s shooting, much to Woody’s consternation). [Click here to read the rest of the story.]

Mia and Soon-Yi in 1991
Mia and Soon-Yi in 1991

It was on January 13, 1992, while in Woody’s apartment, that Mia discovered six nude photographs of Soon-Yi (posed reclining on a couch with her legs spread apart), which had been left on a mantelpiece. When Mia returned home, she showed the photos to Soon-Yi and asked, “What have you done?” and then left the room before Soon-Yi answered. During the following weekend, Mia hugged Soon-Yi and told her she loved her and did not blame her. Shortly thereafter, Mia asked Soon-Yi how long she had been seeing Woody. When Soon-Yi referred to her sexual relationship with Woody, Mia hit her on the side of the face and on the shoulders. Mia also told her older children what she had learned. After receiving Mia’s telephone call, Woody went to her apartment where, he said, he found her to be “ragingly angry.” Within that month, both parties retained counsel and attempted to negotiate a settlement of their differences.

Mia's 1992 Valentine's Day card to Woody after discovering the affair
Mia’s 1992 Valentine’s Day card to Woody after discovering the affair with Soon-Yi

In January 1992, Mia gave Woody a family picture Valentine with skewers through the hearts of the children and a knife through her heart [this is a quote from Judge Wilk on page 9 of his decision in the 1993 child custody case].

In July 1992, Mia had a birthday party for Dylan at her Connecticut home. After Woody retired to the guest room for the night, Mia affixed to his bathroom door a note which called him a child molester – a reference to his affair with Soon-Yi [this is a quote from Judge Wilk on page 9 of his decision in the 1993 child custody case]. However, the note clearly refers to both Soon-Yi and Dylan:  “Child molester at birthday party, molded and abused one sister, now focused on youngest sister, family disgusted.”

woody 25
The note Mia posted on the door the evening of Dylan’s birthday party in July 1992 (this was a month BEFORE the alleged molestation incident of August 4, 1992)

On August 4, 1992, Woody traveled to Mia’s Connecticut house to spend time with the children. Allegedly, during a 15-minute period when Woody and Dylan “vanished from sight,” Woody took Dylan into a crawl-like space off of Mia’s bedroom (described by the Farrow family as an attic) and molested her while she played with a toy train – Mia had left to go shopping with a friend, Casey Pascal, leaving her children, along with Casey’s three children, with Woody, two babysitters (Kristi Groteke, Mia’s babysitter, and Alison Strickland, Casey’s babysitter), and a French tutor (Sophie Berge).

In April 1997, Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut, told Connecticut Magazine that, over the course of the 13 months, 7-year-old Dylan told her mother, psychologists, doctors, social workers and police that Woody touched her – with the tip of his right index finger – several times that day on August 4, 1992. Maco recalled that Dylan said: “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.”

According to Mia, Dylan told her about the alleged abuse the next day, August 5, 1992, when she confronted Dylan after Mia’s friend Casey called to report something her babysitter said had happened at the country home while they were shopping the previous day [at the child custody hearing in 1993, Alison Strickland, Casey's babysitter, testified that she saw Woody kneeling before Dylan “in a way that bothered” her; Woody testified that he knelt, speaking to Dylan, but did not put his head in her lap]. Mia videotaped Dylan’s statements over the next two or three days – Dylan said she had been with her father in the attic and that he had touched her private parts with his finger.

When asked by Newsweek magazine in August 1992 if he was alone with Dylan on August 4, 1992, Woody replied: “Was I alone with her? No. I play with the kids all the time and I’m in and out of the house and there are always people around. I’m not saying those people have their eyes trained on me every second. . . . But I was never alone at any time.” He went on to say: “I’ve been a model, model father with these kids. I mean I’m affectionate like my parents were with me, but that’s it.”

It was a phone call from Mia’s “longtime best friend,” Casey Pascal, on August 5, 1992, which started the allegations that Woody had molested Dylan in the attic of Mia’s Connecticut country home on August 4, 1992. Casey’s babysitter, Alison Strickland, reported to Casey that she saw Woody with “his head in Dylan’s lap” on that day – Casey also claims that, later that day, “we noticed Dylan didn’t have any underwear on.” However, Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson, stated in an deposition in February 1993 that Kristi Groteke, Dylan’s babysitter, told her on August 6, 1992 that “the day Woody spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes, and she did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.” Kristi also told Mia’s nanny that she “felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen;” however, Kristi told a different story under oath during the child custody hearing in March 1993 (which would mean she committed perjury).

Kristi Groteke, who worked for Mia from 1991 to 1993 (the year Woody began his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi until after the custody trial in 1993), testified during the custody trial in March 1993 that on August 4, 1992, she lost track of Dylan and Woody for 15 to 20 minutes; she said she did not inform Mia of this until after Dylan had made the allegation of abuse. After the trial, in May 1994, Groteke authored a nanny’s-eye-view tell-all, “Mia & Woody: Love & Betrayal,” with a writer for People. In 1995, Fox Television produced a miniseries, “Love and Betrayal: The Mia Farrow Story,” based on Groteke’s book: in the movie, Groteke played herself.

Groteke 3
Kristi Groteke with her parents

Kristi Groteke’s married name is Kristi Groteke Guadagnoli. She now lives in the Chantilly, Virginia area where she is a practicing psychologist. She earned her B.S. from Manhattan College, her M.S. in counseling from Seton Hall University, and her PsyD. from Antioch New England Graduate School.

Groteke 1
Dr. Kristi Groteke Guadagnoli cofounded MindWell and serves as the Director of Therapy Services

According to Casey in her Daily Mail interview on February 12, 2014: “It was not until later that Alison came to me and said there was something I should know; she said it was the kind of situation where if she had walked in on grown-ups she would have said ‘sorry’ – then she realised there was a very small child involved and she was horrified. I had to call Mia and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.”

The following is more of the story as retold by Casey Pascal to The Daily Mail on February 12, 2014 (note that some of the following statements are hearsay).

Woody’s relationship with Dylan had become so intense he had sought treatment for his “inappropriate behaviour” with the little girl. “It was an on-going concern,” Casey says: “People were concerned about Woody’s behavior with Dylan. His intensity with the child… he didn’t seem to leave her alone for a second. He was obsessed with the child. Mia had mentioned it to him, and he was seeing someone. I saw it from the perspective that the children would be involved in a game and he would come and scoop her up and take her away; it was not anything you would consider normal. Mia always told baby sitters never to leave them alone, the child seemed to have no space for herself, he overpowered her. She would be going off into her mind in a different space, she would tune out. We knew it was too intense for a little girl. I would just take my children home when Woody arrived as there was no more playing with Dylan when he arrived. It was such a one-sided relationship. He was gushing attentively over a little child who just wanted to be someplace else.”

“I would never have left my children with him,” says Casey. [However, she did just that, on August 4, 1992, the day of the alleged molestation – she and Mia went shopping and left the children with Woody, two babysitters (Kristi Groteke, Mia's babysitter, and Alison Strickland, Casey's babysitter), and a French tutor (Sophie Berge).]

Mere months had passed since Mia had discovered a set of exceedingly graphic nude Polaroid photos of her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, barely hidden on Woody’s mantelpiece, but for the sake of the children, Mia allowed Woody to stay in contact with his son Satchel – whose paternity has since been brought into doubt – and his adopted daughter Dylan. However, there remained an “atmosphere of hurt” in the house. And she suggested the shopping trip purely, she says, because Allen was on his way over to the Bridgewater home Mia had bought, named Frog Hollow.

It was while they were out that Casey’s babysitter, Alison Strickland, walked in on a scene in the TV room that left her reeling. Little Dylan was sitting on the sofa, while kneeling before her, with his head in her lap, was Woody Allen [other reports state that Alison said Woody had "his face in her lap"]. Alison would later give testimony in a 1993 court battle, saying Dylan had been”sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.”

Casey recalls: “We took Mia’s baby son Isaiah out with us and went to the store and while we were gone Alison went looking for John and opened a door to a little den off the kitchen and found Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap. We came back, not knowing anything about this, we noticed Dylan didn’t have any underwear on and Mia asked one of the girls to help her get some pants on.” It was not until later that day, Casey says, that: “Alison came to me and said there was something I should know, she said it was the kind of situation where if she had walked in on grown-ups she would have said ‘sorry’ – then she realised there was a very small child involved and she was horrified. I had to call Mia and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.”

Woody, Fletcher Previn, Mia, Dylan, Moses and Soon-Yi, circa 1985
Woody, Fletcher Previn, Mia, Dylan Farrow, Moses Farrwo and Soon-Yi Previn, circa 1985

Mia refused to permit Woody to visit with Dyan after August 4, 1992.

On August 13, 1992, Woody revealed in a news conference that Mia also accused him of sexually abusing their 4-year-old son Satchel – he said that accusation has since been dropped because “its substance was too insane even for the instigator to stay with.” Woody told reporters: “I hoped that despite many conflicts and much anger, that with calm and compromise I could obtain an agreement in the best interests of the children. Then, suddenly and appallingly I was accused of having molested my beloved 7-year-old daughter and hysterically the next day of molesting my dear 4 1/2-year-old son.” The following are excerpts from an article about the news conference by the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 19, 1992.

It was revealed, by the usually reclusive director, at a news conference he called himself, that Farrow also accused him of sexually abusing their 4-year- old son – though he said that accusation has since been dropped.

And he made a charge of his own, later denied by Farrow’s camp, that Farrow had offered to drop all claims of abuse in exchange for $7 million.

Connecticut State Police said a doctor examined the couple’s 7-year-old adopted daughter for abuse two weeks ago at Farrow’s behest. As required by state law, the doctor notified police. That triggered the investigation. Farrow owns a country home near Litchfield, Conn.

The tip of the dispute went public Thursday when Allen filed for custody of their three children, who live with Farrow. A lawyer familiar with the filing said Allen charged that Farrow was an unfit mother. A hearing was set for Tuesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

“I hoped that despite many conflicts and much anger, that with calm and compromise I could obtain an agreement in the best interests of the children,” Allen, appearing tired and frail, said yesterday. “Then, suddenly and appallingly I was accused of having molested my beloved 7-year-old daughter and hysterically the next day of molesting my dear 4 1/2-year-old son.”

Allen said he had been told the allegation concerning his son would not be pursued, “I suppose because its substance was too insane even for the instigator to stay with.”

He said Farrow’s allegations of abuse led to his custody suit: “These totally false and outrageous allegations have sickened me so I felt that, for the sake of all my three children, I must try and remove them from an atmosphere so unhealthy it can surely leave irreparable scars,” said Allen.

“This, my lawyers tell me, is a currently popular though heinous card played in all too many child custody fights,” he said, decrying the ”manipulation of innocent children for vindictive and self-serving motives.”

Farrow’s attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and David Levett, were quick to deny Allen’s accusation that they had offered to drop abuse allegations for $7 million. “Mr. Allen’s custody suit is ‘the card’ his lawyers are playing in an effort to deflect attention away from the ongoing investigations of his conduct,” Farrow’s lawyers said last night. “There was an attempt to resolve this entire matter in a privileged and confidential forum, without a court proceeding which would inevitably hurt the children. This attempt was undercut by Mr. Allen’s decision to file his lawsuit and hold his press conference in breach of confidentiality.”

Irwin Tenenbaum, a lawyer for Allen, testified that on August 13, 1992, he was at the meeting in New York with Farrow’s lawyers who, he says, said “the charges could be made to go away” and “Dylan could not be available or not cooperate” in exchange for $7–8 million toward the children’s education and medical expenses and as additional compensation for Farrow’s film work. Tenenbaum testifies that at the meeting Farrow’s lawyer Dershowitz—who will later have a three-hour shouting match with Allen’s attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, in court and deny making a monetary offer—said, “We could do a down and dirty settlement for $5 million.”

On August 13, 1992, Woody began an action against Mia to obtain custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel.

Regarding his decision to sue for child custody after being accused of molesting Dylan, Woody told Newsweek magazine in August 1992: “Mia could have prevented it all. When she accused me of child molestation, I felt that was the time to say I don’t want my children in that atmosphere, it’s too sick. And that’s when I did what I had to do. I never thought about anything but the children. I didn’t think about my reputation; I don’t care if I never work again. . . . When that happened, that was so grotesque, and so fraudulent and so sick that I felt I’ve got to get those children out.”

In February 1993, lawyers for Woody said that a former nanny who worked for Mia testified she was pressured by Mia to support charges that Woody molested 7-year-old Dylan. The nanny, Monica Thompson, resigned from the Farrow household on January 25, 1993, after being subpoenaed in the bitter custody battle between Mia and Woody. She told Woody’s lawyers in depositions that another babysitter [Kristi Groteke] and one of the couple’s other adopted children, Moses, told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation. She also said that “Mia set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan,” and, on several occasions, Mia “asked me if I would be ‘on her side’ and has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.” She added that on one occasion, almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place (she said, “Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan”).

Thompson also said in deposition that it took Mia two or three days to videotape Dylan making the accusations, and at times the youngster appeared not to be interested in the process. “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,” Thompson said. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

Thompson, who had worked for Mia for seven years, said she was not present in Connecticut the day in August 1992 that the incident allegedly occurred. Thompson said the day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, Mia took Dylan to the doctor. “When they arrived home, Mia said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor.’ She took Dylan back to the doctor, and when they arrived home, Mia told me that ‘everything is OK now – everything is set’.”

Thompson said that the next day Kristi Groteke, Dylan’s babysitter, drove her to the bus and told her that “she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen.” Thompson said that Groteke told her that on “the day Woody spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes, and she did not remember Dylan being without her underwear” [which allegedly happened on the same day (August 4, 1992) as the molestation in the attic at Mia's country home in Connecticut while she and her friend, Casey Pascal, where out shopping]. However, Groteke testified during the custody trial in March 1993 that on August 4, 1992, she lost track of Dylan and Woody for 15 to 20 minutes; she said she did not inform Mia of this until after Dylan had made the allegation of abuse [after the 1993 custody hearing, Groteke resigned from her position in the Farrow household and immediately went on to write a tell-all book about Mia and Woody, which was published in May 1994; in 1995, the book was turned into a mini-series by Fox Television, in which Kristi played herself].

Thompson charged that “Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan – for several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.” The nanny said that on several occasions Mia “asked me if I would be ‘on her side’ and has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.”

Thompson added that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place. “Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Thompson said in an affidavit.

Mia and Dylan at the opening night of ‘Gypsy’ on Broadway in 2003
Dylan and Mia at the opening night of ‘Gypsy’ on Broadway in 2003

On March 18, 1993, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital issued a report which concluded that Woody had not sexually abused Dylan. The Yale-New Haven findings, which were the results of repeated interviews with Woody, Mia, Dylan, the child’s psychologist and household servants, were not made public. Woody’s lawyers reported that the edited videotape on which Mia had based the accusation was a result of either the child’s imagination or of someone else’s manipulation.

On April 20, 1993, a sworn statement was entered into evidence by Dr. John M. Leventhal, head of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which was retained by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the abuse charges.

An article in the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings:

As to why the team felt the charges didn’t hold water, Leventhal states: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. 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 also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.”

The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.”

Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

Moses, Dylan and Satchel, circa 1995
Moses, Dylan and Satchel Farrow, circa 1995

The child custody trial began on March 19, 1993. Testimony given at the trial “by the individuals caring for the children that day [Casey Pascal's babysitter, Alison Strickland, and Mia's babysitter, Kristie Groteke], the videotape of Dylan [taped by Mia over a two- or three-day period], and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Woody both before and after the alleged instance of abuse [Casey and Mia's testimony], suggested that the abuse did occur.” However, in February 1993, a former nanny who worked for Mia told Woody’s lawyers in depositions that she was pressured by Mia to support charges that Woody molested 7-year-old Dylan.

At the custody trial, Woody testified that after Mia learned of his affair with Soon-Yi, she cut his head out of family pictures and that “she called me dozens of times a night, raging and screaming, threatening to kill me.” He testified further that he once found a note she left by an open window saying, “I’ve jumped out the window because of what you’ve done to the children.”

Mia then testified that Dylan told her the preceding summer that her father had sexually molested her. Mia conceded, however, that the child, in her shyness, would not tell doctors of the abuse and that a medical examination produced no signs of it. She explained that she had videotaped the girl’s statement because: “I wanted this documented because it had happened before… He would creep up in the morning and lay beside her bed and wait for her to wake up. I thought it was excessive. I was uncomfortable all along.” Mia added that when Woody came to visit, Dylan screamed, “Hide me! Hide me!” to her brothers and sisters. [Click here to read more of Mia's testimony.]

During the custody hearing, Woody’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, accused the Connecticut State Police of aiding Mia’s case by allowing her lawyers to see the Dylan videotape but refusing his request to see it.

In a three-hour shouting match between Mia’s attorney, Alan M. Dershowitz, and Woody’s attorney, Abramowitz, Dershowitz denied allegations by Abramowitz that he had asked Woody to pay millions of dollars to get Mia to call off the molestation charge. Also, Woody claimed that Dershowilz had demanded a $7 million settlement not to pursue the allegations, but Dershowitz denied that any settlement had been brought up – leaving the podium, Woody delivered a mournful ad lib, saying: “My one public appearance in years,” he said, “and all straight lines”.

The following are excerpts from a report by the New York Post.

Mia learned of the affair January 13, 1992. She had brought Satchel to Woody’s apartment for his regular therapy session — the whole family saw shrinks — and discovered six nude Polaroids of Soon-Yi on his mantle, her legs spread open.

She phoned Woody, told him to stay away, and rushed back home with Satchel. Soon-Yi was there, and Mia attacked her, at one point reportedly breaking a chair over her daughter. Woody rushed over and declared his great love for Soon-Yi and his intent to marry her.

According to a 1992 Vanity Fair story: Mia said, “Fine . . . Take her and go.” Then, suddenly, Woody changed his mind, fell to his knees and proposed marriage to Mia. The thing with Soon-Yi, he said was “a tepid little affair” that was “probably good for Soon-Yi’s self-esteem.” Mia slapped his face, then Woody sat down with the rest of the family for dinner.

At the time, Woody was shooting “Husbands and Wives” — a film about adultery — and Mia had a starring role. The running joke on the set was that Mia needed a steady supply of “fresh babies.” Even after discovering the affair, she continued shooting. She veered from wanting to work things out with Woody to threatening his life and her own. She’d call him in the middle of night and threaten to gouge out his eyes, demand to know if Soon-Yi was better in bed.

Meanwhile, she adopted two more children… Soon-Yi was exiled, sent in June to work at a camp in Maine, and while in one of their reconciliation phases, Mia was shocked to get a letter from the camp: Soon-Yi had been asked to leave, because Woody was bombarding her with calls. She had no idea where her daughter was, and didn’t find out till the tabloids ran a picture of Soon-Yi outside Woody’s apartment.

On August 4, 1992, Mia claimed that while she was out shopping, Woody had disappeared with Dylan for 15 to 20 minutes at their country home in Connecticut. That day, Mia was scheduled to sign custody papers.

According to a September 1992 report in New York magazine, she had worked out an arrangement with Woody allowing him visitation. He agreed to keep casting her. They’d keep going on their annual, two-week trips to Europe as a family, and to the outside world, they’d remain Woody and Mia. But before those papers arrived, Mia called her lawyer and said something very bad had happened. Allen had taken Dylan up to the attic and molested her. She videotaped Dylan — a tape that was later reported to have been edited in-camera — then took her to the doctor for an exam.

Mia also kept on with her plans to star in Allen’s next movie, “Manhattan Murder Mystery,” and placed a call to meet with the wardrobe supervisor on August 9, 1992. “She accused me of child molestation on August 4th, right?” Woody told “60 Minutes” that November. “And August 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th — you know, the week after, she’s fully saying, ‘When do we begin our new movie? I’m going for my costume fitting next week’ . . . And I said, ‘Are you kidding? You’re accusing me of child molestation, and you think we’re just going to go on with the movie? . . . This is insane’. ”

By then, this neo-Greek tragedy had been playing out for eight months, and no one aside from the immediate family and their closest friends knew. But after a disastrous meeting on August 13, 1992, when Woody felt Mia was trying to shake him down for $7 million (a sum her lawyer disputed), he filed for custody of their three children, then leaked the filing to several outlets.

“On many, many occasions,” Woody told “60 Minutes,” “Mia had said to me, ‘You took my daughter, and I’m going to take yours.’ ”

Both sides began leaking to the press accusations ranging from unflattering to criminal.

Woody 26
Ronan and Mia (he looks like her, not Woody or Frank)—”It is striking how much Mia and Ronan are alike—the same porcelain skin, the same intense blue eyes, the same ability to perform,” wrote Maureen Orth.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Susan Coates, who had treated Satchel and met often with both parents, testified that she had been convinced by Mia’s behavior – including sending Woody a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children – that she might harm herself or Woody.

Coates, one of several psychologists and psychiatrists whom various members of the couple’s family had seen over the year, was questioned by Woody’s lawyer. She portrayed Mia as filled with escalating rage after discovering Woody’s affair with Soon-Yi in January 1992. The psychologist said that Mia’s actions in the following months, which included angry phone calls and a gift to Woody of a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children, had convinced her that Mia might harm herself or Woody. “I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him,” Coates testified. “I felt it was a really dangerous situation,” she said, explaining she told Woody that he should not visit Mia and her children at their country home because Mia remained so distraught. “In my clinical evaluation, this was a place where protection was needed.”

Coates, also testified that while she considered Woody’s relationship with Dylan to be “inappropriately intense,” she never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily “would be taken over by fantasy” when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.

The testimony of Dr. Coates – who regularly treated the couple’s biological son, Satchel, from 1990 to 1992, and often conversed or met with both parents – appeared to provide an alternative explanation for Woody’s behavior toward Dylan other than the one advanced by Mia.

Coates testified that on August 1, 1992, Mia called her after having learned that the affair with Soon-Yi was continuing. She described Woody as “satanic and evil,” pleaded with Coates to “find a way to stop him,” and told her that a week earlier she and Woody had been discussing the possibility of getting married, which she was still considering. Four days later, on August 5, 1992, Mia phoned her psychologist again: “in contrast to her agitated state in other calls,” she was “extremely calm” and told the psychologist that “Dylan had begun complaining that Woody had abused her.”

Coates broke the news to Woody of Dylan’s allegations. She described it as “one of the worst moments of my whole life. He sat on the edge of his chair and his eyes were very wide,” Coates recalled. “He said, ‘I’m completely flabbergasted. I’m completely flabbergasted.’ He said it over and over again.” [Click here to read the rest of Dr. Coates' testimony.]

Also on August 5, 1992, Mia’s longtime best friend, Casey Pascal, called to tell her that, the previous day, her babysitterAlison Strickland, saw “Woody kneeling on the floor holding Dylan, with his face in her lap” after the two women had left their children in Mia’s Connecticut home with Woody and another babysitter to go shopping together. Over the next two or three days, Mia videotaped Dylan accusing Woody of molesting her.

Casey Pascal’s babysitter, Alison Strickland, testified that [on August 4, 1992, the day the alleged molestation occurred ] she saw Woody kneeling before Dylan “in a way that bothered” her.

On August 5, 1992, Mia’s friend since childhood, Casey Pascal, called Mia to report something the babysitter had told her. The day before, Casey’s babysitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap [Woody testified at the child custody hearing in 1993 that he knelt, speaking to Dylan, but did not put his head in her lap]. The babysitter did not consider it “a fatherly pose,” but more like something you’d say “Oops, excuse me” to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. “It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.”

Mia’s children’s nanny testified that Mia was not always a good mother and had once slapped an adopted son across the face for not finding a dog leash.

In two affidavits filed with Woody’s lawyers, Monica Thompson, Mia’s nanny, painted a less than tranquil portrait of Farrow’s household. She charged that Mia gave her biological children more gifts and possessions and depended on her adopted children “to do all the chores in and around the house.” She also said that “the children were scared of their mother;” and since discovering Soon-Yi’s affair with Woody, “Mia has suffered dramatic mood swings and had screaming fits about Mr. Allen – these fits of rage were often conducted in front of the children where she would say mean and nasty things about Mr. Allen.”

Woody produced a surreptitious recording of a phone call from Mia’s Connecticut housekeeper that disparaged Mia’s abilities as a mother.

Woody’s sister testified that Mia taught the children to hate him.

In testimony, “Woody acknowledged the pain his relationship with Soon-Yi had caused the family” and noted that he tried to “insulate the rest of the family from the ‘dispute’ that resulted, and that he tried to ‘de-escalate the situation’ by attempting to ‘placate’ Mia.” [In contrast], Mia’s “failure to conceal her feelings from the rest of the family and the acting out of her feelings of betrayal and anger toward Woody enhanced the effect of the situation on the rest of her family.”

Various psychiatric experts testified or provided reports that concluded Woody’s behavior toward Dylan was “not explicitly sexual in nature but was abnormally intense” in that he made “inordinate demands on her time” and “focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses” even when they were present.

Although a team of investigators from the Yale-New Haven Hospital retained by the Connecticut State Police concluded that Dylan had not been abused, Judge Wilk, who presided over the custody hearing, said he found the evidence inconclusive. Judge Wilk questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not been abused. In his decision, Judge Wilk wrote: “I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.” In almost every way, Judge Wilk’s opinion was a repudiation of the parental role of Woody. The judge said he considered Woody’s affair with Soon-Yi — and his inability to comprehend the impact the romance was having on the other children in the Farrow household — further evidence of his deficiencies as a parent.

Judge Wilk criticized New York investigators for subjecting Dylan to the trauma of a second sex-abuse investigation. [Over the course of her parents’ dispute, Dylan was questioned and examined, both psychologically and physically, numerous times by doctors, police, investigators, therapists and her mother — as a result, her memories of abuse will remain with her forever.]

Dr. Leventhal, head of the team of investigators from the Yale-New Haven Hospital that was retained by the Connecticut State Police, said that Dylan’s story had “a rehearsed quality” and that Mia might have “encouraged the child to fabricate because she liked to perform.” In a sworn statement entered into evidence, he also said: “Even before the claim of abuse was made, the view of Woody as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household, and the view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household.”

A sworn statement by Leventhal, whose Yale-New Haven Hospital team interviewed Dylan nine times, was entered into evidence in the custody trial (in contrast to testifying in a criminal trial as an expert witness to the abuse allegations).

On May 3, 1993, a transcript of Leventhal’s statement, redacted for sensitivity by both sides in the custody case, was made public.

In the child custody decision handed down on June 7, 1993, Judge Wilk criticized the Yale-New Haven team, headed by Leventhal, for destroying their notes. Although there are no reports on why the notes were destroyed, it would be fair to say that the team shredded them to protect doctor-patient confidentiality (and Dylan’s privacy) and to prevent Dylan’s conversations with physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and social workers from being disclosed during testimony and, thereby, being made public (privileged statements cannot be disclosed in court unless the patient or client consents to such disclosure – the purpose of this legal rule is to encourage those who seek professional assistance to communicate freely and openly with their service providers without fear of public exposure or legal repercussions).

In Illinois, for example, a judge can no longer review a sexual assault victim’s records to determine their relevance to a case. Instead, when a victim’s records are subpoenaed, she can assert the privilege and refuse to release them to anyone, including the judge. A victim’s records can be disclosed only with her consent. In fact, if a rape crisis counselor discloses confidential communications without a client’s consent, the counselor can be charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense. And, counselors benefit from these protections as well. In the past, faced with the prospect of being required to divulge private conversations with their clients, counselors sometimes have resorted to keeping two sets of records, or refusing to testify and being held in contempt of court.

None of the Farrow children or Previn children, including Soon-Yi, testified in the custody hearing. However, the start-stop videotape of Dylan accusing Woody of molesting her (made by Mia over a two- or three-day period beginning on August 5, 1992) was submitted as evidence. Additionally, Mia’s attorney read a letter from Moses to Woody that said: “You have done a horrible, unforgivable, ugly, stupid thing. I hope you get so humiliated you commit suicide.… Everyone knows not to have an affair with your son’s sister, including that sister, but you have a special way to get that sister to think that that is O.K.” Questioned by his own lawyer, Woody responded that Moses was manipulated by his mother and used the same words and phrases that she had used only days earlier.

Judge Wilk denied Woody (who had not been permitted to see Dylan since the custody dispute began) the right to visit his daughter for at least six months and possibly much longer. Judge Wilk acceded to Moses’s request not to be forced to see his father and denied Woody immediate visitation rights with Dylan, ruling that a further review be held after Dylan received psychological therapy; however, he ruled that supervised visits with Satchel would be allowed. The appellate court judge wrote: “While Moses’ feelings were certainly affected by his mother’s obvious pain and anger, we concluded that it would not be in Moses’ best interests to be compelled to see Mr. Allen if he does not wish to.” Additionally, Judge Wilk ordered Woody to pay Mia’s legal fees [$1 million].

Woody 11
Dylan leaving a Starbucks on February 6, 2014 in Florida, where she lives with her husband and children

In June 1993, Woody lost his attempt in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan to win custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel. On June 7, 1993, in a scathing 33-page decision, Judge Wilk, who presided over the custody case, portrayed Woody as devious, hurtful and unreliable. And although a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, Wilk said he found the evidence inconclusive.

Wilk awarded sole custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel to Mia. He denounced Woody as “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive”; attacked him for the relationship with Soon-Yi, which he denied was “a benign relationship between two consenting adults”; undermined the conclusion of the Yale–New Haven Hospital team; rejected the opinion of Drs. Coates and Schultz as potentially being colored by loyalty to Allen; and demonstrated partiality to Mia’s accounts and witnesses.

Litchfield County State’s Attorney Frank Maco issued an extraordinary five-page decision announcing that although he has “probable cause” to prosecute Woody and personally “view[ed] the Wilk decision as vindicating the child’s complaint and the corresponding activities of the mother to memorialize the complaint,” he was not pursuing prosecution, for the sake of the child. Commenting afterward, William Dow III, of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, says, “It leaves him [Woody] a convicted child molester without the benefit of a trial.”[Source]

In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk had few unkind words for Mia: he commended her as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Woody’s manipulation and insensitivity.

Judge Wilk [his stinging opinion was probably overly influenced by his disgust for Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi] questioned the findings of the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigators, stating that, in his opinion, whether or not molestation took place, “Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate.”

In 1995, to express her gratitude, Mia named a child she adopted, Gabriel Wilk Farrow, after the “leftist” judge — lawyers for some New York City landlords were “so convinced he was prejudiced against them that, in 1982, one of them requested that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigate him.” [Mia should have named another one of her children after Frank Maco, as well.]

Dylan with Woody in Italy in 1991
Dylan with Woody in Italy in 1991

On September 24, 1993, Litchfield County State’s Attorney Maco called a press conference to announce that he had “probable cause” to prosecute Woody on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to “spare her the trauma of a court appearance.” 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 “seemed to go out of his way to say publicly that he believed the child had been molested; he was not obligated to make his decision, or his reasoning, public.”

On September 25, 1993,  the New York Times reported on Maco’s press conference, quoting a professor at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, who criticized Maco, saying: “You don’t declare the man guilty and then say you’re not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press. It’s a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights, in my view. I can’t overemphasize how remarkable this is.” The following is the rest of the report.

A team of investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that no sexual abuse had taken place but said both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow had disturbed relations with Dylan. Eleanor B. Alter, Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, had discounted the report, saying it was incomplete and inaccurate. Mr. Maco said he had requested the hospital study, which described Dylan as a dreamy child who “had difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.”

But Maco discounted its findings, saying his own review of investigative reports and medical evaluations had convinced him that he did have enough evidence to take to trial. He said there was nothing in the report from the Yale clinic “that would lead me to question the credibility of the child.” He also cited the findings of the judge in the custody case, who called Mr. Allen’s conduct with Dylan “grossly inappropriate.”

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.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, criticized Mr. Maco, saying, “You don’t declare the man guilty and then say you’re not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press.”

“It’s a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights, in my view,” Mr. Gillers said. “I can’t overemphasize how remarkable this is.”

Woody filed complaints asking the state bar counsel to disbar Maco and requested that the State Criminal Justice Commission discipline Maco for making an accusation without producing an indictment – Woody condemned Maco as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible” for saying he had “probable cause” without releasing his evidence.

Woody objected strongly to Maco’s characterization of him as a criminal who would never get to refute the charge in court [after a 14-month investigation by both the states of Connecticut and New York, Woody was never arrested or charged with a crime; in fact, both states concluded that "the reports of abuse were unfounded" and "ruled that no abuse had occurred"]. So strong were Woody’s objections, in fact, that in October 1993 he filed an ethics complaint against Maco with both the Statewide Grievance Committee – a lawyers’ disciplinary group – and the state Criminal Justice Commission, which hires and fires prosecutors.

While the Criminal Justice Commission exonerated Maco that December, the Statewide Grievance Committee voted 6-5 with two abstentions to investigate Maco for alleged misconduct in his handling of the case. The vote overturned the ruling by Maco’s local committee, which had found in his favor. Susan Levine, a member of the local grievance committee, recalls the deliberation over Maco’s actions. “We ruled that even though Maco was close to the line, he didn’t cross it,” said Levine. “We were very surprised when statewide overturned it.”

On February 3, 1994, the New York Times reported that a disciplinary panel found “Maco’s handling of the child-molestation complaint against Woody was cause for ‘grave concern’ and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Woody and Mia” – the following is the rest of the report. [After 31 years as state's attorney, Maco retired in 2003 at the age of 56. The outcome of the complaint filed by Woody against Maco to the Statewide Grievance Committee was still pending after four years of investigation, so the committee voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint, but some members criticized Maco for his "lack of sensitivity in this case to the concept of presumption of innocence.'']

While its decision amounted to a stern rebuke of the prosecutor, Frank S. Maco, the state Grievance Panel concluded that Mr. Maco, the State’s Attorney for Litchfield County, had not violated any provision of the state’s code of conduct for lawyers. The panel, a state agency, could have voted sanctions ranging from censure to disbarment.

On September 24, 1993, Mr. Maco said at a news conference that there was “probable cause” to charge Mr. Allen with molesting Dylan O. Farrow, his and Ms. Farrow’s daughter, in 1992, when she was 7. But he said he would not charge the film maker, in part because a prosecution could be traumatic for the child.

The grievance panel revealed that on the same day Mr. Maco sent a copy of his statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who will decide whether to void Mr. Allen’s adoption of Dylan and another of his and Ms. Farrow’s children, Moses, now 16.

That act, the panel wrote, “was inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial.”

“In most circumstances,” the panel wrote, Mr. Maco’s comments “would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused.” But because Mr. Allen had previously criticized the prosecutor’s handling of the case, they concluded, Mr. Maco was justified in responding.

Prosecutors are generally barred from making accusations that are not contained in formal charges, according to legal experts. “This amounts to a public reprimand, though they’re not calling it that,” said Kate Stith, a law professor at Yale University and a former Federal prosecutor.

Though the decision was “quite damning,” she said she was not surprised that the panel did not punish Mr. Maco, because lawyers are rarely disciplined for their public statements.

In March 1993, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested. In June, a Supreme Court judge in Manhattan awarded Ms. Farrow custody of the estranged couple’s three children and sharply restricted Mr. Allen’s right to visit them.

Woody maintained that Mia’s allegations concerning the sexual abuse of Dylan were fabricated by Mia both as a result of her rage over his relationship with Soon-Yi and as part of her continued plan to alienate him from his children.

On October 7, 1993, the New York State Department of Social Services dropped its investigation into the child molestation allegations. It concluded: “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated; therefore, the report has been considered unfounded.”

The state Department of Social Services informed Woody in a letter dated October 7, 1993, that it had closed the 14-month-old investigation into the charge that Woody sexually molested his 7-year-old daughter, saying they consider the accusation unfounded.

To Woody and his allies, the decision was another in a string of small and belated victories in the campaign to restore his reputation. “It should have been done earlier, but it helps in our efforts to convince people that it didn’t happen,” Elkan Abramowitz, Woody’s lawyer, said.

Woody noted in a statement released October 25, 2993 that the latest milestone came seven months after the finding by a team of child abuse investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital that no molestation took place. “Now, the New York State Department of Social Services agrees,” he said, “and still it’s been 15 months since I’ve been allowed to see or speak to my daughter.”

Moses, Dylan and Ronan (Satchel)
Moses, Dylan and Ronan (Satchel)

In Ross’ brief, he said: “Unlike the court at IAS, I do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team to be totally unpersuasive.”

Ross wrote: “Mr. Allen maintains that Ms. Farrow’s allegations concerning the sexual abuse of Dylan were fabricated by Ms. Farrow both as a result of her rage over his relationship with Ms. Previn and as part of her continued plan to alienate him from his children. However, our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis. Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive. While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur. While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected.”

Ross agreed with the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky that contact with Woody was necessary to Dylan’s future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context – he added that, at the very least, the process of investigation itself has left the relationship between Woody and Dylan severely damaged, and the consensus is that both Woody and Mia need to be involved in the recovery process.

Expert medical testimony indicated that it would be harmful for Soon-Yi not to be reintegrated into the family; however, the best interests of Dylan, Moses and Satchel would clearly be served by contact with their sister Soon-Yi, personally and not in Woody’s presence – seeing both Soon-Yi and Woody together in the unsupervised context envisioned by Woody would, at this early stage, certainly be detrimental to the best interests of the children.

Ross wrote that in view of the totality of the circumstances, the best interests of these children would be served by remaining together in the custody of Mia, with the parties abiding by the visitation schedule established by the trial court.

On May 12, 1994, Appellate Court Judge J. Carro argued that visitation rules imposed by the Judge Wilk were unduly restrictive with respect to Satchel. The following is J. Carro’s opinion in its entirety from the same brief submitted to the court in 1994 (one judge concurred with this partial dissent in opinion from that of J. Ross). Dissenting in part with Ross’ opinion, Carro wrote that he agreed with Ross’ conclusions, except for the affirmance of the order of visitation with respect to Woody’s son Satchel, which he found to be unduly restrictive. J. Carro wrote the following opinion.

“There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Woody and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large measure because Woody is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel, testified how “Woody would welcome Satchel by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he missed him.” Also described by both supervisors “was a kind of sequence that Woody might say, ‘I love you as much as the river’, and Satchel would say something to the effect that ‘I love you as much as New York City’ * * * then Woody might say, ‘I love you as much as the stars’, and Satchel would say, ‘I love you as much as the universe’.

“Sadly, there was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Woody, ‘I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;’ that when Woody asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip to California with Mia, Satchel said, ‘I can’t [because] Mommy won’t let me.’ And on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted to stay with Woody longer than the allotted two-hour visit, ‘Satchel said he could not stay longer because his mother had told him that two hours was sufficient.’ Perhaps most distressing, Satchel ‘indicated to his father that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see him anymore, and Satchel indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see his father.’

“In contrast to what apparently is being expressed by Mia and Woody to Satchel, Woody has been reported to say only positive things to Satchel about Mia, and conveys only loving regards to Moses and Dylan through Satchel. Thus I find little evidence in the record to support the majority’s conclusion that ‘Woody may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately and disregard the impact exposure to Woody’s relationship with Satchel’s sister, Soon-Yi, would have on the child.’

“Dr. Susan Coates, Satchel’s therapist until December 1992, and the only expert to testify about Satchel’s mental health, stated that Woody’s parental relationship with Satchel was essential to Satchel’s healthy development.

“I do not believe that Woody’s visitation with Satchel for a mere two hours, three times a week, under supervision, is reasonable and meaningful under the circumstances, or that exceptional circumstances are presented that warrant such significant restriction on visitation with Satchel. Woody and Satchel clearly need substantial quality time together to nurture and renew their bonds and to foster a warm and loving father-son relationship. Obviously this cannot occur overnight; but more significantly, it is almost inconceivable that it will occur even over an extended period of time if visitation is limited to three two-hour periods per week under the supervision of strangers, as ordered by the trial court and affirmed by the majority.”

Woody 11

Woody 12
Woody, Mia, Dylan and Satchel

On October 5, 1994, Woody lost an appeal for relief from the custody ruling by Judge Wilk that forbade his seeing Dylan (who Mia renamed Eliza but who now goes by the name Malone) and Moses and that allowed court-supervised visits only with Satchel (who Mia renamed Seamus). Dylan and Satchel (who now goes by the name Ronan) have not had a relationship with their father since the split. Mia went on to adopt six more children as a single woman and remains single to this day. Woody and Soon-Yi married in 1997 and have two adopted daughters.

Fast forward to the present day.

When Woody was honored with the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes on January 12, 2014, Mia and Ronan published tweets (see images below) that brought the more than 20-year-old sexual allegations back into the headlines and triggered a story in defense of Woody by Robert B. Weide, which was published at the Daily Beast on January 27, 2014.

A few months earlier, in both October and November 2013, Mia was featured in Vanity Fair articles where she rehashed her 1992 interview with the magazine about the molestation allegations – Mia linked to the November 2013 Vanity Fair article during the Golden Globes with the text: “Is he a pedophile? Read this Vanity Fair article and make up your own mind.” It was in the November 2013 piece that Dylan first went public with her story.

Woody 13

On February 1, 2014, Dylan, 28, responded to Weide’s story with an open letter in Nicholas Kristof’s column in the New York Times – it’s her memory as she first recalled it publicly in a November 2013 piece for Vanity Fair, but with many new details.

In October 2013, Ronan landed his own daytime show on MSNBC, debuting February 24, 2014. According to Michael Wolff of the Guardian, “Ronan has been promised a grateful MSNBC that his public fight with Woody is far from over.” The timing of the tweets about Woody being a pedophile and the debut of Ronan’s new show is not a coincidence – in 2012, Woody was nominated for an Oscar in the best screenplay and best director categories for ‘Midnight in Paris’ (plus the film was nominated for best picture), and he won the Oscar for best screenplay, yet the Farrows said or tweeted nothing.

Wolff also wrote: “Weide, who made the 2012 PBS American Masters documentary about Allen, followed up with his close analysis of exactly what happened in 1992. It’s quite a demolition job on the Vanity Fair piece, deconstructing timeline, opportunity and circumstance. What’s more, it paints a far more complicated picture of Mia from the one she has curated about herself, including that her brother is in jail for child molestation and that her son, Moses, no longer speaks to her and accuses her of ‘brainwashing’.”

On February 5, 2014, Dylan’s brother Moses, 36, a family therapist, spoke to People magazine in defense of Woody, accusing their mother, Mia, of poisoning the children against their father:

My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.”

Moses, who is estranged from Mia and many of his siblings and is now close to Woody and Soon-Yi, also told People magazine:

“Of course Woody did not molest my sister. She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible.”

Moses accuses Mia of bullying him as well.

“Our mother has misled the public into believing it was a happy household of both biological and adopted children,” he says. “From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do.”

Moses says that his own life has been made better by spending time with Woody.

“I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her,” he says. “It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father.”

oses Farrow
Moses Farrow

Dylan responded to Moses’ assertions in People magazine, insisting that she is telling the truth, calling her brother’s comments “lies” and “a betrayal,” and telling People, “My brother is dead to me”:

“This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family. My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life.

“My mother never coached me. She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up. In one of the most heartbreaking conversations I have ever had, she sat me down and asked me if I was telling the truth. She said that Dad said he didn’t do anything, and I said, ‘He’s lying.’

“I don’t know where he gets this about getting beaten. We were sent to our rooms sometimes.

“I will not see my family dragged down like this. I can’t stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me. My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies.”

Mia declined to respond to Moses’ accusations, tweeting:

Woody 17

Woody’s sister, Letty Aronson, told People that he is devastated by Dylan’s letter:

“He feels very badly for Dylan, that she has been so poisoned by her mother.”

Woody’s defense attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, told the Today show on February 4, 2014:

“Woody’s reaction is one of overwhelming sadness because of what has happened to Dylan. She was a pawn in a huge fight between him and Mia Farrow years ago, and the idea that she was molested was implanted in her by her mother. That memory is never going to go away. So the fact that she says this now, that it happened 20 years ago, is totally understandable. In my view, she’s not lying. I think she truly believes this happened. That’s what the vice of this is. When you implant a story in a fragile 7-year-old’s mind, it stays there forever. It never goes away.”

Woody, Soon-Yi and their adopted daughters, Bechet and Manzie Tio
Woody, Soon-Yi and their adopted daughters, Bechet and Manzie Tio

On February 7, 2014, Woody responded to Dylan’s published account with his own open letter in the New York Times, denying the allegations and blaming Mia for planting what he says is a false memory in Dylan’s mind due to Mia’s anger at him following the revelation of his relationship with Soon-Yi. The following is a report by Time on his rebuke of Dylan’s claims.

Woody Allen has finally broken his long silence about claims that he molested Dylan Farrow, his adopted daughter with Mia Farrow, when she was 7. After several weeks in which the allegations have been rekindled by an open letter from Dylan, now 28, in the New York Times, and tweets by Mia and Ronan Farrow, Woody has responded with a fiery letter, also published in the Times.

“Of course, I did not molest Dylan,” Woody writes. “I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman…”

Woody blames Mia for planting what he says is a false memory in Dylan’s mind, due to Mia’s anger at him in the midst of a custody battle following the revelation of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Mia’s adopted daughter with composer Andre Previn.

“If from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root?”

Woody further suggests Mia may have lied under oath about the paternity of their son, Ronan, who Mia recently suggested, in a November 2013 Vanity Fair article, may be the child of Frank Sinatra.

“Granted, [Ronan] looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.”

Woody 19

Woody 20
Mia and Ronan in 2001

Woody also claims that Mia enticed one of his former girlfriends, Stacey Nelkin, to testify falsely against him. Nelkin confirmed Woody’s statement during a live conversation with Piers Morgan on February 3, 2014:

“[They] asked if I would testify and admit that I was 15 when we dated, and I said, ‘no,’ because I was not 15. I was 17, 18 and 19, and to me there’s a big distinction between that, and I think they were looking for the fact that, you know, 15 is jail bait. Seventeen is a very different story,” said Nelkin, who first met Woody on the set of the film Manhattan. “I would not go along with that, so I think she was trying to create a pattern of, ‘this is a man who looks for young girls and seduces them unwittingly;’ and that’s not true. I was very, very much willing to be dating him; I was thrilled.”

As evidence of his innocence, Woody points to the “impartial” findings of an investigation carried out by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which ruled that no abuse had occurred. He also cites statements from Moses Farrow, a son he adopted with Mia, who says that his mother “drummed it into me to hate my father.” Now 29, Moses is a family therapist who has renewed his relationship with Woody.

In what sounds like the setup to a joke in a one of his movies, Woody describes the Connecticut “attic” in which the assault allegedly occurred as “a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up.” Due to his acute claustrophobia, he says he was never able to stay in the space for more than a few minutes. He goes on to suggest that Mia imagined that location because of a song about incest, “With My Daddy in the Attic,” written by singer-songwriter Dory Previn, which leads to another ad hominem attack in which he notes that the song is on the same 1970 album as “Beware of Young Girls,” which Previn wrote after Mia Farrow took up with her then-husband, Andre Previn, in 1968. [When asked at the child custody hearing in 1993 about the song, "Beware of Young Girls," by Dory Previn, Mia said: "I know that it referred to me."]

No charges were ever filed against Woody, and a Connecticut prosecutor recently said the state’s statute of limitations meant that he could no longer be charged, even if conclusive evidence was found.

Woody 21

On February 8, 2014, Dylan said that Woody’s letter in the New York Times consists of “the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years,” reported The Hollywood Reporter.

In his letter, Woody said Mia vindictively coached her daughter during her breakup with the star director and actor, arguing that Mia manipulated her daughter to seek revenge against Woody.

Dylan Farrow responded: “Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me – but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.”

Woody said in his February 7th letter he will no longer be commenting on the case. “Enough people have been hurt,” he wrote.

Mia with her children (back row L-R) Matthew, Sascha, Soon-Yi; (front row L-R) Daisy, Fletcher, Moses and Lark
Mia with her children (back row L-R) Matthew, Sascha, Soon-Yi; (front row L-R) Daisy, Fletcher, Moses and Lark

Mia with children and grandchildren, photographed at Frog Hollow, in Connecticut. Standing siblings, from left: Fletcher Previn, Minh Farrow, Isaiah Farrow, Matthew Previn, Thaddeus Farrow, and Quincy Farrow. With Matthew are his two daughters, Catherine and Lucy. Next to them are Fletcher’s two daughters, Maureen and Wynnefred, and on the chair beside Mia is Lark’s daughter, Sara Mckinzie
Mia with children and grandchildren, photographed at Frog Hollow, in Connecticut. Standing siblings, from left: Fletcher Previn, Minh Farrow, Isaiah Farrow, Matthew Previn, Thaddeus Farrow, and Quincy Farrow. With Matthew are his two daughters, Catherine and Lucy. Next to them are Fletcher’s two daughters, Maureen and Wynnefred, and on the chair beside Mia is Lark’s daughter, Sara Mckinzie.

In total, Mia has 15 kids (four biological and 11 adopted) – six Previns and nine Farrows (two of whom have died) –  she adopted six of the 11 adopted children after splitting with Woody.

Tam Farrow, blind and adopted from Vietnam after Mia’s split with Woody, died of heart failure in 2000 at the age of 19 after a long illness.

Lark Previn, adopted from Vietnam during Mia’s second marriage to composer Andre Previn, died at the age of 35 in 2008 (she had contracted HIV in her 20s) – at the time she had been living in a shabby apartment in the Bronx and died in a hospital on Christmas Day of pneumonia while Mia was in the Congo (she left behind two daughters, ages 12 and 13).

In a May 2009 article by The Daily Mail, a reporter described the situation in the Farrow family:

“As a teenager, Lark was convicted of shoplifting hundreds of dollars worth of lingerie from a shopping mall with her adopted-sister Daisy and later struggled to rid herself of a drug habit. Father Timothy Tighe, the priest who presided over her funeral service, recalls: ‘Lark had very little money, but she really tried to do a good job in bringing the girls up. Her ex-husband, Chris McKinzie, is disliked by everyone in the family. When he arrived at the funeral he was asked to go. The family hates him because they blame him for the downfall of Lark. It was a blessing that he did as he was told and went away after paying his respects.’

“Lark’s death is among a long line of misfortunes to befall Mia and her increasingly dysfunctional family. While Mia has successfully campaigned for the world’s destitute and dispossessed, at her own hearthside a series of disasters have unfolded. The custody battle that followed the split with Woody had a huge impact on the Farrow family. As a friend commented in May 2009: ‘Many of Mia’s children never recovered from the shame of what happened. Lark, who was then in her late teens, was distraught and many who knew the family felt that this turned her towards drugs.’

“A still loyal Frank Sinatra threatened to send in his associates from the Mafia to break Woody’s legs, but this plan was put on hold after Mia begged her ex-husband not to do such a thing.

“In court papers at the time of Mia and Woody’s split, Soon-Yi claimed that many of her brothers and sisters had fallen into ‘theft and alcohol abuse and truancy’. Mia herself, she added, was ‘no Mother Teresa’. The allegations didn’t end there. In a tape handed to lawyers, seven-year-old Dylan was allegedly shown shaking and crying as she claimed that her father had abused her. During the custody fight that followed, a movie producer friend of Woody, Jane Reed Martin, testified that Mia showed favouritism towards her own four biological children and treated the adopted ones like second-class citizens. Indeed, she claimed that Lark was used by her mother as little more than ‘a scullery maid’.

“As for Mia’s attitude to Soon-Yi, she was quoted as saying: ‘I have tried to speak to her and asked her to come home. She has not responded, so I’ve given up. I no longer count her as family.’

“Yet as the Farrow clan gathered at Lark’s funeral, it was clear that at least some of her children are still close to their mother. In attendance were Woody’s estranged son Ronan, Mia’s three biological sons with Previn (a lawyer, accountant and architect) as well as Lark’s last boyfriend, Robert Garcia, who helped care for her as she was dying.”

Woody’s sister, Letty Aronson, told People magazine in 1992 that Mia is emotionally removed from her adopted daughters, recounting the first time she took her own daughter, Erika, to visit Mia after the birth of Satchel: “Afterward,” says Aronson, “my daughter kept talking about how the maid did this, the maid did that. I said, ‘What maid?’ She meant Lark.” Said a source close to Woody, according to People magazine: “We always joked that Lark would be the one to get out of the house and write the Mommnie Dearest book” [the source also claimed that, furious over the affair, Mia on separate occasions struck Soon-Yi with a chair, shredded her clothes and persuaded the other children not to talk to her].

The second adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn, Daisy, adopted from Vietnam, has not weighed in on the latest turn of events, but she told Vanity Fair in November 2013 that the Soon-Yi affair and abuse allegations “turned our world upside down – it was nothing you would wish on anyone.”

In the November 2013 Vanity Fair article, the youngest of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn’s three biological children, Fletcher Previn (his older twin brothers are Matthew and Sascha Previn), was characterized as Mia’s protector, having painstakingly edited Woody Allen out of every single family photo and video. “We can look at them and be reminded of the good and not be reminded of the bad,” he said.

On February 2, 2014, Ronan Farrow tweeted his support of Dylan, saying, “I love and support my sister and I think her words speak for themselves.”

In 2012 and earlier, Ronan wrote about Woody:

“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.”

“I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.”

Woody 24

A source told The Daily Mail and the National Enquirer: “Ronan grew to hate his father. He was disgusted by Woody and his relationship with Soon Yi. Ronan couldn’t care less if Woody’s proud of him or not. The only person who matters to him is his mother.”

On August 30, 1992, Soon-Yi released a statement to Newsweek through Woody’s publicist:

“I could say many devastating things about Mia, but I will only do it if I must in a court… I have refrained from commenting, but when Mia brought up child molestation and then had her sisters and mother and kids and friends parade out in public and do her dirty work for her, climaxing with that tape of Dylan being given out, I felt I had to speak at this point. I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical.

“Please don’t try and dramatize my relationship with Woody Allen. He was never any kind of father figure to me. I never had any dealings with him. He rarely came to our apartment before his own children were born. Even then, he never spoke and, the truth is, I never cared that much for him. He was always preoccupied with work and never talked to me. Not really to any of us. Only when Dylan was born did he start visiting regularly and then only to play with the baby. My own father is Andre Previn, who came to visit pretty often and took us all out frequently.

“When I first got friendly with Woody, he and Mia were finished with their romance and were just friends. I think Mia would have been just as angry if he had taken up with another actress or his secretary. Mia was always very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids. They can’t speak freely because they’re still dependent on her. But they could really tell stories, and I’m sure one day will. It’s true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof, but I hope she and Woody can somehow head off a custody trial.

“The business of him molesting Dylan is so ridiculous that I won’t dignify it with a comment. Why Dylan repeats her story is another matter and a sinister one. I was not surprised that Mia made a videotape of Dylan saying these terrible things as I think the motive is obvious, but I was stunned that the tape would somehow find its way to the TV news.” [Click here to read the full statement.]

Dylan and her husband
Dylan and her husband

About these ads
  1. CASS
    February 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

    Excuse me but what a f**ked up family!!

  2. February 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM

    ALLEN v. FARROW
    197 A.D.2d 327 (1994)

    Woody Allen, Appellant,
    v.
    Maria V. Farrow, Also Known as Mia Farrow, Respondent

    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

    May 12, 1994

    Elkan Abramowitz of counsel (Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg [Jamie L. Kogan]; Phillips, Nizer, Benajmin, Krim & Ballon [Sheila Ginsberg Riesel, Julia Perles and Shelly Moroff]; and J. Martin Obten with her on the brief; attorneys), for appellant.

    Eleanor B. Alter of counsel (Martin Juvelier, Marguerite Sullivan and Maxine Shapiro with her on the brief; Rosenman & Colin, attorneys), for respondent.

    MURPHY, P. J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur with ROSS, J.; CARRO and WALLACH, JJ., dissent in part in an opinion by CARRO, J.

    ROSS, J.

    In this special proceeding commenced by petitioner to obtain custody of, or increased visitation with, the infant children Moses Amadeus Farrow, Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow and Satchel Farrow, we are called upon to review the IAS Court’s decision which, inter alia, awarded custody of the three children to the respondent, denied the petitioner’s requests regarding visitation and awarded counsel fees to the respondent. Upon such review we conclude, for the reasons set forth below, that the determination of the IAS Court was in accordance with the best interests of these children, and accordingly, we affirm.

    The petitioner and the respondent have brought themselves to this unhappy juncture primarily as a result of two recent events. These are, Mr. Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi Previn and the alleged sexual abuse of Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow by Mr. Allen. While the parties had difficulties which grew during Ms. Farrow’s pregnancy with Satchel, it was the discovery of the relationship between Mr. Allen and Ms. Previn that intensified Ms. Farrow’s concerns about Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan, and resulted in the retention of counsel by both parties. While various aspects of this matter remain unclear, it is evident that each party assigns the blame for the current state of affairs to the other.

    The parties’ respective arguments are very clear. The petitioner maintains that he was forced to commence this proceeding in order to preserve his parental rights to the three infant children, because the respondent commenced and continues to engage in a campaign to alienate him from his children and to ultimately defeat his legal rights to them. The petitioner contends, inter alia, that the respondent seeks to accomplish her goals primarily through manipulation of the children’s perceptions of him. He wishes to obtain custody, ostensibly to counteract the detrimental psychological effects the respondent’s actions have had on his children, and to provide them with a more stable atmosphere in which to develop. Mr. Allen specifically denies the allegations that he sexually abused Dylan and characterizes them as part of Ms. Farrow’s extreme overreaction to his admitted relationship with Ms. Previn.

    The respondent maintains that the petitioner has shown no genuine parental interest in, nor any regard for, the children’s welfare and that any interest he has shown has been inappropriate and even harmful. Respondent cites the fact that the petitioner has commenced and maintained an intimate sexual relationship with her daughter Soon-Yi Previn, which he has refused to curtail, despite the obvious ill effects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effect it has had on Moses. It is also contended that petitioner has at best, an inappropriately intense interest in, and at worst, an abusive relationship with, the parties’ daughter Dylan. Further, the respondent maintains that petitioner’s contact with the parties’ biological son, Satchel, is harmful to the child in that petitioner represents an emotional threat and has on at least one occasion threatened physical harm. Respondent contends that the petitioner’s only motive in commencing this proceeding was to retaliate against the allegations of child sexual abuse made against him by Ms. Farrow.

    Certain salient facts concerning both Mr. Allen’s and Ms. Farrow’s relationships to their children and to each other are not disputed. Review of these facts in an objective manner and the conclusions that flow from them, demonstrate that the determination of the IAS Court as to both custody and visitation is amply supported by the record before this Court.

    From the inception of Mr. Allen’s relationship with Ms. Farrow in 1980, until a few months after the adoption of Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow on June 11, 1985, Mr. Allen wanted nothing to do with Ms. Farrow’s children. Although Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow attempted for approximately six months to have a child of their own, Mr. Allen did so apparently only after Ms. Farrow promised to assume full responsibility for the child. Following the adoption however, Mr. Allen became interested in developing a relationship with the newly adopted Dylan. While previously he rarely spent time in the respondent’s apartment, after the adoption of Dylan he went to the respondent’s Manhattan apartment more often, visited Ms. Farrow’s Connecticut home and even accompanied the Farrow family on vacations to Europe. Allen also developed a relationship with Moses Farrow, who had been adopted by the respondent in 1980 and was seven years old at the time of Dylan’s adoption. However, Allen remained distant from Farrow’s other six children.

    In 1986 Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to adopt another child. Mr. Allen, while not enthusiastic at the prospect of the adoption of Dylan in 1985, was much more amenable to the idea in 1986. Before the adoption could be completed Ms. Farrow became pregnant with the parties’ son Satchel. While the petitioner testified that he was happy at the idea of becoming a father, the record supports the finding that Mr. Allen showed little or no interest in the pregnancy. It is not disputed that Ms. Farrow began to withdraw from Mr. Allen during the pregnancy and that afterwards she did not wish Satchel to become attached to Mr. Allen.

    According to Mr. Allen, Ms. Farrow became inordinately attached to the newborn Satchel to the exclusion of the other children. He viewed this as especially harmful to Dylan and began spending more time with her, ostensibly to make up for the lack of attention shown her by Ms. Farrow after the birth of Satchel. Mr. Allen maintains that his interest in and affection for Dylan always has been paternal in nature and never sexual. The various psychiatric experts who testified or otherwise provided reports did not conclude that Allen’s behavior toward Dylan prior to August of 1992 was explicitly sexual in nature. However, the clear consensus was that his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense in that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present.

    The record demonstrates that Ms. Farrow expressed concern to Allen about his relationship with Dylan, and that Allen expressed his concern to Ms. Farrow about her relationship with Satchel. In 1990 both Dylan and Satchel were evaluated by clinical psychologists. Dr. Coates began treatment of Satchel in 1990. In April of 1991 Dylan was referred to Dr. Schultz, a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of young children with serious emotional problems.

    In 1990 at about the same time that the parties were growing distant from each other and expressing their concerns about the other’s relationship with their youngest children, Mr. Allen began acknowledging Farrow’s daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Previously he treated Ms. Previn in the same way he treated Ms. Farrow’s other children from her prior marriage, rarely even speaking to them. In September of 1991 Ms. Previn began to attend Drew College in New Jersey. In December 1991 two events coincided. Mr. Allen’s adoptions of Dylan and Moses were finalized and Mr. Allen began his sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi Previn.

    In January of 1992, Mr. Allen took the photographs of Ms. Previn, which were discovered on the mantelpiece in his apartment by Ms. Farrow and were introduced into evidence at the IAS proceeding. Mr. Allen in his trial testimony stated that he took the photos at Ms. Previn’s suggestion and that he considered them erotic and not pornographic. We have viewed the photographs and do not share Mr. Allen’s characterization of them. We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of Ms. Previn’s siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr. Allen makes between Ms. Farrow’s other children and Dylan, Satchel and Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire family. Allen’s testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn “were taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do this” demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn’s relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn’s other siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen’s tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

    We recognize Mr. Allen’s acknowledgment of the pain his relationship with Ms. Previn has caused the family. We also note his testimony that he tried to insulate the rest of the family from the “dispute” that resulted, and tried to “deescalate the situation” by attempting to “placate” Ms. Farrow. It is true that Ms. Farrow’s failure to conceal her feelings from the rest of the family and the acting out of her feelings of betrayal and anger toward Mr. Allen enhanced the effect of the situation on the rest of her family. We note though that the reasons for her behavior, however prolonged and extreme, are clearly visible in the record. On the other hand the record contains no acceptable explanation for Allen’s commencement of the sexual relationship with Ms. Previn at the time he was adopting Moses and Satchel, or for the continuation of that relationship at the time he was supposedly experiencing the joys of fatherhood.

    While the petitioner’s testimony regarding his attempts to de-escalate the dispute and to insulate the family from it, displays a measure of concern for his three children, it is clear that he should have realized the inevitable consequences of his actions well before his relationship with Ms. Previn became intimate. Allen’s various inconsistent statements to Farrow of his intentions regarding Ms. Previn and his attempt to have Dr. Schultz explain the relationship to Dylan in such a manner as to exonerate himself from any wrong doing, make it difficult for this Court to find that his expressed concern for the welfare of the family is genuine.

    As we noted above, Mr. Allen maintains that Ms. Farrow’s allegations concerning the sexual abuse of Dylan were fabricated by Ms. Farrow both as a result of her rage over his relationship with Ms. Previn and as part of her continued plan to alienate him from his children. However, our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis. Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive. While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur. While the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan unaffected.

    Any determination of issues of child custody or visitation must serve the best interests of the child and that which will best promote the child’s welfare (Domestic Relations Law § 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-94). The existence of a prior arrangement of custody agreed upon by the parties, should be given weighty but not absolute priority in the absence of extraordinary circumstances (Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 N.Y.2d 242, 251). Such priority is afforded in the belief that stability in a child’s life is in the child’s best interests (Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171). The court, however is not bound by the existence of a prior agreement and has the discretion to order changes in custody as well as other modifications when the totality of circumstances warrants its doing so in the best interests of the child (Eschbach, supra, at 172). Primary among those circumstances is the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child (supra). It has long been recognized that it is often in the child’s best interests to continue to live with his or her siblings (supra, at 173). “While this, too, is not an absolute, the stability and companionship to be gained from keeping the children together is an important factor for the court to consider” (supra, at 173).

    The weighing of the numerous factors to be considered “requires an evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of all the parties involved in this type of dispute” (Eschbach, supra, at 173). “Generally, such an evaluation can best be made by the trial court, which has direct access to the parties * * * Appellate courts should be reluctant to substitute their own evaluation of these subjective factors for that of the nisi prius court [citations omitted], and if they do, should articulate the reasons for so doing” (supra, at 173-174).

    It was noted by the IAS Court that the psychiatric experts agreed that Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan’s therapy. We note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is necessary to Dylan’s future development, but that initially any such visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS Court structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further review of Allen’s visitation with Dylan would be considered after an evaluation of Dylan’s progress.

    Although the investigation of the abuse allegations have not resulted in a conclusive finding, all of the evidence received at trial supports the determination as to custody and visitation with respect to this child. There would be no beneficial purpose served in disturbing the custody arrangement. Moreover, even if the abuse did not occur, it is evident that there are issues concerning Mr. Allen’s inappropriately intense relationship with this child that can be resolved only in a therapeutic setting. At the very least, the process of investigation itself has left the relationship between Mr. Allen and Dylan severely damaged. The consensus is that both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow need to be involved in the recovery process. The provision for further review of the visitation arrangement embodied in the trial court’s decision adequately protects the petitioner’s rights and interests at this time.

    With respect to Satchel, the IAS Court denied the petitioner’s request for unsupervised visitation. While the court stated that it was not concerned for Satchel’s physical safety, it was concerned by Mr. Allen’s “demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and deeds have upon the emotional well being of the children”. We agree. The record supports the conclusion that Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen’s relationship with Satchel’s sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child. His failure to understand the effect of such exposure upon Satchel as well as upon his other children is evidenced by his statement on direct examination in which he stated: “If you ask me personally, I would say the children, the children adore Soon Yi, they adore me, they would be delighted, if you asked me this personally, I would say they would be delighted and have fun with us, being taken places with us. But, I don’t want to give you my amateur opinion on that. That’s how I feel. And I know it counts for very little.” The record indicates that Ms. Previn when not at college spends most of her time with Mr. Allen. Contact between Ms. Previn and her siblings in the context of the relationship with Mr. Allen would be virtually unavoidable even if Mr. Allen chose to insulate his children from the relationship. Expert medical testimony indicated that it would be harmful for Ms. Previn not to be reintegrated into the family. However, the inquiry here concerns the best interests of Dylan, Moses and Satchel. Their best interests would clearly be served by contact with their sister Soon-Yi, personally and not in Mr. Allen’s presence. Seeing both Ms. Previn and Mr. Allen together in the unsupervised context envisioned by Mr. Allen would, at this early stage, certainly be detrimental to the best interests of the children.

    It has been held that the desires of the child are to be considered, but that it must be kept in mind that those desires can be manipulated (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra, at 94). In considering the custody and visitation decision concerning Moses, who is now a teenager, we cannot ignore his expressed desires. The record shows that he had a beneficial relationship with the petitioner prior to the events of December 1991. However, that relationship has been gravely damaged. While Moses’ feelings were certainly affected by his mother’s obvious pain and anger, we concluded that it would not be in Moses’ best interests to be compelled to see Mr. Allen, if he does not wish to.

    Therefore, we hold that in view of the totality of the circumstances, the best interests of these children would be served by remaining together in the custody of Ms. Farrow, with the parties abiding by the visitation schedule established by the trial court.

    With respect to the award of counsel fees we note that the record demonstrates that Mr. Allen’s resources far out-pace those of Ms. Farrow. Additionally, we note the relative lack of merit of Mr. Allen’s position in commencing this proceeding for custody. It became apparent, during oral argument, that there was serious doubt that Mr. Allen truly desired custody. It has been held that “in exercising its discretionary power to award counsel fees, a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions” (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881). We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s award of counsel fees in this case.

    Accordingly, the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Elliot Wilk, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which, inter alia, denied the petitioner Woody Allen’s request for custody of Moses Amadeus Farrow, Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow, and Satchel Farrow, set forth the terms of visitation between the petitioner and his children and awarded Ms. Farrow counsel fees, is affirmed in all respects, without costs.

    CARRO, J. (dissenting in part).

    I agree with the majority’s conclusions, except for the affirmance of the order of visitation with respect to Mr. Allen’s son Satchel, which I find unduly restrictive.

    There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Mr. Allen and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large measure because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel, testified how “Mr. Allen would welcome Satchel by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he missed him.” Also described by both supervisors “was a kind of sequence that Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the river, and Satchel would say something to the effect that I love you as much as New York City * * * then Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the stars, and Satchel would say, I love you as much as the universe.” Sadly, there was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Mr. Allen: “I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;” that when Mr. Allen asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip to California with Ms. Farrow, Satchel said “I can’t [because] Mommy won’t let me;” and on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted to stay with Mr. Allen longer than the allotted two-hour visit, “Satchel did say he could not stay longer, that his mother had told him that two hours was sufficient.” Perhaps most distressing, Satchel “indicated to Mr. Allen that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see Mr. Allen anymore, and he indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see Mr. Allen.”

    In contrast to what apparently is being expressed by Ms. Farrow about Mr. Allen to Satchel, Mr. Allen has been reported to say only positive things to Satchel about Ms. Farrow, and conveys only loving regards to Moses and Dylan through Satchel. Thus I find little evidence in the record to support the majority’s conclusion that “Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen’s relationship with Satchel’s sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child.” (Majority opn, at 334.)

    The majority’s quotation of Mr. Allen’s testimony with respect to Soon-Yi in support of its conclusion respecting visitation should be viewed in the context of Dr. David Brodzinsky’s testimony. Dr. Brodzinsky is an expert in adoption with considerable experience in court-related evaluations of custody and visitation disputes, who was retained by the guardian for Dylan and Moses in a pending Surrogate’s Court proceeding involving the parties. Dr. Brodzinsky was thus a completely neutral expert, jointly called by Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow, and he had extensive contact with the relevant family members and mental health professionals and reviewed the pertinent reports and transcripts prior to testifying. It was his clinical judgment that Mr. Allen had more awareness of the consequences of his actions than he was able to articulate in the adversarial process, and he was optimistic about Mr. Allen’s ability to accept his share of responsibility for what had taken place in light of his love for his children, his capacity for perspective-taking and empathy, and his motivation and openness toward the ongoing therapeutic process. In addition, Dr. Susan Coates, Satchel’s therapist until December 1992, and the only expert to testify about Satchel’s mental health, stated that Mr. Allen’s parental relationship with Satchel was essential to Satchel’s healthy development.

    “It is the firmly established policy of this State * * * that, wherever possible, the best interests of a child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both of his natural parents.” (Daghir v Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193 [Mollen, P. J.], affd 56 N.Y.2d 938.) “Simply stated, a parent may not be deprived of his or her right to reasonable and meaningful access to the children by the marriage unless exceptional circumstances have been presented to the court * * * [i.e.,] where either the exercise of such right is inimical to the welfare of the children or the parent has in some manner forfeited his or her right to such access.” (Strahl v Strahl, 66 A.D.2d 571, 574 [Titone, J.], affd 49 N.Y.2d 1036.)

    I do not believe that Mr. Allen’s visitation with Satchel for a mere two hours, three times a week, under supervision, is reasonable and meaningful under the circumstances, or that exceptional circumstances are presented that warrant such significant restriction on visitation with Satchel. Mr. Allen and Satchel clearly need substantial quality time together to nurture and renew their bonds and to foster a warm and loving father-son relationship. Obviously this cannot occur overnight; but more significantly, it is almost inconceivable that it will occur even over an extended period of time if visitation is limited to three two-hour periods per week under the supervision of strangers, as ordered by the trial court and affirmed by the majority. Accordingly I would modify the judgment appealed from to provide that Mr. Allen shall have unsupervised visitation with Satchel for four hours, three times weekly, plus alternate Saturdays and Sundays for the entire day, plus alternate holidays to be agreed upon by the parties (see, Cesario v Cesario, 168 A.D.2d 911; Shink v Shink, 140 A.D.2d 506; Armando v Armando, 114 A.D.2d 875).

    Motion 104 by respondent-respondent to strike portions of appellant’s reply brief is denied.

    Cross motion 229 by appellant for costs and counsel fees in responding to motion 104 denied.

    Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 13, 1993, affirmed, without costs.

    Motion to strike portions of reply brief is denied.

    Motion for costs and fees is denied.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

    Woody Allen-Mia Farrow Custody Trial: 1993 – Life Imitating Art?
    By Bernard Ryan, Jr., law.jrank.org
    1993

    The battle was joined. Legions of fans were both confused and disappointed. The news media, while proclaiming that all its major sources in the story were the principals themselves, also chased every rumor and interviewed whoever had an opinion. Film buffs wondered how tarnished the reputation of their idol, Allen, would become. Cashing in on the publicity, Allen’s studio advanced the opening date of his new movie, Husbands and Wives, in which he starred with Farrow and which, according to advance notices, mimicked their real-life breakup and custody battle. The studio announced that the film would be released nationally, rather than in only eight cities, as had previously been scheduled.

    At a preliminary hearing, New York Supreme Court Justice Phyllis B. Gangel-Jacob turned down Allen’s request for visitation rights with the children. She also refused to accept, from Farrow’s lawyers, Allen’s photographs of Soon-Yi in the nude—pictures that Farrow had found on the mantel-piece in her home and that had tipped her off that the affair was going on.

    By October 1992, the case had become fuel for the raging political fires of the U.S. presidential election year—one of whose themes was family values. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, quoting an Allen interview in Time, said, “After all, he [Allen] said ‘the heart wants what the heart wants.’ There you have it. In seven words, Allen epigrammatically captures the essence of contemporary moral philosophy.” U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich, known for preaching family values as a Republican strength, told a Georgia audience, “Woody Allen is currently having nonincest with a non-daughter for whom he is a non-father because they have no concept of families … it’s a weird environment out there.”

    Next came a wave of hearings and rulings. Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Elliott Wilk ruled that television cameras would be allowed into the court during future hearings and during the trial. Both sides immediately appealed, so Administrative Judge Stanley S. Ostrau barred both TV and radio coverage in his courtroom. Meanwhile, Farrow sued in Surrogate’s Court to nullify Allen’s adoption of Moses and Dylan.

    In a December 15, 1992, hearing, Justice Wilk ruled that Farrow must provide Allen a copy of a videotape in which Dylan reportedly said Allen molested her. Wilk also turned down Farrow’s request that Allen’s suit for sole custody be put on hold pending the outcome of her suit in Surrogate’s Court.

    On March 18, 1993, a team of psychological investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital cleared Woody Allen of sexually molesting Dylan. The findings, which were the results of repeated interviews with Allen, Farrow, Dylan, the child’s psychologist, and household servants, were not made public. However, Allen’s lawyers reported that the videotape on which Farrow had based the accusation was a result either of the child’s imagination or of someone else’s manipulation.

    The next day, on March 19, 1993, the custody trial began before Acting Justice Wilk. Allen testified that after Farrow learned of his affair with Soon-Yi, she cut his head out of family pictures and that “she [Farrow] called me dozens of times a night, raging and screaming, threatening to kill me.” He testified further that he once found a note she left by an open window saying, “I’ve jumped out the window because of what you’ve done to the children.”

    The nude photos of Soon-Yi were admitted as evidence in court. Farrow’s attorney, Eleanor B. Alter, suggested they were pornographic. Allen testified they were a matter between consenting adults and were intended to be erotic. Attorney Alter read a letter from Moses Farrow, 15, to Allen that said, “You have done a horrible, unforgivable, ugly, stupid thing. I hope you get so humiliated you commit suicide.… Everyone knows not to have an affair with your son’s sister, including that sister, but you have a special way to get that sister to think that that is O.K.” Questioned by Elkan Abramowitz, his own lawyer, Allen responded that Moses was manipulated by his mother and used the same words and phrases that she had used only days earlier.

    Farrow then testified that Dylan told her the preceding summer that her father had sexually molested her. Farrow conceded, however, that the child, in her shyness, would not tell doctors of the abuse and that a medical examination produced no signs of it. She explained that she had videotaped the girl’s statement because, “I wanted this documented because it had happened before.… He would creep up in the morning and lay beside her bed and wait for her to wake up. I thought it was excessive. I was uncomfortable all along.” Farrow added that when Allen came to visit, Dylan screamed, “Hide me! Hide me!” to her brothers and sisters.

    Clinical psychologist Dr. Susan Coates, who had treated Satchel and met often with both parents, testified that she had been convinced by Farrow’s behavior—including sending Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children—that she might harm herself or Allen.

    More than two weeks went by in the stuffy, crowded New York City courtroom where the paint was peeling from the walls and ancient chairs creaked constantly. Dr. Coates testified that Allen should be allowed unsupervised visits with Satchel but was less certain about his seeing Dylan. The children’s nanny testified that Farrow was not always a good mother and had once slapped an adopted son across the face for not finding a dog leash. Allen’s sister testified that Farrow taught the children to hate him. Allen produced a surreptitious recording of a phone call from Farrow’s Connecticut housekeeper that disparaged Farrow’s abilities as a mother. Allen’s lawyer, Abramowitz, accused the Connecticut State Police of aiding Farrow’s case by allowing her lawyers to see the Dylan videotape but refusing his request to see it. A baby sitter testified that she saw Allen kneeling before Dylan “in a way that bothered” her. In a three-hour shouting match between Farrow’s attorney, Alan M. Dershowitz, and Allen’s attorney Abramowitz, Dershowitz denied allegations by Abramowitz that he had asked Allen to pay millions of dollars to get Farrow to call off the molestation charge. Justice Wilk criticized New York investigators for subjecting Dylan to the trauma of a second sex-abuse investigation. A doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation said that Dylan’s story had “a rehearsed quality” and that Farrow might have encouraged the child to fabricate because she liked to perform.

    On June 7, 1993, Justice Wilk, in a stinging 33-page decision, called Allen a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive father. It is clear,” he continued, “that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow.” The judge denied Allen immediate visitation rights with Dylan, ruling that a further review be held after Dylan received psychological therapy. Supervised visits, however, with Satchel would be allowed. The judge also acceded to Moses’s request not to be forced to see his father and ordered Allen to pay Farrow’s legal fees. Finally, the judge questioned the findings of the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigators, noting that whether or not molestation took place, “Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate.”

    In September 1993, Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco announced that, while he had “probable cause” to prosecute Allen on charges of sexual molestation of Dylan, he was dropping the case to spare her the trauma of appearing in court. Allen filed complaints asking the state bar counsel to disbar Maco and requesting that the State Criminal Justice Commission discipline Maco for making an accusation without producing an indictment. In October, the New York State Department of Social Services dropped its investigation into the child molestation charge. It concluded “that no credible evidence was found … that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated.” In November, the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission voted unanimously to dismiss Allen’s complaint against Maco. It said that after four hours of deliberation it could find no evidence that Prosecutor Maco had violated the canon of ethics for lawyers in his remarks during the September news conference in which he announced that he was dropping the charges against Allen. In January 1994, the Connecticut bar’s disciplinary panel criticized Maco’s handling of the case and found that he might have prejudiced the celebrities’ custody battle, but that he did not violate the state’s code of conduct for lawyers.

    Over the following year, Allen continued to date Soon-Yi, dining with her in the exclusive Manhattan restaurant, Elaine’s, where he and Farrow had often been seen in earlier days. Farrow no longer visited the restaurant. Meanwhile, Farrow informally renamed two of her children, calling Dylan by the name Eliza. Satchell became Seamus. On October 5, 1994, Allen lost an appeal for relief from the custody ruling that forbade his seeing Dylan (Eliza) and Moses and allowed court-supervised visits only with Satchel (Seamus). Both Farrow and Allen went on with their film making. In 1994 Farrow starred with Joan Plowright and Natasha Richardson in Widows Peak, which met with some critical acclaim. Meanwhile, Allen released Bullets Over Broadway, which went on to be heavily nominated for Academy Awards.

    Allen and Soon-Yi Previn married in 1997. In April 1999, the couple had their first child, a daughter. However, neither Allen nor Soon-Yi would publicly say whether the child was adopted or if Soon-Yi had given birth to the baby girl.

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/3556/Woody-Allen-Mia-Farrow-Custody-Trial-1993-Life-Imitating-Art.html
    [There are three pages - click on "Woody Allen-Mia Farrow Custody Trial: 1993 - The Custody Trial Begins" at the bottom right of the page to go to the next page]

    Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle
    By PETER MARKS, New York Times
    June 8, 1993

    Describing Woody Allen as a “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive” father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their mother, Mia Farrow.

    In a scathing 33-page decision, Acting Justice Elliott Wilk of State Supreme Court denounced Mr. Allen for carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow’s daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children’s lives.

    The judge also denied Mr. Allen immediate visiting rights with his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Last summer Ms. Farrow accused the 57-year-old film maker of molesting the child. Justice Wilk said it was unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.

    Visiting Rights Under Review

    “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.

    In almost every way, the opinion was a repudiation of the parental role of Mr. Allen, who filed his custody lawsuit last August, about a week after Ms. Farrow accused him of molesting Dylan at Ms. Farrow’s country home in Bridgewater, Conn. A team of investigators from Yale-New Haven Hospital that was retained by the Connecticut State Police subsequently concluded Dylan had not been abused.

    Mr. Allen’s lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen’s affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

    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.”

    “Mr. Allen has demonstrated no parenting skills that would qualify him as an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel,” the justice wrote. “His financial contributions to the children’s support, his willingness to read to them, to tell them stories, to buy them presents and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance and caring in their lives.

    “These contributions,” he continued, “do not excuse his evident lack of familiarity with the most basic details of their day-to-day existences.”

    The justice said he considered Mr. Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn — and his inability to comprehend the impact the romance was having on the other children in the Farrow household — further evidence of his deficiencies as a parent. “Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system,” Justice Wilk wrote.

    Ms. Farrow also has six children whose father is her former husband, Andre Previn. Of her three children with Mr. Allen, Moses and Dylan were adopted and Satchel is their biological son. Tomorrow, a hearing is scheduled in Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan on Ms. Farrow’s request to overturn Mr. Allen’s adoption of Moses and Dylan.

    The judge’s ruling came a month after the conclusion of the couple’s bitter custody trial in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, during which 30 witnesses, including psychotherapists, family employees and close friends of the actress and the director testified about the fitness of each parent.

    Ms. Farrow and her lawyers were jubilant yesterday as they celebrated what they termed their total victory. “You got everything!” Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, Eleanor Alter, told her client yesterday morning as she read to her from the ruling over the telephone in a booth in the state Supreme Court building. At a news conference at Ms. Alter’s office in Manhattan later in the day, Ms. Farrow, in her first public comments since the trial, expressed her pleasure and relief at the outcome.

    “For so many, many months, my family has been living through a nightmare,” Ms. Farrow said, her eyes filled with tears. “My children have been ripped apart emotionally. I’m so proud of how they’ve held themselves together, stood by one another and stood by me.”

    Appeals Considered

    An hour later and about five blocks away, Mr. Allen appeared briefly at a news conference conducted by his lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Declining to take questions from reporters, he said he was disappointed with some aspects of the decision, but happy that the judge would allow him, even in a limited way, to see Dylan.

    “I’m thrilled I’m going to get to see my daughter again, because she has been withheld from me since last August,” Mr. Allen said. He added, however, that he was disappointed that he would not be permitted to see Satchel outside the presence of a social worker during the two-hour visits he will be allowed three times a week. And he expressed hope that at some point, Moses would want to see him again.

    Mr. Abramowitz said that as far as his client was concerned, the justice’s decision to allow him access to Dylan was a major victory, and the criticisms of his ability as a father were of secondary importance. The lawyer said he was considering an appeal of several aspects of the ruling, including the supervision provisions for Satchel, as well as a ruling by the justice that Mr. Allen’s lawsuit was frivolous and that he pay all of Ms. Farrow’s legal costs.

    While Ms. Alter said she had not yet calculated the fees for Ms. Farrow’s side, experts in custody proceedings say the costs could amount to $1 million on each side in the case.

    Assessing a Reputation

    Mr. Abramowitz said that as a result of the case, Mr. Allen’s reputation had taken “an enormous hit.” But he said he believed that he had successfully disproved the molestation allegation during the trial. “I don’t think any one person could do more to prove that this did not happen,” he said.

    Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not been abused. “I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse,” Justice Wilk wrote.

    The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had been “colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen.” He added that the unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the destruction of the team’s notes had “compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.”

    The circumstances under which Mr. Allen would meet with Dylan remained a matter of dispute yesterday. Ms. Alter said that she interpreted Justice Wilk’s opinion as preventing Mr. Allen from seeing Dylan for at least six months, while the evaluation of the girl by a new therapist proceeds. But Mr. Abramowitz said he believed that Mr. Allen would have an opportunity to be with Dylan sooner, in the presence of a therapist.

    At the news conference in her office, Ms. Alter said that Dylan had only a vague conception of the battle that has been waged over her and her siblings for months. She said that in the months away from Mr. Allen, the girl has become a happier child. “She has flowered in school and psychologically,” the lawyer said.

    Ms. Farrow told reporters that she bore no ill feeling toward Soon-Yi, who is still involved romantically with Mr. Allen. “I would dearly love to have a relationship with Soon-Yi,” she said. “That has been my fervent wish since this began.”

    In the meantime, she said, she hopes that the decision will mean a return to some sense of normalcy for her family. “It will be a long road until we wake up to a really normal day,” Ms. Farrow said. “We hope this will be a new beginning.”

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

    Woody Allen Denies Allegation That He Abused Children The Director Said Mia Farrow Had Offered To Drop Her Accusations For $7 Million. The Controversy Rages.
    By Karen Heller, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
    August 19, 1992

    The Woody Allen-Mia Farrow fiasco got very nasty very fast yesterday.

    In the span of 10 hours:

    It was revealed that Connecticut police are investigating a complaint that the 56-year-old director sexually abused his 7-year-old daughter.

    It was reported that Farrow had discovered nude photos – taken in Allen’s apartment – of her 21-year-old daughter, who Allen has acknowledged is his lover.

    It was revealed, by the usually reclusive director, at a news conference he called himself, that Farrow also accused him of sexually abusing their 4-year- old son – though he said that accusation has since been dropped.

    And he made a charge of his own, later denied by Farrow’s camp, that Farrow had offered to drop all claims of abuse in exchange for $7 million.

    Connecticut State Police said a doctor examined the couple’s 7-year-old adopted daughter for abuse two weeks ago at Farrow’s behest. As required by state law, the doctor notified police. That triggered the investigation. Farrow owns a country home near Litchfield, Conn.

    The tip of the dispute went public Thursday when Allen filed for custody of their three children, who live with Farrow. A lawyer familiar with the filing said Allen charged that Farrow was an unfit mother. A hearing was set for Tuesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

    “I hoped that despite many conflicts and much anger, that with calm and compromise I could obtain an agreement in the best interests of the children,” Allen, appearing tired and frail, said yesterday. “Then, suddenly and appallingly I was accused of having molested my beloved 7-year-old daughter and hysterically the next day of molesting my dear 4 1/2-year-old son.”

    Allen said he had been told the allegation concerning his son would not be pursued, “I suppose because its substance was too insane even for the instigator to stay with.”

    He said Farrow’s allegations of abuse led to his custody suit: “These totally false and outrageous allegations have sickened me so I felt that, for the sake of all my three children, I must try and remove them from an atmosphere so unhealthy it can surely leave irreparable scars,” said Allen.

    “This, my lawyers tell me, is a currently popular though heinous card played in all too many child custody fights,” he said, decrying the ”manipulation of innocent children for vindictive and self-serving motives.”

    Farrow’s attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and David Levett, were quick to deny Allen’s accusation that they had offered to drop abuse allegations for $7 million. “Mr. Allen’s custody suit is ‘the card’ his lawyers are playing in an effort to deflect attention away from the ongoing investigations of his conduct,” Farrow’s lawyers said last night. “There was an attempt to resolve this entire matter in a privileged and confidential forum, without a court proceeding which would inevitably hurt the children. This attempt was undercut by Mr. Allen’s decision to file his lawsuit and hold his press conference in breach of confidentiality.”

    PLEADS GUILTY TO 1 CHARGE

    Allen said yesterday that the “one thing I have been guilty of is falling in love with Miss Farrow’s adult daughter at the end of our own years together and, painful as that might be, I and certainly the children do not deserve this form of retribution,” he said at yesterday’s news conference at the posh Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

    Only at the end of the somber news conference did Allen quip: “My one public appearance in years and it’s all straight lines.”

    His relationship with Farrow’s daughter, Soon-Yi Previn Farrow, is thought to be seven months old. A student at Drew University in Madison, N.J., Soon-Yi has been reported to be 21 years old, though in court papers Farrow has said her adopted daughter was 19 and her brother, Fletcher, has said she is 18.

    Dershowitz said both Farrow and conductor Andre Previn, the father of Soon- Yi, have been trying to locate her, but that Allen has her “ensconced” at a secret location in New Jersey.

    ‘HER FIRST LOVE’

    “She’s in love with him. He’s her first love,” a source close to the family told the New York Post. Asked whether the student was upset by the battle between her mother and Allen, the source said, “surprisingly less so than you’d think. I don’t think she understands the ramifications.”

    Farrow, 47, became aware of the affair when she discovered nude photos of her daughter taken in Allen’s apartment, the New York Post reported yesterday. One of Farrow’s friends told columnist Liz Smith the photos were ”disgustingly pornographic. Believe me, no skin-flick magazine would print them.” But an Allen ally told Smith, “They fall into the category of any young girl’s artistic nude photo. Not a big deal.”

    Allen and Farrow made 13 movies together and were companions for 12 years. Though they never married and maintained separate residences on opposite sides of Central Park, Allen and Farrow had one child together, Satchel, now 4 1/2, and adopted two others, Moses, 14, and Dylan, 7.

    Farrow is the mother of eight other children, including the Korean-born Soon-Yi, whom she adopted with Previn. He has declined comment.

    Tri-Star Pictures reaffirmed its commitment yesterday to Allen’s Husbands and Wives, scheduled to open in eight cities on Sept. 23 and in Philadelphia Oct. 9. The film stars Farrow and Allen, who portrays a professor smitten with a student portrayed by Juliette Lewis, 19.

    In 1966, Farrow eloped with Frank Sinatra when she was 21 and he was 50. In 1969, she was the “other woman” in the Previn divorce. Farrow gave birth to twins by Previn several months before his marriage ended, inspiring an angered Dory Previn to pen the song “Beware of Young Girls,” which contains the lyrics: “Beware of young girls who come to the door / wistful and pale of twenty and four / delivering daisies with delicate hands.”

    Perhaps most striking about the Allen-Farrow debacle is that it concerns two intensely private celebrities. Allen has always had a complicated relationship with fame. Though he has long spurned Hollywood and remained aloof to the press, he has a regular table at celebrity haunt Elaine’s, has tooled around Manhattan in a Bentley, and plays clarinet weekly at Michael’s Pub, which he did Monday night. He cooperated with Eric Lax’s authorized and flattering 1991 biography.

    Farrow has rejected all offers for interviews, though she has certainly been the stuff of tabloids in the past.

    ENTER DERSHOWITZ

    Whatever quest for privacy Farrow had ended this week. One of her lawyers, Dershowitz, is a Harvard Law professor, Nightline perennial, a subject of the movie Reversal of Fortune, best-selling author of Chutzpah, and defender of Leona Helmsley, Mike Tyson and Claus von Bulow.

    “I am still trying to conciliate this crisis,” Dershowitz told the New York Post yesterday. “Mia’s current legal team hopes to resolve this outside of the courts. . . . Mia wants an overall resolution which reflects what’s going on. She doesn’t care at all about money. That’s not her style. She just wants her life back.”

    And if Farrow is remaining silent on the issue, those around her are not. It was her mother, actress Maureen O’Sullivan (Jane of many Tarzan movies and also featured in Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters), who launched the first salvo, calling Allen “a desperate and evil man.”

    And Farrow’s publicist John Springer has noted “there’s a great deal more that has not yet come out but eventually it will.”

    This is not the first time a noted film director has been embroiled in a scandal with someone several decades his junior. Roman Polanski, who directed Farrow in Rosemary’s Baby, jumped bail in 1978 after being convicted of having sexual relations with a California 13-year-old. He has not returned to this country since.

    Charlie Chaplin, to whom Allen has been compared by his admirers, had four marriages, all to teenagers: his last at the age of 54 to Oona O’Neill, the 18-year-old daughter of playwright Eugene O’Neill, who ardently disapproved.

    http://articles.philly.com/1992-08-19/news/25991017_1_manipulation-of-innocent-children-farrow-custody-suit

  3. Honnie Badger
    February 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM

    Oh no, not this sh*t again!

  4. Jeannie5233
    February 9, 2014 at 10:21 AM

    Dylan Farrow’s open letter in the NYTimes:

    An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow
    By DYLAN FARROW
    February 1, 2014, 3:04 pm

    (A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.)

    What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

    For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it 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. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

    When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

    After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

    Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

    Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.

    But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.

    What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

    Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

    So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

    Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

    http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/

    Woody Allen’s open letter in the NYTimes:

    Woody Allen Lashes Back: ‘Of Course, I Did Not Molest Dylan’
    02/07/2014

    Woody Allen stormed back at his ex, Mia Farrow, angrily accusing her of manipulating his adopted daughter Dylan into believing she was molested by him when she was a child.

    “Of course, I did not molest Dylan,” the director, 78, writes in an op-ed piece that will appear in Sunday’s New York Times.” “I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being.”

    In the detailed response to Dylan’s claims of abuse when she was 7 years old, Allen says the allegations originated from Farrow, now 68, during their “terribly acrimonious breakup” 21 years ago when he began a relationship with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn.

    “The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself,” he writes. I naÏvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was.”

    Instead, his “raging adversary”‘s accusations led to a police case, a lie detector test that he says he passed (but which Farrow didn’t take) and a “meticulous investigation” by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital that he says cleared him.

    “The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, ‘We will probably never know what occurred,'” says Allen.

    The judge, Allen says, was “quite rough on me” out of disapproval of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi, who was in her 20s at the time when Allen was in his 50s. (Allen and Soon-Yi have now been married for 16 years.)

    “He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19,” writes Allen.

    After the case, Farrow took custody of Dylan and their children “and we went our separate ways.” He never had a relationship with Dylan, now 28.

    “Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness,” writes Allen.

    Allen then fuels speculation about the paternity of their son Ronan, now 26, who also has spoken out against him. “Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s?” asks Allen. “Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say?”

    He adds: “Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.”

    Now, Allen notes, the allegations have returned: “Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root?”

    To bolster his side, Allen quotes Moses, who has supported him, as saying that “my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.”

    Allen concludes by writing, “No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing.”

    He adds as a postscript: “This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.”

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20785148,00.html

    Dylan’s statement in response in People magazine.

    “Dylan Farrow on Woody Allen’s Response: ‘I Won’t Let the Truth Be Buried and Won’t Be Silenced’
    PEOPLE
    02/08/2014

    Woody Allen’s op-ed piece may be his “final word” on the matter, but Dylan Farrow refuses to stay silent about claims that the director molested her as a child.

    “Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me – but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life,” Farrow, now 28, says in a searing statement released Saturday.

    “His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years.”

    Assessing Allen’s Arguments

    Farrow, who told PEOPLE earlier this week that “my intention in writing [the open letter in the Times] was to put the truth on paper from a voice that was not able to speak before,” uses her platform to counter Allen’s arguments in his own Times piece, which will run in the paper Sunday.

    “He insists my mother brought criminal charges – in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me – court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as ‘inappropriate’ behavior with me from as early as 1991,” she continues.

    “He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test – in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here [on Vanity Fair's website].

    Reminder of Court Rulings

    To further illustrate her claims, Farrow refers back to legal documents from the custody battle between her mother, Mia Farrow, and Allen, in which a judge awarded the actress custody of the children and denied Allen visitation with his adopted daughter.

    “With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

    • Debunked the ‘experts’ my father claims exonerated him, calling them ‘colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen,’ criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions ‘sanitized and therefore less credible.’

    • Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

    • Found that ‘there is 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.

    • Concluded that the evidence ‘proves that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.’

    • Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found ‘probable cause’ to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect ‘the child victim,’ given my fragile state.”

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20785169,00.html

    Edited by Fame to include all three letters: Dylan’s open letter, Woody’s response, and Dylan’s counter response.

  5. Kelley
    February 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM

    Ronan is Frank Sinatra’s child. I kind of wondered before, but looking at photos of them side by side, it’s undeniable. He’s a gorgeous young man.

    Mia has issues, to be sure, but I have to keep asking myself, how would I react if my long-term partner, that I had adopted children with, had left me to shack up with one of my older adopted children. A valentine with a knife through it would be considered pretty classy compared to how I would probably really feel.

    Dylan has nothing to gain from telling her story. In fact, she has much more to lose than Woody Allen does. His career won’t be ended by this scandal, actors and actresses will still want to be in his films. People still want to be in Roman Polanski’s films, despite the allegations (since recanted by the alleged victim).

    What really bothers me most about this entire story is the level of victim blaming towards both Dylan and her mother. Mia is constantly called ‘crazy’ or ‘psychotic’ by Allen and his people, and Dylan must have been brainwashed by her crazy mother. It couldn’t have possibly happened because he’s Woody Allen, the powerful movie maker. Victim blaming is the reason more women don’t report molestation and rape. No woman, no girl, deserves to be assaulted. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I can tell you that the abuser will instill a great deal of control and fear in to his victim. And it can take a very long time to talk about what happened, if you’re ever able to. I didn’t discuss what happened to me at the ages of 5-7 until I was in my early 40s. I never told my mom. Sorry to go off on a personal tangent, but I can totally understand some of what Dylan is dealing with.

    • daisymay
      February 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

      of course what you’re saying is right – especially in light of your own past, but what if Dylan DID fabricate it at the time –

      What if Mia was raging with such hatred and Moses is correct in saying that going against Mia’s wishes made for a horrible life in their household – didn’t Mia herself marry a 51 year old man when she was 19? Soon Ye was of legal age and out of the household at that point – IF these allegations are untrue (and I think considering the investigation at the time that that is a distinct possibility) then it is a terrible injustice to Woody Allen – if these allegations are untrue, what do you expect him to do?

      • Kelley
        February 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM

        And that’s exactly what makes this case so convoluted and such a mess. It would be entirely possible that Mia could have coached Dylan to accuse Woody, as awful as that thought is. Children that young don’t come up with scenarios like what Dylan has described on their own. In children that are coached (the McMartin day-care trial comes to mind), you will hear it, and it’s entirely possible that Mia COULD have coached her (sorry for the caps, didn’t know how to bold text).

        I sincerely hope that all of this isn’t the result of false memories or Mia’s coaching Dylan to say this as a child. If false, it’s horrible that Dylan would continue to perpetuate false accusations after 20 years. It does a terrible disservice to true victims.

        • littlewitch
          February 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM

          Maybe Dylan did experience such molestation but not at the hands of Mister Allen. Perhaps she was molested by Mia’s brother who is serving 10 years in jail for child molestation and she displaced her accusation to Woody Allen to satisfy her mothers thirst for hatred and blame of Mr Allen. Displacement is somewhat common with young children who want to protect or fear their molester but who want to tell someone what is happening.

          Edited by Fame to include the links and excerpt below:

          Mia Farrow’s brother John Charles Villiers-Farrow is serving 10 years in prison for molesting two neighbor boys – in July 2013 he entered an Alford plea in the case, which allowed him to maintain his innocence while admitting the prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him. He was arrested in November 2013 following allegations he sexually abused two of his neighbors when they were young boys.

          http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/02/02/mia-farrow-where-is-her-outrage-over-her-own-brother-a-convicted-sex-offender-now-in-prison

          http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mia-farrow-brother-halts-child-sex-abuse-trial-article-1.1410590

          “In October, right around the same time of Maureen Orth’s glowing story of Farrow’s “triumph,” Farrow’s brother John Charles Villiers-Farrow began serving 10 years in prison for molesting two neighbor boys. According to the local Maryland news affiliate, authorities said “he abused one victim for seven years, beginning when the boy was nine, and abused another boy from the ages of 8 to 13.”

          “In 1992, when Woody Allen was facing similar accusations of sexual abuse, Mia’s brother John Charles Villiers-Farrow told People magazine, “[He's] going to be indicted, and he’s going to be ruined. I think when all of it comes out, he’s going to jail.” Unsurprisingly, the simultaneous timing of Villiers-Farrow’s conviction and Farrow’s flattering Vanity Fair profile, with its detailed recounting of the original accusations against Allen, has led to plenty of speculation and conspiracy theorizing, especially from the pro-Allen camp – though it seems likelier it was just a strange coincidence. But Farrow has never commented publicly on her brother’s case, and the arrest and sentencing went largely unnoticed in the national media. Farrow has also unreservedly supported her “close friend,” convicted sex offender Roman Polanski, and testified in his 2005 libel suit against Vanity Fair.”

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

          http://www.salon.com/2014/02/04/mia_farrows_sex_abuse_silence/

  6. February 9, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    Another scenario is Dylan was indoctrinated to believe she was molested, similar to repressed memories that supposedly come to light years after the event.

  7. February 9, 2014 at 5:43 PM

    There are no winners in this extremely ugly and very sad situation; they are all victims of each other.

  8. Annie
    February 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM

    I really liked Woody Allen. I liked his movies. I wanted him to be innocent. And because I have the time, and was compelled, I have searched out and read everything I can find on the internet regarding Woody Allen and Mia Farrow in hopes I could come to conclusion that Woody Allen was probably innocent. After reading the court papers on the custody hearing I just could not come to an innocent conclusion. After reading his response to Dylan, I am sure he is guilty.

    I hope Dylan is able to find healing in confronting him as she has, and I wish her a long and happy life.

    • February 9, 2014 at 9:57 PM

      Because I didn’t have any knowledge of this case, I spent many hours doing research and reading comments at other sites, so please check out the links to documents and reports that I provided throughout this blog, especially the three separate legal documents that are linked at the very beginning of the blog.

      Mia told her story to Vanity Fair on three separate occasions (which I linked to in this blog) and Woody told his story in 1992 to 60 minutes and other news sources (which I linked to in this blog), plus his recent response (which I linked to in this blog) to Dylan’s open letter (which I linked to in this blog), which she published after the tweets by Mia and Ronan during the Golden Globes (which I included in this blog). I also linked to the People magazine article where Moses comments about the allegations and to Dylan’s response to Woody’s open letter.

      Social media on the internet wasn’t around when this case first became public in 1992, and I’m sure that the facts will be twisted and distorted with each new story published. At some of the sites I visited, there is quite a bit of misinformation about the case that is being reported as fact, which I find disturbing.

      Woody and Mia: A New York Story
      New York Times
      By Eric Lax; Eric Lax is the author of “Woody Allen: A Biography,” from which this article is adapted.
      February 24, 1991

      “It’s no accomplishment to have or raise kids,” Woody Allen often used to say. “Any fool can do it.”

      Then in the fall of 1979 he met Mia Farrow, who had seven children. Mia, he now says, “introduced me to a whole other world. Yet the two of us have so little in common that it always amazes us. We’re always marveling on why we threw in our lot together and stayed together as long as we have.

      “I could go on about our differences forever: She doesn’t like the city and I adore it. She loves the country and I don’t like it. She doesn’t like sports at all and I love sports. She loves to eat in, early — 5:30, 6 — and I love to eat out, late. She likes simple, unpretentious restaurants; I like fancy places. She can’t sleep with an air-conditioner on; I can only sleep with an air-conditioner on. She loves pets and animals; I hate pets and animals. She likes to spend tons of time with kids; I like to spend my time with work and only a limited time with kids. She would love to take a boat down the Amazon or go up to Mount Kilimanjaro; I never want to go near those places. She has an optimistic, yea-saying feeling toward life itself, and I have a totally pessimistic, negative feeling. She likes the West Side of New York; I like the East Side of New York. She has raised nine children now with no trauma and has never owned a thermometer. I take my temperature every two hours in the course of the day.”

      Allen is constantly amazed at Farrow’s ability to do such things as run a tractor and paint houses when he can’t handle the simplest mechanical chores. (When he was writing comedy routines for television in the 1950’s, he invited another writer to dinner every three or four months, not because they were such good friends but because Allen couldn’t change a typewriter ribbon and the man could. “After the meal I’d say, ‘Oh, by the way, can you change this?’ I could never do any of that stuff.”)

      “I can only think that what made us throw in our lot together,” he says, “is that the two of us met slightly later in life and that we both have our own developed lives.”

      When they met, he was 43 years old and a critical and commercial success. His 1977 film, “Annie Hall,” had won him Oscar nominations for best director, best actor and best original screenplay, a triple play managed only once before, by Orson Welles for “Citizen Kane.” Allen won all but best actor.

      She, 34 and divorced for nearly a year, was working on Broadway in “Romantic Comedy.” (During her marriages, first to Frank Sinatra and then to Andre Previn, the composer and conductor, she was encouraged not to work.) One evening, Michael Caine and his wife came to a performance and afterward the three went to Elaine’s for dinner. Allen was there at his usual table; Caine stopped to say hello and introduced Farrow.

      SHE HAD ACTUALLY MET ALLEN IN PASSING at a party in California several years earlier and they once corresponded, she to tell him that she enjoyed “Manhattan” and he politely to thank her. She had never seen him as a stand-up comedian, which he was in the early 1960’s, but she knew of him as a director, having also seen “Annie Hall.” Then in April 1979, she noticed a picture of Allen on the cover of this magazine. He had on a scruffy sweater and was holding an open umbrella over one shoulder. She found the picture appealing and read the profile inside, concluding that he was “neat.” She tore off the cover and stuck it in her Random House Dictionary. (About seven years later — by then she and Allen had been together for about six years — she came upon the picture and had it framed. “I’m not in the habit of saving pictures like that, but I was a little lonely at the time and he had such an interesting face. It was a long winter,” she adds, shrugging.)

      Some weeks after their encounter at Elaine’s, Allen sent her an invitation to his New Year’s Eve party (“I think practically everybody in New York got one,” she says). She went with Tony Perkins, who was in the show with her, and his wife. Allen pays attention to the smallest details of the few big parties he gives — he stewed over the paper stock of the Cartier invitations for this one. But he is an almost invisible host. He likes to fill a grand place like the Harkness House, a mansion turned for a time into a ballet school, with hundreds of guests but he doesn’t like to work the room. He greets everyone as they arrive. “If it’s me meeting people at the door, I have no entry phobia. The burden is on them.” Then once the throng is assembled, he more or less fades into the woodwork.

      Farrow had a good time at the party but only a few words with Allen. Afterward, she sent him a note of thanks and a copy of Lewis Thomas’s book of essays “The Medusa and the Snail.” Allen had his secretary, Norma Lee Clark, call her (“Gracious person that I am,” he says) to thank her and suggest that they have lunch sometime. In the spring of 1980, he invited Farrow, again through his secretary, to lunch at Lutece. (Farrow later made a needlepoint sampler of the date and event — April 17, 1980 — that hangs on the wall outside his bedroom.) More dinner invitations followed, always through Allen’s secretary. During the first several months of this routine, Allen never phoned Farrow. He prefers not to speak on the phone to anyone unless he has to, and being invited through an intermediary didn’t bother her. “She never mentioned it,” Allen says.

      It was a slow courtship. “We would have dinner,” Farrow says, “and we’re still having dinner.”

      Both knew they were embarking on an improbable relationship. The daughter of the actress Maureen O’Sullivan and the director John Farrow, Mia Farrow grew up in theatrical communities in Beverly Hills, Spain and England — a world that Allen knew only from the movie magazines he read when he was growing up in Brooklyn, the son of Martin Konigsberg, a jack-of-all-trades, and his wife, Nettie, a bookkeeper.

      In the beginning, each even found the other’s name difficult. “What should I call you?” she asked him. “I’d be pleased if you’d call me Woody,” he told her.

      “It felt awkward at first,” she says. “It’s such an extreme name, too. I know he thinks my name is awkward to say. He rarely calls me Mia.” (Christened Maria de Lourdes Villiers Farrow, she couldn’t pronounce Maria when she was a toddler and called herself Mia.) “I hear him refer to me as Mia, and sometimes if he has to get my attention, he’ll call it, but he doesn’t often say it.”

      Despite the vast differences in background and upbringing, each likes the family of the other. Her mother and sisters appear in his films. “Everybody loves Woody’s father,” Farrow says. “His father’s all around town. He knows so many people. We saw Kitty Hart one night,” she continues, referring to Kitty Carlisle Hart, the head of the New York State Council on the Arts. “She knew his father” (from his days as a jewelry engraver). “Woody was amazed. His mother has a rich vocabulary and she’s fun to listen to. She’s really colorful. His whole family strikes me as exotic because their world is so alien to me.” (“Exotic?” says the narrator in Allen’s short story “Retribution.” “She should only know the Greenblatts. Or Mr. and Mrs. Milton Sharpstein, my father’s friends. Or for that matter, my cousin Tovah. Exotic? I mean, they’re nice but hardly exotic with their endless bickering over the best way to combat indigestion or how far back to sit from the television set.”)

      For the first few years after their friendly dates turned into serious ones, Allen would get up in the morning, give Farrow a call, and then work while she attended to the children, of whom there are now nine. She and Previn had three sons (Matthew, Sascha and Fletcher); then they adopted three orphan girls — two Vietnamese (Lark and Daisy) and one Korean (Soon Yi). After their divorce, she adopted a Korean infant (Moses Amadeus Farrow), who has cerebral palsy. In 1985, Allen and Farrow adopted a newborn girl from Texas (Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow). Two years later, they had their own son (Satchel O’Sullivan Farrow, named after Satchel Paige, the baseball pitcher and a hero of Allen’s; the last name was chosen because the couple didn’t want one Allen among two Farrows and six Previns).

      Around 7 P.M., Allen would pick up Farrow for dinner or the opera or a show or a movie, then take her home. Very often on the weekend, she would bring a few kids and stay at Allen’s. Now and then he would go to Farrow’s country house in Connecticut — but only for very limited periods.

      “I am two with Nature,” Allen wrote early in his career. In fact, looking out from his apartment over Central Park is about as much Nature as he can stand.

      “Woody has no tolerance for the country,” Farrow says. “Within half an hour after arriving he’s walked around the lake and is ready to go home. He gets very bored. He swears he once got a tick standing by the front door. He was the only one to get one. I didn’t actually see the offending tick. He discovered it after he went back to New York. I assume he’s correct although he doesn’t know much about bugs. He’s been seen in a beekeeper’s hat at my place when it’s gnats time. He’ll put it on and seriously stroll by the lake in it. Of course, he never goes in the lake. He wouldn’t touch the lake. ‘There are live things in there,’ he says.” Allen’s avoidance of rural water extended to a scene in “A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy” in which he and Farrow fall in a lake (actually their doubles do). Rather than soak himself with the stuff for the shot of the two of them coming out of the lake, he had himself doused with bottles of Evian water.

      Allen and Farrow very much lead their own lives, while continuing a relationship that is the longest either has had. By any standard, it is not a conventional union. They are not married, neither do they live together; their apartments face each other across Central Park. When they began to date, they would wave towels out the window as they spoke on the phone, delighting in saying they could see the other. Her apartment — which in addition to nine children and a nanny is home to two cats, a canary, a parakeet, several chinchillas and assorted tropical fish — was used for her scenes in “Hannah and Her Sisters,” which Allen directed in 1986.

      “It’s sort of like just enough,” Allen explains one day in his Fifth Avenue apartment, a duplex penthouse with country furniture and a wraparound view of Manhattan and all of Central Park. “Perhaps if we were to live together or if we met at a different time in our lives it wouldn’t work. But it seems to be just right. I have all the free time I want and it’s quiet over here, and yet I get plenty of action over there. I think it’s because we don’t live together and that she has her own life completely and that I have mine that we’re able to maintain this relationship with a certain proper tension. If we got married years ago and lived together, maybe now we’d be screaming, ‘What have we gotten into?’ These things are so exquisitely tuned. It’s just luck.”

      Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night. As each has been married and divorced twice, experience has taught them that legalizing a relationship doesn’t necessarily make it last, and Mia Farrow is fond of quoting a joke about the much-married Alan Jay Lerner: “Marriage is Alan’s way of saying good-bye.”

      They both also seem to have what they want. Farrow is a full-time mother and has a satisfying career. Allen — who, according to friends, spent considerable energy in his earlier marriages and relationships educating his partner and being needful of her attention — has, in Mia Farrow, found a balance with a wholly contained woman.

      In many ways, his latest movie, “Alice,” is a paean to her. In it, Alice Tait (Mia Farrow), a faithful Catholic in her youth who has been married for years to a wealthy New Yorker, finds out through the medium of various magical herbs that an acupuncturist prescribes for her that she could behave in wholly un-Alice ways — conjure up an old lover, have an affair with another man, aspire to be a writer. She also discovers that her husband has long been unfaithful to her and that her life, crammed as it is with the extravagances of the idle rich of Manhattan, is silly and empty. Even though the effect of another of the herbs makes any man who sees her fall in love with her, she realizes she wants nothing to do with any of them. Instead, reminded of her faith as a child and of the desire she had then to serve others, she abandons her life of ostentatious luxury and comfort. What Alice becomes is not unlike what Mia Farrow is. WOODY ALLEN MAKES AN average of a movie a year, and for him film making is an exhausting, depressing process. Little things drive him crazy. During the filming of “Alice,” Mia Farrow took a walk in the park, and her red coat came open, revealing the white dress beneath. That ruined the esthetics for him. He reshot the scene again and again, until he knew he had what he wanted. But if at the end of the day he knows a shot is less than what he was trying to do, he doesn’t sleep well. “All this obsession,” he says, “it isn’t perfectionism — it’s obsession, compulsion — and all of that is no guarantee that the film is going to be any better.”

      A work life of such intensity doesn’t allow for many distractions. Since the spring of 1980, in fact — the time he began to see Mia Farrow regularly — Allen has pared his life down to the essentials. His long-term lease of an editing and screening room in Manhattan made it possible for him to do the assembling of his films in one spot. No longer willing to travel to make his movies, he does all his shooting within driving distance of Manhattan. When he isn’t at work, he’s with Farrow and the children or reading or practicing his clarinet. He takes no vacations apart from the occasional two-week trip to Europe with Farrow and the children, during which he invariably does some writing and gives interviews in connection with a current film.

      For Allen, it has turned out that any female character he can think up, Mia Farrow can play. In the 11 films he has made over the last 11 years, she has, among other roles, been a prim psychiatrist whose love transforms a human chameleon afraid to be himself (“Zelig”); a squeaky-voiced 40’s cigarette girl with ambitions to play Chekhov (“Radio Days”); a mobster’s moll with an accent that would stop a subway train (“Broadway Danny Rose”); an ethereal free spirit who looks like the soloist in the heavenly choir but who has a past as long as Route 66 (“A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy”); a Depression-era dreamer who finds escape in the movies, not to mention love with a stranger who steps off the screen and into her arms (“The Purple Rose of Cairo”), and an inadvertent heartbreaker (“Crimes and Misdemeanors”).

      Farrow is not the first woman Allen has been seriously involved with who has appeared in his films. Louise Lasser, his second wife, starred in two; Diane Keaton, in five (six, if you count “Play It Again, Sam,” which he wrote but did not direct). Neither is Woody Allen the first movie director to combine private and professional lives. Charlie Chaplin did it. So did Ingmar Bergman with Liv Ullman; Federico Fellini with his wife, Giulietta Masina; Blake Edwards with his, Julie Andrews. In no instance, however, has a collaboration ranged so widely and through so many films.

      Allen relies on Farrow as a sounding board for the titles of his films and for the nuances of the characters he conjures up. He solicits her reactions to the filming and editing of his pictures. She has also suggested some of the characters she has portrayed. For example, they were eating in a favorite Italian restaurant when she saw a woman in dark glasses with blond hair piled on her head. She turned to Allen and said, “Gee, I would like to play a woman like that once.” From that came her role in “Broadway Danny Rose.” (She once made this comment to Gene Siskel, the Chicago Tribune critic, about her alleged fragility: “Maybe it’s my physical look that confused people. I was very thin. I know people think of me that way. That’s why I kept my sunglasses on in ‘Broadway Danny Rose,’ because I know my eyes are a giveaway. They’re not tough, but I’m sure I am underneath.”)

      Allen and Farrow have acted together in six of his films. Hollywood has spawned a number of on-and-off-the-screen legendary couples: Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. While Woody Allen and Mia Farrow may be the younger counterparts of these famous twosomes, they seem intent on being untheatrical — in their disregard for fashionable attire, in their unusual living arrangement, in their combining busy film careers with a large family.

      Farrow’s range as an actress continues to grow. She is regularly offered parts in other films, and says she would accept a truly spectacular role, but she is happy just doing her film a year with Allen. Other than a cameo appearance in the 1984 movie “Supergirl,” as Supergirl’s mother, she has not acted in a film for anyone else since she and Allen linked up.

      “She’s an extraordinary actress,” Allen says. “And she’s solid like a rock. She shows up and can always do it. If you ask her to play nasty, she does it. If you ask her to play something sexy, she does it. And she’s real sweet. She’ll come to the set and quietly do her needlepoint, and then put on her wig and dark glasses or whatever, and just scream out the lines, and stick a knife in your nose — and then go back to sewing with her little orphan children around her.”

      Farrow’s first movie for Allen was “A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy,” which was filmed in the summer of 1981. He had just finished the script of “Zelig” and was faced with two weeks of waiting while the budget was worked out. Then he thought to himself, “While I’m waiting, why don’t I write something?” What he refers to as “this little summer pastiche” occurred to him.

      “I thought it would be fun to get some people in a country house and just celebrate summer — make it very beautiful, with butterfly nets and badminton courts and picnicking.” It was set up as a sort of subproject for Allen to shoot while also shooting “Zelig.”

      That little summer pastiche was a horror for Farrow, who felt she had the part only because she was involved with Allen and was “paralyzed with insecurity.” She recalls: “I could barely get through the day and I got an ulcer in the process.” (She redeveloped her confidence in time for “Zelig.”)

      “I think it’s harder acting with someone you have an intimate relationship with,” she says. “It’s inhibiting, and that’s what you have to fight. If Woody and I were in rehearsal for a play, it would be different than filming spontaneously. Then we would build a reality apart from others that would always be there for us to go to; you create this sort of island. But as we don’t do that in films, I have to be a little more resolved in pulling away from our personal relationship.

      “There is one other thing, too. Woody is also the director and so I know he is evaluating my performance at the same time he’s acting with me, something quite apart from our relationship. I also know he’s this director with a laser view, not only of what I’m doing but of his own performance and everything else that’s going on in the scene, and I have to relegate that to the background.”

      Allen did not quite understand her predicament. “I tend to be maybe a little abrupt sometimes,” he said after the film was finished. “So I calmed her but I was not completely sympathetic, because I didn’t realize the dimensions, the gravity. I knew she’d be wonderful in it. It never occurred to me she’d disappoint me. So I didn’t think to myself, ‘Oh my God, darling, are you upset?’ ”

      What made it even more difficult for Farrow that first time around was the lack of directorial guidance. Actors who have had no experience with Allen are almost always surprised by the absence of rehearsals before he shoots a scene. Even actors who have made films with him are sometimes surprised, but what Allen relishes is the spontaneity of their performance.

      Essentially, Allen writes his movies as he makes them. For example, Hannah was a character Mia Farrow never understood, not at the start and not at the finish. Neither she nor Allen could ever figure her out. They could never decide whether Hannah was indeed a lovely, nice person who was the bulwark of the family or whether Hannah had a darker side. “At times, I didn’t think she was nice, and at other times I did,” Allen says. “Mia was always looking to me for guidance and I could never give it to her. I could just say to her, ‘Well, play this scene and let me see as you play it instinctively and maybe I can change something.’ But I’m in the dark a lot of times that way.”

      Allen says his style is more to correct than to direct: “I try not to tell the actors anything at all and just have them do it, because they’re all very good. If they do the part wonderfully from the start, the best thing a director can do is get out of their way and let the vitality come through. But in a sneaky way, I’m doing something, and if needed, I help guide them to the best reading I can.”

      Other than that initial awkwardness when she first appeared in one of his films, Farrow has become the quintessential Woody Allen character actress. “Woody’s instinct for what is correct is unerring,” she says. “He sometimes doesn’t even let you finish the sentence if it’s incorrect. The truth can only fit through a very narrow pass for him. Sometimes a scene can go for 40 takes. Another time you’ll be astonished because he does only one take of a very long scene, and you think, ‘Are you sure? Did I say all the words?’ And if that’s the only scene you’re doing with Woody, you’d think it’s slipshod or something. I’ve seen other actors go, ‘Is that right?’ But they don’t realize, you have to trust him. He has a great feel for what is true.” WOODY ALLEN HAS BEEN successful for so much of his life that individual accomplishments mean less to him than they might to someone else. Recalling the huge popularity of “Manhattan” and “Hannah and Her Sisters,” he said: “You get up that day and the papers say the picture’s great and people are in lines in front of the theater, which you don’t see unless you bother to go look at them. I’ve done that in my life, when I first started, but I haven’t done it since ‘Sleeper.’ The truth is, nothing happens. The movie’s playing different places and people are seeing it. But I still have to go home and practice the clarinet.”

      That angst, which runs as a subtext through all his movies, permeates his life.

      In 1985, he and Farrow met Vladimir Horowitz and his wife, Wanda, at a dinner party hosted by Kitty Carlisle Hart. Wanda Horowitz is a direct woman. “Mr. Woody Allen,” she said when they were introduced, “you look the same as you do in the movies. No worse, no better.” And the concert pianist, it soon became evident, shared many of Allen’s odd sensibilities. “I like him because he’s crazier than I am,” Allen said not long after they met.

      He should know. This is a man who ate the same dinner every night for the six months he was in Paris for the filming of “What’s New, Pussycat?” Horowitz ate the same dinner every night for years, one almost identical to Allen’s standing order: soup, sole, boiled potato, asparagus vinaigrette, creme caramel. Nonetheless, Horowitz shared Allen’s passion for great restaurants. So on the occasions when it was Allen’s treat, his assistant would call the eatery they were going to and leave word that Horowitz was partial to certain foods. Then over dinner, Allen would send his driver out to get the first edition of the next day’s New York Times because, Allen says, Horowitz “had to have it every evening. While at dinner he thought about it from the start of the meal.”

      Horowitz died in 1989 at the age of 86. When Allen and Farrow heard the death announced on television they were “not exactly stunned but Mia and I were saddened. Within a minute we agreed to call Wanda. Then one of the kids ran into the room. The cat had jumped up on the kitchen table. We hurried to get the cat off while the other kids came marching in demanding dinner. Suddenly the enormity of the passing of a human life was becoming history. The more pressing trivialities of life interfered. Mia was immediately the hard-pressed mother, grabbing the cat and ladling out the pasta. ‘See how life goes on?’ she said to me. It’s a concept that causes me great trouble when I stop to think about it, which is often.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/magazine/woody-and-mia-a-new-york-story.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1

  9. February 9, 2014 at 9:45 PM

    I believe her

    • February 10, 2014 at 2:26 AM

      I do, too. Especially reading that Dylan was “shaking and crying” on the taped confession video, after the attic incident. I was 15 y.o. when I finally told my mom what my Uncle did to me and my sister when we were toddlers to grade school age. That was so humiliating to confess to than that I cried for hours afterwards. I couldn’t imagine what Dylan was going through at 7 y.o.. I was in my early twenties when this story broke and I read many tabloid magazines about this case. I’ve never looked at Woody Allen the same way again. I worry for his girls he adopted with Soon-yi. I can’t help but notice that the little girl he was holding in the Soon-yi picture above resembles Dylan with straight hair. That gave me the creeps. Also, the little girl Soon-yi is holding looks just like her. Creepy!

  10. February 9, 2014 at 9:51 PM

    and i believe i read he mocks sexual abuse in his movies, not sure if thats true. I don’t care for his movies they creep me out.

  11. Anonymous
    February 10, 2014 at 1:49 AM

    I love all of your comments.

    What bothers me is, Woody crossed the line when he married his stepdaughter. Yes, she was of legal age when they married. However, there are some lines that should not be crossed, this is one of them, this is just common sense.

    Would any of you marry your stepfather? Creepy!

    From what I have read, it is not easy to admit one has been abused.

    In my heart, I believe Dylan.
    ,
    Fame, thank you this post. Jeannie, I agree, there are no winners in this situation.

    • February 10, 2014 at 8:13 AM

      and that right there proves he has a problem with boundaries. He also deflects his wrong doing by bringing up Mia and Frank, as if that excuses his actions to HIS step daughter. I also believe any child who says this happened to them, until their is solid proof otherwise. Children are innocent and they need adults to believe them, to make them feel safe. How does this debate help other victims it just goes to show them that what the predator said was true “they won’t believe you”. I will always stand with the child and protect them.

      • February 10, 2014 at 10:12 AM

        Yes, Woody bringing up Ronan’s paternity seems to be a diversion tactic to take the heat off the molestation accusation. I always felt that Mia may have known what Woody was doing to Dylan pre Soon-yi affair. After reading about the attic incident it seems like Mia may have set Dylan up. Mia’s son, Moses, saying how convenient it was for his mom to leave Woody with the kids is very suspicious during the attic incident. I could be wrong but Mia comes across as vindictive and selfish. When Mia announced that Frank Sinatra might be Ronan’s father it kind of threw me off about what type of person I thought she was. I thought she was a faithful girlfriend to Woody who was patiently waiting for him to marry her. Instead her twelve year relationship ended with him cheating on her with her daughter. It could be the media twisting this story but it appeared Mia being more concerned about playing the scorned woman instead of the mother of a child abuse victim. Mia doesn’t seem to have a problem with a convicted 13 y.o. rapist, Roman Polanski. As a matter of fact she testified on his behalf during a civil lawsuit he filed against some magazine that said he flirted with a lady two weeks after his wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by the Charlie Manson cult. I left a link in the above comments about her brother being convicted last year for sexually abusing two boys for eight years. I don’t know if she stuck by his side during his trial but she didn’t publicly disown him from what I could find. Like I said, I could be wrong about Mia but the molestation accusation came at a convenient time for her to hurt his reputation. I do believe Dylan but it seems like Mia and Woody are guilty, too.

        Fame, this was a very good blog. I didn’t know about her daughter Lark dying so pitifully. Here’s a link to the story about Mia testifying about Roman the rapists / pedophile demeanor two weeks after his wife was murdered : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mia-farrow-defends-polanski/.

        • February 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM

          I agree if they were seeking help for an unhealthy attachment or however they put it, i think she had to know something was wrong. The problem i have is i don’t care about Mia and yes i think she has problems. I care about sending the right message to all children. I have no idea how its wrong in her mind for Woody to hurt her daughter but she stands by two other men accused of the same crime. I stand by all the children who have been abused. I feel sorry for any mother who knows her child was broken, and it makes me sick to think Mia would testify on behalf of another predator. If you are going to stand up for one child stand up for every child.

          • February 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM

            I am a huge champion for the rights of all children and have devoted part of my life being an advocate and trying to be a voice for those little ones who cannot or will not be heard as patients suffering from catastrophic illness and in the LGBT community –

            That being said, and I am only playing devil’s advocate here so please bear in mind the following does not necessarily reflect my own personal feelings about this particular situation. . .

            One does need to bear in mind there is a very real and distinct possiblility “events” can be planted in childrens’ memories as was found in the case of the McMartin pre-school trial. Jurors found the “interviewing techniques to be so suggestive” that they were unable to discern what actually happened. This trial has been used as a benchmark since then as a “symbol of the dangers and difficulty of using childrens’ testimony”.

            Also, we know that even adults with personality disorders are capable of telling lies to themselves so often that it really does become their reality. They truly believe deep in their mind what they have convinced themselves of and there is no changing it. My own sister is that way. She truly believes her own lies and cannot tell the difference anymore from her reality and the truth. It has also been found, through research, the mind has capabilities to protect. In order to make some memories more palatable, it has the ability to “distort” them so that the person can live with it or to the extreme, erase the memory completely in order to protect the person – a form of amnesia or self-preservation, if you will. It also tends to color a person’s past memories with rose colored glasses at times. Our memories are just that – memories – and sometimes are not necessarily what actually took place at the time.

            I have great empathy for Dylan and for the rest of the Previn/Farrow children, including Moses. They are all, in some way, shape, or form. damaged – some more so than others. Just growning up in an acrimonious atmosphere will do damage; let alone the severity of this particular situation. Sadly, the sins of the adults will always be put on the shoulders of their children, which I find to be appalling and selfish. I have great admiration for parents – and there are many – who put their children’s well-being above all else, even in times of great family stress and adversity.

            • GPM
              February 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM

              I agree with you, Jeannie, that children and even adults are highly susceptible to suggestion, whether it’s coming from within the individual or without and that we all have to be very careful of the impact of propaganda, etc.

              What I keep coming back to in this case is the fact that the event that occurred on the couch was reported by the nanny of visiting children to her employer, a friend of Mia’s who called Mia the next day. For that not to have happened the unrelated nanny, the friend and Mia would have all had to have lied.

              Another thing that bothers me is that Woody started therapy in 1991 specifically in connection with his relationship with Dylan. This was before the Soon-Yi affair came to light, so no revenge motive for Mia existed at that time. Why?

              Thirdly, it also seems very odd to me that the Yale-New Haven investigators, who issued the report favorable to Woody, destroyed their notes and that two of the three investigators refused to testify at trial. Why the haste to destroy the notes, even before the DA decided not to press charges?

              And lastly — and I think Ronan said this best — it is an undeniable fact that Woody Allen had an affair with his children’s sister. Regardless of the fact that she wasn’t his adopted daughter, this is an undeniable fact. While this doesn’t reflect on whether he sexually abused Dylan, it does seem to me to be very clear emotional abuse of all his children.

              These are the facts that I just can’t get past.

    • February 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM

      Soon-Yi Previn was one of three adopted daughters of Mia and Andre Previn during their marriage (they also had three biological sons) – they divorced in 1979; Mia began casually dating Woody in 1980.

      Mia and Woody were longtime companions but never lived together and never married, so none of Mia’s children were his stepchildren, including Soon-Yi. In fact, everyone (including Mia and the experts involved in the custody hearing) agreed that during their relationship, Woody paid no attention to Mia’s children (biological or adopted) from her previous marriage to Previn, “rarely even speaking to them” – this was up until 1990 when Woody started taking Soon-Yi to basketball games with Mia’s encouragement. Additionally, Woody had no relationship with Moses (other than being “cordial to him”), who newly-divorced Mia adopted on her own around the time she and Woody first met (a newly-divorced Mia adopted Moses when he was two-years old; he was born in July 1978).

      In 1984, Mia expressed a desire to have a child with Woody. After six months of unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant, Mia decided to adopt. Although Mia discussed the decision with Woody, she adopted newborn Dylan (born July 1, 1985) on her own in 1985; however, it was understood that Woody would be Dylan’s father figure, which is why he began spending more time at Mia’s apartment (mostly in the mornings and evenings). On December 19, 1987, Mia had Woody’s biological child, Satchel/Ronan (who she is now suggesting could be Frank Sinatra’s son).

      In 1990, Woody and Mia began growing distant from each other and each expressed concerns about the other’s relationship with the youngest children (Dylan and Satchel are about two and a half years apart in age). Woody claimed Mia became inordinately attached to Satchel to the exclusion of the other children and, because of this, he began spending more time with Dylan to make up for the lack of attention shown her by Mia. Mia claimed Woody placed inordinate demands on Dylan’s time and focused on her to the exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present.

      Despite their concerns, Mia began proceedings for Woody to adopt Moses and Dylan – the adoptions were finalized in December 1991. Also around December 1991, Woody began a sexual relationship with Soon-Yi, which means he was having an affair with the adopted sister (Soon-Yi, age 19 – 21; her year of birth is believed to be either 1970 or 1972) of his newly-adopted children (Moses, 13, and Dylan, 6) and his biological son (Satchel, 4).

      Understandably, Mia was livid, emotionally distraught and mentally anguished when she discovered in January 1992 that Woody had entered into a sexual relationship with her 20-year-old adopted daughter (or 22-year-old adopted daughter), Soon-Yi Previn.

      Seven months later, on July 11, 1992, on the evening of Dylan’s birthday party at Mia’s country home in Connecticut, Mia posted a note on the bathroom door of the guest room where Woody was spending the night: “Child molester at birthday party, molded and abused one sister, now focused on youngest sister, family disgusted.” [The alleged abuse of Dylan didn't even HAPPEN until August 4, 1992; interesting that Mia labeled him a "child abuser" who was "focused on" Dylan several weeks BEFORE the alleged abuse occurred.]

      One month later, over a two- to three-day period beginning on August 5, 1992, Mia videotaped her 7-year old daughter’s allegations that Woody had “touched her private parts with his finger” the day before. Connecticut states’ attorney Frank Maco, who was assigned to the case in 1992, told Connecticut Magazine in 1997 that Dylan said: “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.”

      The following article from March 30, 1993 has interesting findings of Mia’s mental state on August 1, 1992, four days before the alleged molestation at her country home in Connecticut. “Dr. Coates characterized Mia’s behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on August 1, 1992 Mia called her after having learned that the affair with Soon-Yi was continuing. Mia described Woody as “satanic and evil,” Dr. Coates said, adding that Mia pleaded with her to “find a way to stop him.” Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Mia mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Woody had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married. “Do you think I should marry him’?” said Dr. Coates, reading from the notes she took at the time and quoting Mia. “I said, ‘Are you serious’?” Dr. Coates said. “She heard my reaction to it, and realized there was something absurd about it.” Four days after that conversation, the psychologist testified, Mia phoned again, saying that Dylan had begun complaining that Woody had abused her. Dr. Coates characterized Mia as having been extremely calm during the call, in contrast to her agitated state in other calls.”

      Doctor Recounts Threats By Farrow Against Allen
      By PETER MARKS, New York Times
      March 30, 1993

      A clinical psychologist testified yesterday that she warned Woody Allen that she feared for his safety because of threats made by Mia Farrow. The threats were made in the months after Ms. Farrow learned that Mr. Allen was having an affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, the psychologist testified.

      The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen’s relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be “inappropriately intense,” the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily “would be taken over by fantasy” when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.

      The testimony of Dr. Coates — who regularly treated the couple’s biological son, Satchel, from 1990 to 1992, and often conversed or met with both parents — appeared to provide an alternative explanation for Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan other than the one advanced by Ms. Farrow. The actress’s accusation that Mr. Allen had molested Dylan at her country house last Aug. 4 is a central issue in the custody trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Mr. Allen has denied the accusation.

      Escalating Rage

      Dr. Coates was questioned by Mr. Allen’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Dr. Coates — one of several psychologists and psychiatrists whom various members of the couple’s family had seen over the years — portrayed Ms. Farrow as filled with escalating rage after discovering Mr. Allen’s affair with Ms. Previn in January 1992.

      The psychologist said that Ms. Farrow’s actions in the following months, which included angry phone calls and a gift to Mr. Allen of a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children, had convinced her that Ms. Farrow might harm herself or Mr. Allen.

      “I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him,” Dr. Coates testified.

      “I felt it was a really dangerous situation,” she said, explaining she told Mr. Allen that he should not visit Ms. Farrow and her children at their country home because Ms. Farrow remained so distraught. “In my clinical evaluation, this was a place where protection was needed.”

      A Knife Through a Picture

      Earlier in the day, Ms. Farrow, concluding her three days on the witness stand, explained why she had sent the Valentine with the skewers and the steak knife through the picture of herself.

      “It was not a threat, it was an attempt to depict to a man who didn’t know or didn’t care what he had done,” she said. “He seemed to have no concept. The morality of the situation seemed to have totally eluded him. I wanted to depict the degree of pain he had inflicted on me and my entire family.”

      Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow’s behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on Aug. 1 of last year Ms. Farrow called her after having learned that the affair with Ms. Previn was continuing. Ms. Farrow described Mr. Allen as “satanic and evil,” Dr. Coates said, adding that Ms. Farrow pleaded with her to “find a way to stop him.”

      Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Ms. Farrow mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Mr. Allen had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married.

      “Do you think I should marry him?’ ” said Dr. Coates, reading from the notes she took at the time and quoting Ms. Farrow.

      “I said, ‘Are you serious?’ ” Dr. Coates said. “She heard my reaction to it, and realized there was something absurd about it.”

      Four days after that conversation, the psychologist testified, Ms. Farrow phoned again, saying that Dylan had begun complaining that Mr. Allen had abused her. Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow as having been extremely calm during the call, in contrast to her agitated state in other calls.

      ‘She Was Very Calm’

      “I was puzzled, because in that conversation she was very calm,” Dr. Coates said. “I did not understand her calm.”

      Dr. Coates, who had continued to see Mr. Allen as part of Satchel’s therapy, broke the news to Mr. Allen of Dylan’s allegations a few days later. She described it as “one of the worst moments of my whole life.”

      “He sat on the edge of his chair and his eyes were very wide,” Dr. Coates recalled. “He said, ‘I’m completely flabbergasted. I’m completely flabbergasted.’ He said it over and over again.”

      The psychologist testified that she first met with Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow in 1990, as part of her preliminary evaluation of Satchel, whom she said was alienated from Mr. Allen at the time. She said the parents’ own relationship was “in considerable trouble,” with the two of them unable to agree on issues as small as whether or not Ms. Farrow should keep a child’s thermometer in the house.

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

      On September 24, 1993, State Attorney Maco called a press conference to announce that he had “probable cause” to prosecute Woody on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to “spare her the trauma of a court appearance.” Maco “seemed to go out of his way to say publicly that he believed the child had been molested; he was not obligated to make his decision, or his reasoning, public.” On February 3, 1994, a disciplinary panel found “Maco’s handling of the child-molestation complaint against Woody was cause for ‘grave concern’ and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Woody and Mia.”

      Connecticut Prosecutor Won’t File Charges Against Woody Allen
      By MELINDA HENNEBERGER, New York Times
      September 25, 1993

      A state’s attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had “probable cause” to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance.

      The state’s attorney in Litchfield, Frank Maco, said he had drawn up an arrest warrant for Mr. Allen, but then decided not to pursue the case. He said the girl’s mother, Mia Farrow, had agreed that dropping the charges was in her daughter’s best interest.

      “This was no time for a damn-the-torpedoes prosecutorial approach,” Mr. Maco said at a news conference in Wallingford, Conn., yesterday.

      But Mr. Maco seemed to go out of his way to say publicly that he believed the child had been molested. He was not obligated to make his decision, or his reasoning, public.

      The announcement ended a criminal investigation that had dragged on for 14 months. But it did not signal a cease-fire between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, his companion of a dozen years and the mother of his biological son, Satchel, and two adopted children, Dylan and Moses. A bitter custody battle over the three children was decided in Ms. Farrow’s favor last June, but Mr. Allen has appealed that ruling. He now visits only one of the children, Satchel.

      At dueling news conferences today, Mr. Allen and Eleanor B. Alter, Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, continued their name-calling.

      At the Plaza Hotel, in the same room where he first announced his plan to sue for custody, Mr. Allen referred to Ms. Farrow as “the mother,” called her “vindictive” and said she was in cahoots with officials whose “cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception.”

      Ms. Alter said later that in light of Mr. Maco’s statements “we would hope that parents of other children put in contact with Woody Allen would use vigilance.”

      Mr. Allen was accused of sexually abusing his daughter last August at Ms. Farrow’s house in Bridgewater, Conn. Six months ago, a team of investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that no sexual abuse had taken place but said both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow had disturbed relations with Dylan. Ms. Alter had discounted the report, saying it was incomplete and inaccurate. Mr. Maco said he had requested the hospital study, which described Dylan as a dreamy child who “had difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.”

      But he discounted its findings, saying his own review of investigative reports and medical evaluations had convinced him that he did have enough evidence to take to trial. He said there was nothing in the report from the Yale clinic “that would lead me to question the credibility of the child.” He also cited the findings of the judge in the custody case, who called Mr. Allen’s conduct with Dylan “grossly inappropriate.”

      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.

      Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, criticized Mr. Maco, saying, “You don’t declare the man guilty and then say you’re not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press.”

      “It’s a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights, in my view,” Mr. Gillers said. “I can’t overemphasize how remarkable this is.” Attack on the Prosecutor

      Mr. Allen also attacked the prosecutor. He said that if the prosectors had any hope of making a case against him stick, “the state’s attorney would, with full maternal consent, proceed nonstop even if it meant putting my little girl through a meat grinder.”

      Mr. Allen drew laughter from the crowd of journalists as he described his dealings with Connecticut police as a scene straight out of one of his movies. But his long, tortuous diatribe against Ms. Farrow and the authorities investigating the case occasionally seemed to follow its own internal logic, as when he addressed a message to his daughter, apologizing for missing her eighth birthday and assuring her that “the dark forces will not prevail.”

      “Not second-rate police or judicial setbacks, not tabloid press nor those who perjure themselves nor all who rush to judgment, not the pious or hypocritical, the bigoted; I’m too tough for all of them put together and I will never abandon you to the bad guys,” he said. A Celebrity Pursued

      At another point in the half-hour news conference, he suggested that authorities had known from the outset that he was innocent, but pursued him because he was a celebrity and because “they disapproved of my publicized romantic relationship” with Ms. Farrow’s daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Or, he said, “Is it possible they were prejudiced against me because I’m a diehard New Yorker and Ms. Farrow a Connecticut local?”

      Dressed in khaki trousers and a blue blazer, Mr. Allen appeared angry but contained. Rarely looking up from his prepared text, he declined to take questions, which were answered by his lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz.

      Mr. Allen concluded his remarks by proposing that he and Ms. Farrow declare a truce “for the sake of the little children,” and even tried a little flattery.

      “I know you can be forgiving and quite terrific at times,” he said of Ms. Farrow. “You’re a first-rate actress and a beautiful woman.”

      At a later news conference, Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, Ms. Alter, said that her client wasn’t buying.

      “Mr. Allen’s idea of peace is for us to give up,” she said.

      Photo: “Not second-rate police or judicial setbacks, not tabloid press,” said Woody Allen yesterday at a news conference. “Nor those who perjure themselves nor all who rush to judgment, not the pious or hypocritical, the bigoted; I’m too tough for all of them put together and I will never abandon you to the bad guys.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/25/nyregion/connecticut-prosecutor-won-t-file-charges-against-woody-allen.html

      Maco was reprimanded and could have face being disbarred for his statement – prosecutors cannot ethically slander people. A disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Woody’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.”

      Panel Criticizes Prosecutor In Inquiry on Woody Allen
      By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA, New York Times
      February 24, 1994

      A Connecticut prosecutor’s handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen was cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, a disciplinary panel has found.

      But while its decision, dated Feb. 3, amounted to a stern rebuke of the prosecutor, Frank S. Maco, the state Grievance Panel concluded that Mr. Maco, the State’s Attorney for Litchfield County, had not violated any provision of the state’s code of conduct for lawyers. The panel, a state agency, could have voted sanctions ranging from censure to disbarment.

      Last Sept. 24, Mr. Maco said at a news conference that there was “probable cause” to charge Mr. Allen with molesting Dylan O. Farrow, his and Ms. Farrow’s daughter, in 1992, when she was 7. But he said he would not charge the film maker, in part because a prosecution could be traumatic for the child. Copy Sent to Judge

      The grievance panel revealed that on the same day Mr. Maco sent a copy of his statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who will decide whether to void Mr. Allen’s adoption of Dylan and another of his and Ms. Farrow’s children, Moses, now 16. That act, the panel wrote, “was inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial.”

      “In most circumstances,” the panel wrote, Mr. Maco’s comments “would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused.” But because Mr. Allen had previously criticized the prosecutor’s handling of the case, they concluded, Mr. Maco was justified in responding.

      Prosecutors are generally barred from making accusations that are not contained in formal charges, according to legal experts.

      “This amounts to a public reprimand, though they’re not calling it that,” said Kate Stith, a law professor at Yale University and a former Federal prosecutor. Though the decision was “quite damning,” she said she was not surprised that the panel did not punish Mr. Maco, because lawyers are rarely disciplined for their public statements.

      Mr. Maco could not be reached for comment. Mr. Allen’s and Ms. Farrow’s lawyers were also unavailable.

      Last March, a team of child-abuse specialists at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by prosecutors and the police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested.

      In June, a Supreme Court judge in Manhattan awarded Ms. Farrow custody of the estranged couple’s three children and sharply restricted Mr. Allen’s right to visit them.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/nyregion/panel-criticizes-prosecutor-in-inquiry-on-woody-allen.html

      • Anonymous
        February 13, 2014 at 1:19 AM

        Feel great empathy for Dylan Farrow because wherever the truth lies she’s been abused whether it be physically/mentally by her father or mentally by a very bitter mother.

        Ryan Adams said on February 2, 2014 at 9:32 am

        The only people who know are Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow.

        Here’s what I know of my own life at age 6 and 7: I know some things that I remember personally and privately that nobody has ever told me, and I know a lot of things that I’ve been told over the years, things I barely recall but I believe to be true because I trust the people telling me. I’ve also heard conflicting things about my preschool years. That happens when two two people have two sides to a story — that’s what happens when when two parents have two perspectives and two agendas. That’s something I grew up knowing.

        I have indisputable memories of things that happened to me when I was 5, 6 and 7. I believe that I have memories of things that happened to me as young as 3 or 4.

        But I am aware too that many of my preschool and 1st grade memories are blended with stories that I have been told to me by adults about my childhood — told to me since as far back as I was 3 or 4. I was already hearing stories of my life from people at the same time I was forming my own earliest memories.

        I’ve been told stories about myself with details I probably could not know, and furthermore I know for a fact that I have been told stories about myself as child that are not true. The things I recall about my childhood that are filled with the most details are often the same things I’ve been told about myself by others.

        I think this is true for all of us. I can’t be the only person who has heard conflicting stories about my childhood from two different parents or different family members.

        I’m not calling into question anything Dylan Farrow says. I don’t think any of it is false, but I also have to acknowledge that I don’t know how much of it is true. I simply cannot know, and I’m not the type of person who believes everything I’m told. (If I were that type of person, I’d have to believe many different versions of every news story ever written). I can make assumptions, as we all do, but I try to be conscious of the definition of ‘assumption.’

        I hear Dylan Farrow’s account, and of course I allow room in my head to sympathize if it’s true. In fact if any of it is false, then it means she’s been told things that may not match the facts — and if she’s been told falsehoods as a child, then I sympathize with that just as much, maybe even more.

        So either way Dylan Farrow is a victim. I don’t have enough facts and I have not heard enough alternative points of view for me to determine whether she’s a victim of Woody Allen or a victim of Mia Farrow. So I am not going to let myself make a emotional impulsive guess about that.

        That’s how I’m able to feel bad Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen in equal measure. I don’t have any problem feeling bad for everyone involved and I’m not going to make guesses about which of these strangers I never met I should believe.

        —–

        Thing is, there’s a reason Dylan Farrow was interviewed by sensitive and professional doctors at Yale New Haven medical center for 6 months (they concluded no abuse occurred), and there’s a reason all kids in all cases like this have to undergo the very sad and difficult process of psychological evaluation. The reason is because implanted memories are a phenomena known and proven to exist.

        Dozens of kids in the famous McMartin preschool witch-hunt in the 1970s or ’80s testified about animal sacrifices, satanic rituals, and widespread sodomy at a daycare center. Turned out none of that was true. There was trauma being inflicted on those kids, for sure. The trauma came from parents and prosecutors who harassed kids for 7 years of trials until they got kids to agree to tell the sick stories they wanted to hear.

        I want to repeat: I don’t doubt anything Dylan Farrow says. But I don’t believe it on blind faith either. I’m not allowing myself the arrogance to think I know enough to make that call.

        —–
        If I ever found myself sitting right across a table from Dylan Farrow and she asked me eye-to-eye to name my favorite Woody Allen film, I would not be intimidated by her attempt to shame me (which, in essence, looks to me like an effort to implicate me as somehow complicit in the abuse she describes).

        Because that to me is where Dylan Farrow went off the rails — in trying to implicate every actor who’s ever worked with Woody Allen. In trying to implicate all of us in the alleged incident. In trying to shame us all into feeling as if we’re accessories to the alleged incident if we fail to shun Woody Allen.

        I’d tell Dylan Farrow to her face that I’m deeply sorry for any pain and torment she’s suffered, and I’d tell her in the same breath that I don’t like her implication that I’m a shitty human being if I have a favorite Woody Allen movie.

        She asked us to name our favorite Woody Allen movie. I never would’ve thought to bring that up if she had not asked. But since she asked, I’d be a liar if I pretended I don’t have one.

        Chris Price said on February 2, 2014 at 10:30 am

        This kind of fishing for something to get mad about used to be forced to the margins of society. Now its in everyone’s bedroom if they own a computer.

        Let’s put aside the fact that it is impossible to know what happened between Woody and his adopted daughter. THIS IS A 21 YEAR OLD FUCKING STORY. If this was going to make us all so upset about Woody Allen and boycott him forever until the end of time, certainly we would’ve done that by now, right? But when this shit came out back then it was pretty obvious that Mia Farrow was at least a little crazy and it was the opinion of the investigation that there was no molestation that took place. This is an innocent man who has never been convicted of anything, and until there’s a verdict or a confession we need to respect the way the law and justice works. I would NEVER call that girl a liar, because even people with false memories have to deal with the very real trauma that results in believing that terrible things happened to them. She’s a victim either because of real abuse or imagined abuse, but a victim all the same. But I’ll say something nobody else really wants to say: If this shit was made up by Mia or invented by a distraught child with a hyperactive imagination, then Woody Allen is also a victim here.

        filmboymichael said on February 2, 2014 at 6:31 pm

        I do believe that Dylan Farrow is a victim. I don’t think at the hands of Woody Allen though – I believe that this is a case of manipulation and as stated above, implanted memories. There was a gamut of testing done which resulted in doctors reporting that there was no emotional or physical signs of abuse. I know there was also a video shot by Mia which to anyone who saw it, drew the conclusion that the poor child was coerced and coached a (and from what I’ve read, badly edited). I even believe there was a maid who later denied having seen any wrong doing between Allen and his daughter and lastly there is also the case of his adopted son, who has since come out against his mother and said that she orchestrated everything out of fits of rage and vengeance. There are no saints in this family tragedy, but there are many victims – I just don’t think they are victims of sexual molestation.

        http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/cate-blanchett-set-to-tribute-named-specifically-by-dylan-farrow/

  12. February 10, 2014 at 9:46 AM

    Living in the tri-state area at the time this all first unfolded, it was daily fodder in all the newspapers, both legitimate and rags.

    While I do believe strongly in the concept the U.S. has built its legal system on that one is innocent until proven guilty, unfortunately the justice system is flawed and fails at times. For me, personally, based on statements Woody Allen has made, his body of work, and his personal life along with his marriages and relationships, I believe Mr. Allen has a warped sense of what is morally acceptable when it comes to children. I realize there is no irrefutable “proof” in this case but it is undeniable that his past and his behavior towards Dylan which was found by the judge to be “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The outcome of the custody hearing, at least for me, is very telling that the court system did believe Dylan was in some sort of danger and needed to be protected; thus Woody Allen was denied all access to her.

    That is not to say Mia Farrow is perfect – I do believe she has some very severe issues herself and has a very flawed personality with some of her own warped sense of values, as well. It’s just not “normal” to send a Valentine card to someone you no longer are involved with let alone with needles and knives stuck through the hearts of the children and herself.

    There is an article in Vanity Fair that was published on February 7th by Maureen Orth, titled “10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation”.

    Personally, for me, I find Point #2 to be particularly troubling and tends to cast some serious doubt on Mr. Allen’s side of the story. Dylan has said that prior to the August 1992 incident there had been inappropriate behavior from Woody Allen. My question would be why would he need to be in therapy? This particular fact seems to go unacknowledged or addressed by Mr. Allen.

    Woody Allen keeps bringing up the fact he took a lie detecto test, passed and that Mia did not take one. As to Point #3, the fact he refused a lie detector test from an impartial party and found his own, tells me the lie detector test is worthless. According to the American Psychological Association “Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.”

    With regards to Woody and Soon-Yi’s relationship – While he was not technically even her stepfather as Mia and Woody never married and didn’t even live together, Woody Allen did come into Soon-Yi’s life and was a part of it when she was about 10 years old. She was only with Mia for two years at that point after she had been taken off the streets of Korea. Who knows what that child of the streets had been exposed to regarding male figures or what her perceptions of what a proper relationship is between a grown man and a child or a woman-child at age 18-19. I do believe Woody Allen took advantage of that. There is something morally corrupt about taking pornographic pictures and seducing the daughter of your girlfriend of 12 years who you have watched grow up for approximately 8-9 years.

    • February 10, 2014 at 12:17 PM

      Dylan was quietly living her life when Mia and Ronan tweeted about the 21-year-old allegations in attempt to use social media to convict Woody.

      Maureen Orth wrote all the Vanity Fair articles on this case from Mia’s perspective since 1992 and has developed a relationship with Mia, so it would be difficult for her not to be somewhat biased. Therefore, I would not base my opinion from just reading her summary of events. The custody judge’s (Wilk) decision also shows strong bias against Woody, which is why in this blog I linked to and included the opinions of the other legal experts. Also, in this blog, I provided excerpts to testimony from the custody trial (in another of my comments is the entire piece on the trial written by Bernard Ryan).

      On March 18, 1993, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital issued a report which concluded that Woody had not sexually abused Dylan. The Yale-New Haven findings, which were the results of repeated interviews with Woody, Mia, Dylan, the child’s psychologist and household servants, were not made public – Woody’s lawyers reported that the videotape on which Mia had based the accusation was a result of either the child’s imagination or of someone else’s manipulation.

      On March 19, 1993, testimony given at the custody trial “by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Mia during following two or three days, and the accounts of Dylan’s behavior toward Woody both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggested that the abuse did occur.” However, a month before the custody trial began, lawyers for Woody said that a former nanny who worked for Mia has testified she was pressured by the actress to support charges that Woody molested 7-year-old Dylan. The nanny, Monica Thompson, resigned from the Farrow household on January 25, 1993, after being subpoenaed in the bitter custody battle between Mia and Woody. She told Woody’s lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple’s other adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation (search for my comment in this thread on 2014/02/12 at 8:08 AM: “Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges”).

      Although accused of child molestation, Woody was never arrested or charged with any crime. On October 7, 1993, the New York State Department of Social Services dropped its investigation into the child molestation allegations. It concluded: “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated; therefore, this report has been considered unfounded.” The state Department of Social Services informed Woody in a letter dated October 7, 1993, that it had closed the 14-month-old investigation.

      The following are the findings of the Yale-New Haven team as reported in 1993 in The New York Times.

      Doctor Cites Inconsistencies In Dylan Farrow’s Statements
      By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA, The New York Times
      May 4, 1993

      The doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation into whether Woody Allen molested his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, theorized that the child either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother, Mia Farrow, a sworn statement released yesterday says.

      Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, he said she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.”

      Dr. Leventhal said: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

      The doctor acknowledged that “We don’t have firm evidence that Miss Farrow coached or directed Dylan to say this.”

      Dr. Leventhal’s remarks were part of a sworn statement made on April 20 and entered into evidence in Mr. Allen’s lawsuit to gain custody of Dylan and the couple’s two other children. A transcript of the statement was made public yesterday, after editing by both sides to remove some of the most sensitive material.

      The custody trial will conclude this week, with closing arguments beginning today.

      Dr. Leventhal headed the hospital team that was asked by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the claim that Mr. Allen molested Dylan last August at Miss Farrow’s summer home in Connecticut. The team told Mr. Allen and Miss Farrow on March 18 that it had concluded that Dylan was not molested, but the transcript gives the first look at the thinking behind that finding.

      Dylan’s statements in interviews at the hospital contradicted each other and the story she told on a videotape made by Miss Farrow, Dr. Leventhal said. “Those were not minor inconsistencies,” he said. “She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.”

      The doctor suggested a connection between Miss Farrow’s outrage over Mr. Allen’s affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, and the accusation made by Dylan, who he said was unusually protective of her mother. “It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that she stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother,” he said.

      Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, he said, “The view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household.”

      Dr. Leventhal said it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

      He also said it was possible that Miss Farrow encouraged her child to fabricate simply by videotaping her telling the story, because Dylan liked to perform.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html

      There are legal cases where the justice system (prosecutors, police officers) become convinced of someone’s guilt even when evidence suggests otherwise, and they simply ignore, hide or fabricate evidence to get convictions. Fortunately, in the U.S. legal system, the accused has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers to give him an safeguard against a corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against a compliant or biased judge.

      Woody passed a lie-detector test, but refused to take one administered by police (he hired his own expert). Mia didn’t take a lie detector test, but reports of why differ. Either she was not asked by the police to take a lie-detector test or she refused.

      Dylan is not lying – she believes she was molested because, when she was as a 7-years-old child, her mother implanted false memories in her head and continued to reinforced those false memories for more than 21 years.

      Farrow Testifies That Daughter Accused Allen of Molestation
      By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA, New York Times
      March 26, 1993

      Speaking slowly and choosing her words carefully, Mia Farrow testified yesterday that her 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, told her last summer that she had been sexually molested by her adoptive father, Woody Allen. But Ms. Farrow conceded that the girl would not tell a doctor of the abuse, and that a medical examination a few days later showed no sign of it.

      In a grueling day of questioning by Mr. Allen’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, Ms. Farrow testified that she had feared for years that Mr. Allen’s attachment to Dylan O. Farrow was sexual. She also admitted attacking another of her adopted daughters, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, after learning of her affair with Mr. Allen.

      Ms. Farrow has accused Mr. Allen, who was her lover for 12 years, of molesting Dylan at her Connecticut home last Aug. 4, and she videotaped the child’s account of the incident. In a quiet voice, Ms. Farrow testified, “She said he took her into the attic and that he touched her in certain places, that he inserted a finger partially.”

      Mr. Allen, sitting slouched in a chair a few feet away, watched without expression, his arms folded tightly across his chest, as Ms. Farrow gave her account publicly for the first time at the trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, where Mr. Allen is fighting for custody of their three children. Mr. Allen, 57, has vehemently denied the sexual molestation charge. The State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut has brought no charges in the case but is still investigating.

      Ms. Farrow’s testimony, like Mr. Allen’s before it, unmasked some of the most intimate and painful details of the couple’s once very private lives. Their public battle began last August, when Ms. Farrow accused Mr. Allen of molesting Dylan. Mr. Allen then filed for custody of their children, and he publicly acknowledged having an affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, 22. Lawyer Dismisses Report

      Investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who were brought into the case by the Connecticut state police, concluded that Dylan had not been molested, sources on both sides of the dispute said. Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, Eleanor B. Alter, has dismissed the report, which has not been made public, as “incomplete and inaccurate.”

      Ms. Farrow, 48, said Dylan told her the molestation began with her father’s putting his head in the child’s lap and his hand under her bottom. Mr. Allen has testified that he knelt, speaking to Dylan, but did not put his head in her lap.

      Ms. Farrow said she had begun to videotape the girl because “I wanted this documented, because it had happened before.” She said that Dylan then told her of the incident in the attic, which Mr. Allen said never took place.

      Mr. Allen and his lawyers have suggested that the video, which has many stops and starts, reflects Ms. Farrow’s efforts to cajole false answers from the girl. Ms. Farrow said she simply turned the machine on each time Dylan began to talk about the incident.

      She took Dylan to a doctor the same day the videotape was made, Ms. Farrow recalled. “I think she said he touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” she said, patting her shoulder.

      While returning home in the car, Ms. Farrow said, Dylan told her that she did not want to talk about the incident with a stranger.

      Four days later, Ms. Farrow took Dylan to another doctor. “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Mr. Abramowitz asked.

      “Yes,” she said.

      Ms. Farrow testified that from the time Dylan was 2 1/2 or 3 years old, she feared that Mr. Allen had a sexual attachment to the girl, whom she adopted in 1985. Mr. Abramowitz tried to cast doubt on her assertion that Mr. Allen’s behavior was inappropriate by showing that she had consented to his adoption in 1991 of her adopted son, Moses A. Farrow, 15, and Dylan. The couple also have a biological child, Satchel, 5.

      When Dylan went to Mr. Allen’s Upper East Side apartment, Ms. Farrow said: “They would always end up in his bed playing, but the quality of the playing would arouse her. She would grab him.”

      Mr. Allen, who ended three days on the witness stand Tuesday, called the allegations the products of either Ms. Farrow’s imagination or the child’s behavior.

      Mr. Abramowitz referred to Ms. Farrow’s relationships with Frank Sinatra and Andre Previn, as if to compare her role with them and Ms. Previn’s with Mr. Allen. She said she was 19 and Mr. Sinatra 50 when they began seeing each other, two years before they were married.

      “Did you become pregnant by Mr. Previn while he was still married?” Mr. Abramowitz asked.

      “He was estranged from his wife,” she answered.

      He asked about the song, “Beware of Young Girls,” released in 1970 by Mr. Previn’s previous wife, the songwriter Dory Previn. “I know that it referred to me,” Ms. Farrow said.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/nyregion/farrow-testifies-that-daughter-accused-allen-of-molestation.html

      Dory Previn’s 1970 album contained the song “Beware of Young Girls,” written about Mia Farrow, who had an affair with her husband, Andre Previn, and became pregnant with his twin sons. Mia most likely was aware of the song and another song on the album, “With My Daddy in the Attic” (video above), about an incestuous relationship with a father and his young daughter, which suggests a possible origin of the abuse allegations.

      Woody Allen Responds to Child Sexual Abuse Claims
      By Robert Franklin, Esq., Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
      February 9, 2014

      Since I’ve spent the past few days posting about the case of Jane Doe vs. John Roe in which the mother insisted on claiming the father sexually molested their child, it’s been harder than it might otherwise have been to ignore the insistent whoop-di-do about Woody Allen. As the whole world and numerous planets, some in a galaxy far, far away already know, Allen’s daughter Dylan, now 28 recently renewed her allegations that the director had sexually abused her when she was seven. It seems she and her mother, Mia Farrow, couldn’t resist using Allen’s receipt of awards at the Golden Globe ceremony to once again publicize the claims. This followed an article in Vanity Fair and a piece by Nicolas Kristof in the New York Times that reprised the allegations. More recently still, Robert Weide discussed the matter at length here (Daily Beast, 1/27/14) and Allen rebutted the claims here (New York Times, 2/9/14).

      Having now been pulled into the vortex of media coverage, I must say that early on, I noticed something that jumped out at me but that has drawn scant attention from anyone but (understandably) Allen. Farrow recently said that she’s never been certain whether one of her sons, Ronan, was Allen’s child or Frank Sinatra’s. In other words, Farrow either has been committing paternity fraud for the past 20 years or has been attempting to. At this point, no one seems to know whose DNA Ronan carries, but Allen points out that he has the blue eyes of “Old Blue Eyes” and his facial features.

      What we know for certain is that, although never married to Allen, Farrow was having sex on the side with Sinatra while she and Allen were supposedly an item. Far more importantly, it means she lied repeatedly under oath during their child custody case when she said Ronan was Allen’s child. Clearly she couldn’t have known whether that was true of false, but, instead of saying she wasn’t certain, she said unequivocally that the boy was Allen’s. And of course Allen paid child support for many years for Ronan based on Farrow’s careful exclusion of the truth from her testimony.

      We also know that Sinatra was married at the time. And finally we know that, back in the 70s, Farrow had had sex with conductor Andre Previn who was also married. She became pregnant from that liaison too and the news sent Previn’s wife Dory into a psychological breakdown that resulted in electroshock therapy.

      In short, whether successful or not, it was Farrow’s intention, back in 1992, to defraud both Allen and Sinatra. Only Ronan’s DNA will tell us whether she succeeded or not. If she did, as in all paternity fraud cases, her action was a malicious attack on both men with the child as “collateral damage.” Allen paid for (but was never allowed to see) a child who he believed to be his but wasn’t. Sinatra never got to be a father to his son. And Ronan now wonders about his parentage and the potential for medical problems stemming from that ignorance.

      What I find fascinating is, despite the extremely high-profile nature of this case, how little anyone cares about the paternity fraud side of it. For herself, Farrow seems to have had not the least compunction about publicizing her affair with Sinatra and the fact of her fraud on both men. It’s as if she knew full well that no one would make much of it. Paternity fraud? What’s the problem with that?

      Did Allen sexually abuse his daughter Dylan during a brief visit to Farrow’s house in Connecticut on August 4, 1992? No one but Allen and Dylan will ever know for certain. Allen vehemently denies it; Dylan says it’s true. But the rest of us, on the outside looking in, have to look at the facts as they’ve been painstakingly developed during the investigation of the case and after, and draw our own conclusions. When we do that, it’s pretty hard to see the allegations as anything but false claims designed, as they so often are, to gain an advantage in a child custody case.

      Woody Allen and Mia Farrow never married, but dated for 12 years. During none of that time did Farrow claim to anyone that Allen was molesting any of her/their children. She made no complaints about him at all. They had either three or two children together depending on who Ronan’s father is. Previously, Farrow and Previn had adopted a daughter, Soon-Yi. When Soon-Yi was either 19 or 21, she and Allen began a sexual relationship that resulted in the breakup of Allen and Farrow, their acrimonious custody battle, Allen’s now 16-year marriage to Soon-Yi and eventually their adoption of two children.

      Immediately after news of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi came out, an enraged Farrow broke off their relationship raising the issue of child custody of their sons Moses and Ronan (maybe) and daughter Dylan. Four months after the news broke, Allen came to visit his kids at Farrow’s house in Connecticut. Farrow of course was there along with some half-dozen of her friends who were none too friendly toward Allen. That was August 4, 1992. Farrow claimed Allen took Dylan up into the attic of the house and molested her. Here’s Allen’s perspective on the matter:

      I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely.

      Not only that, but a nanny for the children who was there that day, Kristie Groteke reported “that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes.”

      Nevertheless, Farrow soon was claiming child abuse. She made a videotape of Dylan that had many stops and starts as if she were pausing to coach the child. Another nanny, Monica Thompson watched the process and later testified under oath.

      “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

      Of course when child sexual abuse allegations are leveled, courts and district attorneys don’t stand idly by. So the whole thing was investigated thoroughly and it was determined that (a) no sexual abuse had occurred and (b) Dylan was either upset about the breakup of her dad and mom and made up the allegations, was coached by Farrow into making them or both.

      Among other things, Farrow brought the child to a doctor to whom the girl denied being abused. Farrow then took her daughter for an ice cream and, back at the doctor’s office, Dylan had a completely different story to tell.

      Interestingly, Dylan was examined later by the same organization that played the same key role in the Doe vs. Roe case, the Yale Sexual Abuse Clinic. In Allen’s case, Dr. John Leventhal headed the Yale team.

      Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. 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 also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible — as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable — that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

      Strongly underpinning the lack of sexual abuse by Allen is the fact that the director volunteered to take a lie detector test which he passed. Farrow, by contrast, declined to do so. Into the bargain, Farrow tried to strong-arm at least two witnesses, one of whom was employed by her, to support the claim of abuse. Both refused. In so doing, Farrow stepped close to the line of attempting to suborn perjury, a criminal offense. Faced with the utter lack of evidence of abuse and the strong probability of coaching by Farrow, the district attorney brought no charges against Allen.

      The judge presiding in the child custody case was not so scrupulous. Apparently ignoring what all the objective evidence indicated, Judge Thaddeus Wilk gave sole custody to Farrow who, during the entire remainder of the children’s lives as minors, refused Allen any contact with them. An interesting aside is that Farrow continued to adopt children, eventually having a total of 16. One of them she thoughtfully named Thaddeus Wilk Farrow.

      It turns out that our evidence of coaching of children, motivated by Farrow’s malice toward Allen doesn’t stop there. Her and Allen’s oldest child, Moses, was, for many years, every bit as estranged from his father as were the younger Ronan and Dylan. After all, as a child in Farrow’s household, what choice did he have? But later on, that changed. Moses has spoken out about life with Farrow since her public split with Allen.

      “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

      “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.”

      Of course it is Dylan, now 28, making the claims, not Farrow, although she’s clearly happy to ride along. We know that Farrow is a serial liar and cheater who cares little about whom she damages in the process. (When she revealed that Ronan’s dad may be Sinatra, it must have come as quite a surprise to his wife who’s still living.) But none of that is true of Dylan.

      Still, this case has the reek of too many others for me to ignore. It’s redolent of child abuse, not by Allen, but by Farrow. (Read the Allen and Weide articles and then reread the judge’s memorandum in Doe vs. Roe. The similarities are astonishing.) She was furious about Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi and determined to exact revenge, a fact she explicitly stated to Allen’s sister. She did so by twisting a little girl’s arm to level false accusations of the worst sort at the man who’d jilted her. She did so for the explicit purpose of removing a child’s loving father from her life forever, an endeavor that succeeded.

      Everyone understands the anger that comes from being betrayed, but, unless all the facts about this case are wrong, it was Farrow who abused her children, not Allen. She allowed her rage over his relationship with Soon-Yi to keep those kids from their father who loved them. She allowed that rage to fester to this very day, requiring that they agree that Allen is the monster Farrow’s injured heart and pride demanded him to be. That removal of a loving father and that distortion of reality forced on children not mentally mature enough to see it for what it is constitute child abuse.

      As Moses said, year after year, it was the same thing in the Farrow household: “Woody Allen is the devil incarnate.” For at least the next 11 years of her life, Dylan lived with one parent – Mia Farrow. Is it any wonder she adopted the narrative her mother – her only parent – expected of her? At a time in Dylan’s life when her world had turned upside down and all of a sudden she was seeing nothing of her father, the child needed someone to cling to for support and stability. Farrow was the only possibility, the only parent left to her. Her allegiance to her mother existed anyway, but under those dire circumstances, it could only have been strengthened.

      And strong it’s remained. Moses had the same pressure and adopted the same antipathy for Allen, but, perhaps because he was significantly more mature when the breakup occurred, has figured out the ugly truth. Is anyone listening to him?

      http://www.saveservices.org/2014/02/woody-allen-responds-to-child-sexual-abuse-claims/

      The following are links to some reports/stories on the creation of false memories.

      The lie that tore my family apart
      In the ’80s and ’90s, thousands came forward with their own incest stories. I was one of them — and I was wrong
      Meredith Maran
      Sep 20, 2010

      In March 1992, accused parents banded together to form the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). “When the memory is distorted, or confabulated,” the FMSF newsletter declared, “the result can be what has been called the False Memory Syndrome; a condition in which a person’s identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around a memory of traumatic experience which is objectively false but in which the person strongly believes.”

      http://www.salon.com/2010/09/20/my_lie_maran/

      1998 Jan
      Individual differences and the creation of false childhood memories.
      By Hyman IE Jr, Billings FJ.

      We investigated if college students will create false childhood memories, the role of self-knowledge in memory creation, and if there are reliable individual differences related to memory creation. Based on information obtained from parents, we asked college students about several true childhood experiences. We also asked each student about one false event and presented the false event as if it was based on parent information. We asked the students to describe all events in two interviews separated by one day. When participants could not recall an event (whether true or false), we encouraged them to think about related self-knowledge and to try to imagine the event. In an unrelated experimental session, the students were administered four cognitive/personality scales: the Creative Imagination Scale (CIS), the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS), the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS). We found that approximately 25% of the students created false childhood memories. Participants who made connections to related self-knowledge in the first interview were more likely to create false memories. We also found that the CIS and the DES were positively related to memory creation. Factors that decrease one’s ability to engage in reality monitoring are related to the acceptance of false events and the creation of false memories.

      Click link below for the rest of the study:
      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F13645077_Individual_differences_and_the_creation_of_false_childhood_memories%2Ffile%2F79e41510aa04e77530.pdf&ei=HrD-UoynNsPK0wGOyoAw&usg=AFQjCNEBN8kgdMIZYGEbiOP1oicdDi6B4w&bvm=bv.61535280,d.dmQ

      Colgate University Journal of the Sciences
      INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE FORMATION OF FALSE MEMORIES: IS SUGGESTIBILITY A PREDICTIVE FACTOR?
      Rinad Beidas

      Many people come to believe events which have never actually happened to them. What kinds of people are susceptible to this? This is a question currently being investigated in relation to the “False Memory Syndrome”. A false memory occurs when
      participants in an experiment come to remember an event which has never actually occurred (Loftus, 1997). Questions relating to false memory have recently received
      considerable attention from experimental psychologists; especially which factors might predict the formation of false memories (e.g. Loftus & Pickrell, 1995; Roediger & McDermott, 1995, Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Loft us, 1997; Peiffer & Trull, 2000). This phenomenon has recently garnered attention due to its psycho-legal implications. This paper will examine whether suggestibility plays a role in the formation of false memories using two different false memory paradigm s; one involving memory for words and the other involving memory for enduring events, such as an experience during childhood. Research about false memories is important because of its psycho-legal applications pertaining to recovered memories, eyewitness questioning, and individual differences in the formation of false memories.

      Click link below for the rest of the study:
      http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2003/Beidas.pdf

      As jforbes said on another site: “What we do know is that the allegations have been examined by a team of experts and no prosecution resulted. Would the same conclusion be reached in today’s very different climate? Again we don’t know. What makes me less sympathetic are the attacks on those who have worked with Allen and the attempt to achieve a ‘conviction’ by the twitter lynch mob. It’s all a nasty sordid business, which brings no credit to any of those involved.”

      • February 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM

        In the article that appeared in Vanity Fair in November 2013, Ms. Orth not only interviewed Mia and eight of her children, she also interviewed Dylan. In this piece, Dylan goes into detail about what was happening to her, telling her story well before the Golden Globes and Ronan and Mia’s tweets.

        I would hope that, while some reporters and/or journalists can and will become biased in their writings, that most would do their best in remaining impartial in reporting the facts and leave their bias out of it. While it may be true Ms. Orth developed a relationship with Mia Farrow, I believe Ms. Orth states that all the “10 Facts” in her latest article, which I had posted above are substantiated and in the little research I have done on some of those “facts”, I have found that to be the case through other sources.

        • February 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM

          It is very difficult to remain unbiased when you’ve had a relationship with someone for more than 20 years who is providing you exclusive interviews. That is why, in this blog (in addition to excluding the “10 facts” according to Maureen Orth), I didn’t include Robert Weide’s opinion on the matter since he is biased against Mia due to his relationship with Woody, although I link to it in this blog since it is what triggered Dylan’s open letter (plus I linked to Orth’s articles in Vanity Fair).

          I’ve done extensive research (and I’m still researching this more than 21-year-old case) and tried to include it (with links) in this blog, while trying to exclude opinion pieces from other authors and bloggers, which is why, temporarily, I am holding comments with links in moderation – I’d prefer readers go to those sites to comment on those authors’ published opinions on this very sensitive topic.

          I didn’t read all of the November 2013 Vanity Fair article (which is a rehash of Orth’s November 1992 article) – so I didn’t know that Dylan spoke publicly about the molestation first in November 2013, before the open letter in February 2014 (it is an interesting coincidence that in October 2013 it was announced that Ronan Farrow was getting his own show on MSNBC, premiering February 24).

          The articles by Weide and Orth could be considered “hit pieces,” which is why I focused on the findings of five attorneys at the link below:

          http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

          The story at the link below has a very interesting comment section, which I recommend to those interested in reading and contributing to that discussion:

          http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/an-imbalance-of-power-the-woody-allen-and-dylan-farrow-controversy/

          Neil Blakemore · Works at Screenwriter:
          I have to take issue with this line, and the underlying ideology that you may not be aware of “But his reputation survived, and the public chose to sweep it under the rug for another two decades, until the Vanity Fair profile of Mia dredged it up again.” Trying people in the court of public opinion cheapens our society. Accusers have the right to be treated with dignity, and the accused have the right to be presumed innocent. Journalists praying on the sense of doubt that lies between the accuser and the accused to build their own careers are doing our society a great disservice. Even the judge who wrote the scathing article said there was not enough evidence to file charges. Justice is this case, is that we must accept that there is doubt and treat both sides fairly.
          February 8 at 1:10pm

          Anne Continelli · Post Production Manager/ Shorts Curator at Coolidge Corner Theater
          The thing that bothers me the most about this situation, and others like it, is the newly embraced idea that we must always believe accusers, to the degree of shunning the accused. This is a terrible idea. We must be sympathetic to the accuser. We must be kind. We must fully investigate the accusation. But we must also refrain from convicting the accused before ample evidence exists to do so. False accusations do exist. It doesn’t matter what their frequency of occurrence is; the mere fact that they exist means we cannot say accusation=truth. False memories also exist. There are numerous peer-reviewed studies on these. (CJ Brainerd, VF Reyna, E Brandse – Psychological Science, 1995 – JSTOR – this study specifically examines false memories in children). With regard to this case, unfortunately, it truly is a case of he said/she said, and though I feel sorrow at the thought of any child being abused, my stance of not taking a stance is not due to Woody Allen’s celebrity status, but rather, due to belief in a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
          February 5 at 7:45am

          Steve Robertson · University of Virginia
          Django Zeaman, I agree that the Weide article reads at times like a hit piece. The contemporaneous Orth article (which relies solely on sources close to Farrow) also reads like a hit piece. In that scenario, we have to either (1) concede that we don’t know what happened; or (2) rely on the record. While there are comments from the Connecticut State’s Attorney and the judge in the custody trial that seem to suggest that those two felt there was some evidence of impropriety, the two state agencies that investigated (in Ct. and in NY) found no evidence of molestation. I don’t know what happened. If I felt I did, and that knowledge implicated Woody Allen, I’d be quite happy arguing that nothing in Hannah and Her Sisters excuses that. But I don’t know that. And the reasons I don’t know that have nothing to do with rape culture or liking or not liking Woody Allen movies. It has to do with the difficulty of evaluating the credibility of child witnesses in the absence of corroborating evidence.
          February 5 at 10:04am

          Dan Pott
          I found this 1994 article from the New York Times to be very enlightening, as it contains a number of facts that seem to have been conveniently swept under the rug here: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html
          February 4 at 6:24pm

          Jay Greenspan · University at Albany, SUNY
          Ms. Lambert, I’d encourage you to do some reading on the nature of memory, a subject central to this case and about which you seem to have done no research. Studies — real academic studies — have proven that memories can be created from slight, off-hand suggestion. In the realm of child-abuse cases, there are a legion of cases from the late 80s where kids were made to believe that they had suffered horribly at the hands of caretakers. In nearly all of those cases, the accusers were found to be completely innocent. It was shown that by simply asking the children if they had been touched inappropriately, they would come to believe that was the case. A line like this: “How exactly Mia could have “implanted” such a vivid memory in her daughter’s mind is not explained.” betrays real and important ignorance. I have no idea what happened in this case. Neither do you. But you should really do some more homework about the issues involved before you use your platform on Grantland in this way. There’s been a lot of irresponsibly journalism in this case — no need for you to join the crowd.
          February 5 at 8:48am

          William Heaphy
          Exactly, Jay – the daycare/sex abuse witch hunts actually continued into the early 90’s, the relevant time period in this case. And not all the accused were exonerated right away. Many spent years or even decades in prison and had their lives ruined.

          http://www.csicop.org/si/show/who_abused_jane_doe_the_hazards_of_the_single_case_history_part_2/
          February 5 at 10:56am

          William Heaphy
          Here’s a nice survey from the bad-old days:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

          Not quite on topic, given that most of the above incidents involved exceptionally lurid accusations and gave rise to prosecutions where people actually went to prison. But the point is that that virtually every single one of the child witnesses in those cases honestly believed they were telling the truth about events that never actually happened.
          February 5 at 12:02pm

          John Seven · Various publications and publishers at Writer/Editor
          I personally find Dylan Farrow’s claims credible for a variety of reasons, but I am still struck that wherever this conversation appears, people seem incredulous that memories can be false, as if the daycare molestation scandals of the 80s and 90s have been entirely forgotten. Just today I saw this article about how unreliable your memory is

          http://www.science20.com/news_articles/constant_rewrites_your_memory_isnt_all_accurate-129116

          and how your memories are rewritten over time. This interview with false memory expert Elizabeth Loftus

          http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/elizabeth_loftus_interview_false_memory_research_on_eyewitnesses_child_abuse.html
          goes into the nuts and bolts.
          February 5 at 4:59pm

          • February 10, 2014 at 3:04 PM

            I have read The Daily Beast’s article as well as the November 2013 Vanity Fair article in their entirety. I would agree there is bias on both sides. I have also read “10Facts” in its entirety and in that particular article, Ms. Orth defends herself against the accusations of taking sides, trying to promote Ronan’s media career and defines what she considers her real relationship with Mia Farrow. It is #10 in her article.

            Maureen Orth is an established and accomplished journalist, published in VanityFair, Newsweek, NY Woman, and Vogue. She is the widow of the late Tim Russert, the respected television journalist and lawyer.

            Robert Weide is a screenwriter and documentarian (Woody Allen: A Documentary, 2011) and has won 3 Emmy Awards.

  13. February 10, 2014 at 4:06 PM

    My final thoughts on this is no matter what a child,has said she was molested and again as an adult . As a parent who loved the child i would not say she was crazy and all the other things he said or implied. You can support your child and disagree with them at the same time.So if Mia did plant the seed it’s not Dylan’s fault, if Woody did molest her its not Dylan’s fault. Why make her a victim again and say such things. And how does this impact other survivors of bad parenting or molesting. This family is a mess and unfortuantly a lot of young people will read all of this on-line. We need to make coming forward a safe place. Even if its false, that way healing can began from whatever harm is happening. The bad guys are the adults as a society we need to fix this problem. I will always believe a child, love them and protect them even if they lie. My question is even if it was a lie that she truly believes is the truth is the pain any less ? Having the guy who she believes molested her writing an op-ed letter for all to see calling her a liar helps, how?

  14. Miss Alicat
    February 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM

    While NOTHING about this family is anywhere near the realm of “normal”, this is not something that should be being tried in the courts of public opinions. Mia and Ronan were basically just drumming up hits for his new CNN show by tweeting when they did, otherwise they would be talking about it every day with whoever would listen. This story has been quiet for years, then Ronan gets a show out of the blue and all of a sudden this is news again? If there was any kind of proof, Allen would have been tried, and they could have used a taped deposition as they usually do in cases like this to save her from having to face Allen in court. No way that a state prosecutor doesn’t go after a big name celebrity pedophile “to save the child”, that’s legalese for saying we don’t really have anything to charge him with and what we do have he has the money to hire the best defense witnesses to counter, so not a slam dunk.

    While the whole Soon-Yi thing falls into the “icky” category for me, they have been together for over 20 years now. If we all thought she was too young for him then, she’s 20 years older now and still with him, so who are we to judge? Mia was 21 when she married Frank Sinatra, who was then 30 years her senior. She broke up Andre Previn’s marriage too. Not exactly the best role model for impressionable children I would think.

    • GPM
      February 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      I really don’t think that Mia and Ronan were drumming up hits for his new CNN show.

      Ronan at 26 is perhaps Woody Allen’s worst nightmare. An extraordinarily interesting young man — a literal genius who looks like a movie star and is the product of an extensive and controversial Hollywood pedigree — it is hardly surprising that, now that he’s come of age, the public would want to know more about him and journalists would want to interview him. And as his “Happy Brother-in-Law’s Day” tweet in June of 2012 (more than a year before his show was announced) shows, he is far from “over it.”

      I’m sure there are those who think this is the result of indoctrination by his mother or perhaps the well-intended but misguided young man loyally supporting his sister. But as the attorneys on the Court of Appeals noted, “[Mr. Allen's] continuation of the relationship [with Soon-Yi], viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen’s tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.” Children do not lightly forgive a parent who, acting solely on their own behalf and without any regard for the health and well being of their children, drops a nuclear bomb on their family.

  15. February 11, 2014 at 4:19 AM

    I read the 33 (?) Page custody case a few days ago. I still don’t know who I believe. At times, I believe Mia. Other times, I believe Woody. I always seem to believe Dylan. Something happened to her. It is either of emotional or sexual abuse or both. That is a fact. I find it odd that Mia Farrow only holds her biological children in pictures. She is hugging only Fletcher’s children (her biological grandchildren) in the picture above. I can believe she used some of her adopted daughters as “help”. That does not shock me. I also believe that she cared for her biological children many times over than her adopted children. I find Moses use of the phrase “she conveniently went grocery shopping” filled with such truth that it was what turned the lens on to her suspicious actions. Why did she leave him there already knowing he had behaved inappropriately with Dylan? It is because Dylan is not her offspring. Was her emotional well being expendable to punish Woody Allen? Or is he a pedophile who now has access to two adopted girls with Soon Yi? I notice all her sons born from her body are highly educated and successful. We know what happened to Soon Yi and Lark. What about the other adopted children? I also am shocked to know her brother is a pedophile and that she supported Roman Polanski. Something just doesn’t add up. It is all really sad…

    • February 11, 2014 at 8:30 AM

      Here is a synopsis of the Previn/Farrow children, most of whom were educated at high level schools, including Soon-Yi who has a degree from Columbia University:

      Matthew Previn (b. 1970)

      Matthew, Mia’s first biological offspring with then-husband André Previn (the two were married from 1970-79), graduated from Yale and Georgetown Law. He got married in 2003 to a fellow lawyer, with whom he has two daughters, and is a partner at white shoe law firm BuckleySandler LLP in New York City.

      Sascha Previn (b. 1970)

      Sascha is Matthew’s twin brother. In her 1997 memoir What Falls Away, Mia Farrow wrote that doctors told her that Sascha had “autistic tendencies” and recommended she place him in a residential school. He graduated from Fordham University and studied special education at Dowling College. His 1995 wedding was announced in The New York Times, but he has since divorced and remarried a pediatric cardiologist. They live in Michigan, where he’s a stay-at-home dad to their baby girl.

      Lark Previn (b. 1973, a. 1973)

      Lark joined the Previn family in 1973 as the first child adopted by Mia Farrow and André Previn. In 1991, Lark became the first of the Previn-Farrow children to wind up in gossip columns when, while a senior at the prestigious Nightingale-Bamford—an all-girls private school in Manhattan—she and her sister Daisy were arrested for shoplifting hundreds of dollars’ worth of Christian Dior lingerie from a store in Danbury, CT. A judge sentenced them to a rehabilitation program. She reportedly struggled with a drug problem. Lark was a key figure in her mother’s custody battle with Woody Allen. She showed up at the New York Post one day in 1992, unannounced, offering an interview in return for learning the whereabouts of her sister Soon-Yi. Later, a former nanny testified that Lark was treated like a “scullery maid” in the Farrow household and that she would be the most likely of the children to write a Mommie Dearest type of memoir.

      After two years at NYU Lark dropped out to marry Christopher McKinzie, an unemployed construction worker with a criminal record whom the Farrow family reportedly didn’t like. Lark made a living cleaning houses and in 1996 was diagnosed with AIDS, which she unwittingly passed on to her two daughters. She eventually left McKinzie. She lived in relative poverty (court records indicate a decadelong struggle paying bills) in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn until her death of AIDS-related pneumonia on Christmas Day in 2008. She was 35.

      Fletcher Previn (b. 1974)

      Fletcher—Mia’s third biological child with André— graduated from Connecticut College in 2000 and works as an executive assistant at IBM. He’s married with two daughters. Described as his “mother’s protector” in a recent Vanity Fair piece, he lives next door to Mia Farrow in Connecticut. (They recently attended Time’s 100 Most Influential People gala together.) He has said that he Photoshopped Woody Allen out of all of the family photos and edited him out of their home movies.

      Summer “Daisy” Previn (b. 1974, a. 1976)

      Summer was adopted from Vietnam in 1976 by Mia and André. She renamed herself Daisy at some point in her childhood, in reference to the role her mother played in The Great Gatsby. Like her sister Lark, Daisy had a troubled adolescence, getting arrested for shoplifting, forging checks, and playing hooky from her private, all-girls school in Manhattan. Seventeen at the time of the scandal, she was very vocal in support of her sister Dylan’s allegations against Woody Allen, giving newspaper and television interviews. Later, she dropped out of Wheaton College after a semester and became pregnant by Lark’s husband’s brother, whom she married and later divorced. She went on to get her associates in graphic design from an online university. Today, she’s remarried, lives in Brooklyn, and works as an office manager of a construction company.

      Soon-Yi Previn (b. 1970, a. 1978)

      The sixth child added to the Previn family, Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia Farrow and André Previn in 1978, just a year before the couple’s divorce. Public records, and her passport, indicate that her birthday is October 8, 1970. However, after news of Woody’s affair with Soon-Yi became tabloid fodder, Mia and the rest of the Farrow family implied in interviews that Soon-Yi’s exact age was not known. In a 1992 interview with Vanity Fair, Mia said that Soon-Yi was “about seven” when she was adopted. In her 1997 memoir, What Falls Away, she claimed that Soon-Yi was five when she was adopted. The ambiguity about her age opened the door to speculation that Soon-Yi was a teenager—or even a minor—when her affair with Woody began, but she was almost 21.

      After Mia learned of the affair, she admittedly beat Soon-Yi, reportedly cut up her clothes, and banished her from her home. By the end of 1992, it was revealed that “Soon-Yi is out of the family.” André said of his daughter, “She does not exist.” Her parents stopped paying her college tuition at Drew, where she was in her sophomore year. Woody then picked up the tab. In the summers home from college she lived separately from Woody in her own apartment on the Upper East Side.

      At the time of the scandal, many Farrow-Previn insiders and family members speaking to the press presented Soon-Yi as mentally slow, incapable of making decisions for herself, and therefore a helpless victim who was groomed and raped by Woody. Her aunt, Tisa Farrow, would refer to her as having “a double-digit IQ. It’s not like she’s a drooling idiot, but she’s very naive and very immature.” One of the Farrow family tutors told Vanity Fair that Soon-Yi was learning disabled and “very socially inappropriate,” and “has trouble processing information, trouble understanding language on an inferential level [and] misinterprets situations.”

      Soon-Yi resented the implications, which she felt robbed her of any agency. In an interview with Newsweek she said:

      “I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather—not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia.”

      The family said they didn’t believe the statement came from Soon-Yi, saying she “doesn’t know half those words, what they mean.” Despite the questions about her mental capacity Soon-Yi regularly made the dean’s list at Drew. She graduated in 1995 and went on to get her masters in special education from Columbia University in 1998. She taught fourth grade at Spence, an exclusive private school in Manhattan.

      Soon-Yi and Woody married in Venice, Italy, on December 23, 1997. In 1999 Soon-Yi became a mother when the couple adopted a daughter they named Bechet. They adopted another girl, Manzie, in 2000. She’s now a stay-at-home mom living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

      More than anyone else in the family, Soon-Yi’s name was irrevocably tarnished by the scandal. She was the butt of many late-night TV talk show jokes, and was mocked in crude, sexist and racist sketches on Mad TV, Saturday Night Live and Howard Stern’s radio show.

      By 1997, while working the interview circuit (Oprah, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, etc.) in support of her memoir What Falls Away, Mia had shifted her story and stopped portraying Soon-Yi as an innocent who was corrupted by a dirty old man. Now Soon-Yi was described as a near sociopath who had been incapable of forming bonds with her mother and siblings, whom, it was said, she would scratch, bite and sometimes try to kill. Her “emotional problems” were often chalked up to her early childhood, during which Mia said she lived like a stray dog on the streets of Korea after being abandoned by her prostitute mother. (The history of Soon-Yi’s biological mother as a prostitute is as pointed as it is confusing. According to Mia, Soon-Yi was found eating out of garbage cans on the streets and spoke “no known language, only gibberish.” How then, would anyone know from where or whom she came?)

      While promoting her memoir, Mia told Barbara Walters that she never wanted to see Soon-Yi again and holds her responsible for her affair with Woody. An unauthorized biography of Woody Allen, published in 2000, painted Soon-Yi as a shrewd seductress—a description that smacked of the “dragon lady” stereotype—who aggressively pursued her mother’s boyfriend and lured him into a relationship because she had decided that she could become successful by marrying a rich, older man.

      “She was on the streets in Korea when she was captured and brought to the state orphanage. And in a way I can see from her perspective—a very limited perspective—that she’s improved her situation. She’s got the penthouse and the seat at Elaine’s [restaurant] or, whatever I had, she has.”

      Moses Farrow (b. 1978, a. 1980)

      In 1980, Moses was a two-year-old orphan with cerebral palsy from Korea when he was adopted by Mia—now divorced from André Previn—as a single mother. Moses was later adopted by Woody Allen in 1991. After a 1992 custody battle between Mia and Woody, 14-year-old Moses was allowed to choose whether he wanted have visitation with Woody, which he declined. He attended Dalton, the prestigious private prep school in Manhattan, then moved on to Sienna College for undergrad, and The University of Connecticut for grad school. He lives in Connecticut, where he has been a licensed family therapist for the past decade. According to his LinkedIn “[h]e has chosen to work in intensive programs focused on children and families such as the Intensive In-home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services (IICAPS) and Intensive Family Preservation (IFP),” and he works as an adoption counselor. He is also a freelance photographer. He has a son and daughter.

      At some point after 2003, Moses reconnected with Woody and Soon-Yi and became estranged from Mia and many of his siblings. He has since come out in defense of Woody, telling People, “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father…I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Moses, who was a teenager at the time, was there on the day that the incident of Dylan’s molestation was alleged to have taken place, but says, “Of course Woody did not molest my sister.”

      Moses’ most recent comments are consistent with what he privately told his nanny of seven years back in 1992. He also charged that Mia would go into “unbridled rages” when angered, and that she often would hit him. After Moses came forward to deny the molestation, Dylan responded by denying that he had been beaten by Mia. “My brother is dead to me,” she said.

      Dylan “Malone” Farrow (b. 1985, a. 1985)

      Dylan was born in Texas and adopted by Mia in 1985 after her attempts to conceive a child naturally with Woody were unfruitful. Woody formally adopted Dylan in 1991. Like some of Mia’s other children, Dylan changed her name several times (first to Eliza, then to Malone), which Mia attributes to maybe being “an Irish thing.”

      After the 1992 scandal faded from the public spotlight Malone attended Brearley, an all-girls private school considered by many to be the most intellectually elite in Manhattan. High school and college were rough for her, emotionally. When her sister Tam died in 2000, Malone fell into a deep depression and attempted suicide. She told Vanity Fair that her depression deepened after the two occasions that Woody tried to contact her in adulthood. Once, when she was 18, he sent her a letter asking if they could meet. She didn’t respond. Later, when she was at college, he sent a manilla envelope filled with photos of him and her, with a note saying he still thought of her as his daughter.

      Malone graduated from Bard in 2007, got married in 2010, and currently works as a freelance graphic designer in Florida. She lived in relative anonymity until she spoke publicly about the molestation allegations for the first time as an adult for an October 2013 Vanity Fair story. In February 2014 she wrote an open letter to the general public, published on the blog of a New York Times writer, reestablishing her claims that she had been “sexually assaulted” by Woody. After Woody responded with an op-ed in The New York Times, Malone issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter saying, “I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.”

      Satchel “Ronan” Farrow (b. 1987)

      Satchel was born to Mia (her youngest biological child) after nearly five years of attempting to conceive a child with Woody. His given name was Satchel, but he later changed it to Seamus before finally settling on Ronan.

      A 1993 custody order gave Woody supervised visitation with Ronan three times a week. The judge said Ronan was not allowed to spend the night at Woody’s apartment, nor was he permitted to see Soon-Yi. Ronan and Woody would bake cakes and build model toys. According to Woody in a 1994 interview with Esquire, “[W]hen I’d tell him I loved him, he’d say, ‘I like you, but I’m not supposed to love you.'”

      In 1996—with a custody battle still being waged—visitation was suspended after Woody was said to have put both his hands around Ronan’s neck in front of the supervising psychiatrist. A judge ordered that visitation could resume only in the psychiatrist’s office. It was a term to which Woody reportedly would not agree, but Ronan didn’t want to see his father anyway, so visitations ceased.

      Shortly thereafter, when he was 11, Ronan started his freshman year at Bard College. (At 15, he was the youngest ever to graduate from the school.) He went on to earn a degree from Yale Law School in 2009. He served as a UNICEF ambassador from 2001 to 2009. He was appointed by the Obama administration as the Special Adviser for Humanitarian and NGO Affairs in the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was a speechwriter for diplomat Richard Holbrooke. By the time he was 24 he was an adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In 2012 he was named as a Rhodes Scholar. He is rumored to be gay, but refuses to comment publicly on his sexual orientation.

      In an October 2013 Vanity Fair interview with his mother Mia, it was revealed that Ronan was “possibly” the son of the late Frank Sinatra and that he has a familial relationship with Nancy Sinatra Jr. That same month he landed a book deal with Penguin Press (a “hard-hitting investigation” into U.S. foreign policy), and MSNBC announced that he will be the host of a new daily one-hour show set to premiere at the end of February 2014.

      Tam Farrow (b. 1979, a. 1992)

      Tam, a blind girl from Vietnam, was adopted by Mia in February 1992, just one month after learning about the affair between Woody and Soon-Yi. Mia and Woody initially planned on raising the girl together, but their relationship was on shaky ground due to the affair. Woody was still a presence in Mia’s household—up until August 1992—as the former couple attempted to co-parent and hammer out a custody agreement. However, it was by all accounts an acrimonious and emotionally-charged time, which apparently affected Tam. She was rumored to chant, “Woody no goody!” when he was around. Tam evidently had a heart condition and passed away in March 2000 of heart failure.

      Isaiah Farrow (b. 1992, a. 1992)

      Isaiah was a crack-addicted infant adopted by Mia the same week that she adopted Tam. He is a senior at the University of Connecticut.

      Gabriel Wilk Farrow (b. 1989, a. 1994)

      Gabriel is a paraplegic whom Mia adopted from India in 1994 and named in honor of Judge Elliott Wilk, who oversaw her custody battle with Woody. He later changed his name to Thaddeus.

      Kaeli-Shea Farrow (b. 1993, a. 1994)

      The youngest of Farrow’s children, Kaeli-Shea was adopted by Mia in 1994 and initially couldn’t use her arms. She is currently in college in Connecticut and has changed her name to Quincy.

      Frankie-Minh Farrow (b. 1989, a. 1995)

      Frankie-Minh, who is blind, was adopted from Vietnam by Mia in 1995. She was named after Frank Sinatra.

      After raising 14 children, Mia Farrow is now an empty nester, living in her Frog Hollow, CT estate.”

      Source: http://jezebel.com/all-mias-children-the-tangled-branches-of-the-farrow-1516793360

      • February 12, 2014 at 4:07 AM

        How very illuminating! Love your post Jeannie.

        Fame-if this is the direction you are taking, you may want to shelf the “whorgas”. Why waste your talent and blog on a couple of nobodies? In light of the heaviness of this topic, anything with the Real Housewives seem so contrived and manufactured. Like The Hills for the pre-menopausal set. You seem to have a knack for really good investigative writing. I’ve been following your blog for awhile.

  16. February 11, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    The following is an except from the November 1992 Vanity Fair article where Mia’s camp suggests Soon-Yi is mentally retarded. From the November 1992 Vanity Fair interview of Mia Farrow (page 3):

    Soon-Yi issued her own statement… “I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather—not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia.”…

    Mia’s family were astounded by the statement. “Soon-Yi doesn’t know half those words, what they mean,” one close to them said. Equally astonished was Audrey Seiger, who has a doctorate in learning and reading disabilities and had spent hundreds of hours tutoring Soon-Yi from the sixth grade all the way through high school. When Soon-Yi was in the third grade, her I.Q. tested as slightly below average. She went to Seiger with “very deprived early language development, which carried on throughout the years.” Seiger and Soon-Yi became close, and Soon-Yi worked very hard. “She’s a very typical L.D. [learning disabled] kid, very socially inappropriate, very, very naïve,” says Seiger, who is deeply worried about Soon-Yi today. “She has trouble processing information, trouble understanding language on an inferential level. She’s very, very literal and flat in how she interprets what she sees and how she interprets things socially. She misinterprets situations.”

    “Although it’s been widely-reported that Soon-Yi’s IQ tested as below average as a child, she had been adopted from Korea aged 7, so that could easily have been fluency issues with English as she adapted to an American school and her new life with strangers. Nowadays the Drew University alumni is described as smart.” – Jen Paul, February 3, 2014

    It was reported in December 1997 by Woody’s spokeswoman, Leslee Dart, that Soon-Yi was set to receive her master’s degree from Columbia University in the spring of 1998.

    According to Woody, as quoted in John Lahr’s book, Show and Tell: New Yorker Profiles:

    Woody 7

    “Allen told Newsweek magazine that his relationship with Ms Previn began when he took her to a New York Knicks professional basketball game a little more than a year ago. Until then, he said, he ‘never had any interest in her at all’. The film director said that he and Ms Previn went to another game about a month later and ‘gradually over a period of time a strictly talking relationship developed’. ‘Only long after the relationship with Mia was finished did it very gradually drift into an intimate relationship,’ the film director said. Asked if marriage is a possibility, Allen replied: ‘Possible, uh-huh.’ Ms Previn told Newsweek about her relationship with Allen: ‘I admit that it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical. I’m not a retarded under-age flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot,’ she said.” – The Independent, August 25, 1992

    Woody: Say You’re Sorry
    New York Daily News
    August 24, 1992

    Hopes of an 11th-hour accord in the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow custody war were dashed yesterday when Allen said Farrow first must apologize and renounce accusations that he molested one of their children.

    “There was some discussion of a face-to-face meeting over the weekend, but it won’t happen until such time as she makes a public statement totally and completely vindicating Mr. Allen,” said spokeswoman Leslee Dart.

    Farrow spokesman John Springer would say only that “no compromises are currently in the works.”

    Allen, 56, and Farrow, 47, are due in Manhattan Supreme Court tomorrow in the opening round of Allen’s bid for custody of Moses, 14; Dylan, 7, and Satchel, 4.

    The battle heated up with news that Allen was in love with – and even contemplating marriage to – Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whose age has been given as between 19 and 21.

    In comments published in this week’s Time and Newsweek magazines, Previn defended her 8-month-old affair with Allen and accused Farrow of mistreating her.

    In the magazines, Previn calls Farrow “very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids.

    “It is true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof, but I hope she and Woody can somehow head off a custody trial,” she said.

    She said Farrow could not handle her 11 children – she neglected some children and smothered others with attention, Previn said.

    Farrow’s attorneys and relatives have accused Allen of molesting their daughter Dylan, a charge he insists is a lie.

    Dart said Allen voluntarily met with New York child welfare officials last week. She declined to elaborate.

    Farrow declined comment on Previn’s allegations of abuse, saying, “I love her very much. I’m heartbroken,” Newsweek reported.

    Springer said the actress has told her daughter she may come home whenever she wants and that she will be welcomed with love.

    “I don’t go home because Mia can be and has been violent toward me,” Previn told Time. ” . . . Her treatment of me was hardly maternal, even given our current problems.”

    Previn said Allen was “never any kind of father figure” to her.

    “I never had any kind of dealings with him” while growing up, said Previn, whose adoptive father is conductor Andre Previn, Farrow’s ex-husband.

    In Newsweek, Allen said their romance evolved from the ashes of his 12-year relationship with Farrow.

    Allen said the relationship with Farrow was over when he went to a basketball game with Previn because he had no one to go with. The casual outing drifted unexpectedly into love, he said.

    “I see it as a major, major situation – I see no limit for it at this moment,” said Allen, who said the relationship is not incestuous. “She is not part of my family.”

    And he said marriage is a possibility.

    Previn said through a publicist: “I have a wonderful relationship with Woody and realize its dramatic overtones. I admit that it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical . . . I’m not a retarded underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot.”

    Meeting Is Off, So Is Cease-fire Between Allen And Farrow
    By Leonard W. Boasberg, Philadelphia Inquirer
    August 25, 1992

    This story contains information from Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, Reuters and the Associated Press

    The sad, salacious saga continues. No, no, not the presidential campaign. The Woody Allen-Mia Farrow affair.

    The two former lovers were supposed to meet Sunday to call a truce in their public battle over who gets the kids – one they had together, two adopted – and who’s the greater disgrace to the human race: Allen, who if you believe Farrow is some kind of a sex fiend, or Farrow, who if you believe Allen is a rotten mother and a liar.

    The meeting was called off because – according to one of Farrow’s spokesmen, celebrity lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz – Allen insisted that Farrow repudiate her assertion that Allen had molested their 7-year-old daughter, and Farrow wouldn’t back down. Allen is an “evil and desperate man,” says another of Farrow’s spokesmen, a publicity agent named John Springer.

    Meanwhile, Allen is speaking for himself, in “exclusive” interviews to Time and Newsweek, saying pretty much the same thing in both. How did the love affair start between the 56-year-old filmmaker and Soon-Yi Previn, 21-year-old adopted daughter of Farrow and one of her former husbands, Andre Previn? With basketball. Dangerous sport. Allen took the young lady to a New York Knicks game, and “gradually” a “strictly talking relationship developed,” and ”very gradually” an “intimate relationship.”

    Is marriage a possibility?

    “Possible, uh-huh.”

    Soon-Yi Previn also has her say in the two newsweeklies. “I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot,” she told Newsweek. “I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical.”

    Allen and Farrow were scheduled to appear in a Manhattan court today on the custody question. To avoid publicity (!), their lawyers asked Judge Phyllis Gangel Jacob to bar press and public from the forthcoming trial. The judge reserved her decision, although she did ban TV cameras.

    Woody Allen and Mia Farrow’s Wiki pages:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Farrow

  17. LifeIsGood
    February 11, 2014 at 5:14 PM

    I believe Dylan, 100%. Other than the discrepancy pointed out by Jeannie upthread, her story has not changed. She is now a grown woman in her own right, with her own life. She would have no reason to maintain the lie. As far as I know, she has never tried to use her story to get money. I hope she does speak out anytime Hollywood fawns all over this creep – remind them that they are idolizing a pedophile.

    As for all of the accusations made by both Mia and Woody, there is probably a grain of truth in what they say. I believe that Woody molested Dylan, and groomed Soon-Yi from a much earlier age than they admit to. I also believe that Mia is probably a little kooky. I won’t waste my time parsing all of the accusations because the only one that really matters is Dylan’s – and I believe her.

    I’m glad she found the courage to speak out. It’s a shame that Hollywood continues to idolize this pedophile. I hope someone other than Soon-Yi is looking out for their kids.

    I am friends with someone who survived sexual abuse at the hands of a family member (an older sibling) She found the courage to tell her parents when she was 7 or 8 and they didn’t believe her and the abuse continued. She was never able to maintain any intimate, loving relationship (let alone marry). She is a good person and would have made an amazing parent, but it never happened (she is an honorary aunt to mine).

    This type of abuse has a lifelong impact on the victims life. So the fact that Woody is not behind bars is infuriating to me,

    • February 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM


      Go to the 1:40 mark in the video above for footage of Woody and Soon-Yi

      The Secret Report From 1993 That EXONERATED Woody Allen: Doctors Told Cops That Dylan Farrow’s Sex Abuse Story Was ‘Fantasy-Like,’ Influenced By Mom Mia

      http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

      “She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statement and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke.”

      That was the bombshell finding medical professionals at Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut delivered in 1993, concluding that iconic movie maker Woody Allen did NOT sexually abuse his adopted daughter Dylan, then seven, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

      Until now, the report — Connecticut law enforcement officials relied on it when deciding not to charge Allen with a crime — has remained a closely-guarded secret, available to those only involved in the police investigation.

      Read The Secret Report

      But today, RadarOnline.com can reveal the content of two crucial pages of the document, provided to this website in the wake of Dylan’s detailed account of the alleged abuse to the New York Times, during which she claimed she was once sexually assaulted by Allen while sitting on the floor playing with a train set, aged seven.

      “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen,” the hospital’s report, dated Mar. 17, 1993, said.

      “Further, we believe that statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4, 1992.”

      According to the hospital, in Sept. 1992, the initial referral was made to it by the Connecticut State police at a meeting involving then-State’s Attorney Frank Maco and members of the child sexual abuse team.

      “At that meeting, the history that police had at the time was briefly presented and the videotape (taken by Ms. Farrow) of Dylan telling what had reportedly happened to her was reviewed,” the document stated.

      The hospital officials said that two major questions that were posed in the referral were: “Is Dylan telling the truth and did we think that she was sexually abused?”

      In 16 interviews stretching from Sept. 8, 1992 to Dec. 4, 1992, investigators spoke with all parties involved (Allen, both of her parents, two babysitters and two psychotherapists, per the report) and “interviewed [Dylan] on nine occasions.”

      According to the report, “Dylan presented as an intelligent, verbal 7-year-old whose storytelling was quite elaborate and fantasy-like at times and who manifested loose associations in her thinking.

      “She appeared confused about what to relate to the interviewers and was very controlling of what she would say,” adding that the child was “upset by the loss of her father and Soon-Yi and worried that her father might take her from her mother’s care.”

      The report — read the excerpts in full here — was referring to Soon-Yi Previn, whose relationship with Allen led to the breakup in 1992 of the film director’s 12-year relationship with Mia Farrow, who had adopted Soon-Yi with composer Andre Previn.

      Previn was 19 while Allen was 56, at the time. The pair married in 1997.

      The report stated that Dylan, now 28, “felt protective of and worried for her mother. Dylan was very much attuned to her mother’s pain and her mother reinforced Dylan’s losses and her negative view of her father.”

      The experts boiled the result down to three possible hypotheses: One, that “Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her;” two, “that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child was caught up in the disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses and the family;” or three, “that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.”

      The report continued, “While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we cannot be definitive about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

      The major reasons for their finding were as follows, the report stated:

      1. There were important inconsistencies in Dylan statements in the video tape and her statements to us.

      2. She appeared to struggle with how to tell about the touching.

      3. She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statements, and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke.

      4. Her descriptions of the details surrounding the alleged events were unusual and inconsistent.

      As Radar previously reported, 78-year-old Allen has denied the accusations made in the bombshell piece, calling them “untrue and disgraceful” through his rep.

      A source said: “The allegations against Allen came from biased and unreliable sources, including Dylan, who this report described as a ‘dreamy child who ‘had difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality’ and Farrow and her friends and family, who harbored a great deal of animosity towards Allen.

      “The doctors concluded that Mia Farrow clearly influenced Dylan’s statements.

      “Dylan retracted her abuse allegations and told the investigators inconsistent stories over the course of the multi-day examination.”

      In a comment Wednesday, Dylan insisted her mother Mia “never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her.

      “When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up. In one of the most heartbreaking conversations I have ever had, she sat me down and asked me if I was telling the truth. She said that Dad said he didn’t do anything. And I said, ‘He’s lying.’”

    • daisymay
      February 11, 2014 at 7:41 PM

      just because you had a friend who underwent a reality that is similar to Dylan Farrow’s tale isn’t unusual however I think it is a far stretch to conclude that they are mirror images. It hasn’t been determined that woody allen is the guilty party here – you seem to overlook that….

      • LifeIsGood
        February 12, 2014 at 6:50 AM

        Daisymay, I don’t think I wrote that my friends experience was a “mirror image” of Dylans. I was making the point that this type of abuse is devastating and can have a lifelong impact on the victim.

        As far as Woody not being found guilty – not many pedophiles are brought to justice. More often than not, the victim suffers in silence. Dylan is now an adult and maintains her story. In her public rebuttal to Woody, she is states facts that can be verified. Not to mention, Woody was in treatment for inappropriate behavior toward Dylan. He’s never addressed that because it is impossible to spin and makes him look guilty as hell.

        I accept that we cannot throw Woody in prison without a proper trial and conviction. But in my opinion, there is enough merit to her claims for me to conclude that she is telling the truth. JMO

        • GPM
          February 12, 2014 at 10:48 AM

          I think you make an excellent point, LifeIsGood. There is an enormous difference between public opinion — and both sides here most certainly are and for many years have been actively and effectively attempting to influence public opinion — and putting Mr. Allen in jail.

          If he were charged criminally, I would be the first to say that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that his guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the reason for that is in this country we do not deprive people of their liberty and throw them in jail lightly, and I think that, as a matter of fundamental freedom, that’s a very important standard that we must maintain.

          But it’s an entirely different matter when it comes to what any of us THINKS and that I think is one of the most valuable elements of this forum, i.e., it’s an opportunity to read and learn facts that we otherwise might not know and to discuss the issues they relate to with a very diverse group of people who hold various points of view.

          I think that the opportunity to have a civil and respectful conversation here is incredibly valuable and, in an environment where most discussion seems to be limited to “shouting” — shouting at each other and shouting over each other, apparently in an attempt to win hearts and minds not on the merits but by heavyhandedly drowning out any opposition — this forum is truly a breath of fresh air thanks to Fame!

  18. February 12, 2014 at 1:28 AM

    The following is a report by the New York Post and Woody’s statements to Newsweek and People in August 1992, less than a month after he was accused of molesting Dylan.

    Woody & Mia: A Greek tragedy
    By Maureen Callahan, New York Post
    February 8, 2014

    It was the perfect Christmas tableau at the Allen-Farrow household: There sat Mia and nine of her children around the dinner table. There were two turkeys, an abundance of side dishes, and in the middle, a carved angel. In came Woody Allen with a holiday greeting.

    “Pardon me while I puke,” he said, then went off to the kitchen to juice apples.

    Long before the scandals — Woody taking off with Mia’s adopted teen daughter Soon-Yi, Mia accusing Woody of molesting their 7-year-old daughter, Dylan — the Allen-Farrow family was regarded as the ultimate cosmopolitan clan, a multiracial brood of 11 children, adopted and biological, living harmoniously in Farrow’s warm, sprawling apartment in The Dakota.

    Then, last week, Dylan Farrow, now 28, posted an open letter, reviving her claims that when she was 7 Woody Allen molested her in an attic. As this now-22-year-old scandal plays out again, it’s easy to forget just how complicated and dark the relationship between Woody and Mia really was.

    In the early ’90s, no couple epitomized New York City more than Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. He was the poet laureate of neurotic New Yorkers, the genius filmmaker who moved among civilians at Knicks games and Michael’s Pub. She was the hippie progeny of Hollywood royalty, a proto-Angelina Jolie who adopted handicapped kids from impoverished corners of the world. He had no interest in children. She was Upper West Side, he Upper East.

    They never lived together nor married, and their symphonic, unconventional arrangement seemed a rebuke to anyone who found New York City too liberal, too brash, too intellectual or offensive.

    “It’s sort of like just enough,” Allen told his biographer Eric Lax in 1990. Their relationship worked, Allen said, “because we don’t live together and that she has her own life completely and that I have mine that we’re able to maintain this relationship with a certain proper tension.”

    In February 1991, The New York Times ran an excerpt from Lax’s glowing biography, “Woody and Mia: A New York Story.” By now, they had one biological child together (or so we thought), 3-year-old son Satchel, now Ronan. Allen had also adopted two of Mia’s 11 other children — Moses, then 13, and Dylan, then 6.

    Before that year was out, Woody was sleeping with Mia’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, who was either 18 or 20. (She has no birth certificate, and her age was roughly determined by a bone scan.) Mia learned of the affair Jan. 13, 1992. She had brought 3-year-old Satchel to Allen’s apartment for his regular therapy session — the whole family saw shrinks — and discovered six nude Polaroids of Soon-Yi on his mantle, her legs spread open.

    She phoned Allen, told him to stay away, and rushed back home with Satchel. Soon-Yi was there, and Mia attacked her, at one point reportedly breaking a chair over her daughter. Allen rushed over and declared his great love for Soon-Yi and his intent to marry her. According to a 1992 Vanity Fair story, Mia said, “Fine . . . Take her and go.”

    Suddenly, Allen changed his mind, fell to his knees and proposed marriage to Mia. The thing with Soon-Yi, he said was “a tepid little affair” that was “probably good for Soon-Yi’s self-esteem.” Mia slapped his face, then Allen sat down with the rest of the family for dinner.

    At the time, Allen was shooting “Husbands and Wives” — a film about adultery — and Mia had a starring role. The running joke on the set was that Mia needed a steady supply of “fresh babies.” Even after discovering the affair, she continued shooting. She veered from wanting to work things out with Allen to threatening his life and her own. She’d call him in the middle of night and threaten to gouge out his eyes, demand to know if Soon-Yi was better in bed.

    Meanwhile, she adopted two more children. In February 1992, she brought home a 6-year-old boy with cerebral palsy and mental retardation. After four days, she re-homed him in the Southwest. She adopted another child, an 11-year-old blind girl from Vietnam, and after that, she took in Isaiah, an infant born to a crack addict.

    That Valentine’s Day, she sent Allen a family photo with skewers piercing each child’s heart, a steak knife wrapped in a Xerox of a nude Soon-Yi through hers. She was still publicly going out with Allen. In the spring, after the couple dined at Elaine’s, friends described Mia as looking “like [a post-assassination] Jackie Kennedy on Air Force One.”

    Soon-Yi was exiled, sent in June to work at a camp in Maine, and while in one of their reconciliation phases, Mia was shocked to get a letter from the camp: Soon-Yi had been asked to leave, because Allen was bombarding her with calls. She had no idea where her daughter was, and didn’t find out till the tabloids ran a picture of Soon-Yi outside Allen’s apartment.

    On Aug. 4, 1992, Mia claimed that while she was out shopping, Allen had disappeared with Dylan for 15 to 20 minutes at their country home in Connecticut. That day, Mia was scheduled to sign custody papers. According to a September 1992 report in New York magazine, she had worked out an arrangement with Allen allowing him visitation. He agreed to keep casting her. They’d keep going on their annual, two-week trips to Europe as a family, and to the outside world, they’d remain Woody and Mia.

    But before those papers arrived, Mia called her lawyer and said something very bad had happened. Allen had taken Dylan up to the attic and molested her. She videotaped Dylan — a tape that was later reported to have been edited in-camera — then took her to the doctor for an exam.

    Mia also kept on with her plans to star in Allen’s next movie, “Manhattan Murder Mystery,” and placed a call to meet with the wardrobe supervisor on Aug. 9.

    “She accused me of child molestation on August 4th, right?” Allen told “60 Minutes” that November. “And August 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th — you know, the week after, she’s fully saying, ‘When do we begin our new movie? I’m going for my costume fitting next week’ . . . And I said, ‘Are you kidding? You’re accusing me of child molestation, and you think we’re just going to go on with the movie? . . . This is insane.’ ”

    By then, this neo-Greek tragedy had been playing out for eight months, and no one aside from the immediate family and their closest friends knew. But after a disastrous meeting on Aug. 13, when Allen felt Mia was trying to shake him down for $7 million (a sum her lawyer disputed), he filed for custody of their three children, then leaked the filing to several outlets, including the New York Post.

    “On many, many occasions,” he told “60 Minutes,” “Mia had said to me, ‘You took my daughter, and I’m going to take yours.’ ”

    Both sides began leaking to the press accusations ranging from unflattering to criminal. Woody only liked to be called “Max” in public. He wouldn’t shower at the house in Connecticut because the drain was in the middle, not the side. He never slept over at her apartment; instead, she’d trundle through Central Park with seven kids just to sleep at his place. Most damningly, he’d always had an interest in teenage girls and made light of child molestation — just look at his movies.

    Mia, said Woody’s camp, was no naif. At 19, she began dating Frank Sinatra, 29 years her senior. They married when she was 21 and divorced soon after. She wrote a character reference for Roman Polanski when he was on trial for raping a 13-year-old girl.

    As recently as 2005, Farrow flew to London, testifying for Polanksi in a lawsuit against Vanity Fair. (The mag reported Polanski hit on a woman three weeks after his wife’s murder; Farrow testified Polanski would never do such a thing.) Farrow dated the married composer Andre Previn for two years and got pregnant with his twins. Previn left his wife, Dory, who suffered a nervous breakdown. Mia hoarded kids and was a bad mother; several of her children were in trouble for shoplifting, skipping school, forging checks.

    The ensuing custody trial demolished the myth of Woody and Mia as the ultimate in sophisticated, urbane couplehood. Two former employees testified that Mia treated her adopted kids like help, and that she once slapped an adopted son because he lost a dog leash. Sinatra threatened to break Allen’s legs.

    A friend of Mia’s testified that Woody abused Satchel, threatening to break his legs and twisting one so hard the toddler screamed. Mia admitted on the stand that she had gotten into a brawl with Soon-Yi after her daughter said, “The person who is sleeping with [Allen] is the one with the relationship.” Household staff claimed to have witnessed Allen acting “inappropriately” with Dylan, one saying she had seen Allen with his head in Dylan’s lap.

    Allen denied all accusations of abuse and held a press conference declaring his love for Soon-Yi. Though he was excoriated daily in the press for carrying on with his longtime lover’s adopted daughter, Allen could not understand the problem.

    “I didn’t find any great moral dilemmas whatsoever,” he told Time magazine in November 1992. “I didn’t feel that just because she was Mia’s daughter, there was any great moral dilemma. It was a fact, but not one with any great import. It wasn’t like she was my daughter.”

    Woody Allen was never charged with molesting Dylan. An investigative team of child-abuse experts at Yale-New Haven Hospital said he didn’t do it, while the state Supreme Court judge on the case, Elliot Wilk, said he didn’t know if Allen did it. Mia was awarded custody, and Allen was permitted supervised visits only with Satchel, now Ronan. By 1995, the visits stopped when the boy said he no longer wanted to see Allen, and a judge ruled the visits be suspended.

    In 1997, Woody and Soon-Yi married in Venice and later adopted two daughters of their own. He still doesn’t understand why their romance repulsed people. “What was the scandal?” he said in 2011. “I fell in love with this girl. I married her.”

    Among the people who’ve publicly taken sides in this Gothic family saga is Stacey Nelkin, who dated Allen when she was 17 and he was 41.

    “What disturbs me is that Mia has tried to blur these lines — because he likes to date young women, he must have been interested in a 7-year-old,” she says. “Pedophiles are compulsive. No one has accused him before, and no one has subsequently.”

    Nelkin first met Allen when he cast her in “Annie Hall.” A few months later, they began dating. She was still a student at Stuyvesant High.

    “I was 17, but I was a sophisticated New York City kid,” she says. She recalls him as very considerate. “I rarely slept over,” she says. “He was adamant about me not staying so that I’d be at school on time.”
    Modal Trigger

    Stacy Nelkin, with two photos of herself when she was a teenager.Photo: Helayne Seidman

    Their relationship was the inspiration for Allen’s film “Manhattan,” in which he romances a teenage Mariel Hemingway who, as Nelkin did, chases him, cajoles him into a relationship, then breaks it off, leaving him heartbroken.

    “He said, ‘What is this, a pattern with you?’ ” Nelkin recalls. “I said, ‘A pattern? I’m 19!’ ”

    Nelkin spent years in psychotherapy to work through that relationship. “Every therapist I’ve ever seen in New York, their eyes light up” at his name, she says. “At some point, They’ve probably all come across him.”

    While Nelkin says she found Allen’s romance with Soon-Yi “creepy,” she thinks it’s unfair the public holds only him accountable for all that’s transpired.

    “He and Mia,” she says, “created this Greek tragedy together.”

    http://nypost.com/2014/02/08/woody-mia-a-greek-tragedy/

    Woody Allen and Mia Farrow End their Relationship with a Startling Admission—and Hair-Raising Charges
    By Tom Gliatto, People Magazine
    August 31, 1992

    THROUGH FOUR DECADES AS STANDup comic, movie star and director, Woody Allen has been called many things. Funny, of course. Brilliant. Neurotic. Charming. Intense. And, if you hated Interiors as much as the critics did, pretentious and derivative. Evil, though—that’s a new one.

    But that was the word used last week as his personal life with Mia Farrow, 47, his wan leading lady off-screen and on for more than a dozen years, turned out to have very little of the winsome prettiness of the 13 movies they made together. “Evil and desperate” was how Farrow’s mother, veteran actress Maureen O’Sullivan, characterized Allen in a statement faxed to the media. And Mia’s sister Tisa called him “an evil, evil man.”

    The bitterness of the Allen-Farrow denouement burst into public view on Aug. 13, when Allen, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan for custody of his and Farrow’s son, Satchel, 4, and two children they adopted together, Moses, a 14-year-old Korean with cerebral palsy, and daughter Dylan, 7. “It has been tragic to watch what Mia has gone through,” said O’Sullivan when the suit was filed. “The truth of this story will soon be made public.”

    Part of the larger story she referred to so darkly, it turns out, is that Allen has fallen head over heels for another of Farrow’s seven adopted children, 21-year-old Soon-Yi, a sophomore at Drew University in Madison, N.J. With photos of his long, weary face illustrating lurid headlines on the front pages of New York City’s tabloids, the normally reclusive Allen felt obliged to do the unthinkable: talk about his private life to the press. He confessed to the new relationship—which Farrow reportedly discovered seven months ago when she came across nude photos of Soon-Yi taken in Allen’s East Side duplex—with a statement that was an unabashed valentine. “Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It’s real and happily all true. She’s a lovely, intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues to turn my life around in a positive way.”

    For Farrow, discovery of the affair was devastating, says her friend Maria Roach, 56, daughter of director Hal Roach and godmother to Farrow’s daughter Lark, 18. When she coincidentally called Mia shortly after the pictures of Soon-Yi had surfaced, “I thought someone had died,” says Roach. Then Farrow wrote her a letter full of heartbreak. My vision has been unclear,” the letter reads, “and I have spent more than a dozen years with a man who would destroy me and corrupt in my daughter, leading her into a betrayal of her mother and her principles, leaving her morally bankrupt with the bond between us demolished. I can think of no cruder way to lose a child or a lover.”

    But Farrow and Allen have now given each other, and their children, additional searing lessons in cruelty, as the war between them has seemed to escalate almost daily. One source friendly to Allen described Farrow as “a very jealous and manipulative woman, very desperate.” Roach said that after Farrow uncovered the affair, the family ended up in psychotherapy for months. And, according to Roach, Allen first wanted Farrow to deny publicly that she knew of his relationship with Soon-Yi, promising that the affair would end and their movie collaborations could continue. Then he threatened that by the time the custody battle lands in court, on Aug. 25, “there would be nothing left of her standing.”

    Farrow, for her part, signaled that she would defend herself aggressively by hiring celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz, whose client list has included Leona Helmsley. Clans von Bülow and, currently, Mike Tyson. The Farrow camp also began saying that Soon-Yi may still be a teenager. She was adopted as a street child in Seoul, and there was little documentation of her origin. Thus, while she is officially 21, Soon-Yi could be several years younger. Dershowitz says Mia regards her as 19, “but Woody has made her 21 for his purposes.”

    The most damaging aspect is that police in Connecticut (Farrow has a home in Bridgewater) are conducting an investigation of child abuse involving Allen and Dylan. A New York City television station reported that one of its correspondents had seen a videotape that shows a nervous and shaken Dylan and seemed to support allegations of abuse.

    That disturbing issue arose, says Dershowitz, because “one, a baby-sitter made a comment to Mia. Second, Dylan herself told Mia about it. Third, there was a physical piece of evidence.” Farrow is always video-taping the children, Roach explains, and one day Dylan said something startling—”It was not something that was set up.” And, according to the Boston Herald, the abuse incident happened this past Aug. 4 in the attic of the Connecticut house. Mia’s son Moses told the Herald that Farrow burst into tears when Dylan told her. “I’m angry that he is even trying to get custody of us,” Moses said. “For him to do what he did hurts [Dylan] very much because she’s very emotional child.”

    Woody’s response to the suggestion of abuse was an immediate, categorical and outraged denial. He charged, during an unprecedented press conference, that “this, my lawyers tell me, is a currently popular though heinous card played in all too many…child-custody fights.” And an Allen source claims that, contrary to Dershowilz’s account, Dylan’s physical exam turned up no physical evidence of abuse. Allen also claimed that Farrow’s attorneys had demanded a $7 million settlement not to pursue the allegations. Leaving the podium—he would take no questions—Allen delivered a mournful ad lib. “My one public appearance in years,” he said, “and all straight lines.”

    Dershowitz denied that any settlement had been brought up. (Farrow refused alimony from her two husbands, Frank Sinatra and composer-conductor Andre Previn.)

    Allen’s custody gambit was puzzling. Who would suggest that any child didn’t belong with Farrow, photographed time after time looking borderline dowdy as she blissfully cradled a baby or held a kid’s hand? “Mia’s really a terrific person—not a Betty Crocker kind of mom,” says Roach. “But she has a gift.” Allen himself has observed, “Mia has a talent for mothering the way some people have a green thumb for gardening or an ear for music or a talent for medicine.”

    Farrow, who grew up in a family of seven, now has 11 children: four biologically her own (one of them—Satchel—by Allen, and three—twins Matthew and Sascha, 21, and Fletcher, 17—by Previn) and seven adopted. They are Daisy, 17, and Lark, who are Vietnamese; Soon-Yi; Moses; Dylan; and, in the past year, Tain, 12, who is blind, and Isaiah. 8 months, who is black. “Being a mother is Mia’s mission,” said sister Tisa.

    Yet according to Roach, Allen has accused Farrow of being an unfit mother, partly because she lakes antidepressants prescribed by a psychiatrist. One source close to Allen describes the Farrow household as “chaotic,” with some of the kids sneaking out to party after their mother goes to bed. Moreover, says this source, there have been unpublicized problems in addition to the arrest of Lark and Daisy last summer for shoplifting lingerie from a mall in Danbury, Conn. Even as she pursues a “manic need” to adopt, says the source, “Mia doesn’t know what’s going on. She’s reclusive.”

    Allen’s sister, Letty Aronson, 48, claims that Farrow is emotionally removed from her adopted daughters. Aronson remembers the first time she took her own daughter, Erika, to visit Mia after the birth of Satchel. “Afterward,” says Aronson, “my daughter kept talking about how the maid did this, the maid did that. I said, ‘What maid?’ She meant Lark.’ Says a source close to Allen: “We always joked that Lark would be the one to get out of the house and Write the Mommnie Dearest book.”

    That source also claims that, furious over the affair, Farrow on separate occasions struck Soon-Yi with a chair, shredded her clothes and persuaded the other children not to talk to her. “Not true,” says Dershowitz about the violence, although he says that Farrow admits to “a gentle, motherly slap.” (Soon-Yi no longer lives in her mother’s three-bedroom home on Central Park West and, according to a source, is no longer welcome there; most of the older children have already moved out to be on their own.)

    The case with Allen is just the opposite, say supporters, who maintain that—although he has never had an image that could be called paternal—he is indeed close to the three children named in his custody suit and wants to extricate them from a chaotic home. “His whole life turned around when Dylan entered his life and when Satchel was born,” says a colleague. “And then he got very, very close to Moses as well.”

    Allen has stressed that he had brought the custody case only reluctantly. “The last thing I wanted to do was go to court,” he said. “I have tried agonizingly to work out the details privately.” As for his passion for Soon-Yi, which seems certain to cloud his chances of obtaining custody of the other children, it began on his 56th birthday, last Dec. 1. That, in any event, is the date that Dershowitz cites as the first time that Allen and Soon-Yi had sex. (“How do we know that?” Dershowitz asks. “Soon-Yi eventually had a long talk with her mother about it.”) Two weeks later, he adds, Allen filed to adopt Dylan and Moses, “never telling the court that he was sleeping with their sister and never telling Mia. I think he has perpetrated a fraud—on the court and Mia and die children themselves.”

    The betrayal, in Farrow’s eyes, was all the more painful because of the lengths she had gone to to adopt Soon-Yi in 1977. Federal law then prevented U.S. families from adopting more than two foreign children. Farrow already had Lark and Daisy, but she was finally able to bring Soon-Yi after launching an effort lobbying Congress to repeal the law. “To me, that’s the ultimate irony,” says Farrow’s biographer, Sam Rubin. “A child that she went to extreme lengths to bring to the United States ultimately turns out to be the child who breaks her heart.”

    Author Rubin finds the affair between Allen and Soon-Yi bizarre. “[Allen] made no effort to distinguish between [now and] all those intervening years when he was actively involved in raising her,” says the writer. “And he would have known her from approximately the time she was 10.” Observes a source close to Allen: “I’m sure Woody had reservations, but you don’t choose the people you fall in love with.” Besides, says the source, before his kids Dylan, Moses and Satchel were added to the family, he avoided being involved with Mia’s brood. He wasn’t around surrogate-parenting Soon-Yi and the others, says the source. Previn remained their father figure.

    Anyone hoping for a last look at Allen and Farrow together will have to be content with the release next month of Woody’s new picture, Husbands and Wives, which, ironically, is about a college professor (Allen) who falls in love with a student played by Juliette Lewis. Farrow plays Allen’s Life.

    The couple never pretended to try to live up to that movie title. They always maintained separate residences. Her apartment is half a mile across Central Park from his East Side duplex. “I like the arrangement,” Farrow said two years ago. “We have a good life.” They shared the moviemaking, of course, plus shepherding the kids around New York, occasional weekends at her country home (although Allen hales the country and often chose to stay in town) and suppers at his favorite hangout, Elaine’s. (Mia was always willing to say hello to people who would stop by their table there; Woody would stare at his feet.)

    Both had been married twice already—Farrow to Sinatra and Previn; Allen to Harlene Rosen, a high school sweetheart he married at 19 (and later referred to in his comedy act as Quasimodo until she sued and required him to stop), and to actress Louise Lasser (Mary Hartrnan, Mary Hartman). Allen also had a long-running affair with Diane Keaton, his leading lady in the ’70s and the inspiration for Annie Hall.

    Romance began in 1979, when Michael Caine brought Farrow over to Allen’s table at celebrity-crowded Elaine’s. Mutual attraction was quietly nudged into love during a series of lunches and dinners arranged by Allen’s secretary. But Farrow already had something of a crush, she said, since she had been struck by Allen’s photo on the cover of The New York Times Magazine that same year. “He had such an interesting face,” she said. Allen had a bit more to say about Farrow’s translucent skin and delicate cheekbones. “It’s impossible,” he said, “to photograph her when Mia is not being beautiful.”

    Allen, a highly disciplined workaholic, managed to dovetail his rigorous moviemaking schedule with Farrow’s overflowing domestic scene. Since the birth of his son, he would get up at 5 A.M. to be at Farrow’s place when Satchel, Dylan and Moses awoke; by 10, he would be at work directing his latest movie and producing the next. At night he would return to her place to see the kids to bed, then head out with her for a bite to eat. (And, of course, he managed to maintain his strict regimen of psychotherapy, which goes back 25 years.) “She does all the work,” he joked, “and I skim off the cream, since I only see the kids at their best.”

    He always seemed especially close to Dylan, says a friend who has regularly watched them during Allen’s Monday-night jazz gigs at Michael’s Pub in Manhattan, where he has played clarinet for 21 years. “Woody really adores her,” he says. “She would sit on his lap while he was playing, many times,” says the friend. “When they adopted Dylan, I noticed that he started to wear a tie, and I said, ‘What’s going on? You never wear a tie.’ And he said, ‘Well, Dylan likes to play with it, so I wear a lie.’ ”

    Last Monday, as usual, Allen played at Michael’s. He stepped onstage and removed his trademark fishing hat just as the sextet’s gig was beginning. When not playing, he sat with his hand resting on his chin, like Rodin’s Thinker.

    While Allen was at Michael’s, Farrow was sequestered at Frog follow, her Connecticut hideaway, reportedly too distraught to eat. She still loves Soon-Yi, says Maureen O’Sullivan: “A mother always loves her child.” Mia was to have starred in Allen’s next film, Manhattan Murder Mystery, but has since been fired. He has made it quite clear that he no longer considers Farrow his leading lady. “In the end,” he told reporters, “the one thing I have been guilty of is falling in love with Mia Farrow’s adult daughter at the end of our years together.”

    The new star of the film, by the way, will be Diane Keaton.

    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108514,00.html

    ‘I’ve been a model, model father,’ says Woody Allen
    By Jack Kroll, Newsweek
    August 25, 1992

    Amid a bombardment of tabloid missiles and an outpouring of accusations and counteraccusations, Woody Allen decided to talk with Newsweek about his relationship with Mia Farrow, with her children and his, and with Soon-Yi. He also responded to the accusations of abuse of his adopted daughter Dylan. Following is an excerpt from the three and a half hour interview in his Fifth Avenue penthouse apartment.

    Q: The question most people are concerned about is Mia Farrow’s charge that you sexually molested Dylan. Is this in any sense true?

    A: Of course not. I’m on record with the most unequivocal denial that you can possibly imagine. It’s unthinkable. And with TC certain amount of time, that will become clear, and that issue will go by the wayside.

    I mean, look at the logic of it. Do you think that on the eve of signing an agreement with Mia in which we had hammered out [custody], I’m going to get in a car, drive up to Connecticut in broad daylight, in an open house with many people walking in and out . . . that I’m going to pick that moment in my life to . . . to do this thing? I mean it’s just, it’s just absolutely out of the question completely.

    Q: Were you alone with Dylan on Aug. 4?

    A: Was I alone with her? No. I play with the kids all the time and I’m in and out of the house and there are always people around. I’m not saying those people have their eyes trained on me every second. . . . But I was never alone at any time.

    Q: Supposedly this took place in the attic.

    A: This is so laughable. First of all, I couldn’t find the attic in Mia’s house. I mean I have never been in an attic. I’m a famous claustrophobic; wild horses couldn’t get me into an attic.

    Q: Allegedly Dylan herself has spoken of sexual abuse by you. What do you know about that?

    A: I know things she said, and I’d rather not say them. But she’s either been put up to it, or in some frightening way, in an atmosphere rife with hostility toward me and lectures about how evil I am, this has crept into her psyche in some way. Beyond that, I can’t say.

    Q: You have said that this sort of behavior has never been part of your profile. But some people we’ve interviewed have said that you’ve been known for fondling these kids in various ways.

    A: Fondling my children?

    Q: Yes.

    A: Well, absolutely, but not in any sexual way. There is no person in the world that will come into court and say anything like that and stand up to any kind of cross-examination. I’ve been a model, model father with these kids. I mean I’m affectionate like my parents were with me, but that’s it.

    Q: At what point did you sue for child custody?

    A: Mia could have prevented it all. When she accused me of child molestation, I felt that was the time to say I don’t want my children in that atmosphere, it’s too sick. And that’s when I did what I had to do. I never thought about anything but the children.

    I didn’t think about my reputation; I don’t care if I never work again. . . . When that happened, that was so grotesque, and so fraudulent and so sick that I felt I’ve got to get those children out.

    Q: What was your relationship with Soon-Yi before you became involved with her?

    A: Mia and I were going through the motions of a long-defunct relationship and, you know, I would get up, go there in the morning, play with my kids and then go to work. And then come back at night, play with the kids, put ‘em to bed. Mia and I had a civil relationship. We went out to dinner once a week, maybe, but we never did anything together.

    I was not remotely close to Soon-Yi. She is the adopted daughter of Andre Previn and Mia. I must have spoken to the other kids in that house a hundred times more than Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was a quiet person, and I never had any interest in her at all. None. And then once, when she was 20 years old or almost 21, one night I had no one to go to the basketball game with me, and she wanted to see a basketball game live.

    Well, I took her to the game and, we chatted and had a nice time. And she said some things to me about the family that shocked me, and she said, you know, you’re not over here enough, so you don’t really know, but it’s not what you think it is. And we talked, and we got friendly, and a month or so later I said I’m going to the game again, do you want to go?

    And we went and we had a nice time and, and gradually over a period of time a strictly talking relationship developed. And then only, only long after the relationship was finished with Mia did it very gradually drift into an intimate relationship.

    Q: Many people, including some who admire you, have expressed concern that you are involved with a young woman to whom you have been in loco parentis, a father figure.

    A: But she’s not part of my family. Soon-Yi has a very high-profile father; I was not a father figure to those children. I was a father figure to my own children, period. Those are the three in my will.

    Q: But Soon-Yi is the sister of all those kids.

    A: Yes, but it’s not that they’re really sisters.

    ‘I’ve been a model, model father,’ says Woody Allen
    August 25, 1992|By Jack Kroll | Jack Kroll,Newsweek

    Q: It has been alleged that in your affair with Soon-Yi you’ve taken advantage of someone who has learning disabilities and a very low IQ.

    A: I can only tell you this: If you think that I could enjoy myself with a dumb person. . . . I’ve done the usual things with Soon-Yi that I would do with any person — screen my Bergman films, go to the ball games, talk. Soon-Yi has a B average in college, she takes literature courses and sociology and psychology courses, and she’s fine. I am in no way with a retarded person. She’s wonderful company; I couldn’t be more delighted with her.

    Q: What about those nude photos? How did you come to take them?

    A: We were sitting around in this room, as a matter of fact, talking about her modeling career and she said would I take some nude pictures of her. I’m not a person that knows much about cameras; I mean I’m not good at that. And I, I took a small amount and left them out, and . . . and that was the, um, the origin of . . . I mean, there’s nothing more to say about that.

    Q: Some people have characterized them as pornographic.

    A: That’s too absurd for words. There are no sexual acts depicted, there’s nobody else in them . . . I mean, I think you know, one man’s lascivious pose is another man’s . . . I would say, you know, they were pretty sexy pictures. But what Soon-Yi and I do in our private moments is nobody’s business; we’re two grown-up people.

    Q: What’s your vision of the future with Soon-Yi?

    A: I think it’s moving along very, very positively and very, very well. It’s serious; I see it as a major, major situation. I see no limit for it at the moment.

    Q: Is marriage a possibility?

    A: Possible, uh-huh.

    Q: Many people have invoked what they think of as your preoccupation with considerably younger girls, especially because of certain plot lines in your films.

    A: Well, that’s just a smear. Where, where are these young women? It’s absurd, a stupid perception. It just doesn’t bear out against the realities, the relationships of my life. I’ve been married twice, and have a long-term relationship with Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow. So the four most major relationships of my life are all age-appropriate relationships.

    Q: There are also those who claim you’re having a kind of midlife crisis — that this is a classic case of a man having reached a certain age, who reaches out to a very young person to recharge batteries, and to restore a vitality and sense of self.

    A: Yes, one could speculate about those things. I mean, there’s no way of ever knowing that . . . I mean I myself wouldn’t know that myself. But, you know, people that have known me for a long time, and have known of the situation, and of Soon-Yi, have said to me: Take Soon-Yi and run. They say, you’re a lucky guy, she’s delighted and happy, and you guys have terrific times together. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

    Q: What would you like to see happen now?

    A: My first wish would be that in some way Mia could find herself, and she and I, going our separate ways, would remain civil with one another, and could be wonderful parents to the children so they would have the benefit of a healthy mother with them and a good father. And my destiny with Soon-Yi, we work out together, she and I, as a totally separate issue.

    I realize that this relationship had an unusual provenience, but, you know, so what? So have a million other relationships. I mean, I think it was meant to be, it will triumph . . .

  19. JerseyG
    February 12, 2014 at 2:11 AM

    Maybe had Woody been 27 or 37…but 57? Get a chick closer to your own age, and make sure she ain’t your ex’s adopted daughter. How HARD is that to do?

    Maybe when you look like Woody, it’s pretty hard, but he could pay for it and leave Mia’s kids out of it. And what he did, has NOTHING to do with Mia or what kind of a parent she was or wasn’t or what some nanny said.

    Just shows that he’s got a major screw loose.

    Who does that and isn’t looked at sideways if he were NOT “Woody Allen”?

    • GPM
      February 12, 2014 at 10:52 AM

      “Make sure she ain’t your ex’s adopted daughter. How HARD is that to do?”

      You nailed it, JerseyG!

      • February 12, 2014 at 3:04 PM

        I have a 56-year-old male in-law who recently married a 20-year-old Filipino women, which still bothers me, especially because his sons are older than his wife. His good friend went first to the Philippines to find a wife, and then he followed. For both of their wives, the marriages are not based on love, for sure. There are young women overseas willing to marry middle-aged Americans just so they can enter the U.S. and have an opportunity for a better way of life. You hear of this happening more often now-a-days (mail-order wives).

        That being said, I am trying to get to the facts surrounding the very serious 1992 accusations that Woody molested 7-year-old Dylan, brought back into the headlines by the Farrows beginning in November 2013, which is my focus with this blog, rather than my feelings about Woody starting a relationship in December 1991 with Mia’s 22-year-old adopted daughter.

        A team of experts hired by authorities during a 14-month investigation in both Connecticut (where the original abuse accusations were filed) and New York (where second abuse accusations were filed) concluded that the reports of abuse were unfounded and ruled that no abuse had occurred. Woody was never arrested or charged with any crime [click here to read what Mia's friend has to say about the renewed allegations].

        Agency Drops Abuse Inquiry in Allen Case
        New York Times
        October 26, 1993

        New York State child welfare investigators have dropped their inquiry into the charge that Woody Allen sexually molested his 7-year-old daughter, saying they consider the accusation unfounded.

        The state Department of Social Services informed Mr. Allen in a letter dated Oct. 7 that it had closed the 14-month-old investigation. “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated,” the letter said. “This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded.”

        To Mr. Allen and his allies, the decision was another in a string of small and belated victories in the campaign to restore his reputation. “It should have been done earlier, but it helps in our efforts to convince people that it didn’t happen,” Elkan Abramowitz, Mr. Allen’s lawyer, said yesterday.

        Mr. Allen noted in a statement released yesterday that the latest milestone came seven months after the finding by a team of child abuse investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital that no molestation took place. “Now, the New York State Department of Social Services agrees,” he said, “and still it’s been 15 months since I’ve been allowed to see or speak to my daughter.” Visiting Rights Denied

        Dylan’s mother, Mia Farrow, has said she believes her daughter’s account of what occurred. Ms. Farrow’s lawyer, Eleanor B. Alter, could not be reached yesterday for comment.

        Dylan O. Farrow, now 8, the adopted daughter of Ms. Farrow and Mr. Allen, claimed in August 1992 that Mr. Allen had touched her sexually during a weekend visit to Ms. Farrow’s home in Bridgewater, Conn. New York authorities looked into the charges because Ms. Farrow took her to a doctor in Manhattan.

        Last May, Mr. Allen lost a long and vitriolic trial against Ms. Farrow in State Supreme Court in Manhattan for custody of their three children. The judge in that case denied Mr. Allen, who has not been permitted to see Dylan since the custody dispute began, the right to visit his daughter for at least six months, and possibly much longer.

        A prosecutor in Connecticut said last month that he believed there was “probable cause” to prosecute Mr. Allen, but that he would not do so in part to spare the child the ordeal of a trial. Mr. Allen has filed a complaint with Connecticut officials over the prosecutor’s comments.

        http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/26/nyregion/agency-drops-abuse-inquiry-in-allen-case.html

        False allegation of child sexual abuse:

        A false allegation of child sexual abuse is an accusation that a person committed one or more acts of child sexual abuse when in reality there was no perpetration of abuse by the accused person as alleged. Such accusations can be brought by the alleged victim, or by another person on the alleged victim’s behalf. Studies of child abuse allegations suggest that the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%. Of the allegations determined to be false, only a small portion originated with the child, the studies showed; most false allegations originated with an adult bringing the accusations on behalf of a child, and of those, a large majority occurred in the context of divorce and child-custody battles. They may also have occurred when someone was getting back at someone else, if they get rejected for a promotion (for example) or to cover up an affair in cultures that frown on extramarital sex. There is also indication as with other alleged sex offences that the UK system of paying compensation, (quite substantial), can provide a motive for allegations being made.

        Allegations of sexual abuse can be inherently traumatic when false.[26] People falsely charged with sexual abuse often face numerous problems of their own. The heinous nature of the crime leveled at them often evokes an overwhelming sense of betrayal. In highly publicized cases, the general public has a strong tendency to summarily assume the accused is guilty, leading to very serious social stigma. The accused, even if acquitted, risks being fired from their job, losing their friends and other relationships, having their property vandalized, and being harassed by those believing them to be guilty.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

        How Men Cope With Being Cast as Predators:

        Child abuse has been a nationwide concern since the early 1980’s, both within the governmental structure, and in courtrooms across the country. Everyone agrees that nothing could be worse than a child suffering abuse inflicted upon them by an adult. Unfortunately, due to the lowering of standards in reporting, investigating, and gathering evidence to assist child victims, there has been an increase in cases involving false allegations of child abuse and neglect. This increase is evidenced by national statistics (go to Statistics page) which show that only one third of all cases reported are substantiated.

        Such false cases are primarily due to over-reporting, the lack of proper investigation procedures, the lack of training for those who investigate, and misdirected and biased analysis of the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. Is spite of the legal presumption that anyone accused of a crime is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, in child abuse cases the general presumption by the public is that of guilt. Such a departure from the standard presumption of innocence is largely due to the dogma that was popular belief during the late 1970’s and the 1980’s, which was based on the popular, but sometimes erroneous, belief that “children never lie “. Unfortunately as this belief system infiltrated the training programs of social workers and law enforcement, this bias runs throughout the child protection system. Subsequently, the falsely accused individual faces an uphill battle in proving a negative: that they did not commit the crime of child abuse.

        The falsely accused also faces the full impact of the legal system, and must traverse as many as five different court arenas, often upon one accusation alone. This process is extremely debilitating to the accused, both financially and emotionally, as they face the unlimited resources of the state set up to prove them guilty. Since child abuse is a crime, one may face arrest and criminal trial (go to Criminal Court). If the accuser is a natural child and has involved siblings, even non-abused siblings, the accused may find themselves fighting in an additional court arena, the juvenile court (go to Juvenile Court).

        False accusations occur for the most part in situations where the accused is vulnerable, such as in divorce custody proceedings where one parent comes to believe the behavior pattern of the child is due to abuse rather than separation trauma of divorce. Foster parents are also victims of false accusations, as foster children sometime utilize the allegation to avoid discipline or to be placed in a different home. School teachers, school bus drivers, playground attendants, virtually anyone whose private or professional life puts them in close contact with children are susceptible to false accusations.

        http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/falseaccusation.html#accusations

        What to Do If You Are Falsely Accused of Child Molestation:

        Accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior with a child – whether by a child, a parent or other family member, or a third party – are a very serious matter. Such accusations often lead to criminal investigations and referral to a child welfare or protection agency, and can result in criminal charges against the person being accused, as well as loss of or suspension from employment. The initial response of the person accused can have a significant, permanent impact on this situation.

        Avoid making any statements

        If any person (someone you know personally or a law enforcement officer, investigator with a public agency, or your employer) questions you about or accuses you of inappropriate sexual behavior with a child, try not to answer any questions, make any statements, or engage in any conversation or discussion with the other person until you have consulted an attorney. You can tell the person that you cannot discuss the matter until a later time or until you have consulted with an attorney. Even making a statement of denial can be tricky in this situation if you have not obtained legal advice. If you try to say that you did not touch a child inappropriately, the other person may misinterpret your statement. You also may make a simple statement that seems innocuous, like admitting you talked to a child at a certain time or were alone with a child, only to have the statement used against you at a later time.

        If you are questioned by your employer or a representative of your employer, such as your supervisor, an administrator, or someone from human resources, and you become concerned that you may be fired if you do not respond to the questions on the spot, you will have to use your own judgment and decide whether to proceed without consulting an attorney. This is understandably a very tricky situation, as your employer could turn your statements over to law enforcement or a child welfare department if you respond, but might try to fire you if you do not respond. The one precaution you can take is to contact an attorney as soon as you hear anything – even a rumor – that you are being accused of child molestation.

        Consult with an attorney immediately

        The moment that you learn of accusations that you have had inappropriate contact with a child – even if you hear only rumors – you should contact an attorney for information and advice on what to do. Remember, communication between an attorney and a client is protected by attorney-client privilege, which means that any private conversations with an attorney are confidential and cannot be shared with anyone else or used against you in a criminal proceeding. Besides advising you, an attorney can immediately begin communicating on your behalf with anyone trying to question or contact you about the accusation.

        For example, perhaps you are a teacher and a parent has contacted you and questioned your behavior with his child, or accused you of sexual contact, and told you he intends to contact the school administration. An attorney can contact a school administrator before you are questioned, begin addressing the matter on your behalf, and you will never find yourself in the uncomfortable position of being questioned by a school principal or other administrator without having consulted with an attorney or without an attorney present.

        Important Steps to Take in Addition to Contacting an Attorney

        If you are falsely accused of molestation or other inappropriate sexual behavior with a child, you should also:

        ◘ gather and preserve any physical evidence in your possession that might relate to the alleged victim and your relationship with the victim (clothing, photos, videos, and objects)
        ◘ gather and preserve any documents or records that could relate to the accusations such as letters, emails, records that might show where you were at the time of an incident (if there are allegations of a specific incident and you believe you were not with the alleged victim or at the location at the time of the incident), phone and GPS records, and computer records, and
        ◘ make a list of possible witnesses – any person who you think has information about the accusations, the child, or your relationship with the child – and obtain the witnesses’ contact information.

        You should be prepared to share all of this information and material with an attorney.

        Concerns and Consequences

        The most obvious and serious concern if you are charged with a crime based on false accusations of child molestation is that you could be convicted of the crime. A conviction for sexual contact with or sexual abuse of a minor has serious potential consequences. A defendant could be:

        ◘ sentenced to time in jail or prison, including a potential life sentence in some states
        ◘ placed on probation for an extended period, and
        ◘ required to register as a sex offender.

        In addition to criminal consequences, a person convicted of a child sex crime could:

        ◘ lose employment
        ◘ lose professional licenses such as a license to practice law, medicine, social work, psychology or other professions
        ◘ lose custody of his children (even if the victim was not his child) and be permitted to have only supervised contact with children, and
        ◘ face a civil law suit for damages the victim has suffered.

        Accusations alone, especially if the case draws media attention or other publicity, also can result in serious consequences outside an actual criminal prosecution proceeding.

        http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/falsely-accused-child-molestation

        FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE: WHAT CAN BE DONE:

        Over the past few years I have published several articles about the prevalence of false allegations of sexual abuse in child custody cases. The purpose of these articles has been to heighten the awareness of mental health professions, lawyers, the judiciary and the general public regarding these allegations, and to cite the research regarding how to differentiate true from false allegations of abuse. During this time, however, very little has changed; the same allegations are made in the same way, with more or less the same results.

        The typical scenario goes like this:

        1. There is a dispute of custody or parenting time between the parents, either during the divorce process, or after the divorce has taken place. Child custody/parenting time litigation is set in motion.

        2. An allegation is made—usually by the custodial parent—stating that the child has been physically abused by the other parent.

        http://truthinjustice.org/false-allegations.htm

        The Overeducated Housewife’s thoughts on Woody Allen:

        To be honest, I have a hard time accepting all that has been said and written about Allen wholesale. There are claims that he benefits from being a legendary filmmaker and that as a star, he is immune from the law. While I’m sure that some stars do get special treatment in legal issues, it seems to me that they are also a lot more vulnerable to ruin than regular folks are. If you live your life in the public eye, people know your business and your reputation is everything. Moreover, during the investigation in the 90s, Allen was supposedly very cooperative and even submitted to a polygraph test, which he passed. He was never found guilty of molesting his daughter, even though she insists that he did abuse her sexually.

        Mia Farrow, by contrast, has had a pretty checkered past. She’s been married several times and admitted to being unfaithful to Allen. She has said and done some things that suggest that she’s not particularly stable. In fact, casually looking at Mia, I see signs that she has some pretty serious Cluster B tendencies. Not knowing Mia Farrow personally and not being a licensed mental health professional, I can’t say for certain that Mia Farrow has personality disorders. Given my personal experiences and based on all the informal and formal study I’ve done on Cluster B disorders coupled with what I’ve heard and read about Mia Farrow, I would guess that she suffers from at least a couple. But I want to make it clear that I’m not saying she absolutely does– only that it’s quite possible she does.

        I will confess, part of the reason I am so reluctant to believe all of the allegations against Woody Allen is that I’m married to a man who was once married to someone with Cluster B tendencies. I know for a fact that lies have been told about my husband to his kids. I know his kids were coached to say bad things about their dad, although thankfully, the ex has never accused him of molesting them (at least not to our knowledge). She has, however, accused him of abusing her. Knowing my husband the way I do, I know there is no way that he abused her. The man does not have a mean or abusive bone in his body. This year, we will have been married for twelve years. He’s never even come close to abusing me. He doesn’t even raise his voice to me. And yet, his ex wife initially managed to convince people who have known Bill longer than I have that he’s an abusive monster. She never involved the police, though. For that, we can be very grateful… but her reluctance to involve the law also makes her story even less believable. She would claim it was because she was “scared” and a victim. Yet I witnessed her threats to Bill via emails and phone calls and I saw firsthand how she affected him. When I met Bill, he was terrified of his ex wife. He was not the abuser in their relationship; she was. And from my experience, leopards don’t change their spots without significant professional help.

        I am sure that whatever happened to cause Dylan/Malone and Ronan Farrow so much pain is very real to them. Whether Allen actually molested his daughter or she just believes he did because she was coached to, that pain must be very difficult for Dylan and Ronan to live with. Either scenario is a betrayal by people they should have been able to trust unconditionally. If Allen touched his daughter, he definitely violated her on many levels. But if Farrow falsely led her daughter to believe that Allen touched her, in my book, that’s an even bigger violation. Because using your mutual children as weapons against a former partner is one of the cruelest, most selfish things you can do. Forcing them to grow up “hating” their other parent is vile and despicable, particularly if the targeted parent shares DNA with the child. Allowing your child to grow up falsely believing he or she is an abuse victim and/or the son or daughter of a deviant sets them, and everyone who has a relationship with them, up for trauma. That kind of legacy creates baggage that affects other people, which in turn can have a ripple effect on future generations. That’s why a parent who deliberately lies about the other parent’s abuse is especially wicked.

        Those who think this isn’t a big deal, think about how you would feel if one of your parents despised the other. If your parent hates the person who helped create you, that is an insult that goes very deep and offends the child at their core. The child can’t help who their parents are. DNA matters, if only because it determines what a person will look like, their personality, their talents, likes and dislikes, and so on. Imagine how a child whose mother hates her father feels when mom says, “You act just like your father!”

        A couple of weeks ago, I read a wrenching essay written by a woman whose mother let her know from an early age that her father had abused her. This woman grew up believing that her dad had harmed her, her mother, and her sister. Somehow, she found it in her heart to rekindle a relationship with her father, who divorced her mother when she was six months old. Mom insists that the man was violent and had broken both of her arms. Based on what she wrote in her essay, there was never any actual proof and dad was never violent after the divorce. This woman still believes he was abusive, though, even though his behavior post divorce does not support her mother’s claims. To her credit, she has a relationship with her dad, which pisses off her mom. Though she is now a grown woman, she still struggles with her identity and what it means to be the child of a “violent monster”.

        http://theovereducatedhousewife.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-thoughts-on-woody-allen.html

  20. February 12, 2014 at 8:08 AM

    I found some more information which I included in today’s updated version of this blog post (among some other updates).

    In Woody’s response to Dylan’s open letter, he claimed that Mia enticed one of his former girlfriends, Stacey Nelkin, to testify falsely against him. Nelkin confirmed Woody’s statement during a live conversation with Piers Morgan on February 3, 2014:

    Former girlfriend Stacey Nelkin defends Woody Allen, refutes accusations of child abuse and seductive tendencies
    Piers Morgan Live
    February 3, 2014

    With rumors of Woody Allen’s sexually abusive behavior resurfacing on the heels of an open letter in “The New York Times,” on Monday evening “Piers Morgan Live” welcomed Stacey Nelkin for an exclusive, primetime interview.

    Having dated Allen as a teenager, when she was 35 years his junior, Nelkin remains skeptical of the statements penned by Dylan Farrow, who is alleging to have been molested by her adoptive father as a seven-year-old. To Monday’s guest, the latest claims are simply an extension of the ugly separation between Allen, and Dylan’s adoptive mother, Mia Farrow:

    “These accusations came on the heels of a horrible custody battle, Mia being extremely upset, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and she was hell-bent and determined to destroy something that he loved,” said Nelkin, who insisted her own relationship with Allen was entirely consensual and not corrupt in the least. “Woody loved Dylan. We were in contact at the time, and he would talk about her a lot. He loved the kids that they had adopted together, and she took Dylan away by creating this whole scenario.”

    Since the allegations, Allen has vehemently denied any inappropriate behavior, calling the letter “untrue and disgraceful.”

    Joining Piers Morgan for a live conversation, Nelkin shared details of her own experiences getting caught in between Allen and Farrow, in which the latter’s camp encouraged her to turn on her former lover:

    “[They] asked if I would testify and admit that I was 15 when we dated, and I said ‘no,’ because I was not 15. I was 17, 18 and 19, and to me there’s a big distinction between that, and I think they were looking for the fact that, you know, 15 is jail bait. Seventeen is a very different story,” said Nelkin, who first met Allen on the set of the film “Manhattan.” “I would not go along with that, so I think she was trying to create a pattern of, this is a man who looks for young girls and seduces them unwittingly and that’s not true. I was very, very much willing to be dating him, I was thrilled.”

    Watch the clip for more of Morgan’s interview with Nelkin, and for the next edition of “Piers Morgan Live,” watch CNN every night at 9.

    http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/former-girlfriend-stacey-nelkin-defends-woody-allen-refutes-accusations-of-child-abuse-and-seductive-tendencies/

    The following is a report by the Los Angeles Times in February 1993 (which was before the custody trial and the scathing decision by Judge Wilk against Woody), where a nanny for Mia’s children told Woody’s lawyers that Mia pressured her to support molestation accusations against him.

    Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges
    Los Angeles Times
    February 02, 1993
    JOHN J. GOLDMAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    Lawyers for Woody Allen said Monday that a former nanny who worked for Mia Farrow has testified she was pressured by the actress to support charges that the filmmaker molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter.

    The nanny, Monica Thompson, resigned from the Farrow household on Jan. 25 after being subpoenaed in the bitter custody battle between the actress and Allen. She told Allen’s lawyers in depositions that another baby-sitter and one of the couple’s other adopted children told her they had serious doubts about the molestation accusation.

    Authorities in Connecticut are viewing a videotape made by Farrow as part of their investigation, which has included interviews with Allen and Farrow as well as the daughter, named Dylan.

    Farrow’s attorney, Eleanor Alter, issued a statement Monday saying, “It is my understanding . . . that Ms. Thompson has totally recanted” the statements attributed to her. She noted that Thompson’s salary, upwards of $40,000 a year, was paid by Allen. Thompson could not be reached for comment.

    Thompson said in a deposition that it took the actress two or three days to videotape Dylan making the accusations. At times the youngster appeared not to be interested in the process, the nanny said in sworn affidavits taken by Allen’s attorneys.

    “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,” Thompson said. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?’

    “Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

    Thompson, who had worked for Farrow for seven years, said she was not present in Connecticut the day last August the incident now under scrutiny by authorities allegedly occurred.

    Thompson said the day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, the actress took Dylan to the doctor.

    “When they arrived home, Farrow said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor.’ On Thursday, she took Dylan back to the doctor. When they arrived home, Farrow told me that ‘everything is OK now–everything is set.’ ”

    Thompson told Allen’s lawyers that Farrow, upon returning from the second doctor’s visit, seemed “very happy and excited for herself.”

    Thompson said that the next day Kristie Groteke, Dylan’s baby-sitter, drove her to the bus, and her fellow employee was “very upset.”

    “She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”

    “Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan,” Thompson charged. “For several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.”

    The nanny said that on several occasions the actress “asked me if I would be ‘on her side.’ Ms. Farrow has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.”

    Thompson added that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses, 14, another child Allen and Farrow adopted, indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place.

    “Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Thompson said in an affidavit.

    The bitter custody battle between Allen and Farrow has been under way since last summer.

    In her two affidavits filed with Allen’s lawyers, Thompson painted a less than tranquil portrait of Farrow’s household. She charged that the actress gives her biological children more gifts and possessions and depends on her adopted children “to do all the chores in and around the house.”

    She charged that about three years ago she witnessed Farrow slap Moses across the face because he could not find the dog’s leash.

    “The other children were horrified and told their mother that it could not have been Moses who lost the leash,” the nanny said. “Farrow told the children that it was not their place to comment on the incident. The children were scared of their mother and did not like to confide in her because they were afraid of what her reactions might be.”

    “Since January, Ms. Farrow has suffered dramatic mood swings and had screaming fits about Mr. Allen,” the nanny said in an affidavit taken last August. “These fits of rage were often conducted in front of the children where she would say mean and nasty things about Mr. Allen. All of the pictures of Mr. Allen in their home were destroyed.”

    Allen, 57, and Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, 22, one of Farrow’s adopted daughters from her former marriage to conductor Andre Previn, have acknowledged that they are lovers.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

    Below is Casey Pascal’s story as reported by The Daily Mail on February 12, 2014 (it is probably not a coincidence that Casey, Mia’s “longtime best friend,” comes along to tell “her story” after one of Mia’s sons comes out supporting Woody).

    Casey told The Daily Mail: “I would never have left my children with him” – but she did just that, on August 4, 1992, the day of the alleged molestation – she and Mia went shopping and left the children with Woody and two babysitters (one of the babysitters, Kristie Groteke, was for Mia’s children and the other, Alison Strickland, was for her children).

    Casey also told The Daily Mail that “Mia is ‘suffering terribly’ and ‘horrified’ the allegations have reared up again,” when it was Mia and Ronan who reared this up again – first with the two articles in Vanity Fair (one in October 2013 and the other in November 2013) and then their tweets about it during the Golden Globes in January 2014. Casey is hurting her credibility by making that statement. Plus she is Mia’s childhood friend and hardly an impartial witness (she didn’t actually witness anything – she is repeating what others allegedly told her, which is hearsay). Plus, the article states: “While Ronan, 26, is busy getting his new MSNBC show off the ground, the timing it must be said, could not have been worse” – seems like it couldn’t have been better, actually.

    Casey also told The Daily Mail on February 12, 2014, that it was her babysitter, Alison Strickland, who had reported seeing Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap on August 4, 1992 and that she was later found without underpants. However, Mia’s nanny stated in an deposition in February 1993 that Kristie Groteke, Dylan’s babysitter, told her on August 6, 1992 that “the day Woody spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes, and she did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.” Kristie also told the nanny that she “felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen.” However, Kristie Groteke, who worked for Mia from 1991 to 1993 (the year Woody began his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi until after the custody trial in 1993), testified during the custody trial in March 1993 that on August 4, 1992, she lost track of Dylan and Woody for 15 to 20 minutes; she said she did not inform Mia of this until after Dylan had made the allegation of abuse. After the trial, Groteke authored a nanny’s-eye-view tell-all, “Mia & Woody: Love & Betrayal,” with a writer for People. In 1995, Fox Television produced a miniseries, “Love and Betrayal: The Mia Farrow Story,” based on Kristie Groteke’s book: in the movie, Kristie Groteke played herself.

    ‘It was like walking in on two adults': Friend who first alerted Mia Farrow that Woody Allen had ‘abused’ their daughter reveals her horror that day and his ‘obsession and strange intensity’ with seven-year-old
    By Sara Nathan, The Daily Mail
    February 12, 2014

    ◘ Casey Pascal, Mia Farrow’s childhood friend, speaks out for the first time in detail about Woody Allen’s relationship with adopted daughter Dylan
    ◘ She tells MailOnline her babysitter reported seeing Allen with his head in Dylan’s lap. The little girl was later found without underpants
    ◘ Allen made her so uncomfortable she would never have left her children alone with him, she claims [but she did, on August 4, 1992, the day of the alleged molestation – she and Mia left the children with Woody to go shopping].
    ◘ Mia was so worried about Allen’s behaviour she asked him to seek treatment with a child psychologist BEFORE Dylan’s molestation claims
    ◘ Mia is ‘suffering terribly’ and ‘horrified’ the allegations have reared up again
    ◘ She is devastated after being cut out her adopted son Moses’s life
    ◘ Close friend admits family struggled with Dylan’s decision to speak out – but thoroughly support her
    ◘ Allen was never charged with any crime in connection to Dylan’s allegations, which he has always denied

    The woman who was the whistleblower over shocking claims that Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow today describes the star’s extraordinary ‘obsession’ with the little girl.

    Casey Pascal raised the alarm after her babysitter claimed to see the Oscar-winning director with his head in his seven-year-old daughter’s lap.

    And today she speaks out following a torrid month in which Dylan, now 28, published full details of Allen’s alleged abuse – which was swiftly followed by a furious denial from the star.

    Mother-of-three Casey, who has been close friends with Mia Farrow since childhood, enjoyed lazy summer days in Connecticut with the actress and her brood – but claims she felt so uncomfortable around Allen that she would never have left her own children alone with him.

    Indeed, she says Mia always told babysitters NEVER to leave Dylan and Woody alone together – as the star was at the time in treatment with a child psychologist for his ‘inappropriate behaviour’ with the little girl.

    And in her first-ever length interview, Casey tells MailOnline how Mia is ‘suffering terribly’ and is ‘horrified’ that the allegations, first made more than 20 years ago, have now reared up yet again.

    The actress is also ‘extraordinarily distressed’ that her adopted son Moses has chosen to cut her out of his life and resume a relationship with Allen – while insisting all the while that his sister has made up the claims that have prompted her adoptive father to allege she is a fantasist.

    However, Casey – who shares never-seen before pictures of Mia, Allen and the children – says: ‘Dylan decided she had not been heard and this is her hurt.

    ‘She’s an adult and Mia of course supports and loves her. Mia would do anything for the sake of her children.’

    Her comments come as a close family friend tells MailOnline: ‘The family didn’t instigate Dylan speaking out, in fact they really wrestled with whether it was the right thing to do. On some levels, they are annoyed – but they also understand, somewhat grudgingly, that it’s the right and brave thing to do.’

    And the friend freely admits Dylan was spurred on to speak out after Allen was honoured with the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes last month and given a gushing tribute by long-time pal and co-star Diane Keaton, adding: ‘She was curled up in a ball watching her tormenter be celebrated. It’s not her hidden agenda – it’s her stated agenda.

    It was in full glare of summer, on Tuesday, August 4, 1992, that Casey, now 70, left her children John, Emma and Katherine, with Mia’s children in the care of three nannies while they went shopping locally.

    She had known Mia since their schooldays at a British boarding school in Kingston-upon-Thames and had spent days in the garden of the Connecticut estate with a nervous Allen, who, she said, wore a hat that looked like he was going on safari – and hated the country so much that to appease him, Mia had put special glasses for him in the freezer and had to install a new shower ‘because he was afraid he was going to go down the drain!’

    Mere months had passed since Mia had discovered a set of exceedingly graphic nude Polaroid photos of her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, barely hidden on Woody’s mantelpiece, who was at the time was believed to be either 19 or 21.

    But for the sake of the children, Mia allowed Woody to stay in contact with his son Satchel – now known as Ronan – whose paternity has since been brought into doubt – and his adopted daughter Dylan. However, there remained an ‘atmosphere of hurt’ in the house.

    And she suggested the shopping trip purely, she says, because Allen was on his way over to the Bridgewater home Mia had bought, named Frog Hollow.

    It was while they were out that Casey’s babysitter Alison Strickland walked in on a scene in the TV room that left her reeling.

    Little Dylan was sitting on the sofa, while kneeling before her, with his head in her lap was Woody Allen. Alison would later give testimony in a 1993 court battle, saying Dylan had been ‘sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set’.

    Casey recalls: ‘We took Mia’s baby son Isaiah out with us and went to the store and while we were gone Alison went looking for John and opened a door to a little den off the kitchen and found Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap.

    ‘We came back, not knowing anything about this, we noticed Dylan didn’t have any underwear on and Mia asked one of the girls to help her get some pants on.’

    It was not until later that day, Casey says, that: ‘Alison came to me and said there was something I should know, she said it was the kind of situation where if she had walked in on grown-ups she would have said ‘sorry’ – then she realised there was a very small child involved and she was horrified.

    ‘I had to call Mia and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.

    Calling Alison ‘above reproach’, Casey says, ‘there was never a question of not believing her, she had worked for me since my children were babies’.

    It was a significant tipping point as Woody’s relationship with Dylan had become so intense he had sought treatment for his ‘inappropriate behaviour’ with the little girl, according to Casey.

    ‘It was an on-going concern,’ Casey says: ‘People were concerned about Woody’s behaviour with Dylan. His intensity with the child…he didn’t seem to leave her alone for a second. He was obsessed with the child. Mia had mentioned it to him and he was seeing someone.

    ‘I saw it from the perspective that the children would be involved in a game and he would come and scoop her up and take her away, it was not anything you would consider normal.

    ‘Mia always told baby sitters never to leave Woody and Dylan alone…the child seemed to have no space for herself, he overpowered her. He was gushing over a child who just wanted to be someplace else’

    ‘Mia always told baby sitters never to leave them alone, the child seemed to have no space for herself, he overpowered her.

    ‘She would be going off into her mind in a different space, she would tune out. We knew it was too intense for a little girl.

    ‘I would just take my children home when Woody arrived as there was no more playing with Dylan when he arrived.’

    Pausing, Casey adds: ‘It was such a one-sided relationship. He was gushing attentively over a little child who just wanted to be someplace else.’

    And in a telling statement, she said: ‘I would never have left my children with him.’

    Casey’s phone call to Mia would spark the mother-of-14 to videotape Dylan, who would go on to claim that her adoptive father had molested her in the attic of the house.

    It later transpired that Farrow family’s nanny Kristie Groteke, who had been left with clear instructions not to leave Allen alone with Dylan, had not been able to find them for about 15-20 minutes on the same afternoon the star had been seen with his head in his daughter’s lap.

    In open letter in the New York Times earlier this month, Dylan wrote: ‘He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set.

    ‘Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies.’

    She went on to describe how the award-winning director of ‘Annie Hall’ and ‘Manhattan’ would always find a way to touch her and do things to her she did not like, including sticking his thumb in her mouth, forcing her to get into bed with him and placing his head in her naked lap.

    ‘I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different,’ she said. Allen, 78, has always denied the allegations of sexual abuse against Dylan. He was never charged with, or convicted of, a crime in this case.

    The allegations led to four court battles – a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and Allen was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees.

    On the lead up to the accusations: ‘We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of [Mia Farrow's] malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself.’

    On proving his innocence: ‘I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t.’

    On the legal opinion: ‘A panel of experts found “Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred”.’

    On trying to see Dylan: ‘I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.’

    ‘Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother.’

    On future comment: ‘This piece will be my final word on this entire matter … Enough people have been hurt.’

    Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Mia concluded that there is “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.”

    Indeed, in his his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

    If Casey feels passionately about supporting her friend Mia, it’s only because she has been by her side after she discovered the pictures of Soon-Yi – saying ‘it was shattering’.

    ‘She found the pictures on the mantle in his apartment, he hadn’t even put them away – it was such a public place. The next day she showed me where she had found them and anyone could have seen them,’ she said.

    And dismissing Allen’s claims he had never been close to Soon-Yi before they embarked on an affair, Casey says: ‘He WAS close to her, he chose to say that. They went on vacations to Europe, she was there, she was one of the children.’

    Bizarrely, Casey tells how that summer of 1992 Allen tried desperately to win back Mia, his lover of 12 years.

    ‘He went out of his way to tell her it was all over, he was trying to get her back. Soon-Yi was working at this summer camp and we hear this camp has had to let her go as this man kept calling her – it was Woody,’ she said.

    ‘And this was when he was trying to tell Mia it was a thing of the past.

    ‘It was a whole nasty situation and Woody thought everything should go on as normal, no-one would ever know. Soon-Yi was very vulnerable, she’d never had boyfriends, my feeling is things could not have happened overnight.’

    Casey had also watched as Allen failed to bond with his son Ronan, adding ‘he didn’t seem to express any warm feelings for the child, because he wasn’t a girl’.

    She even recounted a moment when once, by mistake, a young Ronan stuck his finger into Dylan’s eye and Allen shrieked at him ‘how could you do this!’, adding: ‘One time, we were at the hospital when Mia was having a biopsy for a breast cyst , Woody was there with his assistant and never once came near the baby. He didn’t want to hold the baby.’

    Hitting back as these allegations have re-surfaced, Allen insisted in an op-ed in the New York Times at the weekend that he had no doubt that Dylan believed she had been molested – but added: ‘…if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root?’

    He reiterated that it was part of Mia’s attempt for revenge after he started an affair with Soon-Yi – who he has now been married to for 16 years and with whom he has two adopted daughters, claiming she told his sister Letty: ‘He took my daughter, now I’ll take his’.

    Dylan Farrow responded by highlighting a court report that denied Allen access to his daughter in 1992.

    ‘With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case,’ she wrote.

    Farrow claimed the court ‘debunked the “experts” my father claims exonerated him’.

    She said the court found ‘no credible evidence to support Mr Allen’s contention that Ms [Mia] Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge.’

    The court concluded that the evidence ‘proves that Mr Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate’.

    Dylan Farrow added: ‘If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me … I won’t let the truth be buried and I won’t be silenced.

    Writing about Dylan, he said: ‘Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being.

    ‘Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us.’

    However, Casey insists: ‘Mia didn’t place memories in Dylan’s head. We had these video cameras and she was always filming the children, asking them ‘what do you want to be when you grow up? ‘Are you enjoying the summer?’ She turned on the camera so Dylan wouldn’t have to keep repeating herself.

    ‘She took her to the doctor the same day I called her. There was no vindictiveness, just shock and horror. The custody battle didn’t happen until much later.’

    Mia remains devastated after being cut out by Moses, as Casey says: ‘He underwent some sort of personality change….he had a very difficult relationship with his wife and it’s inexplicable, it’s just a mystery to everyone.

    As for Allen, she says: ‘He thinks he’s inscrutable, he seems to know no bounds in pleasing himself and never seemed to realise the impact he had on this family.

    ‘Mia doesn’t feel sorry for herself, she’s just a mother trying to protect her children. She’s horrified – the whole thing has been such a nightmare and to have it rear up again is very hurtful .’

    Today, Dylan is happily married and an artist and writer living in Florida, but her childhood was fraught as Casey recalls a ‘nervous and fragile’ child, who ‘didn’t handle stress well…she’s come such a long way and she’s really done an amazing job of getting through this.

    ‘But she was always afraid that Woody would appear. Mia tried to get rid of him from the family pictures, and Dylan went to college and did everything young women do, she had a wonderful joyous wedding – but this was always hanging over her head and she had to have her say.’

    The family friend added: ‘Dylan’s holding up, it’s very hard for her – what he did in response to her letter was to launch an all-out assault on her credibility.

    ‘This is a credible woman with no history of ever telling lies, no history of fabricating things, who decided on her own to go forward with this story.’

    While Ronan, 26, is busy getting his new MSNBC show off the ground, the timing it must be said, could not have been worse – but the friend said: ‘While Ronan would just as soon never have this mentioned ever again – and there is zero gain for his career in having this out here – he stands by and cares for his sister, her claims are just inescapabaly persuasive.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557270/Mia-Farrows-whistleblower-friend-speaks-reveals-Woody-Allens-obsession-strange-intensity-daughter.html

    The following is Moses Farrow’s interview with People magazine on February 5, 2014 in which he defends Woody.

    Dylan Farrow’s Brother Moses Defends Woody Allen
    By Alicia Dennis, People
    February 5, 2014

    Dylan Farrow’s Feb. 1 open letter to The New York Times detailing sexual molestation she says she suffered at the hands of her father Woody Allen reignited a controversy that has divided their family bitterly for more than 20 years.

    Now her brother Moses Farrow is speaking out to defend Allen – and accuse their mother, Mia Farrow, of poisoning the children against their father.

    “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” Moses, 36, tells PEOPLE in the magazine’s new issue. “And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.”

    A Family Divided

    Moses and Dylan, 28, both adopted by Allen and Farrow, and their brother Ronan, 26, were in the center of a 1993 custody battle in which both sides testified about Allen’s affair with Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen went on to marry in 1997. Farrow was awarded custody of the couple’s three children. (In total, she has 14 kids from her marriages and solo adoptions.) Allen, 78, who was investigated but not charged with molestation, has for decades denied abusing Dylan, maintaining that Farrow, 69, coached Dylan, an accusation Farrow has always denied.

    “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” says Moses, who is estranged from Farrow and many of his siblings and is close to Allen and Soon-Yi. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible.”

    Dylan’s Response

    “This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family,” she tells PEOPLE in response to her brother’s comments. “My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life.”

    “My mother never coached me,” Dylan says. “She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up. In one of the most heartbreaking conversations I have ever had, she sat me down and asked me if I was telling the truth. She said that Dad said he didn’t do anything. and I said, ‘He’s lying.’ ”

    Painful Memories

    Moses accuses Farrow of bullying him as well. “Our mother has misled the public into believing it was a happy household of both biological and adopted children,” he says. “From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do.”

    “I don’t know where he gets this about getting beaten,” counters Dylan. “We were sent to our rooms sometimes.”

    “I will not see my family dragged down like this,” she adds. “I can’t stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me. My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies.”

    Farrow, who declined to respond to Moses’s accusations, Tweeted, “I love my daughter. I will always protect her. A lot of ugliness is going to be aimed at me. But this is not about me, it’s about her truth.”

    Moses, a family therapist, says that his own life has been made better by spending time with Allen.

    “I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her,” he says. “It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father.”

    ‘Horrible Tragedy’

    Allen’s family says that the director is devastated by Dylan’s letter.

    “This is a horrible, horrible tragedy,” Allen’s sister Letty Aronson tells PEOPLE. “He feels very badly for Dylan, that she has been so poisoned by her mother.”

    Dylan, of course, feels very differently.

    “I have a wonderful family,” she says. “We are brave and we are truthful and anyone who says anything otherwise does not know us.”

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20783306,00.html

  21. February 12, 2014 at 8:11 AM

    Mia passed around the naked photos of Soon-Yi to her other children (and who knows who else) – which is definitely twisted and certainly not very motherly.

    From the November 2013 Vanity Fair article by Orth:

    “Priscilla Gilman, Matthew Previn’s [one of Mia's biological children with Andrew Previn] girlfriend in high school and college, was constantly in and out of Mia’s apartment. One day, she recalls, Matthew called her at Yale and said, “ ‘I have to come over. It’s just so horrible.’ He was green, and he fell on my sofa. ‘Woody’s having an affair with Soon-Yi.’ Soon-Yi was the last person I would have thought of,” she says. Matthew showed her the naked photos of Soon-Yi that Mia had found. “They were extremely pornographic—really disturbing.” Gilman says she had always thought Soon-Yi, whom she characterized as the nerd of the family, had a crush on Matthew. “He definitely picked on the most sheltered person,” she continues, referring to Allen. “It took her hours to do her homework; she had a tutor.” Soon-Yi also had trouble bonding. “I remember Matthew saying she’d scratch and spit at him,” says Gilman.”

    It appears Mia and Soon-Yi never really bonded as mother and daughter after her adoption in 1977 at age 7 – her affair with Woody started 14 years later when she was 21 years of age (she was as sophomore in college at the time).

    The following is Soon-Yi’s statement to Newsweek in August 1992, less than a month after Woody was accused of molesting Dylan.

    Soon-Yi Speaks: ‘Let’s Not Get Hysterical’
    Newsweek
    August 30, 1992

    In the cacophony of dueling acrimonies rising from the Woody-Mia imbroglio, the one crucially silent voice thus far has been that of the young woman at the heart of the storm, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, Mia’s Korean-born adopted daughter who has become the new love in Woody Allen’s life. In the following statement given to NEWSWEEK by Allen’s publicist, Soon-Yi finally speaks out for herself.

    “Please don’t try and dramatize my relationship with Woody Allen. He was never any kind of father figure to me. I never had any dealings with him. He rarely came to our apartment before his own children were born. Even then, he never spoke and the truth is I never cared that much for him. He was always preoccupied with work and never talked to me. Not really to any of us. Only when Dylan was born did he start visiting regularly and then only to play with the baby.

    My own father is Andre Previn, who came to visit pretty often and took us all out frequently. When I first got friendly with Woody, he and Mia were finished with their romance and were just friends. I think Mia would have been just as angry if he had taken up with another actress or his secretary.

    Mia was always very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids. They can’t speak freely because they’re still dependent on her. But they could really tell stories and I’m sure one day will. It’s true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof, but I hope she and Woody can somehow head off a custody trial. [Farrow declines to comment on the charges.]

    The business of him molesting Dylan is so ridiculous that I won’t dignify it with a comment. Why Dylan repeats her story is another matter, and a sinister one. I was not surprised that Mia made a videotape of Dylan saying these terrible things as I think the motive is obvious, but I was stunned that the tape would somehow find its way to the TV news.

    I have a terrific relationship with Woody and realize it’s full of dramatic overtones, but it’s really quite simple. It revolves around conversations, film talk, sports talk, books and art. He’s very quiet and hardworking and finds it amazing and ironic that our relationship is of such interest to people.

    I don’t think Mia should go on adopting children and I think that all her adoptions should have been a warning signal to Woody when he met her. I don’t think you can raise 11 (and soon she will have 13) children with sufficient love and care. Take it from one who’s lived through it – it can’t be done. Some of us got neglected, some got smothered. Anyhow, there’s problems.

    I could say many devastating things about Mia, but I will only do it if I must in a court. From the beginning of their conflict, which I know Woody broke his neck to avoid for the kids’ sake, I have refrained from commenting, but when Mia brought up child molestation and then had her sisters and mother and kids and friends parade out in public and do her dirty work for her, climaxing with that tape of Dylan being given out, I felt I had to speak at this point. I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical.

    The tragedy here is that, because of Mia’s vindictiveness, the children must suffer. I will always have a feeling of love for her because of the opportunities she gave me, but it’s hard to forgive much that followed.”

    http://www.newsweek.com/soon-yi-speaks-lets-not-get-hysterical-197958

    In October 2013, Ronan landed his own daytime show on MSNBC, which will debut on February 24, 2014 – according to Michael Wolff of the Guardian, “Ronan has been promised a grateful MSNBC that his public fight with Woody is far from over.” Wolff also wrote: “Weide, who made the 2012 PBS American Masters documentary about Allen, followed up with his close analysis of exactly what happened in 1992. It’s quite a demolition job on the Vanity Fair piece, deconstructing timeline, opportunity and circumstance. What’s more, it paints a far more complicated picture of Mia from the one she has curated about herself, including that her brother is in jail for child molestation and that her son, Moses, no longer speaks to her and accuses her of ‘brainwashing’.”

    The following is the article from Michael Wolff of the Guardian on February 3, 2014.

    The Woody Allen – Dylan Farrow case: media spin for the Farrow family?
    The debate over Allen’s alleged abuse of Dylan played out in the media two decades ago. Very curious how it’s back again
    By Michael Wolff, The Guardian
    February 3, 2014

    Nicholas Kristof, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has a singular subject: sexual slavery. It’s his passion. Pursuing it is his virtue. He sees himself as an avenger, and he’s become an instrument for sexual victims.

    As he explains in his latest column, he has been recruited by 28-year-old Dylan Farrow’s mother, Mia Farrow, and brother, Ronan. Kristof and the Farrows have become close allies and friends through their involvement in the relief efforts in Darfur. He has written glowingly about Mia before, and they have traveled to Africa together. (Roger Friedman offers further details about their relationship.)

    He is now the public conduit for a letter Dylan Farrow has written about her 21-year-old memory of a sexual assault by her adopted father, Woody Allen, then Farrow’s boyfriend. These are allegations that received massive media coverage in 1992, allegations for which Allen was exonerated. Kristof says Allen should be presumed innocent, but then says:

    When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?

    (Allen is of course lionized for his films and not for being a molester, as Kristof wink-wink implies.)

    Kristof is both publisher of the renewed allegations – reproducing Dylan Farrow’s letter in full on his New York Times blog – and promoter, acting as her advocate in his regular op-ed column.

    He offers no context – Dylan Farrow isn’t terribly different from Kristof’s Darfur victims – nor background, nor sifting of alternative views in what is a situation of operatic betrayal and recrimination. Dylan Farrow is, in her letter, a convincing victim, which means there must be a victimizer.

    Kristof does not explain that his column counters a detailed and powerful rebuttal by documentary film maker Robert Weide of the recent spate of tweets and innuendo from Mia and Ronan Farrow. Weide’s piece was posted last week on the Daily Beast and has had a fast-growing social media life.

    Indeed, the larger context for this rehashed scandal is not a pattern of abuse or the ongoing dysfunctions of a celebrated family but rather the demands of a publicity rollout. Twenty-one years after the event – all parties long quiet – a story is revived. It is an old scandal for a new generation.

    The impetus seems to be to establish Mia Farrow as a celebrity activist worthy of the world stage, and, as well, to launch a public career for her son Ronan.

    The campaign began in the November issue of Vanity Fair in a profile of Mia Farrow by Maureen Orth, an acquaintance (Orth is the widow of NBC’s Tim Russert), in which Farrow offered the headline grabber that Frank Sinatra, rather than Woody Allen, might be Ronan’s father. In a demonstration of Farrow’s famous media acumen, that’s all she said, Sinatra “might” be – worldwide titillation followed.

    The terms of the article would have been negotiated beforehand [see footnote]. Mia Farrow is, at this point in her career, not a Vanity Fair worthy subject. Hence, in return for laudatory press coverage of her charitable work, and near sycophantic treatment of her yet-to-be-employed son, she would have had to agree to revisit her legendary scandal. That, and then some. The price of publicity for her and Ronan was, in effect, Allen.

    It’s an agit-prop piece. Orth wrote Vanity Fair’s 1992 piece about Woody’s break-up with Mia, his relationship with Mia’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi (his future wife), and Mia’s charges of his sexual abuse of Dylan – it is practically speaking the same piece now.

    It’s unremitting and unequivocal. Mia – good, great, noble. Woody – evil, duplicitous, dangerous.

    Neither the other Mia of many reports, hungry for press and out for revenge, nor the long-married Allen with teenage daughters, steadily doing his work, are present here.

    The Vanity Fair piece effectively launched Ronan. Overnight he went from unknown to celebrity, shortly hired by MSNBC. Two weeks ago, he was given a permanent spot on the cable news network’s schedule. He has, I am reliably told, promised a grateful MSNBC that his public fight with Allen is far from over.

    Several weeks ago, during the Golden Globe Awards where Allen was given a lifetime achievement award, Mia tweeted her displeasure, and then Ronan, upped the ante, and tweeted more pointedly about the 21-year-old molestation charge.

    Then last week in the Daily Beast, Weide, who made the 2012 PBS American Masters documentary about Allen, followed up with his close analysis of exactly what happened in 1992. It’s quite a demolition job on the Vanity Fair piece, deconstructing timeline, opportunity, and circumstance. What’s more, it paints a far more complicated picture of Mia from the one she has curated about herself, including that her brother is in jail for child molestation – Mia’s own family is a horribly dysfunctional one – and that her son, Moses, no longer speaks to her and accuses her of “brainwashing”.

    The stakes were raised, in other words.

    Hence, Mia enlists her good friend Kristof to provide a forum for Dylan Farrow’s letter. Kristof says it is the first time Dylan Farrow has spoken, but, in fact, that’s what Vanity Fair said three months ago, when Dylan spoke to Orth. But this time, Dylan appears in open-letter form – in her own voice. It’s a riveting and astute piece of writing – a study in artful composition. It is a 28-year-old’s absolute memory of being a seven-year-old. Some of this she recalled for the Vanity Fair piece. But there are now many new details.

    On Saturday night, shortly after the letter’s release, Lena Dunham, in the midst of on her own massive media rollout for the third season of HBO’s Girls, began tweeting her support for Dylan Farrow – who, one might assume, she knows only on the basis of this letter, moved by its striking language and detailed memories, rather than any outside facts. (Dunham, a child at the time of the scandal, was joined in something of a Twitter-wide celebration among other young women of the unknown but suddenly famous Dylan.) Or perhaps, she knows of Dylan directly from Mia, who added a Girl’s promo to her Golden Globe tweet – “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS” – when Allen’s award came up.

    If you tweet for me; I’ll tweet for you.

    It is a story of interlocking media deals and cultivated media cronies. Everybody is at work here. Everybody is someone else’s instrument. Everybody is promoting something. Two decades have passed but the Allen-Farrow betrayal, break-up, and molestation charges are somehow, all of a sudden, as vivid as yesterday.

    Here’s a certainty: When you play out your personal dramas, hurt and self-interest in the media, it’s a confection. You say what you have to say in the way you have to say it to give it media currency – and that’s always far from the truth. Often, in fact, someone else says it for you. It’s all planned. It’s all rehearsed. This is craft. This is strategy. This is manipulation. This is spin.

    • This article was amended on 10 February 2014. The earlier version described Maureen Orth as “a long-time friend”. This has been corrected. In addition Vanity Fair has issued the following statement: “The Vanity Fair piece was at Orth’s instigation and there was no quid pro quo of any kind, No ‘terms of the article’, as Michael Wolff alleges, were negotiated beforehand. Had Wolff bothered to contact Maureen Orth or Vanity Fair he would have learned that his cynical presumption of ‘interlocking media deals and cultivated media cronies’ was utterly false.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-abuse-allegations

    The following is an article from Variety about Ronan’s time slot for his new show on MSNBC.

    MSNBC, Ratings Challenge Looms Ronan Farrow
    Variety
    January 31, 2014

    Soon-to-be MSNBC anchor Ronan Farrow has had no trouble courting attention off the air. But how will he fare when he gets behind the desk starting February 24?

    The Rhodes Scholar, one-time Obama foreign policy official and child of celebrities has cut quite a swath through media-obsessed pop culture since the NBCUniversal-owned cable outlet announced in October it was developing a program with him at the center. Indeed, even without a program on the air, Farrow is slated to appear this evening on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

    When he returns and gets down to the business of broadcasting regularly, however, Farrow may find he’s in for a challenge. MSNBC has been finishing third in his 1 p.m. time slot to Fox News Channel and CNN for months.

    According to Nielsen, the current resident of that time slot, “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” has seen its ratings slump, in both total viewers and audience in the demographic most coveted by advertisers in news programming, people between 25 and 54. A spokeswoman for MSNBC did not respond to an email query seeking comment on ratings competition and plans for Farrow’’s program.

    Farrow would appear to be one of MSNBC’s brightest hopes. His pedigree and past experience make him instantly interesting. His background has drawn the interest of The New York Times Magazine, and he recently made an appearance on NBC’s “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, told the Times Magazine that he came across Farrow on Twitter, and was quickly drawn to him. Griffin said he “loved the way [Farrow] talked about things.” After meeting for a talk, said Griffin, “Within 20 minutes I wanted to hire him” adding, “He’s got it.

    The question is whether Farrow’s intelligence and charisma can help turn the time-slot tide.

    For the bulk of January of last year, for example, “Andrea Mitchell Reports” duked it out with CNN while losing to Fox News. According to Nielsen, the show captured an average of 511,000 viewers overall and an average of 150,000 in the 25-54 demo. In the same month, Fox News Channel attracted an average of 1.16 million overall and 231,000 in the demo, while CNN notched an average of 527,000 overall and 124,000 in the demo.

    Since that time, however, MSNBC’s 1 p.m. ratings have tumbled. For the bulk of December, “Andrea Mitchell Reports” won an average of 289,000 viewers and 86,000 in the demo. Fox News Channel lured an average of 1.11 million overall and 206,000 in the demo, while CNN secured an average of 361,000 overall and 99,000 among viewers between 25 and 54.

    In January to date, Fox News Channel has held sway, luring an average of nearly 1.2 million overall viewers to its “America’s News Headquarters,” anchored by Alisyn Camerota and Bill Hemmer, along with an average of 232,000 in the 25-to-54 demo. CNN has attracted an average of 399,000 to its “CNN Newsroom” along with an average of 110,000 in the 25-to-54 demo. Meanwhile, MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” has attracted an average of 315,000 overall viewers and an average of 98,000 in the 25-to-54 demo.

    Mitchell’s show is being shifted to noon, where it will compete with a new CNN berth for Ashleigh Banfield and Fox News’ “Happening Now,” hosted by Jenna Lee and Jon Scott.

    When Farrow takes the anchor chair, he will find himself vying with Fox News’ Camerota and Hemmer as well as CNN veteran Wolf Blitzer, who is hosting “Wolf” in the 1 p.m. hour. As always, the ratings will likely tell the tale.

    http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/at-msnbc-ratings-challenge-looms-for-ronan-farrow-1201080128/

    • LifeIsGood
      February 12, 2014 at 12:42 PM

      I agree with you about Mia’s decision to show the photos to anyone else, let alone Soon-Yi’s sibs-that is disturbed. Her first instinct should have been to protect her. But I am more disturbed that the photos exist at all. I think Mia handled things badly. But I also think woody has used this to deflect from his own sickening actions.

      Great blog, as always Fame.

  22. meri4911
    February 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM

    Hello Famely… I’ve been reading but haven’t found much time to comment. The only thing worse than a pedophile is when someone is viciously accused of being a pediphile when they are not. Either scenario ruins lives. The truth is, only Woody Allen and Dylan know the truth… Well as many pointed out at this juncture perhaps Dylan doesn’t know the truth. Either way, I wouldn’t want to take sides, but it appears there are many issues with both parents. Bad things definately happened to those children. The whole story is really just tragic for the kids involved. It seems quite ridiculous that anyone would be allowed to adopt so many children without some sort of checks and balances to make sure the welfare of the children was being taking into account. I am guessing since Mia Farrow was famous and wealthy, it was deemed a wonderful thing that she would take these children in. But money and fame certainly doesn’t mean someone has the skill set to love and nourish. But why bring it up now? It certainly can’t be something Dylan wants to relive. If it is all so the brother can gain more fame… That is just disgusting. Everything about this family or families is tragic.

    • Detroitrockcity
      February 13, 2014 at 12:01 PM

      Sick and twisted people, we should not even give them our time or breath!! I have been a child of abuse,they are both to blame! He is a creep and she is a fruitcake!! Makes me sick to hear about this again!! I hope they all pay for how they fucked up their kids!! Someday they will met their match!! Suffer no more little babys!!; /

      • Detroitrockcity
        February 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM

        Sorry for cussing, it just hurts my heart to see this all brought up again!? Its like facing my demons all over :( I hope they can find peace somehow? But how do you really??: (

        • Detroitrockcity
          February 13, 2014 at 1:06 PM

          My story is very long and sorted? Someday maybe I can share it with you? But I know what its like,the pain just doesn’t fade away,its like consant thing, proding at you?! My suffering has been long and never justified! So I carry on but I always carry that with me,in my own quite place no one speaks of

  23. March 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM

    Book critic accuses Dylan Farrow of just ‘calling attention to herself’ by rehashing allegations that Woody Allen molested her

    ◘ Book critic Janet Maslin says Dylan Farrow felt overshadowed by her brother Ronan, which prompted her to write an op-ed accusing Woody Allen of molesting her
    ◘ Maslin says Farrow was jealous that Ronan got more publicity from a Vanity Fair article than she did when their mother revealed that Frank Sinatra might be his father
    ◘ Maslin also criticizes columnist Nick Kristof – a friend of the Farrows – for publishing Farrow’s letter after the Times had previously rejected it

    By Daily Mail Reporter
    February 22, 2014

    A New York Times book critic is facing criticism over comments she made about the op-ed written by Dylan Farrow that accuses her one-time adoptive father, Woody Allen, of molesting her.

    Of Farrow’s ‘open letter’ – which was published in the New York Times earlier this month – Times book critic Janet Maslin says Farrow used it as a way of ‘calling attention to herself’ after having some ‘sibling rivalry issues’ with her brother Ronan Farrow.

    Maslin made her comments during a panel discussion Friday night at the Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville, New York, in the middle of a conversation about the Academy Awards with writer Mark Harris.

    Maslin and Harris were discussing Cate Blanchett’s role in Allen’s film Blue Jasmine when Maslin brought up ‘Woody Allen’s private life’ while discussing whether Blanchett would win an Oscar for her role in the film.

    ‘The fact that our newspaper allowed it to appear in an op-ed column, I mean the Public Editor took issue with this, but I think that was an outrageous use of an op-ed column,’ Maslin said, accoding to Gawker.com. ‘This letter was sent to the newspaper, and the newspaper decided not to print it, and so did the L.A. Times, and then all of a sudden…’

    Harris then interrupted in order to clarify, asking ‘by the letter, you mean the Dylan Farrow piece that became an op-ed was originally sent as a letter?’

    ‘And the Times rejected, and then a columnist who is a friend of the family, decided to run it in his column, and those columnists have a lot of freedom in what they can put into columns, but I think that was a really questionable use of that space. Anyway. Does that have anything to do with this movie? I don’t think it really does,’ Maslin continued.

    The columnist to whom Maslin is referring is Pulitzer Prize-winner Nick Kristof, who is a friend of the Farrow family.

    Maslin said ‘a friend very close to the story’ told her that Dylan Farrow was jealous of the attention Ronan Farrow received when Mia Farrow suggested during an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that Frank Sinatra might be the father of the blue-eyed Ronan, and not Allen, who was always presumed to be the boy’s father – Mia Farrow was once married to the singer and continued a relationship with him even as she was dating Allen.

    ‘One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece, that one that ran a few months ago, was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be “Dylan Farrow Speaks Out” and what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, “Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son,”‘ Maslin said. ‘And Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself.’

    ‘Of all the things that have been parsed by total strangers about what went on in that family,’ Maslin continued, ‘no one has ever dared to consider the sibling rivalry issues in there. It’s just too much to think about.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565712/NY-Times-book-critic-accuses-Dylan-Farrow-calling-attention-rehashing-allegations-Woody-Allen-molested-her.html

  24. March 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM

    Did Mia Farrow ever appear on 60 Minutes to testify?
    by vnisanian2001
    Mar 16 2014

    If you watch Woody’s 60 Minutes interview in 1992, it ends with the presenter saying that they have invited Mia Farrow to give her side of the story.

    The question is, did she ever actually appear on the show to do so?

    Re: Did Mia Farrow ever appear on 60 Minutes to testify?
    by romancingthegutter
    Mar 16 2014

    No she didn’t. And I wouldn’t call an appearance on “60 Minutes” testifying either.

    Mia has never given interviews to anyone [other than Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair] since they would be capable of asking hard hitting questions. She rarely does interviews, and when she does they’re total softball. Even though she still manages to damn herself in doing so by making statements which will later contradict herself.

    Do you know how many times Mia has ever been asked those kinds of questions by a reporter? Or for that matter even addressed them directly and in detail in a prepared statement of any kind? The answer is on your keyboard to the right of the 9.

    60 Minutes asked specific details – Woody allowed the questions to be asked in the first place and didn’t put any restrictions on them. Asking about touching your child’s private parts or quoting accusations from Orth’s Vanity Fair article about Dylan sucking his thumb and being in bed with Woody while he was still in his underpants are direct, hard questions that don’t skirt the issue or hide behind generalities.

    Woody was under absolutely no obligation at all then or afterwards to answer any questions about the allegations since they are just that – allegations. He was never charged with anything, much less convicted of anything.

    A journalist playing “hardball” is one who asks direct questions without mincing details or fogging the question in generalities meant to dull the effect of what they’re really asking in hopes to get the subject to talk further on the matter. Asking Woody if he molested his 7 year old daughter and asking him point blank if specific instances of alleged inappropriate behaviour is doing *exactly* that.

    Mia has avoided any questioning about her allegations against Woody completely [other than Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth] for the past 21 years. Woody has responded directly and not put any limitations on such questions when he’s been asked. Woody was not charged with anything, therefore shouldn’t have to answer to further questioning on this from anyone if he doesn’t want to. Mia, who made the allegations, should be accountable for what she says but has made sure she has never been in the position to be. If you make a public claim, then you should be accountable to the public for it.

    Mia made accusations in public but has never been accountable to her public statements to the public. If she had made her accusations in private, she has every right not to address them in public. But she didn’t, therefore can and should be accountable for what she said, especially considering the severity of what was said.

    Judge Wilk and the 5 judges on the appeal were ruling on the custody battle that Woody launched in a vein attempt to get the kids away from Mia that was done out of respect to the children’s potential future perspective on his love and commitment to them. He wasn’t going to win. Constantly citing those rulings is *NOT* citing a ruling on the allegations, which never made it past being just that – allegations.

    Dylan’s letter and Vanity Fair article comments revived interest in the allegations to a new generation ignorant of the history, but the letter contained nothing that wasn’t previously said. Nothing has changed, and every troll who thinks that, for whatever reason, despite two decades worth of unchanging history working against them, they can come here and try to relentlessly argue with Woody fans – to what end and accomplishment, I don’t know. You tell me, as clearly that’s all you’re here to do, so you have a better idea of what in the world you think you’re going to accomplish by all of this.

    Mia made a public accusation and won’t account for it in public.

    Woody is the recipient of an unproven allegation. He isn’t obligated to have to be accountable to a lie told about him. The person making the allegation should be the one made to defend making an allegation in public in the first place – and why it is being made in public and not the courts.

    Re: Did Mia Farrow ever appear on 60 Minutes to testify?
    by vnisanian2001
    Mar 16 2014

    Then she is a coward. Plain and simple.

    Re: Did Mia Farrow ever appear on 60 Minutes to testify?
    by romancingthegutter
    Mar 16 2014

    She is far too daring to be a coward, but I would suggest that she is calculating. In 21 years she has never put herself in the position to be asked any questions she wouldn’t want to answer.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/board/thread/227171603

    Re: Twelve Questions For Woody Allen:
    by romancingthegutter
    Mar 5 201

    The first thing he immediately did was file for sole custody of his children for no other reason than to protect them from being raised by someone with obvious mental problems. He knew the consequences of going to court over it, what he would have to endure in the press, the court of public opinion and in the eyes of some of his friends and former friends, as well as jeopardizing his ***entire career*** over it. But he did it because he said he couldn’t live with himself if he didn’t try. He also knew it was highly unlikely he would win because the children never lived with him in the first place, nor was he ever married to Mia.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/board/thread/226699815

    Re: 20 Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation
    by romancingthegutter
    Feb 28 2014

    #14 is slightly incorrect. Husbands & Wives was already completed. That is being confused with Mia finding out about the Soon Yi affair while still shooting H&W. They shot (and reshoot) scenes after Mia had learned of the affair and was calling Woody late at night to threaten his life. First scene shot afterwards was, as luck would have it, the break up scene.

    After the allegations were made, Mia still continued to contact Woody as if nothing was wrong and she was going to be in the next film. Woody repeatedly told her no, that the “deal” was completely off the table and that she was not going to appear in any of his films at all. She still showed up for the first day of shooting on Manhattan Murder Mystery.

    There are several things that could be added to this though, especially 2000s / 2010s material, still ongoing.

    – 2004-2005-ish – Moses Farrow begins re-establishing a relationship with Woody and Soon Yi, ends contact with Mia and Farrow family after questioning of allegations and treatment of Woody’s name in the household the past 10 years proves be futile and disturbing.

    – 2000 – 2005 – Mia gives the occasional interview in which, as always, the Woody-Soon Yi affair is brought up, occasionally the Dylan allegations are brought up. Mia’s response is that she regrets having written so much about the Woody situation in her book and that the “whole thing” should’ve just been relegated to “a couple of paragraphs”. She notes that while she “rues the day” she met him, she does not regret working with him and remains proud of the work they did together. She says that her family has “moved on” and it isn’t an issue any longer in their household.

    – 2009 Lark Previn dies. Woody and Soon Yi call Mia to offer condolences, which she accepts. *Rumor* has it, (*rumor*) they continued to speak periodically on the phone. Mia was prone to 1992-esque flip flopping from calm, considerate and collected to being crazy and unpredictable.

    – Mia is asked for and gives consent to Robert Weide to use film clips she appears in Woody Allen: A Documentary. She declines to be interviewed for the documentary.

    – 2010 – 2011 – Woody supposedly / allegedly uses this experience with Mia and her denial as the basis for Jasmine in Blue Jasmine. Writes a depiction of a woman concerned with her elegant, dignified and refined persona but who is prone to shocking bouts of delusion, paranoia and anger. The film is shot and released to great critical acclaim and grosses over $100 million in global box office.

    – Vanity Fair article planned in summer with Maureen Orth, she of the horribly slanted Vanity Fair 1992 article. Dylan appears in the press to remake the allegations, which is mostly buried by Mia’s claim that Ronan could “possibly” be Frank Sinatra’s son. Old allegations made by Dylan are buried in the press. Entire family is quoted in the article, except Moses Farrow, who is only alluded to in the past tense

    – Woody is to be given the Cecile B DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award. He “accepts” the award so long as he doesn’t have to be there to get it.

    – Mia is asked for and gives permission to use film clips that show her in the montage Weide helps to edit (with Woody’s input) to be screened for the Cecile B DeMille award presentation.

    – Ronan and Mia tweet the night of the award presentation about Dylan’s allegations, linking to the now several months old Vanity Fair article online.

    – Small to Medium sized Media Circus ensues around the allegations, many news stories repeating the allegations out of context and with no reference to the history behind them.

    – The DailyMail attempts to contact Dylan/Malone about the tweets digging up her Vanity Fair comments. Her husband replies on her behalf that Dylan is aware of the tweets but has said her piece in the Vanity Fair and has nothing further to add.

    – Robert Weide writes an article for The Daily Beast outlining the history of the allegations, the context in which Mia and Ronan’s tweets were made on the night of the awards show and some of the hypocrisy involved in those tweets, especially Mia’s, by outlining her hypocritical history in detail. Moses Farrow is quoted for the first time in the press on the matter, revealing how he had quietly re-established a relationship with Woody and Soon Yi and what was really going on at Frog Hollow with Mia for the past 20 years.

    – Weide’s article goes viral and begins to quell media circus surrounding allegations.

    – Days later after Weide’s article is published online, Dylan’s “Open Letter” begins to be shopped to a variety of news agencies, all of whom refuse to publish it.

    – Dylan’s “Open Letter” is published by Farrow family friend (and rumoured Mia boyfriend) Nick Kristoff on his NYTimes blog without gaining permission from the NYTimes editorial staff, who had already rejected the Open Letter. Kristoff posts the well composed letter without any added context or history of the allegations at all. He posts his comments on the article separately while also avoiding too many details about the allegations’ history and makes passing reference to the fact that these are only allegations and were never even brought before a court. Massive Media Firestorm ensues.

    – Moses Farrow speaks out further in more detail to the press to defend Woody in People Magazine. Moses points out he was there the day in question and Woody and Dylan did not go missing for 10 minutes as one nanny had suggested, which was the basis of the allegations. He attributes Dylan’s allegations to decades of living with Mia and never questioning her mother on the matter.

    – Dylan is allowed to respond in the People article, being interviewed for the first time. She apparently cries excessively in the interview and has a difficult time controlling her emotions. She speaks completely different than the words published in both her Open Letter and Vanity Fair and is prone to extreme exaggeration. She calls her cerebral palsy brother “evil” and says that he is “dead to me” – the same brother Ronan had vaunted as being a primary inspiration while growing up watching his older brother overcome his disabilities to achieve accomplishments in life. Dylan’s additional comments in response are now directed at Moses, not Woody.

    – Mia tweets about the allegations for the first time since Dylan’s letter was posted online saying only “This is not about me, it’s about her truth.” (note wording about it being “her” truth, not “the” truth – take that as you will). Ronan’s only tweet about it is to say he loves and supports his sister no matter what. Mia’s only other tweet in response to the firestorm is a late night, one word tweet in response to a young woman asking her questions about her brother’s arrest for molesting children and how she could have let her children be around that man while growing up and saying nothing about it since the arrest. The young lady asked if she should stop being a Woody fan – Mia tweeted “Never” in reply, to the shock of the young lady in question. By 8am the next morning Mia’s one word tweet response was deleted.

    – Woody is said to be asking for his response to be published on the NYTimes Op-Ed pages online as Dylan’s letter had. It is confirmed that Woody’s response will be published.

    – Hours before Woody’s response is posted online, Maureen Orth’s “10 Undeniable Facts” “article” is posted on the Vanity Fair website. All points are definitely “deniable” as Orth, as usual, doesn’t include certain parts of each “fact” and disregards other contradicting facts all together as if they don’t exist.

    – Woody’s response is published.

    – Within the hour after Woody’s response is published, The Hollywood Reporter posts Dylan’s response to Woody’s response on their website. Dylan’s response reads alarmingly like Maureen Orth’s article from earlier in the day, beginning to beg the notion that Orth is writing Dylan’s prepared comments and not Dylan herself.

    – Media Firestorm begins to subside when everyone realizes this never went to court in the first place, there is no evidence Woody ever did anything and that this is very old news.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/board/thread/226532410

    by PrometheusTree64
    Feb 3 2014

    Mia is also disrespecting legitimate victims of molestation by using such a plutonium-laced allegation against an ex-lover and by brainwashing her daughter (even into adulthood) to helping her make the charge.

    And her son, Moses, has verified the sick environment of the Mia Farrow household and how she “brainwashes” the kids.

    The best way to create an unthinking mob-psychology dynamic is to scream “baby raper!” and then make others feels like it’s too politically incorrect to question the accusations (e.g., and you’re a molester, too!)

    “You would think any mother would be relieved that a three-member panel, two of them women, found that her daughter had not been molested,” Allen said. “But so deep is her venom that she actually sees this as a loss. That is terribly sad. She knows I never molested Dylan.”

    Re Mia:- “her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter.” [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html]

    by PrenzlauerBerg02
    Feb 3 2014

    I think that Mia Farrow got worked up into such a huge rage over the Soon-Yi thing that she still hasn’t got over it to this day. Which is a shame because though what happened between Allen and Soon-Yi wasn’t admirable, it wasn’t illegal either and they are still together.

    I truly can’t see what good could come out for bringing this whole issue back after so many years. Woody must be held innocent until proven guilty, and if anything actually happened there’s nothing to be done about it anymore so we can only hope that Dylan Farrow finds some good shrink and can move on with her life.

    But it’s especially hard to believe that the molesting would have taken place in the middle of the Soon-Yi scandal… it isn’t much of a stretch to say that Mia Farrow made the accusation up at a time when she hated Allen so much.

    Seems like a really stupid publicity stunt at this point.

  25. March 10, 2014 at 5:27 AM

    by: Bird reply 54 02/22/2014 @ 06:36PM

    I had a friend who taught English in the eighties and very early nineties at a private school in Manhattan where Mia sent many of her children. At the time, before the Soon-Yi affair occurred, my friend told me that the Farrow-Previn family dynamic was strange and sometimes disturbing. She said that the adopted girls were treated like second-class members of the family who, along with one of Mia’s younger sisters (Stephanie, I think), pretty much spent their lives taking care of their younger adopted siblings as well as Mia’s natural-born sons, whom Mia regarded as princes and her only true children. Though she adopted the girls, Mia very rarely concerned herself with their school life; Mia’s sister came to all the parent-teacher conferences during the decade my friend taught there. According to my friend, she heard from classmates of the adopted children that Mia never stopped reminding them how lucky they were to have been taken in by her and, once or twice in a heated moment, how she could send them back whenever she wanted.

    http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=13641729#page:showThread,13641729,3

    by: Anonymous reply 77 02/26/2014 @ 01:37AM

    I did read the judge’s decision and it does not support your contention that Allen was in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan.

    The only thing close to what you assert is a remark by 18-month-old Satchel’s therapist, Dr. Coates, who was asked to evaluate whether 4-and-a-half-year-old Dylan needed therapy. [What a fucking mess of a family]

    She stated that in the course of her evaluation of Dylan she “worked with” Allen to get him to understand that his behavior with Dylan was “inappropriate” which she said was not sexual, but demanded too much attention from Dylan. Allen was not in therapy with Dr. Coates, and an evaluation is a short-term process.

    [Frankly--I wonder if it is even ethical for these doctors to be milking these insane parents for their toddler's psychotherapy, and I wouldn't pay much attention to anything these charlatans said to the parents.]

    What the record does show is that Farrow pressured Allen, then 57 and childless, to have a child. He resisted at first, but ultimately agreed to try, but she could not get pregnant. Against Allen’s wishes, Farrow then adopts Dylan. Allen is surprised to find that he does develop a close relationship with the baby.

    When Farrow, wanted a second child with Allen, he readily agreed since he had enjoyed fatherhood. They decided to adopt another child, but before that could happen, Farrow became pregnant with Satchel.

    The 1987 Satchel pregnancy is when things started to head south. Allen did not show an interest in the pregnancy and Farrow withdrew from him. After Satchel’s birth, Farrow withdrew even farther from Allen and devoted all her attention to the boy, paying less attention to Dylan. [All consistent with the possibility that the boy was the result of infidelity with Sinatra, which Farrow now acknowledges.]

    Allen compensates for Farrow’s withdrawal of attention from Dylan by becoming especially close with Dylan. This enraged Farrow, who accused him of looking at Dylan (then 2) in a sexual way, and of excluding Moses (not his child) and Satchel (quite possibly the product of his partner’s infidelity with another man).

    By 1991, with both Dylan and Satchel in therapy, Farrow wants to adopt another child. Allen agrees on the condition that she allows him to adopt Dylan and Moses because Farrow is becoming more and more remote from him and he fears she will otherwise cut off all his access to them. Farrow agrees.

    That fall, Soon-Yi Previn begins college and has a difficult time, turning to Allen for support. They begin a relationship that continues to this day. [The record notes that Farrow alleges the relationship with Soon-Yi began before Allen adopted Dylan and Moses, which he denies.]

    The stage is set for the accusation.

    http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=13641729#page:showThread,13641729,4

    by: Anonymous reply 78 02/26/2014 @ 01:55AM

    Mia knew that Woody was fucking Dianne Wiest on the side (and other women as well – for years). She knew that she was losing him, she’d known for a long time. She desperately tried to hold on by using the children. It’s why she pushed him into adopting with her and having Ronan with her in the first place.

    As the relationship continued to deteriorate, she began guilt tripping Woody about his inept parenting of Dylan. She insisted to the analysis-devotee Allen that he needed to see a shrink about it. At the time it kept him tied to her and to the children, especially to his favorite – Dylan. Later, she used it against him in the custody fight and the abuse allegations. It bolstered her accusations when she’d actually created and manipulated the entire thing.

    Mia wanted to continue her relationship with Woody AFTER she found out about his affair with Soon-Yi. She wanted to keep working in Woody’s movies AFTER she found out about Soon-Yi. It wasn’t until Woody turned her down on both fronts that she invented the child abuse accusations. She thought she could keep the children all to herself and still get Woody’s money (which she did). She also thought she could destroy his career.

    http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=13641729#page:showThread,13641729,4

  26. April 8, 2014 at 12:09 AM

    In summary, Dylan presented as an intelligent, verbal 7-year-old whose storytelling was quite elaborate and fantasy-like at times who manifested loose associations in her thinking.

    http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

    The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen’s relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be “inappropriately intense,” the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily “would be taken over by fantasy” when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.

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

    At the end of the day, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan, Dr. Nancy Schultz, began her testimony by reporting that Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow had taken the girl to her because of their concerns over her difficulties in communicating and the fact that she “lived in her own fantasy world.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/02/nyregion/psychologist-testifies-about-visitation-rights-for-allen.html

    Dr. Susan Coates and Dr. Nancy Schultz agreed with the Yale-New Haven Hospital report about Dylan’s “fantasy-like” imagination. Coates nor Schultz worked for the Yale team.

    Judge Wilk dismissed the hospital’s claims about Dylan but automatically agrees with their assertion of Allen having an “inappropriate” bond with her. If you look up the reputation of Justice Wilk, he was investigated for judicial misconduct.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/13/nyregion/judge-sues-to-block-panel-s-investigation-of-him.html

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001201/board/thread/227376739?p=2

    Re: Mia is lying …
    by thesnowleopard
    Feb 9 2014

    I believe that Dylan firmly believes at this point that she was molested. But I am very skeptical that this molestation occurred. I do think she has been abused, at least emotionally, but I think that’s because she has Mia Farrow as a mother. As for insisting she wasn’t coached, she herself says she doesn’t remember very much of the “abuse” by Allen itself, as she was very young, so she could easily not remember Farrow coaching her, or realize that’s what it was. Dylan, unfortunately, is not even approaching a reliable witness. I feel sorry for her.

    Sexual child abuse definitely exists. Unfortunately, so do false accusations, which make it that much harder for victims of real abuse to get justice, and Mia Farrow’s behavior is very much like how parents who make such false accusations behave.

    It does not help that Farrow is a major hypocrite on this subject. Her behavior toward Soon-Yi has been disturbing, to say the least. Soon-Yi may have been technically an adult when she got together with Allen, but she was still quite young. Why are we castigating only Woody Allen for moving in on Soon-Yi so young? Mia Farrow turned on her adopted daughter like the Wrath of God when she supposedly thought her daughter was being abused/taken advantage of by her boyfriend. Why treat Soon-Yi like a homewrecker instead of a victim? Why was her behavior about Dylan 180 degrees from how she treated Soon-Yi? Sure, Dylan was a kid, but Soon-Yi was supposed to be a young woman under Farrow’s protection, too.

    Then there is the fact that Farrow’s brother is a convicted child molester and that Farrow supported Roman Polanski, who admits to having raped an underage girl and then skipped the country to avoid a paltry jail sentence for it. Not to mention that Farrow herself ran around with older men when she was a teenager, broke up at least one marriage when she was Soon-Yi’s age, and has openly bragged about getting pregnant with one of her sons by her ex-husband, while she was dating Allen, and said ex was married to another woman. Apparently, creepy, really inappropriate, and even illegal sexual behavior is only bad when Farrow is accusing Woody Allen of it. Otherwise, it’s just hunky-dory in her world.

    This woman has a few major screws loose. I wonder how many of her supporters wonder if they are perhaps supporting a woman who might herself be a child abuser? I find that sad. Every time I see her trot out her Stepford brood, I can’t help thinking we’ll probably get a few Mommy Dearest-style tell-all memoirs from some of them (especially the adopted kids) once she’s gone and they’re out from under her thumb.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001201/board/thread/224529480?p=5

  27. May 31, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    ‘The Common Ills’
    February 1, 2014
    Mia and her brood drag whatever’s left of the name through the mud

    I’ve known Mia Farrow for years, I try to be kind here. During the Bully Boy Bush years when she was screaming for war on Darfur, I tried to draw the same line I’d drawn with her on abortion: We can disagree.

    Mia, for those who don’t know, is hugely, vastly anti-choice. To the point that she’s honestly become a bigot on the subject. But I look the other way.

    I’m tired of looking the other way.

    ‘The flower child’ never was. Flower children weren’t married to elderly millionaires the way Mia was to Frank.

    Watching Husbands and Wives, the last film Mia made with Woody Allen, was very hard to do. Not just because Judi Davis walked away with the movie and what scenes she didn’t steal Sydney Pollack did. Mia was a drab little mouse. Who somehow, someway, got all the men in the world to leave whomever for her.

    In other words, with Husbands and Wives, Woody finally wrote about the real Mia.

    Realizing that wasn’t the most uncomfortable thing.

    Watching the film and realizing that Mia was so desperate that she would play this true but insulting version of herself made me very uncomfortable.

    This is a woman who was obviously desperate to hang on to a relationship that was ending.

    Watch the film and you’ll see it all there — and I’ve only seen the film once, it was too difficult to sit through that one time.

    They were supposed to make Manhattan Murder Mystery together, Woody and Mia.

    They didn’t.

    Though she was willing to make the film, Woody didn’t want to make it with her. She had discovered his affair with Soon Yi-Previn. And Woody was moving on.

    Woody and Mia had —

    I don’t know how to write this. This is why I’m writing it. Mia’s being a fraud and a fake and I just don’t have the time.

    Woody and Mia are the parents of Satchel Farrow who now calls himself Ronan. (He was named after some baseball player — I’m not a sports buff but Mia was more than fine with going along with Woody on the name.) Then there’s Dylan who’s also been Eliza and Malone and who knows what name she’ll take next — we’ll just call her Dylan for this piece. Dylan and Moses were adopted. Mia wanted Woody to be the legal father of the two.

    Then it was a nightmare when she found out Woody and Soon-Yi were a couple.

    At this point, suddenly comes an announcement that Dylan’s been molested by Woody.

    Maybe she was.

    But molesters aren’t usually a one-time thing.

    Iraq War supporter Nicholas Kristof has posted Dylan’s letter at the New York Times.

    “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.”

    Here’s the thing, when Dylan was a child and her story never made sense? I didn’t doubt it. I stopped seeing Woody’s films. I had a number of them on VHS — remember those days? — and I’d still pop in Broadway Danny Rose or Sleeper or Love and Death. But I didn’t question Dylan, I didn’t question the narrative.

    I was Mia’s friend.

    But here’s the thing, Dylan. Your story makes no sense.

    It doesn’t in your letter and it hasn’t over the years and, frankly, I’m bored to death with it.

    Here’s another little detail: I was sexually molested as a child.

    He stuck his finger in me and that hurt and didn’t apparently please him so he focused on his penis from then on. I was made to touch his penis, he smeared it against my face and pulled my hair until I opened my mouth and sucked him off. He was sleepy then, after he came. I used that moment to grab the dinner knife and stab him like a stuck pig — repeatedly — before fleeing the motel room, attempting to figure out where he had taken me and how I was going to get home.

    People respond differently to abuse.

    But why is it that in all the years she’s told her tale, I’ve never believed it?

    Especially the statement (which sounds like Mia, not like a 7-year-old) that Woody told her he would take her to Paris and make her a movie star?

    Maybe he said it but he’s never said that to women he’s wooed so why the hell would he say it to a seven-year-old child?

    Wouldn’t he be more likely to offer toys or ice cream?

    Who thinks like that besides Mia who always dreamed of Paris as a child. Woops. Did we all forget that detail?

    Why is that she doesn’t speak in any of the many ways that survivors of abuse speak?

    She’s had therapy.

    But even now, she’s designing some story, she’s creating some acting ‘moment’ and it never rings true and the wrong things are detailed, the wrong things are emphasized.

    Now maybe Dylan was molested — maybe by her Uncle John.

    That’s Mia’s brother who is now behind bars for sexually molesting several children.

    I must have missed Mia’s Tweet on that.

    Or Dylan’s wordy narrative about that.

    He’s serving a ten year sentence for sexual molestation of children — plural.

    I’m going to repeat what I said earlier, sexual molestation is a pattern. It’s not a one-time thing.

    Maybe Uncle John was the molester?

    If anything happened.

    I’ve been online nine years and never felt the need (or had the desire) to note at this site that I was molested as a child.

    I long ago learned not to share it because I learned how many other people were sexually molested as children. And I can’t help everyone, I’m sorry.

    Right before Dylan’s alleged assault, was the last time I ever spoke of it in a semi-public setting.
    I was at a friend’s home overlooking the ocean, at a table with a friend who wanted me to share to a mutual friend because she’d just found out her boyfriend had sexually molested her child. The woman felt tremendous guilt and much more but she was mainly concerned with what that meant for her daughter. So I opened up a vein and talked about it. Noting. for example, that you can live through it, you can put it semi-behind you, it does effect you in other ways, some good, some bad. Blah blah blah. (Sorry, I’m not in the mood to open a vein tonight.) So we finish up that conversation and I’m thinking great, hopefully it helped her, I’m going to go shopping and find books and music and other things to distract me for the rest of the day.

    Then ______ calls my mobile phone (that’s what we had before cell phones). We know each other loosely. At the time, he’s an up and coming actor on a top twenty TV show. We had nodded to one another at the party but I was, obviously, focused on other things and hadn’t exchanged any words. He wants to meet up to talk. I’m headed home. Great, can he come over?

    He stays for a month and a half.

    I’m not insulting him in any way with these comments.

    As soon as he sits down he starts shaking and explaining that he heard the discussion at the party and he was — and he was — and he was —

    He’s crying and gulping — not gasping — for air.

    Molested?

    By your mother?

    He can only nod to what I’m asking.

    I can always tell who was molested by a parent
    – and which parent — and who was molested by a relative, who was molested by a trusted non-family figure and who was molested by a stranger.

    Elaine loves to tell — I believe she’s blogged on this twice at her site — about when she was dating Dr. ____ who was a clinical director at a youth residential treatment center and she was asked to consult on something at the last minute and does she dump her friend in from out of town or does she leave her boyfriend in a fix? I tell her I’ll tag along and busy myself in some way while she takes all the time she needs to do the consultation.

    And then I’m waiting and some man (I didn’t know these people, it was a doctor) starts talking to me and at some point wants me to look at a piece of artwork by a teenager. It’s a pencil and paper sketch.

    Detailed.

    I look at it and start to hand it back saying it’s interesting but then I start picking apart the details, whoever drew identifies with the person in the sketch, they’re on the roof, they’re closer to the edge of the roof, there’s something they’ve said that they regret, a they’re hiding something, they’re hiding something from their parents, it’s a boy, a boy drew this, he’s — he’s gay and he’s in the closet., he’s gay and he’s in the closet and he’s got a boyfriend but he’s saying the boyfriend raped him, he’s saying that because of the parents and because of —

    And I went on like that about the drawing for about 8 minutes.

    And the concern that man had?

    I didn’t know it when I was evaluating the drawing but the boy who drew that picture was saying that his male roommate raped him. Turns out, they had consensual sex. It was easier to say rape for that young male than to say, “I’m gay.”

    That was all in the drawing, it was in the heavy pencil marks, it was in the light pencil marks, it was in the shading and the position and the point of view. All the signs were there if you knew how to see them.

    I’m often accused of being psychic but I’m not. I just know the signs.

    And whenever I speak of being molested, to a woman’s group or a group of friends, someone always comes forward. They’ve sat on it for years and now they want to talk and now they want help. And they also want me as a sounding board or mentor or shoulder to lean on. Maybe because my message is that it didn’t destroy me?

    For four weeks, I went to the set with the TV friend every morning. I helped him find a doctor who could address his issues. (This should be obvious, but maybe just to those of us who have been molested, the six weeks he was living in my home, he had his own bedroom, we did not have a sexual relationship.) After the four weeks, he worked a little at transitioning back to his own place. When, months later, he and his doctor were planning the session where he was going to confront his mother, he moved back into a guest room and probably stayed a week before the confrontation and at least two weeks after.

    I’m not a nice person, I don’t claim to be. I’m not a saint. I need my sleep when I can get it. (I got three hours of sleep early Friday morning and haven’t been to sleep since. I can’t take the nightmares right now — of Iraq and all the violence — that video of the military just standing there while the Sunni man was being burned alive . . .)

    Talking about the subject can help others. I know that. If I feel the calling, if I feel someone needs me to bring it up, I will. But my life is very full and I don’t have time to try to help everyone. Again, I’m not a nice person, I don’t pretend to be.

    As I have many times in the many years I’ve lived, I helped someone who needed help on this issue — in part because who knows how much my own sharing — whether to them or overheard — acted as a catalyst. And as a result — again, I’m no saint — I try to be very careful around this topic. It is not something that everyone who knows me knows because I don’t make it a point of daily conversation. Jim, for example, is going to read this and think, “We’re best friends. Dona and I lived with her for several years and I never knew this.” And Jim and I have been friends now for a decade and shared many stories of our lives — good and bad — but there’s never been a reason to bring this up.

    Along with not having time today to ‘mentor’ or whatever people like my TV friend, it’s also true that I love drama on the screen, I love on drama on the stage, but I don’t care for drama in my home. It bores me real damn quick.

    And now we have Dylan providing us with drama.

    When I see drama, if it’s from someone who’s been molested or raped, I can be understanding — even me. But I can do that because I can see the trigger.

    It happened to you at ____ so ___ reminds you of it. He/Her name was ____ so the fact that you are now working with someone named ____ is bringing up those issues. The incident occurred in ____ and it’s now that time of the year.

    I’m sorry, what’s the triggering incident for Dylan that’s caused these two or so months of drama.

    It’s not the season or the month because the alleged events didn’t happen in winter.

    So what is it?

    Some might say it’s him being honored but he’s been honored for the last decades.

    So what’s the trigger?

    It’s not Uncle John getting convicted of child molestation because that was month’s ago. Sentencing was months ago too.

    Here’s the reality, I don’t believe it anymore. I’m not going to pretend I do. The need to turn this into a public spectacle, an embarrassing piece of trash — I’m referring to all the events, not just Dylan?

    I don’t believe it. I think more people are starting to disbelieve as well.

    Dylan may have been molested.

    She may even have been molested by Woody.

    But I don’t believe it anymore.

    I don’t know what happened and I’m not going to take the word of someone who is clearly being dishonest — I mean Dylan. I think she’s being dishonest but I don’t know why.

    And thing is, I don’t give a damn why.

    I’ve had quite enough of this trashy spectacle.

    Mia embarrasses herself, her dead parents and a widow by claiming that Ronan might be Frank Sinatra’s child.

    Might he be?

    If so, Mia’s lied to friends for years and years.

    And she also lied to Woody.

    I don’t like Barbara Sinatra. I’m friends with Nancy and I think it’s known the two don’t get along (and didn’t when Frank Sinatra was alive).

    But Barbara is his widow.

    And I don’t know why you would toss out that someone’s dead husband might be the father of your adult child.

    How the f**k does that become a topic of conversation for an interview?

    How damn trashy are you now, Mia?

    How desperate for attention are you?

    As I noted, it was hard to watch Husbands and Wives because Woody had captured, in the character he wrote for her, every negative aspect people had ever noted of Mia. The manipulation, the home wrecking, all of it was there. And she was willing to play it.

    Dylan thinks she can throw out an appeal, “I was wronged! Believe me!”

    Why?

    What have you done to be truthful?

    You’re supposed to be a victim of molestation.

    Well, here’s one thing a victim might do: Talk about abusers — especially ones in their own family that just got convicted and sentenced.

    Let me be really clear, I know John Farrow. Didn’t think highly of him or lowly of him. But when he admitted (2013) to sexually molesting children, I felt intense rage towards him. I immediately called up people I knew whose children might have been around him to make sure they knew what had happened in case they needed to address any issues with their children or now adult children.

    Dylan grew up around him.

    If she was a victim of molestation at the hands of Woody, I don’t understand why she wouldn’t be expressing something with regards to her Uncle John right now. Why she wouldn’t be offering, for example, an open letter about how the adult males in her life — plural, not just Woody — had betrayed her, one who sexually molested her and one who sexually molested other children (plural)?

    At her age and with all the years that have passed, she surely should feel the need to look out for others. But she’s still self-obsessed.

    Like many who were molested as children, I have low self esteem.

    I can advocate on behalf of anyone but you will never find me advocating on behalf of myself (unless Elaine’s scolded me over the phone about it). .

    Yet Dylan who doesn’t speak of the alleged assault in terms one would expect for a victim and for a victim who has had years of therapy is perfectly comfortable making demands — personal demands — on others.

    There is no set response to molestation.

    But what the letter does is crystalize the problems I’ve always had with this story.

    Again, I no longer believe it. I don’t know what happened.

    As such, it’s not my job to shun Woody Allen or to think that he did what Dylan’s accusing him of and what the New York City judicial system didn’t find suspicion of — forget guilt, it didn’t even rise to the level of suspicion.

    How sexually inappropriate is or was Mia?

    Questioning your child’s paternity in a magazine interview?

    How desperate for publicity is she?

    She’s clearly not desperate for the truth. Nancy could provide DNA in an instant that would determine whether or not Ronan was Sinatra’s son.

    If you want to know the answer, that’s what you do. (Tina Sinatra would also provide DNA. I would assume Frank Jr. would but I really don’t know him.)

    If, however, your stalled career needs publicity, might you instead just raise it in a magazine interview in a desperate attempt to get attention?

    Not unlike when you cut your hair off because Frank wouldn’t take you to the party — a reality you lied about in What Falls Away?

    These are harsh words, I don’t deny it.

    And without all this self-created drama and nonsense, I probably would be silent right now.

    But the drama’s not what made me write this.

    Reading Dylan’s self-righteous babble, I had to grab the Vanity Fair story (well written by Maureen Orth as usual) that I had ignored because I was humiliated for Mia.

    And there was the known victim.

    I don’t know what happened to Dylan and honestly I find her presentation so off putting that I’m no longer interested.

    Who I feel sorry for is who I felt sorry for in the beginning.

    Soon-Yi.

    Mia hasn’t raised a family, she’s raised a mob.

    Soon-Yi’s mistake was falling in love with Woody Allen.

    Why couldn’t they be together?

    Because Mia and Woody were a couple?

    Well, according to Mia in Vanity Fair, she was f**king Frank Sinatra throughout her relationship with Woody.

    So Mia can cheat on him but he can’t cheat on her?

    Mia can lie to Woody that Ronan’s his son when she thinks it might be Frank?

    Soon-Yi was Mia’s daughter. She wasn’t Woody’s daughter.

    Mia pushed him to do things with her. Soon-Yi was a shy young woman.

    Who does that?

    The affair comes out — I don’t remember, I’m going to guess it was on or around January 13, 1992 — when Mia finds photos of Soon-Yi.

    And everyone turns on Soon-Yi.

    Sorry to break it to you, that’s not a family. That’s a mob.

    And Mia, head of the mob, wasn’t acting like a concerned mother.

    Mia slapped Soon-Yi, Mia told the others to tell Soon-Yi she loved her. After she hit her. After she announced she couldn’t be around her daughter.

    Instead of addressing the issue — Mia who’s so comfortable with professional analysis — sends Soon-Yi off to a summer camp?

    The whole family is attacking her, they have turned against her, her mother has slapped her and cursed her and then makes it clear that she doesn’t want to be around her.

    Mia claims now that she was f**king Sinatra during this, so why the hell does it matter if Soon-Yi is having an affair with Woody? It’s not like Mia’s playing exclusive.

    But she’s attacking her daughter and, worse, she’s making public statements basically saying that Soon-Yi’s brain doesn’t function ‘normally,’ that she’s challenged.

    Be Soon-Yi for just one damn minute.

    You’re a young woman, inexperienced, who falls for a man who takes you seriously. Who among us hasn’t been there? The man’s involved with your mother. But he was also supposedly sleeping with Dianne Weist in the 80s and Mia looked the other way on that. And that alleged affair, for those who missed it, is why Dylan didn’t include Dianne Weist in the names of people she’s trying to shame into supporting her. Dylan knows that and the children who were teenagers at the time of the alleged affair knew it as well.

    Mia didn’t end it with Woody over the affair that she’s sure happened.

    Soon-Yi may have thought this would be a brief affair.

    Mia has a hissy, to this day, that Soon-Yi was getting calls from Woody at the camp and that Soon-Yi left with Woody.

    I’m sorry, what young woman wouldn’t?

    You’re family has rejected you.

    Mia handled Soon-Yi all wrong.

    She attacked her physically, she then put up walls to prevent any reconciliation, she’s then sent her off. Exiled.

    What it really reminds me of was how Mia used similar manipulation tactics to isolate Dory Previn after cozying up to her but before stealing her husband Andre Previn.

    Which is why I’m writing this.

    “She does not exist.”

    That’s what the 84-year-old Andre Previn tells Maureen Orth about Soon-Yi.

    He adopted her in 1978 and discarded her in 1992.

    Today he says “she does not exist.”

    It would appear to me that he was unfit to adopt.

    Nothing Soon-Yi did with Woody Allen had a damn thing to do with Andre Previn.

    He’s supposed to be her father. Considering that he cheated on Dory with Mia and then cheated on Mia when he was on tour and Mia was home in England, it’s really amazing that he wants to disown his daughter over an affair.

    Who the hell is he to judge?

    A child was entrusted to Mia and Andre. They legally adopted her. He adopted her and because she had an affair, he wants to disown her.

    Soon-Yi may have had an affair that wasn’t an affair that started under the best conditions. But she and Woody have been together longer than Mia was with Woody — and longer than Mia was with Andre — and longer than Mia was with Frank – and way longer than Mia was with John Phillips — the affair she lied to Frank about and part of the reason they broke up.

    It’s funny — unless you grasp her personality — how nothing’s ever Mia’s fault. It was because she wouldn’t do The Detective with him that Frank divorced her.. (Really? And not because of the affair in NYC with ____ while shooting Rosemary’s Baby?)

    Considering the messed up life Mia openly lived — I’m referring to the men in and out the door and I’m talking about men other than the names noted here, I’m talking about the cinematographer, for example — and considering that she brought children into one scandal after another — such as when she thought Woody was screwing her sister Tisa — yeah, get the kids upset about their aunt – and then later, when Woody wrote Hannah & Her Sisters, insisting this was proof that Tisa and Woody slept together?

    Here’s the deal, Mia. Your life where adopted children are real children, where you’re sleeping with everyone but Anthony Perkins
    (but mainly there because the two of you hate each other the whole time you’re doing Romantic Comedy on Broadway) and the children see this, where (like Joan Crawford) you try to make every boyfriend part of the family?

    Live and let live, Mia.

    Until you stop practicing what you’ve presented as core values.

    If an adopted child is a real child, a true member of the family (I happen to believe they are), then anger over being replaced by a younger woman doesn’t give Mia the right to cut out Soon-Yi.

    She’s not cancer, she’s Mia’s daughter.

    If Mia ever loved her, Mia would either attempt to reach out for real (not, “Let me slap you, then isolate you, then exile you”) or Mia would love her enough, even now, to stop the petty insults of her and let Soon-Yi live in a peace with the only family who accepts her.

    Soon-Yi has made a life, a family and a home with Woody Allen. They’ve been together over two decades now, they have two children.

    Two adopted children.

    Somewhere inside of Soon-Yi, she believes that adopted children are real children.

    She learned that from Mia who could talk the talk. Mia just couldn’t walk the talk.

    What it looks like today is that the accusations that Mia adopted children to make herself look better are true. It looks like Mia continues to manipulate. She looks bitter and stupid because she can’t shut up about Soon-Yi.

    If she ever loved her daughter, you’d think she’d at least be glad Soon-Yi made a life for herself — something she was forced to do when her family tossed her aside
    .

    Why do things always end so badly with Mia?

    Whether she’s destroying an ashram in Rishikesh or a marriage, it’s never her fault.

    If my brother was a convicted child molester, I’m not really sure I would be accusing others. But if I were, you can be damn sure I’d be talking about my brother’s actions as well.

    And if my daughter was actually sexually molested, I don’t think I’d be advocating for Roman Polanski.

    Roman’s a great director. When I knew him, I cut him slack like everyone else (because of Sharon Tate’s violent murder). But when you give a young girl drugs and alcohol and then force yourself on her? There’s not an excuse for that. As a victim of molestation, I will never, ever defend Roman on that.

    But Mia does. She defends him and makes excuses.

    Yet she wants us to believe that her daughter was molested. And she wants us to grab torches and go storming through the village or at least Central Park West.

    It doesn’t add up.

    Mia turns 69 in a matter of days. At what point does she plan to take responsibility for her actions?

    And how much more mud does she intend to drag her family name through?

    At this point, they’re making the Loud family look reticent.

    The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

    Update 3/1/2014:
    We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn’t to the reporters at a certain paper (keep ‘em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, “E-mails are supposed to be private.” E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting. This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That’s not why the public account exists.

    http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2014/02/mia-and-her-brood-drag-whatevers-left.html

    Third Estate Sunday Review
    March 2, 2014
    The award for best self-created drama goes to Mia Farrow (Ava and C.I.)

    Mia Farrow’s gotten desperate.

    In an attempt to garner headlines and market herself, she’s crossed every line in the world.

    For example, only a fake ass gives the Golden Globes permission to broadcast footage of her (from The Purple Rose of Cairo) in a segment honoring Woody Allen and then takes to Twitter to denounce the segment.

    Mia’s little fan brigade — tiny as it is — didn’t seem to realize Mia was craven enough to make sure she was included in the segment she was ‘protesting.’

    And no one wants to point out that both she and her son Ronan waited until after the segment aired to be bitchy on Twitter.

    They both knew Mommy wouldn’t be in the segment if they attacked before it was aired.

    Mia knows how to promote herself.

    She knows damn little else, but she can self-promote.

    Which is why, as last year was winding down, she grabbed headlines for the Maureen Orth profile of her in Vanity Fair, the one where she revealed baby boy Ronan may not be Woody Allen’s son but Frank Sinatra’s.

    In the sixties, Mia was a minor soap actress (Peyton Place). She’d never become a movie star. Americans would never rush to a film because she was in it. But in the soap opera, her love interest was Ryan O’Neal, who would go on to have three blockbuster films (Love Story, What’s Up Doc? and The Main Event) as well as some smaller but pleasing offerings.

    Ryan became a movie star. Mia just made the tabloids.

    She set her sights on Frank Sinatra.

    It was considered scandalous to some. Her own mother publicly stated Sinatra should be dating her, not her young daughter.

    But Mia was no naive waif.

    When Frank refused to risk angering Big Nancy (his ex-wife and the mother of his children) by demanding that Mia be invited to a party Big Nancy was staging, Mia stayed home and chopped off her long locks.

    She likes to pretend otherwise today but it was a tantrum over a party.

    And it freaked Frank out, leaving him to wonder just how crazy she was?

    He married her in 1966. She was supposed to make the film The Detective with him but she was also supposed to be faithful to him. He was very hurt that she spent the bulk of their brief marriage sleeping around (John Phillips was only one of her many lovers during this period, and Phillips was one of four that Frank had photographic proof of as a result of the detectives he had trailing her). She was filming Rosemary’s Baby in NYC when Frank reached his boiling point and served her with divorce papers — he said he was disgusted over the crowded bed Mia occupied – it was the swinging sixties and one partner in a bed seemed passe — to Mia anyway.

    In 1968, their divorce was final.

    Mia then set her eyes on Andre Previn. She’d have to get rid of his wife Dory first, which is why (pregnant) Mia didn’t marry him until 1970. They divorced (with cheating on both sides) in 1979.

    In 1979, she began dating Woody Allen. The two never lived together and their dating relationship never gave Mia what she wanted (a third husband).

    Those details and others we wouldn’t normally bring up.

    But now we have to. Mia explained to Maureen Orth that Frank might be the father of Ronan because, even though they divorced in 1968, they continued to sleep together.

    Ronan was born at the end of 1987, so, if Mia’s to be believed (always iffy), she slept with Frank on-and-off-again from 1968 to at least 1987.

    This matters for many reasons but it matters most because Mia was trying to trap Woody into marriage.

    She badgered him over and over about needing a baby by him — this as she continued to adopt children.

    She finally got him to agree after she promised he would not have any duties or obligations.

    Basically, he would be the sperm donor.

    That’s how Mia sold it to him.

    And it matters because, for nearly six months, they had no luck.

    Woody and Mia tried.

    But no pregnancy.

    Mia leaves out all of those facts.

    They won’t make her look sympathetic.

    But these are facts, and they’re facts that take on new meaning thanks to her 2013 revelation that she was having sex with Frank Sinatra at the time and he could be the father of Ronan.

    Nearly six months.

    And no pregnancy.

    Then Mia sleeps with Frank and shortly after is pregnant?

    If Mia’s telling the truth, then Frank probably is the father.

    But she doesn’t tell the public the full truth because it’ll make her look like the liar that she is.

    Woody was in his early fifties at the time Mia became pregnant.

    He had no biological children — he still has no biological children if Ronan isn’t his.

    They tried for nearly six months, and the eternally fertile Mia (who was telling friends she was on fertility drugs though she may not have told Woody that) couldn’t get pregnant.

    But then she has an assignation with Sinatra and ends up pregnant?

    That means Mia is cruel and cold and calculating.

    She didn’t just know it was possible Sinatra was the father, she knew it was pretty much a given after the months and months of attempts with Woody.

    About right now is where the audience on Jerry Springer starts booing.

    And they would have a point.

    A woman who willfully passes a child off as a man’s son when he’s not the son?

    That’s fraud.

    When she passes the child off as Woody’s son to the courts, that’s fraud as well.

    When she takes child support from Woody Allen for this child that she knows isn’t his?

    That’s fraud.

    We had no reason to discuss any of this until Mia decided she needed attention.

    And then she and Dylan worked on further attention. Her daughter put her name to a ‘letter’ that most believe Mia wrote.

    The letter wasn’t just about Woody Allen — whom Dylan insists molested her as a child in August of 1992.

    No, the letter wanted to demonize others, like Diane Keaton, who had worked with Woody or were friends with him.

    Mia had already gone too far in the eyes of the entertainment industry with her Tweets which were seen as especially insulting to Keaton, and now she was going after Keaton and other actors when she begged Nicholas Kristof (Iraq War insisting columnist who went on to greater ‘fame’ by purchasing women overseas) to print the letter written by Dylan or ‘Dylan.’

    Mia was surprised to discover that, as she put it to one NYC friend last month, “I’m dead in Hollywood.”

    Mia, Mia, not just Hollywood.

    If she hadn’t overplayed her hand, her daughter might be believed.

    But Mia had to go all Jerry Springer on America and it wasn’t the first time.

    Her soap opera nearly derailed the 1992 presidential election.

    America had had more than enough of it by the end of summer 1992.

    But many were on her side then and recently.

    Yet she couldn’t leave well enough alone.

    Like a robber returning to the scene of the crime, she wanted to stir things up in 2013.

    We have no idea what happened to Dylan. She may have been molested, she may not have been.

    But like her mother, she makes no sense and isn’t believable.

    It’s interesting that she (or Mia) will blame Diane Keaton and call her out in public when Diane is not Dylan’s parent and has never molested her and only encountered Dylan (who was a small infant) on the set of Radio Days. (Diane performs a musical number in that Woody Allen film.)

    She questions Diane Keaton, but Dylan’s full of nothing but praise for Mommy Mia.

    It takes a special kind of woman to pimp her own daughter.

    If Woody did molest Dylan (we have no idea), we’re not talking about a stunned and unknowing Mia. No, she was as much a part of her daughter’s misadventure as Susan Sarandon’s character was to Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby.

    Maureen Orth loves facts.

    If she can make them pliable.

    She’s a wonderful novelist, she can write a narrative.

    But like her late husband, Tim Russert, she struggles to nail down facts.

    Last week’s editorial opened with this, “The laughable and sad Natalie Russell (The Pitt News) will get served next week.” We were looking for a new way to write about the March 12, 2006 gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, when it became obvious the way to write about the man who killed her parents and her sister, took part in the gang-rape of her and then shot her dead was to note how yet again certain writers (Natalie Russell among them) wanted to write superficial pieces about celebrity instead of taking on real issues.

    Natalie Russell?

    She had to add a little note to her piece and redo it:

    Correction: A previous version of this article deemed Mr. Allen’s previous relationships pedophiliac. While it was alleged, Mr. Allen has not been convicted of being a pedophile. Thus, the language was removed.

    Russell’s too stupid to be allowed to operate a keyboard without a guardian present.

    Where did dumb ass get her misinformation?

    It’s been popularized — and called “facts” — by Maureen Orth. It’s shady and dishonest. And at a time when VanFair’s war on Gwyneth Paltrow is already making some in the entertainment industry leery of the magazine, is it really the the time to be offering such nonsense?

    Orth writes:

    2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public. Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.

    The doctor didn’t rule the behavior to be sexual. The doctor felt that Woody’s attention to the child (amount and focus) was inappropriate.

    Mia had been saying it was sexual, yes. She had said that for some time.

    When the doctor observed an encounter with the two she told Mia that she felt Woody’s focus on Dylan was inappropriate and demanding.

    She did not feel there was a sexual component to it.

    Maureen damn well knows that but she wants to present ‘facts’ that back her up.

    We’re glad she whored.

    She was married to Tim, of course, she’s a media whore.

    By whoring, she lets us bring up something that all Natalie Russells in the world better damn well pay attention to.

    According to Mia, there was relief (on her part) when the doctor wanted to address the focus issue. According to her, she had felt that it was sexual attention.

    So, if Mia’s telling the truth, why did Mommy pimp her daughter?

    Woody wasn’t Dylan’s father at that time. Why didn’t Mia stop the attempts at adoption?

    Yes, she has one of her poor-me excuses that she trots out.

    But the reality is, if she thought Woody’s behavior was sexual towards Dylan, she never should have let the man adopt her daughter.

    Natalie might also want to ask why Mia didn’t demand prosecution? Or Dylan for that matter?

    Maureen wants you to know the ‘fact’ that Mia didn’t go to the police.

    Of course she didn’t.

    She didn’t go to the police and she didn’t fight for a trial.

    And she and her daughter waited until any legal statute of limitations ran out to raise the whole tired issue one more time.

    If Dylan Farrow were an honest person, she wouldn’t be defending Mia.

    If she really was assaulted by Woody Allen, that’s on Mia as much as it is on Woody.

    Mia should have refused to allow him to adopt Dylan since, according to her story, she knew years prior to the adoption that Woody was sexually inappropriate with Dylan.

    Mia doesn’t talk about that much.

    Or about all the money Woody gave her over the years prior to 1992.

    We’re not talking about her salary. We’re talking about gifts.

    At one point, Woody gets $7 million for doing a Japanese TV commercial and he gives Mia, who didn’t appear in the ad and had nothing to do with it, a million dollars.

    We’re talking about gifts like that — we’re talking about what Mia doesn’t want anyone to talk about.

    Even lying to the city of NYC to keep the rent control price of her mother’s apartment, Mia lived outside her means and then some. She was paid well for appearing in Woody’s films but not enough to take care of her brood of countless children.

    She needed those gifts from Woody because there wasn’t much interest in her by 1980.

    Broadway? Mia was doing Broadway, Romantic Comedy with Tony Perkins. It was a success but the backstage drama ensured neither Mia nor Tony was sought after for another Broadway play.

    Films?

    Mia was not a film star. Ever.

    Linda Blair was and is a bigger star than Mia.

    She was the lead in Roman Polanski’s classic film Rosemary’s Baby. Yet she was so ineffective in the role that when a sequel was made as a TV movie, many critics felt the need to stress how much more believable Patty Duke was in the role of Rosemary.

    The only box office hit of her career was followed by bomb after bomb.

    Secret Ceremony, A Dandy in Aspic, John and Mary, See No Evil, bomb, bomb, bomb. And she fled to England where she would have stayed if it weren’t for Ali MacGraw leaving Robert Evans for Steve McQueen. Evans, head of Paramount at the time, needed an immediate replacement for MacGraw who was to play Daisy in The Great Gatsby. One actress after another turned the role down. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, they offered it to Mia who couldn’t pass up the chance to show the world how awful she could be.

    Mia had been miscast before, but this time it was just sheer awful as she played Daisy as if she were a scream queen and Gatsby was written by Ira Levin.

    This was followed with the Canadian bomb Full Circle (Mia in another horror film), then there was what many considered her all time worst performance — Buffy in Robert Altman’s A Wedding.

    This was followed by the box office bomb Avalanche which starred Rock Hudson.

    Then came her freaky and fifth billed performance in Death on the Nile (a role she appears to be acting out currently).

    Next was 1979’s bomb Hurricane and her film career was over.

    That’s why she ended up on Broadway.

    Some say that’s why she pursued Woody Allen.

    When she finally returned to the screen it would be in his film A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy (1982). It would be the first of fourteen live action films she’d appear in from 1982 to 1992. With the exception of her bit part at the beginning of Supergirl, all the films were Woody Allen films.

    With Woody as her director, she’d give some classic performances: Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose, Radio Days, New York Stories, possibly Hannah and Her Sisters. But she also was so-so in some of the movies and flat out awful in Shadows and Fog, Another Woman and September. She’d be Golden Globe nominated for Broadway Danny Rose, The Purple Rose of Cairo and Alice. She’d be BAFTA nominated for The Purple Rose of Cairo and Hannah and Her Sisters.

    She would claim that during this time she was offered Father of the Bride — and she was. But then they found out they could get Diane Keaton and had no interest in Mia.

    Immediately after the 1992 scandals, she kept insisting Mike Nichols was going to cast her, but he had no role for her in Wolf or The Birdcage or Primary Colors or . . . She’d been convinced that she would be his new muse but, for once, she wasn’t able to make a married man fall for her.

    No one wanted her. Miami Rhapsody wanted so badly to be Woody Allen-esque but it wasn’t and the film bombed. As did Reckless, Coming Soon, — really everything she’s done except for her bit part in the remake of The Omen.

    It’s very sad for Mia. As she told her children in 1992 — after she told them Woody was having an affair with her adult daughter Soon-Yi Previn — she might never work again. That’s why she was so furious when Woody announced that they would not be making Manhattan Murder Mystery together (he replaced her with Diane Keaton).

    Yes, Mia was willing to make a film with Woody. In fact, according to her, she was sleeping with Woody up until August of 1992. Determined to get him back. Even though July 4, 1992 found him isolating with Dylan in her words.

    So if Dylan believes she was molested (and she may have been), she needs to start aiming a lot of anger at her useless mother who put more thought and concern into having a film career than she did into protecting her daughter from a man she claimed was sexually interested in her.

    And let’s go back to Orth.

    Mia’s at Frog Hollow. Woody has to travel a distance to get there (from NYC) and doesn’t show up unannounced.

    “Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.”

    Really, Maureen Orth?

    You think that looks good for Mia?

    It doesn’t.

    His visits were rare and usually short. If Mia was concerned — as she insists she was — that Woody was or would sexually abuse her daughter, her ass should have been at her Frog Hollow home every minute Woody was there.

    What was she doing?

    She wasn’t off acting in a film, she wasn’t promoting a film, she was just running around for fun.

    You don’t do that.

    Not if a man you think is a child molester is with your daughter.

    You don’t disappear.

    You never hear claims that your daughter was missing for 20 minutes because you never let her out of your sight.

    If it happened, it happened because Mia shirked her duties as a mother.

    July 4, 1992, Mia’s claiming Woody monopolized Dylan, took her away from the party and, pay attention Orth, out of Mia’s site.

    So if she was truly worried, her ass should have been at the house in August for every minute Woody Allen was present.

    Now these are details that were made public by Mia in 1992.

    Notice how they’ve vanished in the efforts to make Mia a saint.

    In her ‘facts,’ Orth insists, “Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day.”

    Yes, but was inconsistent with the testimony of one adult present
    (Monica Thompson, whose salary was paid by Woody Allen). And we’re fine noting Woody paid the woman. Mia paid two adults on her side, and her friend Casey Pascal paid the third. We don’t have the need to present ‘facts’ that aren’t the full facts.

    We’d like this to be our last story about trashy Mia Farrow.

    But we can go further.

    We can explain, for example, what Mia doesn’t want you to know, about why she never should have had Ronan to begin with (that’s not a slam at Ronan, that is noting the health issue that ‘miracle mom’ didn’t want to talk about then or since). We can talk about that. We can air all the dirty laundry.

    We’re freed to do that for a number of reasons.

    First, Mia disgraced herself with her assertion regarding Ronan’s paternity. Second, she chose to be in the tribute she then Tweeted against. Third, she’s been a real bitch in going after Diane Keaton. Fourth, who the hell is this unaccomplished actress to try and destroy Cate Blanchett’s chance to get an Academy Award for Best Actress. Fifth, Naomi Campbell is friend and we do not forgive Mia.

    But mainly because we’re sick of Mia and her witch hunt.

    If Woody Allen did molest Dylan, Mia’s little stunts haven’t helped her daughter deal with reality.

    Twenty-two years later, Dylan Farrow and her mother are trying to try this in the press.

    You better find another way for closure.

    This is America. And in the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty.

    Woody Allen has never been found guilty.

    He’s an elderly man who’s being dragged through the mud.

    That’s not justice in America.

    Dylan had many years to pursue a legal case against him.

    She chose not to.

    Woody Allen’s been found guilty of nothing, and people need to stop rushing to insist otherwise.

    The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We’re an online magazine. We don’t play nice and we don’t kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: “I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused “Bonnie and Clyde” because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of “Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue” or whatever it was called. It reeked of success.”

    http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-award-for-best-self-created-drama.html

    Third States Sunday Review
    February 23, 2014
    Dylan whines to Maureen Orth who passes it on to Janet Maslin

    And the press plays dumb.

    Or Gawker and Vulture do.

    They’ve taken some mild comments by New York Times> book reviewer Janet Maslin and hyped them into ‘blame the victim’ and they really don’t want you to know that not only was Maslin not blaming the victim, she was relaying what Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth told her.

    Yes, we’re back to the Tawdry Life of Mia Farrow, forgotten star of yesteryear who was real popular on the TV show Peyton Place about fifty years ago. She followed that up with Rosemary’s Baby and then never had another blockbuster. She had a lot of flops.

    In an attempt to appear relevant and to distract from her smear campaign against Naomi Campbell (why does Mia hate people of color?), Mia upstaged her daughter in Vanity Fair article.

    Mia’s war on ex-boyfriend Woody Allen has never ended for Mia.

    So she decided to reveal that her son with Woody, now known as Ronan Farrow, could be her son with Frank Sinatra because even though she was divorced from Frank in the sixties, she kept sleeping with him — through marriage, through relationships, you name it.

    This little bit of gossip upstaged Dylan Farrow talking about her alleged assault in 1993 by Woody Allen. Mia had begged Dylan to be part of the article. Mia could get a cover, she insisted, if Dylan would talk to Maureen Orth for the Vanity Fair article.

    A cover!!!!

    Mia hadn’t been on a cover since People magazine’s 20th anniversary issue in 1994.

    That was nearly 20 years ago and since then all she had really was playing a scowl on Third Watch and do the sort of trash-yourself-cinema that Joan Crawford did — only Joan at least played the lead role in the bad horror films while Mia was a bit played who died early in the 2006 remake of The Omen.

    So Dylan spoke in a vague manner and the article gets published but all anyone cares about is the revelation that Mia’s claiming Ronan could be Frank Sinatra’s son.

    It makes for good gossip for many.

    It’s just Mia being tawdry and overplaying her hand.

    In 1992, Mia and Woody Allen had already drifted apart and were basically going through the motions. They were set to make Manhattan Murder Mystery. Mia went to Woody’s place (they always had separate residences) and, while waiting for him, snooped around and discovered photos of her 19-year-old daughter Soon-Yi Previn.

    Soon-Yi Previn. The daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn.

    Mia exploded and raged.

    At her own home, she’d confront Soon-Yi and physically attack her.

    Then she’d ask her other children to tell Soon-Yi that Mommy Who Hits With Firsts still loves her, just can’t stand to see her. And cuts her out of a photo and replaces her face with newly adopted Tam’s face.

    That’s rather extreme behavior — especially when you consider that, as Mia’s revealed, she was sleeping with Frank Sinatra before Woody was sleeping with Soon-Yi.

    Mia had to move on. The one million Woody gave her as a gift (which she fails to note in her book) wouldn’t last forever and even though she was willing to make Manhattan Murder Mystery with him, he was done with her.

    (In all her outrage, Mia wasn’t about to give up a leading role in a film.)

    Then came the custody battle followed by the allegation that he’d molested Dylan.

    And the nation had to endure the tawdry spectacle.

    That was 1992 and should have stayed there.

    But Mia’s got to kick start that failed career. You can’t look fifty at 69 without a little professional help and that costs money.

    So here comes Vanity Fair — both gullible and willing to shade the truth (Ava and C.I. say, “Honey, we’ll go into that next week. Oh, is there a story there.”)

    But Mia’s stunt means no one cares about Dylan.

    And that upsets Dylan.

    Janet Maslin explained last week in a panel on film discussion (at the organization she funds and heads):

    One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece, that one that ran a few months ago, was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be ‘Dylan Farrow Speaks Out’ and what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, ‘Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.’ And Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself.

    Through a friend?

    Maureen Orth.

    Who’d heard from Mia and Dylan how disappointed Dylan was with the story.

    Dylan was upset that she wasn’t the takeaway.

    That’s why she then tried to get papers to run a letter from her.

    They said no. They included The New York Times.

    Then Nicholas Kristof (Iraq War cheerleader, don’t forget) took the letter and used his position as a columnist to publish it.

    And the nation had to go through more tawdry drama from Mia.

    Is there anyone trashier in the United States than Mia Farrow?

    Probably not.

    The whole thing’s backfired on Mia. Whereas in 1992, the nation embraced her, they’re now wary of her because she’s lied about the paternity of Ronan and because she’s just so trashy.

    It hasn’t been good for Dylan either. Be sure to check out Pathological Doubter’s analysis of Dylan Farrow’s ‘open letter:’ http://mprical.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/why-dylan-farrows-missives-make-me-think-shes-a-liar-part-1-nyt/

    Anyway, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Dylan has demanded that the reader, i.e.me, be the judge and jury in her case, so here it goes.

    Dylan’s statements to the press have made me reassess the possibility of Allen’s innocence. The language Dylan uses, in my opinion, is the language of liars and manipulators. Her statements are teeming with disingenuous, inconsistent and hypocritical assertions. I will go through her statements to demonstrate. In other words, i did not find the witness to be credible.

    And things are actually going to get worse.

    Next week, we’ll explain the lies and we’ll also address how, if the molestation is true, you can pin the blame on Mia — you can pin the blame for the abuse, you can pin the blame for it not being prosecuted.

    Mia’s not a great actress. She needs a strong and sturdy script.

    In the last months, she’s forgotten that and chose to wing it. As a result she, and her supporters, have made one false claim after another.

    To be clear, we don’t know what happened.

    But we know Mia’s lied repeatedly. Over and over.

    She’s defrauded the court and the state of New York.

    And she’s told so many different lies in the last twenty years that she’s not to be believed.

    Does that mean the alleged assault didn’t happen?

    It means there’s no proof of it and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

    We think there’s a very good chance Dylan’s been led to believe something happened.

    Whether it did or not.

    With Mia, we just know she’s a liar and we’ll be taking that up next weekend.

    http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/dylan-whines-to-maureen-orth-who-passes.html

    Third States Sunday Review
    March 02, 2014
    TV: Another idiot for the idiot box

    “So maybe children of stars should actually be required to accomplish something on their own in their own lives before they’re treated as informed or experts?”

    Ronan Farrow’s debut on Ronan Farrow Daily makes that even more clear.

    A gay man who can’t be open?

    That’s the least of Ronan’s problems.

    He’s gay and his mother doesn’t want him to come out. Remember, for all her decades of pretending to be a ‘hippie,’ it never got squarer than Mia Farrow. This is the woman who, for example, is opposed to all abortions and used to have problems with birth control use until she was told she was coming off completely crazy and needed to pipe down.

    Ronan sleeps with men.

    This is not a secret.

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    He’s been taught that it is.

    That’s probably the least damaging thing on this topic.

    As a little boy, Ronan wanted to be a girl.

    This alarmed Mia who put him into analysis.

    And she was so happy with her little boy who no longer wanted to be Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty and stopped crying to wear girl’s clothing.

    When you’re told at a very young age that your urges are wrong?

    You either reject that nonsense or you go through life afraid of making any real moves for fear that you’ll embarrass yourself.

    You can see the impact that childhood had on Ronan when he’s in front of the camera.

    He forever is about to have a moment of joy or passion before the cameras when, suddenly, it’s as though Will Truman (Eric McCormack on Will & Grace) just whispered in his ear, “Take it down to the chest voice.”

    When you grasp that Mia (and an analyst) taught Ronan to act ‘like a boy,’ you grasp why he is start-stop and so conflicted on air.

    It doesn’t help that he’s been billed repeatedly as super smart.

    Ronan’s not super smart in a way that helps a talk show host.

    He has a level of intelligence, yes.

    But he’s always had problems relating to other people.

    Emotional connections are a struggle.

    Miriam Polar, that’s all we’ll say for now.

    His trouble bonding and relating to people allowed him to excel at book smarts.

    But when you’re a TV talk show host, you really need interpersonal skills.

    And when you lack them, it can be embarrassing.

    Take, for example, what’s going on in the Ukraine. Wherever you stand on the issue (from CIA plot to everything else including Russian assault), you realize it’s a serious issue.

    But those who never developed social skills will embarrass themselves as Ronan did when he felt the need to gush Yulia Tymoshenko “has amazing hair.”

    He was referring to the 53-year-old former prime minister who is often billed as “the leader of the opposition,” not to a model doing a commercial for Herbal Essence shampoo.

    Where do you go from there?

    http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2014/03/tv-another-idiot-for-idiot-box.html

  28. June 6, 2014 at 11:21 PM

    Pathological doubter.
    Why Dylan Farrow’s missives make me think she’s a liar. Part 1
    Posted on February 19, 2014 by mprical

    Before the brouhaha over Dylan’s assault allegations, I thought it was well within the realm of possibility that Woody Allen was a child molester. His moral compass does not seem to point very close to due North. I still think this.

    I never followed the case, have little to no interest in celebrities nor their lives. I hate, haTE, HATE the media focus on them.

    If Dylan hadn’t published her letter, I never would have heard of Ronan Farrow or known about Ronan’s dubious parentage. I would not have known that Allen won a Lifetime Achievement Award. I would never have heard of ‘Blue Jasmine’ or it’s Oscar nominations. This is how much I isolate myself from entertainment media coverage. I really, genuinely, honestly don’t care. Actually, my feelings about celebrity reporting are much further down the spectrum than ‘don’t care’. I resent and am outraged by the importance given to such insipid nonsense in the media when there are important things happening in the world that actually affect us as individuals.

    Anyway, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Dylan has demanded that the reader, i.e.me, be the judge and jury in her case, so here it goes.

    Dylan’s statements to the press have made me reassess the possibility of Allen’s innocence. The language Dylan uses, in my opinion, is the language of liars and manipulators. Her statements are teeming with disingenuous, inconsistent and hypocritical assertions. I will go through her statements to demonstrate. In other words, i did not find the witness to be credible.

    The open letter can read here http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    When I read the NYT letter, I could not for the life of me understand why Dylan was guilt tripping me. The guilt trip is a form of psychological manipulation that breeds resentment. That’s exactly the effect that,

    “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know…”

    has on me; I resent the fuck out of it. That opening reeks of entitlement. It’s as if the reader owes Dylan an explanation and an apology. If anybody owes Dylan those things, it’s her parents, not me, not you, not Alec Baldwin and certainly not Diane Keaton. In other words, my first thought was, “I don’t owe you shit, Dylan Farrow, so fuck off”.

    What is it that Dylan is trying to get me to do with her manipulation? She never really says which is a hallmark of manipulation. It sets you up to fail and to seek the manipulator’s approval all the more. The letter is mostly insinuation; it contains almost no details or descriptions, especially of the alleged abuse. But I digress…

    So, what EXACTLY does Dylan want us to do?

    From what I can tell, Dylan wants Woody Allen to disappear, to ensure none of the following happens ever again:

    “Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.”

    Well, that is never going to happen. Woody Allen was famous and celebrated before Dylan was born. That bell cannot be unrung. This is not ancient Egypt where the pharaoh has people stricken from the historical record. Should we destroy all copies of anything Allen has created? Should we strip him of his wealth and send him out into the dessert without water? I saw ‘Annie Hall’ before Dylan was born and liked it, so what should I do? Should I have my memory expunged? Should I shoot myself in the head for liking something created by an alleged child molester? What will appease you, Dylan?

    The above quote also begs the question, why can’t Dylan simply ignore celebrity reporting like me? Why is she following the Oscars and the Golden Globes? It’s really not that hard to ignore – especially Woody Allen news – his movies are not even popular in the United States. If you don’t live in a major metro area, there’s a good chance you’ll have to do a lot of driving to find a theater that plays his movies. Dylan lives in Florida, right? I would be shocked if there were more than 10 theaters in that entire state that showed ‘Blue Jasmine’.

    And how often does Dylan encounter Woody Allen t-shirts & posters? I lived in NYC 25 years and don’t ever recall seeing anyone wearing a Woody Allen t-shirt. This is not to say that Dylan has never encountered these things, but she is clearly overstating the problem to pluck at the audience’s heartstrings which, again, is manipulation.

    By publishing this letter, Dylan has propelled Allen more into the spotlight than ever before; there were probably more articles, essays and blogs written about him in the last month than in the previous 60 years. I wouldn’t even be writing this if it weren’t for that letter. I bet all this publicity ignited by Dylan will increase sales of Allen’s products. People will be curious; they will want to know if they can unravel the mystery and see the monster behind the glasses. Oops.

    “Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong.”

    This is where I really started to think, “OK, Dylan, it’s getting way too hard to accept what you are saying as even remotely true”. Dylan comes off as a finger pointer who never owns her own shit. Who’s fault is it that Dylan had an eating disorder and cut herself, Woody’s, Hollywood’s or her own? Whose finger went down her throat? Who did the cutting? Could it be that Dylan has borderline personality disorder? That might explain the adolescent black-and-white thinking demonstrated here along with the manipulativeness.

    Dylan didn’t have the balls to testify, but blames others for “accepting the ambiguity” and “pretending” nothing is wrong. Nobody is pretending anything. The case was over. Nothing was wrong and Dylan never came forward or spoke for over 20 years. Is Dylan angry that the world moved on and did not obsess over her SHUT case? How dare the rest of the world give a shit about 9/11 and the war in Iraq and the financial crisis when we should have been agonizing over the plight of poor little rich Dylan. Get over yourself, Dylan or Mia or whoever wrote that absurd letter. You are not that important to me or Cate Blanchett or Louis CK. (I’m just guessing about Cate Blanchett and Louis CK, of course.)

    If Dylan is unhappy with the justice system and the way child sexual abuse cases are handled, why is her letter addressed to me and a bunch of actors? Go after Frank Maco, the CT police, and the battery of shrinks that family had at their disposal. Go after the policy makers.

    Has Dylan somehow recovered from the guilt of allowing Allen to be near other little girls? If not, perhaps she should help Allen’s adopted daughters who currently reside with him. Has she reached out to them in any way? Why doesn’t Dylan address this open letter to them?

    Dylan digs deep to explain the purpose of her letter; she wants to show others they don’t have to be silent.

    “The survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.”

    The thing is, nobody has to be silent. Nobody HAS to do anything except die and pay taxes. Who thinks otherwise? The thing is when you demand a bunch of NYT readers to adjudicate your case, you’ll have a bunch of people like me ripping apart your claims. That’s a consequence.

    If this letter was written for stifled victims of sexual abuse, why was it addressed to me and Scarlett Johansson? You know what would really be inspiring to victims? How about crushing your “tormentor” in court? Or writing a thoughtful well-written piece that honestly and thoroughly describes your experiences, a piece that explains how you overcame your troubled past?

    “Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away.”

    This passage stinks of professional envy and enormous self-centeredness; it makes me wonder if Mia wrote the letter. Why is Dylan so focused on Allen’s career? Why is it so important to Dylan to be believed by a bunch of strangers and show business people? Dylan is not even an actress nor is she in show business. Dylan Farrow has never been considered for any of the show business awards in question, so why would she think she should be considered in any fashion? There was no award for “Best Child Molestation Cover Up”, so what the heck does it have to do with her? If being acknowledged by the Hollywood community means so much to her, why doesn’t she get into show business and make her own films? Methinks she has some connections that would help her.

    Perhaps I should write an open letter too. You see, I think the Medea films are stupid, but they keep making them, which I feel is a personal rebuke.

    By the way, the NYT is not publishing out-your-molestor letters for just anyone. Dylan’s voice is being amplified, not silenced, due to her association with a celebrity.

    Now why does dear old mom gets off the hook so easily?

    “These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal.”

    Mia claimed that she had her suspicions about Allen before he adopted Dylan. Mia told the judge that Allen looked at Dylan in a “sexual way” (page 5, paragraph 2, http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993). Combine that with the claim mommy “declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut” it is clear that Mia would not and did not protect Dylan.

    “I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.”

    Mom brought the predator (are we talking about Allen or Uncle John the convicted child molester?) into the Farrow home. Mia didn’t save Dylan, she fed her to the wolf. I wonder how Dylan has come to peace with that.

    “Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.”

    Gosh, I wonder how many keyboards Dylan ruined by throwing up all over them just to get this down. Woody Allen is not Dylan’s tormentor. They have no relationship. Dylan’s histrionics make me nauseous.

    Honestly, though, after I read the letter, I still granted Dylan the benefit of the doubt because that’s how much of a douche I think Woody is. Maybe she was drunk when she wrote it.

    Next up: Dylan’s response to Moses in People, a.k.a. the last nail in the coffin that was Dylan’s credibility .

    Any comments accusing me of child molestation or defending child molesters will be cheerfully deleted.

    Any comments citing Vanity Fair as a credible source will also be deleted.

    Here’s a nice little article about guilt trips. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201305/the-psychology-and-management-guilt-trips

    Pathological doubter.
    Why Dylan Farrow’s missives make me think she’s a liar. Part 2
    Posted on February 22, 2014 by mprical

    So in part 1, I discussed my resentment of Dylan’s demand that I blindly believe her, get involved in all her crazy business, and feel bad for liking some Woody Allen films – I think I’m off the hook for enjoying ‘Without Feathers‘ since she didn’t say anything about his writing.

    Overall, the open letter made me think that Dylan is either a bad writer, a substance abuser, personality disordered or some combo of the those 3 AND Mia managed to get in the final edit of that letter. I was not committed yet to the idea that Dylan was simply lying.

    Of course, that’s not the end of the story. Dylan’s brother, Moses chimed in and defended his adopted father, Allen, to People magazine. Presumably, the NYT wanted to wash their hands of the whole filthy matter even though they started it; it was left to the bottom feeders, People and Hollywood Reporter, to pick up the rest of it.

    In that article, Moses recounted Mia’s frightening and violent rages which the children were strongly motivated to avoid by pleasing her and the “atmosphere of fear and hate towards Allen” enforced by Mia in the home after she found the Soon-Yi pics. Of all the parties here who issued statements, I found Moses the most credible, for whatever that’s worth. I have very little to base that opinion on, admittedly. On the one hand, Moses is a marriage and family therapist (I verified his license online), probably has the least to gain/most to lose by stepping forward, and has said nothing that made me question him (meaning there is nothing in the published courts’ decisions that directly contradicted Moses). On the other hand, Moses spoke to People which is a disgraceful rag.

    It should be remembered that 15 year old Moses wrote a letter to Judge Wilk which was read in court by Mia’s lawyer back in March 1993 – which proves there is no such thing as ‘rules of evidence’ in Family Court. Here are some quotes from that letter reported by the NYT:

    “You have done a horrible, unforgivable, needy, ugly, stupid thing.”

    “I hope you get so humiliated you commit suicide.”

    “Mom is a great mother and she always finds the time and patience to play with us. All you did is spoil the little ones, Dylan and Satchel.”

    “Everyone knows not to have an affair with your son’s sister, including that sister, but you have a special way to get that sister to think that that is O.K.”

    “You probably think that Mom is telling me to say these things, like before”

    That’s quite the 180 by Moses. Hey reader, do you think a 15 year old boy would sit down and write a letter like that to the Judge in his parents custody battle? Do you think it’s OK to coerce your kid into writing something like that for the world to hear? I sure as hell don’t and that is clearly what Mia did. Mia used her army of children as pawns then, and she continues to do so. I do not see how this can be denied, but if anyone has a well reasoned argument showing I am wrong on this point, please post a comment.

    Here’s a 1992 article with the Farrow kids trashing Woody while St. Mia stays above the fray. In my opinion, it’s trashy to permit your minor children speak to the press like this while you stay silent,
    but you know what they say about opinions.

    This is really all about Dylan – right, Dylan? – let’s get back to what she has to say. I am going to cut to the chase here. This is what she had to say about Moses,

    “He has betrayed me in the cruelest way imaginable, and betrayed my family and my mother who has loved him since day one. His betrayal is the lowest form of evil that I could ever imagine.”

    THAT is the statement that made my eyes go all squinty and my scalp go all itchy and my brain ache from all the cognitive dissonance. That was the point at which I could no longer grant the benefit of my doubt to Dylan. My spidey senses were saying Dylan was and is straight-up, consciously lying; she was not brainwashed, she was not the victim of false memory implantation and she was not molested by Woody Allen. She is a dishonest and vindictive person who will say anything to get what she wants especially if what she wants is to hurt people. Apparently, in Dylan’s twisted mind, expressing disbelief is more cruel and more evil than molestation. Does Dylan have panic attacks and nausea at the mere mention of Moses’ name, too? Does she get in a fetal position and cut herself when ‘Then Ten Commandments‘ come on TV every year? Now Moses has become the perpetrator of the “lowest form of evil” imaginable, so move over Woody Allen, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Elizabeth Bathory, et. al.

    Is it really possible that I am the only person who a) picked up on this and b) is really fucking bothered by it?

    For the next post, my plan to tie up some of the loose ends, address some other inconsistencies and address Dylan’s last statement in my next and last post on this issue.

    I also want to provide you with a list of articles/blogs that I found interesting and inspiring.

    http://mprical.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/why-dylan-farrows-missives-make-me-think-shes-a-liar-part-1-nyt/

    http://mprical.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/why-dylan-farrows-missives-make-me-think-shes-a-liar-part-2-people-mag/

    Dean Lewis said: The more I dug on this story, the more a mountain of evidence formed on Woody Allen’s side, and against Mia Farrow. We’ve formed such evidence on a pinterest account http://www.pinterest.com/paperbacks/mia-farrow-psycho/

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: