You can read first the “Dylan Farrow Woody Allen 8 lies” 1 minute version below or jump directly to the detailed lies with links and sources.
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen 8 lies: the 1 minute version
For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me.
LIE NUMBER 1. Quite the opposite: Dylan Farrow has wavered all time, both as a child and as an adult. Woody Allen never changed in his deny.
“…he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me…”
LIE NUMBER 2. Dylan and Satchel (now Ronan) Farrow were in treatment with two child psychologists, Woody Allen wasn’t. One of Dylan’s child psychologist found that Woody Allen behavior with Dylan was inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child”. He also precised “I didn’t see it as sexual”.
“…he refused to take the test administered by the state police…”
LIE NUMBER 3. Woody Allen was never asked by the state police to take a polygraph but took one voluntary and passed. He asked to Mia Farrow to take one, she refused.
These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, [including this most recent article here] (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts).
LIE NUMBER 4. Many of Dylan Farrow’s lies are directly copied from “10 Undeniable facts…” wrote by Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair. Maureen Orth has reported Mia Farrow words and lies since 1992 (Mia Story) and is also known for slandering Michael Jackson. An other “independent, highly respected journalist” is Nicholas Kristof, Mia Farrow’s very close friend, who has published Dylan’s open letter in The NYT.
“…debunked the experts my father claims exonerated him, calling them colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen…
LIE NUMBER 5. Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schlutz, Dylan and Ronan child psychologists, didn’t believe the abuse occurred. The judge said their judgement could have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schlutz were part of the team of experts commissioned by the State police and the prosecutor Frank Maco. After nine interview with Dylan and reviewing the videotape, the team concluded unambiguously that Dylan Farrow wasn’t abused sexually and suggested she was coached by Mia Farrow.
Dylan Farrow forgets to mention that after a 14 months investigation, a second independent rapport from the New York State Department of Social Services cleared Woody Allen of any sexual abuse a second time.
“…Included testimony from babysitters…
LIE NUMBER 6. Babysitters with a s is a lie: there is one and only testimony.
…who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me…”
LIE NUMBER 7. Never Justice Wilk and the Supreme Court document used the words “inappropriate sexual behavior” about the babysitter testimony. The words “inappropriate sexual behavior” are the creation of the adult Dylan Farrow who has previously lied by writing “…he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me…” (Lie Number 2) and is going to lie again about Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior (Lie Number 8).
“… Concluded that the evidence “proves that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
LIE NUMBER 8. To suggest that “grossly inappropriate” is about sexual abuse, Dylan takes care not to quote the whole sentence. Worst, she adds the word “evidence” before the quote, stolen from a previous sentence: “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen 8 lies: full detailed version
Nicholas Kristof has a column in The New York Times. He’s a very close – or even more – friend of Mia Farrow.
Thanks to him, on February 1, 2014, Dylan Farrow published an open letter accusing her adoptive father, Woody Allen, of sexual abuse when she was 7 years old. Still, Mia Farrow was not afraid to lie that she didn’t want Dylan to resurrect the allegation.
In 1992, Dylan’s accusation was carefully investigated for months by two independent teams of experts on sexual abuse. First in the state of Connecticut, second in the state of New York. Woody Allen was cleared two times.
On February 7, 2014, The New York Times published an answer by Woody Allen to Dylan Farrow’s letter. Part of this answer was reported by Vanity Fair, a magazine of popular culture on glossy paper which since 1992 and the article Mia Story has systematically supported Mia Farrow and attacked Woody Allen.
It doesn’t come as a surprise that Vanity Fair has allowed Dylan Farrow to answer to Woody Allen’s answer. And has also put a link to “10 Undeniable Facts About The Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegations”, a Maureen Orth’s listicle full of lies and manipulations but without any source, published few days before by Vanity Fair.
As we’re going to see, Dylan Farrow uses many of the “10 Undeniable Facts/Lies…” as she confesses herself. None of these 10 facts/links is linked to any sources. But don’t worry: we provide them.
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 1
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.
Quite the opposite! Dylan Farrow has changed her story several times, both as a child and an adult.
As a child, Dylan Farrow has changed her story many times.
The firs time Dylan Farrow was asked by a doctor to say where Woody Allen touched her, she pointed to her shoulder.
According to the experts on sexual abuse who interviewed her 9 times, Dylan Farrow changed her story from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina and even said “I like to cheat on my stories“.
“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.”
As an adult, Dylan Farrow has changed her story many times.
From penetration to no penetration.
As an adult, she has also changed her story many times from “Aggravated Sexual Assault First Degree” (finger penetration, no evidence) to “Sexual Assault First Degree” (just touching).
This is extremely important as there is no statute of limitations for “Aggravated Sexual Assault First Degree”.
Read our full article: Statute of limitations: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors
Prior 2014, there was no toy train in the attic in Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegation.
In her open letter published in The New York Times, Dylan Farrow claims:
He (Woody Allen) 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.
Before 2014, neither the court document, the prosecutor’s statement, the Yale-New Haven report (nine interviews), nor any document or article in the press refers to Dylan Farrow or Mia Farrow reporting the presence of an electric train in the attic.
In his May 23, 2018 essay Moses Farrow wrote:
It’s a precise and compelling narrative, but there’s a major problem: there was no electric train set in that attic. There was, in fact, no way for kids to play up there, even if we had wanted to. It was an unfinished crawl space, under a steeply-angled gabled roof, with exposed nails and floorboards, billows of fiberglass insulation, filled with mousetraps and droppings and stinking of mothballs, and crammed with trunks full of hand-me-down clothes and my mother’s old wardrobes.
The idea that the space could possibly have accommodated a functioning electric train set, circling around the attic, is ridiculous. One of my brothers did have an elaborate model train set, but it was set up in the boys’ room, a converted garage on the first floor. (Maybe that was the train set my sister thinks she remembers?) Now, whenever I hear Dylan making a public statement about what allegedly happened to her that day when she was barely seven, I can only think of that imaginary train set, which she never brought up during the original investigation or custody hearing. Did somebody suggest to the adult Dylan that such a specific detail would make her story more credible? Or does she really believe she remembers this train “circling around the attic” the same way she says she remembers Woody’s whispered promises of trips to Paris and movie stardom (kind of odd enticements to offer a 7-year-old, rather than a new toy or a doll)?
Same as the toy train, Woody Allen whispering to Dylan that she was a good girl, etc. has been added in 2014 and never mentioned before. NEVER.
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. 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.
“…my firsthand account”… Really?
Dylan Farrow forgot how the sexual abuse allegation is born.
Woody Allen doesn’t “insists” but just like the Yale-New Haven report and Moses Farrow, believes that Mia Farrow has coached Dylan Farrow. Taking pretext that a babysitter said she has seen Woody Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap, Mia Farrow called her lawyer then videotaped Dylan Farrow in many segments and many days. She had to take her two times to the doctor before Dylan said that Woody Allen touched her inappropriately in an attic. Even there was no physical proof of abuse, the pediatrician was forced by the law to report the allegation to the police.
The doctor, Vadakkekara Kavirajan of New Milford, Conn., is the regular physician for Ms. Farrow’s children. He would not comment other than to say that if a parent makes a complaint of abuse, or if a child informs a doctor of abuse, or if in the course of an examination the doctor gets any inkling of abuse, he is required, by state law, to report the case to the state’s Child Protection Bureau. Public Disclosures From the Private Life of Woody Allen
Dylan Farrow disputed lie is directly from Vanity Fair listicle. You can read more about it on 1. Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse.
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 2
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.
HUGE LIE! The Supreme Court document doesn’t show that Woody Allen was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with Dylan.
HUGE LIE!!! Dr. Coates was Satchel (now Ronan) therapist, not Woody Allen therapist! And the “inappropriate” behavior wasn’t sexual, as clearly stated by Dr. Coates in the Supreme Court document!
In the fall of 1990, the parties asked Dr. Coates to evaluate Dylan to determine if she needed therapy. During the course of the evaluation, Ms. Farrow expressed her concern to Dr. Coates that Mr. Allen’s behavior with Dylan was not appropriate. Dr. Coates observed:
‘I understood why she was worried, because it [Mr. Allen’s relationship with Dylan] was intense, … I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child …’
She testified that she worked with Mr. Allen to help him to understand that his behavior with Dylan was inappropriate and that it had to be modified. Dr. Coates also recommended that Dylan enter therapy with Dr. Schultz, with whom Dylan began treatment in April 1991.
None the Dr. Coates and none the Dr. Schultz were Allen’s therapist. Dr. Coates’ statement is very clear: “I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child”.
Woody Allen wasn’t in treatment with his own therapist for inappropriate behavior with Dylan. The inappropriate behavior was that the relationship Woody Allen had with Dylan was to intense for the child, in no way sexual.
Dylan’s lie is linked to Vanity Fair listicle, number 2 Please, also read 2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 3
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).
Woody Allen was NEVER asked by the police to pass a polygraph! But he took one spontaneously and passed. He asked to Mia Farrow to take one, she refused.
Dylan Farrow’s lie is directly copied from Maureen Orth’s 10 undeniable facts number 3 in Vanity Fair. Maureen Orth has been asked to give her source about the police asking to Woody Allen to pass a polygraph. Her answer was it “came from multiple sources and was fact checked (sic) by Vanity Fair.” But, the sources were so “multiple” that she couldn’t give any. Not even one.
As nobody can pass a polygraph test alone, Woody Allen hired Paul K. Minor, Former Chief Polygraph Examiner for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who also served in the U.S. Army with the Military Police and as a Special Agent of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. It’s understandable that Dylan prefers to write “someone” rather than the highly respected name of Paul Minor.
Mia Farrow was asked by Woody Allen to pass a polygraph test too. She could have hired Paul Minor or somebody else. But she refused to pass a test.
By writing “authorities refused to accept as evidence” Dylan is lying again. Authorities didn’t refuse to accept the polygraph as evidence, because Woody Allen didn’t try to use it in court. Why? With few exceptions, polygraph tests are never accepted in court.
“Nevertheless, for purposes of court procedures, absent a stipulation of the parties, the results of a lie detector test are likely never admissible.”
The Supreme Court document doesn’t mention anything about the polygraph test.
Learn full details concerning Dylan’s lie about Woody Allen’s polygraph:
- 19. Mia Farrow refused to take a polygraph, Woody Allen took one and passed.
- 3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 4
These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, [including this most recent article here] (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts).
The independent, highly respected journalist are:
- Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair, a magazine of popular culture on glossy paper. She has attacked Woody Allen since 1992 (Mia Story), but also Michael Jackson. She wrote “10 Undeniable facts/lies…”, used by Dylan Farrow, which is enough to discredit her.
- Nicholas Kristof, columnist for The New York Times, Mia Farrow’s very close friend, who not only has published Dylan Farrow’s open letter but also Woody Allen Meets #MeToo (but most of the comments weren’t the ones expected) and lied grossly on Twitter about Moses Farrow, Dylan’s older brother.
- Ronan Farrow, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow’s biological son, Dylan Farrow’s brother. He was 4 years in 1992 (Moses 14). He has been raised by Mia Farrow in the hate of his father and is not afraid to lie about him: just the fact he believes his sister’s lies speak volume about it.
Lies using the court document: some words about Justice Wilk
What is written below is just for your personal information. We are going to continue to count Dylan’s lies as if Wilk was the most impartial judge.
Because Woody Allen wasn’t showing remorse about his love relationship with Mia Farrow ‘s 19/21 years old daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, Judge Wilk’s conclusions are skewed by barely concealed revulsion toward him.
Worst, as if it was not enough to make it a biased judge, Justice Elliot Wilk was married to an attorney who advocates for abused women and children and “believes the victim”.
To say Justice Wilk was openly biased in favor of Mia Farrow against Woody Allen is not an opinion but a fact. It was already obvious in 1993, it’s even more true in 2018, now that we’ve learned so many damning things about Mia Farrow and that Moses Farrow has spoken out and Soon-Yi has spoken out too.
Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. 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. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.) Woody Allen Speaks Out
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 5
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,”…
Dylan Farrow mixes voluntary the two child psychologists who were treating her and Satchel (Ronan), and expressed the opinion that Woody Allen didn’t abuse Dylan Farrow…
“I believe that the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen.”
… and the team of experts from the Yale-New Haven, who have been assigned by the police and the prosecutor John Maco. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schlutz were part of the team of experts commissioned by the State police and the prosecutor Frank Maco.
Not only, everything is write black on white on the report, but also in the court document:
The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master’s degree in social work. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team.
Very clearly, Dylan Farrow wants to persuade you that the experts of the report were employed by Woody Allen. She really needs to dismiss the credibility of the report and for good reasons:
It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen… and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.
…”criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions “sanitized and therefore less credible”.
Apparently, even less credible, the Yale-New Haven report is still too credible for Dylan Farrow. If not, why does she lie grossly by editing the Supreme Court document?
Dylan Farrow is also lying by omission: she forgot that on October 7, 1993, a second independent 14-month-old investigation, from the New York State child welfare, cleared a second time Woody Allen and declared the Dylan Farrow sexual abuse allegation unfounded: “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded.”
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 6
“Included testimony from babysitters…
According to the Supreme Court document, Babysitters with a s is a lie: there is one and only testimony.
However, the nanny Monica Thompson 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.
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 7
…who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.”
Never Justice Wilk in the Supreme Court document used the words “inappropriate sexual behavior” about the babysitter testimony. The words “inappropriate sexual behavior” are the creation of Dylan Farrow who has previously lied by writing “…he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me…” (Lie Number 2) and is going to lie again about Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior (Lie Number 8).
According to the Supreme Court document:
During a different portion of the day, Ms. Stickland went to the television room in search of one of Ms. Pascal’s children. She observed Mr. Allen kneeling in front of Dylan with his head on her lap, facing her body. Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.
Allen testified that his head was not in her lap, but that he had knelt down to talk to her, like million of parents in the world. But let say it’s head was on her lap, facing Dylan’s body, to see what happen.
Alison Stickland was Casey Pascal’s nanny. Pascal is Mia Farrow’s childhood friend. Stickland didn’t say anything to Mia Farrow or Casey Pascal immediately but waited to be alone with Pascal. Casey Pascal in turn only informed Mia Farrow the following day (August 5th, 1992), rather than immediately rushing to express her concern to Farrow.
Now, what Dylan Farrow say in her open letter published in the NYT on February 1, 2014 ?
“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.”
All these Dylan’s memories are public. Anyone could read them and then “remember” them. They have been written in the court document or in the medias, thanks to Mia Farrow who went out of his way to convince the judge and the newspapers that Woody Allen’s behavior with Dylan had always been sexual.
When Woody Allen officially adopted Moses Farrow and Dylan Farrow in December 1991, Mia Farrow filled an affidavit praising his parenting skills, saying he was a good father, better than most natural fathers, calling him a “loving, caring and nurturing father.” This affidavit is mentioned in the Supreme Court document.
It doesn’t make sens that Mia Farrow was agreed to let Woody Allen being officially Dylan’s adoptive father and praised his parent skill, if, as she has never stopped to claim later, she suspected him to have a sexual attraction to his adopted daughter. Obviously, this is the proof that Mia Farrow is lying.
Let say that Dylan Farrow really remembers that she didn’t like when Woody Allen would place his head in her naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. If true, it wasn’t the first time that Woody Allen was doing this and never before Dylan had linked it to an inappropriate sexual behavior. Even, as she said herself, when Woody Allen was alone with her. But now, we should believe that the same behavior in a house full of people hostile to Woody Allen and who have been instructed to watch him like a hawk was the evidence that he sexually abused her in an attic?
In his essay, A SON SPEAKS OUT, Moses Farrow wrote:
Along with five kids, there were three adults in the house, all of whom had been told for months what a monster Woody was. None of us would have allowed Dylan to step away with Woody, even if he tried. Casey’s nanny, Alison, would later claim that she walked into the TV room and saw Woody kneeling on the floor with his head in Dylan’s lap on the couch. Really? With all of us in there? And if she had witnessed that, why wouldn’t she have said something immediately to our nanny Kristi? (I also remember some discussion of this act perhaps taking place on the staircase that led to Mia’s room. Again, this would have been in full view of anyone who entered the living room, assuming Woody managed to walk off with Dylan in the first place.) The narrative had to be changed since the only place for anyone to commit an act of depravity in private would have been in a small crawl space off my mother’s upstairs bedroom. By default, the attic became the scene of the alleged assault.
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.”
In the context of her previous lies, you could understand that Woody Allen “failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.” means “sexual abuse”. As there are lies, it couldn’t be the case.
Two remembers, in case you didn’t notice these facts before:
- about “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan“, the Yale-New Haven report states: “…and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.” Read the full report.
- about “act as a responsible parent and adult“, in December 1991,When Woody Allen officially adopted Moses Farrow and Dylan Farrow, Mia Farrow filled an affidavit, praising his parenting skills, saying he was a good father, better than most natural fathers, calling him a “loving, caring and nurturing father.”
Dylan Farrow Woody Allen Lie Number 8
Concluded that the evidence “…proves that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
Not only Dylan Farrow doesn’t quote the whole sentence but she replace falsely the missing words with “evidence” to suggest that the grossly inappropriate behavior was sexual.
“The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
First, the word “evidence” is absent from the Court Document in this sentence. But worst, it is stolen from a previous sentence, not cited by Dylan Farrow: “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”
Second, as everyone can see, Woody Allen is one of four people whose testimony is considered credible. Woody Allen has ALWAYS denied the allegations against him, so it is not a testimonial about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse: Woody Allen didn’t testimony against himself.
Ditto for Dr. Susan Coates who said that according to her Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan. Same for Dr. Leventhal who was leading the Yale-New Haven Hospital team, and said that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan (he suggested that Dylan could have invented the assault or could have been coached or influenced by her mother, Mia Farrow).
Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior refers to Dr. Susan Coates’ observation: “I understood why she [Mia Farrow] was worried, because it [Mr. Allen’s relationship with Dylan] was intense, … I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child.”
Maco Full Statement Of Decision contradicts his “probable cause”
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.
Isolating some words doesn’t say the truth.
Frank Maco never said what the “probable cause” was, nor in 1993, nor in 2014. Anybody reading the full statement of decision instead of isolating “probable cause” understand that the true reason Frank Maco wanted to “avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigors and uncertainties of a questionable prosecution” was because “even Justice Wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution and working in the framework of an evidentiary standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely conclude that sexual abuse had occurred.”
In others words, Maco was sure to loose against Woody Allen: not only he had zero evidence but even his own experts from the Yale-New Haven Hospital were against him.
As a former prosecutor, my personal take, for what it’s worth, is that the prosecutor, Maco, made the right decision in not moving forward with this case. The Yale-New Haven study, which was commissioned by the State of Connecticut and, most likely, intended to assist the State in making a determination whether or not to proceed in this matter found, rather conclusively, that there was never any sexual abuse, thereby leaving the prosecution without any expert testimony. In addition, there was no forensic evidence of sexual penetration as alleged by the child; no corroborating witnesses; and, finally significant and substantial inconsistencies in the child’s many statements and interviews. Finally, when you add the context in which allegations were first raised, only after an acrimonious split between Farrow and Allen, it’s unlikely that the State will have survived or gotten much further than a probable cause hearing, which is a very low legal standard, despite the prosecutors rather misleading and unethical public statements. Nowadays, Mr. Maco’s statement and conduct, sending an unsolicited letter directly to the NY judge without affording a hearing as to it’s admissibility, is likely to result in termination and suspension of his license to practice law. Source in the comments.
Current and former prosecutors said they could not see Mr. Maco’s basis for rejecting his own experts. They also questioned why he kept the case open until more than six months after the hospital delivered its report.
Woody Allen sued Maco: a panel judged Maco’s actions to be “was inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial” and also “violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. The case ran until 1996. Maco was suspended for much of that time, losing his living, and costing the states hundreds of thousands of dollars in defence.
Dylan Farrow is lying until the end of her letter
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. 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.
Not only Dylan Farrow is taking care only about herself, but she’s misleading all survivors by lying about the statute of limitations. Dylan Farrow can bring Woody Allen to civil court at any moment, until she’s 48. She should do it, rather than lying about her experience on Twitter for mob trial and publicity. Without her allegation, no one would have heard of Dylan Farrow and no one would have mentioned his future debut as a writer.
Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicist…
Mia Farrow Net Worth is $60 Million. Who do you think wrote the present letter for Vanity Fair? Dylan Farrow or a publicist?
…but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth.
Obviously, after all Dylan Farrow’s previous lies, the truth is not on her side.
I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won’t let the truth be buried and I won’t be silenced.
The Farrow family has had unbelievable access to the media and has used it to their great advantage. To continue to exploit the public platform that the media seems willing to give them only to repeat the same accusation we’ve heard for over two decades is both an appalling insult to the criminal justice system that devoted so much to their cause as well as an utterly narcissistic demand for the public attention that could be, and should be, given to others — all the victims out there who have not been heard and will never have a chance for the justice of an investigation.
Woody Allen Mob Lynching