Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation: 20 Undeniable Facts

Facts and sources matter. And Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation doesn’t resists to facts. Far from Maureen Orth’s lies for Vanity Fair, the entirely deniable “10 Undeniable Facts about the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation“, presented without any source and insidiously distorted by manipulative amalgams and the purposely omission of more important facts, true facts support Woody Allen’s innocence.

First, we’ve listed below the 20 facts without details and links. Then, each fact is detailed with links to the sources. Or you can select a number to go directly to the detailed fact.

 

Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation: All the Facts in 1 minute

1. Woody Allen was alone with Dylan Farrow in his apartment countless times over the years and could have abused her without witnesses countless times.

2. Despite Fact 1 (above), the alleged sexual abuse took place in a house full of people hostile to Woody Allen. They had also been expressly ordered to watch him, and never to leave him alone with Dylan.

3. Child molestation is a compulsive deviation that demands repetition. Woody Allen and his wife adopted two girls (now adults). Allen sexual abuse allegation is limited to Dylan Farrow, one time. Except this, nobody, child or adult, has never accused Allen of sexual abuse or misconduct.

4. Three days before the alleged abuse, having learned that Woody Allen had lied to her and that the affair with Soon-Yi was continuing, Mia Farrow pleaded to “find a way to stop him”.

5. Woody Allen was never asked by the police to pass a polygraph but took one spontaneously and passed. He asked to Mia Farrow to take one, she refused.

6. When Woody Allen officially adopted Moses Farrow and Dylan Farrow in December 1991, Mia Farrow filled an affidavit praising his parenting skills, as confirmed by the Supreme Court document.

7. Woody Allen has never been in therapy with a child psychologist for his conduct toward Dylan Farrow. Both Satchel (Ronan) and Dylan were.

8. Soon-Yi Previn wasn’t Woody Allen’s (underage) (adopted) (step)daughter and when she was a child he never was a paternal figure for her as confirmed by the Supreme Court document, Soon-Yi Previn and Mia Farrow.

9. Nanny Monica Thompson was pressured by Mia Farrow to support molestation accusations against Woody Allen. She said another baby-sitter had serious doubts about the sexual abuse accusation.

10. Mia Farrow videotaped Dylan in many segments and many days and took her two times to the pediatrician before Dylan told him that Woody Allen had touched her private parts in the attic.

11. As a child, Dylan Farrow has changed her story of sexual abuse many times.

12. Two independent team of experts on sexual abuse from two different states investigated Woody Allen for months and completely and unambiguously cleared him two times of any sexual abuse.

13. Because of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Mia Farrow’s 20 years old adoptive daughter, Justice Wilk who ruled the custody trial and was married to a feminist attorney, was openly biased against Woody Allen.

14. According to Supreme Court, Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior wasn’t about sexual abuse and it is unlikely it could be successfully prosecuted.

15. Prosecutor Frank Maco’s full statement contradicts his claim to have a “probable cause” (he never said which one) to prosecute Woody Allen.

16. In 1992, Moses Farrow said that he believed her mother Mia Farrow had made up Woody Allen’s sexual abuse accusation.

17. Moses Farrow was present before, during and after the alleged event. His testimony supports Woody Allen’s innocence and confirms that his sister Dylan has been coached and brainwashed by Mia Farrow.

18. As an adult, Dylan Farrow has changed her version many times concerning the way Woody Allen touched her.

19. The Electric Train Set in the Attic Doesn’t Make Sense.

20. Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow knew the song “With My Daddy In The Attic” and “Mama, Mama, Comfort Me” with an electric train.

 

1. Woody Allen was alone with Dylan Farrow in his apartment countless times over the years and could have abused her without witnesses countless times.

During their 12 years relationship, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married and never lived together.

Woody Allen lived in the Upper East Side, Mia Farrow and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

Woody Allen was alone with Dylan Farrow in his apartment on Fifth Ave. countless times and could have abused his adopted daughter without witnesses countless times. But he didn’t abuse her.

 

2. Despite Fact 1 (above), the alleged sexual abuse took place in a house full of people hostile to Woody Allen. They had also been expressly ordered to watch him, and never to leave him alone with Dylan.

The alleged abuse took place On August 4, 1992, in Mia Farrow’s Connecticut vacation home, “Frog Hollow”.

In his 2018 essay, Moses Farrow writes:

August 4, 1992 was a warm, sunny day in Bridgewater, Connecticut, but in our family’s country home, Frog Hollow, there was a chill in the air. My mother, Mia Farrow, was out shopping with her close friend since childhood, Casey Pascal. I was 14 at the time, and home that day with my little sister Dylan, who had just turned seven, my four-year-old brother Satchel (who now goes by the name Ronan) and Casey’s three kids. We were being supervised by our nanny, Kristi, as well as Casey’s nanny, Alison, and our French tutor, Sophie. It was a full house.

There was another grown-up in the TV room that day, sitting on the floor, watching “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” with the rest of us – Woody Allen. On the surface, it was not unlike his previous visits to our country home. But my mother had put all of us on notice not to let him out of our sight.

This is confirmed by the Supreme Court document: “Ms. Farrow had previously instructed Ms. Groteke that Mr. Allen was not to be left alone with Dylan.”

And by the nanny Monica Thompson: “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.”

 

3. Child molestation is a compulsive deviation that demands repetition. Woody Allen and his wife adopted two girls (now adults). Allen sexual abuse allegation is limited to Dylan Farrow, one time. Except this, nobody, child or adult, has never accused Allen of sexual abuse or misconduct.

Child molestation is a compulsive sickness and deviation that demands repetition

To those who have become convinced of my father’s guilt, I ask you to consider this: In this time of #MeToo, when so many movie heavyweights have faced dozens of accusations, my father has been accused of wrongdoing only once, by an enraged ex-partner during contentious custody negotiations. During almost 60 years in the public eye, not one other person has come forward to accuse him of even behaving badly on a date, or acting inappropriately in any professional situation, let alone molesting a child. As a trained professional, I know that child molestation is a compulsive sickness and deviation that demands repetition. Dylan was alone with Woody in his apartment countless times over the years without a hint of impropriety, yet some would have you believe that at the age of 56, he suddenly decided to become a child molester in a house full of hostile people ordered to watch him like a hawk. – Moses Farrow

Only one allegation and Woody Allen and Soon-Yi have adopted two little girls

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.

Both Bechet and Manzie Allen are now adults. On May 24, 2018, Bechet Allen published on her Facebook page:

“I never wanted to involve myself in the social media debates involving my father, but there comes a point when I realize that I can either continue pretending that none of this is going on, or stand up for him. He has been nothing but supportive and loving, and now it is my turn to support him.”

 

4. Three days before the alleged abuse, having learned that Woody Allen had lied to her and that the affair with Soon-Yi was continuing, Mia Farrow pleaded to “find a way to stop him”.

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”. – New York Times, March 30, 1993

 

5. Woody Allen was never asked by the police to pass a polygraph but took one spontaneously and passed. He asked to Mia Farrow to take one, she refused.

Maureen Orth is Mia Farrow’s friend: she obediently reports her words and lies since 1992, when she wrote for Vanity Fair “Mia Story“.

On February 7, 2014, she wrote in “10 Undeniable Facts about the Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation” that 3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. This is a complete lie and it has been refuted in details in “40 Undeniable facts about Mia Farrow, her family and Woody Allen”: 19. Mia Farrow refused to take a polygraph, Woody Allen took one and passed.

 

6. When Woody Allen officially adopted Moses Farrow and Dylan Farrow in December 1991, Mia Farrow filled an affidavit praising his parenting skills, as confirmed by the Supreme Court document.

Born in Korea with cerebral palsy in 1978, Moses Farrow was adopted by Mia Farrow in 1980.

Born in Texas in 1985, Dylan Farrow was first adopted by Mia Farrow in 1985.

On Dec. 17, 1991, when Woody Allen officially adopted Dylan and Moses Farrow as a co-adoptive, single parent, Mia Farrow filled an affidavit.

Farrow’s affidavit said Woody Allen, was “far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be” and that he is “a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan’s father almost since her birth and adoption by me….He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan’s waking hours.”

The affidavit is mentioned in the Supreme Court document.

 

7. Woody Allen has never been in therapy with a child psychologist for his conduct toward Dylan Farrow. Both Satchel (Ronan) and Dylan were.

One of Maureen Orth’s and Farrow clan biggest lie is that “Woody 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.”

Maureen Orth adds: “Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.” then jump to the fact 3. Of course, people make the link between Woody Allen being in therapy with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation (false) and Mia Farrow who had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan (true, as seen previously).

1. FALSE: Woody 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.”

Both Satchel (now Ronan) and Dylan were treated by two psychologists: Dr. Susan  Coates, a  clinical  psychologist  who treated Satchel; Dr. Nancy Schultz, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan. As written in the Supreme Court document, both psychologists expressed the opinion that they didn’t believe that Woody Allen sexually abused Dylan.

According to the Supreme Court document:

In June 1990, the parties became concerned with Satchel’s (Ronan Farrow) behavior and took him to see Dr. Coates, with whom he then began treatment. At Dr. Coates’ request, both parents participated in Satchel’s treatment. 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.

The facts are very far from Maureen Orth’s lies, intended to make people believe that Woody Allen was paying his own psychoanalyst because he was sexually attracted to Dylan. None the Dr. Coates and none the Dr. Schultz were Allen’s therapist, so Allen was not in therapy for inappropriate behavior with Dylan. Furthermore, 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”.

Any kind of Allen sex therapist story is a complete lie.

2. TRUE “Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.”

On January 13, 1992, Mia Farrow discovers nude photographs of his 19/21 years old adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Previn in Woody Allen’s apartment.

On her memoir, Mia Farrow writes:

“After January 13, I didn’t leave him alone with any of my kids.”

Mia Farrow. A Memoir. What Falls Away – Page 283

Mia Farrow confirmed in his memoir that she wanted to use Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi who was between 19 and 21 years old, as an evidence that Woody Allen could sexually abuse a 7 years old child:

Now I viewed his [Woody Allen] behavior with Dylan in a complete different light. I no longer believed he could control himself. I no longer believed he was dealing with his problems responsibly. I was no longer sure that his “inappropriate” and “intense” behavior with Dylan was not sexual. At exactly what point does it become child abuse?

Mia Farrow. A Memoir. What Falls Away – Page 281

Full article: Mia Farrow used Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi for Dylan sexual abuse.

According to Nanny Monica Thompson (see 9 below):

“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.”

 

8. Soon-Yi Previn wasn’t Woody Allen’s (underage) (adopted) (step)daughter and when she was a child he never was a paternal figure for her, as confirmed by the Supreme Court document, Soon-Yi Previn and Mia Farrow.

Soony-Yi Farrow Previn is the adopted daughter of André Previn and Mia Farrow so her paternal figure was André Previn. She was  21 when she began to be romantically involved with Woody Allen.

Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married and never lived together

Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married and never lived together. Woody Allen lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave, Mia Farrow and her kids lived on Central Park West. During his 12 years relationship with Mia Farrow, Woody Allen never once stayed over night at Mia Farrow’s apartment.

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn are married since December 1997. They have two adoptive daughters, Manzie and Bechet.

RELATED CONTENT. Soon-Yi Previn wasn’t Woody Allen (underage) (adoptive) (step)daughter.

Woody Allen was never a paternal figure for Soon-Yi Previn

Justice Wilk, Suprem Court

According to the Supreme Court document: “Until 1990 although he had had little contact with any of the Previn children, Woody Allen had the least to do with Soon-Yi.”

Soon-Yi Previn

According to Soon-Yi Previn: “He was never any kind of father figure to me.  (…) My own father is Andre Previn, who came to visit pretty often and took us all out frequently.”

Mia Farrow’s Autobiography

According to Mia Farrow: “So when she was little, I asked Woody several times if he would take her for a walk, buy her an ice cream or something, but he had declined. Now, when I told her I was pregnant, she burst into angry, uncomprehending tears. She didn’t like Woody, she said, he was nasty and ugly, and the baby would be ugly like him.”

 

9. Nanny Monica Thompson was pressured by Mia Farrow to support molestation accusations against Woody Allen. She said another baby-sitter had serious doubts about the molestation accusation.

Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges

Monica Thomson was a nanny for Mia Farrow. She resigned from the Farrow household on Jan. 25 after being subpoenaed.

Monica Thompson said in a deposition that on several occasions Mia 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.”

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. 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.”

 

10. Mia Farrow videotaped Dylan in many segments and many days and took her two times to the pediatrician before Dylan told him that Woody Allen had touched her private parts in the attic.

According to the Supreme Court document, Dylan Farrow never said that Woody Allen took her to an attic before Mia Farrow videotaped her.

Because she was already uncomfortable with Mr. Allen’s inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and because she believed that her concerns were not being taken seriously enough by Dr. Schultz and Dr. Coates, Ms. Farrow videotaped Dylan’s statements. Over the next twenty-four hours, Dylan told Ms. Farrow that she had been with Mr. Allen in the attic and that he had touched her privates with his finger.

The nanny Monica Thompson testified in sworn affidavits that “the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. 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.”

Not only the tape had undeniably been stopped and restarted several times, but there was even a splice. In her book, Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal, page 127, Kristine Groteke, who admitted that she praised Farrow as a devoted parent while disparaging Allen as rude and antisocial, wrote:

“There was a splice, Mia explained, that cut out some tape inadvertently capturing Dylan’s private parts, and which, Mia felt, was “inappropriate” to show. The tape had undeniably, however, been stopped and restarted several times.”

 

All experts on sexual abuse, even the one payed by Mia Farrow, criticized the videotape.

Dr. Stephen Herman, called and payed by Mia Farrow.

Dr. Herman, told the court that he considered “unfortunate” that Mia, and not an objective and trained evaluator,  videotaped Dylan’s testimony, mainly because the way she focused on specific things could possibly “set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child.” In short, he said “I don’t think it helps matters, I think it complicates matters.”

 

Dr. Anne Meltzer, called and payed by Woody Allen.

Judge in Woody-Mia child custody case airs anti-Allen views.

Meltzer, a psychologist who has testified at more than 200 trials, said the videotape was the first in her experience ever produced by a parent. Meltzer also said it was ‘unusual’ for a child to talk about molestation soon after it occurs.

‘They generally feel badly about it and they are told not to tell. It often results in delayed disclosure,’ she said.

Wilk, as he has often done during the trial, asked the witness several questions, including whether she thought Dylan might have made up the account because that is what she thought her mother wanted to hear.

‘I think that’s possible,’ Meltzer said.

 

Richard Marcus, formerly head of the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit, payed by Woody Allen.

Richard Marcus doubts Woody abused adopted daughter.

Marcus said that such leading questions as, ‘What did he do? Did he take your underpants off‘ and such statements as, ‘After touching you, he said…’ smacked of ‘prompting or reminding the child of what she said previously.’

He described it as a form of ‘rehearsal’ so that subsequent investigators ‘will start with a very worked-over trail.’

 

Linda Fairstein, director of the first sex crimes unit in the US.

Note: Linda Fairstein was not involved in the custody trial.

Linda Fairstein was director of the first sex crimes unit in the US. Until 2002 she oversaw the investigation of 1000 of allegations of child and sexual abuse. About Dylan Farrow abuse by Woody Allen, she says “I have no reason to believe it happened.”

“When the story came out that Mia had videotaped Dylan”—in eleven segments shot at different times in different places, one nude in a bathtub, others outside showing her topless—“it sounded to me like one of the craziest things I’d ever heard. On every level, it’s the last thing you would do. First of all, videotaping her naked while asking again and again about what happened. Why are you exposing your child to these videos that someday will possibly be in the hands of the public or in the courtroom? That fact alone set off every alarm.”

VIDEO – Linda Fairstein’s take on Dylan Farrow’s open letter.

 

According to the Dr. Leventhal who headed the Connecticut investigation, it was possible that Mia Farrow encouraged her child to fabricate simply by videotaping her telling the story, because Dylan liked to perform.

 

11. As a child, Dylan Farrow has changed her story about Woody Allen sexual abuse 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.”

 

12. Two independent team of experts on sexual abuse from two different states investigated Woody Allen for months and completely and unambiguously cleared him two times of any sexual abuse.

New-Haven Hospital

Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Evaluation of Dylan Farrow

“It’s our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually assaulted 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 to her on  August 4, 1992.”

New York State Department of Social Services

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.”

 

13. Because of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Mia Farrow’s 20 years old adoptive daughter, Justice Wilk who ruled the custody trial and was married to a feminist attorney, was openly biased against Woody Allen.

Allen v. Farrow (1993) – Justice Wilk – Supreme Court

Because of Woody Allen celebrity and because he wasn’t showing remorse about his love relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Mia Farrow ‘s 19 years old adopted daughter, Judge Wilk’s conclusions are skewed by barely concealed revulsion toward him.

Justice Wilk was married with an attorney “advocating for women and children”.

Judge Wilk was so biased against Woody Allen that he found some reasons to challenge ALL testimonies saying he didn’t abuse Dylan: the Dr. Susan Coates (a woman), the Dr. Nancy Schultz (a woman) and the Yale-New Haven team (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.).

He also challenged Richard Marcus, Retired New York Police Lt., formerly head of the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit, called and payed by Woody Allen.

He shared the opinion of the expert called and payed by Mia Farrow, Dr. Stephen Herman, who found the Yale-New Haven report flawed. But he “forgot” the opinion of Dr. Anne Meltzer, a psychologist called and payed by Woody Allen, who has testified at more than 200 trials. Dr Anne Meiltzer said that she believed the report was done in a “thorough and sensitive” manner. “They reached conclusions that were supported well by the data they collected,”.

When Woody Allen co-adopted Dylan and Moses in December 1991, Mia Farrow wrote an affidavit saying that Woody Allen, was “far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be” and that he is “a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan’s father almost since her birth and adoption by me….He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan’s waking hours.” However, Justice Wilk stated it was “misplaced” and ” I accord it little weight.“.

 

14. According to Supreme Court, Woody Allen’s “grossly inappropriate” behavior wasn’t about sexual abuse and it is unlikely it could be successfully prosecuted.

The “grossly inappropriate” behavior pointed by the Judge Wilk in the Supreme Court document is often cited as evidence that Woody Allen sexually abused Dylan.

But if we quote the entire sentence from the Supreme Court document, and not only two words, we hear a different story:

“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.”

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).

In reality, 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. »

As so biased has he was against Woody Allen, Justice Wilk was forced to state that “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he (Woody Allen) could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”

 

15. Prosecutor Frank Maco’s full statement contradicts his claim to have a “probable cause” (he never said which one) to prosecute Woody Allen.

STATEMENT OF DECISION SEPTEMBER 24, 1993

Frank Maco never said what the “probable cause” was, nor in 1993, nor in 2014. Anybody reading the full statement 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: he had zero evidence and even his own experts against him.

Woody Allen Asks Connecticut to Discipline Prosecutor:

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.

 

16. In 1992, Moses Farrow said that he believed her mother Mia Farrow had made up Woody Allen sexual abuse accusation.

Monica Thompson said on deposition that on one occasion almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses Farrow, 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.

 

17. Moses Farrow was present before, during and after the alleged event. His testimony supports Woody Allen’s innocence and confirms that his sister Dylan has been coached and brainwashed by Mia Farrow.

In May 2018, Moses Farrow who is now a family therapist, wrote a long essay about his family and Woody Allen, defending his father against sexual molestation allegations and describing repeated spankings by his mother and other abuse, and what he called “a deep and persistent darkness within the Farrow family.”

Three excerpts:

“I was present for everything that transpired in our house before, during, and after the alleged event.”

“During the custody hearing, my mother kept stressing how we needed to stick together as a family. Frightened and beaten down, I, too, played my part. I even wrote a letter condemning Woody, saying that he had done something horrible and unforgivable, and had broken my dreams. I even read the letter for the news media that were now regularly gathered at the end of our driveway, knowing that doing so would earn my mother’s approval. That public denouncement of my father remains the biggest regret of my life.”

“At the time, of course, I knew nothing about the six-month criminal investigation conducted by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale/New Haven Hospital, ordered by the Connecticut state police. But since this allegation was renewed a few years ago, I’ve seen the results of that investigation. It specifically concluded that “Dylan was not abused by Mr. Allen,” that her statements had a “rehearsed quality” and that they were “likely coached or influenced by her mother.” Those conclusions perfectly match my own childhood experience: coaching, influencing, and rehearsing are three words that sum up exactly how my mother tried to raise us. I know that Dylan has recently referred to this brainwashing theory as “spin” by our father – but it was nothing of the sort. It was not only the conclusion reached by a state-ordered investigation, it was the reality of life in our household.”

It was not the first time that Moses Farrow was writing about his family. In 2014, four days after Dylan Farrow published her open letter in The New York Times on Feb. 1, thanks to Nicholas Kristof, Mia Farrow’s very close friend, Moses Farrow had spoken to People magazine, in support of Woody Allen. In September 2017, in a new book about Woody Allen’s film career by Eric Lax, Moses contended that his mother was emotionally manipulative and physically abusive.

In 2018, after Dylan interview on TV, Moses tweeted :

So many times I saw my mother try to convince her that she was abused – and it has worked. Some day, I hope Dylan can escape from my mother, confront the truth and begin her own healing. #truthislouder

— Moses Farrow (@MosesFarrow) January 18, 2018

 

18. As an adult, Dylan Farrow has changed her version many times concerning the way Woody Allen touched her.

Dylan Farrow says constantly that she has always maintained the same story since she is 7 years old. Is it because the facts say she has changed her story many times about Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation ?

As we have previously seen, Dylan farrow has already changed her story many times as a child.

As an adult, she has also changed her story 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”. If Dylan Farrow had not changed her story regarding her allegation of sexual abuse, criminal prosecution could still be an option. By modifying her narrative, Dylan Farrow has imposed to herself the statute of limitation preventing her case to be reopened for criminal prosecution.

But she still take Woody Allen to civil court.

 

During an interview, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour questioned Cate Blanchett, saying: “How do you juxtapose being a #MeToo proponent, a Time’s Up proponent, and staying silent or having worked with Woody Allen?” Cate Blanchett’s answered “…if these allegations need to be re-examined which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court.”

Dylan Farrow waited a full week before tweeting: “Perhaps Ms. Blanchett is unaware of the statute of limitations that prevents my case (and so many others) from being reopened…”

But even she time barred herself for criminal prosecution, Dylan Farrow can still take Woody Allen to civil court. In fact, the statute of limitations in Connecticut civil court won’t expire until she’s 48.

Dylan Farrow is not alone: she has legal advice around her and even her brother Ronan Farrow who supports her – he was 4 years old in 1992 when Moses Farrow was 14 – is a lawyer. It’s just impossible she doesn’t know that without the change in her narrative regarding the allegation of sexual abuse, criminal prosecution could have still be an option. It’s even more impossible she doesn’t know that she can still bring her father to civil court.

Read our full post, Statute of limitation: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors for more details about how Dylan Farrow changed her narrative and “forgot” she can still bring Woody Allen to civil court.

 

19. The Electric Train Set in the Attic Doesn’t Make Sense

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, nor the prosecutor’s statement, nor the Yale-New Haven report (listing nine interviews with Dylan Farrow), nor any document or article in the press refers to Dylan Farrow or Mia Farrow reporting the presence of a train in the attic during Allen sex crime allegation.

In his May 23, 2018 essay Moses 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)?

Story never made the slightest bit of sense: Why would anyone, particularly a wealthy actress who lives in a mansion, with several children’s rooms and playrooms, ever set up an operating train set in a crawl space attic off of her bedroom?!

— Phil Renzulli (@phil_renzulli) March 16, 2021

The electric train set and the HBO documentary

Intellectually Dishonest Propaganda Meets Emotional Blackmail

As for the existence of the train, it’s not quite the smoking gun the filmmakers want it to be. Would its existence, as Allen v. Farrow suggests, discredit the account of the pro-Allen Farrow sibling, Moses Farrow, who wrote in 2018 that “there was no electric train set in that attic”? One of Allen’s staunchest defenders, documentary filmmaker Robert Weide, argues that the operative word is “electric”: Dylan has described an electric train that “traveled in its circle around the attic,” while the toy train track shown in the police drawing is just four feet in diameter, and there is no indication that it was electric. (Weide also points to trial testimony by Farrow-friendly nanny Kristi Groteke, who said that a large “train car” for children to ride in, with a plastic track, was stored in the attic’s crawl space and sometimes taken out for play elsewhere in the house.) Either way, the issue of the train does not seem dispositive: whether or not Dylan was molested in the attic, it’s quite possible that she saw some kind of toy train there and misremembered it as a large electric train set. – Cathy Young, ‘Allen v. Farrow’: Intellectually Dishonest Propaganda Meets Emotional Blackmail

The Case of the Magical, Disappearing Electric Toy Train Set

“There are some pictures and there is a trunk where things are stored, and there is a train set which the children take out and play with sometimes.” When asked to describe the set, Groteke replies, “They are big, heavy plastic, green tracks and they fit into each other like puzzle pieces, and the train is a train car that is made for a child to sit on and ride.” Alter asks, “Have you ever seen the train set in any of the rooms?” Groteke: “Yes. I have seen it downstairs in the living room, but more recently in the past year in Mia’s room and in the children’s room, through the hallways.” Alter: “So they take it out of the crawl space?” Groteke: “Yes.” – Robert Weide, FARROW v. FARROW: The Case of the Magical, Disappearing Electric Toy Train Set

Some questions about the electrical train set in the HBO documentary

The documentary doesn’t show the attic. Why?

The police report shows a sketch of the attic… but no photos?

The electrical train set is not mentioned by Dylan in the videotape

Immediately after the alleged abuse, Mia Farrow took Dylan to her pediatrician. Dylan did not repeat the accusation of sexual abuse during this visit. Once back at home, Mia Farrow videotaped Dylan during two or three days: never Dylan mentioned the electrical train set.

RELATED CONTENT. Even Mia Farrow’s Own Expert Criticized the Videotape

 

20. Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow knew the song “With My Daddy In The Attic” and “Mama Mama Comfort Me” with an electric train

With My Daddy In The Attic

Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her (Mia Farrow) from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.”  It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” – Woody Allen Speaks Out

With my Daddy in the attic
With my Daddy in the attic

That is where my being wants to bed

…………………………………………………

Where we’ll live on peanut butter
Spread across assorted crackers
And he’ll plays his clarinet
When I despair

Mama, Mama, Comfort Me

Not on the same record, but also from Dory Previn, is the song Mama, Mama, Comfort Me, mentioning “electric trains”:

Mama mama comfort me
You’re the loving one
Daddy bought me electric trains
‘Cause what he wanted was a son
He wanted a son

…………………………………………………

If I should shoot his gun for you
Would that tend to please you
Tend to ease your pain?

Oh mama, I ain’t guilty
You’re not to blame
What we did is done…

More about “With my Daddy in the Attic”

Dylan Farrow: did the attic sexual abuse allegation came from a song ?

A closer look to Dory Previn’s song “With my Daddy in the Attic” and the “new” electric train brings by Dylan Farrow in 2014 “Dylan Farrow: did the attic abuse allegation came from a song ?”

Did Dory Previn’s Song Lyrics Influence Mia Farrow In Accusing Woody Allen of Molestation?

This is a very detailed and very good article by Justin Levine, the full title is “The Woody Allen Controversy Reader: Did Dory Previn’s Song Lyrics Influence Mia Farrow In Accusing Woody Allen of Molestation? (Examining The Evidence)”

More facts

40 Undeniable Facts About Mia Farrow, Her Family and Woody Allen