Connect with us

United States

Dylan Farrow: Woody Allen Sexual Abuse, 7 Years Old American Filmmaker



Dylan Farrow

Dylan Farrow: In August 1992, his adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow, then seven years old, accused American filmmaker and actor Woody Allen of sexually molestation in the house of her adoptive mother, actress Mia Farrow, in Bridgewater, Connecticut.

Allen has disputed the allegations numerous times. At the time of the allegation, Allen and Mia Farrow had been married for 12 years and had three children together: two adopted children, Dylan and Moses, and one biological kid, Satchel (now known as Ronan Farrow).

The claimed sexual assault occurred eight months after Farrow discovered Allen was having a love relationship with another of her adoptive children, Soon-Yi Previn, who married Allen in 1997; Previn was a first-year undergraduate and 21 years old when Farrow discovered the relationship.

According to Allen, the friendship motivated Farrow to fabricate the molestation allegation as a vengeance act. The Connecticut State Attorney’s Office looked into the accusation but decided not to seek charges.

Dylan Farrow: Woody Allen Sexual Abuse

Dylan Farrow

The Connecticut State Police directed Dylan to Yale–New Haven Hospital’s Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, which determined that Allen had not sexually molested Dylan and that the accusation had most likely been coached or influenced by Mia Farrow.

According to the New York Department of Social Services, there is “no reliable evidence” to back up the claim. Allen sued Farrow for sole custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses in reaction to the allegation.

Though the judge agreed that the claim of sexual abuse had not been proven, he lost the lawsuit in June 1993. Visitations with Dylan were halted for six months as she recovered from the trauma she had experienced during the initial custody battle.

Allen was given restricted, supervised visits with Satchel, and Moses, a teenager, was given the freedom to make his own decisions. In 1994 and 1995, the judgement was upheld on appeal.

As an adult, Dylan has repeated the charge multiple times, however with changes to Mia’s 1992 storey.

Her first public statement was in a Vanity Fair interview with Maureen Orth in 2013,, followed by an open letter in the New York Times in 2014 and a December 2017 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

Allen has also spoken out publicly about the claim, denying it in a New York Times op-ed and a statement to CBS News in 2018. Two of Mia’s children, Moses[22and Soon-Yi, accuse her of child abuse and false claims.

As well as “brainwashing” Dylan. Moses, who was 14 at the time and was in charge of attentively watching Dylan the afternoon she was allegedly assaulted.

Reveals in detail why he believes the claim is false and considers his coerced backing of Mia as the biggest mistake of his life in a 2018 letter. “So many times I observed my mother try to persuade her that she was abused—and it has worked,” he tweeted.

Allen and Farrow are two of the most well-known actors in the

Mia Farrow and Woody Allen began a 12-year romance in 1980, during which time she appeared in 13 of Allen’s films.

Throughout their relationship, they lived in separate Manhattan apartments—Farrow on Central Park West and Allen on Fifth Avenue—and did not marry; they had both been married twice previously.

Farrow had seven children at the time of the relationship: three biological sons from her marriage to musician André Previn; three adopted daughters (two Vietnamese and one Korean, Soon-Yi Previn); and one adopted Korean boy, Moses.

She adopted Dylan Farrow from Texas in July 1985. Although Allen was not involved in the adoption, after Dylan came, he took on a paternal role with her and began spending more time at Farrow’s house.

Between 1987 and 1989, he and Farrow travelled to Europe with the Farrow–Previn children on multiple occasions, though the court investigation found that “he remained aloof from Ms. Farrow’s other children save for Moses, to whom he was polite.”

Allen’s biological son, Satchel, was born to Farrow in December 1987. (later known as Ronan Farrow).

In 1991, Farrow expressed interest in adopting another kid, and Allen promised to take “a horrible attitude toward it” if she agreed to his adoption of Dylan and Moses, and she adopted another Vietnamese child in October of that year.  On December 17, 1991, Allen’s adoption of Dylan and Moses was finalised.

Farrow felt concerned about Allen’s behaviour around Dylan in 1987–88, according to her testimony during the custody hearing. She allegedly informed Allen that he was paying too much attention to Dylan and wasn’t giving her enough “breathing room.

Allen allegedly read to Dylan in his underwear, had her suck his thumb, and sat on her bed waiting for her to wake up in the morning. When Allen arrived, Dylan was said to have locked herself in the bathroom for four hours; he had an employee open the lock with a coat hanger.

Allen’s relationship with Dylan at the time was “relentless and dominating,” with “a wooing quality,” according to Farrow, who altered her will in 1990 to give Allen custody of her minor children in the case of her death (Dylan, Satchel and Moses).

She also wrote an affidavit to the judge in 1991 endorsing Allen’s adoption of Dylan and Moses, praising Allen’s abilities as Dylan’s father: “Mr. Allen is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan, and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father.”

Farrow told her therapist that she was concerned that Allen would “abuse Satchel” and that he had a sexual relationship “with another man.”

Dr. Susan Coates, a family psychologist, witnessed some of Allen’s behaviour and testified during the custody hearing in 1993 that she perceived it as “inappropriately intense since it excluded everybody else,” rather than sexual.

Allen later admitted that he had provided Dylan more care to compensate for Farrow’s time with Satchel, the infant. Allen agreed to tackle the matter in therapy sessions in 1990, according to Maureen Orth.

however, at the trial, Coates claimed that Allen was not in therapy with her and that both parents were involved in the children’s counselling. Allen wanted to be a better father, but he wasn’t in counselling for Dylan’s inappropriate behaviour or any other issues.

Previn’s relationship

Allen began a relationship with Soon-Yi Previn in 1991. It started in late December 1991, according to Allen.

Farrow told her lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, in August 1992 that Soon-Yi had told her that Allen and Soon Yi had started dating on December 1, 1991. It allegedly began while Previn was in her senior year of high school, which ended in June 1991, according to Farrow.

She also claimed that in the summer or autumn of 1991, Dylan spotted Allen and Previn on a bed together. [30] The sexual relationship between Allen and Soon-Yi began in December 1991, according to the appeal court.

The age of Previn at the time has been a source of debate. Soon-Yi had been abandoned and was living in Seoul’s St. Paul’s Orphanage when Farrow and André Previn adopted her in 1977.

The Seoul family court awarded her a legal birth record with a presumptive birth date of October 8, 1970; she had been abandoned and was living in Seoul’s St.

Paul’s Orphanage. According to Farrow, the family recognised her birthday as October 8, 1972, despite the fact that when Farrow told the nanny Kristi Groteke in May 1992 that Allen had a connection with Soon-Yi, her first reaction was to remember that she was 21.

The timing of the relationship became an issue in part because, following the molestation allegation, Farrow unsuccessfully attempted to have Allen’s adoptions of Dylan and Moses annulled on the grounds that his relationship with Soon-Yi began before the adoptions were finalised on December 17, 1991.

Soon-Yi told Allen during her senior year of high school that she wanted to be a model, and he instructed her on how to dress and set up professional shots.

She allegedly asked if she might accompany him to a basketball game, and they grew closer after attending many together.

Farrow discovered nude Polaroid images of Soon-Yi on the mantel in Allen’s house on January 13, 1992, revealing their relationship. Soon-Yi was a freshman at Drew University in New Jersey at the time.

Allen, then 56, told Farrow that he took the photos the day before and that he and Soon-Yi had their first sexual encounter in the last week of December 1991. The appellate court stated that it did not “share Mr. Allen’s characterization” of the photographs, which he described as sensuous but not pornographic during the custody trial in 1993.

Despite the family’s amazement, Farrow did not stop Allen from paying her a visit, and she finished her work on Husbands and Wives (1992), his final picture in which she starred.

Allen allegedly told Farrow that his connection with Soon-Yi was over, and that he urged her to write a joint press release in response to speculations about the relationship, in which she would affirm there was none between Allen and Soon-Yi, but she declined.

Despite being saddened and outraged, Farrow adopted two more children that month: Tam, a blind Vietnamese girl, and Isaiah Justus, an African-American infant boy.

Soon-Yi kept in touch with Allen, and she was fired from her work as a summer camp counsellor in Maine in July 1992 after spending too much time on the phone with a “Mr. Simon,” who turned out to be Allen.

When Allen went to Connecticut to celebrate Dylan’s birthday, Farrow posted a message on a door calling him a “child molester,” according to Allen.

According to Coates’ evidence, Farrow called Coates on August 1, 1992, to say she had heard that Soon-Yi and Allen were still dating; Farrow was upset and informed Coates that she and Allen had talked about getting married just a week before.

Mr. Allen was described by Ms. Farrow as “satanic and horrible,” according to Coates, who added that Farrow implored with her to “find a way to stop him.” On August 17, 1992, Allen made his connection with Soon-Yi public.

Allen had never been a father figure to her, she added later that month, and they had only become friends after his affair with Farrow ended. Allen and Farrow’s relationship was not illegal because they had never married and Allen had never adopted Soon-Yi. Their relationship continued, and on December 23, 1997, they married in Venice.


Allen paid a visit to his children at Farrow’s country home in Connecticut on August 4, 1992, while Farrow and a friend went shopping with Tam and Isaiah, the two most recently adopted children.

Farrow and Allen were supposed to sign an agreement on August 6 in which Allen would pay $6,000 per month for the upkeep of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses;[1] Farrow’s lawyer, Martin Weltz, reported that Farrow called him on August 4 to stop the deal’s processing.

Dylan, Satchel, Farrow’s babysitter, Kristie Groteke; the children’s French tutor, Sophie Berge; Farrow’s friend’s three children; and Farrow’s friend’s babysitter, Alison Strickland were all present in the house after Farrow had departed. Moses was “out by himself on a walk” when Farrow left the house, according to her.

Moses believes he was present when Allen entered the residence. [54] [55] Strickland told her boss the day following the visit that she had seen Allen kneel on the floor in front of Dylan, who was then seven years old.

With his face in her lap turned toward Dylan’s body; she testified to that effect during the custody trial. Farrow called her attorney for advice and was urged to take Dylan to her local paediatrician after Dylan allegedly told her what had happened and that she did not like it.

Dylan was taken to Farrow’s regular physician, Vadakkekara Kavirajan, but the girl did not allege any maltreatment to him.

According to the expert Farrow hired, before the second visit to the paediatrician, Farrow videotaped Dylan answering her questions, and Dylan made the allegation of abuse “in fits and starts,” and in a way that “set a tone for a child about how to answer, and Dylan told Farrow that she had been with Allen in the attic and that he had touched her private parts.

[They went back to meet Kavirajan the next day, and Dylan made the same accusation. Kavirajan then reported the incident to authorities, despite the fact that he claimed to have found no physical proof of sexual abuse.

Later, Kavirajan informed an interviewer that he was “obliged by state law” to report any child abuse complaints. During one of the sessions in which he was participating in Satchel’s therapy, Susan Coates informed Allen of the allegation; he responded, “I’m utterly stunned,” repeating it numerous times.

Statements and processes in custody

Farrow engaged Alan Dershowitz, an attorney, to propose to Allen that they settle the case without making it public.
Allen turned down the offer.

Allen filed for exclusive custody of Dylan, Moses, and Satchel in New York Supreme Court on August 13, 1992, a week after learning of the claim.

On August 15, Farrow’s mother, actress Maureen O’Sullivan, made a statement criticising Allen and revealing that Farrow had retained Dershowitz.

Allen made his first public statement regarding his relationship with Previn two days later: “Regarding my feelings for Soon-Yi, they are genuine and pleasantly true.

She’s a gorgeous, educated, and sympathetic woman who has and continues to make a significant difference in my life.”

Allen gave a press conference at the Plaza Hotel on August 18. He claimed that during a meeting on August 13, Farrow’s lawyers requested between $5 million and $8 million in “hush money,” calling the molestation allegation “an unconscionable and gruesomely damaging manipulation of young children for vengeful and self-serving objectives.”

To restrict Allen’s relationship with Farrow, the lawyers advised that Allen pay a flat sum in child support rather than a monthly payment, according to Dershowitz.

It would cost $17,000 every month until each child reaches the age of 21, $900,000 for college tuition, and $2,500,000 to compensate Farrow for her loss of income over the next ten years. Farrow’s proposition, according to Allen’s lawyers was that in exchange for the money, she would dismiss the sexual assault claims.

Dershowitz categorically refuted this, stating he was attempting to strike an arrangement that would prevent the case from being made public and persuade Connecticut police not to intervene and “decriminalise” the case, and that the idea was wholly different and unrelated to the economic plan.

Allen’s publicist claimed on August 20 that Allen had passed a lie detector test. [46] Allen described Previn’s naked images a “lark of a moment” the next day in an interview with Time magazine’s Walter Isaacson.

He added of the connection, ” “I didn’t think she was in any kind of moral bind merely because she was Mia’s kid. It was a reality, but not one of enormous significance.

The Connecticut State Police used anatomical dolls to question Dylan in the fall of 1992. The final interview took held on December 30, 1992, during which Dylan placed the male doll’s penis into the female doll’s vagina.

When the cops inquired why she knew the dolls fit so well, she explained that she and Satchel had witnessed Allen inserting his penis into Soon-vagina Yi’s throughout the summer. According to the statement, she informed them, “Daddies don’t do this,” and “daddies aren’t supposed to act like boyfriends.

During the course of the proceedings, Eleanor Alter revealed this during a court hearing over Allen’s visiting privileges. Because of the seriousness of the claim, the meeting was called to a halt.

Dylan was interviewed by Yale New Haven Hospital doctors between September and November 1992.

The relationship between boyfriends and girlfriends was one of the topics covered in these sessions. Dylan’s relationship consisted of “kisses and hugs” in November 1992. The sexual relationship between Soon Yi and Allen began in December 1991, according to the judicial investigation.

Allen refuted Dylan’s claim that she saw him and Previn having sex in the summer of 1991, claiming that their sexual relationship began in December. “I believe that when Mia needs something, she grabs our kid and makes her say it,” Allen said of Farrow.

Allen and Farrow came to an agreement in which Allen would not start seeing Dylan right away and Farrow would supply her with a therapist.

Team from Yale–New Haven Hospital

The Connecticut State Police reported on August 17, 1992 that they were looking into the molestation allegations.

Dylan was referred to Yale New Haven Hospital’s Child Sexual Abuse Clinic by the police in September. The main concerns were whether Dylan was lying and whether she had been sexually molested.

In 1997, Litchfield District State’s Attorney Frank Maco stated that he had requested the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to assess whether Dylan would be a credible witness.

For preliminary information, the clinic’s doctors met with the police and Maco. They conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother between September 18 and November 13.

Groteke was interrogated on October 14, and Allen was interviewed three times between November 17 and January 7. Finally, they met with Farrow on August 5 and 6 to discuss the Dylan recording she had produced.

Berge, the second nanny there on August 4, was also interrogated, as were Coates and Nancy Schultz, the children’s psychotherapists.

Dr. John M. Leventhal, the medical head of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, signed the team’s report as Dylan was being interrogated by the social workers.

It is our professional judgement that Dylan was not sexually molested by Mr. Allen,” the investigation concluded in March 1993.

The study was offered as an attempt to confirm or deny some of the following basic hypotheses

1. That Dylan’s allegations were accurate, and Allen had assaulted her sexually.

2. That Dylan’s claims were not factual, but were made as a stress response by an emotionally weak kid caught in a tumultuous familial situation.

3. Dylan was told what to say by her mother or was influenced by her mother.

Dylan had not been sexually molested, but the team did not say which of the remaining theories was correct. It decided that a combination of the two was the best explanation for the accusation.

Dr. Julia Hamilton, a social worker and co-director of the Yale Medical Center Child Abuse Program and social worker Sawyer, who had a master’s degree in social work and 10 years of experience, made up the team.

Every Friday, the social workers met Dylan in Yale New Haven for an hour or so. Groteke was subjected to a three-hour interview. [84] Its conclusion, according to Maureen Orth, was founded in part on the belief that Dylan had trouble articulating a cohesive account and suffered from “thought disturbances.

The major reasons for the conclusions, according to the report, were contradictions in Dylan’s comments, a lack of spontaneity, and the appearance of repeating something learnt.

The report also stated that Dylan felt obligated to help her mother with her problems,[84] and that the connection between Farrow, Dylan, and Satchel was extremely strained and required immediate intense counselling.

When adding their content into the report, the staff erased the original notes. The report was immediately forwarded to the state police, who notified Farrow the same day and Allen two days later. According to Maco, Yale “grabbed the case and ran away with it” in 1997.

A custody hearing has been scheduled.

A custody hearing has been scheduled


The custody hearings began on March 19, 1993, in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, and finished on May 4. Journalists were permitted to attend court, but television cameras and microphones were not permitted.

On the first day of the trial, Allen testified that the claim was Farrow’s retaliation for his love involvement with Soon-Yi, which he had intended to be “nothing more than a private thing,” and that he had hoped Farrow would not find out about. When she expressed her rage, he described it.

Groteke, Farrow’s babysitter, said in April that she couldn’t find Dylan or Allen in the house for around 15–20 minutes on the afternoon in issue, assuming they were outside with the other kids.

During the disputed period, Allen claimed he went to the bathroom.

Berge stated that she had seen Dylan was not wearing any panties underneath her dress on that particular day.

In February 1993, another Farrow nanny, Monica Thompson, who was not present at the time, told Allen’s lawyers in two affidavits that she had been forced by Farrow to back the accusation.

Thompson said that Groteke had doubts as well; she claimed that Groteke told her days after the allegation was made that she had reservations “Dylan was never more than five minutes out of her sight. She has no recollection of Dylan being without underwear.

Groteke acknowledged having had the chat with Thompson, but merely admitting to telling him she didn’t remember losing sight of Dylan. Thompson, who had been Dylan’s nanny since she was two months old, also stated that the allegations levelled against Allen by Farrow were “not true.”

Mavis Smith, Farrow’s 13-year maid, said Allen was a decent father and that she had never seen him do anything sexual with Dylan or Satchel.

Farrow had been so upset with Allen when she found out about his relationship with Previn, Coates claimed, that he feared for Allen’s safety.

Farrow’s attorney accused Coates of being gullible for believing Allen’s version of events.

Schultz was hired by Farrow and Allen in April 1991 because she “lived in her own fantasy world.”

According to Schultz, Dylan became “involved in what the fantasy is [and] it became real.”

Neither Coates nor Schultz believed there had been any sexual abuse. Farrow’s lawyers allegedly claimed that “the allegations could be made to go away” if Allen agreed to pay roughly $7 million, according to one of Allen’s lawyers. Farrow’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, said there had been a “exploratory” session to try mediation.

It’s ludicrous to call this an extortionate meeting,” he remarked. Allen’s lawyers, he continued, were “trying to lay a trap, the trap failed, and now they testify as if the trap succeeded.” When cross-examined, one of Allen’s lawyers admitted that the money talk was largely about the children’s schooling and medical care, as well as money owed for Farrow’s film work for Allen.

Farrow’s lawyer, Levett, admitted that he proposed several amounts in order to reach a deal “for child support, which includes home assistance: $17,000 per month until the youngest child turned 21, or $2.5 million when inflation and interest are taken into account.

$800,000 to $900,000 in tuition, assuming all three went to college. In addition, there are unidentified medical and, yes, mental costs. Dylan, who had accused her father of assaulting her, could be entitled to compensation.

And some money for Mia Farrow, who had been paid $300,000 a year for her roles in Allen’s annual films and was owed that much for the next five to ten years now that she was unemployed.

Dershowitz reiterated Levett’s statement, but added that a request was made to intervene in the child-abuse inquiry instead of settling privately. He went on to say that the offer “wasn’t based on any payments.

On October 14, 1992, Dershowitz told Charlie Rose in an interview: “It didn’t have to come out, in my opinion. I don’t think anyone would know the storey today if he [Woody Allen] hadn’t filed that complaint, and I believe it would be resolved discreetly behind the scenes if he hadn’t.

On April 20, 1993, Leventhal gave a deposition. He cited inconsistencies in Dylan’s account, claiming that once the hypothesis that Dylan’s storey corresponded to actual events was discarded, the Yale New Haven team was able to move on “had two hypotheses.

One, that she was coached or influenced by her mother, and the other, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. We were unable to reach a definite decision. We believe it was most likely a mix of factors.

Expert witnesses were enlisted by both Farrow and Allen to discuss the findings. The investigation “found conclusions that were well supported by the facts they obtained,” according to Anne Meltzer, a forensic psychologist who testified for Allen.

She said that the recording of Dylan making the accusation was “flawed” since it was shot by one side rather than a professional.  Farrow’s child psychiatrist, Stephen Herman, said that the report was “extremely faulty,” and that he couldn’t find any indication of a thought problem in Dylan’s statements, but that it wasn’t biassed.

and that, based on the evidence, he couldn’t come to any conclusions on the abuse allegation. The most damning criticism of the report, according to Charles Patrick Ewing and Joseph McCann, was that the team had destroyed its notes from the interviews it conducted.

making it impossible for the court to test the report’s conclusions; they write that forensic experts have an obligation to keep their notes for review. Another point of contention was the team’s unwillingness to testify in court, with the exception of Leventhal’s deposition.

Herman also realised that the audio of Dylan making the accusation was faulty since it “established a tone for a child about how to answer.” He also came to the conclusion that re-evaluating Dylan on the charge was pointless.

Allen was able to play a constructive part in Dylan’s therapy, according to all of the psychiatric professionals who testified in the trial.


In a 33-page decision issued in June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk denied Allen’s request for custody of the three children, dismissed the allegation of sexual abuse, denied Allen immediate visitation rights with Dylan, and stated that Allen’s behaviour toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate” and that “measures must be taken to protect her,” while emphasising that Allen’s inappropriate behaviour was not sexual in nature.  Wilk was scathing in his critique of Allen’s parenting.

Wilk slammed Allen’s portrayal of Farrow as a “woman scorned,” saying there was no credible evidence that she had coached Dylan, despite the fact that the videotape she made of Dylan tainted the sexual abuse investigation, and chastised Allen for his “trial strategy” of pitting family members and employees against one another.

The Yale New Haven team’s refusal to testify in court save through Leventhal’s deposition, as well as the loss of its notes, had left its report “sanitised and, hence, less trustworthy,” he said.

Wilk dismissed the action as “frivolous,” and Allen was forced to pay Farrow’s legal fees.  Wilk found that the evidence did not support the accusation of abuse, while he was not certain that the evidence showed definitely that it had not occurred.

Wilk did not order a second battery of forensic testing with Dylan because all of the specialists agreed with the report’s conclusions and it would be ineffective.

Social services, criminal investigation

In January 1993, the Connecticut State Police conducted a three-hour interview with Allen in Litchfield. He claimed he had never been in the attic crawl area, but when the cops revealed they had taken fingerprints there, he speculated that his prints might be there.

According to Dr. Henry Lee, the forensic specialist chief of Connecticut’s state crime laboratory, what investigators found in the crawl space were hair fibres, and the evidence could not locate Allen in the attic.

Frank Maco, accompanied by a female police detective, spoke with Dylan on September 20 of that year; Maco told a reporter in 1997, “I witnessed complete withdrawal any time I tried to explain the incident.

On September 24, 1993, Maco held a press conference to announce that, despite having probable evidence, he would not pursue the molestation accusation, citing a desire not to traumatise Dylan.

Even in the instance of custody and with a more favourable level of proof for the claim than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” it was difficult to reach the conclusion that the abuse had happened, according to Maco’s formal statement of decision.

He also stated that the nature of the evidence was favourable to the defence and “would not have the same probative value as it did in the New York Supreme Court custody case,” and that it was his responsibility “to avoid the unjustifiable risk of exposing a child to the rigours and uncertainties of a suspect prosecution.

Allen’s psychotherapist Kathryn Prescott wrote to the New York Department of Social Services, saying that his psychological profile “was definitely not that of a sexual offender” and that “there has never been any suggestion that Mr. Allen was suffering from a sexual perversion / deviant sexual behaviour.”

[108] In October 1993, the New York Department of Social Services concluded its own 14-month inquiry, writing to Allen: “There was no evidence that the kid mentioned in this report had been abused or mistreated. As a result, this report has been deemed unsubstantiated.”

Over Maco’s remark concerning probable cause, Allen filed complaints with the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission and the statewide bar counsel.

In November 1993, the former dismissed the complaint. The statewide Grievance Committee determined in February 1994 that, while Maco’s statement did not violate the state’s code of conduct for lawyers, it was “gravely concerning.

Maco had also provided a copy of his statement to the court who was evaluating whether or not Allen’s adoption of Dylan and Moses should be overturned. The panel decided that the behaviour was “inappropriate, uninvited, and potentially prejudiced.

Allen’s legal challenges and other legal actions

Farrow initiated a failed court battle in December 1992 to have Allen’s adoption of Dylan and Moses annulled. Her argument was based in part on her belief that Allen and Previn began dating before the adoption was finalised on December 17, 1991.

The sexual relationship began in the last week of 1991, according to Allen. He promised not to challenge the custody decision if Farrow discontinued her bid to have Dylan and Moses’ adoptions annulled, but she declined.

Allen challenged Wilk’s decision in January 1994.

The appellate court concluded that “the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive,” that its “review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis,” and that the Yale–New Haven team’s view that Dylan had a tendency to “withdraw into a fantasy” and that she had given inconsistent accounts had to be taken into account.

The court listed “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 behaviour toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse” as elements suggesting the abuse could have occurred but insufficient to make this conclusion more likely than the contrary.

Allen’s parenting abilities and relationship with Previn were criticised by the court. The appeal was denied, despite the fact that two of the five judges thought Satchel’s visitation rights were too limited. [14] Allen appealed once more, and the New York Court of Appeals upheld the previous verdict in July 1995. [15]

Statements in the past

Soon-Yi mentions Mia’s violence in 1992.

In 1992, Soon-Yi said that Allen was never a father figure to her, but rather a friend “a man who happens to be Mia’s ex-boyfriend… Mia was often irritable and prone to rages, which worried the children. They are unable to express themselves freely since they are still reliant on her. However, they have the ability to tell stories and I am confident that they will do so in the future. True, Mia was abusive toward me, and I have proof, but I’m hoping she and Woody can avoid a custody battle.” [50]

What Goes Away 1997

Mia Farrow repeated the allegation that Allen had sexually molested Dylan in her 1997 biography, What Falls Away. Several of the book’s reviews alluded to the claim.

Dylan makes his public debut in 2013.

Dylan made his first public statement in a Vanity Fair interview with Maureen Orth in 2013.

Ronan’s tweets and Dylan’s open letter in 2014

When Allen won the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award in January 2014, Farrow and Satchel (now working as a journalist under the name Ronan Farrow) tweeted their disapproval.

The next month, Dylan, then 28, repeated the molestation allegation in an open letter to Nicholas Kristof, a family friend, on the New York Times blog.

She claimed that Allen had made her feel uneasy “for as long as [she] could remember,” claiming that he would get into bed with her in his underpants, and that she would hide to avoid him.

Allen informed her when she was seven years old, she wrote “to play with my brother’s electric train set while lying down on my stomach Then he assaulted me sexually.”

Allen responded with an op-ed in the New York Times, calling the charges “untrue and reprehensible.”

Ronan pointed out that the Times put Dylan’s open letter, which was 936 words long, on Kristof’s blog, but Allen’s op-ed, which was twice as lengthy and published in the print edition, was not.

Ronan has been critical of Allen since he was four years old in 1992; in 2011, he tweeted, “He’s my father and my sister’s husband. As a result, I am his son and brother-in-law. That is a serious moral blunder.”

After Dylan’s open letter was published, his colleagues forwarded him daily emails “blasted out by Allen’s powerful publicist,” with an open cc list, offering talking points for reporters and the names of friends, therapists, and lawyers willing to be interviewed, he wrote in The Hollywood Reporter in May 2016.

“Reporters on the receiving end of this kind of public relations blitz have to wonder if deviating from the talking points will compromise their access to all the other A-list clients,” he wrote.

Moses Farrow’s reaction to Dylan and Mia’s charges

Moses, Dylan’s 14-year-old brother, has reunited with Allen and is no longer associated with the Farrow family. Dylan said in an interview after she wrote her open letter that multiple people were in the house on the disputed day and that “no one, neither my father or sister, was off in any private rooms.

He claimed that Farrow had created an environment in which he and his brothers felt obligated to follow her beliefs, and that she had physically and emotionally assaulted him.  In 2017, Moses told Eric Lax, one of Allen’s biographers, about the charges.

Dylan’s op-ed and interview from 2017-2018

In response, Allen offered the following statement. Despite the fact that the Farrow family is cynically exploiting the Time’s Up movement to repeat this discredited allegation,

It is no more true today than it was in the past. As all investigations determined a quarter-century ago, I never abused my daughter.

Moses’ letter defending Allen and accusing Farrow of child abuse, dated May 2018.

Moses had already commented to Dylan’s latest remarks on Twitter in January, claiming that he had witnessed Mia Farrow numerous times trying to persuade Dylan that she had been mistreated.

Moses published a long open letter with additional components on May 23, 2018, in which he detailed how Farrow physically and emotionally assaulted him and Soon-Yi: “She slammed her fists into me violently all over my body.

‘How dare you call me a liar in front of my friend?’ she slapped me, pushed me aside, and smacked me across the chest. You, on the other hand, are a pathological liar.

I felt defeated, depressed, beaten, and worn down. Mia reportedly hurled a huge china centrepiece at Soon-Yi when she was a child. Fortunately, it missed her, but the fragmented bits landed on her legs. Mia beat her with a telephone receiver years later.

Moses further claims that Farrow treated her biological children better than her adopted children, and that Mia “brainwashed” her children to believe her version of trivial matters.

Moses claims he was at home on the day of the alleged abuse: “I had pledged to keep an eye out for any trouble as the’man of the house’ that day, and I was doing exactly that.

I recall Woody’s seat in the TV room, as well as Dylan and Satchel’s locations. Not that everyone was stuck to the same location, but I made it a point to keep track of who was coming and going.

I recall Woody leaving the room from time to time, but never with Dylan. He’d go into another room to make a phone call, read the newspaper, use the bathroom, or go outside for some fresh air and a walk around the property’s enormous pond.”

Moses also stated that his sister’s memory of being molested while focusing her attention on an electric train set was untrue: “It’s a well-crafted storey, but there’s one significant flaw: there’s no electric train set in that attic.

Even if we had wanted to, there was no way for youngsters to play up there. It was an unfinished crawl space with exposed nails and floorboards, billows of fibreglass 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, all under a steeply angled gabled roof with exposed nails and floorboards, exposed nails and floorboards, billows of fibreglass insulation filled with mousetraps and droppings and stinking of mothballs. It’s absurd to think that the room could have fit a working electric train set circling the attic.”

Thompson witnessed Farrow photographing Dylan in what appeared to be an attempt to train her, Moses wrote. He also claimed that Farrow pushed some of her children to commit suicide: “My sister Tam died of ‘heart failure’ at the age of 21 according to most media sources.

Tam had been depressed for most of her life, a situation made worse by my mother’s refusal to seek help for her, maintaining that Tam was just’moody.’

Tam committed himself by overdosing on pills one day in 2000, after a final disagreement with Mia that ended with my mother leaving the house.”

Moses reflected on his shy support for Mia as a teenager, saying: “My mother kept emphasising how important it was for us to keep together as a family during the custody case. I, too, was terrified and beaten down and did my part.

I even wrote Woody a letter in which I stated that he had done something dreadful and inexcusable, and that he had shattered my hopes. I even read the letter to the television crews that had congregated at the end of our driveway on a regular basis, knowing that doing so would win my mother’s favour. My greatest regret in life is the public condemnation of my father.”

Soon-Yi supports Allen and accuses Farrow of sexual harassment in 2018.

Previn said in a Vulture article that Farrow made up stories about her origins: “Soon-Yi claims that when she was a little girl, Farrow asked her to record a cassette about her upbringing, outlining how she was the daughter of a prostitute who abused her.

Soon-Yi claims that the request perplexed her because she had no recollection of anything similar, so she declined… ‘Mia used to embarrass me by writing words on my arm, so I always wore long-sleeved shirts.’

She’d also turn me upside down while holding my feet to force the blood to flow to my head. Because she believed—or read—that having blood pumped into my head would make me smarter or something’.

Farrow also “arbitrarily demonstrated her dominance” by slapping her across the face and hitting her with a hairbrush, according to Previn, or by calling her “dumb” and “moronic.” Previn also stated that she and her adopted sisters were “domestics.”

The venues’ responses

The Goodspeed Opera House in Connecticut cancelled its adaption of Woody Allen’s film Bullets over Broadway in January 2018. (1994).

Bullets over Broadway was likewise cancelled by Circle Theater in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the following month.

Savanah Lyon, a theatre major at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), started an online petition in February 2018 to have a course teaching Allen’s films removed from the UCSD syllabus, claiming that the university should not have a class devoted to his work because of the abuse allegations against him.

The UCSD Academic Senate decided to keep the course on February 16, noting that removing courses with “controversial material, or even material widely recognised as morally problematic material” would jeopardise the values of unfettered inquiry and academic freedom.

Celebrity reactions are split.

The #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, as well as Dylan’s op-ed, shifted the attitude even further. A sign relating to the claim was hung around the neck of Allen’s statue in Oviedo, Spain, during a November 2017 women’s march.

Later, a women’s organisation requested that the statue be taken down.  Griffin Newman, Evan Rachel Wood, David Krumholtz, Mira Sorvino, Rebecca Hall, Timothée Chalamet, Rachel Brosnahan Natalie Portman, Colin Firth.

Hayley Atwell, and Freida Pinto have all issued statements supporting Dylan or expressing regret for having worked with Allen since October 2017.  Newman, Hall, Chalamet, and Elle Fanning have said that they will give their proceeds from Woody Allen’s film A Rainy Day in New York (2018) to charity.

Others expressed a range of emotions. Allen was cast in John Turturro’s romantic comedy Fading Gigolo, and he commented, “He was a professional who treated me with respect.

It’s a new era now. Now is not the time to cast him… I have no regrets about working with him  Greta Gerwig initially refused to comment on her collaboration with Allen in To Rome with Love (2012).

While promoting Lady Bird in 2018, Gerwig was criticised for her collaboration with Allen. “I believe I’m living in that area of terror of being cautious about how I talk about it and what I say,” Gerwig said on NPR’s Fresh Air when asked about working with Allen.

[My] goal right now, I suppose, is to hold the role of writer and director,” she said in response to a similar query when Lady Bird won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy.

Gerwig apologised for working with Allen after being publicly chastised by Dylan Farrow for dismissing her charges. In an interview with The New York Times, she elaborated: “Dylan Farrow’s two different essays made me realise that I had contributed to another woman’s suffering, and it broke my heart.

I grew up watching his films, and they have influenced me as an artist. I can’t change it now, but I can make different choices in the future.

Fanning expressed sadness for her decision “if it caused anyone any harm,” but she made no apologies for working with Allen. According to Joaquin Phoenix, “When I worked with Woody, I was aware of the issues that had arisen years before. His daughter, I believe, ended up penning an open letter.

When we were working together, I was completely unaware of this.” [155] Jeff Daniels said in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Is there a chance I’ll do another one with Woody? Because of The Purple Rose of Cairo, it would be a difficult decision to reject him.”

When asked if he would work with Allen, Peter Sarsgaard replied, “It’s a difficult question to answer. I’ve already worked on a Woody Allen project .

According to Chloe Sevigny, “I’m going through my own internal anguish as a result of that decision. Would I work with him again if the opportunity arose? Most likely not.

According to Marion Cotillard, “I have to say that if he asked me again today, I don’t think it would ever happen because our time together was so strange. I like some of his work, but we didn’t get along on set.

Barbara Walters and Diane Keaton, as well as Javier Bardem, Jude Law, Alec Baldwin, and Bill Maher, all expressed support for Allen.

Cherry Jones expressed herself as follows: “There are people who are secure in their convictions. I’m not one of them. I’m not sure what the truth is… Our democracy is on the verge of collapsing when we condemn based on instinct.

I love Woody, I believe him, and I would work with him at any time,” Scarlett Johansson stated. She went on to say, “I visit Woody whenever I can, and we’ve had numerous discussions about it.

I’ve been honest with him, and he’s been honest with me. I believe him when he claims to be innocent. According to Emily Mortimer, “I believe in the rule of law… Before anyone can judge, I believe these things should go through all of the legal channels.

I’m not sure how to respond to those inquiries. Cate Blanchett responded to Christiane Amanpour’s question about the allegations against Allen by saying, “If these allegations need to be reexamined, which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court.

Then I’m a big believer in the justice system and setting legal precedents,” I said at the time, adding, “If these allegations need to be reexamined, which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court, then I’m a big believer in the justice system and setting legal precedents… If the matter needs to be reopened, I am completely in favour of it.

Kate Winslet said, “I’m not going to comment on it.” “As the actor in the picture, all you have to do is take a step back and say, “I have no idea what any of this means, and if any of it is true or not.”

After giving it some thought, you set it aside and focus solely on the individual.” Working with Allen, on the other hand, she described as “amazing.”

She later changed her mind “What was I doing working with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, anyway? It’s incredible to me today that those men were regarded in such high regard by so many people in the film industry for so long.

It’s a complete embarrassment. And I must accept responsibility for the fact that I collaborated with both of them. I can’t go back in time. I’m wrestling with those regrets, but what do we have if we can’t just be honest with everything?”

According to Javier Bardem, “This unexpected treatment has taken me by surprise. In the states of New York and Connecticut, he was found not guilty… I don’t agree with the public lynching he’s been subjected to, and if Woody Allen called me again, I’d be there first thing in the morning. He’s a genius in my opinion.”

As Alan Alda put it, “If he needed me again, I’d be happy to work with him. I am not qualified to pass judgement on him. I don’t have all of the information. I’m not sure if he’s guilty or not. But you can be unsure—what that’s I base my decisions on.

I simply don’t have enough evidence to believe I shouldn’t work with him. He’s also a hugely talented individual.” Michael Caine, who at first expressed regret for working with Allen and stated that he would never work with him again, then stated.

I wouldn’t do it if he had a trial and someone proved he did something. But I didn’t see anything about him being put on trial and being found guilty, fined, or imprisoned.

All of this is what people say. You can’t rely solely on rumour the entire time. According to Jeff Goldblum, “Until proven guilty, I believe there is a presumption of innocent.

I admire his corpus of work as well. As a result, I’d contemplate working with him again till I’d learnt more. Apropos of Nothing, Allen’s autobiography, was dubbed “apropos of nothing” by Larry David, who read it “It’s a terrific book, and it’s hilarious.

It’s as if you’re in the room with him… it’s just a fantastic book, and it’s difficult to imagine that this guy did anything wrong after reading it.

Spike Lee, when asked about Allen when promoting Da 5 Bloods, remarked, “I just want to say that Woody Allen is a fantastic filmmaker, and this cancellation thing isn’t just about him.

And I believe that, in retrospect, we’ll realise that, short of killing someone, I’m not sure if you can simply erase someone as if they never existed. Woody is one of my friends, and I know he’s going through something right now.

Apropos of Nothing is a Woody Allen memoir.

Allen addresses Dylan’s allegation in his memoir, writing that, unlike other cases of sexual abuse that could have been ignored without being taken seriously or adequately investigated, the accusation against him was immediately and thoroughly investigated by two groups of experts.

Who concluded that the evidence proved there was no sexual abuse, that Dylan’s statements had “a rehearsed quality,” and she was likely “coached or influenced by her mother.” Regarding the criticism levelled against Yale New Haven for destroying the original case notes.

Allen believes that this was the FBI’s and Yale New Haven’s standard policy for maintaining privacy. Furthermore, the New York State Department of Children and Families conducted a 14-month investigation into the matter and concluded that there was no credible evidence of abuse and that the complaint was unsubstantiated.

Farrow described to experts at a Yale New Haven interview session how Dylan was so distressed by the sexual abuse that she turned to her sister Lark for physical consolation, according to Allen.

After Allen pointed out that Lark was in New York on the day of the alleged abuse and couldn’t have physically interacted with Dylan, Farrow modified her storey to say that Dylan “spiritually hugged [Lark].”

Allen further claims that Maco’s investigation should have been completed as soon as his experts ruled out the likelihood of abuse, and that Maco’s claim of “probable cause” was unfounded.

A nanny and a housekeeper who worked at Farrow’s house told Allen that the prosecutor came to the house on several occasions and that he and Farrow went out to lunch. Allen regrets that this does not appear to be the most unbiased approach of conducting an investigation.

Allen also claims that a court clerk drove Farrow home from the courthouse on a regular basis during the custody trial, which he claims was a “unfair conduit to the judge”; referred to Moses’ testimony that he saw Farrow coach Dylan; and reported the testimony of a babysitter to whom Dylan said, “Mummy wants me to lie.

Allen claims that Farrow took Dylan to a child therapist long before the allegations of abuse surfaced because the girl had trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy, and that in the midst of family turmoil, Farrow suggested to the child that she had been abused, leading Dylan to believe it.

Read Also

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2022