MovieChat Forums > Allen v. Farrow (2021) Discussion > ‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 3 Recap: Inves...

‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 3 Recap: Investigations and a Custody Trial

posted 4 years ago by Satan2016 (25818)
5 replies | jump to latest

The Yale-New Haven report not considered credible by judge, but it's Allen's main defense. Wonder how much Allen spent to bribe them!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/arts/television/allen-v-farrow-episode-3-recap.html

The inquiry by New York City’s Child Welfare Administration was being spearheaded by Paul Williams, a caseworker who interviewed Dylan Farrow and found her to be credible.

Within two weeks of the investigation, Mr. Williams determined that there was sufficient information to open a New York-based criminal investigation, but he was told by superiors that in high-profile cases like this one, it was customary for the “big wigs” to take responsibility and for the welfare administration to relinquish control, according to case records reviewed by the filmmakers.

A lawyer for Mr. Williams, Bruce Baron, says in the documentary that at the time, his client “wouldn’t shut up” about the case at work, and he was fired for insubordination. Mr. Williams sued the city over the firing, arguing in part that the city had suppressed information about the case; he won in court and got his job back.

In looking through Mr. Williams’s case files, the filmmakers found notes about a conversation he had with Jennifer Sawyer, a social worker who had interviewed Dylan Farrow for the Yale-New Haven report. According to the notes, Ms. Sawyer told Mr. Williams that “she believes Dylan” and believed that the child had “more to disclose.”
__

On Aug. 13, 1992, nine days after the alleged sexual assault, Mr. Allen sued Mia Farrow for custody of their three children: Dylan Farrow, Moses Farrow and Ronan Farrow.

In a taped phone call between Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, Ms. Farrow brings up his lawsuit against her and accusations that she was an unfit mother, to which he responds, “And I’m going to make them stick.” Ms. Farrow begged him to drop the case.

During the trial, which started in the spring of 1993, Mr. Allen testified that he believed Ms. Farrow had “brainwashed” her daughter and that he was not alone with Dylan on the day that she said he assaulted her.

The judge ultimately sided with Ms. Farrow, saying that Mr. Allen exhibited grossly inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and that “measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge called the Yale-New Haven report “sanitized,” considering the destruction of the notes and the team’s unwillingness to testify at trial.

[–] Satan2016 (25818) 4 years ago

The long term effects of the discredited Yale-New Haven report.

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/03/allen-v-farrow-directors-woody-allen-polygraph-test-1234621422/

That being said, the Yale-New Haven report didn’t just give credence to Allen’s alleged innocence, it kickstarted a movement that continues to reverberate negatively in the legal system. Episode 3 of “Allen v. Farrow” parallels the release of the Yale report with the rise of psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner’s parental alienation syndrome, the belief that a parent in a custody battle can brainwash a child against another parent. “We found a transcript of a speech by Richard Gardner and he said that it wasn’t getting much traction until the Woody Allen case, and then everything changed,” Dick said.

“So this is not just about one case. This is how this case was covered and how this country’s reaction to it impacted the lives of tens of thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands, of abused children,” Dick said. As the episode details and Ziering points out, the blueprint of utilizing parental alienation — which Allen himself used — by fathers against mothers, particularly where sex abuse was alleged, continues to be the standard in custody cases today. The statistics in the episode state that 98% of men who use the strategy in court win custody of their children and, in over 80% of cases, the abuse continues. “We all ran with it, gleefully ran with it, and it’s really been punitive to this day to so, so many children,” Ziering said.

[–] Martoto (5054) 4 years ago

What a load of half truthful and less than half relevant guff.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

The one JOURNALIST who was in the courtroom describes WOODY as being a CREEPY "DEFENSIVE FRIGHTENED CREATURE who was OUT of his ELEMENT." And that's because that's one place where he couldn't MANIPULATE or CONTROL or DIRECT other people to behave in the way that he wanted.

They also say that you can tell if someone LIES by how they tend to get FIDGETY, and NOTE the way each time WOODY gives a press conference how he COUGHS, then touches his GLASSES, and touches his FACE as if to indicate that he's not telling the truth. Plus he also READS from the paper he's written instead of speaking directly to the viewer which also makes what he says sound INSINCERE and REHEARSED.

In addition to this 3 SOCIAL WORKERS also find DYLAN CREDIBLE and HONEST which also leads to the PROBABLE CAUSE conclusion or to having REASONALBE GROUNDS enough for finding that ALLEN should have been charged with 1st DEGREE and 4th DEGREE ASSAULT of a MINOR CHILD.

But MARCO declines to charge ALLEN saying that he didn't want to further TRAMATIZE DYLAN (as if letting WOODY get away with MOLESTING her and calling her a LIAR hasn't been TRAMATIC for her).

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

From
https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

PM: What about the destruction of the notes prior to submission of the findings? Dylan and Ronan have mentioned this many times.

RW: Yeah, I wondered about that myself until I spoke to someone who works in child protection services, and they told me this is very common protocol, also used in FBI investigations. Once the findings are written up, the original notes are often destroyed. Apparently, it’s meant to protect the privacy of the interview subjects. So this is hardly the smoking gun the Farrows want you to believe it is.

PM: The judge’s findings in the custody case paint a pretty unflattering picture of Woody as a father. That document is in pretty heavy circulation on the internet among the pro-Dylan contingent. (Note: Mia was awarded custody of Dylan and Ronan, who was then called Satchel.)

[...] Now, I read all the time from Farrow supporters that Judge Wilk disagreed with the Yale findings and believed the assault actually did take place. But I’ll read the judge’s exact phrasing which is, “I am less certain than is the Yale-New Haven team that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.” This is a far cry from saying he believes the abuse occurred. But of course, the Yale team is the one that conducted the investigation, not Judge Wilk. In that same statement, Judge Wilk admits, quote: “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that [Allen] could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.” So much for “probable cause.”

The judge also never suggests that Dylan be permanently separated from Woody to protect her from him. In fact, Wilk’s decision says that Dylan should be in therapy for six months to work through the trauma of the investigations and the split-up of her parents [...] then supervised visitation could begin with her father in a therapeutic context.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

CORRECTION:

in PART 3 several EXPERTS TESTIFIED as to HOW NOTES are NEVER DESTROYED, but get TURNED OVER to the COPS.

This was also CLARIFIED for us QUITE CLEARLY when the EXPERTS said that it MADE NO SENSE whatsoever that the NOTES were DESTROYED and weren't provided the way they ALWAYS are in other cases.

Then the other SOCIAL WORKER reveals the reason for that when he explains how one of the SOCIAL WORKERS (Jennifer Sawyer who had her NOTES destroyed) had said that she FOUND DYLAN's account CREDIBLE and that she also believed there was even still MORE to be revealed.

So obviously someone had the NOTES DESTROYED to prevent people from knowing Sawyer found what DYLAN said about being SEXUALLY MOLESTED by WOODY to be CREDIBLE.

And The CUSTODY JUDGE also didn't say anything about "PROBABLE CAUSE," either because that was the PROSECUTOR who said that. The CUSTODY TRIAL was a CIVIL MATTER. The other ISSUE is a CRIMINAL MATTER. Thus part of the reason for you CONFUSION.

What's CLEAR is the way the NEW HAVEN REPORT was "SANATIZED" or WHITE WASHED -- which is also MADE EVIDENT by the way the COPS who ordered the NEW HAVEN INVESTIGATION didn't even get a COPY of that REPORT. Instead, somehow WOODY got a copy of it, and then he held a PRESS CONFERENCE where he FALSELY claimed that it cleared him of the CHARGES against him which it DID NOT.

It's the same as the way the former Atty Gen BARR also stood there and LIED about the MUELLER REPORT in an effort to PROTECT TRUMP, by saying that report had cleared Trump of charges when it also DID NOT.

As for DYLAN wanting to see WOODY again 6 months later after he SEXUALLY MOLESTED her, here's what she said regarding that matter:

“It was a strange feeling being told that I never had to see him again. It wasn’t framed as, ‘You’re never going to see your father again.’ It was framed as, ‘Do you ever want to see him again?’ And, I didn’t,” says Dylan

And, imo, anyone like yourself who could watch PART 3 and then NOT properly COMPREHEND what was said is also NOT TRUSTWORTHY enough to pay any attention to.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄