[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by blankall

They're more or less all incorrect.,.

Would you care to elaborate?

I mean, you took what Allen said and without scrutiny pretty much posted his defense (ironically accusing me of doing the inverse). But we have the court documents
http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.ca/2...documents.html

Originally Posted by blankall

Dylan Farrow's own doctor, the head of the Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, gave sworn testimony evidence that Dylan likely invented the story.

What did Justice Wilk have to say about the Yale-New Haven documents?

Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schultz has expertise in the field of child sexual abuse. I believe that the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen. I also believe that therapists would have a natural reluctance to accept the possibility that an act of sexual abuse occurred on their watch. I have considered their opinions, but do not find their testimony to be persuasive with respect to sexual abuse or visitation.

I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Leventhal. The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master's degree in social work. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team. The notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations. The unavailability of the notes, together with their unwillingness to testify at this trial except through the deposition of Dr. Leventhal, compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.

Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist who has extensive familiarity with child abuse cases, was called as a witness by Ms. Farrow to comment on the Yale-New Haven report. I share his reservations about the reliability of the report.

Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (1) for making visitation recommendations without seeing the parent interact with the child; (2) for failing to support adequately their conclusion that Dylan has a thought disorder; (3) for drawing any conclusions about Satchel, whom they never saw; (4) for finding that there was no abuse when the supporting data was inconclusive; and (5) for recommending that Ms. Farrow enter into therapy. In addition, I do not think that it was appropriate for Yale-New Haven, without notice to the parties or their counsel, to exceed its mandate and make observations and recommendations which might have an impact on existing litigation in another jurisdiction.

Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or of the child's fantasy.

I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992. 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 far as judge talk goes, that's pretty much tearing the doctor a new one.

Originally Posted by blankall

Dylan's older brother Moses gave evidence that there was no opportunity for Allen to molest Dylan, as they were surrounded by people the whole time of the dinner.

He said this literally decades after the event where he would now need to be accountable for not only his father's whereabouts but the other people as well. And yet the person who he argues would be surrounding Woody, actually testified opposite. While others testified other strange occurrences that day.

After Ms. Farrow returned home, Ms. Berge noticed that Dylan was not wearing anything under her sundress. She told asked Ms. Groteke to put underpants on Dylan.

Ms. Stickland testified that during the evening of August 4, she told Ms. Pascal, “I had seen something at Mia’s that day that was bothering me.” She revealed what she had seen in the television room. On August 5, Ms. Pascal telephoned Ms. Farrow to tell her what Ms. Stickland had observed. Ms. Farrow testified that after she hung up the telephone, she asked Dylan, who was sitting next to her, "whether it was true that daddy had his face in her lap yesterday." Ms. Farrow testified:
Dylan said yes. And then she said that she didn't like it one bit, no, he was breathing into her, into her legs, she said. And that he was holding her around the waist and I said, why didn't you get up and she said she tried to but that he put his hands underneath her and touched her. And she showed me where . . . Her behind.
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.

s. Farrow's statement to Dr. Coates that she hoped that Dylan's statements were a fantasy is inconsistent with the notion of brainwashing. In this regard, I also credit the testimony of Ms. Groteke, who was charged with supervising Mr. Allen's August 4 visit with Dylan. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan's statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of having sexually molested her during a period in which Ms. Farrow believed they were in the presence of a babysitter. Moreover, I do not believe that Ms. Farrow would have exposed her daughter and her other children to the consequences of the Connecticut investigation and this litigation if she did not believe the possible truth of Dylan's accusation.

Pretty much Mia talked to the doctor about the incident that Dylan told her before finding out that the babysitter that was suppose to supervise the visit left Dylan and Allen unaccounted for. Mia Farrow coaching her daughter to say something, and then going to the police, doesn't make sense unless she knew that the witness tasked with watching Dylan was away...yet she didn't find out until the day after she reported the assault to the doctor.

It's also very strange that these allegations came to light only after Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi became public.

If you read the document, you don't have to read into it to see that he believes Mia Farrow was telling the truth (not that what necessarily Dylan said was true, but that Mia never coached her). He clearly attacks Allen's accusation that Dylan was coached multiple times. So the idea that Soon-Yi's affair made Mia have Dylan lie to the doctors does not hold much, if any, weight:

There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.

But this is just the judge who saw the evidence presented before him and was tasked to make a ruling. What does he know?

Again, you can prescribe to the "innocent until proven guilty" but if you're saying that the facts..as presented in the Supreme Court Document...are unfounded and "all incorrect", maybe a little backup to that incredibly insane accusation?


Also for another ick-factor. The court documents reveal that they don't know if Soon-Yi was born in 1970 or 1972. If she was born in 1972, her mother would have started dating Allen when she was 7. She would have started the affair not when she was around 18 but rather around 16.