Thread by @Nadie_lo_dijo

Allen V. Farrow, cap 2
There are many things to say about the first part of the chapter, although we will briefly go over them today to examine what is said (and what is omitted) on August 4. Regarding Soon Yi's childhood, the Farrow have changed their version once again

In any case, Soon Yi 7 when she was adopted (the same age Dylan had when the alleged abuse arose) but nobody seems to give importance to the memories that she keeps from her childhood.

The brief review of Mia Farrow's life is more like a hagiography than a documentary. Not a mention of her friend Dory Previn, nor of her adventures in California with John Phillips, not the slightest reference to their infidelities to Sinatra or Previn.

Regarding Carly Simon,we must remember that in 1991 she made an explicit tribute to Woody Allen in her song"Love of My Life".Would you ever make an explicit tribute of love to the man who is little by little eroding her self-esteem, eroding her sense of self,”of your best friend?

Whatever exactly Carly Simon thought of Woody Allen in 1991 is not what she is saying now in the documentary.

Regarding the alleged relationship with Christina Engelhardt, I am afraid that she has, or had at that time, fantasies that she did not know how to differentiate from reality.

I am sure that Christina did not receive visits from ghosts, nor hooded people surrounded her bed at night, nor voices from the outer space guided her to Fellini, nor did Fellini receive that mysterious phone call. What I do know is that the only person who supposedly (...)

(...) could have confirmed the relationship was Mia Farrow, And the documentary does not ask her that question, or was it asked and the answer did not suit the story they wanted to tell?

Leaving aside for the moment the nonsense about the films and archive papers of Woody Allen, we will examine the events of August 4.

Sorry, not yet.
Regarding when the relationship between Allen and Soon Yi started, as late as September 1992 she said to her attorney Allan Dershowitz that it started on December 1991.

It must be said that it was the court who concluded that the relationship between Allen and Soon Yi started in December 1991. The court knew all the evidence so whatever the documentary thinks some isolated evidence suggests the fact proved was December 1991.

Not to mention that Soon YI was 20 in her last year in high school, a fact that the documentary prefers to omit when narrating the facts, just as it omits the conclusion of the court of the moment in which they began their relationship

About day 4, the first thing the documentary omits is that it was Woody Allen's first visit to the children since he told Mia Farrow that his relationship with Soon Yi was going to continue. That same day Mia Farrow called Dr. Coates, asking her to find a way to stop him (Allen).

The second thing that is omitted is that the nannies had instructions never to leave alone Dylan or Satchel. So if something happened, it is evident that they seriously violated their instructions. Anyway, Let me first point out what seems to be a contradiction in the narrative.

Were they "half inside half outside" or there was nobody inside? The only job for Mia Farrow's babysitters (two, one for each child) was looking after the children. How is it possible that they lost sight of Dylan?

Kristi Groteke in her book says that only retracing their steps several days later they found out that " there were only fifteen to twenty minutes in which Dylan was out of my sight, Sophie's, Casey's, or Alison's."

On the other hand, we can be positive that the nanny of Casey Pascal did not notice anything wrong -even less that Dylan and Woody were missing- because she did not say a word about it to Casey. Kristi said to the other nanny that she did not let Dylan alone with Woody.

It seems that Kristy said in court that she lost Dylan of sight "roughly 20 minutes", but in her book, she talks about "between ten and twenty minutes" and, in fact, no chronology for that day is provided

It is also omitted from the documentary that when Woody Allen arrived the children were in the TV Room together, watching "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (they were not outside playing and swimming). With all the children together, how could Dylan disappear without anyone noticing?

Maybe it's worth saying that Kristy had to prepare to testify in the custody trial for two weeks with six hours of practice sessions a day and that she was afraid that her testimony "would let Mia down"

In fact, the first practice Kristy did, the first time she answered the questions, according to Kristi's own reaction her testimony would have "let Mia down".Does not that mean that Kristy's original testimony, the original story, "would let Mia down"

Not a mention of the telephone call to Eleanor Alter One detail. The first thing Dylan says when Mia told her "Tell me AGAIN what happened" is "He took me to the attic, he touched my privates, and then he was breathing on my leg"

When Dylan is told to repeat what has already been said, the first thing she does is repeat that Allen took her to the attic and touched her privates,and breathed on her leg and ....".Obviously the girl is doing what Mia asks her:to repeat what they had already talked about

So, when Mia Said "and then to my surprise she said "and then he took me into the attic", there is something that does not fit. Mia could hardly be surprised that Dylan repeated something they had already talked about

Regarding the rest of the testimony of Dylan, there are many things that can be said, but Robert Weide is gonna say something about the electric train and the court records today, so we better wait for it.

"He took me in the attic, touched me, he touched my privates, and then breathed on my leg and he squeezed me too hard that I couldn´t breath"
It seems more like a summary of what Dylan just talked to her mother than a narrative of what happened the day before.

All the elements of Dylan's narrative appear, although apparently disordered and without logical connection.

No reference to an electric train set appears in the original narrative.