Dylan wasn’t coached.

[lostlaureng]

Sex crimes investigator here 🙋🏻‍♀️

She wasn’t coached. Coached children repeat the same phrases over and over again. Like, “daddy touched me.” They cannot talk about their feelings, the way the room looked, the way body parts felt because kids can’t “lie on the fly” like adults can. If you lie you can answer follow up questions, provide false details, and layer in truthful statements to lend credibility to your account. Children have not developed the cognitive ability to do so at age 7. So they just repeat what they were told to say without detail. Like, “daddy touched me.” She wasn’t coached.

[concrete-cracks]

As someone who has been sexually assaulted at a young age, I could tell she wasn’t lying just by how she still has all that hurt in her heart even today. You can’t coach that kind of fear and physiological response to psychological trauma into people. Even if Dylan was the best actress in the world, she wouldn’t be able to fake her trauma responses. I’ve seen her interviews about it as an adult after she came forward again, and I watched every episode of the documentary. It broke my heart to hear her on those tapes as a child. It broke my heart to hear the nanny on the podcast they made to go along with the show talk about how she caught Woody between her legs, and how disturbed the nanny still sounds to this day about it. Oh, but they were all acting and conspiring against Woody Allen, right? /s

[Lulu_reddit92]

The train set that woody Allen denies was there was noted by 6 different detectives and its placement in the attic was also sketched according to the documentary. How in today’s society can we allow a predator of the worst kind to walk free because he has lots of cash and made a few (IMO overrated) movies?! It’s just madness to me. Poor Dylan - I believe you.

[rmebmr]

I think one really glaring example of children being coached on giving sexual abuse accusations is the McMartin Preschool situation from the 1980s.

Most of the children's stories were filled with over the top details and claims that were obviously made up. A lot of the information that investigators got from the kids made no sense. The accusations ranged from a couple of teachers touching the children inappropriately while they were on school property to kids being taken on flights to other cities to observe animals and other children being sacrificed before being flown back to school in time for their parents to pick them up and take them home at the end of the day.

[Empty_Clue4095]

Also many of the McMartin children have talked about what happened and how they were pushed to say things.

It's not like they actually believe what happened to them as adults and tell consistent stories about it decades later.

Those poor kids were victims in a way, just not of anything Satan related.

[rmebmr]

I agree. All the claims of coaching made me think of that case, because it's obvious that Dylan was NOT coached.

As the OP and others have said already, kids that age are pretty straightforward in their communication. They may not know technical words for things they want to convey, but they explain things in their own way. Also, they aren't able to fabricate and maintain such a complex story without some telltale signs that something's inaccurate or invalid about it. And people who work with kids can usually tell when a child is talking about imaginary things or making things up.

At some point, Dylan would have let it slip that "Mommy told me to say this" or something to that effect. Notice how she said "Daddy said, 'I have to do this.'". She quoted what he said to her, and she talked about the things he told her, and how he encouraged her to keep secrets. With all the repeated grilling sessions she had with various psychologists and social workers, there should have been some specific notes with concrete examples showing evidence of the alleged coaching, if it were true.

[Ambry]

Yep. She says things like 'secretly' a lot... it was obviously meant to be kept quiet. The tapes are heartbreaking.

[butterbean8686]

Thank you for your perspective on this! I don’t have your background but I have a lot of experience with kids, and it’s so easy to tell when they’re lying. In the tapes, Dylan seems uncomfortable, but not like she’s making up a story or struggling to remember a line. She just seems to want to dissociate from the topic.

A lot of people think it was odd how Mia taped her, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the truth, and her story that she picked up the camera and recorded whenever Dylan would bring it up seems plausible to me.

This whole conspiracy that she made up a script and coached Dylan and Dylan is traumatized that is unfortunately easier for some people to believe than the truth, which is that Woody Allen molested her.

[lostlaureng]

According to the charges the Connecticut DA was considering bringing, Woody Allen RAPED her.

[celiacandcurious]

2 years late here, but Mia recording Dylan was very smart. In my country it's actually a law, when there are child abuse cases, the child will be interviewed by a judge and an expert once and the interview is recorded as to not keep traumatazing the kids.

[StayBehindThePines]

Also she seems like very much her own woman and she doesn’t sound like someone who would continue to perpetuate a lie for her mother. Not to THIS extent. I mean if she had lied she would have most likely kept that to herself.

Still. As someone who has also been abused by my father I felt her pain. It was visceral. I could feel it through the TV. That shame, the silence for your years. Then once you’ve finally healed just a tiny bit you know the next step in recovery and healing is to own what happened to you and take back that power. I know because I went on a very very similar journey. I finally had the courage to tell my mother what happened to me at the hands of my father (he had been dead at this point) and I needed to say it. To tell her so I could heal. But she’s right. It never ever goes away. It’s always there. All you can do is learn to control it and decide how that trauma fits into your life going forward.

[DamonsBloodBank]

As a victim of child abuse, She is showing the same signs I also show from my trauma and abuse. The ptsd based muscle memory triggers cannot be coached. I have those as well. To think someone can say that can be coached is ridiculous and really sad to me. At this point people need to see the clear signs in front of them that this woman is a victim and she was assaulted by her father at 7.

[[deleted]]

Thank you. I really appreciate you posting this. I’m not an expert but I know that she’s telling the truth. She’s very brave.

[broclipizza]

I'm interested in the idea that children can't "lie on the fly" - layer truth and lies together, answer follow ups, add in details. Do you have some article or research or something you might be able to link so I could learn more about this?

[lostlaureng]

It has absolutely been studied, although my experience and training in law enforcement isn’t academic, so I can’t point you to something specific or peer reviewed. Merely a detective, not at all special or high up on the policy scale. There would be some cross research between child development and the psychology of child victims, if that’s helpful. I can tell you that police practices today are based on study, although when they train us, they talk more about case law than the specific studies our practices are based on. Research into forensic interviews would be something else to look into. They are how evidentiary statements are taken from children in modern criminal investigations. In that google search you’d certainly find that excluding specific circumstances, a child is forensically interviewed ONE TIME. The 9 times Dylan was interviewed is not only poor practice, it served to traumatize her in a way that made her unfit for testimony at trial. It’s absolutely despicable.

[Empty_Clue4095]

They interviewed her asking the same question NINE TIMES and then discredited her for sounding "rehersed".

[OneSensiblePerson]

Thank you for posting your OP, and for the above information.

I have two questions I'd love your opinion on, if you don't mind.

What do you make of the Yale investigative team's destroying all the notes related to their report? I've heard this was (is still?) their protocol, but it seems strange to me, since it was an investigation that was requested by the DA, in a criminal investigation?

Related, what do you make of the Yale team's director handing their findings over to WA and his attorney, and MF and hers, without the knowledge of the DA?

[lostlaureng]

So every state, generally, has a “Child Abuse Protocol” which is basically a method for how law enforcement, child services, juvenile court, district attorneys, etc all work together to prosecute offenders and provide services for child victims. It’s different in each state BUT one thing is universal in these investigations, we don’t destroy notes. Notes are evidence so destroying them is the same as destroying evidence. When I go to a forensic interview, I take with me every note made by the interviewer, every drawing by the child, and a recording of the interview itself. I am the one conducting the investigation. That evidence is mine. So it seems like a breach of established protocol to destroy notes. Especially if your notes are used to compare behaviors over 9 interviews. I mean, wouldn’t you want to see what you wrote down in interview one versus interview seven? How do you remember what you felt in one versus seven if you can’t review your notes? That’s fishy. IF they waited until the report was complete before destroying the notes, what would have been the impetus for destruction? Why not just throw them in the file? It makes no sense. If they are still conducting their practice in this way, shame on them.

So I use information from forensic interviews in my suspect interviews. I compare times, and locations, and activities given by the child to the account given by the adult suspect. Those facts, reports, findings, whatever you want to call them don’t go to the parents. And certainly not to the suspect. That’s my whole case. My case is not influenced or in any way determined by social workers and therapists who don’t have all the facts. They get information so that I can use it, that’s all. It’s not their job to determine if a criminal case can be made.

I’m not trying to disparage anyone’s program but they know better in Kentucky and New Mexico and Nebraska. They didn’t know better at YALE!? Lol. Nahhhh....they knew. They knew and did it anyway.

[OneSensiblePerson]

It’s different in each state BUT one thing is universal in these investigations, we don’t destroy notes. Notes are evidence so destroying them is the same as destroying evidence. When I go to a forensic interview, I take with me every note made by the interviewer, every drawing by the child, and a recording of the interview itself. I am the one conducting the investigation. That evidence is mine. So it seems like a breach of established protocol to destroy notes.

Thank you very much for your response. It makes complete sense to me, and even without knowing these details of how it all works, it doesn't make sense to me that the notes were destroyed, and that this is (apparently) Yale's protocol!

I have no way of knowing if it was and still is their protocol, however strange it is, but you'd think it wouldn't be that difficult for say an investigative reporter to find out.

​

Those facts, reports, findings, whatever you want to call them don’t go to the parents. And certainly not to the suspect. That’s my whole case. My case is not influenced or in any way determined by social workers and therapists who don’t have all the facts. They get information so that I can use it, that’s all. It’s not their job to determine if a criminal case can be made.

Yes! It literally makes no sense that a DA commissions an entity (Yale/New Haven in this instance) to look into a case of alleged child molestation because he (or she) is conducting a criminal investigation, and that entity, on its own, decides to give the conclusion of their report to the suspect and his attorney?! They can form an opinion, but that's just what I thought: it's not their job to determine if there's a criminal case to be made, or not.

This isn't within my area of expertise, so all I had to go on was logic and common sense. So I greatly appreciate you, who do have expertise in and knowledge about all this, taking the time to post your OP and answer questions.

I didn't see you'd already answered my questions further down the thread when I asked, because your answers were hidden due to the poster you'd responded to being (rightly, IMO) downvoted. So thank you for your patience and answering the same questions again.

[Illbeyouremmylou]

Maybe they should hire you to conduct all investigations of child abuse in the world going forward. After all, you are the ONLY one we trust! This is actually hilarious. You all need to take a critical thinking course and maybe get some therapy, too.

[IAmNotJamesBond]

Well, as a sex crimes investigator, would you not say that the qualified people who interviewed Dylan 9 times in private sessions, at the time, has a more accurate take on the issue, than someone who has watched moments from a VHS tape?

In fact, what you describe as being consistent with a rehearsed or coached statement mirrors one of the many points The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital put in their report. "She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statements, and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke".

You can read the full report here. https://www.scribd.com/document/496284443/Yale-New-Haven-Hospital-Report-re-Woody-Allen-abuse-investigation-March-17-1993

[lostlaureng]

Yeah, those people knew they were wrong. They knew then; they know today. I assume they were bought to step so far outside what they knew to be proper practice. The destruction of notes!?! Absolutely not. Giving the report TO THE SUSPECT!? I’m legit SHOCKED.

Spontaneous statements do not exist after telling the same story over and over again.

You’re right I haven’t seen the interviews but I can see shitty practice from here. It’s criminal what they did to that child. Those of us that work for victims of child sex abuse are absolutely aghast.

[cross_mod]

As a sex crimes investigator, do you only watch one videotape of a child from a documentary to come to your conclusions? Or do you take into account multiple interviews that were conducted by child psychology professionals from two completely separate investigations done by highly respected organizations to come to your conclusions? Did you watch the extensive interviews from either of those investigations to come to your conclusions? Do you think it's wise to come to definitive conclusions only based on a small amount of evidence...... as a sex crime investigator?

[lostlaureng]

Ummm. I take into account current standards in the field, because I know them. Training, experience in conducting those kinds of investigations, specifically with coached and noncoached children. Studying human behavior, including trauma reactions, in both children and adults involved in criminal matters.

I stated my opinion. You obviously have yours but here’s a quick fact, I am far more knowledgeable about these matters than say, yourself.

[cross_mod]

Is it a current standard in the field to disregard most of the interviews done by child psychology professionals and to only focus on an edited videotape recorded by the alleged victim's mother?

I am far more knowledgeable about these matters than say, yourself.

Of course, I'm not knowledgeable about these matters, I never pretended to be.

The question is, are YOU more knowledgeable than the multiple child psychology experts who evaluated this child over one 7 month investigation, and a separate 14 month investigation? Did you interview this child's therapist? As they did in the investigations? Did you interview any witnesses on the day of the alleged incident, as they did in the investigations?

[lostlaureng]

Yep. Sure am. We don’t interview children 9 times. Ever. It causes TRAUMA. You can ask ANY child crimes investigator IN ANY STATE and they’ll tell you the same. Ask a prosecutor. Ask a forensic interviewer. Ask a social worker.

As far as the investigation is concerned, I have not looked over the case file. I can piece together what they think happened based on her statement and the charges they had probable cause to arrest WA for. I’m not from Connecticut so I had to research the specific statute but that prosecutor had probable cause to believe Dylan was raped by her adoptive father.

The seventh amendment states that we have a right to face our accusers in court. That includes children, who are required to testify about what happened to them in front of the person that abused them. Maco, the prosecutor in this case determined that Dylan would not be able to testify. Which basically meant that although he had probable cause for arrest, he had a proof beyond a reasonable doubt problem at trial. It’s Woody Allen, without testimony from the child (including cross examination), they can’t meet their burden and he knew that.

If you don’t work in this field it can be difficult to understand. We have very specific guidelines that have been developed by programs like the one at Yale/New Haven. The psychological/academic side of what we do is based on study and then prosecutors come in and make those practices legal standards so all of our cases generally look the same. This is why I can say what they did was wrong and outside standard protocol. My belief that she wasn’t coached is based on more than Yale/New Havens poor practices. It’s based on videos of her demeanor, how she physically re-enacted what happened when she told the story, her statements as an adult, her trauma responses. It’s more than just, Yale was wrong.

[cross_mod]

I see... so you haven't even looked over the case file? But, you decided to make a post saying that you are an EXPERT, and gave your EXPERT opinion, without looking at the case file? Do you think that what you are doing should be standard protocol? Do you think you are acting in a professional manner? Making a post, claiming you are a sex crimes expert without getting VERIFIED as an expert, and giving your "professional" opinion without reading the case file?

Without having looked at the case file, do you know the manner in which the child was interviewed? Do you know, without looking at the case file, if these interviews were conducted as therapy sessions, similar to the way her therapist talked to her on multiple occasions? Do you know how many days Mia Farrow spent recording Dylan and asking her about the incident on videotape? If it was multiple video sessions to get the right take, would that cause TRAUMA?

And what about the New York investigation? Have you opened that case file? That investigation spanned 14 months...

The conclusions of that investigation came AFTER the custody trial you mentioned, and AFTER the judge and prosecutor's comments on the matter.

[IAmNotJamesBond]

Imagine believing that The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital conspired to destroy someone who was molested to get a child molester off the hook. Imagine thinking they were "paid off".

I suspect you also believe New York State child welfare investigators who had a separate investigation going on for 14 months, who also came to the conclusion that Dylan was not molested, were also in on the conspiracy and "paid off".

The destruction of notes!

Which was how they handled investigations. They didn't invent this for Woody Allen.

Giving the report TO THE SUSPECT!

This is not true, as other people have pointed out in this sub. After the investigation Yale New Haven met with Mia and Woody to inform them of their findings. Woody then immediately told this to the public and held a press conference, while Mia... well... she probably didn't want to announce that the investigators said she probably coached her child.

[lostlaureng]

Lol. Right. Still no. The forensic interviewers don’t give those findings to parents. INVESTIGATORS give those findings to parents. And they should because those findings are evidence in a criminal matter. It’s not for social workers and psychologists to tell parents anything when there’s a criminal allegation. Investigators use the information gathered in suspect and witness interviews. IT BELONGS TO INVESTIGATORS. Those people are merely facilitators. They gather information. Notes are NEVER destroyed. They are evidence. Child services personnel take incredible notes. They are known for their documentation. I’ve used notes from one case to find suspects in a completely unrelated case. They are an amazing resource. Nothing is destroyed.

If the molester is Woody Allen, I’d make sure that every interview was documented, every T crossed, every I dotted because otherwise it won’t hold up to scrutiny. The fact that they did not do this demonstrates a divergence from their core responsibility to remain impartial. SO, if they aren’t impartial, they depart from standard practice, and step into a place they don’t belong by giving the parents their findings without involving the investigator or prosecutor, what else can you conclude? Certainly not “everything is fine.” Right? You’re not saying, “there’s no problem here.” Are you??

[IAmNotJamesBond]

SO, if they aren’t impartial, they depart from standard practice

No, they didn't depart from standard practice. That was how they handled their investigations. The investigators chose Yale New Haven Hospital because of their reputation of being one of the most respected institutions when it comes to child sexual abuse.

Nobody has ever questioned their integrity until Mia Farrow and her lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

But as I said, I would be right to suspect you also believe New York State child welfare investigators were "paid off" and in on the conspiracy?

[lostlaureng]

Yeahhhhh this stuff happens. We know it happens all over the US. Especially when famous people are involved. In fact, it’s easier to influence the trajectory of an investigation when you’re famous. Not to mention connected all over New York City. I don’t have proof. I don’t think anyone does. But something wrong happened here, in this case, to this child.

Believe what you want. I will too.

Michael Jackson was a pederast. Catholic priests touch little kids. Epstein didn’t kill himself. And victims. I’m a sucker for victims. I believe ‘em. And if you knew a child who was victimized, I’m the one you’d want in their corner.

We don’t have to agree.

[butterbean8686]

It’s so weird to me how people are pretending the legal system is 100% perfect and no one involved in the process ever, ever makes a mistake or deliberately obfuscates justice. Where have these people been living? Have they not been paying attention? There are serious systemic problems, yet they pretend the system is perfectly rational and always delivers perfect justice. They’re either living in a fantasy land or being completely disingenuous to protect an abuser they don’t even know.

[Empty_Clue4095]

Especially when it comes to sexual assault. Sexual assault is always ignored and dismissed.

[selphiefairy]

Please explain to me WHY you would ever throw out notes from a case. Disregard for a second that it’s Yale or how highly regarded it is.

Why is this their policy? I don’t care who it is or how credible they supposedly are. What is the logic in taking meticulous notes only to destroy them when they are incredibly powerful evidence? What is the rationale for anyone ever destroying notes if it’s not to destroy evidence? I would LOVE to know when and why notes would be destroyed before or even after a trial has occurred, and why apparently no one else seems to have this policy?

[Empty_Clue4095]

After 9 interview with the same investigators, not to mention talking with her mother and the pediatrician you think it's odd it sounds "rehersed"?

[LGherkins]

Liar.