Woody Allen Fires Back on Dylan Farrow Molestation Allegations: ‘Untrue, Disgraceful’

Woody Allen Fires Back on Dylan Farrow Molestation Allegations: 'Untrue, Disgraceful'

A spokeswoman for the director says he'll respond personally soon, and notes no charges were ever filed

Woody Allen responded Sunday to charges from his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow that he molested her when she was  seven years old, calling the accusations “untrue and disgraceful.”

“Mr. Allen has read the article and found it untrue and disgraceful. He will be responding very soon,'” said his publicist Leslee Dart.

Also read: Cate Blanchett Responds to Woody Allen Sex Abuse Charges — But Will It Hurt Her Oscar Chances?

“In the meantime, it is essential that your coverage make the following FACTS clear:

“At the time, a thorough investigation was conducted by court appointed independent experts. The experts concluded there was no credible evidence of molestation; that Dylan Farrow had an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality; and that Dylan Farrow had likely been coached by her mother Mia Farrow. No charges were ever filed.”

Dylan Farrow on Saturday charged that the legendary director assaulted her in 1992 in an open letter published in the New York Times.

Also read: Woody Allen's Adopted Daughter Details Sexual Abuse in New York Times Essay

Separately Sunday, in a statement sent to Mother Jones, Allen's attorney Elkan Abramowitz seemed to lay blame with his ex, Mia Farrow.

“It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces after it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan's distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen.”

Allen was stopped by a TMZ photographer while he was at an NBA game at Madison Square Garden Saturday night. He ignored the question.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story misstated the quote. TheWrap regrets the error.

  • J.H.

    I believe dylan farrow.

    • James_Locke

      So what? Innocent until proven guilty. We are a nation of laws not lynchings. It is 2013. In 1993 Dylan could have pressed charges but did not. Mia could ave done the same before. They declined. This is a non story.

      • terry208

        Nation of laws not lynching's,what America are you living in and how do I move there?

        • James_Locke

          2014 America. This is not 1950. Grow up

      • J.H.

        Not really valid that ‘dylan’ – age 7 at the time – could have pressed charges. The fact is the prosecutor felt that there was enough damning evidence TO press criminal charges. He – for whatever weird reason – advised mia farrow not to do it – in the interest of protecting the child. There was a lot of pressure apparently from W.A.'s camp. Its a big story: the girl is now a grown up and she still stands by her story – which is relevent to child molestation victims everywhere – speaking out about this horrific tragedy.

        • James_Locke

          In 1993 Dylan was 8 when the first revelations came out. The statute did not expire until 10 years after that. Furthermore, the lead detective said that ““he suspected the abuse occurred, yet the case lacked evidence to prosecute –– so no arrest was made.”

          No evidence, no conviction, no guilty verdict. We literally have nothing more than these claims. How can we as a society conduct ourselves like that?

          No thank you. I prefer to live in a lawful society, even if that means some bad guys get away, I would rather have the protection of those laws rather than tear them down in order to hunt down every person accused of abuse.

          • J.H.

            well, doesnt he get off easy then for destroying a child's life? a female child. Whom I happen to believe now that she is an adult she has no reason to talk about it again other than the fact that she says it happened. Well….Great. Well, maybe we should NOT celebrate him then. That might help. I cannot watch his films anymore, myself.

          • James_Locke

            You are assuming guilt without any verdict of the kind, even evidence. All you have is an accusation. If that is all you need to assume guilt in a person, then I feel sorry for you. Like I said above, I respect the law. When someone is accused of a crime, those that accuse should press charges, especially if there is evidence. If they do not, then we have no right to assume guilt where a court was unable to. That is what living in a nation with laws is all about. We are not some Tribal society where if the consensus is that someone did something wrong, we go tot he town outskirts and burn them alive.

            i for one, find woody Allen creepy. but absent a conviction, I have no reason to believe he abused his daughter.

          • Mary123s

            I believe it, but I'm with you. Unless she tries to sue since it's too late to prosecute, we are looking at another batch of Witch Trials. Because it's Woody, everyone thinks it's ok, but then who will be accused in such a matter next ?

          • J.H.

            sure . And every person who gets off is innocent. thats very naive. however, I understand what you are saying. Except for this: the prosecutor, as you may know, found plenty of evidence that he had been sexually abusing her, but mia farrow decided not to press charges – as she was advised it would mean the child might be more damaged by it and going on the stand and so forth. That is a fact. so, there was evidence. but mia was more concerned with her kid. Unlike allen, who later of course started an affair with her other daughter.

          • James_Locke

            Clearly, there are conflicting reports on the evidence. Supposedly, several psychiatrists found that no abuse had occurred. Yes, the prosecution wanted to move forward but recommended not to. You can call me naive, but like I said, assuming guilt is anti-order. It is basically how an animal would react, or a child. On instinct. We have made a process to eliminate errors and be certain of the facts. that is more important than going on witch hunts.

          • stpehenf

            And you know that “the prosecutor found evidence” because…why? Because he said so? Do you really not know that prosecutors make statements like this all the time to justify the expenditure of time and man-hours? What do you think the prosecutor is going to say — “We're dropping the charges because we have zero evidence, so everybody please don't look at this guy as probably guilty now for the rest of his life”? Name me the last three times you ever saw a prosecutor do that. They make statements like this to justify the fact of the investigation up to that point. And if that prosecutor had evidence, you can triple-damn-well bet that case would've proceeded to trial. Prosecutors don't make their careers on cases of sexual abuse with real evidence that they let go.

            As for the cited reason for dropping the case…they were plenty fine with having that child repeatedly interviewed and plied with a story for months leading up to the decision to drop. They dropped it because they didn't have the evidence. Period. If you don't understand that, you're just too naive to be in this discussion.

            But of course you bring Soon-Yi into it, as if that could possibly have any bearing on the factual question of whether Allen molested a 7-year-old. So here's your question: Where are the allegations that he molested Soon-Yi or anybody else? And on what research do you base the notion that attraction to a sexually (and legally) mature young woman (followed by a 16-years-and-counting marriage to the object of that attraction) indicates any elevated probability that the person holding that attraction would molest a young child? It's weird, for sure, and I think it's morally wrong. But clinically, there is just no evidence for the connection your amateur mind is making.

          • J.H.

            Apre the Soon Yi fiasco breaks, Mia severs contact and WA-a very very VERY rich, powerful man sues for custody of three of his children. He loses. He is not only denied full custody, he is denied also joint custody, AND He is even denied visitation rights based on “grossly inappropriate behaviour”.. Think about it.
            the DA's s office also said, at the time, that they have enough to prosecute, but out of concern for the child, and satisfaction with “no visitation” WA is not charged.

          • Mary123s

            so if he attacked a boy, then that's ok?

          • stephenf

            The reason she has to talk about it again is that there has been a stake in that story for two decades. The other reason is that if she was sold on this story when she was a child, she will remember it as being true.

            If you're seriously interested in knowing why and how this kind of thing would happen, read people like Ceci and Bruck. If not, don't act like you're out here actually seeking the truth. Fact is, it looks like you've already made up your mind, based on what amounts to witch-hunt-style evidence — supposition, pop psychology, irrational amateur assumptions, etc.

          • stephenf

            No kidding. But just check the comment list here or anywhere else on this case, and you'll see what kind of irrationalists we have surrounding us every day. Accused is as good as guilty. “Creepy” is as good as guilty. God help us.

        • k23mt

          Apparently, Allen had private investigators looking to dig up dirt on state police. Might explain advising to drop charges.

        • Guest

          Apparently, Allen had private investigators looking to dig up dirt on state police. Might explain advising to drop charges.

          • stephenf

            “Apparently” how? What's your source?

        • k23mt

          Apparently, Allen had private investigators looking to dig up dirt on state police. Might explain advising to drop charges

        • stephenf

          Completely ridiculous. You are simply too naive, if you think the prosecutor “believed” that because he said it publicly. Prosecutors say stuff like this all the time when they decide not to proceed to a grand jury or to trial, because they have to justify the expense and man-hours up to that point.

          Tell you what: You post the last three times you ever heard a prosecutor say, “I'm happy to announce that there is no evidence against the person who up to now has been the target of our investigation, so we are dropping the case at this point. Therefore, it would be irrational and wrong to allow a cloud of suspicion to hang over this person.” Post three such instances, then we'll talk.

          The fact is, prosecutors do this to get on the record their claim that they thought the case was worth pursuing up to that point. They're virtually never going to say otherwise.

  • Sharibee

    I don't

  • Vickie

    come on he was didddling the kids … you don't make that up … soon-yi at 16

    • Damien W

      Bitter spouses and scorned lovers make up allegations like that all the time, in order to damage the other party in court and sway custody arrangements.

      • Franca Condo

        I know so many women who accuse dudes of rape. many of the women are the users themselves.

        women are not all so innocent.

        there are bad women too

        if you have never experience a LIE right in your face then its your problem.

        I believe Woody.

    • stephenf

      “You don't make that up”?

      Were you born yesterday, or what?

      First of all, it's not only a matter of “making something up.” If you don't know that, why are you spewing your ignorance out here publicly?

  • cg

    Rebecca: The Vanity Fair article to which you have linked is NOT from 2002 — it's from 1992, written at the time the whole scandal was unfolding, so you can't say the girl's story never changed – not from this article. Actually she is not even interviewed in the 1992 article — she was still just a child at the time, so we don't know her story at the time. The quotes are all from people who, as the article makes clear, were all close to Mia's household, so naturally they would favor her side of the story, and Mia was out to crucify Woody at the time (and apparently still is). However, Dylan was interviewed at least nine times by different therapists at the time— all of whom concluded that no molestation took place, and she admitted to them that sometimes she makes things up. Also, if Woody was never supposed to be left alone with Dylan at the time then how, with all those people and nannies in the Farrow household, could he possibly have gotten her alone to go up to the attic with him? Either he never got her up to the attic at all (which makes the attic story false), or, for all the family's alleged concerns about Woody, they were not watching him closely. This is just one of the many holes in Mia's story, which makes it difficult to believe her allegations.

    • k23mt

      All the doctors that investigated were on Woody Allen's payroll…..one even admits he made a mistake calling her active imagination a “thought disorder”. He also never even talked to her himself, and reported that no abuse had taken place, when standard procedure is to simply report whether evidence has been found that is consistent with abuse or not. Guilt or innocence is for the court to decide. They also destroyed all their notes. Something to consider.

      • stephenf

        Your assessment of the medical team is completely wrong. Either you don't know that and are therefore ignorant, or you do know it and you're being intentionally deceptive. You also have no idea what the difference between “consistent with” and “specific to” are.

        But you are right about one thing: Guilt or innocence are for a court (an imperfect court, but still) to decide. And when the case was fresh, there wasn't even enough evidence to proceed to trial. And further, if you believe the prosecutor's hogwash about why the case didn't proceed, you are way too naive to be commenting.

  • Rhea Lee

    Soooooooooooooo Guilty………………….

    • Franca Condo

      innocent. sorry. the girl is a liar and desperate cause Woody will win another Big Award.

      Go woody.

    • stephenf

      Post your proof. Your unproven opinion is of no consequence whatsoever.

  • Rex Wolfe

    So the witch hunt begins.

    People need to check all of the actual recorded facts and history of this case before deciding to join the mob. But I suppose that's a big ask in the age of the internet and twitter. Defending Woody Allen does not equate to victim-blaming and the sick culture of enabling. The rhetoric is misguided and starting to get out of hand.

    Justice must be carried out, but not on the wrong people.

  • James_Locke

    Thats 1992, not 2002. Reading comprehension fail.

  • Janette Miller

    Woody Allen used his money to get off. He was ding his adopted daughters. He married one of them when she was old enough to give consent. He is GUILTY as hell. Any one that thinks other wise should be ashamed. This young woman has tld the truth again.

    • Defend-Lance-A.

      All these W.A. supporters remind me so much of all those blind, and insane, Lance Armstrong supporters. Ironic that they bring up accusations of mob mentalities and lynchings, as they exhibit that same behavior.

      • stpehenf

        Apparently you don't recognize the difference between “supporting” Woody Allen and “supporting” a legal system, or even a logical system, in which it takes more than an accusation to warrant that an alleged fact be taken as true.

    • Franca Condo

      whatever.

      women lie all the damn time to get ahead.

      the use men. they lie.

      there are lots of bad women out there

      shame on you janette

      • Kaya

        Well I am a woman and mother of 2 girls. But I have to agree that the story looks really strange and I believe Woody Allen on this. According to Mia, there was sexual behavior towards Dylan before as well – then what kind of mother would let this continue? The timing of these accusations does not really support their story. Perhaps Dylan believes this happened and this makes her a victim anyway. Just probably not a victim of Woody Allen.

    • stephenf

      You should be ashamed. You have no clue whether what she's saying is factually true or false, and you're projecting irrelevant facts onto your conclusion as if they mattered at all.

  • Guest

    Yes he did, technicalities aside. What world do you live in. The 16 yr old ” sister” to his children and ex wife , is his current wife- whom he married while she was still a teenager. He helped raise her, what planet is that NOT a father step or otherwise HELLO???

    • stephenf

      It's weird, I think it's morally wrong, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody is at an elevated probability to have sexually abused a 7-year-old.

      Also, his “current wife” is not 16. But you do raise an interesting point: Where are the allegations that he abused Soon-Yi (or anybody else) when she was a young child, as opposed to developing an attraction for her when she was sexually (and even legally) mature?

  • Anastasia

    Break it down – if he cared about her as his daughter (if he was truly innocent both then and now) he would have gone to painful lengths to be considerate of her distress, not used the words ‘disgraceful’ and have made public offers (both past and present) to see a specialust of her choosing to resolve the matter for her and thereby showing he has nothing to hide and the matter would not be here today. But he never has made this kind of offer because he has something to hide. As a director this a man who is highly skilled at getting people to feel what he wants them to and to do what he wants them to (grooming – soon-yi too). By his repeated actions alone he has proven his guilt – this is not the actions of an innocent man or a good father. GUILTY

    • stephenf

      Again, the level of irrationality is just stunning, and terrifying.

      Unless you've known somebody who has spent the past two decades under false allegations of abuse, you have no way to begin to conceive of what he “would do” in a situation like this. If the allegations are false, it is Farrow, not Allen, who has held the child out to the public. And after 20-odd years of living under such a cloud — if it is indeed false — the word “disgraceful” is about the mildest thing a person in that condition could possibly say, especially when applying it to the fact that Dylan may actually believe what she's saying, and to the fact that Mia Farrow continues her lifelong war with no regard for how it affects her children. Cases like this are seen everywhere, but apparently you're blissfully ignorant of that fact. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

      • Anastasia

        People who have the need to tell other people that they don't know what they're talking about as part of their argument in a discussion are short-sighted and show lack of respect (I therefore completely disregard all your comments and opinions in the future also) Regards

  • CrimesAndMisdemeanors

    Coming from the creep-me-out, family pedophile, Woody Allen's choice of the word “DISGRACEFUL” really should reflect the fact he was secretly BANGNG his and Mia Farrow's former adopted teenage daughter, Soon-Yi (who was probably about 16 or younger when Woody first started diddling another one of his children).

    Yeah, I used to be one of Woody Allen's biggest fans (especially his late 1960s to mid-1980s works), but ANYONE who defend his actions as a parent and adult has to be totally OBLIVIOUS and probably lost in some kind of judgmental ABYSS. Come on, anyone supporting Wood-Yi on this has to probably be about as comfortable embracing Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Edwards as “MODEL HUSBANDS and PARENTS” to both his legitimate and illegitimate children floating around — not mention being LECHEROUS LIARS and MISERABLE, TORTUROUS ABUSERS to their both children, spouses and even their mistresses in some cases!

    My God, whether you are from the Left or even the looney Far Right, I'm really worried about the morale compasses of judgement of our fellow Americans, who have either become de-sensitized or just purely brain dead about how this kind of LECHEROUS, CREEPY BEHAVIOR and PATTERN OF ABUSE that PEDOPHILE-BASED PREDATORS like Woody Allen should not be EMBRACED, LAUDED and CONGRATULATED for perpetrating the kind of pain this narcissistic, overblown scumbag like Wood-Yi Allen is foisting upon American society. Really, he is no better and no different than Arnold, Edwards, Phil Spector, Robert Black or OJ in this regard — they all really do DESERVE to be SHUNNED by society for their REPUGNANT behavior and actions.

    What a shame…do you people here actually think that Dylan Farrow is GAINING anything from this after 20 years and counting!!?? That woman has my utmost respect for finally emerging from the DARKNESS of her constant pain and hopefully will continue to emerge as an “exemplary, brave and courageus example” to other CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS who still have been traumatized and continue to suffer as their ABUSERS continue to perpetrate their acts.

    My thoughts lie with Dylan Farrow, her siblings (like Ronan) and Mia Farrow who were all WITNESSES and VICTIMS of Woody Allen's abusive nature and actions — even Soon-Yi may one day wakeup to the reality of their abnormal, charade-like marriage!

    • Franca Condo

      dylan is getting attention
      she is lying
      and thats all she has ever had in her life lies that nobody ever believed
      horrible

      why is this coming up now?
      because this stupid girl is so jealous that woody keeps winning awards

      the farrows are sick bastards

      mia told woody he had a son for 25 years that wasnt even his

      how do you like that bullshit

      i dont believe 1 word the farrows say ever.

      woody. innocent !

    • stephenf

      Yeah, and he was “probably” a Martian too, and I'm probably the King of France.

      It's actually terrifying to know people with your level of irrationality are out there in the world.

  • Franca Condo

    I believe Woody Allen. the Farrows are sick users. Its total bullshit. I know so many women that have made up claims. Woody is innocent.

    • Guest

      Right, because child molesters never pick dysfunctional families in which to set up shop! Actually, that is precisely what they do. Woody Allen was involved with Mia Farrow, who was a single mom of many young children. When he came into their lives his now-wife was an 8-year-old in that family. Is that not the stuff the single mother's nightmares are made of? There is just too much smoke here for there to be no fire.

      • stpehenf

        Good question. Where are the allegations that he molested Soon-Yi, or anybody else?

        You need to stop reading pop-psychology books. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  • Franca Condo

    the girl's whole life is this makeup story
    of course she will keep retelling the bullshit

  • HelenNPN

    Doesn't anyone even remember the movie of his “Manhattan”, in which an aging over the hill old fart has an ongoing sexual affair throughout the whole movie with a 17 year old…

    super slimy creepy then and worse now…

    • stephenf

      And you think this has something to do with the factual question of whether he molested a 7-year-old?

      Why do people post such ignorance out here?

  • stephenf

    “Plenty of people” who supported the real accuser, Mia Farrow.

    And apparently the people who actually do this for a living disagree with both you and VF re “the story.” For a story that has been concocted, simply sticking with the story doesn't prove its factual truth.

  • stephenf

    It is actually terrifying to see the level of ignorance and
    pop-psychology nonsense posted out here on a case like this. Almost
    nobody here has the first clue what they're talking about, why and how
    false allegations happen, why Dylan could be completely sincere and yet
    wrong factually, how this works in terms of mental processes, what the
    actual facts of the case were and are…none of it. Just massive
    ignorance and hatred, vomited up on a comment list. Terrifying and
    depressing, re the irrationality and fear-mongering that seem to poison
    the human condition.

    The fact is, for most of you, accused is as
    good as guilty, and no amount of evidence to the contrary (or any lack
    of evidence on the part of the accuser, which is Mia Farrow, not Dylan),
    will make any difference. God help us.

  • Anastasia

    Watch the old 60 minutes interview with woody on the subject, it's up on the net (watch full version) – this man is lying.