Original subtitles

I want to be friends. You will not let me get in.

You have to, it's way beyond that now.

What you've done to Soon-Yi. What you've done to Dylan.

What you've done to Dylan, Dylan's a baby.

How could you do that to her?

I don't know anything of the kind. I know what Dylan tells me.

You've told me nothing but lies. Dylan tells the truth and consistently.

- But you know that I didn't... - I don't know that, Woody.

I've always been worried about you and Dylan.

And I didn't know the doctor had to report this to the authorities.

I didn't know that. I went to be sure she was all right.

And she's not all right, Woody.

She walks around the house holding her vagina.

She sleeps with me.

She's scared of you.

And you hurt her.

Now I feel pretty guilty myself that I wasn't there to protect her.

She said, "Mommy, you didn't help me."

She said, "Daddy shouldn't have done that.

He shouldn't have hurt me like that.

If you heard her you would weep inside,

and you would just want to be dead.

Because I don't know how you can live with what you did.

This is a story of two of the biggest stars in the world.

The father is Woody Allen, writer, director, actor.

The mother is Mia Farrow, his frequent co-star,

and the mother of his three children, two of them adopted.

Woody and Mia have been together for 12 years

but never married and kept separate residences.

She reportedly has a video

of their adopted daughter Dylan explaining how Allen molested her.

Allen denies child abuse, but freely admits

he's in love with another of Farrow's daughters, 21-year-old Soon-Yi.

Allen said the newest allegations

are the bizarre concoctions of a woman scorned.

Miss Farrow's only concern

have been exclusively the protection of her children.

ALLEN V. FARROW Episode 3

The private lives of Woody Allen and the Farrow family

would become very public in August of 1992.

A series of investigations and lawsuits followed,

which generated tens of thousands of court and police documents,

most of which were never made public or obtained by the press.

One cache of more than 60 boxes of documentation

was hidden away in an attorney storage room,

untouched since the '90s.

Over the course of our three-year investigation

we gained access to those boxes,

along with police files of the case, additional evidence, affidavits,

sworn testimony, and private audio and video recordings.

After the incident in the attic,

the next day I took Dylan to the doctor.

She didn't really know the pediatrician up here in Connecticut that well

and she sure didn't want to talk about it.

He didn't want to pressure her, and he said:

"No problem. Why don't you come back tomorrow?"

When we got in the car and I said:

"Did you want to tell him what you told me? Do you feel...?"

And she said, "I don't like to talk about my privates."

And I'm, like, "I get that.

But it would be helpful if you could tell him,

because then we would have somebody who could make sure you are okay."

So then the next day we went back

and she did tell the doctor what happened.

And then we went home.

And we were all outside and I got a call from the doctor.

And he said, "I just wanted to tell you that I've told the police."

I remember when I took the phone call I made the kids get out of the water.

So they were making sand castles and covering their feet with sand.

And I saw a little robin was hopping on the grass.

And I'm holding the phone thinking it all looked so normal,

but nothing will ever be normal ever again.

Dylan's pediatrician had submitted a report of suspected sexual abuse,

and a series of legal actions were initiated in two states.

In New York, the Farrows' legal residence,

the City Child Welfare Administration opened an investigation.

While in Connecticut, where the crime had occurred,

the state police also opened a criminal investigation,

which was overseen by state prosecutor, Frank Maco.

I received a call from my office with a complaint,

alleged sexual abuse on one Woody Allen.

I met with the members of the Connecticut State Police.

I said, I want to make sure that we're not talking

about some type of a Hollywood relationship that had gone bad.

Next thing you know, crime squad trucks rolling down our driveway.

They went to do whatever they do in the attic,

collecting hair and stuff like that.

What I remember...

is that after the attic

things really started changing very rapidly.

I said this thing,

and it started this nightmare of lawyers and the phone ringing,

and everything changed.

Woody's not about to change his ways.

He's where he is every Monday night, Michael's Pub here in Manhattan.

Steve Powers is there right now. Steve?

It was as if Woody Allen was trying to play it cool by playing his clarinet,

as he does every Monday night over here at Michael's Pub.

He went up on the bandstand

and joined the band in some playing with a full house.

But earlier there was an indication everything wasn't just fine,

when Woody left his apartment at 74th Street and 5th venue.

He had no comment.

Woody, could you give us a comment, Woody?

Anything about the Bridgewater charges, Woody?

My office and the Connecticut State Police,

we wanted to do our investigation

quietly and as effectively as possible, professionally as possible.

Next thing I know at the Plaza Hotel

Mr. Allen calls a news conference and announces he's subject

of a Connecticut State Police investigation into abuse.

Thank you for coming.

Over the years you know that I've been reluctant to speak with the press

and have assiduously avoided publicity.

But because of all the rumors, and innuendos,

and cruel untruths circulating over the past week

I feel that I have to make a statement.

This is an unconscionable and gruesomely damaging manipulation

of innocent children for vindictive and self-serving purposes.

In the end the one thing I have been guilty of

is falling in love with Ms. Farrow's adult daughter...

Woody gave a press conference

where he talked about being wildly in love with Soon-Yi,

and our jaws all dropped.

He said to Mia, "I don't love Soon-Yi", I heard him say this:

"This was just a silly little fling. I'm not in love with her."

There's a calculated reason why love enters the picture.

He's trying to distract. This is a woman scorned.

This is an unhinged woman. That's Woody's narrative.

He turned it all back, turned it upside down and around,

and focused on his relationship with Soon-Yi.

And the media ran with that story.

One day after Woody Allen

acknowledge a love affair with de 21 year-old adopted daughter

of his one time companion and leading lady Mia Farrow,

the usually very private filmmaker went public.

Allen says he feels no great moral dilemma

over his admitted relationship with Soon-Yi Previn Farrow.

In a written statement Allen says,

"Regarding my love for Soon-Yi, it's real and happily all true.

He added that Mia Farrow was so irate

when Allen fell in love with Farrow's adopted college-age daughter, Soon-Yi,

that Farrow concocted the abuse charges.

I would love to see Dylan and Satchel, and you know that.

So you're not willing to try to go back

and try to undo some of this, and see if we can't...

- What could be undone? - Take it out of the public arena.

- Yes. - Let's get it private.

I'd love to take it out of the public arena.

But when you say "take it out of the public arena..."

But let's stop insulting each other through other people.

I mean, you know, in fact we...

It's not out of the public arena

when you're doing an interview with Newsweek.

I was told you were doing an interview with Newsweek.

I'm not doing an interview with Newsweek, no.

In Time and Newsweek Allen struck the latest blow

in this war waged with sound bites and spicy quotes.

Over the past week Allen's trial-by-tabloid

has captivated the national psyche.

I was a general assignment reporter back in the '90s

when we heard that Mia Farrow's adopted daughter

might be having an affair with Woody Allen.

And the way he spun it was just perfect.

Don't forget, Woody Allen at that time

had some really high-powered people in his court.

Elkan Abramowitz, his attorney, big, big attorney,

and he had a very powerful PR machine behind him.

They were doing a great job painting Mia Farrow

as a scorned woman who would say anything.

But we had to follow the leads,

and sometimes it took us to a place that Woody Allen was not happy.

Here at the Episcopal School on Manhattan's East Side

sources tell us that Woody Allen was so obsessed with Dylan,

who was then three years-old, that parents and teachers

began talking about how Allen would sit in the doorway

positioned to watch little Dylan in the classroom.

We were one of a few journalists who gave the other side.

Woody immediately got onto the cover of Time,

the cover of Newsweek, the cover of People,

and Mia wasn't really speaking.

I thought to myself, there has to be another side to the story.

She was not giving interviews so I had to find people close to her.

I spoke to Andre Previn, her previous husband.

I spoke to the tutors. I spoke to the babysitters.

One of the things that was interesting to me

was that Mia didn't want these allegations to be true

because this was completely unraveling her entire life.

I was told by several different people that she said,

"You know, Dylan, we all make up stories.

If this didn't happen you really need to tell me it didn't happen,

or maybe you think it happened and..."

And she says, "No, it happened.

And if he says it didn't happen he's lying."

So this little girl would never back down from the story.

I also found out that Woody refused to submit

to the state police's lie detector test.

The Connecticut State Police indicated that Woody Allen

had taken a polygraph by a private polygrapher.

I said, "I'm not interested. I want a state police polygrapher to take it,"

and he refused.

So I did not get what I had requested,

which was a polygraph by the Connecticut State Police.

If I have a shred of belief left in you, then help me now.

Tell me where you were for those 20 minutes.

- That will all be... - But why can't you just tell me now?

It will all be... all the details when the time comes.

No, now. Why can't you just tell me, help me now?

... when the time comes, and the truth will come out.

Woody, tell me where you were! People scoured the house.

Every single room was searched. You could help me a lot.

... all about that eventually...

- Why don't you just tell me? - ... all about it.

Be logical about this. I'm 57.

Isn't it illogical that I'm going to pick this moment in my life

to become a child molester?

It's just incredible.

if I wanted to be a child molester I had many opportunities in the past.

Why would Allen's 7-year-old daughter tell a Connecticut doctor otherwise?

Either she has been coached methodically to...

tell this story, because...

- By Mia? - By Mia, yeah.

Overnight almost there he is on everything,

on the cover of every magazine, on every kind of show,

saying that I had coached Dylan and all these things.

She's been using her friends on both coasts

to say terrible things about me and to lie about...

I didn't feel that it was seemly to get into...

a public fight with him.

In a statement Farrow told NBC News

she wouldn't be interviewed about Woody Allen for this story

and asked that her friends not talk to us about Allen either.

I just had to keep my focus on the kids

and try to keep them safe,

and try to keep whatever semblance of normal that we could

under the circumstances.

There were helicopters flying low to take pictures,

and the kids couldn't go anywhere.

And it was terrifying.

If we left the house they would follow us wherever we were going.

And it was scary.

At the Farrow home in Connecticut, and elsewhere,

family members were rallying to Mama Mia's side.

She's my mother and she's the best mother there is.

Any statement saying that she is unfit to be a mother is completely ridiculous.

She is a marvelous mother, a fine woman,

and she's just got a moral foundation that's just unbreakable

and we're all rocks and we're all staying together

we're gonna fight this thing till we win.

We didn't need help turning against him. He did it to himself.

And his accusation that my mother is an unfit mother is absurd.

Anybody who knows my mother knows that.

Woody appeared to have what were unlimited resources

and hired private investigators.

And people were following us around, and going through garbage,

and looking for anything that there's a weakness here

that I can exploit to say, "Hold on a minute,

she's not the great parent she's asserting herself to be. Look at this."

I definitely felt like I was followed a few times,

when I was coming from Mia's apartment back to my apartment,

or if I was taking the children out.

One night I was coming home from some friends,

and I was being followed.

So I didn't even go home.

I took some twists and turns and still this person was following me.

I went all the way into the neighboring town and it became really scary.

Woody Allen's team hired multiple private investigators

to uncover compromising information about Mia's family,

as well as the Connecticut State detectives

who had been assigned to the case.

I met with the members of the Connecticut State Police,

instructed them to continue their investigation.

I said, "I want this child evaluated."

I wanted some type of opinion

as to whether or not my bringing her into the criminal justice system,

putting her on the stand, in any way would traumatize her.

And want to know are there any impediments to the child's ability

to take the stand and testify in court.

So I suggested the Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to do the examination.

They were going to assist me insofar as determining

whether or not there were any impediments

as to the child's ability to perceive, recall, and relate.

The Yale New Haven team was led by Dr. John Leventhal,

who at that time was the director

of the Yale New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic.

The team also included two social workers,

Julia Hamilton and Jennifer Sawyer.

Records show that Sawyer and Hamilton interviewed Dylan nine times

over a three-month period.

I would meet with some adults

who would show me an anatomically-correct doll

and ask me where daddy touched me.

And I would repeat the story over, and over, and over again.

It was grueling and it was intense, and I hated it.

Their examination went on for seven months.

And then I received a call that the Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic

made a decision, and I am given the bottom-line conclusion

that the child is unreliable, untrustworthy,

and/or that Mia Farrow was a fabricator of this incident.

The report stated there were "inconsistencies" in Dylan's statements,

and that she had "difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality."

The report also stated that Dylan's accusations were

"likely reinforced and encouraged by her mother who was enraged with Mr. Allen."

Without notifying Frank Maco, who had commissioned the report,

Yale New Haven met with Mia Farrow and Woody Allen

and informed them of the results of the report.

Next thing I know the Yale New Haven team

presented the findings to Allen, the suspect of the investigation,

and allowed him to announce the results publicly on the steps of the hospital.

They've come to a decision that I can say is an accurate one.

Certainly I never, ever abused my daughter.

There was no sexual abuse that ever took place,

and that the... it was either...

an imagined thing or a concocted thing.

Why do you call the accused and have a press conference

on the steps of the hospital to "clear him"

when you don't give it to the state attorney to do that?

He was the one who commissioned it. It wasn't their purview to do that.

Today's report, if it is as Allen describes it,

seems to remove any possibility he'd face criminal charges.

The report also says that the child may have made this story up.

But the experts also allow for the possibility in their report

that Farrow may have coached the child to tell this story.

In the report the experts recommend that Farrow receive therapy now

for what it characterized

as her "extremely disturbed" relationship with 7-year-old Dylan.

I had to come forward and say, "Wait a minute.

I find nothing indicating that Mia Farrow

is in any way fabricating, controlling, or manipulating this child.

There's nothing to show us that.

I just want to say that I will always stand by my children.

Did you make it up? Did you make up that story?

I was contacted by Ms. Farrow's attorney

shortly after the Yale report came out.

Ms. Farrow's lawyer was concerned about the report,

and she asked me if I could read it and tell her what I thought.

I read the report and I was horrified.

And I testified in court about the report.

They interviewed this child nine times.

Even in the early '90s nobody interviewed a child of any age

amidst an allegation of sexual abuse nine times.

You don't interview a child about the same allegation

over and over and over again.

You interview the child the least amount of times as possible,

so as not to re-traumatize the child.

The more I was asked the same question over and over,

the more I started to wonder what do they want from me,

and feeling like the more I said the same thing, that...

it was the wrong answer, that I was being treated like I was...

lying.

If I'd change a word here they say I'm being inconsistent.

If I use exactly the same words that I used every other time I was coached.

There were absolute consistencies in which this child said

the same thing to the same interviewers over the 9 times she was interviewed.

She's very consistent about who touched her,

where in the house, what part of her body,

what he touched her with.

So she's very consistent with the core elements of her disclosure.

She hasn't really moved away from that in this report,

in all of these interviews.

Every little idiosyncrasy that I could've had as a seven-year-old girl

was used against me.

The fact that I used childish descriptions...

I described a couple of mannequin heads as "dead heads."

The "dead heads" were later identified

as Mia Farrow's mannequins for her wigs,

probably in her profession.

I did not find that to be an unreasonable description

by a seven-year-old who's trying to identify what was in mom's attic.

Part of their conclusion of why Dylan fantasized

was because she referred to the "magic hour."

Anybody who's grown up around filmmakers

knows that certain hours of the day do have the magic light.

I was the kid of two people in the film industry.

And I was on set a lot.

So how I was I supposed to know that that constitutes magical thinking?

That's a pretty big thing to say a 7-year-old child

is delusional, isn't thinking right,

doesn't know the difference between fantasy and reality.

This report failed to reflect anything even close

to the child having a psychotic disorder, not even close.

Jennifer Sawyer and Dr. Julia Hamilton,

the two social workers on Leventhal's team,

interviewed Dylan.

But according to Dr. Leventhal's deposition,

Yale New Haven's practice was to destroy all notes

after the completion of an evaluation.

So ultimately no contemporaneous record exists

of what they thought or observed when they first interviewed Dylan.

All of the notes were destroyed.

- Are notes typically destroyed? - No. Notes are never destroyed.

Notes are never destroyed during a forensic evaluation,

never, ever, ever destroyed.

Notes are evidence, and we would turn over any drawings,

any notes we took in an interview,

anything that was written down in an interview

would be handed over to law enforcement.

If I elected to go to trial on this case

my first question to each of those evaluators,

"Let me see your contemporaneous notes in your interview of this child."

Destroyed, all of them.

Bottom line, this was basically a runaway evaluation.

Yale New Haven did not have the authority to reach their conclusion.

They're talking about whether a crime occurred.

And the people who decide whether a child is a victim of a crime

is a judge or a jury.

I make the decision, not Yale.

I haven't relinquished my constitutional responsibility

to decide whether or not we're going to prosecute.

It is up to a trained prosecutor to determine whether or not

that child has been sexually abused, period.

No one should hold up that report and say Woody Allen was exonerated.

While the investigation continued in Connecticut,

the investigation in New York by the Child Welfare Administration

was also underway.

The supervisor assigned to the case was Sheryl Harden.

In my sex abuse unit I was a senior supervisor,

and we investigated child abuse throughout the City of New York.

So after I read the allegations I said I'll assign this to Paul.

Paul Williams was one of the top investigators that I had.

He was very thorough; he was objective.

Paul Williams had roughly handled about 800 cases at the time,

and just the year before in 1991

the City of New York awarded him "Caseworker of the Year".

It was the first time

that they had ever awarded such an award to a caseworker.

Paul interviewed Dylan and found her to be quite credible.

At her age she should not know anything about inserting a finger into the vagina.

She should not know anything about inserting a finger into the anus.

Those are not things that should be that easy for her to discuss

unless there's something occurring.

Among the records we obtained

were a complete set of Paul Williams' contemporaneous investigation notes.

Within the first two weeks of being assigned the case

Williams reported that there was sufficient information

to open a criminal investigation of Woody Allen in the State of New York.

He was later told by superiors that,

"In high-profile cases it is customary for the 'big wigs' to take over

and 'we'...do nothing."

This was no ordinary case. Filings were misfiled.

Misinformation was put into the computer.

There was clearly a strong political climate to shut this thing down.

But Paul Williams, his agenda was the best interest of the child.

The City of New York had another agenda,

they needed to suffocate and silence Paul Williams.

And when he wouldn't shut up they fired him.

Under what pretext?

That he was insubordinate. He wasn't following instructions.

I have no comment to say, okay?

Paul Williams may not want to answer our questions,

but his attorney assures us he is not running away from an investigation

into whether someone may have intervened in New York City's handling

of the child abuse allegations against Woody Allen.

I did my job and I believe the kid, okay?

- You believe the kid? - Yes.

I have seen no evidence to led me to believe otherwise.

Confidential notes obtained from the Human Resources Administration

indicate that the investigator attributed the decision

not to pursue the case to the Mayor's office, a charge they deny.

This wasn't about one supervisor

or one department in this agency.

This was a massive cover-up attempt, and Paul was caught in the middle.

Williams is suing the city,

charging that the Mayor's office hid and suppressed information in the case.

Williams contends that higher-ups muzzled him, refusing to allow him

to report his findings either to New York family court

or to authorities in Connecticut,

where a parallel investigation is still going on.

Every procedure, every rule, every regulation,

every statute, every ordinance

with respect to the investigation of a child sexual abuse in this matter

was violated.

Women's rights activist Gloria Steinem

came to lend her support to Paul Williams.

Someone who knew the case got in touch with me,

just as a reporter, as a journalist.

So I talked to Paul.

He seemed to me a very admirable, smart,

empathetic person with no possible motive

to do anything but do his best to find out the truth.

The determination that the judge made was that he shouldn't have been fired,

and he was awarded his job back, and back pay for what was taken from him.

Paul Williams felt vindicated in the individual sense

of what happened in terms of getting his job back.

But he was never able to complete the very job he was given.

Paul Williams still works

for the New York City Administration for Children's Service,

and a spokesperson for the agency declined our request for an interview.

But in looking through his old case file

we were surprised to see a familiar name.

Williams had corresponded directly with Jennifer Sawyer,

one of the social workers who interviewed Dylan

for the Yale New Haven investigation in Connecticut.

According to Williams' notes,

Sawyer had told him that she had not only considered Dylan credible,

but believed that she had more to disclose.

Sawyer's notes were later destroyed.

In the end the result was

that people with power were able to get the case removed.

It just seemed to me, from everything I could glean as a reporter,

to be a case of great injustice.

I don't sleep at night. What I do is lay awake thinking

about how horrendous this has been, what they've done to her.

The elite can do whatever they need to do, whatever they want to do,

and there's no consequences for it.

Not long after that, I think maybe a year later, I left the city agency.

Why?

Because I could not continue to do what I did

to those low-income families, those black families,

and welfare families, and have them treated differently

than if they would've been a Woody Allen.

He's got an army of lawyers, and he's very wealthy.

People bend over backwards to do what he wants.

What I really thought was that Woody was all-powerful,

and that what he had told me was true,

and that he could control the Yale people, the doctor there,

and he could control somehow the New York people.

Because he made his movies in New York,

that brought millions of dollars to New York City.

And what he had said to me was that,

"It doesn't matter what's true. What matters is what's believed."

And that he said it in such a cold way that I thought could he be right?

And then Woody sued me for custody,

saying that I had to hand over my children

because I was an unfit mother,

turning my children against him with horrible lies,

that he was going to take Dylan, Moses, and Satchel.

But I also faced losing all of my children,

because if Woody were believed that I was a horrible mother,

what would happen to all the other adopted children in the family?

I mean, there was a lot to lose.

You brought charges against me as an unfit mother.

And I'm going to make them stick.

Woody, don't do this. Don't try this. Don't do this.

I don't deserve it.

If you look back from an historical point of view

there's clearly a bias against women

who made allegations of rape and sexual abuse against children.

And the very term "hysteria" as applied to women

was easy to believe that women who made allegations

were themselves mentally ill.

I personally read every law review article on this subject

from the 1880s to the 1970s.

And the level of skepticism of women's allegations of rape and sexual assault

was almost monolithic.

People don't want to believe that this could be happening

in the context of a family.

It's so awful to think that a father could be doing this to his child

that we would rather assume, we'll look for any explanation,

other than that being the truth.

Dr. Richard Gardner, known for his innovative work on children of divorce,

coined the term "Parental Alienation Syndrome."

The idea is that one parent, caught up in a custody battle,

programs children against the other parent,

even fabricating charges of sexual abuse.

It's not a rare phenomenon; it's quite common.

He says it usually arises when a mother, afraid of losing custody,

uses false accusations as a weapon.

In about 90% of cases it's the mother who is the programmer,

and the father who is the victim of the campaign.

He said that when mothers report child sexual abuse in custody litigation,

most of the time they are doing so not because it's true,

but because they want to alienate the children from their father.

Children are very suggestable, and it's easier for them

to start off with suggested ideas which develop into delusions.

I believe that we are witnessing the third-greatest wave of hysteria

that we've ever seen in this country.

The problem with his syndrome

is that it became a device for not believing people,

and an easy way to brand the woman as mentally unstable

and a deliberate fabricator.

So here comes a book that professes to give us charts,

and diagrams, and numbers, and easy explanations

for how to sort out whether this is true or false.

It's all bogus, it's not real science, but it looks like science.

There were a number of studies in the U.S. and around the world.

They found that reports of child sexual abuse are rarely intentionally false.

Studies found that only 2 to 9 percent

of child sexual abuse reports made to child welfare agencies

are considered to be intentionally false.

Gardner himself admits that his theories

aren't based on any scientific or clinical research,

just his experience.

His work on parental alienation isn't reviewed by peers;

he publishes it all himself.

He was clearly very troubled.

He said crazy things, and he put some of them in print.

"... pedophilia has been considered the norm

by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world... "

"It is because our society

overreacts to it (pedophilia) that children suffer".

He said that the earlier children become sexualized

the better it is for the race,

because they'll have more sex and more offspring.

So this is all-natural and good for the species.

After some of that became exposed

people started disparaging Richard Gardner

and the Parental Alienation Syndrome,

but then they just started to keep on using it,

even using his same criteria.

So often fathers who are accused of abuse respond by suing for custody.

Very often the abuser files for custody

to tamp down any kind of criminal investigation that's going on.

The timing of when Woody Allen filed for custody matches this strategy.

Within a week of learning that he was being investigated for child abuse,

Woody Allen filed a lawsuit against Mia Farrow

for sole custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses.

The suit claimed Mia was emotionally disturbed,

unable to manage the rearing of her nine children,

and was brainwashing the children

with respect to the false allegations of sexual misconduct by Allen.

Why would you want to take them away?

You promised me you would never do it.

You know in your heart I'm not heavily medicated,

that I'm not abusive, that I always spend enough time with them.

If I have faults about that it's that I always spend all my time with them.

I don't think in the 13 years, of the 13 movies we've done...

You'll have a chance to prove that.

But you know that in your heart,

that I've never showed up for work without the children,

that the children have always come first.

You'll have a chance to make that case at some point.

And when all the facts are in we'll see.

Okay.

- Is your phone taped? - No, my phone's not taped.

I'm the last person that knows how to work that stuff.

You don't even have to talk about it. We can hang up now if you want.

I was just hearing you out because I think,

that a terrible thing is being done to the kids...

- Are you hanging up? - Hold on one second.

- Hello? - Yeah, Woody?

Yes, can I call you back?

I'm on the phone with Mia and I have been for the last 10 minutes.

I'm not saying anything, but I'm just listening and taping.

God bless you. Bye.

Hello!

- Hello. - Okay.

Do what you have to do. I don't think it's in your best interest,

or in the children's best interest.

You mean your best interest, right? That's what this is about.

Certainly not in my best interest either.

It's not in mine or yours, or the children's.

A judge has barred television cameras from the courtroom

during tomorrow's custody hearing between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.

Allen is suing for custody of the couple's three children.

Try and get the kids.

He said he should have custody

of the three youngest children he shared with Farrow,

because she was seeking vengeance on him through the children

using them as pawns.

We are confident that after the...

all the evidence is in we will prevail at the custody hearing.

It was a circus in that courtroom. Everybody was jockeying for seats.

I mean, every tabloid, every big TV personality was there.

Everybody wanted to know how this was going to end for Woody Allen.

Woody Allen to New York was a home-grown hero

to a whole generation of artists, intellectuals, journalists.

I grew up with Woody Allen as a hero.

The New York Times was Woody Allen's hometown paper in so many ways.

Vincent Canby, the film critic for the New York Times,

had long been a champion of Woody's work.

The readership of the New York Times and the viewership of Woody's films

were almost two parallel audiences.

He was the ultimate New Yorker.

Next to the Statue of Liberty who was the most famous New Yorker?

Who expressed the city best? Who epitomized it to the ultimate degree?

It was Woody Allen. And so the atmosphere was one of rapt attention.

The Allen v. Farrow trial was presided over by Judge Elliott Wilk,

who would determine custody

and visitation rights for Dylan, Satchel, and Moses.

Woody Allen was the first witness sworn in,

and his attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, led the questioning.

Were you ever alone with Dylan on August 4th...?

No. I was not allowed to be alone with her.

I was always in the presence of other people...

I was never alone for any substantial amount of time.

These claims of Mr. Allen were contradicted in court

by three people who were supervising the children on the day of his visit.

Kristi Groteke, Dylan's babysitter,

testified that she searched the house looking for Dylan,

but was unable to locate her for about 20 minutes.

During that same period, Sophie Berge, Dylan's tutor,

testified she was outside with the other children,

where neither Dylan nor Allen were to be found.

Earlier Alison Stickland, another babysitter,

testified that she had walked in on Dylan and Allen in the TV room.

... Mr. Allen was on his knees in front of Dylan with his head in hep lap...

- ... where was he facing? - Her, straight ahead.

- He was facing into her body? - Yes.

"His head in her crotch", that stuck with me.

I remember reporters all, like, exchanging sidelong glances.

There seems no reasonable way

to look at that behavior as anything but trouble.

The Woody who appeared at the trial was a frightened,

defensive creature who was out of his element.

There was no sense from him

that the motivation for wanting sole custody

was his deep love for these children, his concern for their welfare.

I think you did get a sense of his anger with Mia Farrow.

It was really about portraying Mia as vindictive

and seeking revenge for the relationship with Soon-Yi.

They were attempting to make the case

that Mia had concocted this story as a way to punish Woody.

Do you believe that Miss Farrow

brainwashed Dylan with respect to the accusations?

I do believe that she brainwashed Dylan...

Mia instantly took Dylan,

asked her in a leading way about molestation...

Dylan, tell me again what happened, okay?

The videotape of Dylan talking about abuse in the TV room,

and then in the attic, was entered as evidence in the custody trial.

Mia testified that she taped Dylan over two days,

whenever she had started to speak about it.

As part of our research we asked a team of independent experts

to evaluate the tape.

He put his head on my lap, hugged me tight.

And then...

And then he...

And then he secretly took one hand

from...

from here, and touched my privates.

And I do not like that one bit.

What a child forensic interviewer is going to be looking for

is as the child is describing what happened

does it seem like they are recounting something that happened to them,

or is there a disconnect between the words that they're using

and their body language, or their voice inflection and that sort of thing.

- Where did he touch you? - Here.

You can see the child almost physically re-enacting

as though they're recalling what happened to them

by you can see her reaching towards her backside.

We went into your room

and we went into the attic.

He started telling me weird things.

And secretly he went into the attic,

and went behind me and touched my privates.

- Which privates did he touch? - This part.

- He touched your front part? - Yeah!

Mia Farrow was actually pretty careful in her questions.

All she did was say who, what, when, where, and how.

There were no overt suggestions like, "He molested you, didn't he?"

So there's none of that kind of coaching going on,

where there are implicit suggestions

such as one that I saw was Mia Farrow

clearly believed that he must've taken the child's pants off.

So she asked, "Did he take your pants off?"

- Did he take your underpants off? - No!

Dylan says no. She keeps coming back.

You just already had them off?

- But he didn't take them off? - No.

From my point of view what's important is Dylan's response.

Does she go along with the suggestion?

"Yes, he took my pants off." But she doesn't.

It's not just what the interviewer says;

it's whether the child is suggestible or not that matters.

And Dylan says no to things like that.

She's very consistent in her story in this.

When I was in the attic he said,

"Do not move. I have to do this."

But I wiggled my bottom a little to see what he was doing.

He said: "Don't move, I have to do this."

"So if you stay still..."

"then we can go to Paris."

When a child is disclosing a conversation

or something that another person says,

that again increases the credibility of the statement,

because she's restating something that she heard.

So that's something that would be hard to be coached on or fabricate about.

- Did he say why you shouldn't tell? - He said...

"Because this way you can be in my movie, if I do this."

- I didn't want him to do it, Mama. - I know, of course not!

The child is starting to kind of shut down.

It wouldn't surprise me at all watching this clip

if the child already is getting tired of being asked these questions.

That is a very typical progression for an abused child,

not so much for a false accusation.

False accusations tend to get stronger under pressure.

I didn't like it.

I just feel so bad for you.

I don't like it. I also don't want to talk about it.

Okay. Let's turn this off.

What's in that tape

feels like that is who I am when you strip away everything else.

When you look underneath all my layers,

down to the very center of who I am,

I am that little girl on the tape.

So...

it's a very vulnerable part of me,

and a very...

very hurt part of me.

There's a lot of...

That little girl is in a lot of pain.

This kind of abuse warps something inside of you.

Because it doesn't happen by a stranger

that snatches you off the street and throws you in a van.

It happens by someone you love and someone you trust,

someone who buckles your seatbelt,

takes your hand when you walk down the street,

reads you bedtime stories...

It's incomprehensible to normal people because it's not normal.

It was the 20th day of a trial

that has played out over nearly 7 weeks in a New York courtroom,

a day for closing arguments by lawyers for Woody Allen,

who was seeking custody of three children

from this 12 years unmarried partnership with Mia Farrow.

Farrow wiped tears from her eyes as Abramowitz accused her

of seeking revenge for Allen's affair with Soon-Yi.

The attorney argued,

"A mother who cannot subjugate her anger at a father is unfit to be a parent."

I was so scared.

I didn't know what would happen next.

And so we waited for the decision.

We waited a week. We waited two weeks.

We waited a month.

And then finally the judge brought his opinion down.

Woody Allen's bitter child custody battle with Mia Farrow is over.

And a New York judge today

cast Allen in a role he's often played on screen: loser.

The judge said Allen did not demonstrate parenting skills

that would qualify him to care for Moses, Dylan or Satchel.

On June 7th, 1993 Judge Wilk issued his decision,

and it was scathing.

He stated, "Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate

and that measures must be taken to protect her.

It is unclear whether Mr. Allen will ever develop the insight and judgment

necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately.

The evidence at trial established that Ms. Farrow

is a caring and loving mother.

I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan

is the product of leading questions or of the child's fantasy.

There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention

that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan."

He ruled Allen could not visit Dylan for at least six months,

and questioned whether he could ever be a fit parent to the girl.

Allen will be able to have supervised visits with Satchel,

the couple's biological child,

but 15-year-old Moses was left to decide

whether he wants to see his adopted father.

Judge Wilk also addressed

the findings of the Yale New Haven report in his decision, stating,

"The unavailability of the notes,

together with their unwillingness to testify at this trial

resulted in a report which was sanitized and therefore less credible."

He could've very easily said,

"I follow the guidelines of the Yale study team.

They're a very prestigious organization," but he didn't.

He said he didn't buy it.

I didn't buy it either.

As a reporter, it's hard to admit this in a way.

I absolutely worshiped Woody Allen before this trial.

And I still...

The proof is I could never watch a Woody Allen film again after this.

It still hurts... it still wrenches me to say that.

It's still not easy to say that.

My hope now is that I can go home, back to my children,

and that we will finally have some measure of peace

and be allowed to heal, to begin that.

It was a very strange feeling for me

being told that

I never had to see him again.

And 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.

I feel it's unfortunate, even tragic for the kids

that I didn't get custody of them.

And if I could have just a second to thank

all the people in the streets, and at the Knick games,

and who have come over to me and given me their support

and said terrific things to me, and, you know,

I'm still in there fighting and doing my best, and thank you.

Allen appealed Judge Wilk's decision to two higher courts.

The appellate court upheld Wilk's decision.

New York's highest court, The Court of Appeals,

declined to hear the case.

Allen was ordered

to pay more than one million dollars in Mia Farrow's legal fees.

Although the custody case had been settled,

the criminal investigation in Connecticut was still continuing.

Are you concerned?

I don't know. I have no idea what Connecticut is going to do.

I don't even know all the information they have.

They have been very diligent. I think they are also acting

as best they can to protect the children in this family.

My instructions to the Connecticut State Police was:

"Gather your evidence and submit to me an arrest warrant application."

The decision as to whether or not there was going to be a prosecution

was my decision.

Maco's team had compiled 1700 pages of evidentiary material,

including witness statements,

logs of the physical evidence collected by police,

forensic reports, maps of the crime scene,

and reports of interviews with all of the people involved.

Among the state's evidence

were records of a police interview with Woody Allen,

where he was inconsistent

about whether he had ever been in the attic crawlspace area,

and interviews with Dylan by three clinically-trained child-abuse experts

from different government agencies,

all of whom found Dylan to be consistent, honest,

and believed she was telling the truth.

The conclusion of these investigators

was there was probable cause to issue an arrest warrant for Woody Allen

on the charges of first-and fourth degree sexual assault of a minor.

I was confident there was probable cause,

meaning reasonable grounds to believe a crime was committed.

But I have to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt,

and I can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt without a child.

In other words, could this child be my first witness on the stand

to say what had occurred?

This case hinged on the testimony of a seven-year-old girl.

Woody Allen denies

ever having been sexually inappropriate or abusive with Dylan

and was never criminally charged.

Dr. John Leventhal declined to be interviewed for this project.

Jennifer Sawyer did not response to request to be interviewed.