Dylan Farrow's open letter contradicts "Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling" doc on important points, which for me makes her motives and/or recollections somewhat suspect.
(1) Dylan Farrow describes WA's inappropriate behaviour towards her that took place prior to Aug 4th 1992 sexual abuse incident:
"For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal"
The paragraph leads the reader to believe that even before the 4th of August incident of child abuse WA exhibited a typical paedophile behaviour doing sexual things to the child and making sure they are not detected. And shows Mia as a protective mother who would never let it happen if she'd known. That's not what the ruling says.
According to the ruling, the described behaviour had been known to Mia Farrow for years. She became “concerned with Mr. Allen’s behaviour towards Dylan” around 1987-1988. “During a trip to Paris, when Dylan was between two and three years old, Ms. Farrow told Mr. Allen that ‘[y]ou look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way,’” according to the decision. “You fondled her. It’s not natural. You’re all over her. You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.” She was suspicious of Allen because he’d read to Dylan in bed while in his underwear and permitted “[Dylan] to suck on his thumb.” Mia Farrow, her longtime friend Casey Pascal, Sophie Raven (Dylan’s French tutor), and Dr. Susan Coates, a clinical psychologist who treated Satchel, all testified that Allen “focused on Dylan to the exclusion of her siblings.” In the fall of 1990, when Farrow asked Dr. Coates to evaluate Dylan to see if she needed therapy, Farrow “expressed her concern” that “Allen’s behaviour with Dylan was not appropriate.”
(2) Dylan Farrow describes the revelation of the Aug 4th abuse incident:
"But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore. When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger."
The paragraph implies that Dylan was so traumatised with what happened in the attic that she went to Mia and told her of the abuse which caused the subsequent chain of events. That's not what happened according to the ruling description of the events.
According to the ruling,
On Aug 4th, Allen traveled to Farrow’s country home in Connecticut to spend time with the children. At the home was Allen; Casey Pascal (Farrow’s friend) and her three children; the Pascal nanny, Alison Stickland; Kristie Groteke, a babysitter employed by Farrow in the day, Stickland says she “observed Mr. Allen kneeling with his head on her lap, facing her body. Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” When Farrow returned home, Berge noticed Dylan “was not wearing anything under her sundress” so Farrow had Groteke put underpants on Dylan. That evening, Stickland claims she told Pascal that she “had seen something at Mia’s that day that was bothering me,” and told of the TV room observation. The next day, Pascal phoned Farrow and told her of Stickland’s statements. After the Pascal call, Farrow asked Dylan who set next to her “whether it was true that daddy had his face in her lap yesterday,” Dylan said yes and described WA highly inappropriate behaviour. Farrow then videotaped Dylan’s statements over the next twenty-four hours.
The second discrepancy is especially troubling.
Consider ...
Dylan was an articulate 7 year old (not a pre-speach toddler);
The event was so horrendous she has been feeling the repercussions all these years("To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains");
All out sexual abuse happened for the first time that day according to DF letter and the ruling.
So now I have these questions
why did not Dylan initiate the conversation about it with anybody?
why in the open letter adult Dylan said she did in fact tell her mother (when she asked her if it was normal)?
How could WA know for sure Dylan wouldn't tell? He never did anything that bad to her before, so wouldn't know how she will react. He maybe self-absorbed and narcissistic but not a fool.