Mia Farrow’s brother facing ten years in jail for sexually abusing two boys, aged 8 and 9

The Daily Mail


Fuck me, this must have come as a right fucking slap in the chops for Mia Farrow, after spending years accusing her live in lover, Film Director  Woody Allen of being a nonce – Which he is.

Here’s what I wrote about the couple in my article,  Celebrity Paedophiles:

Woody Allen is a vile man in every sense of the word. It is well known that while he was ‘married’ to Mia Farrow (Rosemary’s Baby, Carrie) he began an affair with Mia’s and the music conductor, Andre Previn’s adopted Daughter Soon Yi Previn.

The official story is that Allen and Soon YI didn’t begin the affair until she was 17 yrs old. Farrow, who was also once married to Frank Sinatra, only found out about the affair when she discovered naked photos of her daughter, allegedly taken by the self confessed neurotic, Allen.

Allen, who remains on the Celebrity A List insists that he did nothing wrong. Since Allen was never legally married to Farrow despite their 12 year relationship producing a son as well as 2 adopted children, the celebrated film director is quite correct in the eyes of the law.

After all, Soon Yi was not underage and neither was she Allen’s daughter, adopted or otherwise. Course it could be said that, morally, Allen was very wrong. However, many people believe that the ‘official’ story is not the true story.

In fact, according to the website blockyourid.com the official story couldn’t be further away from the murky reality. Certainly, there has to be a reason that the Court’s placed such heavy restrictions on Allen concerning him seeing his children. The following is taken from the Biography Chanel website:

After his separation from Mia Farrow, they started a long public legal battle over their three children. The case was finally won by Farrow and Allen was denied visitation rights with Dylan O’Sullivan Farrow and could only see his biological son Satchel, now ‘Ronan Seamus Farrow’, under supervision. Moses Farrow aka Misha chose not to see his father.

And if further proof were needed, the website blockyourid.com published the court findings in even greater detail:

In June, 1993, a court awarded custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel to their mother, Mia Farrow, denying custody to their father, Woody Allen. Moses, who was then 15 years old, and unwilling to visit with his father, was not required to do so. Supervised visitation was ordered for Satchel, who was then five, for two hours, three times per week. Visitation between Mr. Allen and his daughter, Dylan, then seven, was to commence within six months, unless it interfered with therapeutic treatment or was “inconsistent with her welfare.”

With the consent of both parties, a psychiatrist, Dr. Donna Moreau, was engaged as a neutral evaluator to make recommendations with respect to visitation. In her report of August 16, 1994, she concluded that Mr. Allen’s severance of his sexual relationship with Ms. Farrow’s daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, was an “absolute precondition for even beginning to think of the possibility of contact” between him and Dylan. She asserted that Mr. Allen was blind to the effect his affair had on Dylan.

Course, it could be claimed that the old saying, ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ could be applied in this instance. However, the fact that Farrow had the children’s names changed, which effectively wipes out all traces of them being associated as their fathers, is drastic, even by Hollywood standards.

Moreover, according to her biography ‘What falls away’, Frank Sinatra offered to have Allen’s legs broken when he learned of the affair with Soon Yi.

Amongst the many, extremely serious charges that blockyourid.com levels at Allen, is the claim that the affair with Soon Yi began when she was 14 and he was 49. The website further claims that Farrow walked in on Allen masturbating over a photo of 7yr old Dylan.

Now it has to be said that those two claims alone are extremely libellous if there is no truth to them, never mind the other equally depraved things the website alleges Allen to be guilty of. And rightly so.

However, I would imagine that the reason Allen hasn’t sued is that blockyourid.com use Police and court papers to back up their claims:

The Mia Farrow-Woody Allen relationship first exploded in January 1992, when Farrow found photos of her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, posing naked in Allen’s New York City apartment. Later that year, in August, Allen was accused of molesting and sexually assaulting his 7-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan, at Farrow’s Bridgewater home. 

Initially, the complaint was filed with New York authorities, but they took no action. Paul Williams, a Caseworker of the Year for New York City’s Human Resources Administration, tried to bring the case to Family Court (against the orders of his superiors) and was fired for “unethical conduct.” Seven months later he was reinstated as a supervisor, a position he still holds.

In early August 1992, Allen held a press conference at a New York hotel where he admitted that he was the subject of a child abuse investigation. The investigation in question related to an allegation that the repulsive little man had sexually assaulted Dylan. The website blockyourid.com reported the matter thus:

On Aug. 4, 1992, a babysitter claims she saw Allen kneeling in front of Dylan, who was sitting on a couch in the den of the Bridgewater home. Dylan was wearing a dress, but no underpants. She stared blankly at the TV screen. The babysitter told authorities she noticed that Allen’s head was between the girl’s legs, very close to her crotch.

Over the course of the following 13 months, Dylan would tell her mother, psychologists, doctors, social workers and police that Allen touched her – with the tip of his right index finger – several times that day.

After the couch incident, the child’s account has Allen taking her up to the master bedroom and into a crawl space for some father-daughter time to play with a train.

“He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over.”

“ I didn’t like it,” she continued. “Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.”

Police found hair fibres in the crawl space consistent with Allen’s, but forensic specialist Dr. Henry Lee, chief of Connecticut’s state crime laboratory, believes the evidence could not conclusively place Allen in the attic.

“We found hair in the attic, but what does it prove?” Lee says. “It doesn’t necessarily prove guilt.”

The pampered, over indulged film director then apparently tries to get out of being questioned by police. When that fails, Allen tries to put conditions on the interview:

Woody Allen would rebuff efforts by Connecticut state police and Paul Williams of New York to interview him. Just a few weeks after the Aug. 4 incidents, Allen tried to set preconditions for an interview with the state police. One of the preconditions was that any statements made by Allen could not be used to impeach him. The state police did not comply.

These people really do not live in the real world do they? However, the delaying tactics appeared to have a limited success because Allen was not formerly interviewed until the following new year:

Then on Jan. 6, 1993, Allen appeared at the state police barracks in Litchfield for a three-and-a-half-hour interview. He denied assaulting Dylan. He denied ever having been in the crawl space.

But Allen did say he might have reached into the crawl space on occasion, either to grab one of the children or to give them a soda. State police reminded Allen that to reach into the crawl space, he would have had to enter a small closet first. Allen vehemently denied entry to the crawl space.

But when state police told Allen they had taken fingerprints from the crawl space, he said it was possible that his prints would be found there. State police characterized Allen’s statements as inconsistent.

Hmmm. Swiftly moving on. With the interview not going Allen’s way, the notoriously tight fisted 2ndgeneration Polish Jew had no choice but to dip in to his substantial fortune to try to buy his way out of trouble:

During the Allen investigation, Maco (state’s attorney for Litchfield County) received a warning from a high-ranking state police official.

“He [Maco] was told,” says a retired officer, “that the Allen people were hiring private detectives to try to get some dirt on us.”

One of their key targets was Sgt. John Mucherino, a primary investigator for Maco. They wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or a gambler, if he had any marital problems.

Allen’s private detectives were compartmentalized, hired by different lawyers and subcontractors working for him, police say. The private detectives included former FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents, even former state cops who were friends with Mucherino…

… The prying took its toll on Maco. “It was after that that I saw a big change in him,” says investigation team member Frank D’Amico, a retired police officer. “He was tense for a long time. He just took more precautions with everything he did.”

“ They were just trying to disrupt the case. We all know today, in light of O.J.(Simpson), that if you have nothing to go on, you go after law enforcement.” 

D’Amico says the Allen team played a number of dirty tricks. Other law enforcement officials suspect that they had something to do with the false rumour that a top police investigator on the Allen case was trying to sell a videotape of Dylan to the tabloid media.

The state police immediately began an internal affairs investigation of this trooper, who was cleared. Former Chief State’s Attorney Austin McGuigan said the allegations had to affect “the investigator’s ability to do his job.”

“ The investigation closed down for about 10 days,” Maco recalls. “About this time, I was told there was a campaign to disrupt the investigation and discredit the investigators, being orchestrated out of New York.” …

Two months later, the case that had seemed so watertight for the prosecution took an ominous turn for the worse. In his quest to avoid any accusations of any wrong doings leading up to trial, Maco had inadvertently shifted the advantage to Allen. In America, money really can put you above the law:

Woody Allen proclaimed his innocence on the steps of Yale University in March 1993. A panel of experts from Yale, headed by paediatrician Dr. John Leventhal, concluded no abuse had taken place.The conclusion itself was an anomaly. The standard practice in the field is to state whether the subject’s behaviour is consistent with having suffered sexual abuse.”Concluding guilt or innocence is not the role of a mental health team – that’s for the court,” says Dr. Diane Schetky, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, co-author of the widely used textbook Child Sexual Abuse and co-editor of Clinical Handbook of Child Psychiatry and the Law

Maco had commissioned the Yale study with instructions to determine whether Dylan was a viable witness who could stand up in court. He said that enlisting Yale’s assistance was the biggest mistake he made in the case.

“Regardless of what the Connecticut police wanted from us,” Leventhal said in an April 1993 deposition, “we weren’t necessarily beholden to them. We did not assess whether she’d be a good witness in court. That’s what Mr. Maco may have been interested in, but that’s not necessarily what we were interested in.”

Yale, Maco says, “took the case and ran away with it. I gave their report very little weight.”

An examination of the Yale report and court documents shows:

· The Yale team used psychologists on Allen’s payroll to make mental health conclusions. “That seems like a blatant conflict of interest; they should have excluded themselves,” Schetky says.

· Custody recommendations were made even though the team never saw Allen and any of the children together. “I’d sure want that information,” Schetky says.

· The team refused to interview witnesses who could have corroborated the molestation claims.

· The team destroyed its notes. “I don’t know why they would,” Schetky says. “They shouldn’t have anything to hide, unless there’s disagreement.”

· Leventhal, the only medical doctor on the team, did not interview Dylan. “How can you write about someone you’ve never seen?” Schetky asks.

· The night before Leventhal gave a statement to Farrow’s attorney, he discussed the scenario with Abramowitz, the head of Allen’s legal team, for about 30 minutes.

· The team interviewed Dylan nine times. For three consecutive weeks, she said Allen violated her sexually. In several of the other sessions, she mentioned a similar type of abuse. When Dylan did not repeat the precise allegation in some of the sessions, the team reported this as an inconsistency.

The nine interviews were “excessive,” Schetky says. “The danger is the child feels like she’s not believed if she’s asked the same questions over and over.”

Leventhal himself later admitted, in sworn testimony in the custody case, that he made several mistakes during the course of the investigation. One of those was his false characterization of Dylan’s active imagination as a thought disorder.

In the Yale report, Leventhal cited what he called “loose associations” by the child. He said she talked about looking in a trunk and seeing “dead heads.” When advised that Mia Farrow had a trunk in her attic in which she kept wigs from her movies on wig blocks, Leventhal acknowledged this was not evidence of a fantasy problem or a thought disorder.

The paediatrician also attempted to categorize Dylan’s banter as “magical thinking,” citing her vivid description of a sunset. However, after being advised that Mia Farrow described the dark sky upon leaving New Haven in the evening as “the magic hour,” Leventhal said he was “less concerned” about the incident as an example of “loose thinking.”

“This guy Leventhal never left his office, never talked to the child, but he gave a wonderful account and said, ‘I exonerate you, Woody,’” D’Amico says. “Boy, I wouldn’t want to carry that flag around – ‘Leventhal says I’m OK.’”

A Yale Spokeswoman says the hospital stands by the report and Leventhal’s national reputation.

On Sept. 20, 1993 state police detective Bea Farleakas and Dylan Farrow sat on the floor of Maco’s office, surrounded by stuffed animals. It was not an unusual scene. Children, sometimes victims, were regular visitors to the office, which is just a few doors from the renowned West Street Grill off Litchfield’s town green.

Joining Farleakas, who was the primary detective in the Allen probe, and Dylan was Michelle Prindle, Maco’s secretary. Dylan handed out the stuffed animals and they played for about an hour.

Maco, D’Amico, and state police Lt. Charles McIntyre looked on as Farleakas, Dylan, and Prindle finished their play session. Maco then got down on the floor, played, and talked with Dylan for about half an hour.

“We talked about kid stuff,” Maco says. “It was like being with my own kid. We were having fun – until the button was pushed. I tried to discuss the incident. I saw her saying to me with her blank stare, ‘This is the last place I want to be. I can’t deal with this. Is this Yale? What are they doing to me?’”…

As far as Maco was concerned, He’d seen enough. As a father with young children himself, he decided to do what he thought was in Dylan’s best interest and decided against going to trial:

… Maco backed off. “I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery.”

Days later, Maco held a press conference in which he said state police had compiled enough evidence to charge Allen with a crime, but that he’d decided not to approve an arrest warrant in order to spare Dylan the trauma of a trial.

Allen objected strongly to Maco’s characterization of him as a criminal who would never get to refute the charge in court. So strong were his objections, in fact, that in October he filed an ethics complaint against Maco with both the Statewide Grievance Committee – a lawyers’ disciplinary group – and the state Criminal Justice Commission, which hires and fires prosecutors. While the Criminal Justice Commission exonerated Maco that December, the Statewide Grievance Committee voted 6-5 with two abstentions to investigate Maco for alleged misconduct in his handling of
the case. The vote overturned a ruling by Maco’s local committee, which had found in his favour.

Susan Levine of Litchfield, a member of the local grievance committee, recalls the deliberations over Maco’s actions.

“We ruled that even though Maco was close to the line, he didn’t cross it,” said Levine, who is also the top borough official in Litchfield. “We were very surprised when state-wide overturned it. Why empower local grievance committees and then take away the power? If Maco had acted inappropriately, that’s the way [our] ruling would have gone. Maybe they just wanted to see Woody Allen.”

Levine’s comments were echoed by Superior Court Judge Raymond Norko, who characterized the State-wide Grievance Committee’s actions as “star driven, sloppy, and careless.”

One of the members of the state-wide panel, Bridgeport attorney Daiga Osis, had been an opponent of Maco in a vigorously contested arson case in Bridgeport – the burning of the Town Fair Tire store on Boston Avenue in the 1980s. Osis had argued an appeal against Maco and lost.

“The name of the prosecutor did not concern me; I have no personal relationship with Maco,” Osis says. But she cast what could have been the deciding vote in the 6-5 decision to investigate Maco. Hiltz, a retired state police lieutenant, called her action “sour grapes” and “payback.”

“I did nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral,” Maco says. “I’ll go anywhere to defend that.”

These days, Maco awaits the final word from the Statewide Grievance Committee, which could vote to remove him from his job. Maco says he has rejected offers of a settlement from the Allen camp, which would require him to apologize for his accusatory statements.

He credits his family with the support that has enabled him to endure. “I’ve gained strength from Nancy Lou, from my son and of course, from Mom and Dad. Whatever strength I have comes from them.”

In one particularly intense period, his son Frank Jr., then 9 years old, pulled him through. Allen had branded Maco dishonest and a coward during press conferences after Maco’s announcement that he was closing the case.

“Frank saw the news article, and all I could do was tell him that given the nature of my business, I’m sure I’ve been called a coward and dishonest before, but I don’t think I’ve ever been called both of those at the same time,” Maco recalls. “He laughed, but then he had some fear for my job, so he assured me he had a friend, another young boy whose dad was in the insurance business. He said, ‘Don’t worry, Dad, I’m sure we can always get you a job in insurance.’”

No doubt, at this point Allen was feeling extremely smug. With the case of sexual abuse now dropped, the tiny in stature, tiny in mind director appeared to assume that he had been found not guilty… Which is consistent with the mind set of all of these fabulously wealthy sick fucks. They simply have no concept of right and wrong and the only person whose feelings matter is their own.

With that in mind, Allen launched a custody bid for his 3 children and as we now know, he should have quit while ahead. The case judge certainly saw through him and promptly blocked him from seeing the children.
Course the arrogant arsewipe, hadn’t helped himself by admitting that he hadn’t stopped for a second to consider how his children would feel about their father having sex with their sister.

Mind you, he was also hampered by all the medical reports that were used in evidence against him. All agreed that Dylan was extremely traumatised by him and like his biological son Satchel/Shamus, was absolutely petrified at the prospect of having to spend time with their father.

Moreover, as I have already said, legally Allen hadn’t broken the law by sleeping with Soon Li, (Having had his claim that his step daughter hadn’t slept with him until she was over the legal age upheld). However, since he had been playing Dad to her since she was 8 yrs old some of the medical witnesses’ in the case saw things quite differently:

Dr Welner’s comments: Considerable attention has been devoted to the terrible consequences of incest on the victim. What about its impact on the victim’s siblings? Incest is almost always furtively perpetrated, or is unknown to uninvolved siblings.

It would also appear to be the case, that the self obsessed paedophile had not taken into account the fact that Mia Farrow would be giving evidence. Her testimony was probably the most damming of all. The following is how blockyourid.com reported on Farrow’s evidence:

“He developed a sick obsession with the child that lasted until he was ordered by the court to stay away from her”…

Allen ignored his own child with Farrow, a boy called Satchel, Farrow says, but would hunt Dylan down when he visited and fondle her. Lying on bed half-nude watching TV, he would stick his thumb in her mouth and so terrorized the child she would scream, “Hide me!” to her siblings, and run away from him.

Farrow acknowledges she was wrong to stay with Allen for so long in light of his behaviour to her children. She kicked him out when she discovered the famed nude photos of Soon-Yi and learned Allen had been sleeping with her for months.

But until then, she accepted his assurances he was getting therapy to combat his obsession with Dylan and relied on professionals who assured her things would change.

Allen deceived her, Farrow says, and she accuses him of an “unfathomable, uncontrollable need to destroy everything good and positive in his life, so he tried to destroy my family.

“ For him to have sex with one of my children, a child he had known as my daughter since she was 8 years old, was not enough: He had to make me see, graphically, what he was doing”…

And here’s journalist Peter Marks report on the case:

Mia Farrow testified yesterday that her 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, was so distraught over the relentless attention of her adoptive father, Woody Allen, that she frequently screamed, “Hide me! Hide me!” when he came to visit her, and twice locked herself in the bathroom to keep away from him.

In her second day of testimony in a custody trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Ms. Farrow portrayed Mr. Allen as a father so obsessed he would “wrap himself around” the girl as they watched television, often ignoring his other children. And she described the child as almost immobilized by the attention Mr. Allen showered upon her…

“He would creep up in the morning and lie beside her bed and wait for her to wake up,” Ms. Farrow testified, as Mr. Allen sat a few feet away in the courtroom, scribbling notes and tearing pages from a legal pad. “I thought it was excessive. I was uncomfortable all along.”

She said that on some occasions she saw Mr. Allen with “his head in her stomach or her crotch” and that Dylan had described to her one instance in her bunk bed, where he had placed his hand under her shorts while she was on the ladder.

On another occasion, Ms. Farrow said, Dylan locked herself in the bathroom for four hours after Mr. Allen showed up, refusing to come out until Mr. Allen instructed her baby sitter to pick the lock with a wire coat hanger. Ms. Farrow described what she considered “this very needy quality he had of beseeching her attention, praising her to the point that she was immobilized.”

Ms. Farrow testified that in December Dylan also said that on a visit to Mr. Allen’s apartment sometime in the summer or autumn of 1991, she had witnessed Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, on the bed in his bedroom. “She said they were on top of the bed,” Ms. Farrow testified. She said Dylan had told her they were “doing compliments” and “making snoring noises.”

So there you have it. Allen has now not seen his kids since 1992. Or should I say those kids involved in the trial. He has however seen his 2 adopted children that he has with Soon Yi. Well he would do since they are now married. Now imagine if that was you or I in an identical situation. Would we have been allowed to adopt? I think not.

Coincidently enough, Mia Farrow played the title role in arguably one of the most well known horror movies of all time. The film was called ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ and was about a husband who was persuaded by Devil worshippers to allow the Devil to impregnate his wife with the Devils child in return for success.

Interestingly, although not particularly relevant, the film was shot in the ‘Dakota’ building in New York City. The Dakota was home to the legendary John Lennon, who was shot by Mark Chapman in front of the building as the ex-beatle returned home. Chapman is believed to have been a victim of the CIA’s MK Ultra, mind control experiments.

Course, as we all know the Elites are fanatical Devil Worshippers… If you didn’t know, I once again suggest you read Monsters Inc.

The reason I mention the film Rosemary’s Baby however, is nothing to do with the fact that it’s about Devil Worship. I mention it because it was directed by Roman Polanski.

Polanski, was also the husband of Sharon Tate who at 8 months pregnant was stabbed to death along with her unborn baby, in the couples Beverly Hills home by the Charles Manson ‘Family’.

No doubt that had Polanski not been away when the murder happened, he too would have been murdered. What a pity the vile creature wasn’t at home, because Polanski is a well documented prolific Paedophile.

… One now has to ask oneself, was Farrows outrage more sour grapes than the shock of her husbands vile behaviour?

After all, no one is innocent in Tinsel Town.


‘I’m guilty but I didn’t do it’: Mia Farrow’s brother facing ten years in jail for sexually abusing two boys, aged 8 and 9, as his furious wife insists her husband is innocent and calls the victims ‘vipers’

  • John Villers-Farrow uses Alford plea to reduce possible 50-year sentence
  • Deal allows defendants to assert their innocence while admitting there is enough evidence to convict them

By Jessica Jerreat



Mia Farrow’s brother has pleaded guilty to two counts of sexually abusing two young boys, but also claimed his innocence as he entered an Alford plea in court on Friday.

Businessman John Villers-Farrow made the plea at his hearing in Maryland’s Annapolis court as a way to reduce his sentence while asserting that he was innocent.

The father was accused of 39 counts of abusing two boys, who lived near his home, over a five-year period.

Plea deal: John Villers-Farrow entered an Alford plea after facing child sex abuse charges
Connections: John Villers-Farrow's sister is actress Mia Farrow, who he traveled to India with in the 1960s to meet the Beatles

Plea deal: John Villers-Farrow, left, entered an Alford plea after facing child sex abuse charges, his sister is actress Mia Farrow, right


Villers-Farrow, told the court he entered the plea because it was the quickest way he could serve time and get home to his wife, Sandra Hall, according to the Capital Gazette.

He now faces up to ten years in prison when sentenced later this year.

If found guilty on all 39 counts he could have been sentenced to 50 years, according to NBC Washington.

Under the plea he is able to assert his innocence while admitting that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him.

The plea was first used in the Supreme Court in 1970, when Henry Alford argued that he had admitted to murder to avoid being given the death sentence, which was mandatory in cases where the defendant had been convicted after pleading not guilty.

The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could plead guilty while maintaining their innocence, to secure a plea deal.

Connections: John Villers-Farrow, center, and sister Mia Farrow traveled to India in the 1960s with the Beatles

Connections: John Villers-Farrow, center, and sister Mia Farrow traveled to India in the 1960s with The Beatles


The Capital Gazette reported that, according to the statement of facts, the first alleged victim moved near to Villers-Farrow’s home when he was six-years-old, and came to know the family, whose son was a few years younger than him.

It was alleged that the victim spent a lot of time at the family’s home and that Villers-Farrow would buy him gifts, take him to baseball games and on other trips.

Prosecutors allege that he began sexually abusing the boy regularly, between the ages of 9 and 16.

In the same time period, it is claimed that a second boy who was friends with the first victim, was abused about a dozen times over five years, Deputy State Attorney Kathleen Rogers said.

Mrs Hall, who is standing by her husband, has called the two alleged victims, who are now aged 20, ‘vipers’.

The defense argued that Villers-Farrow, who traveled to India with his sisters Mia and Prudence in 1968 to meet the Maharishi with The Beatles, was generous to many children in the neighborhood.

Family portrait: John Farrow and Maureen O'Sullivan with their children, from left, Mia Farrow, Joseph Farrow, John Farrow and Michael Farrow in Los Angeles, February 1947

Family portrait: John Farrow and Maureen O’Sullivan with their children, from left, Mia Farrow, Joseph Farrow, John Farrow and Michael Farrow in Los Angeles, February 1947


His famous sister has not commented about the case involving her brother.


When the charges were first made, NBC Washington noted it was not the first time Villers-Farrow had been in the public eye. In 1992, he famously told PEOPLE magazine that Woody Allen, who had once been married to Farrow and fathered three of their children, would have serious legal trouble because of his relationship with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn.

Villers-Farrow said: ‘[He’s] going to be indicted, and he’s going to be ruined. I think when all of it comes out, he’s going to jail.’

Allen, famous for his self-deprecating and neurotic on-film persona, began a romantic relationship with Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, 34 years his junior.

Following the discovery of naked photos of Soon-Yi in Allen’s possession, Farrow split from Woody and launched a messy custody battle over their three children, Satchel, Dylan, and Moses.

During the proceedings, which were closely followed, Farrow claimed that Allen had sexually abused Dylan, though the judge dismissed the claims because they were not substantiated.


Farrow was awarded full custody, and Allen was denied visits with Dylan, who later changed her name to Malone. The couple’s other adopted child, Moshe, who changed his name to Moses, chose not to see Allen at all.

Mia Farrow and Woody Allen
Woody Allen

Defense: Villers-Farrow spoke out on behalf of his sister Mia Farrow, pictured in 1990 with then boyfriend Woody Allen, when he left her for adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, pictured right with the director in 2011



In Villers-Farrow’s case, the alleged victims claimed that the abuse happened during sleepovers at his home in Edgewater.

In the opening statement of the trial on Thursday, the court was told that the first alleged victim looked up to Villers-Farrow and spent four months living with him after being physically abused by his own father.

According to the Capital Gazette, when the accusations were first made in August last year, investigators asked one of the alleged victims to call Villers-Farrow.

During the conversation, which was recorded without Villers-Farrow’s knowledge, prosecutors alleged he did not deny sexually abusing the boy.

The defense however, argued that Villers-Farrow had never been left alone with the boys, and that one of them had solicited their alleged abuser for money.

The allegations were made when Villers-Farrow refused to pay, his defense lawyer said.

After he entered the Alford plea, Judge Laura S. Kiessling revoked Villers-Farrow’s bond. He will remain in jail until his sentencing in September.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379934/John-Villers-Farrow-Mia-Farrows-brother-facing-years-jail-sexually-abusing-boys-aged-8-9.html#ixzz2aGCtnLvY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook