Nearly a week after Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter to her adoptive father Woody Allen that was posted on NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's blog, Allen responded in a Times op-ed that was published late Friday. The 78-year-old director/writer/actor denied all accusations that he molested her in the nearly 2,000-word piece, claiming the allegations were part of Mia Farrow's campaign to destroy him after she discovered he was involved with her adopted 19-year-old daughter Soon-Yi Previn in 1992. Dylan Farrow responded almost immediately to Allen's op-ed: "His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years."

"Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me—but nothing he says or writes can change the truth," she wrote. "For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life." Farrow sent a long statement to The Hollywood Reporter refuting many of Allen's arguments point-by-point, citing Maureen Orth's Vanity Fair article "10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation" several times.

With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

-Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".

-Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

-Found that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

-Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

-Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

You can read the court documents Farrow references in full here. In his piece, Allen had cited the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, a "group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute." They came to the conclusion that, "Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992."

But as you can see in the detailed opinion Farrow cites, the judge in the case was not as convinced. Allen refuted that final opinion in his editorial: "The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, 'we will probably never know what occurred.'"

Allen claims that Wilk was "quite rough on me" because of his relationship with Soon-Yi: "He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19." Allen has been criticized for 'slut-shaming' Farrow in this comment, equating his relationship with his girlfriend's daughter with her sex life from before their marriage.