Article:

For those in the food industry, the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak of 1993 is known as the single event that convinced burger joints across the country to raise their internal cooking temperature by 15 degrees.

 In that outbreak, hamburgers sold at Jack in the Box franchises predominantly in Washington state sickened more than 600 people and led to the deaths of four children. The chain’s beef supplier had been delivering E. coli-contaminated patties, which the restaurants were only cooking to an internal temperature of 140 degrees F, the federal requirement at the time.

 Prior to the outbreak, the state of Washington had updated its minimum internal temperature requirements to 155 degrees based on new evidence that 140 degrees was not hot enough to kill some pathogens, including a little-known danger called E. coli O157:H7. However, many restaurants in the state failed to update their cooking procedures.

 As the Jack in the Box outbreak unfortunately highlighted, cooking burgers to just 140 degrees F didn’t kill E. coli. If Jack in the Box had just cooked their burgers 15 degrees hotter, the outbreak wouldn’t have happened.

 In the aftermath, restaurants across the country updated their cooking protocols. Many acknowledged that, with the wrong supplier, it could have been their brand making headlines and paying out millions of dollars from personal injury lawsuits.

 But with the exploding popularity of gourmet burger restaurants and gastropubs in recent years, the lessons learned from Jack in the Box in 1993 appear to be fading from collective memory. Thanks in part to safety improvements in the beef supply, restaurants are warming up to rarer burgers in larger numbers, despite the warnings from food safety experts.

 Food code requirements

 In May 2014, Detroit-based beef supplier Wolverine Packing Co. recalled 1.8 million pounds of ground beef after the product was linked to 12 E. coli infections in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Massachusetts. Seven people were hospitalized.

 The illnesses in that outbreak were traced back to restaurants where the ground beef was served, although health officials have refused to reveal any of the restaurants involved. They have said they believe undercooked burgers played a role in at least some of those cases, and they issued a number of warnings about the risks of consuming undercooked hamburger meat following the outbreak.

 Serving and advertising medium-rare burgers has been a growing trend in the restaurant and “gastropub” industry, said Roy Costa, owner of Environ Health Associates, a food safety consulting firm for restaurants.

 One of Costa’s clients is a gourmet burger chain with a handful of locations in California and a few other states. They recommend ordering their burgers medium-rare, which means the center remains pink, and, if there are any potential pathogens in the center of the meat, they would likely remain alive.

 Costa would only work with the chain if they found a beef supplier that tested for E. coli O157:H7, which they did. But that’s still no guarantee that the meat won’t come with Salmonella or Campylobacter, he noted.

 “It’s not a perfect situation, and there’s still a danger there,” Costa said.

 But by finding a supplier who tests for E. coli, the chain is still going above and beyond the legal requirements in order to serve undercooked burgers.

 The federal food code allows restaurants to serve undercooked burgers as long as they have a clear written warning, such as a statement on the menu, regarding the dangers of eating raw or undercooked meat. Servers also need to verbally inform the customer that a pink burger is potentially risky. It’s treated the same as other raw or rare meats such as sushi or raw oysters.

 What counts as ‘undercooked’?

 According to the food code, ground beef should be cooked at 155 degrees F internally and held there for 15 seconds, or 158 degrees for even a moment, in order to kill pathogens at the center of the meat. Unlike a rare steak, a rare burger is risky because the germs from the outside of the meat have been ground inside.

 Lower temperatures require longer hold times. Lowering the burger’s temperature to 150 degrees F requires a full minute of holding at that temperature. At 145 degrees F, it should be three minutes. Any way you slice it, those temperatures and holding times probably won’t result in a pink center to your burger.

 Numerous independent restaurants have sprouted up in recent years with a promise of delivering a true medium-rare burger. Even in Canada, where medium-rare burgers are illegal, a few daring restaurants — such as Vancouver’s now-closed ReFuel — staked their reputation on juicier, pinker patties. North Carolina recently amended its state food code to allow for medium-rare burgers, much to the rejoicing of aficionados.

 In Ohio, the gastropub chain Bar145˚ takes its name from the internal temperature of 145 degrees F for a medium-rare burger, which its website claims makes for a perfectly cooked burger.

 That sort of business angle “flies in the face of prudent food safety practices,” said Dave Theno, food safety consultant and former vice president of technical services at Jack in the Box, where he was hired on in 1993 to rewrite the company’s food safety protocols after the big outbreak.

 “The basic reality is that, if you’re cooking products below 150 degrees and not carefully timing it, pathogens could survive,” Theno said.

 Informed consumer choice

 One factor that further complicates the medium-rare burger issue is the fact that serving undercooked meat contaminated with E. coli is technically illegal under federal law. Even if a consumer orders their burger medium-rare, the restaurant is breaking the law if that burger happens to have E. coli in it.

 But assuming no one is breaking the law, consumers should be given a choice regarding how their burgers are cooked, said Benjamin Chapman, assistant professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University.

 The problem is that many consumers might not be given the information necessary to make that informed choice, he noted. NC State is currently conducting a nationwide study in which secret shoppers patronize restaurants and order medium-rare burgers to see if the server informs them of the risks associated with undercooked beef, as stipulated in the food code.

 The study is still underway, and Chapman’s team is not yet releasing any data, but he did say he is not convinced the food code stipulation is very effective.

 “Risk communication from a server-to-patron standpoint in certain cases is not well done,” he said, adding, “No pun intended.”

 Another problem is that terms such as “medium-rare” and “well-done” have no temperature correlation.

 “As a consumer, the only thing I can do to guarantee a fully cooked burger is to order it cooked to 155 degrees for 15 seconds,” Chapman said.

 “I like the fact that people get to make their own decision,” he added, “but I’m not convinced that there are a lot of really good, informed choices happening.”

 © Food Safety News ||||| There was this one time, about 1979, when me and my high school buddies fell into some tickets for Can-Am car racing, which none of us cared about.

 So we stayed up all night as high school students do, and then I was the designated driver to Mosport, Ontario, a few hours away.

 On the way we stopped at a truck stop off the 401 near Bowmanville, Ontario, and my friends, who were quite stoned, couldn’t stop laughing about the moo-moo cow creamer on every table.

 It was pasteurized.

 The stuff from Willunga Hill’s Moo View Dairy is not, and the dairy will be prohibited from selling and distributing raw cow’s milk after it was linked to at least five cases of gastroenteritis.

 Brad Crouch, medical reporter at The Advertiser, writes, SA Health has taken the action under the Food Act 2001 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, after the sicknesses were linked to drinking unpasteurised (raw) cow’s milk.

 SA Health Director of Public Health Associate Professor Kevin Buckett said the sale of raw cow’s milk for human consumption is illegal in Australia due to its high risk of contamination.

 “We’ve confirmed at least five cases where people aged between three and 70 contracted gastrointestinal illness caused by the Cryptosporidium parasite after consuming raw cow’s milk products purchased from Moo View Dairy, and this number is likely to be higher,” he said.

 “Luckily, these people did not require hospitalisation, but it is important to remember that raw cow’s milk products should not be consumed as they can contain harmful bacteria such as E.coli, salmonella, campylobacter, and listeria, as well as cryptosporidium.

 “In June we noticed higher than expected numbers of cryptosporidiosis cases and following interviews and investigations, we identified Moo View Dairy’s raw cow’s milk as a common factor between five cases,” Assoc Prof Buckett said.

 “We’ve also identified another two potential cases that implicate raw cow’s milk as the cause of illness.

 And the next year, Mosport had this (and yes, that’s John (J.D.) Roberts doing some of the interviews for Much Music. He can be now found as chief White House correspondent for Fox News (gag me). Oh, and I arranged Teenage Head to play our high school in 1979.

 Raw is risky. ||||| A man grills hamburgers and sausages in Decatur, Ga. (Photo: Michael A. Schwarz, USA TODAY)

 Doug Powell doesn't bring wine when he's invited to dinner.

 He brings a food thermometer.

 As a food safety scientist and creator of barfblog.com, Powell knows way too much about the dangers of undercooked meat to take chances on the barbecue.

 So he brings a food thermometer to every summer cookout. "I don't get invited to dinner much," he says.

 With the Fourth of July approaching, Powell and other food safety experts talked to USA TODAY about ways to make sure people leave their summer barbecues as healthy as they arrived.

 Pork loin with raspberry chipotle glaze is smoked on a grill in this May 27, 2007, photo. (Photo: Larry Crowe, AP)

 • Always use a meat thermometer, Powell says. With practice, people can learn to stick them in burgers without slicing the patties in half. "Pick the meat up with tongs and insert the thermometer sideways, or through the top," Powell suggests. Beef hamburgers should reach 160 degrees to kill germs, says Benjamin Chapman, assistant professor of food safety at North Carolina State University and a food safety specialist at the North Carolina Cooperative Extension. Temperature matters far more than color when it comes to meat, Chapman says; even thoroughly browned burgers can harbor bugs. "I was not a popular person at a family cookout a few years back when I insisted we 'temp' the chicken as we grilled in the rain," says Donald Schaffner, a professor and extension specialist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "But nobody got sick."

 A produce manager holds a cut cantaloupe at a Denver supermarket on Friday, July 13, 2012. (Photo: Ed Andrieski, AP)

 • Slice your own cantaloupes. Although cantaloupes are loaded with vitamins, they've also caused some of the biggest outbreaks of food-borne illness in recent years. More than 260 people were sickened in a salmonella outbreak in 2012; nearly 100 were hospitalized and three died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cantaloupes spread disease more easily than watermelon or honeydew because their soft, bumpy skins soak up bacteria like a sponge, Powell says. Washing doesn't help, and cutting through the outer rind allows bacteria to infect the edible portion of the melon. While people don't have to stop eating cantaloupes, they should keep sliced portions refrigerated, because cold temperatures slow bacterial growth. But stores are asking for trouble when they slice melons in half, wrap them in plastic and leave them at room temperature in the produce aisle, Powell says: "This is microbiological disaster waiting to happen."

 • Use a cooler — for cantaloupe, potato salad or other picnic foods. "Bacteria will grow if left out at warm temperatures long enough," Powell says.

 • But don't be afraid of mayonnaise. The egg-based spread has gotten a bad rap, and some people have been afraid to take it on summer picnics. But "commercial mayo uses pasteurized eggs and has high levels of vinegar," whose acid content helps control bacteria, Powell says. Homemade mayo, on the other hand, could be riskier.

 Commercially prepared mayonnaise used in potato salad carries little health risk. (Photo: Renee Comet)

 • Don't wash poultry and other meat. "It just spreads bugs," Powell says.

 So are there any foods these three food experts won't touch?

 • Sprouts. Seeds and beans need warm, humid conditions to sprout and grow. So do bacteria, such as salmonella, listeria and E. coli. Raw or lightly cooked sprouts have caused at least 30 reported outbreaks of food-borne illness since 1996, according to FoodSafety.gov. Home-grown sprouts are no safer, because the bacteria can be found in the seeds themselves. So no matter how clean your house, bacteria can grow to dangerous levels. "Some providers test seed and provide sufficient controls, but consumers have no way of knowing which sprouts are good or not," Powell says.

 In this June 5, 2011 file picture bean sprouts are photographed in Berlin, Germany. (Photo: Gero Breloer, AP)

 • Raw shellfish. Even a fancy dish such as raw oysters, served in high-end restaurants, can pose a huge risk, Powell says, because they can be exposed to raw waste while under water. "The bacteria Vibrio found on raw oysters produces a toxin that attacks vulnerable livers," Powell says. "Raw shellfish is risky."

 In this Monday, Sept. 12, 2013 file photo, an oyster cultivator holds oyster seed before spreading it into the waters of Duxbury Bay in Duxbury, Mass. (Photo: Stephan Savoia, AP)

 • Raw milk. Some advocates of unpasteurized milk say it's healthier because it contains natural microorganisms that strengthen the immune system. Unfortunately, raw milk also can also contain dangerous bacteria, including salmonella, listeria, campylobacter and brucella, according to the CDC. Younger children, old people and those with weak immune systems are most at risk. "Getting sick from raw milk can mean many days of diarrhea, stomach cramping, and vomiting," the CDC says. "Less commonly, it can mean kidney failure, paralysis, chronic disorders and even death."

 By selling shares in his Jerseys, Brian Harville produces raw milk for his customers at his Wilson County dairy farm in Tennessee. (Photo: Larry McCormack, Gannett)

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1lJsDgY |||||
What is a summary?

– Nothing can put a damper on your July 4th barbecue like rain—except maybe food safety experts, some of whom give USA Today pointers on how to avoid celebrations that end with you running for the bathroom. Doug Powell of the aptly-named barfblog.com starts with a few foods he would never eat: Sprouts: They can carry salmonella, listeria, and E. coli, and require warm moisture to grow—just like bacteria. Raw shellfish: No matter how fancy the restaurant, don’t risk it. Why? Raw waste is in the water they call home. Raw milk: Sure, people say unpasteurized milk is healthy and boosts the immune system. But the CDC says it also contains salmonella, listeria, campylobacter, and brucella. And a few general tips: Take your meat’s temperature: The trick is to insert the thermometer in sideways, and you’ll want to hit a balmy 160 degrees. For fans of medium-rare burgers, Food Safety News has a not-so-gentle reminder about the dangers of salmonella. Don’t trust sliced cantaloupes: The melon’s soft, rough skin love bacteria and washing doesn’t improve matters. And bacteria on the rind can get on the yummy interior when the melon is cut. The solution? Store sliced melon in the fridge. Stay cool: Keep your picnic foods in a cooler, not in the summer sun. Be friends with mayo: It contains pasteurized eggs and lots of vinegar to keep bacteria at bay. The homemade version is riskier. For the full article, click here.


Here is a news article: This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her.

 If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody AllenHi, The Daily Beast!, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.

 The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance–to assert that we can never know what happened, in that attic–then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story.

 To be blunt: I think Woody Allen probably did it, though, of course, I could be wrong. But it’s okay if I’m wrong. For two reasons. First, because my opinion is not attached to a juridical apparatus—because I have not been empowered by jails and electric chairs and states of exception to destroy people’s lives—it isn’t necessary for me to err heavily on the side of “we need to be really fucking sure that the accused did it.” It’s a good thing, generally, that juries are empowered to say “We think the accused is probably guilty, but we’re not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, so we will not convict.” That bar is set high for a reason; if you’re going to lock a person in a cage for a long time, you need to be really sure. But we are also empowered to say the same thing. We are also empowered to say “We think Woody Allen probably molested a seven year old.” And because we are not in a court of law, we don’t even need to say the second part. The fact that we will not convict him doesn’t even need to be implied. He is not, after all, on trial.

 The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right. Because I am not on Woody Allen’s jury, I can be swayed by the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man’s reputation. We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false rape charges, and that fact is important here. All things being equal, it’s more likely that the man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly) is a likely candidate. All things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one. It’s a good thing that juries can’t think this way, that they can’t take account of Occam’s Razor, because—in theory—the juridical system needs to get it right every single time (or at least hold tenaciously to that ambition). But you and I can recognize the bigger picture, because we aren’t holding a person’s life in our hands. Especially in situations like this one, the overwhelmingly more likely thing is that he did it. The overwhelmingly less likely thing is that a pair of bitter females—driven by jealousy or by the sheer malignity of the gender—have been lying about him for decades.

 What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high. You don’t have to say a word in your defense, in fact, and people who have directed documentaries about you will write lengthy essays in the Daily Beast tearing down the testimony of your accusers. You can just go about your life making movie after movie, and it’s fine. But if you are a woman who has accused a great film director of molesting you when you were seven, the starting point is the presumption that, without real evidence, you are not telling the truth. In the court of public opinion, a woman accusing a great film director of raping her has no credibility which his fans are bound to respect. He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name. And when she is silent, the Daily Beast does not rise to her defense.

 In a rape culture, there is no burden on us to presume that she is not a liar, no necessary imperative to treat her like a person whose account of herself can be taken seriously. It is important that we presume he is innocent. It is not important that we presume she is not making it all up out of female malice. In a rape culture, you can say things like “We can’t really know what really happened, so let’s all act as if Woody Allen is innocent (and she is lying).” In a rape culture, you can use your ignorance to cast doubt on her knowledge; you can admit that you have no basis for casting doubt on Dylan’s statement, and then you can ignore her account of herself. A famous man is not speaking, so her testimony is not admissible evidence. His name is Woody Allen, and in a rape culture, that good name must be shielded and protected. What is her name? ||||| What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high. You don’t have to say a word in your defense, in fact, and people who have directed documentaries about you will write lengthy essays in the Daily Beast tearing down the testimony of your accusers. You can just go about your life making movie after movie, and it’s fine. But if you are a woman who has accused a great film director of molesting you when you were seven, the starting point is the presumption that, without real evidence, you are not telling the truth. In the court of public opinion, a woman accusing a great film director of raping her has no credibility which his fans are bound to respect. He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name. And when she is silent, the Daily Beast does not rise to her defense.

 In a rape culture, there is no burden on us to presume that she is not a liar, no necessary imperative to treat her like a person whose account of herself can be taken seriously. It is important that we presume he is innocent. It is not important that we presume she is not making it all up out of female malice. ||||| Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. ||||| As anyone with access to a computer knows, Woody Allen has been pilloried of late across the internet, over allegations that 21 years ago, he molested the daughter he and Mia Farrow adopted in 1985. Countless people have weighed in on this, many of them without the slightest idea of what the facts are in this matter. I consider myself allergic to gossip and tabloids, and go out of my way to avoid them. So when a celebrity is being devoured by the two-headed piranha of gossip and innuendo, I usually have minimal understanding of what they did, or were alleged to have done. Woody Allen is an exception.

 I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary , that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

 When I went online the morning after the Globes broadcast, I found more than one email asking if I had seen the previous night’s tweets from Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan. A quick search led me not only to the accusatory tweets, but to the explosion of internet chatter that followed in their wake. The more benevolent comments suggested Woody should rot in jail. Others were demanding his head on a pike.

 Last fall, Vanity Fair magazine ran an article about Mia and her family, which included an interview with the 28-year-old Malone (née Dylan), who, at the age of seven, was at the center of Mia’s allegations that made headlines during the brutal custody battle between her and Woody. In the recent interview, Malone stands behind her mother’s accusation. It was the one-two punch of the Vanity Fair piece and the Farrow tweets that stirred up the hornet’s nest that had remained somewhat dormant over the past 20 years.

 My documentary covered Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn (Mia’s adopted daughter and Woody’s wife of 16 years) and the ensuing fall-out, but I chose not to go down the rabbit hole detailing the custody case, as my film was primarily about his work, and I had no interest in allowing it to turn into a courtroom drama. I did, however, thoroughly research the entire episode in order to reach my own conclusions about what did or didn’t take place.

 My association with Woody is primarily a professional one, though we’ve remained friendly since the documentary and still occasionally correspond by email via his assistant (since Woody still types on a 60-year old manual typewriter) . When I wrote him the day after the ceremony, he was vaguely aware that Mia and Ronan had badmouthed him (again), but he wasn’t certain what Twitter was. (He’s heard of blogging and always confuses the two.) Because he doesn’t go online, he was blissfully unaware of how much ink (sorry, bandwidth) the story was getting. If he had known, he still wouldn’t have cared. Mia’s accusations were old business, and the fact that Ronan was publicly chiming in meant nothing to Woody, who hadn’t even seen his (alleged) son for 20 years. I also knew Woody would never publicly respond to any of this. His indifference to the gossip has always struck me not as a decision so much as an involuntary and organic reaction. In fact, during a written exchange that day in which I mentioned the tweet attack, he was more focused on giving me advice about a stye I had on my eyelid that I joked was probably a brain tumor: “I agree, you probably do have a brain tumor. You should get your affairs in order quickly as those things can move rather rapidly. You’ll probably start to have some problems with your balance—don’t panic—it’s quite natural for a brain tumor.” He then counseled me not to use up my “remaining days” fretting over Mia.

 As the day progressed, it seemed the misinformation on the internet was growing exponentially spurious by the minute. The more even-keeled bloggers and pundits were asking, “Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?” or “Is America ready to forgive Woody Allen?” The very phrasing of these questions presumed that Woody had done something terrible, and we had to decide how much we would let it bother us. My wife suggested that in absence of a response by Woody, he was being swiftboated. His silence created a vacuum that everybody with a keyboard was going to fill with whatever they believed or thought they believed or heard from someone else who heard from someone who linked to the Vanity Fair article.

 I considered whether to enter the fray, since my credentials were in order, so to speak. I had researched these events, I knew Woody—was friendly with him, but we weren’t so close that anyone could rightfully accuse me of being in his pocket. Quite the opposite in fact, as Woody had already advised me not to get involved. But as I came across more and more articles and blogs filled with misinformation, my wife said something to me that struck a chord: “You have just as much right to weigh in on this as anyone else, regardless of what Woody thinks.”

 So here I go—contributing to the very noise I’ve been complaining about.

 ******************

 There are basically two issues at play here. One is Woody’s starting a romantic/sexual relationship with Mia’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, in 1991. The other is Mia’s accusation—used during their custody battle for their three shared children—that Woody molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. People tend to confuse these two issues, so let’s examine them separately.

 First, the Soon-Yi situation:

 Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

 #1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

 #2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

 #3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

 #4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

 #5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

 Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

 #6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

 #7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

 #8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

 #9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

 #10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

 Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?

 It’s understandable that Mia would remain furious with Woody for the rest of her life. If I were in Mia’s position, I’m sure I’d feel the same way. (Though I’d likely handle it as a private matter and not be tweeting about him being a pedophile, just before tweeting, “omfg look at this baby panda.”) I also understand the simmering anger of Ronan Farrow (née Satchel), who has famously said of Allen, “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.” However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mia’s recent revelations that Ronan’s biological father may “possibly” be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50.

 While we’re on the subject, a word about this Sinatra business: To even say that Ronan is “possibly” Sinatra’s son implies that Mia was fooling around with her ex-husband decades after their divorce. Backdating from Ronan’s birthdate, it means that Farrow and Sinatra “hooked up” in March of 1987 when Mia was 42 and Old Blue Eyes was 71. This sort of dispels the myth that Woody and Mia had this idyllic, loving, monogamous relationship until Woody threw it all away in 1992, since Mia was apparently diddling her ex, five years earlier. If Mia was “just kidding” about the Sinatra scenario, it was an awfully insensitive thing to say, considering the fact that Sinatra’s wife, Barbara, is still very much alive. Did Mia stop to think how her coy tease might be perceived by the widow Sinatra? One can only wonder if this also fits Ronan’s definition of a “moral transgression.” (One may also wonder whether Woody is owed a fortune in reimbursement for child support.)

 I am not here to slam Mia. I think she’s an exceptional actress and I seriously admire her political activism. (I even follow her on Twitter.) But those who hate Woody “for what he did to Mia,” should be reminded that if Sinatra was indeed Ronan’s biological father, it’s not the first time Mia had a child by a married man. In 1969, at the age of 24, she became pregnant by musician/composer André Previn, 40, who was still married to singer/songwriter Dory Previn. The betrayal is said to have led to Dory Previn’s mental breakdown and institutionalization, during which she received electroconvulsive therapy. She would later write a song called, “Beware of Young Girls” about Mia. Maybe sleeping with your friend’s husband doesn’t earn as many demerits as sleeping with your girlfriend’s adopted daughter, but if you’re waving the “Never Forget” banner in Mia’s honor, let’s be consistent and take a moment to also remember the late Dory Previn. (Or better yet, let’s forget the whole damn thing, considering it’s none of our business.)

 ******************

 Now, on to the more delicate issue of Mia’s accusations during the custody case that Woody sexually abused Dylan/Malone.

 A brief but chilling synopsis of the accusation is as follows: On August 4, 1992, almost four months after the revelation about Woody and Soon-Yi’s relationship understandably ignited a firestorm within the Farrow household, Woody was visiting Frog Hollow, the Farrow country home in Bridgewater, Connecticut, where Mia and several of her kids were staying. During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, “touched her inappropriately.” Later in the day, it was alleged that the child was wearing her sundress, but that her underpants were missing. The following day, Mia’s daughter allegedly told her mother what had happened, and Mia put the child’s recounting of the story on videotape as evidence.

 Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair. Her brother Ronan believes it happened, so good for him for sticking up for his sister in 140 characters or less. They’ve both grown up in a household where this scenario has been accepted as indisputable fact, so why shouldn’t they believe it?

 I know I’m treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of “blaming the victim.” However, I’m merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will. But if Mia’s account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they were both missing.

 Even people who give Woody the benefit of the doubt and defend him on the internet are often confused on a few points. Some mistakenly say that the court found him “not guilty” of the molestation charges. The fact is there was never such a ruling because he was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.

 Let’s back up a bit: Mia’s allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested. I’ve since read a recurring canard that Woody “chose” the investigative team. Yet nobody has suggested how or why Mia’s team would ever outsource the investigation to a team “chosen” by Woody. Others have said that the investigators talked to psychiatrists “on Allen’s payroll” before letting him off the hook. The only way I can explain this is that the investigators, naturally, would have spoken with Woody’s shrinks before giving him a clean bill of health. So technically, yeah, Woody’s shrinks would have been paid a lot of money by Woody over the years. (Let’s even call it an annuity.) The same would be true of his dentist, his eye doctor, and his internist.

 As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan’s claims, it’s been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn’t running. Was Mia “coaching” her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators? Mia says no—she merely turned the camera on whenever Dylan starting talking about what Daddy did. Maybe we should take Mia at her word on this. Since I wasn’t there, I think it’s good policy not to presume what took place.

 The videotape and the medical exams weren’t the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter’s off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993 , quotes from Mia’s own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, “I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen’s attorney asked Mia about the second doctor’s findings: “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Farrow answered, “Yes.”

 In the midst of the proceedings, on February 2, 1993, a revealing article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, headlined: “Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges,” in which former nanny Monica Thompson (whose salary was paid by Allen, since three of the brood were also his) swore in a deposition to Allen’s attorneys that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges, and the pressure led her to resign her position. Thompson had this to say about the videotape: ““I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

 Thompson further revealed a conversation she had with Kristie Groteke, another nanny. “She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”

 On April 20, 1993, a sworn statement was entered into evidence by Dr. John M. Leventhal, who headed the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team looking into the abuse charges. An article from the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings. As to why the team felt the charges didn’t hold water, Leventhal states: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

 Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

 Much is made by Mia’s supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I won’t wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than I’ll claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughter’s recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.) In any event, destruction of the notes may have been part of the reason that, despite the very conclusive position taken by the investigators that Dylan was not abused, presiding Judge Elliot Wilk found their report “inconclusive.”

 Judge Wilk would ultimately grant Mia custody of Satchel and Dylan. 15-year-old Moses chose not to see Woody, which was his right. It was a hard-won victory for Mia who returned home with eight of her nine children intact. She would go on to adopt six more, including Thaddeus Wilk Farrow, named in honor of the Honorable Judge Wilk.

 Woody was granted supervised visitation of Satchel, but his request for immediate visitation with Dylan was denied until the young girl underwent a period of therapy, after which a further review of visitation would be considered. As a legal matter, the investigation of possible criminal abuse would continue.

 Almost four months after Wilk’s decision, the Connecticut authorities abandoned the criminal investigation, resulting in an unusual statement from Litchfield, Connecticut County Prosecutor Frank Maco, who dismissed the abuse charges against Woody, but still maintained that he had “probable cause” to believe Dylan. In the minds of many, the decision would leave Woody in a kind of moral limbo. Legally, he was cleared of everything—except a dark cloud of suspicion. Woody was furious, and called a press conference in which he referred to the state’s attorney office as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible. Even today, as they squirm, lie, sweat, and tap-dance, pathetically trying to save face and justify their moral squalor… there was no evidence against me. There is none now. I promise you, smear as they may, they will always claim to have evidence; but notice that somehow they will manage to find reasons why they can’t quite show it to you.”

 Woody’s ad-hoc press conference made for good television and was widely covered in the press. Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared in the New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment. Though the decision was quite damning, Maco got what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Two years later, the reprimand was overturned, but Mia was unsuccessful in her bid to annul the adoptions. Legally, Woody remains the adoptive father of Dylan and Moses.

 Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

 ******************

 Life would go on for both Woody and Mia, respectively. Aside from tending to her growing family, Farrow would come to be recognized as a leading human rights advocate, with special concern for the plight of children in conflict-torn regions. She has worked diligently to bring attention to the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, and has made many trips to the region, receiving several awards for her humanitarian efforts in the process. Woody Allen would continue his ritual of writing and producing a film per-year—an unprecedented pace he’s maintained since 1969. The accolades and awards continue to pour in, and no one is less impressed than Allen, who has traditionally stayed away from all awards shows.

 In 1997, Woody and Soon-Yi would marry in Venice, Italy, and over the next few years adopt two daughters. Anyone who has adopted is familiar with the vetting process conducted by social workers and licensed government agencies charged with looking out for the child’s welfare. Suffice it to say, the case of Woody and Soon-Yi was no exception, especially considering the highly-publicized events of 1992-93. Both adoptions, in two different states, were thoroughly reviewed by state court judges who found no reason why Woody and his wife shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. The girls, now aged 15 and 13, are named Bechet (after jazz saxophonist/clarinetist Sidney Bechet) and Manzie (after jazz drummer Manzie Johnson).

 It took me little more than two years to complete my film, Woody Allen: A Documentary. I conducted hours of filmed interviews with Woody, who put forward no ground rules about questions I could ask, or topics to avoid. Although I shot some film on location with Woody in London and Cannes, most of our filming took place in New York City. On more than one occasion, when I was planning to interview Woody, I found I had to schedule around mornings when he’d walk his kids to school, or attend parent-teacher conferences. The normalcy of his domestic life was somehow surprising to me. I’ve not spent a lot of time with his kids, but I’ve met them on a few occasions where I’ve received the cursory “hello,” as they went about their business doing girl stuff with their friends. The only parent-child tensions I’ve been privy to are that his girls think their father’s mean for not letting them have a dog, and that he’s an idiot for not knowing how to work a computer. Lest anyone accuse me of being in Woody’s pocket, I’ll confess that I side with his kids on both counts.

 My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begun to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.

 At the ceremony in Beverly Hills, actress Emma Stone, having just worked with Woody on his latest film Magic in the Moonlight, introduced the montage, followed by Diane Keaton’s surrogate acceptance speech, which was typically sentimental, loopy, and very Keatonesque. Woody, who would have never stopped throwing up had he been there, was instead in New York at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre for the opening of Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, whose book was written by Woody’s friend Doug McGrath. Woody had already told me that if the show let out early enough, he was hoping to get home in time to catch the last quarter of the football playoffs.

 Apparently, Mia and Ronan assigned more significance to the festivities than did Woody, seeing the televised occasion as a perfect opportunity to bring him down a few pegs. The first of Mia’s tweets, issued as the Woody segment commenced, was restrained and kind of cute: “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS.” I smiled when I read it, and thought, “Why not? You already saw the montage when you approved the use of your clip.” Her second tweet, referencing the recent Vanity Fair article, was nastier: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

 This one puzzled me. I thought it was odd to say the Globe tribute showed contempt for abuse survivors when Mia willfully participated in the festivities by expressly agreeing to the use of her clip, when she had every opportunity to decline. She certainly wasn’t pressured, and we had an alternative version of the montage (sans Mia) all ready to go in case she passed. It seemed Mia either wanted it both ways, or simply assumed no one would ever learn that she was complicit in the tribute. By the time I saw her third tweet, asking, “Is he a pedophile?” and linking to the Vanity Fair article, my most charitable thought was that this woman needs to get over herself. A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost her tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children.

 I was actually somewhat impressed with Ronan Farrow’s now-famous tweet from the summer of 2012: “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” The target was fair game, and I remember thinking Ronan had inherited his father’s wit—before his actual paternity came into question. (A good sense of humor and the ability to think on his feet will serve him well on his own show on MSNBC.) But his tweet the night of the Globes was a bit more vicious: “Missed the Woody Allen tribute—did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?” Brevity may be the soul of wit, if not nuanced accuracy. Had he stated that a woman publicly “alleged” molestation, it probably wouldn’t have triggered quite the reaction Ronan was looking for, just weeks before his show debuts. To remind readers that the woman is recalling memories from the age of seven, when a six-month investigation characterized her as being “emotionally disturbed,” and making statements that were likely “coached or influenced by her mother,” takes a little more than 140 characters.

 I’ve already said this, but it bears repeating: I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did. The point is that accusations make headlines; retractions are buried on page twelve, and coerced accusations are as much a reality as coerced confessions. Since Woody literally pays no mind to this stuff, and he continues to work and have a happy home life, I would never suggest he’s a victim in this case. The real victim has always been Malone. For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question.

 Malone, who is now a writer and artist, and happily married to an information-technology specialist, had been living a seemingly quiet life out of the spotlight. Obviously, if she feels that an interview with Vanity Fair is a necessary part of her healing process, that’s her right. I can only hope it brought her some closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for. I can even clear up one tiny mystery for her, of which I have personal knowledge. In the Vanity Fair article, Malone says that while a senior in college, she received in the mail a stuffed, manila envelope from Woody, filled with old photos of the two of them. She didn’t recognize the handwriting, but “(the envelope) had a fake return name: Lehman.” When I was working on my documentary, I’d occasionally request material from Woody’s office, which would be mailed to me by his assistant whose name would appear on the return address. During Malone’s senior year in college, Woody had an assistant whose surname was Lehman. So there’s one mystery solved. If only all the others were so easy.

 As to the overall reliability or objectivity of Vanity Fair, I can’t really take a position. I do know that the publication was sued for libel in 2005 by director Roman Polanski who, in 1977, pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl in Los Angeles that year. The magazine published an article stating that in 1969, Polanski was seen fondling and hitting on a young model at Elaine’s restaurant in New York City on his way to the funeral of his late wife Sharon Tate, who had been brutally slain by the Manson family. One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter.

 Polanski won his libel suit against Vanity Fair. It was proven that the director wasn’t even in New York on his way to his wife’s funeral, which took place in Los Angeles.

 * * * * Editor's note: Subsequent to publishing the above piece, an open letter from Dylan Farrow appeared in Nicholas Kristof’s column in the New York Times. When asked for comment, Weide sent this reply: “This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylan’s letter that hasn’t previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which I’ve already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As I’ve already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for."

 Robert B. Weide is an Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning filmmaker whose documentaries have covered the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen and Kurt Vonnegut. He was also the Executive Producer and director of the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm. He tweets mostly nice things @BobWeide. ||||| Dylan Farrow's Brother Moses Defends Woody Allen

 A Family Divided

 Jane Read Martin / Globe

 Dylan's Response

 Painful Memories

 Rick Maiman / Sygma / Corbis

 'Horrible Tragedy'

 Dylan Farrow's Feb. 1 open letter to The New York Times detailing sexual molestation she says she suffered at the hands of her father Woody Allen reignited a controversy that has divided their family bitterly for more than 20 years.Now her brother Moses Farrow is speaking out to defend Allen – and accuse their mother, Mia Farrow , of poisoning the children against their father."My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister," Moses, 36, tells PEOPLE in the magazine's new issue. "And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi."Moses and Dylan, 28, both adopted by Allen and Farrow, and their brother Ronan, 26, were in the center of a 1993 custody battle in which both sides testified about Allen's affair with Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen went on to marry in 1997. Farrow was awarded custody of the couple's three children. (In total, she has 14 kids from her marriages and solo adoptions.) Allen, 78, who was investigated but not charged with molestation, has for decades denied abusing Dylan, maintaining that Farrow, 69, coached Dylan, an accusation Farrow has always denied."Of course Woody did not molest my sister," says Moses, who is estranged from Farrow and many of his siblings and is close to Allen and Soon-Yi. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."Dylan insists that she is telling the truth."This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family," she tells PEOPLE in response to her brother's comments. "My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life.""My mother never coached me," Dylan says. "She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up. In one of the most heartbreaking conversations I have ever had, she sat me down and asked me if I was telling the truth. She said that Dad said he didn’t do anything. and I said, 'He's lying.' "Moses accuses Farrow of bullying him as well. "Our mother has misled the public into believing it was a happy household of both biological and adopted children," he says. "From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do.""I don't know where he gets this about getting beaten," counters Dylan. "We were sent to our rooms sometimes.""I will not see my family dragged down like this," she adds. "I can't stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me. My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies."Farrow, who declined to respond to Moses's accusations, Tweeted , "I love my daughter. I will always protect her. A lot of ugliness is going to be aimed at me. But this is not about me, it's about her truth."Moses, a family therapist, says that his own life has been made better by spending time with Allen."I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her," he says. "It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father."Allen's family says that the director is devastated by Dylan's letter."This is a horrible, horrible tragedy," Allen's sister Letty Aronson tells PEOPLE. "He feels very badly for Dylan, that she has been so poisoned by her mother."Dylan, of course, feels very differently."I have a wonderful family," she says. "We are brave and we are truthful and anyone who says anything otherwise does not know us."For much more on this story, including details of Dylan's and Woody Allen's lives now and an update on all of Farrow's children, look for this week's issue of People on newsstands Friday |||||
A summary of this is?

– Moses Farrow, brother to Dylan Farrow and adopted son of Woody Allen, minces no words when it comes to his sister's allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of their father: "Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses, 36, tells People. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him." He goes on to say that on the day in question, everyone who was in the house was in public, and neither Woody nor Dylan ever went off privately. "I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother," Moses says, claiming that Mia Farrow often hit him when he was a child and went into rages if she was not obeyed. Moses is now estranged from his mother and many of his siblings, but is close to Allen and his wife, Moses' adopted half-sister Soon-Yi Previn. Moses calls the whole fiasco Mia's "vengeful way to pay [Allen] back for falling in love with Soon-Yi." In a piece written last month, Allen documentarian Robert B. Weide noted that while Moses, 15 at the time Dylan accused Allen, initially refused contact with his father, he recently told Weide he's now "finally seeing the reality" of what happened and used the term "brainwashing." Dylan was quick to respond to her brother's public change of heart: She tells People, "My brother is dead to me," adding, "My mother never coached me. She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them." She also denies her mother hit anyone. Moses isn't the only one publicly doubting Dylan's story: Stephen King made waves Monday when he responded to a New Inquiry piece on the allegations by saying, "Boy, I’m stumped on that one. I don’t like to think it’s true, and there’s an element of palpable bitchery there, but..." Of course, Salon reports, he followed that up with a tweet: "Have no opinion on the accusations; hope they're not true. Probably used the wrong word."


Here is a news article: If True, Building Set For Demolition Could Be Manhattan's Oldest October 15, 2013 5:39 PM

 Preservationist Adam Woodward discovered a cellar that he believes could be the foundation of the Revolutionary War-era Bull’s Head Tavern. (credit: Adam Woodward)

 NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A preservationist says he has found evidence that a Manhattan building is the former site of an 18th-century tavern where George Washington is believed to have enjoyed a celebratory drink during the American Revolution.

 If it is indeed the home of the legendary watering hole, the discovery could mean that the building that is perhaps Manhattan’s oldest is slated to demolished.

 “After the English had marched up the Bowery and out of the city (in 1783), George Washington and Governor (George) Clinton stopped at the Bull’s Head (tavern),” preservationist Adam Woodward told WCBS 880’s Alex Silverman.

 play pause Preservationist Believes He's Found Tavern Where George Washington Visited

 WCBS 880's Alex Silverman...

 The building at 50 Bowery, which has had many faces since, is being prepared for demolition so a hotel can be built at the site. Legend had it that “the Bull’s Head’s structure, cellar, bones” were still inside, Woodward said.

 He decided to poke around and, in the basement, Woodward found what he believes are Colonial-era, hand-hewn and hand-planed joists and foundation walls.

 “Found myself in what I am pretty certain is the 1750s historic tavern,” he said.

 Woodward said he felt compelled to investigate in the building, which once housed a chain drugstore and the Atlantic Garden beer garden, because time was running out.

 “I just realized that it would be the last chance to solve one of the great mysteries of New York City history,” he said.

 “It was pretty incredible walking back in time 250 years.”

 Historian and author David Freeland told Silverman that the find “would make it very likely the oldest building remaining in Manhattan.”

 That has Woodward hoping city officials will act quickly to preserve the site.

 “What an incredible opportunity that the city suddenly has for this thing to re-emerge,” he said.

 You May Also Be Interested In These Stories ||||| Photo

 Maybe George Washington slept there, or maybe he only watered his horse and ordered stronger stuff for himself. Either way, David Freeland sounded excited as he crossed the threshold where a famous Colonial-era tavern, the Bull’s Head, once welcomed thirsty out-of-towners.

 “There are treasures inside,” said Mr. Freeland, an author and a historian who researched the site for a book about a beer garden that later occupied the tavern’s place on the Bowery.

 Photo

 But all he saw was debris from the building’s most recent life, as a chain drugstore with a Chinese restaurant upstairs. He did not reach the treasures that thrilled local-history aficionados over the weekend — namely, some old-looking joists and foundation walls in the basement — because the steps were blocked by rubble. The site is to be cleared for a hotel.

 The joists were discovered by a photographer and preservationist, Adam Woodward, who suspects that structural elements of the Colonial-era tavern were used in the construction of the much larger beer hall, the Atlantic Garden. It reigned as “one of the show places of New York” from 1858 on, The New York Times said when it finally shut down in 1911.

 But what about the tavern where Washington established his temporary headquarters in November 1783 as the British withdrew?

 “The whole issue of whether the Bull’s Head was buried inside the Atlantic Garden was one of the great mysteries of New York,” Mr. Woodward said.

 Until, apparently, the other day, when he got a look inside. He saw iron work from the 19th century and I-beams from later on. And then he saw a stairway to the basement, and headed down.

 “At one point there was a distinct change in the building material, from cinder block to a brick-and-stone foundation wall,” he said. “I followed that wall and found myself at the front of the building, under the sidewalk at the Bowery, and looked up and saw what looked to me like 18th-century hand-hewn and hand-planed joists and beams with extremely wide floorboards right above them.”

 He said, “I was thinking, I am standing in the cellar of the Bull’s Head.”

 The Bull’s Head opened around 1750 on the fringe of what was a still-young city concentrated below the Bowery. Washington and his troops marched down the Bowery and stopped there in 1783 before making “their official entrance into the city proper,” said Kerri Culhane, a historian who wrote the application that won the Bowery a place on the National Register of Historic Places.

 The neighborhood “was a butchers’ district in the 18th century and the 19th century,” Ms. Culhane said. “People drove livestock down from the hinterland and the slaughterhouse was behind the Bowery. That’s where the trading took place.”

 It was also a home to the ancestors of future V.I.P.’s. “The Astors started out as butchers,” she said, but began snapping up land. They even owned the Bull’s Head site.

 But the tavern closed. Mr. Freeland wrote that the building became a store that sold stoves until the Atlantic Garden opened as a beer garden.

 It was a popular gathering place for German immigrants in its early days, and in the 1870s and 1880s, the Atlantic Garden was raided repeatedly for selling beer on Sundays, when the city’s excise laws appeared to forbid that. Mr. Freeland noted that the laws did not mention beer, only “intoxicating liquors or wines.” The Atlantic Garden’s owner got off after one raid because the judge sampled the beer the police had seized and complained it was so watered down that “a man might drink by the gallon without getting drunk.”

 Later still, the Atlantic Garden became “a place where Tin Pan Alley songwriters would go to plug their songs,” Mr. Freeland said. One tune that apparently got its start there in the 1890s was “Daisy Bell,” the song that turned the phrase “bicycle built for two” into a catchphrase.

 Mr. Woodward said he hoped the demolition for the hotel could be delayed long enough for “a proper archaeological exploration.” (Calls to the owner were not returned on Monday.)

 “I can’t think of another lot in Manhattan that has a more important history,” Mr. Woodward said, “and the fact that it might be intact, a couple of feet under the building, is an incredible opportunity to get on archaeological record.”

  ||||| Elected officials and the Landmarks Preservation Commission are both doing their best to launch a thorough investigation of what may very well be the famed 18th century saloon the Bull's Head Tavern, but their options are limited. Photographer Adam Woodward first documented the ancient, hand-planed wood joists and stone foundation in the basement of 50 Bowery last week, and both he and historian David Freeland are convinced that these are the remnants of Bull's Head. If so, this would be the oldest surviving structure in Manhattan by far, and as Woodward puts it, an "incredible opportunity to get on archaeological record." But the fate of the site depends on the current owner, Alex Chu, who is demolishing the site to make way for a new hotel.

 The Landmarks Commission tells The Lo-Down that they're "aware of the situation," but "cannot require the owner to conduct archaeology." The best they can do is give the owner a list of good archaeologists. Some elected officials are also getting involved, but again they've got to take it up with Chu first.

 · Landmarks Commission: No Jurisdiction to Mandate Historic Site Survey at 50 Bowery [TLD]

 · All Coverage of Bull's Head Tavern [~ENY~] |||||
A summary of this is?

– In 1783, after the British soldiers left New York City, George Washington is believed to have stopped for a celebratory drink at the Bull's Head tavern. Now a preservationist thinks he's found the historic site—and if he's right, it could be the oldest building in Manhattan. Adam Woodward had heard that the building at 50 Bowery, currently scheduled to be demolished so a hotel can go up, might have "the Bull's Head's structure, cellar, bones," he tells CBS New York. So he searched the basement, and "found myself in what I am pretty certain is the 1750s historic tavern," he says. Specifically, he found what he thinks are hand-hewn and hand-planed joists and foundation walls from the Colonial era. Since that time, the building has housed a drugstore, a Chinese restaurant, and a beer garden, among other things. Now he's hoping city officials will preserve the site, saying, "What an incredible opportunity that the city suddenly has for this thing to re-emerge." A historian is also convinced it is indeed the old tavern, and investigations have been launched by elected officials and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Eater NY reports. But ultimately, the commission says, it "cannot require the owner to conduct archaeology," so a lot depends on him. He's apparently not talking yet; the New York Times couldn't get hold of him.


Summarize this article:

Wesley Snipes Begins Serving 3-Year Prison Stint

 Email This Wesley Snipes began serving a three-year sentence at a federal prison in Pennsylvania on Thursday for failure to file income tax returns. Snipes, 48, arrived shortly before noon at the Federal Correctional Institution McKean in the tiny northwestern Pennsylvania town of Lewis Run, federal prisons spokesman Ed Ross said. He had been ordered to surrender by noon.

 The minimum security prison camp is worlds away from the harsh prison fortresses depicted in the Snipes' films 'Undisputed' and 'Brooklyn's Finest.' The minimum-security camp doesn't have fences around its perimeter.

 The 300 nonviolent inmates live in barracks that feature two-man rooms, daily showers and double-feature movie showings Friday through Sunday. Alas, no NC-17, R or X ratings allowed, which knocks out much of Snipes' action-heavy repertoire.

 The most jarring aspect of the celebrity's stay might be the five daily head counts, three during the overnight hours. And Snipes, who earned a reported $13 million for the 'Blade: Trinity' sequel, will have to adjust to earning just pennies an hour handling kitchen, laundry or other campus chores. He can spend just $290 a month at the prison commissary. Wesley Snipes began serving a three-year sentence at a federal prison in Pennsylvania on Thursday for failure to file income tax returns. Snipes, 48, arrived shortly before noon at the Federal Correctional Institution McKean in the tiny northwestern Pennsylvania town of Lewis Run, federal prisons spokesman Ed Ross said. He had been ordered to surrender by noon.The minimum security prison camp is worlds away from the harsh prison fortresses depicted in the Snipes' films 'Undisputed' and 'Brooklyn's Finest.' The minimum-security camp doesn't have fences around its perimeter.The 300 nonviolent inmates live in barracks that feature two-man rooms, daily showers and double-feature movie showings Friday through Sunday. Alas, no NC-17, R or X ratings allowed, which knocks out much of Snipes' action-heavy repertoire.The most jarring aspect of the celebrity's stay might be the five daily head counts, three during the overnight hours. And Snipes, who earned a reported $13 million for the 'Blade: Trinity' sequel, will have to adjust to earning just pennies an hour handling kitchen, laundry or other campus chores. He can spend just $290 a month at the prison commissary.

 2010 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

 Snipes has appeared in dozens of studio films, from 'White Men Can't Jump' and 'Demolition Man' in the early 1990s to the blockbuster Blade trilogy.None of which will score him any points at McKean, officials insist."We recognize that he is high profile, but we treat all our inmates the same," spokeswoman Shirley White told The Associated Press last week.According to U.S. prosecutors, the actor failed to file any tax returns for at least a decade, and owed $2.7 million in taxes on $13.8 million in income from 1999 to 2001 alone.Snipes, a dues-paying member of a tax-protest group that challenges the government's right to collect taxes, described himself at his 2008 sentencing as a naive truth-seeker."I am an idealistic, naive, passionate, truth-seeking, spiritually motivated artist, unschooled in the science of law and finance," said Snipes, who had pursued theater and dance from an early age, attending the vaunted High School for the Performing Arts in New York City.Tuesday night, he told CNN's "Larry King Live" that he was not nervous about reporting to prison.On Wednesday, he made a last-minute request for a new trial. In the emergency motion, Snipes said that the judge erred by not allowing defense attorneys to interview jurors about misconduct allegations.At McKean, if he reports as scheduled, he can pursue his spirituality at weekly meetings of nearly any religious group imaginable, from Wiccans to Jehovah's Witnesses to Spanish-speaking Evangelical Catholics.The martial-arts enthusiast can get his exercise playing sand volleyball or indoor basketball, or work out on an elliptical machine or stair climber. And he can tap into his fun side through badminton, bocci or bridge.Should he pull a muscle in a pickup game, the infirmary copay is just $2.But it's not all fun and games.The daily wake-up call is at 6:35 a.m. The mundane jobs run seven hours a day. There's little fashion flair to the prison-issued khakis. And contact in the visitors room is limited to "a kiss," according to the prison handbook.Snipes has tried to delay his arrival while he takes his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the trial judge said he had gotten a fair trial.U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges saw in Snipes "a history of contempt" for U.S. tax laws, the judge said at sentencing.Never mind that the actor, changing course, had delivered $5 million in checks to the IRS that day. Hodges imposed consecutive one-year terms for the three misdemeanor convictions."Someday, every fighter loses," says the prison boxer Monroe Hutchens, played by Snipes, in 2002's "Undisputed." "In the end, everybody gets beaten. The most you can hope for is that you stay on top a while." ||||| Wesley Snipes Weighs Options: 'Don't Send Me Up the River, Yet'

 Email This A defiant Wesley Snipes sat down with Larry King on Tuesday night to talk about his tax-related conviction and his three-year jail sentence, which is due to begin later this week. The 'Blade' actor told King he believes there were irregularities in his case and said he plans to file a request with the Supreme Court to review them.

 "We still have prayers out there, Larry, and we believe in miracles. Don't send me up the river, yet," he said on A defiant Wesley Snipes sat down with Larry King on Tuesday night to talk about his tax-related conviction and his three-year jail sentence, which is due to begin later this week. The 'Blade' actor told King he believes there were irregularities in his case and said he plans to file a request with the Supreme Court to review them."We still have prayers out there, Larry, and we believe in miracles. Don't send me up the river, yet," he said on 'Larry King Live.'

 Snipes said he relied on the advice of tax professionals and doesn't believe he deserves such a stiff sentence for failing to pay taxes. He also argued that his case was misrepresented in the media."Any man would be nervous if his liberty was at stake," Snipes told King when asked about going to jail. "Right now, I'm more upset and disappointed that the system seems to not be working for me."Snipes didn't play the blame game with his financial team, but claimed that he wrongly relied on their advice for his affairs.The 48-year-old 'White Men Can't Jump' star was convicted in 2008 in a Florida court on three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns.Prosecutors in Snipes' case argued that the actor had not paid any taxes on the reported $38 million he earned since 1999. Although the star was acquitted of more serious felony charges, a Florida judge has ordered Snipes to begin serving his three-year sentence for his 2008 tax conviction.Snipes is scheduled to serve his time at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. ||||| The date is set for Wesley Snipes, and he's finally out of options. The 'Blade' hero was ordered to start his 3-year jail sentence for tax evasion on Dec. 9 at noon, AP reports.Snipes is scheduled to serve his time at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. Snipes, who has been free on bail since the 2008 conviction, has attempted to have his case overturned to no avail.Prosecutors in Snipes' case alleged that the actor had not paid any taxes on the reported $38 million he earned since 1999, in addition to several misdemeanor offenses. Although the star was acquitted of more serious felony charges , a Florida judge has ordered Snipes to begin serving his three-year sentence for his 2008 felony tax conviction. ||||| When actor Wesley Snipes enters prison Thursday, he'll leave behind his wife, young children and celebrity neighbors in the wealthy Florida enclave made infamous by next-door neighbor Tiger Woods.

 FILE - In a Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009 file photo, actor Wesley Snipes poses during the photo call for the film "Brooklyn's Finest" at the Venice Film Festival in Venice, Italy. Snipes reports to the Federal... (Associated Press)

 The prison camp in Lewis Run in northwestern Pennsylvania pales by comparison, but is still worlds away from the harsh prison fortresses depicted in the Snipes films "Undisputed" and "Brooklyn's Finest."

 Federal Correctional Institution McKean, a minimum-security camp, doesn't have fences around its perimeter. The 300 nonviolent inmates live in barracks that feature two-man rooms, daily showers and double-feature movie showings Friday through Sunday. Alas, no NC-17, R or X ratings allowed, which knocks out much of Snipes' action-heavy repertoire.

 The most jarring aspect of the celebrity's stay might be the five daily head counts, three during the overnight hours. And Snipes, who earned a reported $13 million for the "Blade: Trinity" sequel, will have to adjust to earning just pennies an hour handling kitchen, laundry or other campus chores. And, he can spend just $290 a month at the prison commissary.

 Snipes has appeared in dozens of studio films, from "White Men Can't Jump" and "Demolition Man" in the early 1990s to the blockbuster Blade trilogy.

 None of which will score him any points at McKean, officials insist.

 "We recognize that he is high profile, but we treat all our inmates the same," spokeswoman Shirley White told The Associated Press last week.

 According to U.S. prosecutors, the actor failed to file any tax returns for at least a decade, and owed $2.7 million in taxes on $13.8 million in income from 1999 to 2001 alone.

 Snipes, a dues-paying member of a tax-protest group that challenges the government's right to collect taxes, described himself at his 2008 sentencing as a naive truth-seeker.

 "I am an idealistic, naive, passionate, truth-seeking, spiritually motivated artist, unschooled in the science of law and finance," said Snipes, who had pursued theater and dance from an early age, attending the vaunted High School for the Performing Arts in New York City.

 Tuesday night, he told CNN's "Larry King Live" that he was not nervous about reporting to prison.

 On Wednesday, he made a last-minute request for a new trial. In the emergency motion, Snipes said that the judge erred by not allowing defense attorneys to interview jurors about misconduct allegations.

 At McKean, if he reports as scheduled, he can pursue his spirituality at weekly meetings of nearly any religious group imaginable, from Wiccans to Jehovah's Witnesses to Spanish-speaking Evangelical Catholics.

 The martial-arts enthusiast can get his exercise playing sand volleyball or indoor basketball, or work out on an elliptical machine or stair climber. And he can tap into his fun side through badminton, bocci or bridge.

 Should he pull a muscle in a pickup game, the infirmary copay is just $2.

 But it's not all fun and games.

 The daily wake-up call is at 6:35 a.m. The mundane jobs run seven hours a day. There's little fashion flair to the prison-issued khakis. And contact in the visitors room is limited to "a kiss," according to the prison handbook.

 Snipes has tried to delay his arrival while he takes his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the trial judge said he had gotten a fair trial.

 U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges saw in Snipes "a history of contempt" for U.S. tax laws, the judge said at sentencing.

 Never mind that the actor, changing course, had delivered $5 million in checks to the IRS that day. Hodges imposed consecutive one-year terms for the three misdemeanor convictions.

 "Someday, every fighter loses," says the prison boxer Monroe Hutchens, played by Snipes, in 2002's "Undisputed." "In the end, everybody gets beaten. The most you can hope for is that you stay on top a while."

 ___

 Online:

 McKean FCI: http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mck/index.jsp |||||

– Wesley Snipes enters prison in Pennsylvania today to serve a three-year sentence for tax evasion—and though the minimum-security McKean prison camp isn't exactly a five-star resort, it's not as bad as it could be. The AP gives details on what his life will be like: No fences: But he will submit to five daily head counts, three of which are overnight. Living quarters: He'll have a two-man room in the barracks, where the other 300 nonviolent inmates live. Daily schedule: Wake-up time is 6:35am, and jobs are performed for seven hours per day. Conjugal visits: He'll have to limit himself to just a kiss in the visitors room. Money: He can earn pennies an hour by doing laundry or other chores, and is allowed to spend $290 a month at the commissary. Entertainment: Double-feature movies are shown Friday through Sunday, but no R-, NC-17-, or X-rated films are screened. Exercise: Sand volleyball, indoor basketball, exercise machines, badminton, bocci, and bridge will be available to him. Medical facilities: The copay at the infirmary is only $2. Church: Almost any group you can think of, including Wiccans, hold weekly meetings. Click for more, including why Snipes failed to pay taxes—or watch his Tuesday night appearance on Larry King Live.


– An actress known to one generation as Gabe Kaplan's wife, Julie, on Welcome Back, Kotter and to another as the mom in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids has died after a seven-year battle with breast cancer. Marcia Strassman died Saturday at home in Sherman Oaks, Calif.; she was 66, the AP reports. "They gave her two and a half years to live but she lasted much longer. She was very courageous," says sister Julie Strassman. "She was the funniest, smartest person I ever met. And talented. She knew everything. Now I won't be able to call her and ask her questions," she tells Deadline. The actress is also survived by a daughter and a brother. Strassman was born in 1948 in New York City and went to Los Angeles at age 18. Her career began in music but turned to acting when she appeared on The Patty Duke Show and landed the role of nurse Margie Cutler on M.A.S.H. This was followed by her role on Kotter, then as the mom opposite Rick Moranis in the Disney hit and its sequel. She also appeared in Third Watch in 2004, adds Variety. Even before her cancer diagnosis, Strassman was involved in cancer research and treatment organizations. "She had more friends than anyone in the world. She could do anything," her sister says. (Click to read about other celebrities who died of breast cancer.)

Expand this summary.

Actress Marcia Strassman has died at the age of 66 after a long battle with breast cancer, her sister Julie Strassman confirmed. Though Marcia Strassman acted in a wide range of TV shows and feature films, she was best known for her lead roles in the TV show Welcome Back Kotter and the comedy feature Honey I Shrunk the Kids and its sequel, Honey I Blew Up the Kids. Strassman also served on the national board of the Screen Actors Guild.

 “She was the funniest, smartest person I ever met,” said Julie Strassman of her sister. “And talented. She knew everything. Now I won’t be able to call her and ask her questions.”

 News of Strassman’s death first emerged in online posts by a long-time friend, Curb Your Enthusiasm director Bob Weide: “So sad that a sweet friend, kind person & wonderful actress Marcia Strassman lost her brave battle with cancer today.”

 Another friend, singer/actress Cher, also tweeted: “Wanted U2 No,a Funny,Talented Friend Died.Not 4U 2feel sorry 4me,but she died alone, &Energy from U is powerful &Sends (love) ‘Marsha (sic) Strassman'”

 Strassman was born Apri 28, 1948 in New York City, and grew up in New Jersey. She came to Los Angeles when she was just 18, her sister said. She was initially a singer in the late 1960s with some modest local success, most notably with The Groovy World of Jack and Jill and The Flower Children. She also had a few TV roles, including three episodes of The Patty Duke Show. She left show business for a time before returning as an actress in a recurring role as nurse Margie Cutler in M.A.S.H.

 In 1975, Strassman had a breakout role in the TV hit Welcome Back Kotter, opposite comedian Gabe Kaplan, playing his frequently exasperated wife Julie. That show, about a teacher returning to the tough high school and neighborhood where he grew up, ran through 1979.

 Strassman worked steadily thereafter, most notably in major roles on several mostly short-lived TV shows, including Booker, Tremors, Third Watch, Providence, and Noah Knows Best and as a voice-over artist on the children’s animated show Aaahh!!! Real Monsters and elsewhere.

 Her biggest film success came playing the wife and mother opposite Rick Moranis in Disney’s hit comedy Honey I Shrunk The Kids and its equally successful sequel, Honey I Blew Up The Kids. She also appeared in 1985’s The Aviator with Christopher Reeve and Roseanna Arquette.

 Strassman was active in fundraising for various progressive and social causes, including breast cancer research and treatment even before she was diagnosed, her sister said. She was a member of the Screen Actors Guild national board, elected to a three-year term in 2010. Julie Strassman said her sister continued to sing, and had many other skills and a wide group of friends throughout Hollywood.

 “She had more friends than anyone in the world,” Julie Strassman said. “She could do anything. She made clothes, made curtains, knitted sweaters for friends. She could dance.”

 Strassman died Oct. 25 in her Sherman Oaks, Calif., home, after a seven-year fight with breast cancer. She is survived by her daughter, New York costume designer Elizabeth “Lizzie” Collector, whom Julie Strassman called her sister’s “great love.” She is also survived by brother Steven Strassman.

 Services are pending, but Julie Strassman asked that in lieu of flowers, donations be made in her sister’s name to organizations fighting cancer. ||||| LOS ANGELES (AP) — Marcia Strassman, who played Gabe Kaplan's wife, Julie, on the 1970s sitcom "Welcome Back, Kotter," has died. She was 66.

 This photo provided by Julie Strassman, shows her sister actress Marcia Strassman. The actress who played Gabe Kaplan’s wife, Julie, on the 1970's sitcom “Welcome Back, Kotter,” has died at age 66. Strassman’s... (Associated Press)

 Strassman died at her Sherman Oaks, California, home on Friday after battling breast cancer for seven years, her sister, Julie Strassman, said Sunday.

 "They gave her 2 ½ years to live but she lasted much longer," she said. "She was very courageous."

 Strassman had numerous roles on television and in film during her five-decade career.

 She played nurse Margie Cutler on the first season of "M.A.S.H." before her breakout role in "Welcome Back, Kotter." The show was about a teacher returning to the tough high-school of his youth to teach a classroom full of misfits, including future movie star John Travolta.

 She also played Rick Moranis' wife in the Disney hit movie "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" and its sequel, "Honey I Blew Up the Kid."

 Born on April 28, 1948, in New York City, Strassman began acting as a teen, replacing Liza Minnelli in the off-Broadway musical "Best Foot Forward." She moved to Los Angeles at 18 and landed a steady stream of roles.

 She was a member of the Screen Actors Guild national board, and was an active fundraiser for breast cancer research and other social causes, her sister Julie said.

 Strassman is also survived by a daughter and a brother.

 Plans for funeral services are pending. ||||| 1 Ingrid Bergman

 Ingrid Bergman was a Swedish actress who starred in a variety of European and American films. She won three Academy Awards, two Emmy Awards, four Golden Globe Awards and the Tony Award for Best Actress. She is ranked as the fourth greatest female star of American cinema of all time by the American ...more

 More About

 Age: Died at 67 (1915-1982)

 Birthplace: Stockholm, Sweden

 Profession: Actor

 Credits: Casablanca, Spellbound, Notorious, Autumn Sonata

 Also Ranked

 #9 on The Best Actresses in Film History

 #21 on The Greatest Actors & Actresses in Entertainment History

 #44 on Which Actor Would You Bring Back for One Final Movie?

 #42 on The Greatest Actress Performances of All Time ||||| Actress Marcia Strassman, known for her roles in such hits as “Welcome Back, Kotter” and “MASH,” died Friday after a long fight with breast cancer, her sister Julie Strassman confirmed. She was 66.

 Along with her many TV credits, Strassman co-starred opposite Rick Moranis in the 1989 Disney live-action hit “Honey I Shrunk the Kids” and 1992 sequel “Honey I Blew Up the Kid.” She was also a longstanding member of the national board of the Screen Actors Guild.

 The news of her death broke online when her friend, director Bob Weide, sent a tweet about her passing. Strassman died at her home in Sherman Oaks.

 So sad that a sweet friend, kind person & wonderful actress Marcia Strassman lost her brave battle with cancer today. pic.twitter.com/4gQ4MEvEal — Bob Weide (@BobWeide) October 26, 2014

 Strassman’s first major TV role came in 1964, when she appeared in “The Patty Duke Show.” She would go on to play Nurse Margie Culter in several episodes of “MASH.”

 She’s best known, however, as Julie Kotter, wife to the titular school teacher on “Welcome Back, Kotter.” The series ran on ABC from 1975-1979 and featured a young John Travolta in the cast.

 Most recently, Strassman had a stint on “Third Watch” in 2004, appeared in the 2003 TV adaptation of the “Tremors” films and NBC’s “Providence.” Also included in her TV credits are “Booker” and “Noah Knows Best,” and she did voice work for animated series including “Aaaahh!!! Real Monsters.”

 Along with her the “Honey I Shrunk the Kids” films, she was also in 1985 film “The Aviator” with Christopher Reeve and Rosanna Arquette.

 Related Marcia Strassman: 12 Things You Didn’t Know About Her Career

 Julie Strassman said her sister performed in an annual event to benefit breast cancer research called Duets for years, and was active in raising money and awareness for the disease, even before she was diagnosed.

 Ron “Horshack” Palillo and Robert “Epstein” Hegyes of the original “Welcome Back, Kotter” cast died in 2012. John Sylvester White, who played Mr. Woodman on the show, died in 1988.

 Strassman is survived by her daughter, costume designer Elizabeth “Lizzie” Collector, along with her sister Julie and brother Steven Strassman. Julie Strassman added that she was a beloved aunt to her son, Jesse, and daughter, Halley.

 Funeral services are pending. Julie Strassman requests that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to cancer organizations such as the Susan B. Komen Foundation and the American Cancer Society, in Marcia Strassman’s name. |||||