Why do people keep saying "Mia defended Polanski"?

[Jefferson23]

20. Seems there is limited information and then there are agendas...but the information we

know that is documented has been ignored by Allen's defenders. The judge in the case
gave his reasons why he would not accept the Yale's teams conclusions. Imho, his
wisdom speaks volumes, which was based on the following, you decide.

snip* Wilk criticized Yale–New Haven’s findings, stating that the hospital’s team declined to testify at trial except via deposition by team leader John Leventhal and destroyed its notes on the case; a 1997 Connecticut Magazine piece pointed out that Leventhal had never interviewed Dylan.* In her first piece for Vanity Fair about the Allen case, published in 1992, Orth had at least 25 on-the-record interviews—with sources both named and unnamed—attesting that Allen was “completely obsessed” with Dylan: “He could not seem to keep his hands off her,” Orth wrote.

In his June 1993 ruling, Wilk also denied Allen any visitation rights with Dylan or his older adopted child with Farrow, 15-year-old Moses. In May 1994, in a hearing considering custody or increased visitation for Allen, the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court cited a “clear consensus” among psychiatric experts involved in the case that Allen’s “interest in Dylan was abnormally intense.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2014/01/did_woody_allen_molest_his_adopted_daughter_22_years_ago_reviewing_the_evidence.html

* It is not typical nor professional to destroy notes in such a manner.