Allen v Farrow

Arghus

The stuff with Soon Yi is weird whatever way you cut it,

But there's so much stated from each side of the story that I honestly, deep down, don't know who to believe.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that he actually molested a child and he was cleared twice - I find it a bit disturbing that his career has been effectively finished without an actual judgment being proved against him. That the stench of him being a child molester is always going to hang around him, even though he's never been convicted of anything and there's numerous questions about the motivations and credibility of many of the people making the claims. I don't know. It's all very murky.

Yurt2

Arghus wrote: »

The stuff with Soon Yi is weird whatever way you cut it,

But there's so much stated from each side of the story that I honestly, deep down, don't know who to believe.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that he actually molested a child and he was cleared twice - I find it a bit disturbing that his career has been effectively finished without an actual judgment being proved against him. That the stench of him being a child molester is always going to hang around him, even though he's never been convicted of anything and there's numerous questions about the motivations and credibility of many of the people making the claims. I don't know. It's all very murky.

This is it. It's an ugly story all-around. Either he's a child molester that got off the hook, or he's being hounded by a nutty sociopathic ex that is weaponizing her kids to get back at him with a life and career-crushing false allegation.

Even the middle points between these two possible truths is ugly.

Hamlet.

Redo91 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the absolute state of this post (and the subsequent ones). The only reasonable explanation is that you didn’t watch the documentary I’d be worried if you did and still had this view. You’re ignoring details in the documentary.

Firstly, they clearly stated in the doc that Allen, Soon-Yi and Moses all declined invitations to be a part of the documentary? How can you criticise the makers for not including them when they clearly tried to. What were they supposed to do? Not make it? Also re Moses do you not remember when Ronan said he was offered incentives like his college fees being covered by Allen to come out in support of him? This is clearly what happened to Moses. They showed a letter he had written in his late-20’s to Mia where he said how much he loved her, etc. What changed? Also ALL of the other children have since said his claims of abuse by Mia are BS.

Re the investigations, the New York one seemed like a cover up. The case worker that was dealing with the investigation and had raised concerns was subsequently fired without any reason. In Connecticut it was shown they had probable cause. So it’s not true to say that they “concluded that Dylan was not abused by Allen”. You make it sound as if it’s a matter of fact. Do you not understand what probable cause means? They decide not to prosecute to protect Dylan due to her age. This was going to be a celebrity trial. Think OJ, etc. Imagine subjecting a child to that? You also go on to reference the Yale report. They destroyed all their notes which was said to be unheard of. Also it was shown that one of the case workers actually believe Dylan which contradicted their findings but of course the notes were conveniently destroyed.

I’m not sure if it was you or another poster but I saw someone mention the train set that Moses said wasn’t there. The documentary referred to police notes which noted the presence of a train set when they inspected their room as part of their investigation.

I see plenty of rubbish posted on here and don’t usually bother replying but this was so bad I couldn’t help myself. You’re making points that the documentary refuted with FACTS (claims from Moses, train set, etc) and are just ignoring the fact the documentary refuted them. It’s bizarre.

Oh dear. I'll keep this simple as it's probably in both of our interests to do so.

They declined to be involved because they knew their stories wouldn't be given fair treatment. How can you expect a fair shake when you have the likes of Ronan Farrow, who did everything in his corrupt little body to kill Woody Allen's book being published pulling the strings?

Oh, and the same Ronan Farrow that ordered ⁦New York Magazine to kill a Soon Yi profile by ⁦Daphne Merkin. And you believe Moses is the bad guy here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?

Two state investigations proved Woody was innocent. Dylan could even still try and take him to civil court but nope, no sign of that because the NY/Yale investigation proves everything.

You use words like 'seems like' a lot. Try the facts.

Because you want him to be guilty doesn't make it so.

Hamlet.

Hamlet. wrote: »

Oh dear. I'll keep this simple as it's probably in both of our interests to do so.

They declined to be involved because they knew their stories wouldn't be given fair treatment. How can you expect a fair shake when you have the likes of Ronan Farrow, who did everything in his corrupt little body to kill Woody Allen's book being published pulling the strings?

Oh, and the same Ronan Farrow that ordered ⁦New York Magazine to kill a Soon Yi profile by ⁦Daphne Merkin. And you believe Moses is the bad guy here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?

Two state investigations proved Woody was innocent. Dylan could even still try and take him to civil court but nope, no sign of that because the NY/Yale investigation proves everything.

You use words like 'seems like' a lot. Try the facts.

Because you want him to be guilty doesn't make it so.

No state investigation proved him innocent. That is false.

And there is no need for someone to bring anyone to.civil court in order to satisfy the noseyness of the general public.

retro:electro

Hamlet. wrote: »

If Dylan truly believes she was molested she could also still take Woody Allen to a civil court and take him for everything he has. Wonder why she hasn't done that?

No doubt if she did she would then be accused by you of only being interested in his money.

Hamlet.

retro:electro wrote: »

No doubt if she did she would then be accused by you of only being interested in his money.

Not at all.

Hamlet.

bubblypop wrote: »

No state investigation proved him innocent. That is false.

And there is no need for someone to bring anyone to.civil court in order to satisfy the noseyness of the general public.

It's not false.

And no, not when a one sided tabloid documentary filled with falsehoods will satisfy the appetite of the mob lol. What a victory!

Hamlet.

Hamlet. wrote: »

It's not false.

And no, not when a one sided tabloid documentary filled with falsehoods will satisfy the appetite of the mob lol. What a victory!

Can you show is where the investigation 'proved him innocent '?

Hamlet.

You can find that for yourself, all unfounded claims as you know.

I mean, Farrow's own hired expert said the evidence wasn't convincing and that Mia had coached Dylan.

While Farrow's own hired attorney didn't find any evidence credible and doubted the evidence ever took place.

But sure, believe what you like.

retro:electro

It doesn’t have to be a big conspiracy. The child he sought therapy for having an intense and inappropriate interest in tells her mother as a child that Woody abused her. She has never once faltered from this position. Some would rather believe that Woody is a victim of conspiracy here and Mia is getting her own back after discovering her was having an affair with the 21 year old daughter she raised since a child. So livid she was that she set out to destroy Woody, so she went back in time to make him go to therapy and confess his inappropriate interest in Dylan and then conjured up the abuse story to ruin his reputation, which, ironically, he had already managed to ruin himself by having an affair with Soon-Yi.
That’s a whole lot of mental gymnastics.

Hamlet.

Hamlet. wrote: »

You can find that for yourself, all unfounded claims as you know.

I mean, Farrow's own hired expert said the evidence wasn't convincing and that Mia had coached Dylan.

While Farrow's own hired attorney didn't find any evidence credible and doubted the evidence ever took place.

But sure, believe what you like.

No investigation proved him innocent, that is either a lie or you don't know what you're talking about.

dark crystal

Hamlet. wrote: »

They declined to be involved because they knew their stories wouldn't be given fair treatment. How can you expect a fair shake when you have the likes of Ronan Farrow, who did everything in his corrupt little body to kill Woody Allen's book being published pulling the strings?

Oh, and the same Ronan Farrow that ordered ⁦New York Magazine to kill a Soon Yi profile by ⁦Daphne Merkin.

Corrupt little body? Weird. He's an incredibly intelligent pulitzer prize winning journalist who had the guts to expose Weinstein, despite numerous threats to drop the story. What proof do you have that he's corrupt, or indeed has the kind of power to demand anyone 'kill' a story?

If Moses, Woody or Soon-Yi declined to give their side of the story, that's on them. They were given the same opportunity to put their side across and decided to opt out. Their choice.

And you believe Moses is the bad guy here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?

And you think Mia and Dylan are the bad guys here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?

Two state investigations proved Woody was innocent. Dylan could even still try and take him to civil court but nope, no sign of that because the NY/Yale investigation proves everything.

You use words like 'seems like' a lot. Try the facts.

There was no court case, no one was 'proved' innocent.

Because you want him to be guilty doesn't make it so.

What makes you think anyone 'wants' someone to be guilty of such a heinous crime? You yourself seem to have no qualms in apportioning guilt to Mia and her daughter - do you 'want' them to be guilty?

The whole thing with his adopted daughter crowned him as Lord Mayor of Creep City so anything is possible in regards to that gentleman.

Hamlet.

dark crystal wrote: »

Corrupt little body? Weird. He's an incredibly intelligent pulitzer prize winning journalist who had the guts to expose Weinstein, despite numerous threats to drop the story. What proof do you have that he's corrupt, or indeed has the kind of power to demand anyone 'kill' a story?

If Moses, Woody or Soon-Yi declined to give their side of the story, that's on them. They were given the same opportunity to put their side across and decided to opt out. Their choice.



And you think Mia and Dylan are the bad guys here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?



There was no court case, no one was 'proved' innocent.



What makes you think anyone 'wants' someone to be guilty of such a heinous crime? You yourself seem to have no qualms in apportioning guilt to Mia and her daughter - do you 'want' them to be guilty?

Two state investigations threw the case out. I don't need to watch a documentary to find that out.

As for your views on Ronan, yikes. Are you going to deny that he's abused his power to squash stories he doesn't want published? Because that's public record.

dark crystal

Hamlet. wrote: »

Two state investigations threw the case out. I don't need to watch a documentary to find that out.

As for your views on Ronan, yikes. Are you going to deny that he's abused his power to squash stories he doesn't want published? Because that's public record.

Which story are you referring to? Here's an in depth piece in Vulture with Soon-Yi from 2018

https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

I guess he wasn't powerful enough to censor that particular publication...

Hamlet.

Genuine questions for those defending the documentary.

Farrow's own hired expert said the evidence wasn't convincing and that Mia had coached Dylan.

While Farrow's own hired attorney didn't find any evidence credible and doubted the evidence ever took place.

Don't you think these would be important issues to raise if the documentary was going to give it a shot at being credible?

Hamlet.

dark crystal wrote: »

Which story are you referring to? Here's an in depth piece in Vulture with Soon-Yi from 2018

https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

I guess he wasn't powerful enough to censor that particular publication...

Clearly wasn't at the time despite giving it every chance he had. But he was powerful enough to force a major publisher to drop WA's book.

dark crystal

Hamlet. wrote: »

Clearly wasn't at the time despite giving it every chance he had. But he was powerful enough to force a major publisher to drop WA's book.

Force, lol. He objected to it's publication for sure, he didn't have any power to stop them from publishing anything.

As far as I remember, the publisher's staff also staged a walkout - I guess he forced them to do that too?

Joe_ Public

retro:electro wrote: »

It doesn’t have to be a big conspiracy. The child he sought therapy for having an intense and inappropriate interest in tells her mother as a child that Woody abused her. She has never once faltered from this position. Some would rather believe that Woody is a victim of conspiracy here and Mia is getting her own back after discovering her was having an affair with the 21 year old daughter she raised since a child. So livid she was that she set out to destroy Woody, so she went back in time to make him go to therapy and confess his inappropriate interest in Dylan and then conjured up the abuse story to ruin his reputation, which, ironically, he had already managed to ruin himself by having an affair with Soon-Yi.
That’s a whole lot of mental gymnastics.

"The child he sought therapy for having an inappropriate interest in..."

"confess his inappropriate interest in..."

Are these well established facts? What does "inappropriate interest" mean in this instance? Just curious about these details.

BorneTobyWilde

Hamlet. wrote: »

Two state investigations threw the case out. I don't need to watch a documentary to find that out.

As for your views on Ronan, yikes. Are you going to deny that he's abused his power to squash stories he doesn't want published? Because that's public record.

You didn't watch the documentary yet? Ah well you need to watch it, I believe Dylan, even to this day she can't even hear his voice or see his picture without breaking down. That's some act to keep up for all these years.
After the Metoo movement, she said she felt forgotten, that Metoo didn't include her. It's why she wrote that open letter
https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/


If it was all a lie why did she bring it back up, she never had justice that's why. She wanted to be heard, to find some closure, so speaking up and telling her story was her way to finding peace. It's why the documentary was made.

retro:electro

Hamlet. wrote: »

Genuine questions for those defending the documentary.

Farrow's own hired expert said the evidence wasn't convincing and that Mia had coached Dylan.

While Farrow's own hired attorney didn't find any evidence credible and doubted the evidence ever took place.

Don't you think these would be important issues to raise if the documentary was going to give it a shot at being credible?

Which the judge dismissed

Hamlet.

retro:electro wrote: »

Which the judge dismissed

Same judge who threw out Farrow's case as there was no evidence?

How about the fact that Mia's own trusted nanny testified against Mia stating that she pressurised her and others to go along with the accusation?

Hamlet.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You didn't watch the documentary yet? Ah well you need to watch it, I believe Dylan, even to this day she can't even hear his voice or see his picture without breaking down. That's some act to keep up for all these years.
After the Metoo movement, she said she felt forgotten, that Metoo didn't include her. It's why she wrote that open letter
https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/


If it was all a lie why did she bring it back up, she never had justice that's why. She wanted to be heard, to find some closure, so speaking up and telling her story was her way to finding peace. It's why the documentary was made.

I'll wait for a balanced documentary from credible makers. I've read how slanted and biased it is and how so much relevant information has been deliberately omitted.

I don't think Dylan is lying by the way. I think she fully believes that she was molested, which makes this all such a tragic story befitting a proper documentary filled with true and important information rather than salacious one-sided views.

Or she could take WA to a civil court, which is really the Farrows' last throw of the dice since every effort to have him cancelled with their rhetoric has failed.

R3_Regera

Hamlet. wrote: »

Two state investigations threw the case out. I don't need to watch a documentary to find that out.

As for your views on Ronan, yikes. Are you going to deny that he's abused his power to squash stories he doesn't want published? Because that's public record.

If you haven't seen it, why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

I am only on episode 2 and already Woody's own comments from his "Apropos of Nothing" audio book are pretty weird at the very least!

Hamlet.

R3_Regera wrote: »

If you haven't seen it, why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

I am only on episode 2 and already Woody's own comments from his "Apropos of Nothing" audio book are pretty weird at the very least!

Sorry, should have clarified that I watched one episode and found the disinformation, misinformation and reckless one-sided narrative uncomfrtable.

HBO have history though, the Tiger Woods documentary recently was another very strange one. Gave that the time of day and regretted it afterwards. Rehashed nonsense filled with salacious gossip.

If you want to balance what you watch then read these two pieces after, I think you'll find them very enlightening:

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-ii/

R3_Regera

Hamlet. wrote: »

Sorry, should have clarified that I watched one episode and found the disinformation, misinformation and reckless one-sided narrative uncomfrtable.

HBO have history though, the Tiger Woods documentary recently was another very strange one. Gave that the time of day and regretted it afterwards. Rehashed nonsense filled with salacious gossip.

Well then, watch episode 2 where Woody's own words are creepy at best, damning at worst

Hamlet.

R3_Regera wrote: »

Well then, watch episode 2 where Woody's own words are creepy at best, damning at worst

You need to know that the makers are a discredited bunch and have already been found out to have used a clip out of context to suit their end. Even worse is that the clip is from a victim who is now suing them.

https://twitter.com/sjgeimer/status/1371541951267237890

Mental Mia and her cronies have no morals whatsoever.

fryup

here's an interview Woody Allen did at the time of the case make of it what you will...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPs5TAO8Hj4

BorneTobyWilde

fryup wrote: »

here's an interview Woody Allen did at the time of the case make of it what you will...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPs5TAO8Hj4

woody ''I'm not a child molester, but I did take hardcore explicit photos of Soon-Yi and then groom her and sleep with her''




Aww ok Woody, that clears that up.

BorneTobyWilde

Hamlet. wrote: »

You need to know that the makers are a discredited bunch and have already been found out to have used a clip out of context to suit their end. Even worse is that the clip is from a victim who is now suing them.

https://twitter.com/sjgeimer/status/1371541951267237890

Mental Mia and her cronies have no morals whatsoever.

You're unusually rattled to the point I question why. Documentary has new information, and video, never seen before. Should watch it in full, then remark.

fryup

The pendulum in my head is swinging on this....at the moment having read up about it online and watched various video's of Dylan & Mia....it's beginning to swing towards the Woody Allen is innocent side.

Redo91

Hamlet. wrote: »

Oh dear. I'll keep this simple as it's probably in both of our interests to do so.

They declined to be involved because they knew their stories wouldn't be given fair treatment. How can you expect a fair shake when you have the likes of Ronan Farrow, who did everything in his corrupt little body to kill Woody Allen's book being published pulling the strings?

Oh, and the same Ronan Farrow that ordered ⁦New York Magazine to kill a Soon Yi profile by ⁦Daphne Merkin. And you believe Moses is the bad guy here because 'yOu SaW iT iN a DoCuMenTarY'?

Two state investigations proved Woody was innocent. Dylan could even still try and take him to civil court but nope, no sign of that because the NY/Yale investigation proves everything.

You use words like 'seems like' a lot. Try the facts.

Because you want him to be guilty doesn't make it so.

Jesus you’re sat at home with a tin foil hat on aren’t you? Ronan Farrow didn’t produce the documentary. He wasn’t pulling the strings. They declined to take part in the documentary and there are always inferences against them that can be drawn from that.

Yes I saw it in a documentary. They said all siblings have since refuted his claims. I don’t think they’d be cheeky enough to make that up and unless you can show me proof of any siblings claiming otherwise then I’m going to take that as the truth. There’s also FACTS like his letter. Do you think the producers forged that? That contradicts his claims. Also re the train set the sketch from the investigation refutes that. These are facts that throw into question his integrity.

I don’t want to be condescending here but clearly I need to simplify this as much as possible to help you grasp it. Nobody found him innocent as you keep claiming. They were confident in Connecticut that they had enough evidence that they could successfully prosecute him. To do so they would need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high bar that they were confident of reaching so they obviously had plenty of evidence. People are entitled to their opinion but it’s patently wrong to say he was PROVED INNOCENT. That never happened.

I love how you cite the Yale report and NY investigation when both were shown to be at best flawed.

You’ve ignored most points in my previous post because you can’t disprove them. It’s the height of irony that you are telling me to stick to the facts when your posts belong in an alternative universe. You’re talking about things that haven’t even happened like Allen being cleared or Ronan Farrow somehow “pulling the strings”.

I see you have actually not even watched the documentary. You have no business posting in this thread when it’s about a documentary you haven’t watched. You can’t have a legitimate opinion on it until you do.

I’m beginning to think your just a WUM
at this stage. There’s an alternative possibility but I won’t mention that because I’d get a ban of some sorts for insulting another poster but I think you know what it is (well actually maybe you don’t!). There’s no point engaging with you any more because I might as well be talking to a wall and as you haven’t even seen the documentary it’s pointless talking to you about it. I’ll leave this “debate” at this post and move on.

Neither of the main adult (at the time) players have enough credibility imo to set much store in the word of either.

Woody's actions speak for themselves, at best a deeply strange and worrisome relationship that must have been devastating to the family.

Hes been by all evidence in a happy relationship with soon-yi since

I think any further analysis of what comes out has to take into account what influence mia has had over the source, and thats a hard barrier to overcome imo. Family breakups arent always pretty and a parent that seeks to manipulate the children in the ensuing chaos, particularly in public and where its seems clear a lot of it was a bit of a smear campaign, loses a lot of credit/sympathy.

Seeing as these are people several thousand miles away I'll never meet i dont feel under any particular onus to come to a further conclusion nor to watch or read anything more about it beyond whats been known a while.

Hamlet.

Redo91 wrote: »

Jesus you’re sat at home with a tin foil hat on aren’t you? Ronan Farrow didn’t produce the documentary. He wasn’t pulling the strings. They declined to take part in the documentary and there are always inferences against them that can be drawn from that.

Yes I saw it in a documentary. They said all siblings have since refuted his claims. I don’t think they’d be cheeky enough to make that up and unless you can show me proof of any siblings claiming otherwise then I’m going to take that as the truth. There’s also FACTS like his letter. Do you think the producers forged that? That contradicts his claims. Also re the train set the sketch from the investigation refutes that. These are facts that throw into question his integrity.

I don’t want to be condescending here but clearly I need to simplify this as much as possible to help you grasp it. Nobody found him innocent as you keep claiming. They were confident in Connecticut that they had enough evidence that they could successfully prosecute him. To do so they would need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high bar that they were confident of reaching so they obviously had plenty of evidence. People are entitled to their opinion but it’s patently wrong to say he was PROVED INNOCENT. That never happened.

I love how you cite the Yale report and NY investigation when both were shown to be at best flawed.

You’ve ignored most points in my previous post because you can’t disprove them. It’s the height of irony that you are telling me to stick to the facts when your posts belong in an alternative universe. You’re talking about things that haven’t even happened like Allen being cleared or Ronan Farrow somehow “pulling the strings”.

I see you have actually not even watched the documentary. You have no business posting in this thread when it’s about a documentary you haven’t watched. You can’t have a legitimate opinion on it until you do.

I’m beginning to think your just a WUM
at this stage. There’s an alternative possibility but I won’t mention that because I’d get a ban of some sorts for insulting another poster but I think you know what it is (well actually maybe you don’t!). There’s no point engaging with you any more because I might as well be talking to a wall and as you haven’t even seen the documentary it’s pointless talking to you about it. I’ll leave this “debate” at this post and move on.

All your 'views' are extensions of the discredited documentary which is priceless.

Read up on the case. Do some thinking for yourself. Stop being lazy.

moonage

retro:electro wrote: »

He was receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation of Dylan.

No, he wasn't receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation on Dylan.

This is addressed at 14:50 in the excellent 2.5 hour documentary "By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent". This detailed documentary clears up a lot of assumptions, inaccuarices and misinformation about the whole saga.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

blue note

moonage wrote: »

No, he wasn't receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation on Dylan.

This is addressed at 14:50 in the excellent 2.5 hour documentary "By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent". This detailed documentary clears up a lot of assumptions, inaccuarices and misinformation about the whole saga.

Sounds like a far less biased doc!

Hamlet.

blue note wrote: »

Sounds like a far less biased doc!

Watch it. You might learn something.

Hamlet.

moonage wrote: »

No, he wasn't receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation on Dylan.

This is addressed at 14:50 in the excellent 2.5 hour documentary "By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent". This detailed documentary clears up a lot of assumptions, inaccuarices and misinformation about the whole saga.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

This is top notch.

Guy:Incognito

Hamlet. wrote: »

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

Its all one sided, but your answer to this is to be even more one sided with the polar opposite view.

Youre quite clearly dismissing any notion that Allen could ever have done anything wrong.

At best he's a creepy weirdo that puts his creepy weirdness on view in the characters he plays in his films.

Hamlet.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its all one sided, but your answer to this is to be even more one sided with the polar opposite view.

Youre quite clearly dismissing any notion that Allen could ever have done anything wrong.

At best he's a creepy weirdo that puts his creepy weirdness on view in the characters he plays in his films.

I respect the verdict of two separate state investigations.

Second point suggests you have no clue on art to be honest. His movies are masterpieces, hence why he is considered a God in Paris.

Do you think Nabokov is a disgrace because he wrote Lolita?

BorneTobyWilde

No one really knows when he started on Soon Yi, she was a kid when they met. Still together, so I feel she has a power grip somehow. She knows when it really started with her, that's power.
Woody excuse that he never was attracted to her as a kid, but clocks strikes midnight and she turns 18 and he woke up with the raging horn for her. How convenient

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaA1HrGNnwg

Hamlet.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

No one really knows when he started on Soon Yi, she was a kid when they met. Still together, so I feel she has a power grip somehow. She knows when it really started with her, that's power.
Woody excuse that he never was attracted to her as a kid, but clocks strikes midnight and she turns 18 and he woke up with the raging horn for her. How convenient

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaA1HrGNnwg

You should contact Mental Mia. You have no credentials and no evidence or sense, she'll love it!

BorneTobyWilde

Hamlet. wrote: »

I respect the verdict of two separate state investigations.

Second point suggests you have no clue on art to be honest. His movies are masterpieces, hence why he is considered a God in Paris.

Do you think Nabokov is a disgrace because he wrote Lolita?

The only verdict was Mia getting sole custody , with the judge describing Woody Allen as a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive" father, rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their mother, Mia Farrow. The judge denounced Mr. Allen for ''carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow's daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children's lives, and portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable father with inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, and said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

retro:electro

Hamlet. wrote: »

I respect the verdict of two separate state investigations.

Second point suggests you have no clue on art to be honest. His movies are masterpieces, hence why he is considered a God in Paris.

Do you think Nabokov is a disgrace because he wrote Lolita?

There was no verdict. There was no trial. There was no court case. You really could do with familiarising yourself on judicial terms instead of throwing them out willy nilly thinking you sound smart.

retro:electro

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The only verdict was Mia getting sole custody , with the judge describing Woody Allen as a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive" father, rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their mother, Mia Farrow. The judge denounced Mr. Allen for ''carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow's daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children's lives, and portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable father with inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, and said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

The judge who issued sole custody to Mia also said that he was not convinced “that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse”.

Hamlet.

retro:electro wrote: »

The judge who issued sole custody to Mia also said that he was not convinced “that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse”.

Lmfao, after 20+ years this is what you're left with.


Go grab a beer and watch Midnight in Paris again.

Case was thrown out, sunshine. Face the facts. Oh and here's another fact, mental Mia's brother is a massive pedo.

retro:electro

Hamlet. wrote: »

Lmfao, after 20+ years this is what you're left with.


Go grab a beer and watch Midnight in Paris again.

Case was thrown out, sunshine. Face the facts. Oh and here's another fact, mental Mia's brother is a massive pedo.

Her brother is disgusting. You won’t find me defending him. I don’t see what that has to do with Woody though. Is there only one pedo allowed in the village?

Hamlet.

retro:electro wrote: »

Her brother is disgusting. You won’t find me defending him. I don’t see what that has to do with Woody though. Is there only one pedo allowed in the village?

The abuse is in her bloodline not his. And she has a history of verbal abuse with her children captured on screen.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Yurt! wrote: »

Haven't seen this. All sorts of allegations flying around in the Farrow / Allen saga. At the very least, Allen's relationship with the adopted daughter crossed serious boundaries - and calling it weird would be kind.

With that being said, it's worth reading is Moses Farrow's blog who takes a very different view, and he accuses Mia of being physically and emotionally abusive towards some of the kids. Two of them died of suicide (according to Moses) and one of them from Aids.

A toxic family unit whichever way you cut it.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

My feelings. Both Allen and Farrow seem like toxic people. Haven’t watched the docu mentioned here. I’m piecing my opinion together from other things.

JP Liz V1

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My feelings. Both Allen and Farrow seem like toxic people. Haven’t watched the docu mentioned here. I’m piecing my opinion together from other things.

Yes I agree both bad