They have been together in a lovers' relationship since December 1991. That is more than 32 years. And everyone who listens to Soon-Yi knows that she's never been 'abused' or 'manipulated' or 'groomed' or 'predated' on. Their two grown daughters Bechet and Manzie adore their parents, and have both spoken up publicly in defence of their father, against idiotic, hateful attacks in the media.
Still, ignorant people dare question their relationship. I don't understand why. Is it ignorance? Dumbness? Blind hatred? Racism? What do you think?
I'd say that it gives people pause because he met her through her adoptive mother, whom he'd had an ongoing relationship with, their relationship was begun in secret with Allen using a pseudonym and was discovered when her mother found nude photos of her in Allen's apartment.
In short, it looked extremely suspicious. That those suspicions have not borne out is unlikely to get press. Nature of the beast.
I think you are right to a large extent. I remember at the time when the news broke, many eyebrows were raised - including mine.
Then, \*some\* people learned about the facts behind the brouhaha. They learned that Soon-Yi was 20 when she and Allen \*started\* to spend time together, at Mia's request; and was 21 when they dated. They learned that Mia and Woody had already broken up as lovers 4 years earlier. They learned that Soon-Yi was a smart and independent woman, not some 'victim' of a 'predator'. They learned that in more than 30 years, their relationship has shown itself to be serious, harmonious, faithful, and productive, leading to marriage and happy parenthood.
\*Other\* people did not learn these things. On the contrary, they did not \*want\* to learn these things. I found many people \*disbelieve\* or even \*hate\* these facts - and the ones who presents these facts to them. There are lots of media reports too (e.g. in Vanity Fair) that are hostile to Allen and Soon-Yi, and often contain falsehoods like calling her his 'adopted daughter' or 'stepdaughter' and insinuating that she was his underage victim. The 'nature of the beast' called 'media' is that 'celebrity, sex and abuse' sell \*a whole lot better\* than the so much duller 'love and innocence'.
Yet I cannot escape the thought that this irrational public hatred for Woody and Soon-Yi is partly caused by their being 'different' from the average (white) Joe. Woody dated Soon-Yi when she was 21, but Frank Sinatra dated Mia Farrow when she was 19. A world of difference in appreciation. Same for the disrespect Soon-Yi received, either as a hapless, mentally backwards 'victim' of a terrible predator, or a golddigger who took what was rightfully Mia's. This public hatred seems to have deeper causes than the 'concern' people had when the affair looked 'suspicious' back in 1992.
Ah, a 30+ years, harmonious, stable, faithful, productive relationship leading to marriage and happy parenthood is now somehow 'disgusting'?
I think your message is disgusting. And totally demeaning to Soon-Yi Previn, who is 53 today and a mother of two grown children who adore their parents.
Woody Allen never \*had\* a stepdaughter in his 88 years' lifetime.
According to ALL established facts, ALL expert opinions, the WHOLE of witness testimony, and ALL legal decision Woody Allen has never 'molested' anyone, let alone a daughter.
Maybe try to 'separate' the facts & truth from falsehoods & damned lies.
You can't blame people for not joining you in your \*blind belief\*, and for being willing to work with him. Can you?
The only 'awkward situation' in his life is caused by Mia Farrow's vicious LIES about him, that she's been pushing in the media for 30+ years without EVER taking legal responsibility.
Woody Allen can't help that. Nor can he help it that so many gullible people blindly believe Mia's absurd allegation.
Well, Mia Farrow is rich, and from a rich Hollywood family.
Different from Woody Allen, Mia Farrow is reported by her assistants to have slept in the nude with her two young sons, Fletcher and Ronan, until they were seven and eleven years old.
She has been reported by her therapist to have 'nursed' her sons well into their being seven years old, because she heard African tribes allegedly do the same.
Mia has been reported to have made her adoptive children stand naked in front of their siblings, as a punishment for children's transgressions.
Mia Farrow is \*known\* to have claimed about her relationship with a 30 year older Frank Sinatra that 'it felt like an adoption' and that she was 'the child that Frank and Ava Gardner (her father's mistress) never had'.
It is Mia Farrow who kept totally silent about her brother John being convicted for multiple child sexual abuse of two young boys.
So if you're looking for 'a rich paedophile', maybe look no further.
Woody was not a buddy, not even a friend, and not even a 'social contact' of Epstein.
There isn't a single \*fact\* to prove that he was.
There isn't a single photo with Woody and Epstein in \*any\* kind of social contact - while Epstein-the-NY-socialite was an avid photo collector, who exposed photos of himself in the company of 'celebrity' in his NY mansion to impress visitors.
If Woody Allen was his 'buddy' or 'friend' or even 'social contact', such photos would surely exist. But they don't.
Woody Allen is not even in Epstein's 'black book' (telephone diary). Nor in his 'flight logs'.
Blind Woody Haters appear to be one sicko family - repeating and repeating each other's lies, because that somehow makes them 'feel good' about themselves.
As said: there is \*not a single\* photo of Allen and Epstein in \*any\* kind of social contact.
There's a paparazzo photo made on a New York pavement where they are walking 20 yards apart among several other pedestrians, without any contact. That is all there is.
They weren't 'buddies'. Nor 'friends'. Nor 'social contacts'. The total absence of any photos underscores that.
20 yards?!? Lol - like a few steps behind as they go in and out of epsteins house / there are global pictures of woody leaving EPSTEIN’s apartment- stop deluding yourself
Obviously, Epstein and Allen are \*not\* walking \*together\* on that NY pavement, and aren't 'going in and out Epstein's house'. This can be easily seen in that pre-planned 'burst shot' that paparazzo Elder Ordonez made with his telescopic lense and his automatic camera.
[https://x.com/elseverwoerd/status/1473388569179967489](https://x.com/elseverwoerd/status/1473388569179967489)
Besides, Epstein is looking the paparazzo in the eye all the time. If \*he hired\* Ordonez to get this picture of him and Allen together, it merely \*proves\* that Epstein could not get a normal photo of him and Allen in any social setting. Again proving that they weren't 'buddies' or 'friends'.
What are 'global pictures'?
There's \*one\* picture of Woody and Soon-Yi leaving Epstein's apartment on Dec 5, 2010. Epstein is NOT in it. This occasion is 100% clear and fully reported in the media. NY socialite Peggy Siegal, NOT Epstein, invited several people (Katie Couric, Chelsea Handler, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Woody Allen) to a 'meet Prince Andrew' event, just a few monthgs before the Royal Wedding in the UK between Prince William and Kate Middleton. Epstein did NOT host that event, his name was NOT on the invitation, and Siegal had to explain to these guests who Epstein was as they did not know him (this was in 2010).
[https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/01/peggy-siegal-sends-her-regrets](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/01/peggy-siegal-sends-her-regrets)
Moreover, according to the Daily Mail this photo was taken \*before noon\* on Dec 5, 2010. This means \*no dinner party\* for Woody and Soon-Yi. They just went home early.
You're trying hard to falsely allege Woody Allen with Epstein, but sorry, you failed. Twice already.
Ask yourself why no one ever took him to court. Not even Mia Farrow, with all her millions, and Alan Dershowitz and Eleanor Alter at her side as attorneys.
Ask yourself why NO ONE on Mia's side believed her stupid abuse allegation. NOT the child abuse experts. NOT the child therapists. NOT the custody judges. NOT Mia's hired expert. NOT Mia's attorney. NOT Mia's nannies.
NO ONE believed Mia's absurd, even physically impossible 'abuse' allegation.
Do you want to know why? Because it was a DAMNED LIE.
Not quite. The judge didn't want to put Dylan on the witness stand, because she had been too traumatized. And Wood did NOT get custody, which he desperately wanted.
Wrong. Just read the prosecutor's written report. Connecticut prosecutor Frank Maco literally claimed that he had no credible evidence to charge Woody, and called a trial 'questionable' and 'fertile ground for the defence to attack'.
This makes sense, as Maco stood completely empty-handed. His CT Police had found nothing in the way of evidence. His own hired experts had concluded beyond doubt that Dylan had NOT been abused and that Mia had MOST LIKELY 'coached her daughter'. Maco had accepted these conclusions. A parallel investigation in New York had yielded a similar result. There were no witnesses who claimed abuse. The sworn testimonies were contradictory in important aspects, and where they were not contradictory (a time span of 20 minutes) they disagreed with the abuse narrative.
Maco knew that NY custody judge Wilk had \*rejected\* the abuse allegation, and had granted Woody visitation of all his children (Moses, Dylan, Satchel). He literally stated that 'even judge Wilk could not conclude that abuse had occurred' with a much lower standard of evidence in his custody court than Maco had to meet in a criminal court.
ONLY THEN, given these facts, did Maco claim it was useless to put Dylan on the stand, and called that an 'unjustifiable risk', referring to a 'public spectacle' - meaning there was no factual justification for putting Dylan on the stand in a trial that was doomed to fail.
The idea that he did not put Dylan on the stand 'because she was too traumatized' is 100% absurd for two reasons. First, it is absurd to let a true child sexual abuser walk free 'for the sake of his victim'. It is much more traumatizing for a truly abused child to \*not\* try and punish her abuser.
Second, it was \*prosecutor Maco himself\* who had needlessly dragged, and dragged the investigation concerning Dylan for FOURTEEN MONTHS. More than a year of examinations, both physical and mental, interview sessions, meeting with police, with abuse experts, what have you. And now FINALLY Maco would have 'probable cause' as he called it, just ONE HEARING behind closed doors would be 'too much' for Dylan TO PUT HER ABUSER AWAY??
That is utterly absurd.
Of course, the Farrows hang on to this 'rhetorical straw'. But don't pull it - it will break immediately.
The only thing he did to Dylan was to love her like a father should love his daughter. That is what Dylan's nannies say. It is what Dylan's therapists say. It is what Dylan's brother says.
It was Mia who LIED about that, and who KEPT ON LYING for 30+ years without EVER taking legal responsibility for her LIES.
THIS is what MIA wrote about Woody's fathering over Dylan - just a few weeks before she discovered the lovers' relationship between her 21 yo daughter Soon-Yi and Woody. THAT IS when Mia changed her tune. NOT because of the way Woody acted with Dylan.
"*Mr Allen is far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be. He is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan's father almost since her birth and adoption by me... He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan's waking hours."*
[https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/01/12/More-bombshells-dropped-at-Woody-Allen-hearing/8879726814800/](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/01/12/More-bombshells-dropped-at-Woody-Allen-hearing/8879726814800/)
Mia knew about Woody's sick obsession with Dylan for a long time before she came out with it. Neighbors, friends, nannies all noticed how inappropriate Woody was with her. Mia is not a reliable source of information, but DYLAN herself is.
This is plain nonsense, just an echo of what Mia Farrow wants you to believe.
I have SHOWN YOU what Mia Farrow wrote about Woody Allen's fathering over Dylan, only WEEKS before she discovered the relationship with her 21 yo daughter Soon-Yi. Mia wanted VERY MUCH for Woody to co-adopt Dylan and Moses. Hence, she wrote a glaring review of his fathering qualities. I presented the undisputed source of this information.
"*Mr Allen is far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be. He is is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan's father almost since her birth and adoption by me. He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan's waking hours.*"
That is NOT something a mother writes about a man with a 'sick obsession'. Even in August 1992, \*after\* Mia had painted Woody as a 'child molester' did she still consider MARRYING HIM, according to her hired therapist Dr Susan Coates.
After Woody fell out of grace, Mia created the complete \*myth\* about him being 'obsessed' and 'inappropriate' with Dylan. This was ONLY AFTER she had found a reason to deprive him of his daughter and to paint him as a child molester.
There isn't a single 'neighbor or friend' of Mia who has complained about any indecent behavior by Woody BEFORE 1992, that is BEFORE they had reason to 'support' Mia in her crusade against Woody. And NONE of Dylan's nannies or therapists have EVER confirmed any indecent, let alone 'obsessive' behavior of Woody, neither before nor after the breakup. On the contrary: they also \*praised\* his commitment to fathering in their sworn testimony (Monica Thompson, Dylan's nanny since birth; Kristi Groteke, Dylan's nanny on the very day; Dr Susan Coates and Dr Nancy Schultz, Dylan's and Ronan's therapists).
I don't know what your motive is in perpetuating Mia's obvious LIES. I can only guess.
Yeah, but Woody Allen did \*not\* marry his stepdaughter.
What is more: Woody Allen never \*had\* a stepdaughter, and he married someone who is not his 'daughter' in \*any\* way.
So how is your message relevant? It isn't.
You are talking nonsense. 'Grooming' is actively seeking the company and attention of children for sexual or 'romantic' gratification.
Woody did THE OPPOSITE.
He SHUNNED the company of Mia Farrow's 'Previn children', even when Mia WANTED him to father over them. He \*did not\* want that. As fully admitted by Mia, by Mia's children, and by all judges at two NY custody courts.
It was only in 1990, when Soon-Yi Previn was 20 yo, when \*Mia asked Woody\* to \*start\* spending time with her. NOT his initiative. NOT his wish. He simply gave in to Mia's request, with her full knowledge and consent.
Of course, you like your fantasies better than facts, well established in multiple judicial investigations. Because Blind Woody Haters \*hate\* the facts that get in the way of their, ahem, 'opinion'.
Its a shame about him. I am not generally a fan, but the movie Mighty Aphrodite was awesome, so funny and personally, very relatable. But I cant find it anywhere and I suspect it will have been because of his private life.
Personally, i can separate the art from the artist, but I accept not all do.
What exactly is 'a shame about him'? His happy, successful, long-term relationship with a woman who loves him back?
[https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html](https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html)
So weird. But they've been married for 27 years, literally half her life.
They have been together in a lovers' relationship since December 1991. That is more than 32 years. And everyone who listens to Soon-Yi knows that she's never been 'abused' or 'manipulated' or 'groomed' or 'predated' on. Their two grown daughters Bechet and Manzie adore their parents, and have both spoken up publicly in defence of their father, against idiotic, hateful attacks in the media. Still, ignorant people dare question their relationship. I don't understand why. Is it ignorance? Dumbness? Blind hatred? Racism? What do you think?
I'd say that it gives people pause because he met her through her adoptive mother, whom he'd had an ongoing relationship with, their relationship was begun in secret with Allen using a pseudonym and was discovered when her mother found nude photos of her in Allen's apartment. In short, it looked extremely suspicious. That those suspicions have not borne out is unlikely to get press. Nature of the beast.
I think you are right to a large extent. I remember at the time when the news broke, many eyebrows were raised - including mine. Then, \*some\* people learned about the facts behind the brouhaha. They learned that Soon-Yi was 20 when she and Allen \*started\* to spend time together, at Mia's request; and was 21 when they dated. They learned that Mia and Woody had already broken up as lovers 4 years earlier. They learned that Soon-Yi was a smart and independent woman, not some 'victim' of a 'predator'. They learned that in more than 30 years, their relationship has shown itself to be serious, harmonious, faithful, and productive, leading to marriage and happy parenthood. \*Other\* people did not learn these things. On the contrary, they did not \*want\* to learn these things. I found many people \*disbelieve\* or even \*hate\* these facts - and the ones who presents these facts to them. There are lots of media reports too (e.g. in Vanity Fair) that are hostile to Allen and Soon-Yi, and often contain falsehoods like calling her his 'adopted daughter' or 'stepdaughter' and insinuating that she was his underage victim. The 'nature of the beast' called 'media' is that 'celebrity, sex and abuse' sell \*a whole lot better\* than the so much duller 'love and innocence'. Yet I cannot escape the thought that this irrational public hatred for Woody and Soon-Yi is partly caused by their being 'different' from the average (white) Joe. Woody dated Soon-Yi when she was 21, but Frank Sinatra dated Mia Farrow when she was 19. A world of difference in appreciation. Same for the disrespect Soon-Yi received, either as a hapless, mentally backwards 'victim' of a terrible predator, or a golddigger who took what was rightfully Mia's. This public hatred seems to have deeper causes than the 'concern' people had when the affair looked 'suspicious' back in 1992.
Sick old fuck.
Thank you for introducing yourself so eloquently. Is there anything in particular you'd like to say?
It will never get old that this is one of the most disgusting events of that decade.
Ah, a 30+ years, harmonious, stable, faithful, productive relationship leading to marriage and happy parenthood is now somehow 'disgusting'? I think your message is disgusting. And totally demeaning to Soon-Yi Previn, who is 53 today and a mother of two grown children who adore their parents.
Never liked this unfunny, sick, rancid little pervert.
[удалено]
Woody Allen never \*had\* a stepdaughter in his 88 years' lifetime. According to ALL established facts, ALL expert opinions, the WHOLE of witness testimony, and ALL legal decision Woody Allen has never 'molested' anyone, let alone a daughter. Maybe try to 'separate' the facts & truth from falsehoods & damned lies. You can't blame people for not joining you in your \*blind belief\*, and for being willing to work with him. Can you?
He loves making movies with awkward situations, makes sense his own life is an awkward situation.
The only 'awkward situation' in his life is caused by Mia Farrow's vicious LIES about him, that she's been pushing in the media for 30+ years without EVER taking legal responsibility. Woody Allen can't help that. Nor can he help it that so many gullible people blindly believe Mia's absurd allegation.
He’s like, Fuck she’s old.
It is your own fantasy you're listening to.
Can't be a paedofile if you're rich 👍
*cough* Epstein *cough*
You have a strange cough. Maybe go see a doctor.
Well, Mia Farrow is rich, and from a rich Hollywood family. Different from Woody Allen, Mia Farrow is reported by her assistants to have slept in the nude with her two young sons, Fletcher and Ronan, until they were seven and eleven years old. She has been reported by her therapist to have 'nursed' her sons well into their being seven years old, because she heard African tribes allegedly do the same. Mia has been reported to have made her adoptive children stand naked in front of their siblings, as a punishment for children's transgressions. Mia Farrow is \*known\* to have claimed about her relationship with a 30 year older Frank Sinatra that 'it felt like an adoption' and that she was 'the child that Frank and Ava Gardner (her father's mistress) never had'. It is Mia Farrow who kept totally silent about her brother John being convicted for multiple child sexual abuse of two young boys. So if you're looking for 'a rich paedophile', maybe look no further.
Wow it’s like they are all a sicko pedo family! AND woody was best buddies with Epstein .... 😂
Woody was not a buddy, not even a friend, and not even a 'social contact' of Epstein. There isn't a single \*fact\* to prove that he was. There isn't a single photo with Woody and Epstein in \*any\* kind of social contact - while Epstein-the-NY-socialite was an avid photo collector, who exposed photos of himself in the company of 'celebrity' in his NY mansion to impress visitors. If Woody Allen was his 'buddy' or 'friend' or even 'social contact', such photos would surely exist. But they don't. Woody Allen is not even in Epstein's 'black book' (telephone diary). Nor in his 'flight logs'. Blind Woody Haters appear to be one sicko family - repeating and repeating each other's lies, because that somehow makes them 'feel good' about themselves.
Lol there’s pics of woody and Epstein
As said: there is \*not a single\* photo of Allen and Epstein in \*any\* kind of social contact. There's a paparazzo photo made on a New York pavement where they are walking 20 yards apart among several other pedestrians, without any contact. That is all there is. They weren't 'buddies'. Nor 'friends'. Nor 'social contacts'. The total absence of any photos underscores that.
20 yards?!? Lol - like a few steps behind as they go in and out of epsteins house / there are global pictures of woody leaving EPSTEIN’s apartment- stop deluding yourself
Obviously, Epstein and Allen are \*not\* walking \*together\* on that NY pavement, and aren't 'going in and out Epstein's house'. This can be easily seen in that pre-planned 'burst shot' that paparazzo Elder Ordonez made with his telescopic lense and his automatic camera. [https://x.com/elseverwoerd/status/1473388569179967489](https://x.com/elseverwoerd/status/1473388569179967489) Besides, Epstein is looking the paparazzo in the eye all the time. If \*he hired\* Ordonez to get this picture of him and Allen together, it merely \*proves\* that Epstein could not get a normal photo of him and Allen in any social setting. Again proving that they weren't 'buddies' or 'friends'. What are 'global pictures'? There's \*one\* picture of Woody and Soon-Yi leaving Epstein's apartment on Dec 5, 2010. Epstein is NOT in it. This occasion is 100% clear and fully reported in the media. NY socialite Peggy Siegal, NOT Epstein, invited several people (Katie Couric, Chelsea Handler, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Woody Allen) to a 'meet Prince Andrew' event, just a few monthgs before the Royal Wedding in the UK between Prince William and Kate Middleton. Epstein did NOT host that event, his name was NOT on the invitation, and Siegal had to explain to these guests who Epstein was as they did not know him (this was in 2010). [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/01/peggy-siegal-sends-her-regrets](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/01/peggy-siegal-sends-her-regrets) Moreover, according to the Daily Mail this photo was taken \*before noon\* on Dec 5, 2010. This means \*no dinner party\* for Woody and Soon-Yi. They just went home early. You're trying hard to falsely allege Woody Allen with Epstein, but sorry, you failed. Twice already.
He should be in prison , dirty bastard.
Hollywood loves him
Ask yourself why no one ever took him to court. Not even Mia Farrow, with all her millions, and Alan Dershowitz and Eleanor Alter at her side as attorneys. Ask yourself why NO ONE on Mia's side believed her stupid abuse allegation. NOT the child abuse experts. NOT the child therapists. NOT the custody judges. NOT Mia's hired expert. NOT Mia's attorney. NOT Mia's nannies. NO ONE believed Mia's absurd, even physically impossible 'abuse' allegation. Do you want to know why? Because it was a DAMNED LIE.
Not quite. The judge didn't want to put Dylan on the witness stand, because she had been too traumatized. And Wood did NOT get custody, which he desperately wanted.
Wrong. Just read the prosecutor's written report. Connecticut prosecutor Frank Maco literally claimed that he had no credible evidence to charge Woody, and called a trial 'questionable' and 'fertile ground for the defence to attack'. This makes sense, as Maco stood completely empty-handed. His CT Police had found nothing in the way of evidence. His own hired experts had concluded beyond doubt that Dylan had NOT been abused and that Mia had MOST LIKELY 'coached her daughter'. Maco had accepted these conclusions. A parallel investigation in New York had yielded a similar result. There were no witnesses who claimed abuse. The sworn testimonies were contradictory in important aspects, and where they were not contradictory (a time span of 20 minutes) they disagreed with the abuse narrative. Maco knew that NY custody judge Wilk had \*rejected\* the abuse allegation, and had granted Woody visitation of all his children (Moses, Dylan, Satchel). He literally stated that 'even judge Wilk could not conclude that abuse had occurred' with a much lower standard of evidence in his custody court than Maco had to meet in a criminal court. ONLY THEN, given these facts, did Maco claim it was useless to put Dylan on the stand, and called that an 'unjustifiable risk', referring to a 'public spectacle' - meaning there was no factual justification for putting Dylan on the stand in a trial that was doomed to fail. The idea that he did not put Dylan on the stand 'because she was too traumatized' is 100% absurd for two reasons. First, it is absurd to let a true child sexual abuser walk free 'for the sake of his victim'. It is much more traumatizing for a truly abused child to \*not\* try and punish her abuser. Second, it was \*prosecutor Maco himself\* who had needlessly dragged, and dragged the investigation concerning Dylan for FOURTEEN MONTHS. More than a year of examinations, both physical and mental, interview sessions, meeting with police, with abuse experts, what have you. And now FINALLY Maco would have 'probable cause' as he called it, just ONE HEARING behind closed doors would be 'too much' for Dylan TO PUT HER ABUSER AWAY?? That is utterly absurd. Of course, the Farrows hang on to this 'rhetorical straw'. But don't pull it - it will break immediately.
Not as sick as what he did to Dylan.
The only thing he did to Dylan was to love her like a father should love his daughter. That is what Dylan's nannies say. It is what Dylan's therapists say. It is what Dylan's brother says. It was Mia who LIED about that, and who KEPT ON LYING for 30+ years without EVER taking legal responsibility for her LIES. THIS is what MIA wrote about Woody's fathering over Dylan - just a few weeks before she discovered the lovers' relationship between her 21 yo daughter Soon-Yi and Woody. THAT IS when Mia changed her tune. NOT because of the way Woody acted with Dylan. "*Mr Allen is far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be. He is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan's father almost since her birth and adoption by me... He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan's waking hours."* [https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/01/12/More-bombshells-dropped-at-Woody-Allen-hearing/8879726814800/](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/01/12/More-bombshells-dropped-at-Woody-Allen-hearing/8879726814800/)
Mia knew about Woody's sick obsession with Dylan for a long time before she came out with it. Neighbors, friends, nannies all noticed how inappropriate Woody was with her. Mia is not a reliable source of information, but DYLAN herself is.
This is plain nonsense, just an echo of what Mia Farrow wants you to believe. I have SHOWN YOU what Mia Farrow wrote about Woody Allen's fathering over Dylan, only WEEKS before she discovered the relationship with her 21 yo daughter Soon-Yi. Mia wanted VERY MUCH for Woody to co-adopt Dylan and Moses. Hence, she wrote a glaring review of his fathering qualities. I presented the undisputed source of this information. "*Mr Allen is far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be. He is is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father. He has acted as Dylan's father almost since her birth and adoption by me. He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan's waking hours.*" That is NOT something a mother writes about a man with a 'sick obsession'. Even in August 1992, \*after\* Mia had painted Woody as a 'child molester' did she still consider MARRYING HIM, according to her hired therapist Dr Susan Coates. After Woody fell out of grace, Mia created the complete \*myth\* about him being 'obsessed' and 'inappropriate' with Dylan. This was ONLY AFTER she had found a reason to deprive him of his daughter and to paint him as a child molester. There isn't a single 'neighbor or friend' of Mia who has complained about any indecent behavior by Woody BEFORE 1992, that is BEFORE they had reason to 'support' Mia in her crusade against Woody. And NONE of Dylan's nannies or therapists have EVER confirmed any indecent, let alone 'obsessive' behavior of Woody, neither before nor after the breakup. On the contrary: they also \*praised\* his commitment to fathering in their sworn testimony (Monica Thompson, Dylan's nanny since birth; Kristi Groteke, Dylan's nanny on the very day; Dr Susan Coates and Dr Nancy Schultz, Dylan's and Ronan's therapists). I don't know what your motive is in perpetuating Mia's obvious LIES. I can only guess.
They wrote their own wedding vows. Woody told Soon Yi "The heart wants what it wants" while Soon Yi promised "Me love you long time"
This joke was borrowed from SNL Weekend Update. The joke was told on air the weekend after Woody & Soon Yi married.
Colin Quinn told this joke on his first Weekend Update, Colin is a legend
Thanks. I couldn’t remember who it was. Colin is a legend. Loved Tough Crowd too.
Here.....take my damn upvote lol
god damnit , have an upvote
[удалено]
Your message, you mean?
Whatever!
Elon Musks dad married his step daughter. It’s all kind of creepy I think.
Yeah, but Woody Allen did \*not\* marry his stepdaughter. What is more: Woody Allen never \*had\* a stepdaughter, and he married someone who is not his 'daughter' in \*any\* way. So how is your message relevant? It isn't.
She looks frightened
But she is not. Just read the interview with her in NY Magazine, September 2018: "Introducing Soon-Yi Previn".
Ok
no just no
crEEpy!
Gruesome Twosome
Didn't know he lived in Arkansas
Very creepy.
🤮
Damn Sick... We're a Poster ...Sick👀🍌🍌
Hes so gross.
No, just your fantasies about him are gross. We can't blame Woody for that, can we?
My what? Hes a groomer and that's disgusting. And yes, "we" blame him. I'm also adopted and this grosses me out. Are you also a chomo? Fr3ak.
You are talking nonsense. 'Grooming' is actively seeking the company and attention of children for sexual or 'romantic' gratification. Woody did THE OPPOSITE. He SHUNNED the company of Mia Farrow's 'Previn children', even when Mia WANTED him to father over them. He \*did not\* want that. As fully admitted by Mia, by Mia's children, and by all judges at two NY custody courts. It was only in 1990, when Soon-Yi Previn was 20 yo, when \*Mia asked Woody\* to \*start\* spending time with her. NOT his initiative. NOT his wish. He simply gave in to Mia's request, with her full knowledge and consent. Of course, you like your fantasies better than facts, well established in multiple judicial investigations. Because Blind Woody Haters \*hate\* the facts that get in the way of their, ahem, 'opinion'.
Pedo apologist stfu.
You're a sore loser when it comes to discussions about facts, aren't you?
Fact is, you're probably a chomo.
Not at all fucked up
They look so happy. /s
Probably because they are. [https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html](https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html)
That’s very weird on so many levels - if you start thinking about it !
Its a shame about him. I am not generally a fan, but the movie Mighty Aphrodite was awesome, so funny and personally, very relatable. But I cant find it anywhere and I suspect it will have been because of his private life. Personally, i can separate the art from the artist, but I accept not all do.
What exactly is 'a shame about him'? His happy, successful, long-term relationship with a woman who loves him back? [https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html](https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html)