Kevin Healey they should arrest farrow for lying and abusing her kids for her selfish gain

@@lepetitchat123 it should be a crime to do what she did, engage in character assassination and estrange him from his children. very ugly. he and dylan should sue her up the ass so she has to work in burger king for her declining years. that would give me peace of mind when it comes to this matter. but don't worry. karma has plans for her. and i hope it hurts as much as dylan does.

Farrow wasn't even his wife.

i don't know whether to believe he did or didn't. But whichever story you believe, these kids were abused. And there's such a pattern in his work and personal life of normalizing old men dating incredibly young women. That's something I'm comfortable calling out as scary.

@@veronicamarrinan8208 - 7 y.o. girls are not "young women". He tells stories of older men dating or romancing young, *developed* women. So linking and conflating that to molesting a 7 y.o. girl is downright silly. None of his films tell stories of children being molested. His movies also tell plenty of stories of men dating women of their age. Use your brain and logic.

It’s not about Mia, darling. It’s about Dylan. You should be informed better prior speaking out. (Allen v Farrow)

@@petarmetikos1427 FOUR child abuse expert instances, ALL working in Dylan's interest, ALL concluded that her stories were NOT credible (Yale-NH, NY Child Welfare, two NY custody courts, a NY Adoption Board). Not even Dylan's own hired expert believed her. Dr Steven Herman testified that the evidence fell short, and that Mia had 'interviewed' Dylan asking questions 'that set a tone for a child about how to answer'. Nor did her attorney, Eleanor Alter, believe her. She stated that Dylan's story may be attributed to her lively fantasy, for which Mia had put her in therapy. If NO child abuse experts working in a child's interest finds them credible, and if even the child's expert and attorney don't believe her, this is not only totally unheard of, but it is ridiculously absurd to claim that she 'must be believed'. ALL established facts, ALL expert opinions, the WHOLE of witness testimony, and ALL legal decisions point firmly at Woody Allen's innocence. And no tv propaganda movie made by his allegers (who have SHUNNED our courts for 30+ years) can change that.

Petros, you are a very kind man. But Woody cannot take your years. He has received his share of good years and he has decided to make movies. You have your gifts and you must share them with the world

He is not s big fan of life FYI

I agree that Mia Farrow deserves to be prosecuted for a) falsely alleging a person (Woody) of a heinous crime (sexual abuse of a child) and b) falsely alienating children (Dylan, Ronan and Moses) of their parent (Woody), Those crimes are rarely prosecuted. I think they are grave. and should be prosecuted. That would prevent crimes such as Mia frivolously committed.

Mick the Nick - I agree!

I wish! Down with Mia Farrow! We love Woody Allen!

Lanata esta entre los mejores periodistas de Argentina. El problema es que sos un fanatico politico, y toco a los lideres de tu secta kirchnerista

I recommend reading an interview Moses Farrow wrote concerning his adopted father & mia Farrow,he supports his father,and has vilified mia for lying and also being abusive to her children including Lark Farrow, Moses & soon-yi.

He has spoken about that

I agree. For as close as he was to her, it's strange that he doesn't focus on that tragic loss.

@@Bamcis100 he has

I've been a huge Woody Allen fan all my life. I've always left the question open because there are two sides to every story. I've changed my mind though since Dylan reemerged with her story. I think Woody is guilty of her accusations, NOT because of what she said but because of how he responded. He lacks real empathy and I think he's sick and has been sick his entire career. It's TRUE what they claim. There was a huge bubble of protection around him because of his icon status. Very difficult to go up against that. I can't watch his films anymore because of the way he responded.

I guess you have not read his autobiography then. He is very clear about his total sadness over having lost his daughter. What is it you want? Do you want him to cry on television? Like Dylan did?

Jordi camino llamas por favor, hace días estoy buscando

Es raro que por alguna razón, el canal mismo subió todos los programas de PPT, menos éste...

martinl19 seguro armaron tremendo boicot o algo así por el tema de la "hija"

Se me ocurre que tenés razón.. Acá encontré un video (en inglés.. de Francia) que critican que dijo que debería ser la cara del poster de MeToo.. No pensé que la entrevista de Lanata con Allen tuviera repercución internacional. Avisá si lo encontrás.. un saludo kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l6mRn91nrdvGfGg.html

Your right. After Rosemary's Baby she mainly just did supporting roles or cameos. Which is odd being Rosemary's Baby was a hit. Woody Allen put her back on top.

@@nicholasjanke3476 They did some really, really good films together, too.

#meToo

@@samucancld He has very peaceful qualities

@@yacovlk7924 he is the Best♥️

@@jonathanlucero93 hago escultura digital ignorante

gracias bro @@jonathanlucero93

Only courts can convict people of crimes as well. Moses says that Mia Farrow abused him. The whole family was a shitshow.

You are such a compulsive liar, Erin. You keep on spreading your misinformation, playing the know-it-all, and when someone asks you for your sources, you are suddenly not at home. 1. Where is the evidence that the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigation was 'thrown out of court' in the criminal case? There is no such evidence, since there was no criminal case, and never a criminal court. 2. Where is the evidence that the Yale-New Haven was 'thrown out of court' in the custody case? There isn't any evidence for that because, while Judge Wilk had his personal reservations to the method, he did not throw the investigation out. 3. Same questions as 1 and 2 for the New York State investigation. 4. Where is the evidence for your assertion that these investigations, ordered by the State of Connecticut and the State of New York, like with any potentially criminal charge, were "solely ordered to determine whether a 7 years old could withstand a trial"? There isn't any, because these investigations were also aimed at the credibility of the witness - and Dylan turned out far from credible. 5. Where is the evidence that the researchers from Yale-New Haven and the State of New York Police (ha ha) were "on Allen's payroll"? There is no such evidence, because in both states, these experts were not on Allen's payroll. 6. Where is the evidence that the 7 year old has "has told the same story since 3 decades ago"? There isn't any such evidence, because in 26 years, Dylan Farrow has changed, augmented and embellished her story more than you have fingers on your hand. This is exactly one of the reasons why the Yale-New Haven team found her testimony not credible: it changed constantly. The 'train set' is only the latest addition, appearing not before 2014 - while Dylan now claims that it had an enormous impact on her. 7. Where are the "heaps of evidence against Allen", Erin? It is just blah blah. There is no evidence whatsoever, just one verbal allegation made 27 years ago and maintained in various guises, for which no evidence was found, and no new evidence has ever been presented after. You are like Frank Maco, the prosecutor, who asserted he had 'probable cause' and never followed up on that with any fact. You are like Ronan Farrow, who also throws around in the media that there are 'lots of evidence' but does not follow up with one jota. 8. Again, you trick your readers into believing that the custody trial somehow yields evidence for any criminal charge. But it doesn't, Erin. You know full well that custody Judge Wilk stated clear for you to read that he had no reason to assume any sexual aspect to Woody's presumed 'intense attention' to his adopted daughter Dylan, and that also the psychologist, Dr Susan Coates, clearly stated the absence of any sexual interest. Your innuendo is deceitful, Erin, as are you.

Mick the Nick , thank you. This Erin person has joined the vendetta against Woody Allen. She loves to spam KZfaq and Twitter with her nonsense. For a full time "editor" and Mom she sure seems to have a lot of time on her hands.

Hi F.B., yes, we agree on this "Erin" person being totally obsessed and deceitful. And hiding from criticism, too. The best we can do is expose her lies, wherever she plants them. I am not tired of doing so. So there you go, Erin! Hide some more, lie some more, and we'll find you and expose you.

Wow, stalking me now, huh? Are you on Allen's payroll? By the way, there's a big difference between hiding and choosing not to respond to creepy stalkers who blindly support people who are VERY LIKELY child molesters. YOU seem to have a lot of time on your hands to defend nasty people.

Ted 1 of course I know that. She was 7 when introduced to Woody, who spent the next 10 years as a father figure to her before he began having sex with her. Just because he wasn’t her legal father, it’s not any less abhorrent. She was the sister of his children and the daughter of his longtime partner. He isolated her from the only family she had ever known, and as the judges put it, left her with no support system. He admitted it was only supposed to be a fling. Who has a fling with their longtime girlfriend’s child? The sister of his kids? If you think that’s okay, there’s something wrong with you.

"Just because he wasn’t her legal father, it’s not any less abhorren" Sure it is less abhorrent. What are you insane? You are saying you see no difference? And you yourself are saying she was 17 before sleeping with him. Old enough to make a choice in most countries. No one is asking to make him the example of morality, but to misconstrue him and destroy his reputation is harassment. The metoo movement is self indulgent circle jerk from the same liberals that try to ruin Woody. It should be called the #notsurprised movement, because everyone was in the know.

So you think it's okay to have a sexual relationship with your longtime partner's kids? To have a sexual relationship with your kids' sister? You think that's okay? She wasn't 18 yet when he began what he thought would be a "fling" with his children's sister, which was then and is now ILLEGAL in the states in which he engaged in the activity. It's called statutory rape. If he were anyone but Woody Allen, he would have been in jail right now. I'm not misconstruing anyone. And he destroyed his reputation himself by not only being a homewrecker (in the most evil sense of the word), but by being a CHILD MOLESTER because he engaged in a sexual act with a 7-year-old child after abusing her for years. Your attitudes are not only scary, but criminal.

Erin, the presumed criminal trial ended with Maco's calling it off, because he believed a criminal trial would be unsuccesful due to Dylan's testimony not being enough credible (read his declaration, bottom page 1, top page 2). Yet I note that you still consider it possible, even likely, that Allen is guilty as (not) charged. Apparently a legal 'no' can still be a moral or factual 'yes' to you. So let us apply this attitude of yours to Judge Wilk stating that Allen's "scorned woman" allegation is baseless. It was a definite legal 'no' to Allen's explanation of his being alleged of abuse. Yet in your mind, a legal 'no' can still be a moral or factual 'yes'. So in your mind, you must still consider it possible, maybe even likely, that Mia indeed acted as a 'woman scorned', although a judge found that explanation not enough credible. You can't have your cake and eat it, Erin. Try to be consistent. If you can, that is.

You're such a mean little bitch, Erin Clark. Your spamming KZfaq and Twitter is an utter bore.

Ted 1 17 is not of legal age. Anyone 18 or over who has sex with anyone below 18, let alone in their 50s, can be subject to prosecution for doing so. Most people at age 17 are still in high school. And this has nothing to do with Woody Allen being of Jewish descent. It has everything to do with him being a lecherous predator, a liar, a child molester.

Yep, it's waiting for Woody Allen!

Trying to fuck someone isn't harassment or inappropriate. And she was 18 at the time and it was after they'd finished working together. www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/woody-allen-mariel-hemingway-manhattan

By 'lure her' I assume you just mean he asked her to go. Basically he tried to hook up with her and she said no, that's the story there. Is it creepy given the age difference? Yeah, sure it is, but it wasn't during the production of the film and he didn't try to force her to do anything

OMG, you've been commenting again because you can't keep yourself from it for some hellish reason - and now we all know what to expect. Some mix of lies and innuendo, sprinkled with more 'opinions' than facts. Here we go again. Mariel Hemingway was not 17, but 18, when Allen asked - not lured - her to visit France with him. Definitely not 'lured', since Allen took the trouble to pay a visit to her parents' house and ask them for their permission. So those were two of your lies in one single stroke. Allen never asked or 'lured' her 'to spend the time in his bedroom with her'. Yet another fantastic lie. If you read the Variety article on which you base your fantasy, and if you actually *could* read, you would know that he never even verbally hinted at it. It was just a worry in Mariel Hemingway's 18 year old mind that this was Allen's intention. I would say: a very healthy and understandable worry for any 18 year old girl who is asked by a middle-aged man to accompany him on a foreign vacation. Yet the worry doesn't prove the man is a dog. Had you read that article, you would also have read that, according to Hemingway, she was *unsure* that she would have a bedroom of her own. This in no way implies that she would not have had her own room or her own privacy. Maybe it is your fantastic mind that Allen had all sorts of bad intentions - but fantasy does not prove a thing, Particularly not *your* accelerated fantasy. Had you read *and* understood that article - maybe too much to ask from you - you would have understood that Hemingway was particularly let down because she found her parents not to be enough protective. They said 'yes' to Allen without making any demands. So Hemingway realized she had to protect herself, and went up to Woody to share her worry with him. That makes her wise beyond her age in my book. Please note - if you actually *could* read and *would* be honest - that in the Variety article Hemingways question “I’m not going to get my own room, am I?" is NOT answered. In reality, it most probably was. Yet any answer that we, readers, are led to believe is the product of your fantasy. And I wonder why the author of this article left the answer out. Quite probably, Allen's answer was "Of course you'll have your own bedroom. What do you think?". But that doesn't sell as well. More of your lies follow. You present for a fact that Allen 'seduced her teenage daughter', probably referring to Soon-Yi Previn, who was considered 20 or 21 at the time by the Farrows (and by Previn). Next, you lie that 'he also attempted to seduce her 14 year old daugher for three years', and I have no clue whom you are referring to, who has stated that she finds him 'creepy' and evaded him. Nor what the presumed 'evidence' is for such claims. I think this comes right out of your thumb. Put it back there. Lastly, you present for a fact that he 'molested his own 7 year old daughter', while you know full well that this is in no way accepted fact, and the allegation was not even considered fit for trial. Erin, please find a better hobby than constantly lying us in the face.

Cody Brown fuckin Sherlock here

There's far more evidence that needs to be considered before being too sure of oneself. Very difficult case with at least some reasonable doubt.

Yep. He did it. His language says it all. I can't watch his films anymore and I returned to them often when I needed a lift.