Allen v. Farrow

[DarkMark]

6 minutes ago, Dani said:

That was me and that’s not how it works. The complaint was made years ago. Maco could have chosen to charge him at any point. If a prosecutor felt it was still within the statute of limitations now they could reopen the case.  Dylan wouldn’t have had to do anything. It’s not Dylan’s responsibility to keep filing complaints in the hopes someone will decide to charge him. 

 

There is no smoking gun in this case. It is all open to interpretation. Each side minimizes some aspects and focuses on others based on what they believe happened. That doesn’t mean either side is uniformed or even ignoring evidence. What some important others find irrelevant. 

Most people remember things from when they were 4. There are studies that find the average first memory is from 3-3.5. Trauma frequently enhances those memories. You can’t dismiss everything just because the person was young. Based on what I’ve read Ronan is a genius which usually means a much better memory than average. He started college at 11 so remember what happened when he was almost 5 isn’t a stretch. 

I don't know anything about law. I thought that if Dylan wanted to file a new complaint herself as an adult, she could have. From what I understand of what you write, that is not the case. Are you sure? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I don't know anything about law. I thought that if Dylan wanted to file a new complaint herself as an adult, she could have. From what I understand of what you write, that is not the case. Are you sure? 

What kind of complaint do you mean?

[Rlb8031]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

And I'm sorry but Mia Farrow repeatedly said Allen had molested Soon Yi and there was a concerted effort to prove they had begun sexual relations before the time to imply she was a minor.

Soon-Yi's age at her adoption was unknown. She could have been 1-2 years older or younger. Again the issue isn't whether she was old enough to consent. The issue is that he was having sex with someone he had served as a "father" figure to during her formative years. If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion its okay to say that a step-father can sleep with his wife's children once they become adults simply because they are not biologically related. I'm not convinced that's a hill to die on.

Woody is a creep because he had sex with, began a relationship with and married someone who was part of a family in which he was in the role of parent and she was in the role of the child. Despite all the efforts to obfuscate this central element, this is simply what it boils down to,

[DarkMark]

"There's multiple people saying that they lost track of both Woody and Dylan for about 20 minutes and were actively looking for them"

That is absolutely not determined.All we know is that when the nanny of Mia's friend told her employer about the head in the lap incident, her employer called Mia (the day after the event). No mention of a missing Allen and Dylan was made on that day. By her own words, the story goes that when Mia's nanny Groteke, who had been entrusted with making surevAllen was never alone with Dylan, got together some time after (at leadt one day if not more) the event, she the friend's manny and the french tutor/nanny reconstructed that they supposedly lost sight of Allen and Dylan for 15-20 minutes. Groteke in hindsight said she looked in the house, did not find them and figured they were outside. There was no "scouring", no "people" were looking for Allen and Dylan. 

[DarkMark]

Just to clarify how inconsistent the timeline of that event is, someone captured a screenshot from the documentary, where the producers higlighted the apparent inconsistencies of Allen's statements as to having ever been in the attic. The producers failed to completely obscure the lines below, where two of the nannies (one actually a french tutor) stated to police Mia arrived about 20 minutes after Allen. That is the same nanny who supposedly could not find  Dylan and Allen  for 20 minutes, who was not reprimanded by Mia, who in fact stayed on when Mia fired two other nannies/help because she could not trust them. She wrote a book in 1994 about her time with Mia (and Allen), before during and after the custody trial. Where are these nannies? Sophie Berge, in the documentary , carefully avoids saying she looked for Dylan. All we here from her is:

"Woody arrived while Mia was gone. I was told, ‘He’s too much with [Dylan],’ and the therapist said not to leave them alone together,” Berge says. “And on that day, when we were all out, half-inside, half-outside, lots of stuff going on… I remember Kristi, Mia’s nanny, calling out and asking, ‘Have you seen Dylan?'” She does not say that she was aware Allen was too much for Dylan, she is told.

Mia Farrow had an army of nannies. Not one was willing to talk to the producers?

They have the testimony of Mia's friend's nanny who saw the supposed improper head in the lap incident. Not exactly an insider's look of the goings on was she? 

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

What kind of complaint do you mean?

I don't know. I know nothing of law. But I linked the article by Thibault. You tell me what this passage refers to:

Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken"

[DarkMark]

51 minutes ago, Rlb8031 said:

Soon-Yi's age at her adoption was unknown. She could have been 1-2 years older or younger. Again the issue isn't whether she was old enough to consent. The issue is that he was having sex with someone he had served as a "father" figure to during her formative years. If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion its okay to say that a step-father can sleep with his wife's children once they become adults simply because they are not biologically related. I'm not convinced that's a hill to die on.

Woody is a creep because he had sex with, began a relationship with and married someone who was part of a family in which he was in the role of parent and she was in the role of the child. Despite all the efforts to obfuscate this central element, this is simply what it boils down to,

No, I'm trying to point out that the Farrows are/were equally spinning the facts, and one should not immediately disbelieve Allen because he's a creep, and somehow accept as truth whatever the Farrows say. All that talk of the visits Soon Yi may have made to Allen six months before the time Allen claimed the relationship began would change very little of anyone's idea of his creepiness, but have left many wondering if maybe Soon Yi was not even of legal age, while all the time Mia knew full well her age. If MF claimed Soon Yi was born in 1970, are we supposed to think Allen would have known different?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

Just to clarify how inconsistent the timeline of that event is, someone captured a screenshot from the documentary, where the producers higlighted the apparent inconsistencies of Allen's statements as to having ever been in the attic. The producers failed to completely obscure the lines below, where two of the nannies (one actually a french tutor) stated to police Mia arrived about 20 minutes after Allen. That is the same nanny who supposedly could not find  Dylan and Allen  for 20 minutes, who was not reprimanded by Mia, who in fact stayed on when Mia fired two other nannies/help because she could not trust them. She wrote a book in 1994 about her time with Mia (and Allen), before during and after the custody trial. Where are these nannies? Sophie Berge, in the documentary , carefully avoids saying she looked for Dylan. All we here from her is:

"Woody arrived while Mia was gone. I was told, ‘He’s too much with [Dylan],’ and the therapist said not to leave them alone together,” Berge says. “And on that day, when we were all out, half-inside, half-outside, lots of stuff going on… I remember Kristi, Mia’s nanny, calling out and asking, ‘Have you seen Dylan?'” She does not say that she was aware Allen was too much for Dylan, she is told.

Mia Farrow had an army of nannies. Not one was willing to talk to the producers?

They have the testimony of Mia's friend's nanny who saw the supposed improper head in the lap incident. Not exactly an insider's look of the goings on was she? 

My question would be what the next line says. As I said these sections can be taken to support either side and is missing context. I’d have to see the totality of it to come to a conclusion from that report. 
Everyone is going to have a different take. For me the friend’s nanny story is more relevant because she didn’t have an insider’s look. She walked in and felt uncomfortable with what she saw. From what I’ve seen from people who believe Dylan the specifics of that particular day are less important than the whole picture being painted. You can argue the details endlessly but it doesn’t change the fact that Dylan was uncomfortable with what happened. For me that makes it abuse. 

 

17 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I don't know. I know nothing of law. But I linked the article by Thibault. You tell me what this passage refers to:

Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, said: “There is nothing pending at this time. If we were to receive a complaint, it would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken"

To me that’s mostly lawyer speak to side step the issue. It sounds better than saying we’re doing nothing and won’t do anything. It mainly means that they consider it closed and if a new complaint is filed that would look it to it. It doesn’t mean Dylan has never filed complaints in the past. It also doesn’t mean the statute of limitations wasn’t up when that was written or that a complaint would go anywhere at all. 

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, DarkMark said:

"I didn’t like when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear.”

Farrow said she was 4 at the time. Perhaps it happened other times, who knows, but I find it a little difficult to believe she remebers this herself from when she was 4.

As others have said, yes you can remember things that happened when you were four. Especially something that somebody used to do to you that you didn't like. And as you say, why would we assume that these two times Mia happened to see it were the only times? Somebody else on the doc, iirc, mentioned seeing him do it and even asking him about it. We don't know how long it went on or how old she was at all times.

Quote

The only difference is he was full clothed. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly is wrong about a parent fully clothed playing with his kid on the bed. There was never any mention of inappropriate behaviour in the bed: in this quoted example the inappropriareness clearly was the state of undress.

Like I said, I do make a distinction between him being dressed and undressed. But the main issue that everybody saw with him and Dylan wasn't that he was always doing things involving nudity and touching her private parts. It was a pattern of ongoing smothering behavior, including holding her fully-clothed when she didn't want to be there. 

Quote

If i can find it, there is another transcript from the trial where under questioning Mia Farrow also backpedals  from claiming she had said Allen's behaviour was somehow sexual.

And I'm sorry but Mia Farrow repeatedly said Allen had molested Soon Yi and there was a concerted effort to prove they had begun sexual relations before the time to imply she was a minor.

She's not claiming now that she thought he was being sexually inappropriate with Dylan a lot, she's claiming the opposite, that his behavior disturbed her but that she believed him and the therapist that it wasn't sexual.

As for Soon-Yi, yes she has repeatedly said he molested her--Soon-Yi was her high school daughter and she believes he groomed her and started sleeping with her in secret when she was in high school. To her mother, that's child molestation. She's not claiming he's legally guilty of statutory rape, she's saying she thinks he's a predator. Nobody's ever tried to charge him with statutory rape.

3 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Ronan Farrow: "This was always true as a brother who trusted her, and, even at 5 years old, was troubled by our father’s strange behaviour around her: climbing into her bed in the middle of the night, forcing her to suck his thumb — behaviour that had prompted him to enter into therapy focused on his inappropriate conduct with children prior to the allegations,’ his letter states."

Now for starters Ronan was 4 when Dylan LAST saw Allen. And do you actually believe he rembers something that happened when he was 4 if not younger?

It's certainly possible that he believes he has more specific memories  and had more adult reactions to them given all the years of knowing about it, but yes, it's possible that he could accurately remember being disturbed at his father's smothering behavior with his sister--after all, this was an ongoing thing that was directly relevant to his life at the time. I believe you yourself said that we should consider that the things Moses says could be at least partially true despite him getting things wrong or contradicting testimony at the time or speculating about things he didn't witness. Several people have talked about Woody having Dylan suck his thumb or climbing into her bed, so it's not like Ronan is the source for these things happening or being disturbing.

Quote

By her own words, the story goes that when Mia's nanny Groteke, who had been entrusted with making surevAllen was never alone with Dylan, got together some time after (at leadt one day if not more) the event, she the friend's manny and the french tutor/nanny reconstructed that they supposedly lost sight of Allen and Dylan for 15-20 minutes. Groteke in hindsight said she looked in the house, did not find them and figured they were outside. There was no "scouring", no "people" were looking for Allen and Dylan. 

Okay, so you're saying that what people say about what happened that day now--and what Mia and Woody are recorded as saying about that day years ago--before the trail, it seems (Mia, iirc, makes a reference to people looking for them and asks where he was and Woody refuses to answer) shouldn't be trusted because it wasn't stated that day or at least before Dylan's video? And you object to words like "scouring" and "people" because it makes it sound like the search was very thorough when maybe it wasn't.

So you're assuming the French tutor and the friend's nanny are lying or misremembering or exaggerating. The nanny who was entrusted to make sure they weren't alone also says that she didn't know where they were, looked in the house and figured they were outside (without, it seems, saying that she was correct about them being outside?).  I'm not seeing how any of this shows that there actually was no opportunity for Woody and Dylan to have been alone in the attic. "I didn't know where they were, but nobody looked too hard" still says they didn't know where they were. (Also worth noting, people use the words "20 minutes" without actually knowing how long that is--nods to Mad Men's Glen Bishop.)

Quote

Mia Farrow had an army of nannies. Not one was willing to talk to the producers?

I don't know. Should we assume they were threatened by Mia Farrow? 

 

Quote

No, I'm trying to point out that the Farrows are/were equally spinning the facts, and one should not immediately disbelieve Allen because he's a creep, and somehow accept as truth whatever the Farrows say. All that talk of the visits Soon Yi may have made to Allen six months before the time Allen claimed the relationship began would change very little of anyone's idea of his creepiness, but have left many wondering if maybe Soon Yi was not even of legal age, while all the time Mia knew full well her age. If MF claimed Soon Yi was born in 1970, are we supposed to think Allen would have known different?

So it's suspicious for Mia to bring up that Allen might have been sleeping with Soon-Yi while she was still living at home (where he appeared daily as the father figure) and in high school because she's suggesting Allen might sleep with somebody who who was a teenager--something he had done in the past, but in this case is unfair to bring up because people might connect it to Dylan?

Edited April 9, 2021 by sistermagpie

[WinnieWinkle]

For me the documentary confirmed what I have always believed about Allen but it has never really been anything that Mia or Dylan Farrow have asserted that made my mind up. It's everything he himself has said and done since the story about his affair with Soon-Yi broke.  Whatever else is true or not true about Woody Allen it is beyond doubt that he openly pursued relationships with teenagers and that he slept with the daughter of his long-time partner who also happened to be the sister of his own children.  His own words and pattern of behavior do not incline me to giving him the benefit of any doubt with regard to the allegations made by Dylan Farrow.  The word creep could have been created expressly to describe Woody Allen.

Edited April 9, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[FemmyV]

On 2/25/2021 at 10:29 AM, ifionlyknew said:

 I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Roman Polanski won an Oscar after he was accused of rape.

Polanski's 13 yo victim testified in court that he loaded her on booze and pills and forcibly raped her. 

Mia Farrow is Polanski's staunchest defender. In the film, Wanted and Desired, she dismisses what happened to Samantha Geimer by saying, and I'm paraphrasing because it was years ago, "and she looked much older than 13." 

Geimer, by the way, apparently got the peace she needed long ago and recently ripped the Farrows' attempts to destroy Allen publicly instead of taking him to court while they can still sue for wrong-doing. It makes Mia's hypocrisy all the more mind-blowing. 

The Farrows insist Dylan can't heal because the public keeps forgetting. Considering all the years she's had with the best therapists money can buy, it ought to be clear they are far more hell bent on revenge and exploitation than healing. 

I don't know if Woody Allen molested his own kid. Maybe. 

There are thousands, 10s, 100s of thousands, millions of people walking around who were victims of childhood sexual abuse. Any of of them who has taken the steps to heal would be a better adviser to Dylan than Mia. 

 

[calliope1975]

ETA: I realized opening old wounds is pointless. People will believe what they want so I deleted my experience. I'll just leave it at - I believe Dylan.

Edited April 9, 2021 by calliope1975

[FemmyV]

On 2/28/2021 at 11:04 PM, txhorns79 said:

I realize that I'm not going to convince anyone, but believe me when I say the Times was a national newspaper long before the internet came around.  

Additionally, the Times is on archive in just about every library in the US, including high schools and colleges. If someone doesn't think their coverage at the time was relevant, it says more about the awareness of the person making that charge than it does about the Times. 

[DarkMark]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

don't know. Should we assume they were threatened by Mia Farrow? 

No that is not what I meant. I had't actually thought of that. And I don't think they would be afraid of Mia, but rather of Ronan, and they should be. I implied that either none were willing to talk in Mia's favour, or, more likely, none were asked to begin with. Still, don't you find it at all odd that they did a lot of detective work to trace in England the nanny of a friend of Mia's who was there that day but otherwise could say little, the french tutor who was there that day who said she remembers Groteke looking for Allen and Dylan, but says nothing about Allen or Dylan's interactions, and don't interview the one person who was closest to Mia's household during that difficult time or anyone else working in that household?

One of the reasons I suspect that is, is that in her book Groteke never seems to mention any inappropriate behaviour of Allen's nor describe any disturbing behaviour in Dylan until after the Soon Yi pictures are found. And all the disturbing Allen actions described are always her retelling of things described to her by Mia. In the book the time Allen and went missing is one time 10 minutes, another 15-20 minutes, in another she admits telling another nanny, who was not present that day (and who would later turn on Mia) hardly 5 minutes.

 I cannot stress enough just how tenuous this claim that Allen disappeared with Dylan for 20 minutes actually is and that is, in my opinion, the real reason why, together with the trenchant referral from Yale, Maco knew he had no case.

Edited April 9, 2021 by DarkMark

[carrps]

Quote

Still, don't you find it at all odd that they did a lot of detective work to trace in England the nanny of a friend of Mia's who was there that day but otherwise could say little

They did find her -- too late for the doc, because they had her name wrong. Stickland, not Strickland. Alison, not Allison (or vice versa, I can't remember). And she cooberated what was in the doc. In detail.

[DarkMark]

32 minutes ago, carrps said:

They did find her -- too late for the doc, because they had her name wrong. Stickland, not Strickland. Alison, not Allison (or vice versa, I can't remember). And she cooberated what was in the doc. In detail.

Yes, the nanny of Casey Pascal, Mia's friend . NOT one of Mia's nannies.

[DarkMark]

1 hour ago, calliope1975 said:

I was four when my grandfather molested me. Sure, other details of my life at that time are hazy or lost to time, but I can recall exactly what he did to me and had me do in that bedroom while the rest of the family (and there were many) were in other parts of the house. I never told anyone even though it continued for years when we would visit. He was never prosecuted, and I like to think he's rotting in hell now. He was a community leader, and while I'm almost positive I wasn't the only kid he got to, I am also positive people would have said I was lying if I had reported it. Regardless of what anyone else would believe, no one gets to take away or question what I know to be true. I believe Dylan.

Ronan , Dylan's brother, claims he remembers. Not about something done to him. He claims to remember Allen sneaking in the night to climb up the bunk bed to get to Dylan, not to do anything to him.. Just the fact that he is willing to lie about his age to make it more convincing, tells you a lot about him. And about the Farrows' easiness with spin.

Edited April 9, 2021 by DarkMark

[Irlandesa]

On 4/7/2021 at 2:20 PM, sistermagpie said:

Okay, so I looked it up. So you mean that at 7 she said he put his finger "in my vagina" and 32 she says she would describe it by saying he "touched my labia and my vulva with his finger." So may not have been intentionally saying he did "more" to her, but just not putting the same weight on the distinction at 7.

There are grown women who don't know the difference between the vagina and the vulva.  I certainly am not surprised if a 7 year old is confused by it. 

3 hours ago, DarkMark said:

Just to clarify how inconsistent the timeline of that event is, someone captured a screenshot from the documentary, where the producers higlighted the apparent inconsistencies of Allen's statements as to having ever been in the attic. The producers failed to completely obscure the lines below, where two of the nannies (one actually a french tutor) stated to police Mia arrived about 20 minutes after Allen.

Why does this make it inconsistent?  If anything, it's all very consistent. 20 minutes. 20 minutes. 20 minutes. Less than 30 minutes.

5 hours ago, Dani said:

If those are the sections picked to bolster Allen’s defense none of them are effective to me. It doesn’t matter what the therapist was treating Allen for.

Right.  That's one thing I've seen with some of the articles I've seen written about "see, this piece of evidence wasn't presented in the doc and it proves his innocence" or something like that. 

9 times out of 10, it's either something that doesn't really have direct relevance to Dylan's account and can't directly refute her account so it obfuscates and talks about something else. 

Or they claim "this was not mentioned in the documentary so they're not telling the whole truth" when, in fact, it was presented in the documentary just like that.  The doc stated Woody was in therapy for his intense behavior with Dylan.  They didn't claim it was sexual when he started the therapy.  The therapy, by the way, was also started two years before he molested her. 

And while Woody's relationship with Soon-yi doesn't prove he molested Dylan, it also doesn't disprove it.  In fact, if you were going to give me that fact--that he started sleeping with the barely legal (if she was) daughter of his long term partner who he met when she was between the ages of 7 and 11, I'm going to say that fact actually does tilt the scale towards believing a man would molest his daughter than not.

My limit for "bad but doesn't prove anything" about him is sleeping with his wife's sister.  Dating someone he watched grow up screams "grooming" and absolutely zero boundaries when it comes to controlling compulsions.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DarkMark said:

Ronan , Dylan's brother, claims he remembers. Not about something done to him. He claims to remember Allen sneaking in the night to climb up the bunk bed to get to Dylan, not to do anything to him.. Just the fact that he is willing to lie about his age to make it more convincing, tells you a lot about him. And about the Farrows' easiness with spin.

Once again the average age of a persons first memory is 3-3.5. Ronan isn’t average. He started college when most are still in elementary school. It is logical that he has an above average memory. Whenever it’s people who support Dylan what the say is scrutinized and not to be beloved but when it Woody supports what they say is taken as fact. Ronan age alone doesn’t make him a liar. 

[carrps]

15 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

Yes, the nanny of Casey Pascal, Mia's friend . NOT one of Mia's nannies.

So??? She was there. She saw what she saw. And it's not like she wasn't at Farrow's house ever before. Both sets of kids played together all the time. And isn't it more reliable testimony since she wasn't relying on a salary from Farrow?

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

No that is not what I meant. I had't actually thought of that. And I don't think they would be afraid of Mia, but rather of Ronan, and they should be. I implied that either none were willing to talk in Mia's favour, or, more likely, none were asked to begin with. Still, don't you find it at all odd that they did a lot of detective work to trace in England the nanny of a friend of Mia's who was there that day but otherwise could say little, the french tutor who was there that day who said she remembers Groteke looking for Allen and Dylan, but says nothing about Allen or Dylan's interactions, and don't interview the one person who was closest to Mia's household during that difficult time or anyone else working in that household?

 

Right, and I don't know why Groteke isn't there. If she actually refused I couldn't say why, but I don't get why she should be afraid of Ronan Farrow. What would he do to the nanny other than disagree? Has he done anything to Moses? People are afraid of Ronan when he's investigating crimes they've committed.

There is, of course, the other possibility, that Groteke was influenced by Allen in some way. That is, if there's any influence going on at all. She might have her own reasons for not wanting to get into it again.

But yeah, since they tried to track down both the French tutor and the friend's nanny they presumably did try to talk to Groteke too. A quick look at just a review of the book on Amazon says that Groteke says what everyone else basically says about Allen's relationship with Dylan, that he fawned over her even to the exclusion of Ronan. That is the thing everybody says about it.

It just seems like you're saying that because nobody can really say for sure how long Woody and Dylan were unaccounted for, the timeframe doesn't match up, which is a different thing. In her testimony quoted in the show Groteke says she hadn't seen Dylan for the past few minutes, so she called her name and got no answer. Then went in the house and walked across the living room, by the girls' room, back into the living room, past the TV room, into the kitchen, to the laundry room, guest room, boys' bedroom. When asked how long she thought Dylan was absent she said 20 minutes in the testimony.

In a private call with Woody, Mia refers to 20 minutes of people scouring the house for him and he doesn't act like that's a crazy thing to say. He doesn't say that didn't happen, just says all the details will eventually come out. Now, I get that that's not proof--maybe he's just ignoring everything she's saying so he's not meaning to passively agree to these events, but it seems like that's the sort of thing that gets held against people speaking against him.

Quote

Ronan , Dylan's brother, claims he remembers. Not about something done to him. He claims to remember Allen sneaking in the night to climb up the bunk bed to get to Dylan, not to do anything to him.. Just the fact that he is willing to lie about his age to make it more convincing, tells you a lot about him. And about the Farrows' easiness with spin.

This would not be a strange thing for him to remember at all, and it's pretty in line with the way Woody behaved all the time. And since it is so in line with stuff that everybody says he was like all the time, it seems odd to suggest it shows Ronan to be slickly lying for cleverly referring to himself as five when he was four as most, something people often do when referring to their early childhood. He was born at the end of 1987 and the chaos started in 1992 and continued on, so it would make sense for him to think of himself as five when talking about how he experienced this period and thought about it at the time. Especially if it's considered bad form for Mia to talk about evidence of Woody sleeping with Soon-Yi earlier than he admits to doing.

 

[WinnieWinkle]

17 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Just the fact that he is willing to lie about his age to make it more convincing, tells you a lot about him.

(Sorry I know this quote isn't you directly!!)

I think Ronan Farrow is smart enough to know that most people can do math.  Accusing him of deliberately lying about something that can so easily be checked is somewhat bizarre.

[DarkMark]

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

fawned over her even to the exclusion of Ronan. That is the thing everybody says about it.

I read the book, not the cover, so I'm recounting my impression of the difference in the description of Allen's behaviour and his interaction with his kids, between her own experience and what Mia tells her. It's almost like she's talking about two different people. Apart from Mia, who else who spent a lot of time with Mia and the children, I mean day to day, was interviewed? That would be the nannies. Unfortunately none are interviewed, so I would say we are missing a lot of non partisan viewpoints.

[peachmangosteen]

3 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

For me the documentary confirmed what I have always believed about Allen but it has never really been anything that Mia or Dylan Farrow have asserted that made my mind up. It's everything he himself has said and done since the story about his affair with Soon-Yi broke.  Whatever else is true or not true about Woody Allen it is beyond doubt that he openly pursued relationships with teenagers and that he slept with the daughter of his long-time partner who also happened to be the sister of his own children.  His own words and pattern of behavior do not incline me to giving him the benefit of any doubt with regard to the allegations made by Dylan Farrow.  The word creep could have been created expressly to describe Woody Allen.

[DarkMark]

34 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

it is so in line with stuff that everybody says he was like all the time

Again, who is this everybody? It would have to be people working or living with the Farrow children. It would have to be someone who was there day to day who was there when Allen was there. It's not like Allen and Farrow lived together. Who, besides Mia, 3/4 year old Ronan and 7 year old Dylan are these people who can claim to have frequented their households when Allen was there to observe said grossly inappropriate behaviour? I doubt Mia's friends would likely be at Allen's apartment socially.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

Again, who is this everybody? It would have to be people working or living with the Farrow children. It would have to be someone who was there day to day who was there when Allen was there. It's not like Allen and Farrow lived together. Who, besides Mia, 3/4 year old Ronan and 7 year old Dylan are these people who can claim to have frequented their households when Allen was there to observe said grossly inappropriate behaviour? I doubt Mia's friends would likely be at Allen's apartment socially.

I'm talking about the people in the documentary, since we were talking about that being in conflict with the things you were bringing up. This is how multiple people in the documentary described his relationship with Dylan, and what he was in therapy for, so it seems odd to say that even that is made up.

[DarkMark]

I remember Casey Pascal. I am not aware of her testifying in the custody trial about witnessing inappropriate behaviour. Who else who frequented the household spoke of Allen's inappropriate behaviour since Mia originally spoke of it to Allen?

Dr. Coates was treating Ronan and Dylan. Around 1990 Mia Farrow illustrates that Allen's relationship to Dylan is too intense, he gives her too much the attention. Dr. Coates agrees it is inappropriate for Allen to put all his attention on Dylan. So Allen also starts seeing Dr. Coates to address this.

In December 1991, with Farrow’s willing consent, Allen formally adopts Moses Amadeus Farrow and Dylan Farrow.

Perhaps Allen had learned to share his attention with the other kids? Why would Mia Farrow otherwise agree to the adoption? In the appeal ruling, one of the judges made it a point to write his dissent on the ruling by quoting the clear indications of an affectionate bond growing between Allen and Ronan.

Edited April 10, 2021 by DarkMark

[sistermagpie]

9 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

I remember Casey Pascal. I am not aware of her testifying in the custody trial about witnessing inappropriate behaviour. Who else who frequented the household spoke of Allen's inappropriate behaviour since Mia originally spoke of it to Allen?

Dr. Coates was treating Ronan and Dylan. Around 1990 Mia Farrow illustrates that Allen's relationship to Dylan is too intense, he gives her too much the attention. Dr. Coates agrees it is inappropriate for Allen to put all his attention on Dylan. So Allen also starts seeing Dr. Coates to address this.

You described other people describing inappropriate behavior in the second paragraph. As to why Mia allowed him to adopt the kids, that's covered in the documentary.

[DarkMark]

8 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

You described other people describing inappropriate behavior in the second paragraph. As to why Mia allowed him to adopt the kids, that's covered in the documentary.

Yes, I described one person who I'm not aware of having given sworn testimony of said behaviour in court.

The other, Dr. Coates, testified in  court what I wrote above. She also testified that Farrow called her on August 1 to rail against Allen.  Farrow called him “satanic and evil” and pleaded with Coates to “find a way to stop him.”  and that Farrow's anger at Allen after she found out he was having an affair with Soon- Yi was so 'out of control' that she warned Allen his life could be in danger.

As far as the "explanation" for going forward with the adoption, in the documentary she says: "the reason I let him adopt them is because I thought that he was my life's partner and I believed in our future, and that we were going to go on, you know, and have a wonderful life"

She's supposedly still worried of Allen's attentions for Dylan and also knows their relationship is basically based on work and coparenting and has been for years, yet she thinks he's her life's partner? This is no naive little girl here. This is someone who married a very famous much older man, divorced him, then got pregnant from another famous older man while he was still married  and within a few years divorced him too. She and Allen weren't even married and I fail to see how one can be expected to believe that as a plausible explanation. That by adopting she would be able to count on child support , money for college, etc and that she was not really worried for Dylan sounds quite a bit more plausible.

[Lady Whistleup]

IMO all of these "Mia is horrible" arguments are irrelevant. I don't care if Mia's a saint or Mia is horrible. I suspect she's a mix of both like most people. The FB friend who blocked me would go on these unhinged "Mia is horrible" rants. It couldn't enter his brain space that there was more to the story than "Mia is horrible."

It's what Woody did, and his total unfitness as a parent, and lack of boundaries, remorse, and appropriate behavior that shock the conscience.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

She's supposedly still worried of Allen's attentions for Dylan and also knows their relationship is basically based on work and coparenting and has been for years, yet she thinks he's her life's partner? This is no naive little girl here. This is someone who married a very famous much older man, divorced him, then got pregnant from another famous older man while he was still married  and within a few years divorced him too. She and Allen weren't even married and I fail to see how one can be expected to believe that as a plausible explanation. That by adopting she would be able to count on child support , money for college, etc and that she was not really worried for Dylan sounds quite a bit more plausible.

She wasn't that worried about Dylan. Woody's behavior had been addressed through therapy and called benign by his therapist and she accepted that. He was her life parter--something he said he wanted to continue to be. He didn't leave her for Soon-Yi. She doesn't have to be a naive little girl to not get blamed for his behavior.

You seem to be saying that it didn't matter that Woody hadn't broken up with her, she still had no reason to consider them a couple, so therefore she just schemed to get money out of him by allowing him to adopt kids who already saw him as their father or father figure. So...not only is she wrong for acting like he's still her boyfriend just because he's neglected to tell her he's not but she's duplicitous for agreeing to his request to adopt children when she knows children cost money. It makes Woody sound like the true victim here. At least he got some sex with her absolutely legally 21-year-old daughter out of the deal!

One's opinons about somebody's past behavior tends to change when you find out they were betraying you or hurt your kid. She says that in retrospect she should have been more worried than she was. She trusted everything was fine before it became clear that it wasn't. Then she saw that it never was. That's pretty recognizable human behavior. 

 

 

[DangerousMinds]

When Mia asked Woody where he was during that “missing” 20 minutes, WHY was he not able (or willing) to just tell her? He obviously had something to hide, otherwise there would have been a simple answer.

[DarkMark]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

She wasn't that worried about Dylan. Woody's behavior had been addressed through therapy and called benign by his therapist and she accepted that. He was her life parter--something he said he wanted to continue to be. He didn't leave her for Soon-Yi. She doesn't have to be a naive little girl to not get blamed for his behavior.

You seem to be saying that it didn't matter that Woody hadn't broken up with her, she still had no reason to consider them a couple, so therefore she just schemed to get money out of him by allowing him to adopt kids who already saw him as their father or father figure. So...not only is she wrong for acting like he's still her boyfriend just because he's neglected to tell her he's not but she's duplicitous for agreeing to his request to adopt children when she knows children cost money. It makes Woody sound like the true victim here. At least he got some sex with her absolutely legally 21-year-old daughter out of the deal!

One's opinons about somebody's past behavior tends to change when you find out they were betraying you or hurt your kid. She says that in retrospect she should have been more worried than she was. She trusted everything was fine before it became clear that it wasn't. Then she saw that it never was. That's pretty recognizable human behavior. 

 

 

I am not quite sure that many who have seen the documentary would agree with your impression, which I share, that Mia  "wasn't that worried about Dylan" and that "Woody's behavior had been called benign by his therapist and she accepted that". 

[sistermagpie]

7 hours ago, DarkMark said:

I am not quite sure that many who have seen the documentary would agree with your impression, which I share, that Mia  "wasn't that worried about Dylan" and that "Woody's behavior had been called benign by his therapist and she accepted that". 

In the documentary she's speaking from the present day, knowing and believing what she does now, and looking back and saying she feels guilty about things she let go before. It's a pretty common way for things to happen in this sort of situation, whether it's child abuse or serial killing. 

So just to be clear, you're saying that Mia considered Woody a danger to Dylan, but agreed to the adoption because she the money she could get out of Woody in child support in exchange for the harm to Dylan was a good deal? 

[WinnieWinkle]

11 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

She trusted everything was fine before it became clear that it wasn't. Then she saw that it never was. That's pretty recognizable human behavior. 

I think we all can think of situations in our lives where we have done this.  People we believed, people we trusted.  Until we didn't.  Fortunately for most of us this doesn't involve child abuse - but for many it likely involves infidelity or trusting someone to invest your money to name two of the more serious betrayals that are possible.

6 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

So just to be clear, you're saying that Mia considered Woody a danger to Dylan, but agreed to the adoption because she the money she could get out of Woody in child support in exchange for the harm to Dylan was a good deal

I've heard this "logic" from Allen supporters before.  The big fail here to me is that if Farrow was motivated by money surely she could have expected a much bigger payout from Allen if she'd been willing to play along with his script.   

[DarkMark]

32 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

In the documentary she's speaking from the present day, knowing and believing what she does now, and looking back and saying she feels guilty about things she let go before. It's a pretty common way for things to happen in this sort of situation, whether it's child abuse or serial killing. 

So just to be clear, you're saying that Mia considered Woody a danger to Dylan, but agreed to the adoption because she the money she could get out of Woody in child support in exchange for the harm to Dylan was a good deal? 

No. I'm saying she was not really worried for Dylan, then or later. The Previn kids were provided for, Ronan was provided for and having Allen co-adopt them would provide for them. My point, or rather my opinion is that despite what she said in hindsight, she no longer was worried. What I do not find equally credibile is that she truly held a fancy, given her previous matrimonial experiences, and the fact that Allen had clearly shown no interest in marrying her or even of living together, they would be together "forever".

As to a payout for playing along, there was something extremely akin to an attempt for a payout in exchange for Dylan's unavailability to testify. The lawyers got into a fight over the details, but that a meeting was held is not in doubt. Mia's lawyer Dershowitz, who WAS a friend of Epstein and one of  O.J.'s lawyers, according to Allen's lawyers, tried to close the matter if Allen agreed to a sum of a 5 milion dollars. He refused. During the trial the lawyers went at each other over what was really said. Dershowitz obviously claimed it was not what Allen's lawyers claimed.

[sistermagpie]

  

26 minutes ago, DarkMark said:

No. I'm saying she was not really worried for Dylan, then or later. The Previn kids were provided for, Ronan was provided for and having Allen co-adopt them would provide for them. My point, or rather my opinion is that despite what she said in hindsight, she no longer was worried. What I do not find equally credibile is that she truly held a fancy, given her previous matrimonial experiences, and the fact that Allen had clearly shown no interest in marrying her or even of living together, they would be together "forever".

As to a payout for playing along, there was something extremely akin to an attempt for a payout in exchange for Dylan's unavailability to testify. The lawyers got into a fight over the details, but that a meeting was held is not in doubt. Mia's lawyer Dershowitz, who WAS a friend of Epstein and one of  O.J.'s lawyers, according to Allen's lawyers, tried to close the matter if Allen agreed to a sum of a 5 milion dollars. He refused. During the trial the lawyers went at each other over what was really said. Dershowitz obviously claimed it was not what Allen's lawyers claimed.

Oh, so you're just saying that Allen's version of events was far more credible: Mia used him for money, but then when she found out he had fallen in love with her 21-year-old daughter (which was a little awkward but the heart wants what it wants) she was so overcome with jealousy (well aware that her own 12-year relationship with Allen could never be longterm) that she made up a story of sexual abuse and brainwashed Dylan into repeating it for all these years for attention. Mia got less money out of the deal, but in the end the scorned woman part of her personality won out over the golddigger part. 

[WinnieWinkle]

18 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Oh, so you're just saying that Allen's version of events was far more credible: Mia used him for money, but then when she found out he had fallen in love with her 21-year-old daughter (which was a little awkward but the heart wants what it wants) she was so overcome with jealousy (well aware that her own 12-year relationship with Allen could never be longterm) that she made up a story of sexual abuse and brainwashed Dylan into repeating it for all these years for attention. Mia got less money out of the deal, but in the end the scorned woman part of her personality won out over the golddigger part. 

Poor misunderstood Woody.  His only crime?  Loving too much.  It's heartbreaking really.

Edited April 10, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[DarkMark]

33 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

  

Oh, so you're just saying that Allen's version of events was far more credible: Mia used him for money, but then when she found out he had fallen in love with her 21-year-old daughter (which was a little awkward but the heart wants what it wants) she was so overcome with jealousy (well aware that her own 12-year relationship with Allen could never be longterm) that she made up a story of sexual abuse and brainwashed Dylan into repeating it for all these years for attention. Mia got less money out of the deal, but in the end the scorned woman part of her personality won out over the golddigger part. 

I don't believe the money angle was ever any part of Allen's spin. And frankly to me regardless of who it is, unless you don't trust the kids with the person, it is legitimate to entertain the thought of giving a child a father when the father is affectionate and can ensure the child's future economic stability, even if you're not sure the relationship will last.  I'm not in the least saying it is wrong,  or that Mia was a fortune hunter for herself, THAT is not one of the flags that what I've read in official documents, rather than puff pieces on Mia, raises for me.

But I don't want to avoid the elephant in the room: I do entertain the notion that Mia may have picked up on something small, made it bigger and influenced Dylan in the process, out of anger and revenge. Regardless of the destroyed notes, we know that a team of prossionals gave their professional opinion that Dylan was not abused and was either coached or influenced or both. The documentary would like to dismiss them almost as quacks or people easily influenced by Allen ( in Connecticut?), but the head of that team is still the head of that team today and the man has received a number of professional awards for his work in the field of child abuse. And in his deposition he restated there were many inconsistencies in Dylan's statements,

"Those were not minor inconsistencies," he said. "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 said the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality". and 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.'

Dr. Shultz, who was Dylan's therapist and who testified that she was brought in for therapy by Farrow and Allen because Dylan  "lived in her own fantasy world", testified she did not think Dylan was abused. Mia Farrow fired her after the ruling, but not before Ronan and Dylan, in one of their last sessions with her, put glue in her head and cut her dress. Wonder what brought that about?

Not one of the experts, on either side, called to testify during the custody trial ever stated that the tape proved or in any case strengthened the evidence of abuse. Quite the opposite. Yet to us it is obviously damning. I've yet to read of any case prior to this one where a parent , over a period of at least 24 hours if not days, taped his or her  child making an accusation of abuse before taking the child to the authorities or a help center or a doctor.

Those are things that for me raise flags.

 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DarkMark said:

But I don't want to avoid the elephant in the room: I do entertain the notion that Mia may have picked up on something small, made it bigger and influenced Dylan in the process, out of anger and revenge. Regardless of the destroyed notes, we know that a team of prossionals gave their professional opinion that Dylan was not abused and was either coached or influenced or both

It seems odd to keep holding out for more evidence about things that other people say but give the word of the professionals who say Dylan was not abused, but was coached or influenced or both based on destroyed notes weight over anything else, including professionals who did not have the same opinion (or Dylan herself, of course). There are two sets of red flags, and people tend to see one or the other. Similar to, for instance, thinking we should consider Moses' words as being at least partly true by default even after he's been proved wrong or unreliable about something but think Dylan's likely lying by default even after she's been proved right or reliable about something.

As has been said elsewhere on the thread, nobody's opinions on either side seem too swayed by evidence that the other side thinks is really damning. There's no need for speculation on stuff like whether or not someone in a 12 year relationship can believably see a future with that same partner who also wants to continue the relationship and is therefore making the same decisions regarding adoption.

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

It seems odd to keep holding out for more evidence about things that other people say but give the word of the professionals who say Dylan was not abused, but was coached or influenced or both based on destroyed notes weight over anything else, including professionals who did not have the same opinion (or Dylan herself, of course). There are two sets of red flags, and people tend to see one or the other. Similar to, for instance, thinking we should consider Moses' words as being at least partly true by default even after he's been proved wrong or unreliable about something but think Dylan's likely lying by default even after she's been proved right or reliable about something.

What I find compelling is that a judge who had access to everything the Rest of Us have seen, and probably a great deal more, not only denied Allen custody he essentially cut him out of the kids lives for good.  That just does not happen.  There are convicted criminals in prison who are getting visits from their kids, whether the other parent wanted it or not.  The idea that the reason the judge would take this step is because he either hated Woody Allen or was in love with Mia Farrow is just laughable but that seems to be what the Allen apologists trot out when this comes up.

[DarkMark]

2 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

What I find compelling is that a judge who had access to everything the Rest of Us have seen, and probably a great deal more, not only denied Allen custody he essentially cut him out of the kids lives for good.  That just does not happen.  There are convicted criminals in prison who are getting visits from their kids, whether the other parent wanted it or not.  The idea that the reason the judge would take this step is because he either hated Woody Allen or was in love with Mia Farrow is just laughable but that seems to be what the Allen apologists trot out when this comes up.

Wilk was pretty harsh in his ruling even with respect to Ronan and Moses, neither of whom Allen was reported to have had any behaviour requiring particular attention. With Ronan he was allowed only few supervised visits a week. Moses was allowed to chose whether or not to see Allen. Allen's possible visitation with Dylan were supposed to be reviewed six months after the ruling.

Yes, you are correct, Wilk  treated him worse than a criminal.

Because  of Soon Yi.

Not because of the abuse, at least that is how I interpret Wilk's specif phrase on the subject:

"I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse"

That to me does not sound like the phrase of a judge who is convinced of the abuse, rather he would not be as sure as them that it did not occurr.

The appellate court actually spelled it out when explaining why they were still delaying Allen's supervised visitations with Dylan:

"Petitioner, however, ignores the subject that Dr. Moreau deemed as deleterious to the resumption of any contact between  him and Dylan — the continuation of his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi, the child's sister. Certainly, the available record is entirely contrary to Allen's position since both Dr. Bird and Dr. Moreau concur that Dylan remains deeply resistant to visitation with petitioner and that it would not be in the child's best interest to force her to see him"

and 

"The trial court, having first solicited the opinion of Dylan's treating therapist and then having designated a neutral professional to investigate and report, found that visitation between Allen and Dylan would not, at the present time, be in the child's best interests, particularly since petitioner remains involved in a sexual relationship with her sister. The record herein, moreover, provides ample support for the court's decision to postpone the start of therapeutic visitation as being contrary to Dylan's emotional health at this time"

 

[DarkMark]

The investigation and custody trial took place in 1992-1993. In the documentary there are two main pieces of information not previously seen: Paul Williams' notes and the train track drawing. Other than that they interviewed people who either claimed to have witnessed Allen's inappropriate behaviour, which was discussed in depth at the trial, or who repeated things they had testified to already without adding anything particularly new to the account, like the lap in the head incident. One piece of information which came out later than 1993 which is not addressed in the documentary, is Groteke and her book. It seems like an exceptional absence. The filmakers could have at least mentioned that, in her book, she claims at different moments that the minutes she lost Dylan that day were hardly at all, 5 minutes , 10 minutes, 15-20 minutes. I would think that being the only "fresh" testimony from an absolute protagonist, it would have been worth investigating. They could have asked her to describe what her recollection of Allen's interactions with Dylan were.

They could have  investigated the story of the nanny Thompson whose testimony  partly substantiates  Moses' current claims. Or the nanny Mavis Smith who said in court she could not remember telling Allen, who unbeknownst to her had recorded her on the phone, various less than pleasant things about Mia and how the household was run. None, not a one. So the documentarians spent 4 hours rehashing a lot of old stuff, but apparently none of the old stuff which might have perhaps leaned Allen's way.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

As has been said elsewhere on the thread, nobody's opinions on either side seem too swayed by evidence that the other side thinks is really damning. There's no need for speculation on stuff like whether or not someone in a 12 year relationship can believably see a future with that same partner who also wants to continue the relationship and is therefore making the same decisions regarding adoption.

Exactly. One frustrating thing that I see all over the internet is the implication that people who believe Dylan just don’t have all the facts or are being illogical. These conversations often feel like playing whack-a-mole. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Guest

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, DarkMark said:

 It seems like an exceptional absence. The filmakers could have at least mentioned that, in her book, she claims at different moments that the minutes she lost Dylan that day were hardly at all, 5 minutes , 10 minutes, 15-20 minutes.

Wait, I thought the doc was wrong for including stuff like that when it was in conflict with sworn testimony, which the doc included?

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Podcast part 4:

 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Dylan Farrow was on the Drew Barrymore Show (Drew says she now regrets working with WA in 1996):

 

[DanaK]

The series got 7 Primetime Emmy Nominations https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-Emmy-Nominations-List.pdf

Outstanding Directing for a Documentary/Non-Fiction Program for Episode 3

Outstanding Picture Editing

Outstanding Music Composition for Episode 4

Outstanding Original Main Title Theme Music

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series

Outstanding Sound Editing

Outstanding Writing for a Nonfiction Series

[DanaK]

I finished the 3rd episode, about the investigation, the trial and the custody trial. The custody judge gave Allen a total smack down, a win for Dylan and Mia that the criminal investigation didn’t give them. I don’t know how Allen thought he could win a custody case given the odd parental role he had in the children’s lives, his odd behavior towards Dylan, and his affair with Soon Yi. Just terrible that the criminal investigation seemed to be in the bag for Allen

That doctor who coined parental alienation syndrome was a trip. He didn’t do studies or peer reviews, just went with his gut. Then it turned out he was for pedophelia

[TVMovieBuff]

On 2/22/2021 at 1:34 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

That phrase resonated to me as well.  Also how Mia was "attentive to my needs" or something like that.  I know it's from his autobiography, but damn, it's all about him. 

Whatever defense Woody Allen might have, apart from the "he said/she said" aspect, has to be almost exclusively famous people saying "The Woody I know wouldn't do that."  It's not has if he's going to have home movie footage of him maintaining an appropriate distance from Dylan. 

I'm coming at this from a 50's perspective, but I heard "The kids were running around naked" a few too many times.  No little girl past the baby stage should be running around in just her underpants.   

It occurs to me that rich, white Hollywood actresses have a very easy time adopting kids. 

I watched the series over the weekend, and I can't get the phrase "appropriately libidinous" out of my head. I would hate it if an ex described my "libidinousness" in any way. 

And Dylan's running around topless, although when she was 6 or so, struck me as too much. When I was that age I lived in Philly and little girls as soon as they could walk had tops on all the time, even younger than that. And naked kids, getting sunscreen put on them? Never happened!

I wondered if this is just me being a prude. I have been accused of it a lot. Good to see others feel the same. None of that is a reason Allen did what he (I believe) did. I believe Dylan. She is the most credible one of the bunch! 

Edited September 13, 2021 by TVMovieBuff