View Single Post
Old 02-12-2014, 06:47 PM   #85 (permalink)
PatDixonNYC
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queens
Posts: 73
SOON-YI WAS 21 FOR NUDE PICS, not a daughter

Quote:
Originally Posted by campy View Post
13-16 whatever, he was a father figure to this girl.
You're a father SSGT, what's wrong with you? You MUST be able to say that even if Soon-Yi was at the age of consent when the relationship began, dating a girl who considered you a father from 7 years old ISn't NORMAL

Add to that that she was UNDERAGE when he took NUDE PHOTOS of her....

please.
Here's the article showing Soon-Yi was 21 when the photos were taken:
A look back at the allegations against Woody Allen - The Washington Post

From Judge Wilk's decision: The decision says that, up until 1985, Allen had “virtually a single person’s relationship” with Farrow and “viewed her children as an encumbrance,” having “no interest” in them. Allen lived in his apartment on the east side of Manhattan, while Farrow lived on the west side with her kids. In 1984, Farrow told Allen she wanted to have his child. He was reluctant, and only agreed after “Ms. Farrow promised that the child would live with her and that Mr. Allen need not be involved with the child’s care or upbringing.”

And more directly on Soon-Yi, the judge writes:

"Until 1990, although he had had little contact with any of the Previn children, Mr. Allen had the least to do with Soon-Yi."

In 1990, Soon-Yi was 18-20. (Having no birth certificate, her birth year was believed to be either 1970 or 1972.) Either way, Woody Allen was NOT in any way a father figure, according to Judge Wilk, who by the way, was strongly anti-Woody as is evidenced in this heavy-handed and sometimes misleading decision.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote