Director Roman Polanski in custody on 31-year-old U.S. warrant

[TDmvp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556141,00.html

Wow... didn't see that coming LOL...

[cutthemdown]

Yeah I was going to post this also. WOW!!!!!!!! I wonder if they will really extradite him to the USA to face sentencing or a new trial.

Or maybe they would dismiss it? It would send a bad message. He screwed a 13 yr old and that's worst then being a killer in the USA.

[alkemical]

Yeah I was going to post this also. WOW!!!!!!!! I wonder if they will really extradite him to the USA to face sentencing or a new trial.

Or maybe they would dismiss it? It would send a bad message. He screwed a 13 yr old and that's worst then being a killer in the USA.

yet we let our daughters consume whores for idols.

We are hypocrites. We say how bad it is, but then we push the agenda.

How big of a market is the barley legal market, or the "teenager" market for porn? We like to see our little sexy starlets.

"eating seeds is a past time activity, the toxicity...."

[SPfloppy]

I agree that "Barley legal" porn is shameful and smacks of pedophelia. But raising the age limit on performers from 18 to say 20 would set a precident and allow for arguments on age limits for all sorts of other items. It is the industry that supports this type of pornography that needs to lead the way on changing this, but these guys would lose money on a genre they count on so they'd not likely change anything internaly.

Damn shame too. Because you are right on amesj523, the existence of this type of porn is hypocritical. A guy might sit there with a copy of Hustler's Barley 18 magazine and 20 minutes later see a story on the news about a sex offender and demand his head on a platter. he'd not even begin to see how close to the same line he is to the offense he is de-crying

[alkemical]

Americans do not have a healthy idea of sexuality.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree that "Barley legal" porn is shameful and smacks of pedophelia. But raising the age limit on performers from 18 to say 20 would set a precident and allow for arguments on age limits for all sorts of other items. It is the industry that supports this type of pornography that needs to lead the way on changing this, but these guys would lose money on a genre they count on so they'd not likely change anything internaly.

Damn shame too. Because you are right on amesj523, the existence of this type of porn is hypocritical. A guy might sit there with a copy of Hustler's Barley 18 magazine and 20 minutes later see a story on the news about a sex offender and demand his head on a platter. he'd not even begin to see how close to the same line he is to the offense he is de-crying

Pedophilla is sex with a child 13 and under. 18 year olds are not included in that and there is nothing wrong with it. :) Don't punish these 18 year-old kids into thinking they are doing something wrong or should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexuality. That's what's unhealthy.

[barryr]

Polanski I think is charged with drugging a 13 year old too, so if true, that's even worse, but even without that, it isn't anything close to a 18 year old. 5 years may not sound like much, but in teens years, it is.

[SPfloppy]

Pedophilla is sex with a child 13 and under. 18 year olds are not included in that and there is nothing wrong with it. :) Don't punish these 18 year-old kids into thinking they are doing something wrong or should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexuality. That's what's unhealthy.

You mistake my meaning.

Marketing of "Barley legal" porn is aimed at older men. Glorifying the idea that "this girl turned 18 last week!" is so close to the legal age that it's taboo. 18 is the legal standard. The sick selling point is that it is saying let's get as close to the line as possible. That is a few steps removed from sick. An 18 year old girl who just graduated from High school, speading her stuff for a magzine. She was 17 three weeks ago. That close enough that is encouraging men to think that the youger they are the hotter it is, in that particular market. I was not saying and did not say anything about "Punishing these 18-year old kids" You said that.

[TailgateNut]

yet we let our daughters consume whores for idols.

We are hypocrites. We say how bad it is, but then we push the agenda.

How big of a market is the barley legal market, or the "teenager" market for porn? We like to see our little sexy starlets.

"eating seeds is a past time activity, the toxicity...."


WOW!

Just lump everyone into the degenerate column.

[alkemical]

WOW!

Just lump everyone into the degenerate column.


Really?

Hannah Montanna

Brittany Spears

etc etc

Sex idols before they were legal.

We consume it, we want it - we even have girls toys about working on the pole.

http://cache.static.tsavo.com/wordpress/uploads/2009/09/PoleDance.jpg

[Garcia Bronco]

You mistake my meaning.

Marketing of "Barley legal" porn is aimed at older men. Glorifying the idea that "this girl turned 18 last week!" is so close to the legal age that it's taboo. 18 is the legal standard. The sick selling point is that it is saying let's get as close to the line as possible. That is a few steps removed from sick. An 18 year old girl who just graduated from High school, speading her stuff for a magzine. She was 17 three weeks ago. That close enough that is encouraging men to think that the youger they are the hotter it is, in that particular market. I was not saying and did not say anything about "Punishing these 18-year old kids" You said that.

I don't think people really look at it that way. Maybe some. They are most likely looking at nekked ladies relieving some stress. Many of those girls are actually in their early 20's. Either way there isn't anything wrong with it.

[SPfloppy]

^No they aren't likely looking at it that way. I think it's what is behind it and I wanted to illustrate that here. Guys are guys and we all have some sexual proclivity that would be strange to the next guy.

Crap i think we got derailed from the topic here and I am sorry I aided in that. we good Garcia?

[alkemical]

I don't think people really look at it that way. Maybe some. They are most likely looking at nekked ladies relieving some stress. Many of those girls are actually in their early 20's. Either way there isn't anything wrong with it.

being unaware doesn't mean that's not what it is.

[TailgateNut]

Really?

Hannah Montanna

Brittany Spears

etc etc

Sex idols before they were legal.

We consume it, we want it - we even have girls toys about working on the pole.

http://cache.static.tsavo.com/wordpress/uploads/2009/09/PoleDance.jpg


WE???

You, maybe.

Someone on this board commented about my teen daughter being "hot". If that person were to say that to my face, they would be visiting the dentist that day, but I didn't respond to the ignorant post. (I do however will remember the who and what).

Those are your WE people.

It's people who don't have children who look at children as sex objects. Sick MF's if you ask me.

[alkemical]

WE???

You, maybe.

Someone on this board commented about my teen daughter being "hot". If that person were to say that to my face, they would be visiting the dentist that day, but I didn't respond to the ignorant post. (I do however will remember the who and what).

Those are your WE people.

It's people who don't have children who look at children as sex objects. Sick MF's if you ask me.


Disagree - it's a bigger part of society as a whole. If i'm so wrong, then tell me why teen aged kids selling sex, sells?

Oh and really, child predators don't have kids? Please - that's just you being facetious.

Sorry man, society dictates i'm right on this. Wish i wasn't, but indeed -

http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/gatherer/files/2008/10/hannah-montanna-candy.jpg

http://clubxgen.com/blogimages/britney-spears-baby-one-more-time-cover-011208-thumb-450x450.jpg


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00786/one-more-time_786644i.jpg

[TailgateNut]

Allright, you win. We are inundated with a bunch of classless lowlifes who live their lives wanting to have sex with underage girls/boys.

I need to remove myself from this conversation 'cause I'm part of the WE will shoot you on the spot if WE know you've abused a child contingent.
Fine.
Put me in Jail, just allow me out to piss on your grave.

[Garcia Bronco]

^No they aren't likely looking at it that way. I think it's what is behind it and I wanted to illustrate that here. Guys are guys and we all have some sexual proclivity that would be strange to the next guy.

Crap i think we got derailed from the topic here and I am sorry I aided in that. we good Garcia?

We're always good. It's just a discussion on a topic people outside this forum won't disscuss. And it's a discussion that needs to happen IMO.

[Garcia Bronco]

being unaware doesn't mean that's not what it is.

In my late 20's early 30's I had a few relationships with somw 18 to 22 year-olds. It was fun and they had fun...we all had fun. Nothing wrong with it.

[SPfloppy]

Man you know if I were single I don't think I could date someone younger than say 23 or so. Even at that it may be pushing it. It could be fun for a bit but you do have to talk for extended periods of time about something with more substance than the MTV award show or the latest VH1 un-reality show staring someone we don't know

[alkemical]

In my late 20's early 30's I had a few relationships with somw 18 to 22 year-olds. It was fun and they had fun...we all had fun. Nothing wrong with it.

Porn is a fantasy world. I'm sorry if you are trying to justify it in a certain way where consenting adults in a real world situation agree to terms. But to deny the fantasy world of porn is pretty silly.

My point is vaild.

[alkemical]

Allright, you win. We are inundated with a bunch of classless lowlifes who live their lives wanting to have sex with underage girls/boys.

I need to remove myself from this conversation 'cause I'm part of the WE will shoot you on the spot if WE know you've abused a child contingent.
Fine.
Put me in Jail, just allow me out to piss on your grave.

You're missing the point due to your irrationality at this moment. Just think about what i said, and then observe it. You'll see exactly what i'm talking about.

[Garcia Bronco]

Porn is a fantasy world. I'm sorry if you are trying to justify it in a certain way where consenting adults in a real world situation agree to terms. But to deny the fantasy world of porn is pretty silly.

My point is vaild.

Porn is as much fantasy as it is a teaching tool. Heck even those 18 year olds taught me a thing or two. It wasn't my first redo either. It's a different world from when you and I were teenagers. What is considered fantasy by some isn't so much fantasy by others. And Britany Spears back then was marketed toward teenagers. Not adults.

[Rohirrim]

This arrest is just a stupid waste of time and money. I'm sure it's some prosecutor who is only using this case to pump up his own political credentials by going after a big name. Polanski made a plea bargain with the prosecutor thirty years ago and spent 42 days in a prison psyche evaluation program. When he got out he discovered the judge had changed his mind and was going to renege on the plea deal and lock him up, so he fled the country. The girl in the story sued Polanski and reached an out of court settlement, which he paid. She is now in her forties and wants the case dropped so she can forget about it and get on with her life.

[SPfloppy]

Porn is as much fantasy as it is a teaching tool. Heck even those 18 year olds taught me a thing or two. It wasn't my first redo either. It's a different world from when you and I were teenagers. What is considered fantasy by some isn't so much fantasy by others. And Britany Spears back then was marketed toward teenagers. Not adults.

I do have to disagree about Brittany. I was 19 when she debuted and I recall a steamy Rollinstone layout following the release of her first album. The magazine was accused of marketing an underage girl as a sex object. He team started going ith the sweet and innocent routine for a while after that...then she turned into a sex object again the second she turned 18

[alkemical]

I do have to disagree about Brittany. I was 19 when she debuted and I recall a steamy Rollinstone layout following the release of her first album. The magazine was accused of marketing an underage girl as a sex object. He team started going ith the sweet and innocent routine for a while after that...then she turned into a sex object again the second she turned 18

That's my point.

[SPfloppy]

^Yeah I was just saying so to Garcia. I'm aon board with ya on this one, but again I think we all giot off point here

[Rohirrim]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_UBCK9icbLHg/SP2KByruJhI/AAAAAAAAATc/9Ong_frP-WU/s640/217225403_9a902d015b%5B1%5D.jpg

Jon Benet Ramsey. Case closed.

[TailgateNut]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_UBCK9icbLHg/SP2KByruJhI/AAAAAAAAATc/9Ong_frP-WU/s640/217225403_9a902d015b%5B1%5D.jpg

Jon Benet Ramsey. Case closed.

Arrogant and ignorant parenting. PERIOD.

[Garcia Bronco]

I do have to disagree about Brittany. I was 19 when she debuted and I recall a steamy Rollinstone layout following the release of her first album. The magazine was accused of marketing an underage girl as a sex object. He team started going ith the sweet and innocent routine for a while after that...then she turned into a sex object again the second she turned 18

And at 19 you are their target audience. It's not adults. Either way there is nothing wrong with looking at a nekked girl, half-nekked or otherwise when she's 18 years of age. Now if you were her soccer coach or teacher or professor...then there is an issue, but that doesn't have much to do with age.

[Garcia Bronco]

This arrest is just a stupid waste of time and money. I'm sure it's some prosecutor who is only using this case to pump up his own political credentials by going after a big name. Polanski made a plea bargain with the prosecutor thirty years ago and spent 42 days in a prison psyche evaluation program. When he got out he discovered the judge had changed his mind and was going to renege on the plea deal and lock him up, so he fled the country. The girl in the story sued Polanski and reached an out of court settlement, which he paid. She is now in her forties and wants the case dropped so she can forget about it and get on with her life.

Doesn't matter. He broke the law and he deserves to do time for it. The fact that he put it off for his entire life is his problem.

[alkemical]

And at 19 you are their target audience. It's not adults. Either way there is nothing wrong with looking at a nekked girl, half-nekked or otherwise when she's 18 years of age. Now if you were her soccer coach or teacher or professor...then there is an issue, but that doesn't have much to do with age.

So...when they have look a like britanny, hannah, etc porn stars - that's marketing to 19 year olds?

[alkemical]

^Yeah I was just saying so to Garcia. I'm aon board with ya on this one, but again I think we all giot off point here

Ya i know - garcia's arguing a different point all together because he likes young women. It's not that he's a scumbag - because i've had similar dating experiences - but i think he's missing out on the actual point that our society likes the idea of having sex with young kids.

Hell, look at the teacher's boinking kids.

Or the boystown scandal where kids were shipped off for sex with politicians. Or the sex-slave trade that is a big market in some south american and asian countries.

[Rohirrim]

Doesn't matter. He broke the law and he deserves to do time for it. The fact that he put it off for his entire life is his problem.

Thank you for your input, Javert.

[Garcia Bronco]

Man you know if I were single I don't think I could date someone younger than say 23 or so. Even at that it may be pushing it. It could be fun for a bit but you do have to talk for extended periods of time about something with more substance than the MTV award show or the latest VH1 un-reality show staring someone we don't know

It really depends on the individual. Some of the 23 year-olds are more intelligent than myself and others not.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ya i know - garcia's arguing a different point all together because he likes young women. It's not that he's a scumbag - because i've had similar dating experiences - but i think he's missing out on the actual point that our society likes the idea of having sex with young kids.

Hell, look at the teacher's boinking kids.

Or the boystown scandal where kids were shipped off for sex with politicians. Or the sex-slave trade that is a big market in some south american and asian countries.

My last relationship was with a 45 year-old. I like them all generally speaking.

[Garcia Bronco]

Thank you for your input, Javert.

LOL. You don't have the stones to support you own position

[alkemical]

My last relationship was with a 45 year-old. I like them all generally speaking.

Look man, do what you want and who you want. It doesn't matter to me. But your POV on this matter i think is off - and you keep approaching the angle of real-life-real adults - but not the fantasy world that porn and the "media" sells - in which "we" consume.

[Garcia Bronco]

So...when they have look a like britanny, hannah, etc porn stars - that's marketing to 19 year olds?

Britanny was marketed to that demographic and younger. So is hannah montana. Porn Stars don't really have marketing. Nobody really cares what their names are. Not mainstream anyway. And not outside of California.

[Garcia Bronco]

Look man, do what you want and who you want. It doesn't matter to me. But your POV on this matter i think is off - and you keep approaching the angle of real-life-real adults - but not the fantasy world that porn and the "media" sells - in which "we" consume.

What's the fantasy portion you are refering to? This can differ from person to person. You mean walking in your house and having two naked woman there? Is that fantasy? Sure for some....but it depends on who you are, doesn't it?

[Rohirrim]

LOL. You don't have the stones to support you own position

I thought I already did. Okay, I'll do it especially for you:

Perp already pay victim.

Victim say I done with it. Leave me alone.

State pursue case with no victim.

Wasting taxpayer money.

How's that? Or maybe I should draw some pictures?

[TailgateNut]

I thought I already did. Okay, I'll do it especially for you:

Perp already pay victim.

Victim say I done with it. Leave me alone.

State pursue case with no victim.

Wasting taxpayer money.

How's that? Or maybe I should draw some pictures?

Where are the resident attorneys. Buff, Bean???

I don't think civil settlements preclude the state from going after your ass.

[alkemical]

What's the fantasy portion you are refering to? This can differ from person to person. You mean walking in your house and having two naked woman there? Is that fantasy? Sure for some....but it depends on who you are, doesn't it?

If the market didn't exist, the product wouldn't.

[Rohirrim]

Where are the resident attorneys. Buff, Bean???

I don't think civil settlements preclude the state from going after your ass.

I side with the victim. She says she's done with it and doesn't want to rehash the whole thing for the hundredth time. If they go through with this and extradite Polanksi, then she gets dragged back into the courtroom for how long? Months? With the press riding her ass the whole time. In other words, rape #2. IMO, if the victim says "I'm out" the state should too.

[TailgateNut]

I side with the victim. She says she's done with it and doesn't want to rehash the whole thing for the hundredth time. If they go through with this and extradite Polanksi, then she gets dragged back into the courtroom for how long? Months? With the press riding her ass the whole time. In other words, rape #2. IMO, if the victim says "I'm out" the state should too.

I didn't ask about your opinion, I asked about the legalities of the case and the possibility of getting a conviction.

'Cause if he did it, he should be incarcerated. Period.

...and what this thing about Jack Nicholson?

[Garcia Bronco]

I thought I already did. Okay, I'll do it especially for you:

Perp already pay victim.

Victim say I done with it. Leave me alone.

State pursue case with no victim.

Wasting taxpayer money.

How's that? Or maybe I should draw some pictures?

Perp still owes the citizens. Not just the victim.

[Garcia Bronco]

Where are the resident attorneys. Buff, Bean???

I don't think civil settlements preclude the state from going after your ass.

It doesn't. Especially in a commonwealth

[TailgateNut]

It doesn't. Especially in a commonwealth


I do know a criminal acquittal doesn'r preclude a civil suit. Just not sure about the reverse/or out of court settlements.

If that were the case anyone could "buy themselves out of justice".

[Garcia Bronco]

Wiki

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[31]

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.[32]

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]

[TailgateNut]

Wiki

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[31]

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.[32]

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]

He needs to FRY and her parents should be beaten into oblivion. WTF were they doing while this little girl was alone with this perverted ****head.

[Rohirrim]

I didn't ask about your opinion, I asked about the legalities of the case and the possibility of getting a conviction.

'Cause if he did it, he should be incarcerated. Period.

...and what this thing about Jack Nicholson?

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Geimer, who has spoken publicly about the case before, including a 2003 appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," added, "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child."

She chided the district attorney's office for not dismissing the case earlier and for "yet once again (giving) great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read again. True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me ... I have become a victim of the actions of the District Attorney."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/12/polanski.case/index.html

[Garcia Bronco]

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Geimer, who has spoken publicly about the case before, including a 2003 appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," added, "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child."

She chided the district attorney's office for not dismissing the case earlier and for "yet once again (giving) great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read again. True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me ... I have become a victim of the actions of the District Attorney."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/12/polanski.case/index.html

As tough as it is on the victim, he needs to have a fair trial...followed by a fair hanging.

[Rohirrim]

As tough as it is on the victim, he needs to have a fair trial...followed by a fair hanging.

Her parents should be hanged as well. I don't defend Polanksi. He's a scumbag. Off course, you have to take into account that his wife and baby were butchered by maniacs. Maybe that made him crazy? I just side with the victim. I feel that if she says stop, the DA should stop. I don't see where justice is served by feeding this poor woman into the maw of the media cannibals. She's forty five years old and wants to be left alone. Hell, she actually filed a petition to the court to have the case dismissed. It just smells to me like some DA is doing this for his own political interests.

[Fedaykin]

As tough as it is on the victim, he needs to have a fair trial...followed by a fair hanging.

How is justice served by continuing to victimize this woman? It's pretty clear at this point that it's a DA using this case to try to boost his career, and he's doing that at the expense of an innocent person.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Really?

Hannah Montanna

Brittany Spears

etc etc

Sex idols before they were legal.

We consume it, we want it - we even have girls toys about working on the pole.



I couldnt agree more.

For the sake of making a buck, we sell our morals daily.

[TexanBob]

Maybe Polanski just wanted to attend Susan Atkins' funeral so he could thank her. Think of all the child support payments Atkins' act saved Polanski over the years.

[Rohirrim]

Maybe Polanski just wanted to attend Susan Atkins' funeral so he could thank her. Think of all the child support payments Atkins' act saved Polanski over the years.

You are a sick, twisted ****.

[Fedaykin]

How is justice served by continuing to victimize this woman? It's pretty clear at this point that it's a DA using this case to try to boost his career, and he's doing that at the expense of an innocent person.

Just wanted to clarify that the victim, not Polanski, that is the "innocent person" I refer to here.

[Garcia Bronco]

How is justice served by continuing to victimize this woman? It's pretty clear at this point that it's a DA using this case to try to boost his career, and he's doing that at the expense of an innocent person.

If he's guilty he needs to go to jail. And while I don't want to see the victim drug through the mud....he needs to be brought to justice.

[cutthemdown]

I side with the victim. She says she's done with it and doesn't want to rehash the whole thing for the hundredth time. If they go through with this and extradite Polanksi, then she gets dragged back into the courtroom for how long? Months? With the press riding her ass the whole time. In other words, rape #2. IMO, if the victim says "I'm out" the state should too.

Sorry but victims don't get to decide stuff like that. This dude is guilty of drugging and raping a 13 yr old. You don't get off just because you were rich and fled to France for 30 yrs.

That would be like someone shooting me, and me saying well I don't want them busted. I don't make that determination, the law does. The victim has no ability to stop the law from being enforced.

Besided he only needs to be sentenced, he already admitted to the crime.

[Fedaykin]

If he's guilty he needs to go to jail. And while I don't want to see the victim drug through the mud....he needs to be brought to justice.

His victim thinks justice has been done:

"In a 2003 interview,[41] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it". In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society."

And, it sounds like there was shenanigans with his treatment by authorities, thought the wiki article is unclear why a warrant was issued after he served his (slap on the wrist) sentence. Last I checked, in the U.S. double jeopardy is still unconstitutional.

So to sum up:

* He's a basard that comitted a terrible crime
* He plead guilty and surrendered himself willingly to serve the penalty he was given (which despite the fact that it was a pathetic slap on the wrist was still the penalty he was given)
* He's released and then the authorities try to arrest him again (???)
* His victim thinks he's paid his dues and wants the authorities to stop.

Again, how is justice being served here?

[Fedaykin]

Sorry but victims don't get to decide stuff like that. This dude is guilty of drugging and raping a 13 yr old. You don't get off just because you were rich and fled to France for 30 yrs.

That would be like someone shooting me, and me saying well I don't want them busted. I don't make that determination, the law does. The victim has no ability to stop the law from being enforced.

Besided he only needs to be sentenced, he already admitted to the crime.

This is not true. Many crimes require the consent of the victim (in the form of pressing charges) for the law to act.

More importantly, the purpose of law is to protect people from crime. It does not follow logically that the law must force people to let themselves be "protected".

[Rohirrim]

Sorry but victims don't get to decide stuff like that. This dude is guilty of drugging and raping a 13 yr old. You don't get off just because you were rich and fled to France for 30 yrs.

That would be like someone shooting me, and me saying well I don't want them busted. I don't make that determination, the law does. The victim has no ability to stop the law from being enforced.

Besided he only needs to be sentenced, he already admitted to the crime.

As I understand it, he served the sentence approved of in advance in a plea bargain with the prosecutor, which the judge agreed to, and then the judge, under political pressure, decided to alter the agreement after the fact and impose a harsher penalty. At that point, Polanski fled. Anyway, that's beside the point. The injured party has had enough. That should be the end of it. I guarantee you, some prosecutor who wants some political red meat out of this is the one pushing the issue. In other words, it's for personal gain, not societal justice.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is not true. Many crimes require the consent of the victim (in the form of pressing charges) for the law to act.

More importantly, the purpose of law is to protect people from crime. It does not follow logically that the law must force people to let themselves be "protected".

In a Commonwealth it's rarely the case. This however took place in LA. The guy has thumbed his nose at our system for 30 years. He needs to be made an exampleof...especially considering what he did. A woman I know has a son that was violated by a priest. She is glad that another sicko is off the streets.

[Garcia Bronco]

His victim thinks justice has been done:

"In a 2003 interview,[41] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it". In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society."

And, it sounds like there was shenanigans with his treatment by authorities, thought the wiki article is unclear why a warrant was issued after he served his (slap on the wrist) sentence. Last I checked, in the U.S. double jeopardy is still unconstitutional.

So to sum up:

* He's a basard that comitted a terrible crime
* He plead guilty and surrendered himself willingly to serve the penalty he was given (which despite the fact that it was a pathetic slap on the wrist was still the penalty he was given)
* He's released and then the authorities try to arrest him again (???)
* His victim thinks he's paid his dues and wants the authorities to stop.

Again, how is justice being served here?

Because he could do it again. It's not just this victim. How many more did he have in France? We don't know. Could be none. How many did he have before? Put his pedophile ass where it belongs.

[Fedaykin]

Because he could do it again. It's not just this victim. How many more did he have in France? We don't know. Could be none. How many did he have before? Put his pedophile ass where it belongs.

As far as I can tell, he served the sentence he was given. I think it was a pathetic slap on the wrist, but he served it none-the-less. If he's committed other crimes, he should be prosecuted for them, not put in double jeopardy for a previous crime.

[Rohirrim]

"Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl," she wrote in her Los Angeles Times piece. "And honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

[cutthemdown]

This is not true. Many crimes require the consent of the victim (in the form of pressing charges) for the law to act.

More importantly, the purpose of law is to protect people from crime. It does not follow logically that the law must force people to let themselves be "protected".

nope your wrong. I work in a law office and you don't know what your talking about. They may need victim to testify in order to prove a case, but they don't need charges pressed by victim. Charges are brought by the people represented by the distric atty.

read up on the law my friend or maybe don't post things you know nothing about before checking your facts.

[cutthemdown]

In this case though we have a man who admitted his crimes. Then ran when he found out the punishment might be worst then he thought.

The victim does not have the power to tell the people/govt its ok I don't want him busted. Victims and crimnals do not decide what charges get pressed, its all about the people and the DA.

True a cop my ask you do you want to press charges, after someone beats you etc, but what they are really saying is do you want to testify, give evidence, so we can bust the person. In reality pressing charges is not up to the victim. That decision made by the DA office.

[cutthemdown]

As I understand it, he served the sentence approved of in advance in a plea bargain with the prosecutor, which the judge agreed to, and then the judge, under political pressure, decided to alter the agreement after the fact and impose a harsher penalty. At that point, Polanski fled. Anyway, that's beside the point. The injured party has had enough. That should be the end of it. I guarantee you, some prosecutor who wants some political red meat out of this is the one pushing the issue. In other words, it's for personal gain, not societal justice.

I disagree. The injured party has no say in this. Just because you are a victim does not give you any power to decide how the judicial system prosecutes someone.

I was too young to really remember but regardless the guy drugged and raped a 13 yr old and then fled the country because people got upset when they heard he was getting a celibrity freebie deal. Until a deal is accepted by a judge they don't count.

Judges do that more then you think. They change minds or flat say I don't think deal prosecutor is doing serves justice.

They important thing is we don't let people rape little girls and get away with it. How people can defend this pedophile child rapist I have no idea.

[cutthemdown]

People act like Polanski deserved a deal, he didn't. What he deserved was to be put to death or life in prison. I have no stomach for people who rape little kids. I hope he rots the rest of his miserable yrs in a prison.

[TailgateNut]

People act like Polanski deserved a deal, he didn't. What he deserved was to be put to death or life in prison. I have no stomach for people who rape little kids. I hope he rots the rest of his miserable yrs in a prison.


"bout time we agree on something.^5

[Fedaykin]

People act like Polanski deserved a deal, he didn't. What he deserved was to be put to death or life in prison. I have no stomach for people who rape little kids. I hope he rots the rest of his miserable yrs in a prison.

Who here is acting like he deserved a deal?

[Spider]

I just hope the woman is strong enough to deal with this all over again

[cutthemdown]

Who here is acting like he deserved a deal?

This coming from the guy who thinks its up to the victims whether crimes get brought.

Several people seem to think he should be let go now because the judge made a deal, then backed out of it. Others because victim says she doesn't want him busted for it now.

Well neither of those arguments hold water IMO. He raped a little girl. No way we can bust people for going to cambodia and screwing little girls who do it willingly, if we are going to let this guy get off because the case is old and he is famous.

Nope you send a message that no matter how much time passes we do not ever forget about murders, and child rapists.

Besdies he can make a great movie in prison called.....The Cellmate I loved!!!!!!!!.

[cutthemdown]

"bout time we agree on something.^5

Amazing to me people feel because he was able to elude the authorities in France for 30 yrs he should somehow win and not be busted for his crimes.

In fact he should be busted even worst because he ran. Also I'd like to know what Jack Nicholson was doing lettling a 40 yr old bring a 13 yr old to his home and ply her with alcohol and drugs. **** she probably wasn't alone and the little friend of hers all jacko banged just never talked.

How many 13 yr old girls hang out alone? go to people homes alone? usually they are with a friend the same age.

[cutthemdown]

I just hope the woman is strong enough to deal with this all over again

Yeah it does suck for her that the criminal escaped for so long making her have to go through this now when it should have been over 30 yrs ago.

Tell me this though Spider if someone raped one of your girls, how many yrs could go by before you decided the perp didn't deserve what you had coming for him anymore?

**** I don't have to ask you would have went to France and took care of that **** yourself. And if you needed some help I would have been right by your side. Child molesters and child rapists have no rights on this earth as far as I'm concerned. not now, not 30 yrs after the fact, not 100 yrs after the fact.

This is America and when you run from the arm of our law we don't just let you win because you managed to stay away for 30 yrs.

[Spider]

Yeah it does suck for her that the criminal escaped for so long making her have to go through this now when it should have been over 30 yrs ago.

Tell me this though Spider if someone raped one of your girls, how many yrs could go by before you decided the perp didn't deserve what you had coming for him anymore?

**** I don't have to ask you would have went to France and took care of that **** yourself. And if you needed some help I would have been right by your side. Child molesters and child rapists have no rights on this earth as far as I'm concerned. not now, not 30 yrs after the fact, not 100 yrs after the fact.

This is America and when you run from the arm of our law we don't just let you win because you managed to stay away for 30 yrs.

:D pretty much ............But yeah I wouldnt rest until the bastard was brought to justice or I got my hands on him , what ever one came first ... But most of all I would be the rock , my daughter needed to get through this , I would quit ( and I do love my Job) working just to be there for her .....

[Smiling Assassin27]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

I've got a 10 year old daughter. Read the transcripts of the victim's testimony. If you aren't sick now, you will be. Spider, I gotta concur. Who knows how many more 13 year old girls (or boys) have had to endure this dude's sexual appetite. That, I fear, is the biggest consequence of him fleeing.

[alkemical]

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=866739408240639313&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

[Rohirrim]

Amazing to me people feel because he was able to elude the authorities in France for 30 yrs he should somehow win and not be busted for his crimes.

Once again, you go off half-cocked with wrong info. Nobody has said that. Period. The only argument I have made on this thread is that justice should serve the victim first. She stated that she has felt more violated by the press and the system than by Polanski. She comes first, AFAIC.

In fact he should be busted even worst because he ran. Also I'd like to know what Jack Nicholson was doing lettling a 40 yr old bring a 13 yr old to his home and ply her with alcohol and drugs. **** she probably wasn't alone and the little friend of hers all jacko banged just never talked.

How many 13 yr old girls hang out alone? go to people homes alone? usually they are with a friend the same age.

More half-info and unfounded bs. Jack Nicholson owned the house, but was out of the country at the time. He lent it to Polanski to stay in while he was in LA. He wasn't even there. Do you feel you have any responsibility to gather any facts before you spew?

I think the real unanswered question is, "Where was mom and dad?" I sure as hell wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter be photographed by anybody if I wasn't there watching.

Some DA will use this case to forward his political career and a bunch of moral cowboys filled with holy indignation will use this case to pump up their own self-righteousness, and meanwhile, the victim gets used again, against her wishes. When do we do what she wants and leave her alone?

This is going to turn into another one of those cases like the woman whose husband was trying to turn off her life support and everybody gets involved and starts using these people for their own bull****.

[cutthemdown]

More half-info and unfounded bs. Jack Nicholson owned the house, but was out of the country at the time. He lent it to Polanski to stay in while he was in LA. He wasn't even there. Do you feel you have any responsibility to gather any facts before you spew?

I think the real unanswered question is, "Where was mom and dad?" I sure as hell wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter be photographed by anybody if I wasn't there watching.

Some DA will use this case to forward his political career and a bunch of moral cowboys filled with holy indignation will use this case to pump up their own self-righteousness, and meanwhile, the victim gets used again, against her wishes. When do we do what she wants and leave her alone?

This is going to turn into another one of those cases like the woman whose husband was trying to turn off her life support and everybody gets involved and starts using these people for their own bull****.

I said I wanted to know where Jack was. You told me. I am happy to hear he wasn't home. But like I said victims don't get to decide what gets prosecuted, thats up to the District Atty office.

Otherwise tons of young girls would choose the do not prosecute route because they are scared and it seems easier.

[Rohirrim]

I said I wanted to know where Jack was. You told me. I am happy to hear he wasn't home. But like I said victims don't get to decide what gets prosecuted, thats up to the District Atty office.

Otherwise tons of young girls would choose the do not prosecute route because they are scared and it seems easier.

I think we should just pull Polanski's right to ever set foot in America again and close the case so the victim can just spend the rest of her life in peace.

[cutthemdown]

I think we should just pull Polanski's right to ever set foot in America again and close the case so the victim can just spend the rest of her life in peace.

And I disagree. You send a message to all pedophiles that it's like murder to us. A crime that no matter how long you run from it you will face the punishment at some point.

Pedophiles don't stop. He's probably used Frances lax laws on screwing kids to have a field day with young girls.

You know adults can screw 15 yr olds there right?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think we should just pull Polanski's right to ever set foot in America again and close the case so the victim can just spend the rest of her life in peace.

Yeah. That's it.

You know, I would hate to think that the hypocrisy that you liberals are showing in regards to child molestation is unique here, but you have shown time and time again to have no problems with your own hypocrisy.

Republican child molester? CRUCIFY HIM!

Liberal propagandist child molester? Ah...no biggie. The girl probably liked it.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah. That's it.

You know, I would hate to think that the hypocrisy that you liberals are showing in regards to child molestation is unique here, but you have shown time and time again to have no problems with your own hypocrisy.

Republican child molester? CRUCIFY HIM!

Liberal propagandist child molester? Ah...no biggie. The girl probably liked it.

You're a ****ing moron.

[cutthemdown]

One reason the judge decided to pull his deal was because someone showed him a picture of Polanski in France the yr before with 2 really young girls.

This guy was a predator of young girls which is why he went to France. There he could screw 15 and 16 yr olds into his 70's.

Who knows what this guy has done.

[cutthemdown]

Of course Woody Allen on his side. I mean anyone who screws his own daughter out to know what is right.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Of course Woody Allen on his side. I mean anyone who screws his own daughter out to know what is right.

...along with all of the high school dropouts in Hollywood who are brown-nosing to get into one of his movies.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're a ****ing moron.

Moral relativism = no morality.

This applies to you. Whatever fits your silly little political agenda is all good.

[cutthemdown]

I wonder how much Polanski paid that girl to not want him in prison. The rumor is they came to a huge out of court settlement.

If she was smart she would want a new trial, then he would have to pay her off all over again.

[Rohirrim]

I wonder how much Polanski paid that girl to not want him in prison. The rumor is they came to a huge out of court settlement.

If she was smart she would want a new trial, then he would have to pay her off all over again.

It just occurred to me, you don't read anything that is posted, but just keep spewing out your opinions regardless, right or wrong. That seems to be the basic rightard motto: "My ideology makes everything I say valid."

Hmmmm...

I think I've hit upon the rightard key here. It applies to Fox, to Rush, to Glenn Beck, to Coulter, Malkin, to the rightards in Congress. Eureka! I've uncovered the secret rightard formula! Of course, that is the basic theme of the fascist; Ideology makes me always right.

Basically, that is the same theme for Ahmadinijad.

[gyldenlove]

There is hope!

At this rate they will catch Osama in 2032.

[gyldenlove]

In a Commonwealth it's rarely the case. This however took place in LA. The guy has thumbed his nose at our system for 30 years. He needs to be made an exampleof...especially considering what he did. A woman I know has a son that was violated by a priest. She is glad that another sicko is off the streets.

That is true, but for the case to move forward she has to testify, if she thinks he has had enough all she has to say is that she has no memory of the events.

To my knowledge no physical evidence exists, nobody can convict based on a lot of I have no memory of that.

[BroncoInferno]

The victim is not going to cooperate with the case and they have no physical evidence, so this is a waste of time. It will be impossible to get a conviction under those circumstances.

[BroncoInferno]

Maybe Polanski just wanted to attend Susan Atkins' funeral so he could thank her. Think of all the child support payments Atkins' act saved Polanski over the years.

I knew you were goddamn stupid; I didn't realize you were a sick mother****er, too.

[Garcia Bronco]

That is true, but for the case to move forward she has to testify, if she thinks he has had enough all she has to say is that she has no memory of the events.

To my knowledge no physical evidence exists, nobody can convict based on a lot of I have no memory of that.

He's already been convicted. He skipped sentencing. He's already said he's guilty. I think the should have a new trial, though.

[BroncoInferno]

He's already been convicted. He skipped sentencing. He's already said he's guilty. I think the should have a new trial, though.

It's doubtful the conviction would hold up on appeal. I saw a doc about the case not too long ago, and even the freakin' prosecutor said Polanskii was railroaded and even flat out said he did not blame him for leaving the country. Polanski is a scumbag, but everyone is entitled to a fair trail and fair treatment from the court, which Polankski by all accounts did not receive.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's doubtful the conviction would hold up on appeal. I saw a doc about the case not too long ago, and even the freakin' prosecutor said Polanskii was railroaded and even flat out said he did not blame him for leaving the country. Polanski is a scumbag, but everyone is entitled to a fair trail and fair treatment from the court, which Polankski by all accounts did not receive.

I hear what you are saying, but the guy raped and drugged 13 year-old and thumbed his nose at our justice system He's guilty, everybody knows it, and he must go down.

[BroncoInferno]

I hear what you are saying, but the guy raped and drugged 13 year-old and thumbed his nose at our justice system He's guilty, everybody knows it, and he must go down.

The issue is that justice dictates a new trail. If there is a trail, the prosection no longer has a cooperative victim, nor do they have any physical evidence. Polanski's admission of guilt was within the context of the first trail and the agreement he thought he had made with the judge, so it would likely not be allowed in the new trail. In short, it would be pretty much impossible to get a guilty verdict.

[Garcia Bronco]

The issue is that justice dictates a new trail. If there is a trail, the prosection no longer has a cooperative victim, nor do they have any physical evidence. Polanski's admission of guilt was within the context of the first trail and the agreement he thought he had made with the judge, so it would likely not be allowed in the new trail. In short, it would be pretty much impossible to get a guilty verdict.

They still have the statements made now and then as evidence. He's done like dinner. Plus, he's resisted arrest, fled justice, and so on..

[BroncoInferno]

They still have the statements made now and then as evidence. He's done like dinner. Plus, he's resisted arrest, fled justice, and so on..

The evidence against Polaski is extremely flimsy sans the testimony of the victim, who does not wish to cooperate. Plus, many of the original witnesses are now deceased. He would very likely win a new trail.

[Garcia Bronco]

The evidence against Polaski is extremely flimsy sans the testimony of the victim, who does not wish to cooperate. Plus, many of the original witnesses are now deceased. He would very likely win a new trail.

Not when he's admitted to doing it.

[gyldenlove]

They still have the statements made now and then as evidence. He's done like dinner. Plus, he's resisted arrest, fled justice, and so on..

Fleeing justice has nothing to do with his guiltyness and that will be the first thing the judge will tell the jury.

Most of the statements made back then will be easy to refute for a decent defense lawyer, they were made in the context of a plea bargain that was then altered.

I am not defending what he did, he is a scumbag of the worst caliber, but I doubt he will get much more than a slap of the wrist when all is said and done.

[gyldenlove]

Not when he's admitted to doing it.

Admissions are one of the worst pieces of evidence in modern court, especially if they were made a long time ago.

[Smiling Assassin27]

One day a German gossip columnist invited me out on a double date with two girls he wante me to meet. Both were young and, in different ways, strikingly beautiful. One of them was rather dowdily dressed. I asked her name. “My friends call me Nasty,” she said. [...] Very late that night, after a long round of discos, the four of us ended up in my suite. Leaving Nasty with the journalist, I took the other girl, a stunning blonde, to bed. By the time I surfaced the journalist had gone. Nasty was half-asleep in an armchair in the sitting room. Taking her by the hand, I led her back into the bedroom.
We never repeated this threesome, though I saw a lot of both girls thereafter. I dated the blonde for several weeks, but it was Nasty who grew on me more and more. [...]
Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia’s age. She was only fifteen.
We made love more than once during my three months in Munich. [...] On the night we met I’d thought her a couple of years older than her friend, who was, in fact, seventeen.


That's from Polanski's memoirs. great artist, habitual offender.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's from Polanski's memoirs. great artist, habitual offender.

Holy cow.

That's sickening. My stomach literally clinched after reading that garbage. Nothing more than kiddie porn romance novel trash.

Dude needs to be in prison. Period.

[Garcia Bronco]

That's from Polanski's memoirs. great artist, habitual offender.

Exactly.

[El Minion]

The Lost Polanski Transcripts (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/full/)
by Marcia Clark
October 2, 2009 | 6:42am

The idea that Roman Polanski was done in by an unscrupulous judge is a myth. Marcia Clark studies the startling transcripts from his 1977 guilty plea.

Ever since he fled Los Angeles for Europe, Roman Polanski and his defenders have been putting out a story: he had to run because Judge Laurence Rittenband, after having promised not to impose any jail time past a 42-day psychiatric evaluation for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, had changed his mind and intended send him to state prison. It’s a myth.

How do I know this? From Roman Polanski.

The transcript of Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea is one of the lengthiest, most thorough pleas I’ve ever seen. Reading it allows one to literally travel back in time to the Carter years, and hear all the players—Judge Rittenband, prosecutor Roger Gunson and, yes, Polanski—in their own exact words. No interpretations, no spin.

First, Gunson read out the litany of charges Polanski initially faced:

“Mr. Polanski, you are charged in Information A-334139 with the crimes of Furnishing Drugs to a Minor, Lewd or Lascivious Acts upon a Child under 14 year of Age, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Rape by Use of Drugs, Perversion, and Sodomy, all felonies committed on or about March 10th, 1977.”

The single crime Polanski pled guilty to, unlawful sexual intercourse, was the lightest of the charges filed against him. But even so, because the victim was so young, the judge had the power to require Polanski to register as a sex offender, something Gunson was quick to remind the director.

“Mr. Polanski, because this offense involved a girl under the age of 14, it is mandatory that MDSO proceedings be instituted. MDSO means Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. If you are found to be an MDSO, you would have to register that fact with the law enforcement officer of the community in which you resided.”

Gunson then went on to ask: “….on March 10, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?”

Polanski conferred with his lawyer and then answered: “She was 13.”

Gunson: “Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?”

Again, Polanski conferred with his lawyer, then answered: “Yes.”

So Polanski knew he faced the possibility of becoming a registered sex offender and admitted in open court that he was subject to that penalty because he knowingly had sexual contact with a girl who was 13 years old.

He also knew the sentence Polanski he was facing: “What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked Gunson.
“It’s one to fifteen—twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.

“Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?” the prosecutor next asked

“Yes,” responded Polanski.

Twenty years in prison—or zero. Felony with registration as a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender—or a misdemeanor with probation. Polanski knew the entire range of sentences he faced. And who did Polanski explicitly acknowledge had the sole power to decide which it would be? That’s what Gunson wanted to know:

“Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?”
Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson next asked: “Who do you think will decide whether or not you will get probation?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Who do you think will determine whether the sentence will be a felony or a misdemeanor?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?”
Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”
“Yes,” said Polanski.

Could this be any clearer? This exchange proves unequivocally that no sentencing promises had been made and that the judge would decide what Polanski would get. Then Gunson made it clear that this would be no lay-down by the prosecution either:
“Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?”

Polanski: “Yes.”

Gunson then elicited from Polanski that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, after full consultation as to all the possible consequences of his plea with his lawyer, which included the “possible sentences, the possible MDSO procedures, and the possible deportation.” Gunson then went on to state: “The District Attorney will make a motion to dismiss the remaining pending charges after sentencing. Other than that promise, has anyone made any promises to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward? Immunity? A court recommendation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or anything else, in order to get you to plead guilty?”

Polanski: “No.”

Gunson then asked Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, whether he was aware of any promises made to his client that hadn’t been stated on the record in open court that day, and the attorney confirmed that there hadn’t been, and he consented to the plea. At that point, the Judge Rittenband stopped the proceedings just before Polanski entered his plea:

“I must advise the defendant, under section 1192.5 of the Penal code, that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; that the Court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so. Now, Mr. Polanski—and the Court will also make a finding at this time that the plea was freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for it. You may now proceed to take the plea.”

And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?”

Polanski: “Guilty.”

Bottom line: Polanski’s story about getting sold a bill of goods so the judge could sell him down the river is bunk. Few defendants were ever more thoroughly warned of the sentence they faced and the power of the judge to impose it as Roman Polanski.

The next step was for Polanski to undergo psychological assessment by two psychiatrists to determine whether he was a MDSO—Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. At the same time, a probation report was prepared—routinely done prior to sentencing in all cases.

On September 19, 1977, court again convened. The psychiatrists both reported that Polanski was not an MDSO and no one argued to the contrary. So the judge agreed that he would not have to be registered as a sex offender, and they moved on to the sentencing.

Dalton, Polanski’s lawyer, started out conciliatory, stating “no reasonable person would stand here and argue to you that Mr. Polanski is entitled to any special consideration,” but that he shouldn’t be treated more harshly either, then went on to say:

“This particular offense doesn't have the connotation of rape. It's not even an offense, a criminal offense, in about 13 of our states and in many places of the world… this is a crime that's been committed by policemen; it's been committed by probation officers assigned to counsel girls at a detention school; it's a crime that's been committed by people that have a far higher trust to their victims than did Roman Polanski… I feel he is a criminal only by accident; and that there are many complex social and psychological factors that were involved in this situational event which otherwise was a complete departure from his normal mode of conduct.”

He’d come to rue those last words. When prosecutor, Roger Gunson stood up to speak, he put all the pieces together, giving a complete view of the case that has not, until now, been fully revealed. Gunson began by referring to the report of one the psychiatrists, one with a poor reputation among Los Angeles district attorneys, Dr. Alvin Davis:

“Doctor Davis seems to misunderstand the underlying circumstances, when he indicates that the offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment and loss of normal inhibitions, in circumstances of intimacy and collaboration in creative work; and with some coincidental alcohol and drug intoxication.

He also indicates that the sexual activities occurred naturally and mutually.”

“Naturally and mutually.” A 44-year-old man who dopes, rapes and sodomizes a 13-year-old girl. Gurson went in for the kill:

“From the testimony at the Grand Jury and from the Grand Jury transcript, we know that not to be true. We know from the probation report that—from letters sent in that Mr. Polanski is of very high intelligence. One friend indicates that Mr. Polanski is almost a teetotaler. And we also have information in the probation report that Mr. Polanski has received a prescription for 150 milligram quaalude, for jet fatigue in his travels throughout the world. However, the evidence indicates that if Mr. Polanski is of high intelligence, and if he is next to a teetotaler, and if he was not a user of drugs, then why do we have a—the situation that we have in this case?”

Gurson’s implication: Polanski that Champagne so he could pour it down his victim’s throat? As for the 150 milligram Quaalude:

“And that's it: We have Mr. Polanski coming to the family, showing them an elaborate, slick paper magazine—Paris Vogue—with beautiful photographs of beautiful girls and scenery and background…. Mr. Polanski shows these articles and this issue of Paris Vogue to the family and asks if their daughter, the complaining witness, in this case, who he has been told is 13 years old, if she would like to be photographed for a future article in that same magazine. The family agrees, and Mr. Polanski comes back at a later time, and there is a photo session at that time….”

“In addition to that, there has been some indication that there is some blame to be put on the mother for allowing the daughter to go. However, it appears from the testimony at the Grand Jury—and also from the probation report—that the mother asked to go on that photo assignment, and it was Mr. Polanski who suggested and who indicated that the mother should not go, because it would—it might inhibit the girl in the photo session.”

So it wasn’t just a stage mom who said, “Sure, take my daughter.” This mom wanted to be there, and it’s a fair bet that mom would’ve “inhibited” her daughter right out of there the minute Polanski told her to take her shirt off.

“Mr. Polanski…furnished the champagne to the 13 year old girl. He also, at a later time that evening, produced parts of a quaalude tablet, a 300 milligram quaalude tablet, and offered that to the girl, and the girl took that quaalude tablet…. It does not appear that these are the normal job or work projects involved in photographing a 13 year old girl. This does not appear to be coincidental drugs and alcohol. This all indicates that this is more than a normal course of action, a situational event. It appears that it was almost planned.…your Honor, the People are requesting that Mr. Polanski be placed in custody for a violation of Section 261.5, the offense that he has pled guilty to.”

The defense attorney replied that Gunson was taking things out of context, and reminded the judge that the victim and her family were in favor of a probationary sentence. What followed from Judge Rittenband was less a statement about the Polanski case than how, even in 1977, the “she had it coming” attitude prevailed, even on the bench:

“The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the prosecutrix was a well developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17 year old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the prosecutrix was not unfamiliar with the drug quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her tenth or eleventh year.”
None of that is relevant to whether the girl was raped. Nowadays, a judge wouldn’t say any of it. Some people still make that kind of judgment about a rape victim—but I call it some form of progress that we at least know that kind of thinking is wrong. And the judge goes on to say as much:

“However, although the prosecutrix was not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl, this of course was not a license to the defendant, a man of the world, in his forties, to engage in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with her… and it is no defense to such a charge that the female might not have resisted the act.”

Except of course, that she said she did resist. She testified to the Grand Jury: “I was ready to cry. I was kind of, I was going, ‘No. Come on, stop it.’ But I was afraid.” And being isolated up there at Jack Nicholson’s house, with no way home, how hard could she afford to fight? As she testified before the Grand Jury: “I was mostly just on and off saying ‘No, stop.’ But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.”

Nevertheless, despite the ambivalence shown in these remarks, after taking a slap at the victim’s mom, the judge decided to send Polanski to prison for a 90 day diagnostic study:

“It is the judgment of this Court that the defendant be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections at its prison facility in Chino, California, where he will be confined for a period of 90 days and undergo a diagnostic evaluation, pursuant to the provisions of 1203.03 of the Penal Code.”

That might have been the end of it, with Polanski in and out of jail in a few short months. But then Dalton asked to let him stay out and work on a film for three months before reporting to prison:

“Mr. Polanski is presently engaged as a director of a film that is being produced—this is a film that is budgeted for many millions of dollars and involves the services of literally hundreds of people.”

Wait. Wasn’t this the lawyer who argued Polanski shouldn’t be treated any differently than anyone else? Gunson countered: “That is a movie that the defendant has contracted to make after this offense.”

The judge agreed to give Polanski three months to get his movie up and running. But even then, whatever the lawyers may have thought, the judge foreshadowed a different agenda: “The request is for 90 days, and I assume that the defendant and his counsel were optimistic about the defendant just being given probation, and probably the contract was made on that assumption. However, it was miscalculated.”

In other words, Polanski had figured he’d get out of court with no time at all. Instead, he was ordered to report to prison for diagnostic on December 19, 1977. The lawyers, interviewed after the hearing, said they didn’t think Polanski would have to do any more time after the diagnostic. But there’s no question that the transcript show that no such promise was ever made in court, which is the only thing that counts.

Nevertheless, the lawyers might have been right if only Polanski had kept a low profile. Was that so much to ask? Apparently so.
On October 24, 1977, Polanski got photographed with his arms around yet another teenaged girl, Nastaji Kinski, in a bar during an Oktoberfest celebration in West Germany. Polanski was told there’d be no further extensions and he had to report to Chino State Prison on December 19, 1977.

Polanski did 42 days of diagnostic testing in Chino before being released on January 28, 1978. During that time, Judge Rittenband, viewing the photo with Kinski, had apparently come to feel that stint just wasn’t enough.

Polanski caught wind of the attitude shift. On February 1, 1978, the day of sentencing, Polanski’s lawyer stood up in court and said: “Your honor, I received a call from Mr. Polanski advising me he would not be here this morning.”

Or any morning after for the next 32 years.

Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel

[cutthemdown]

Even if we can't win the case, you have to try anyways. At least make him have to deal with facing the charges. If he somehow wiggles free so be it.

But we must send the message we protect our children to the bitter end.

[Rohirrim]

Nevermind. ;D

[cutthemdown]

By the way if it is such a slam dunk he would win a mistrial, or a new one, why did he stay away so long? If he did nothing wrong why did he pay the girl off in a settlement?

It's not even a question of the facts, he said exactly what he did in court.

[El Minion]

By the way if it is such a slam dunk he would win a mistrial, or a new one, why did he stay away so long? If he did nothing wrong why did he pay the girl off in a settlement?

It's not even a question of the facts, he said exactly what he did in court.

I don't think he even has done that (note the picture of her that I think is at a Roman Polanski event – the ROM and LA lettering behind her):


––––––––––––––––
Roman Polanski was to pay Samantha Geimer a $500,000 settlement (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-paid-samantha-geimer-601583-in-civil-settlement-of-sexual-assault.html)
October 2, 2009 | 2:31 pm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a5a1386b970b-800wi

Roman Polanski agreed to pay Samantha Geimer at least $500,000 as part of a settlement after he fled from the U.S. to avoid sentencing for sexually assaulting her, according to court documents reviewed by The Times today.

But the documents indicate that Geimer's attorneys battled with Polanski to get him to pay the settlement, and it remains unclear exactly how much money the director gave her.

Media outlets requested access to the court file for Geimer's civil suit this week after Polanski was arrested in Zurich, Switzerland, in connection with the more than 30-year-old case.

The terms of the settlement were confidential. But many of the details are contained in court filings arising out of Geimer's efforts to get Polanski to pay. The documents were retrieved from archives and made available today in a Los Angeles courthouse.

Geimer filed the civil lawsuit in 1988, accusing the director of, among other things, sexual assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. Polanski was deposed in Paris in 1993.

In October 1993, Polanski agreed to pay Geimer $500,000 with interest, according to the settlement documents. He was given two years to pay. But her attorneys said in a filing that the director missed the 1995 deadline. At one point, her attorneys attempted to garnish wages to Polanski from movie studios, his agent and the Screen Actors Guild, the records show.

The case file does not make clear if Polanski paid Geimer. The last document in the file is an August 1996 statement saying the director still owed her $604,416.

Geimer was 13 when Polanski plied the aspiring model with Champagne and Quaaludes and told her he was photographing her for French Vogue. The 1977 incident occurred in a bedroom in Jack Nicholson's house. Actress Anjelica Huston, who was also in the home, was a potential witness.

Polanski was arrested in L.A. and pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He then fled to France.

Geimer, now a mother of four, has said repeatedly and publicly that she thinks Polanski was treated unfairly and expressed a desire for the case to be resolved without prison time.

When Polanski sought to have the rape charge dismissed in 2008, she told The Times she welcomed an opportunity to finally end the case. "It's been a long time," she said. "I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences."

In 2003 she wrote an opinion piece for The Times saying the case should not be a barrier to Polanski's winning an Academy Award.

Polanski ended up winning best director for "The Pianist."

-- Harriet Ryan

Photo: Samantha Geimer in 2008. Credit: Peter Kramer / Associated Press

[cutthemdown]

Wow so he never even gave her the 500 grand he was supposed to? Damn so he ****s kids, and he's cheap.

Someone should have just taken this ****er out a long time ago.

[alkemical]

http://peeringthrough.blogspot.com/2009/10/ghost-of-chance.html

Without getting into a morality argument in the Roman Polanski saga, I am perplexed with the timing of his recent detainment in Zurich. These charges are WELL known, have been haunting him and his victim for some 32 years. Aside from not reentering the U.S., Roman is a HIGH profile world traveler...he very well could have been picked up by just about any Government in the World at any time if there had been an "Okay" from the powers that be.

Polanski's infamous "Deal with the Devil"; the sacrificial exchange of his wife and unborn child for directorial success and power is a theory that has existed in the dark recesses of conspiracy circles for many years. Is it possible that the dark powers that have held Polanski's marker since 1969 have finally decided to collect? Is it even more possible that the reason this Faustian drama is going to come to an end here and now is directly related to block the completion and release of the heralded director's upcoming film, "The Ghost"?

Based directly on the novel of the same name by Brit journalist/author Robert Harris, "The Ghost" deals with a fictionalized former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; explosive evidence is uncovered by a ghost-writer hired to write the Prime Minister's memoirs which would implicate him of International War crimes committed during the War with Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_(novel)

Did Polanski cross the line desiring to bring this story to the public? An egotistical slap-in-the-face to the dark powers that made him who he has been, and kept him safe from prosecution all these many years. I could see this story not siting well within the Secret Commonwealth...

[kappys]

I still don't understand why he deserves a new trial. How about just trying him for skipping out on the jail time he agreed too and fleeing the country. My limited understanding of the law would suggest that would be an open and shut case and would not require testimony from the victim.

It might be a relatively light jail sentence for such an offense, but I suspect that his colleagues in jail will not be fans of his work and will eke out the sort of jail justice that is deplorable but sadly appropriate for this pervert.

[lex]

I still don't understand why he deserves a new trial. How about just trying him for skipping out on the jail time he agreed too and fleeing the country. My limited understanding of the law would suggest that would be an open and shut case and would not require testimony from the victim.

It might be a relatively light jail sentence for such an offense, but I suspect that his colleagues in jail will not be fans of his work and will eke out the sort of jail justice that is deplorable but sadly appropriate for this pervert.

He already did what was to be his "jail time". The whole thing was a farce and even the prosecuting attorney agrees with this. He spent time in San Quentin being evaluted as a way of doing time. Even this was shady because psychological evaluation wasnt supposed to be used as punishment. But thats what the judge was doing. But even with that, Polanski did time in SQ for PE.

People need to realize that the whole thing was a farce and that this whole story was more about what the judge did than what Polanski did.

I watch a ton of crime shows and you almost never see attorneys for both sides agreeing that a trial was a farce for the same reasons.

Also, I see that someone posted a court transcript. Its worth pointing out that some of the proceedings were staged. It was ironed out ahead of time who was to say what at the behest of the judge. Again, this was a farce and is a black eye on the american judicial system. They should exonerate him just to put this black mark behind them.

[El Minion]

Looks like pedophiles protect their own:

Sex with boys admission haunts French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterand (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865085.ece)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00625/Mitterrand_625060a.jpg
Frederic Mitterrand spoke out in support of Roman Polanski. The Minister is now under attack for his sex life

President Sarkozy’s new Culture Minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, was struggling to save his name and possibly his job last night amid a storm over his past accounts of paying “boys” for sex.

The nephew of the late President Mitterrand, who is openly gay, was thrown on the defensive after opposition politicians homed in on a memoir in which he described his delight in visiting brothels in Bangkok.

“I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide,” he wrote.

The autobiography, La mauvaise vie (The Bad Life), was a critically acclaimed bestseller in 2005 and Mr Mitterrand, 62, a popular television presenter, was praised for his honesty. It rebounded on him this week after he leapt to the defence of Roman Polanski, the filmmaker, who was arrested in Switzerland for extradition to face a Los Angeles court for having sex with a girl aged 13.

Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Front party, read extracts on television on Monday and demanded Mr Mitterrand’s resignation. for which the party is circulating a petition.

As outrage intensified on the internet, the Socialist party, the main opposition, said yesterday that it was appalled that the apparent practitioner of paedophile abuse was serving as a Cabinet minister. “I find it shocking that a man can justify sex tourism under the cover of a literary account,” said Benoît Hamon, a senior Socialist.

Mr Mitterrand, who hails from the political Left, hit back yesterday, saying that he was flattered that his name was being sullied by extremists but shocked by the Socialists’ attitude. “If the National Front drags me through the mud, it is an honour. If a left-wing MP drags me through the mud, he should be ashamed,” he said.

He had been prepared for the assault since Mr Sarkozy announced his appointment in June, aides said. The President had been encouraged by Carla Bruni, his wife, to promote the non-politician to one of the most powerful Cabinet portfolios. Aware of the risks, his advisers had deemed that Mr Mitterrand would be protected by France’s tradition of discretion over the private lives of public figures.

It appeared that they had not taken account of the power of the internet, the greater scrutiny of private life and public emotion over paedophile crimes. France has been active in prosecuting French citizens for sex with under-age prostitutes in Thailand.

Mr Mitterrand’s late uncle, who was President from 1981 to 1995, kept a second family and illegitimate daughter secret from the French public until the year before he left office.

Last night there was an embarrassed silence from the Elysée Palace. Claude Guéant, Mr Sarkozy’s chief of staff, said that Mr Mitterrand had been expressing his “own sensibilities” in his support for Mr Polanski. Chantal Brunel, an MP and former spokeswoman for Mr Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement, said that Mr Mitterrand’s book was sordid, but the row over it was a “a non-event”.

Websites sympathetic to Mr Mitterrand said that he had already explained his Thai exploits after the 2005 book. In one television appearance, he said that homosexuals call all men ‘boys’. “They say boys when you are 60 years old,” he said at the time, denying that the male prostitutes were under age.

Charges that he used “little boys” were “part of the general puritanism which surrounds us nowadays and which always tries to blacken the picture,” he told France3 television in 2005.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Thats awful, Minion.


The protection of Polanski should be enough to show us all that Hollywood should absolutely not under any circumstance be considered a contributor to proper morals and ethics in America or around the world.

Heck, Hollywood is a HUGE reason why America has become a target for Islamic hyperfundamentalists.

[El Minion]

Thats awful, Minion.


The protection of Polanski should be enough to show us all that Hollywood should absolutely not under any circumstance be considered a contributor to proper morals and ethics in America or around the world.

Heck, Hollywood is a HUGE reason why America has become a target for Islamic hyperfundamentalists.

Hollywood is entertainment not an institution of morality. They're a nice straw man argument and deflection for the social conservatives who want government intervention on cultural matters. Heck, the islamic and christian fundamentalists even agree on that point and even for the destruction of Hollywood if allowed.

BTW, they hate us because we meddle in their domestic affairs.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hollywood is entertainment not an institution of morality. They're a nice straw man argument and deflection for the social conservatives who want government intervention on cultural matters. Heck, the islamic and christian fundamentalists even agree on that point and even for the destruction of Hollywood if allowed.

BTW, they hate us because we meddle in their domestic affairs.

Thats not the only reason, and to say that it is is to be disingenuous.

I know people from many middle eastern countries. Mainly from Iran and Iraq. When we talk about America, the first thing that they mention is the movies and stuff on TV. You know why? Because they got American movies and American TV in Iran and Iraq. They came to the US with the opinion that Americans are immoral sloths.

Its funny. We see all of them as crazy fundamentalists, and they see us as these sex-crazed, drug addicted, immoral bunch of hedonists.

[Miss I.]

Roman Polanski is a piece of crap. He should have been jailed long ago. He's a coward and a child rapist (drugged and raped, not sex as I keep seeing on some of these articles). He uses the Sharon Tate murders as an excuse, but those happened, 8 years prior to the rape and you know people get traumatized and don't commit felonies. He never takes responsiblity. He's a coward and a rapist and I really want him to pay.

As for some assertions that it's a liberal vs conservative thing, bull****. I am pretty liberal and I want that rapist thrown in the trash. I want his comfort taken and his stupid, pretentious ass in jail. I want the morons in hollywood defending him to STFU
(Whoopi Goldberg you are f-ing moron and your little rape-rape discussion only proves you are an imbecile and setting back any kind of hope for women and dealing with rape decades so STFU). Same goes for the rest of the hollywood who worship at the ground of a dirtbag (being a good filmmaker does not a good person make...OJ for instance was an excellent running back, but a huge dirtbag. Talent and ethics are not hand in hand).

I am so angry about his cowardly behavior and the fact it's taken this long to get him. Whatever the reasons for finally doing it, political, whatever, I want that bastard's head on a plate. 13 years old and drugged is not a consenting partner you pervert. She may now want it swept away and I feel for her, I really do, but he needs to serve his time, whatever that might be and frankly I am okay if after that's settled he never returns to the US.

I understand from reading some of this that there was some sort of oddity with his plea bargain, but I don't recall it being plead all the way to 45 days, I thought he had to serve at least 3 years or something. Regardless, once I read the transcripts off of the Smoking Gun of the trial, I stop watching his films.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Sadly most of the articles I found seem to favor his release which I don't and never will understand. Only two, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/04/roman-polanski-sex-case-backlash were vaguely pro-arrest, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20309445,00.html

I realize as a woman I might be particularly biased by this, but understand I also have no love for that pedophile freak in Seattle, Mary Kay Letorneu (now bizarrely married to her victim, though I suppose at least she did serve prison time) or the story I read about a 25 year old School teacher over here in the UK who slept with her 15 year old female student. Sex and rape are very odd things and every country sees things differently. Polanski should've served time for what he did. But the famous and rich seem to have an entirely different justice system than the rest of us. While I believe in the end I would prefer our justice with it's flaws, it doesn't stop me from being aggravated by this case.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Roman Polanski is a piece of crap. He should have been jailed long ago. He's a coward and a child rapist (drugged and raped, not sex as I keep seeing on some of these articles). He uses the Sharon Tate murders as an excuse, but those happened, 8 years prior to the rape and you know people get traumatized and don't commit felonies. He never takes responsiblity. He's a coward and a rapist and I really want him to pay.

As for some assertions that it's a liberal vs conservative thing, bull****. I am pretty liberal and I want that rapist thrown in the trash. I want his comfort taken and his stupid, pretentious ass in jail. I want the morons in hollywood defending him to STFU
(Whoopi Goldberg you are f-ing moron and your little rape-rape discussion only proves you are an imbecile and setting back any kind of hope for women and dealing with rape decades so STFU). Same goes for the rest of the hollywood who worship at the ground of a dirtbag (being a good filmmaker does not a good person make...OJ for instance was an excellent running back, but a huge dirtbag. Talent and ethics are not hand in hand).

I am so angry about his cowardly behavior and the fact it's taken this long to get him. Whatever the reasons for finally doing it, political, whatever, I want that bastard's head on a plate. 13 years old and drugged is not a consenting partner you pervert. She may now want it swept away and I feel for her, I really do, but he needs to serve his time, whatever that might be and frankly I am okay if after that's settled he never returns to the US.

I understand from reading some of this that there was some sort of oddity with his plea bargain, but I don't recall it being plead all the way to 45 days, I thought he had to serve at least 3 years or something. Regardless, once I read the transcripts off of the Smoking Gun of the trial, I stop watching his films.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Sadly most of the articles I found seem to favor his release which I don't and never will understand. Only two, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/04/roman-polanski-sex-case-backlash were vaguely pro-arrest, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20309445,00.html

I realize as a woman I might be particularly biased by this, but understand I also have no love for that pedophile freak in Seattle, Mary Kay Letorneu (now bizarrely married to her victim, though I suppose at least she did serve prison time) or the story I read about a 25 year old School teacher over here in the UK who slept with her 15 year old female student. Sex and rape are very odd things and every country sees things differently. Polanski should've served time for what he did. But the famous and rich seem to have an entirely different justice system than the rest of us. While I believe in the end I would prefer our justice with it's flaws, it doesn't stop me from being aggravated by this case.

It has only been turned into a liberal v. conservative thing because there are some prominent movie industry liberals who have chosen to use their communication medium to try to convince people that this slimeball is harmless.

Liberals need to divorce themselves from this human garbage lest they be lumped in with him.