# roman polanski nicked in switzerland



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2009)

on yankee arrest warrant


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8277176.stm


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 27, 2009)

What are the Swiss getting out of this?


----------



## Pip (Sep 27, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> What are the Swiss getting out of this?



Some weird kick. I don't trust the Swiss


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 27, 2009)

Pip said:


> Some weird kick. I don't trust the Swiss



Sinister people


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 27, 2009)

He's a paedo, non?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 27, 2009)

Oui, si or ja - dependent on canton


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 27, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> He's a paedo, non?



same as John Peel was.

linky ::: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-peel-managed-to-get-away-with-it-595551.html


----------



## Diamond (Sep 27, 2009)

13 is a bit off.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 27, 2009)

12'd be OK though.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 27, 2009)

bien sûr


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 27, 2009)

Harrison Ford should perhaps be more careful who he accepts awards on behalf of...?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 27, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> same as John Peel was.
> 
> linky ::: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-peel-managed-to-get-away-with-it-595551.html



well i never...


----------



## october_lost (Sep 27, 2009)

Harrison Ford among others have repeatedly asked the charges be dropped. Is there a news report from the time?


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 27, 2009)

this have prolly brought him comfort http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-susan-atkins26-2009sep26,0,4180642.story



> Tate begged for her child's life, pleading that the group abduct Tate and let her give birth before murdering her. Atkins testified that she replied to Tate, "Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you. You're going to die and you'd better get used to it." Atkins and Watson then stabbed her to death. Atkins mopped up some of Tate's blood with a towel and used it to write "PIG" on the front door.









& I've always thought _Kasabien_ a bunch of cunts for choosing the name also..


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

Surely Polanski should stand trial for this, the girl was 13 years old which he must have known was wrong on so many levels. 

Apparently even she is calling for the charges to be dropped now but it is none of her business. 

Like Picasso, Polanski had a thing for underage girls, he should be prosecuted. 

Why do we not feel the anger about Polanski that we feel about Gary Glitter?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Why do we not feel the anger about Polanski that we feel about Gary Glitter?



that is obvious surely.

Polanski is a nonce but he is a nonce whose films liberal/creative types watch. They wouldn't be seen dead listening to Glitter even pre noncery.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

And it happened ages ago, i think that has a bearing on the way people view it, for some strange reason


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

Dan U said:


> that is obvious surely.
> 
> Polanski is a nonce but he is a nonce whose films liberal/creative types watch. They wouldn't be seen dead listening to Glitter even pre noncery.



So, like Picasso who also liked young girls, Polanski is not hated as a nonce like Glitter is. 

Well I say no NONONONO ..... 

Polanski IS A NONCE and should face prosecution.

I hope the Swiss extredite him and he stands trial in the USA.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Why do we not feel the anger about Polanski that we feel about Gary Glitter?


FWIW Polanski was caught in the late 70s and I am not aware of any further accusations, Glitter was caught and was back at it ASAP.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

D'wards said:


> And it happened ages ago, i think that has a bearing on the way people view it, for some strange reason




Well it shouldn't make any difference. 

The only reason he was not tried back then is because he hoofed it out of America and never went back. Its about time justice caught up with him.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

Plus the media was less hysterical back then - all the rockers would shag underage girls - Jimmy Page and Hendrix to name but two.

Imagine if the Mail got a sniff of Noel Gallagher or russell Brand having it with an underage girl, all facking hell would break loose


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

david dissadent said:


> FWIW Polanski was caught in the late 70s and I am not aware of any further accusations, Glitter was caught and was back at it ASAP.



Glitter was originally found with images of child abuse by PC World techies and was prosecuted for that. I think at the time there was no accusations that he actually had sex with minors. Of course there was later abroad, I don't recall too many details of that though.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

D'wards said:


> Plus the media was less hysterical back then - all the rockers would shag underage girls - Jimmy Page and Hendrix to name but two.
> 
> Imagine if the Mail got a sniff of Noel Gallagher or russell Brand having it with an underage girl, all facking hell would break loose



The media might have been less hysterical but the law was just the same, no?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2009)

david dissadent said:


> FWIW Polanski was caught in the late 70s and I am not aware of any further accusations, Glitter was caught and was back at it ASAP.



he made a good choice in France (as well as being part French) as iirc the French media pretty much leaves it's famous peoples private lives private.

maybe less so these days.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

But why did France not arrest and extradite Polanski to America?

France seems quite pro America these days. 

Why did it take the Swiss to nab him?


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> The media might have been less hysterical but the law was just the same, no?



True, but i thought the question is why is Polanski allowed to continue on making films, and be allowed to win an oscar, wheras Glitter has been wioped from musical history?

I think also its because the girl in question was sexually precocious and was "up for it" at the time, to coin a phrase. I'm not excusing it at all - buts thats the way it was, as generally regarded.
They described it on the radio earlier as a "sex attack", which shows how the facts on these things get changed so easily.

Did anyone see that excellent documentary about Polanksi last year - he nearly got away with it but was on bail and photoed at a Bierfest or something with some youngish girls, and that infuriated the judge who had bailed him.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But why did France not arrest and extradite Polanski to America?
> 
> France seems quite pro America these days.
> 
> Why did it take the Swiss to nab him?


Because the crime wasn't one of those covered by their extradition treaties. You wouldn't want them to break the law would you?


----------



## Thora (Sep 27, 2009)

He didn't "have sex with an underage girl", he drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  I hope he goes to prison for a very long time.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

D'wards said:


> True, but i thought the question is why is Polanski allowed to continue on making films, and be allowed to win an oscar, wheras Glitter has been wioped from musical history?



Well the OP did not posit a question so we can make up our own.. 

I do think it a mystery why Picasso, Polanski and the like despite a love of very young girls, their reputation seems to continue untarnished ..

Yet Glitter, who seems the same .. is persona non grata everywhere.. Perhaps because of the images in Glitter's case that makes him worse than the worst, perhaps that is it. 



D'wards said:


> I think also its because the girl in question was sexually precocious and was "up for it" at the time, to coin a phrase. I'm not excusing it at all - buts thats the way it was, as generally regarded.
> They described it on the radio earlier as a "sex attack", which shows how the facts on these things get changed so easily.



Well she is now a woman and can speak for herself which I imagine she will be given the chance to if Polanski stands trial in the US. I think he should stand trial, perhaps he will get off because everybody was at it and he had no way of knowing her age. Either they should prosecute him or drop the charges, keeping charges on the books this long suggests they (USA) want to try him. 



D'wards said:


> Did anyone see that excellent documentary about Polanksi last year - he nearly got away with it but was on bail and photoed at a Bierfest or something with some youngish girls, and that infuriated the judge who had bailed him.



I would have liked to have seen that. 

Where was the judge located?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 27, 2009)

> Mr Polanski fled the US in 1978 after *pleading guilty* to unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl





> Earlier this year, Judge Peter Espinoza agreed *there was misconduct by the judge* in the original case, but said Mr Polanski must return to the US to apply for dismissal.





> The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously *asked for the charges to be dropped*, saying the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children".
> 
> She has also called the court's insistence that Mr Polanski appear in person "a cruel joke".


It looks, 30 years down the road, like everyone involved just wants to get on with their lives.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Surely Polanski should stand trial for this, the girl was 13 years old which he must have known was wrong on so many levels.



He's alerady stood trial, he pleaded guilty. he left the country before his sentencing.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Because the crime wasn't one of those covered by their extradition treaties. You wouldn't want them to break the law would you?



No, OK, indeed far be it for me to suggest breaking a law !! 



Thora said:


> He didn't "have sex with an underage girl", he drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  I hope he goes to prison for a very long time.



That puts a rather nastier spin on things. If he did drug and rape her then he deserves everything he may get.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> He didn't "have sex with an underage girl", he drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  I hope he goes to prison for a very long time.



Just read up on it, it seems you are right! I'm sure in the doc that they portrayed her as a sexually active drug taking girl who did not resist his advances, but was not too keen on the sodomy.

They interviewed her now and she stated she has "no hard feelings" toward Polankski.

It was a pretty pro-polanski doc iirc


----------



## Belushi (Sep 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> He didn't "have sex with an underage girl", he drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  I hope he goes to prison for a very long time.



Innit, he was arrested on his way to Zurich to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It looks, 30 years down the road, like everyone involved just wants to get on with their lives.



I imagine of all of them the one most hoping he can just get on with his life is Polanski.



Fedayn said:


> He's alerady stood trial, he pleaded guilty. he left the country before his sentencing.



I wonder: Could they not have sentenced him in absentia?


----------



## Thora (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> That puts a rather nastier spin on things. If he did drug and rape her then he deserves everything he may get.



He told her he was doing a photoshoot for Vogue, gave her alcohol and sedatives, and raped and sodomised her.  He was a powerful 40 year old man and she was 13.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I imagine of all of them the one most hoping he can just get on with his life is Polanski.


To be honest, I'm more interested in what the victim wants rather than you, the judge and even the Internet people. And she wants it left 30 years in the past.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

I think Polanski has always been a bit of a pervert - he had sex with Natasha Kinnskji (sp) when she was 15.

He was also out shagging women with 3 weeks of the death of Sharon Tate, his pregnant wife. But again in the doc it said he was devastated and this was "his way of coping" - make of that what you will.


----------



## kained&able (Sep 27, 2009)

Doesn't seem very neutral of the swiss.

Surprised they extradite anyone.


dave


----------



## D'wards (Sep 27, 2009)

kained&able said:


> Doesn't seem very neutral of the swiss.
> 
> Surprised they extradite anyone.
> 
> ...



They ahve quite a solid treaty with the US, as i've been told


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> He told her he was doing a photoshoot for Vogue, gave her alcohol and sedatives, and raped and sodomised her.  He was a powerful 40 year old man and she was 13.



And for years he got away with it has lived the high life. He should spend a long long time in prison.


----------



## Thora (Sep 27, 2009)

I can understand the victim wanting it dropped - first she's raped, then she sees her rapist not only get away with it but be celebrated, and she's hit with all the misogynistic abuse about her asking for it.  I expect she's dreading her children seeing it all dragged up again on TV etc.

But Polanski raped a child and men like that should pay for what they do.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> To be honest, I'm more interested in what the victim wants rather than you, the judge and even the Internet people. And she wants it left 30 years in the past.



I can understand what you say and there is some sense in it. 

But do you not think someone who has done such a thing should face the consequences? 

I am pretty fed up with the rich and powerful getting away with things.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 27, 2009)

So does anyone know what happens know? does he just get deported back to California for sentencing for the crime he pleaded guilty to in '78 or is there going to be a whole new trial?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2009)

Belushi said:


> So does anyone know what happens know? does he just get deported back to California for sentencing for the crime he pleaded guilty to in '78 or is there going to be a whole new trial?



No idea what happens now personally - but for now the Swiss have him. 

I was rather shocked at the women protesting this act outside the film awards ceremony. Their banners and stuff seemed to suggest that they did not care what Polanski had done. Quite shocking to me that was.


----------



## keybored (Sep 27, 2009)

kained&able said:


> Doesn't seem very neutral of the swiss.
> 
> Surprised they extradite anyone.
> 
> ...


----------



## derf (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> To be honest, I'm more interested in what the victim wants rather than you, the judge and even the Internet people. And she wants it left 30 years in the past.



While he was clearly wrong to do what he did I would tend to agree that her wishes should be respected.
Dragging him into court will create a press frenzy and I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of shit the press will be hounding the lass for a story and making her life a misery.

(The above is of course assuming she's not a grabbing bitch out for cash from the story.)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2009)

Jesus christ.


----------



## Celt (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> To be honest, I'm more interested in what the victim wants rather than you, the judge and even the Internet people. And she wants it left 30 years in the past.




as this is her wish and she has come to terms with it I think this is so.

as far as living the high life, do you think he ever got over seeing his pregnant wife and others killed by charles manson and his gang?


----------



## 8den (Sep 28, 2009)

D'wards said:


> I think Polanski has always been a bit of a pervert - he had sex with Natasha Kinnskji (sp) when she was 15.
> 
> He was also out shagging women with 3 weeks of the death of Sharon Tate, his pregnant wife. But again in the doc it said he was devastated and this was "his way of coping" - make of that what you will.



He won a $50,000 libel case against vanity fair that disputes that. 

I've always found the man pretty odious, though. Stories about his behaviour towards Faye Dunaway on the set of Chinatown on. And while it's bizarre he's potentially facing extradition for a crime carried out decades ago, I'm postively baffled by people protesting about this. He raped a 13 year old girl, I was fairly certain this was a resounding no no on everyone's moral compass.


----------



## derf (Sep 28, 2009)

8den said:


> He won a $50,000 libel case against vanity fair that disputes that.



That means shag all. Liberace sued the daily mirror when they claimed he was gay.





> "Liberace Denies He Is Homosexual."


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/686671.html


----------



## 8den (Sep 28, 2009)

derf said:


> That means shag all. Liberace sued the daily mirror when they claimed he was gay.
> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/686671.html



Ah so, lets just make shit up then shall we. The man's a cunt, I'd just  be hard pressed to believe anyone would be capable of shagging someone else in a restaurant, days after their heavily pregnant wife was brutally murdered, and come out with a line like "I can make you the next Sharon Tate". 

I'm cynical just not that cynical.


----------



## derf (Sep 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Ah so, lets just make shit up then shall we. The man's a cunt, I'd just  be hard pressed to believe anyone would be capable of shagging someone else in a restaurant, days after their heavily pregnant wife was brutally murdered, and come out with a line like "I can make you the next Sharon Tate".
> 
> I'm cynical just not that cynical.



There is a better than average chance you are right and the man is a total bastard but an action against a newspaper proves shit.


----------



## 8den (Sep 28, 2009)

derf said:


> There is a better than average chance you are right and the man is a total bastard but an action against a newspaper proves shit.



While a accusation that can't be proven is worth it's weight in gold? He's done plenty of really vile shit thats documented and provable, bringing up potentially dubious shit is completely unnecessary.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 28, 2009)

derf said:


> While he was clearly wrong to do what he did I would tend to agree that her wishes should be respected.
> 
> (The above is of course assuming she's not a grabbing bitch out for cash from the story.)


----------



## trashpony (Sep 28, 2009)

Whether she wants him prosecuted or not is irrelevant from a legal perspective. Rape victims are considered witnesses in legal terms and so it's not up to them to decide. 

And actually while I do have some sympathy for her, I think it's pretty abhorrent that he just swanned out of the country before sentencing and has been living a high profile life of freedom for the last 30 years, whatever tragedy and trauma he suffered in the past


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

He's been prosecuted, he's admitted guilt, the issue he ran away from was sentencing.

It would be interesting to know the victims reasons for wishing to leave it all in the past, but even that is a matter for her. I'd imagine many factors come into play and I wonder if the length of sentence might be one of them; as I understand it, it's 'life' in the USA, and I have no idea if that is mandatory or whether it actually means 'for the duration of natural life'.

It's the USA, so I guess almost anything is possible in relation to sentencing.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

This is quite interesting background:



> But Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired is a fascinating film and a terrific DVD. The film delves into the story of Roman Polanski’s notorious statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl, his indictment on six felony charges and his subsequent flight from the U.S. in 1977. Polanski’s story reaches much farther back, of course, and is framed by his history: he survived the Holocaust that killed most of his family and endured the murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate and the insatiable, irresponsible media circus that hounded Polanski and recklessly smeared his reputation before the investigation discovered and arrested Charles Manson and his followers (giving the press an even more sensationalistic story). That might screw up anyone, but it hardly explains or justifies Polanski’s “relationship” (his word) with 13-year-old Samantha Gailey, plying her with drugs and alcohol before having sex with her. The film doesn’t flinch from Polanski abhorrent crimes (to which he confessed and plead guilty) and the excerpts of police interview transcripts with Polanski and Gailey are discomforting and disturbing.
> 
> But that’s only half the story. Polanski’s treatment by the American legal system, and in particular a media-obsessed judge more interested in public relations than justice, is an appalling portrait of judicial malfeasance, a legal nightmare worthy of Kafka and the kind of abuse of power that Polanski ostensibly left behind in Communist Poland. The repeated legal abuses perpetrated by presiding judge Laurence J. Rittenband, who paid more attention to the court of public opinion than the laws he swore to uphold and staged a press conference to announce his rulings in the case, appalled both the defense lawyer and the prosecuting attorney so much that they joined together to have him removed from the case. Polanski’s flight from the erratic behavior and possible punitive actions of a judge who reneged on rulings and seemed to be making up new twists on the case as he went along may not look heroic, but to Polanski it was a simple matter of survival. *“Who wouldn’t think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?” Gailey wrote in 2003 in the New York Times*. She’s put it past her and wishes the rest of the media would do the same.


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

I miust admit I am somewhat baffled by the outrage and consternation that has greeted this arrest. The French government is protesting. The Association of Film Directors and Script Writers has called this " a slap in the face for the entire cultural community in Switzerland". Why? Now, I like Polanski's work. I agree the man is an artistic  genius but so was Phil Spector. Spector had to pay for his crime, so should Polanski. As someone has said, it seems to be one law for the privileged and one for everyone else.
That Polanski has been able to work and continue to be respected for 30 years with this hanging over him I also struggle to understand. I mean, he was in Switzerland to collect a lifetime achievement award. FFS.

Sure he has had a tragic life. He lost his mother in Auschwitz, his wife and unborn child to Manson etc. I understand that but it's irrelevant to his crime.  He pleaded guillty to sex with a 13 year old in a deal to avoid prosecution for child rape ( which included drugging and sodomising the girl)  and then fled justice.  This is hardly an old dope charge hanging over him is it? 
The comparison with Glitter is a good one. Glitter has been utterly humiliated and destroyed over his behaviour which could be argued was not as serious as Polanski's. Glitter was convicted in the UK of possession of nasty child porn. He also served his sentence.   Polanski drugged and sodomised a 13 year old girl, did a deal to avoid a rape charge, fled and managed avoided punishment for 30 years.

Sorry Roman but I think you have to face the music on this one.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

dylans said:


> The comparison with Glitter is a good one. Glitter has been utterly humiliated and destroyed over his behaviour which could be argued was not as serious as Polanski's. Glitter was convicted in the UK of possession of nasty child porn. He also served his sentence.   Polanski drugged and sodomised a 13 year old girl, did a deal to avoid a rape charge, fled and managed avoided punishment for 30 years.


The comparison with Glitter is absurd. As the vicim states in her NYT article, the issue was not guilt,  nor necessariliy a desire to avoid justice,  it was a judge so consumed by the media attention that any sentence he gave could not be relied on to be "a fair judgment". She mentions 50 years though I don't know the basis for that. By the way, she expressed the view the judge was also not interested in her welfare.

Where Gary Glitter comes into that I have no idea.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Where Gary Glitter comes into that I have no idea.



Roman Polanski is accused of drugging and raping and sodomising a 13 year old girl. 

The point is being made that this offence is at least as bad as the offences Gary Glitter is guilty of. 

Nothing to do with the court proceedings.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Greimer, now 45, told the court in a written statement in January 2009 that she has long opposed to the continuation of this matter



> “If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do. I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.”
> 
> “… I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
> 
> “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.”


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Greimer, now 45, told the court in a written statement in January 2009 that she has long opposed to the continuation of this matter



With all respect to the victim, her opinion is irrelevant to the legal case. Polanski has already pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. His guilt in this matter is not in question. 
Let's say for a moment that the sentence had been carried out and polanski was serving his sentence. Let's say that halfway through his sentence the victim had come forward to forgive him and ask for his release. Would Polanski have been released? Of course not, because he has already pleaded guilty and sentenced. The only difference to this scenerio is that Polanski never served his sentence BECAUSE HE FLED. 

The comparison with Paul Gadd is relevant because Gadd (despite serving his sentence and paying for his crime) was hounded and utterly demonised by the  tabloid press whilst Polanski, who fled his punishment, has been lauded with honours and awards.  I am baffled by the double standard.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> The point is being made that this offence is at least as bad as the offences Gary Glitter is guilty of.


It's "at least as bad" as 99% of criminal cases brought. What's it got to do with Gary Glitter.


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> the issue was not guilt,  nor necessariliy a desire to avoid justice.



I'm sorry but I simply do not think anyone could reasonably be expected to buy that for a second. The guilt was admitted. He fled to avoid his sentence.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

It appears the victim believes he fled to avoid the likely unfair _length_ of the sentence of an irrational judge. What you "buy" doesn't matter an awful lot.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's "at least as bad" as 99% of criminal cases brought. What's it got to do with Gary Glitter.





dylans said:


> The comparison with Paul Gadd is relevant because Gadd (despite serving his sentence and paying for his crime) was hounded and utterly demonised by the  tabloid press whilst Polanski, who fled his punishment, has been lauded with honours and awards.  I am baffled by the double standard.



^^ this ..


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

Go back to the twin towers conspiracy, you  fool.


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It appears the victim believes he fled to avoid the likely unfair _length_ of the sentence of an irrational judge. What you "buy" doesn't matter an awful lot.



Oh boo hoo. HE decided he didn't fancy the length of the sentence so he ran away. 
He should have thought of that before drugging and sodomising a 13 year old girl shouldn't he.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Go back to the twin towers conspiracy, you  fool.



Eh?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

I've identified the issue, at least as it seems to be seen by those most directly involved. People can make their own judgeents, whether it's "boo hoo", "eh" or something with perhaps a little more nuance and reflection.

/laters


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

I said "Eh" to question just what the heck the twin towers has to do with Roman Polanski? 

Or what it has to do with me or dylans.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

The only issue it seems to me is should Polanski be extradited to the USA to stand trial or be sentenced for the act he committed 30 years ago? 

In my opinion he should be extradited and should stand trial again.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> The film recounts the details of the night Polanski brought 13-year-old Samantha Gailey to Jack Nicholson's house for a magazine photo shoot and allegedly gave her champagne and quaaludes before having sex with her. Gailey, now Samantha Geimer, tells the story from her point of view in the film, saying she's not angry with Polanski. Polanski, now 74, declined to participate in Zenovich's movie.


http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> The only issue it seems to me is should Polanski be extradited to the USA to stand trial or be sentenced for the act he committed 30 years ago?
> 
> In my opinion he should be extradited and should stand trial again.



Yes. If there is a genuine issue of justice in relation to the behaviour of the original judge, then a new trial would solve that problem.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> It's not that Zenovich's film attempts to whitewash its subject. Polanski has never denied having sex with 13-year-old Samantha Gailey and even cheerfully admits he was fully aware of her age at the time. And despite his friends and colleagues lining up to explain what a "charismatic" fellow he is, he remains as defiantly dislikeable as ever. For much of the film Polanski comes across as a preening, insecure smart-aleck. He mistakes amorality for abandon and leaves a trail of mess in his wake.
> 
> No, it is simply that the ensuing legal circus risks making him look halfway honourable by comparison. Some might call it karma. Just as it was Gailey's unhappy fate to run up against Roman Polanski in excitable Austin Powers mode, so it was Polanski's unhappy fate to later run up against Judge Rittenband. A star-struck, skirt-chasing buffoon, Rittenband regarded the case as his big moment in the limelight and proceeded to direct its twists and turns like some puffed-up Hollywood martinet. All the really important stuff - the victim, the accused, the search for justice - played a distant second fiddle to the Rittenband ego.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/may/21/polanskigetsafairt


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet, posting pastes from other places does not disguise the fact that by his own admission Polanski is a paedophile.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> In recent months, lawyers for Polanski have been seeking through the US courts to have the rape charges against him dropped, after new evidence emerged in a documentary that, they argued, showed he was a victim of "judicial misconduct" at his original trial. The film showed a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney admitting discussing the case with the trial judge while it was ongoing.
> 
> In February a Los Angeles judge agreed that "substantial … misconduct" had taken place during the original court proceedings, but said he could not drop the charges so long as Polanski remained a fugitive. Polanski has since appealed against the ruling, insisting he would not voluntarily return to the US even to clear his name.
> 
> Gailey, now called Samantha Geimer and a 44-year-old mother of three (pictured left), has also spoken in support of his attempt to dismiss the charges, accusing the district attorney's office of resurrecting "lurid details" of her assault to distract attention from its own wrongdoing. "True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> In a 2003 interview,[35] 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. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[36]
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

She seems a very nice lady:








Interview


----------



## Beanburger (Sep 28, 2009)

Dan U said:


> Polanski is a nonce


Well technically, he's not, is he? An attraction to post-pubescent girls isn't actually the same thing as paedophilia. His behaviour was pretty abhorrent and morally appalling, but he's not a paedo.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Well technically, he's not, is he? An attraction to post-pubescent girls isn't actually the same thing as paedophilia. His behaviour was pretty abhorrent and morally appalling, but he's not a paedo.



I thought a paedophile was someone who had sex with minors. Polanski was 40 she was 13 therefore he is one of them. (I could be wrong)


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 28, 2009)

I'd say 13 was borderline anyway


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I'd say 13 was borderline anyway



How do you mean? 

Borderline what?


----------



## Beanburger (Sep 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I thought a paedophile was someone who had sex with minors. Polanski was 40 she was 13 therefore he is one of them. (I could be wrong)


No. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescents.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Pedophiles either act upon sexual urges towards pre-pubescent children or experience sexual urges towards prepubescent children


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> Borderline what?



If he'd had sex with her in Spain then it would have been legal. So he should have been in those borderlines.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Well technically, he's not, is he? An attraction to post-pubescent girls isn't actually the same thing as paedophilia. His behaviour was pretty abhorrent and morally appalling, but he's not a paedo.



What does it matter if he was a "paedo" or a "nonce" or whatever label people want to attach to it - all that gives you is a possible motivation for his actions.

The crime, one which doesn't appear to disputed, is that he drugged and raped a minor.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 28, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> If he'd had sex with her in Spain then it would have been legal. So he should have been in those borderlines.



Its not legal to drug and rape anyone in Spain.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 28, 2009)

beeboo said:


> What does it matter if he was a "paedo" or a "nonce" or whatever label people want to attach to it - all that gives you is a possible motivation for his actions.
> 
> The crime, one which doesn't appear to disputed, is that he drugged and raped a minor.



Innit.


----------



## Beanburger (Sep 28, 2009)

beeboo said:


> What does it matter if he was a "paedo" or a "nonce" or whatever label people want to attach to it - all that gives you is a possible motivation for his actions.


Erm... accuracy?


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Erm... accuracy?



Well I agree with you that the fact he was seemingly attracted to a 13 year old girl doesn't strictly lend support for the theory that he was a "paedo" given the definition of paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescents.

But either way, attaching a label to it is neither here nor there when it comes to the issue of whether he should be extradited and what punishment if any he should face.

I do tend to get the impression that people think that simply being a "paedo" is sufficient to merit a punishment in itself - whereas it's a matter of if and how a person acts on their attraction which should be the issue.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora's said everything that needs to be said about this.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Thora's said everything that needs to be said about this.




Quite. 

And while I understand his victim's point of view about it being dragged up again, he could end the media feeding frenzy quite quickly by turning himself in and pleading guilty.


----------



## Beanburger (Sep 28, 2009)

beeboo said:


> But either way, attaching a label to it is neither here nor there when it comes to the issue of whether he should be extradited and what punishment if any he should face.


No, I agree it doesn't affect the case for extradition and punishment. But it's not a label that should be thrown around lightly.


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

I think this is very straightforward . He pleaded guilty to a crime. He fled justice and he has been a fugitive for 30 years. Now he has to answer for that. what else is there to this?


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> No, I agree it doesn't affect the case for extradition and punishment. But it's not a label that should be thrown around lightly.



Then we are in agreement


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Thora's said everything that needs to be said about this.



I think there are arguments against (namely: opinion of the victim and implications of media circus; poor conduct of original trial; retrospective application of contemporary morality).

But in the end I take trashpony's view that the principles of justice trump any of these.  IMO the principles of justice are pretty sacrosanct and and more pragmatic or emotive arguments shouldn't be allowed undue influence.


----------



## Beanburger (Sep 28, 2009)

beeboo said:


> Then we are in agreement


Hang about! This is an internet forum! Aren't we meant to adopt extreme opinions from opposite ends of the spectrum, argue vehemently, try and prove how we're right and the other is wrong, generally chase our tails pointlessly for a while going round and round in circles, throw in the occasional insult, and then remember that it's nearly last orders and bugger off to do something more productive with our time? Or is agreeing with me some new-fangled debating technique that's designed to throw me off guard?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

I suppose the victim still has the choice of taking matters into her own hands; she could sign a statement to the effect that her original testimony was given under pressure, that she was easily suggestible as a minor and what she said was not the truth.

All the parties directly involved then get what they want. It's a thought.


I was thinking about the victims parents. They must have a lot of quilt.


----------



## gabi (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> She seems a very nice lady:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This was her when she was 13.






How anyone can defend the piece of shit that raped this child i dont know.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

> He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life


Worth thinking about.

Paul Dacre and his fellow scum are even greater filth than Polanski, on this kind of calculus.


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> Borderline what?



Borderline pre-/post-pubescent.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 28, 2009)

> retrospective application of contemporary morality



What so drugging and raping a 13 year old was considered 'Not too much to worry about' in the 1960s?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

Fwiw, you could marry 13-year olds in some States.

And dare we mention the alleged activiities of people like Jimmy Page and John Peel back in the day in the US of A . . . so yes, it was a very different time. That's not the same as condoning the activity.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

Thing is, not only was it statutory rape, (whatever one thinks of the age of consent) it was also a premeditated, coercive rape involving drugs and false imprisonment.

As far as I care, Polanski can go to hell, along with his apologists.


----------



## purplex (Sep 28, 2009)

Cancel the original trial based on the irregularities and then re-try him on all the original charges

Strictly enforce a media blackout of the case to prevent it turning into a media circus


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Fwiw, you could marry 13-year olds in some States.
> 
> And dare we mention the alleged activiities of people like Jimmy Page and John Peel back in the day in the US of A . . . so yes, it was a very different time. That's not the same as condoning the activity.



As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, all these folks are 'much loved' cultural icons for lots of people, and in some ways seen as untouchable. Were we living in a different cultural milieu, with a different set of cultural gatekeepers from 60s/70s bohemian/rocker types I suspect that Hendrix _et al_ would be pilloried in much the same way.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

You seem to have moved your goalposts.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

Hendrix imprisoned, drugged and raped little girls?

First I heard about it.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 28, 2009)

The striking thing about this is the inconsistency of the swiss Judicial System. They could have arrested him at anytime while he was living there. Could it be that the gnomes of Zurich are coming out of their clockwork towers and in return for handing over Polanski will make some lucrative deals with the U.S. about hidden bank accounts and fraud? UBS springs to mind.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> You seem to have moved your goalposts.



Not really. All I'm pointing out is, as someone said earlier and you failed to understand completely, there is a double standard in place when it comes to artists like Page, Hendrix etc.



Jonti said:


> Hendrix imprisoned, drugged and raped little girls?
> 
> First I heard about it.



Sorry, it shouldn't be read like that. I was merely repeating the claim/allegation that JH also enjoyed some young lovin' and no one really mentions it.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

There's a world of difference between consensual sexual activity with a young person who has reached puberty and what Polanski did.

Now shoot me.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really. All I'm pointing out is, as someone said earlier and you failed to understand completely, there is a double standard in place when it comes to artists like Page, Hendrix etc.


Nah, you had your nose about 8' in the air about the phrase "retrospective application of contemporary morality", to which I responded in post #106.


----------



## purplex (Sep 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really. All I'm pointing out is, as someone said earlier and you failed to understand completely, there is a double standard in place when it comes to artists like Page, Hendrix etc.



Are you talking about fact or rumour? 
Were any allegations made to the police about these people?
That is when people generally start forming opinions, not from tittle-tattle.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Nah, you had your nose about 8' in the air about the phrase "retrospective application of contemporary morality", to which I responded in post #106.



Only 8'? 



purplex said:


> Are you talking about fact or rumour?
> Were any allegations made to the police about these people?
> That is when people generally start forming opinions, not from tittle-tattle.



Rumour, as stated earlier in the thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2009)

I hear PF-G is handling the extradition


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 28, 2009)

It would be a bit sad if he ended up in the same prison as Charlie Manson.


----------



## miss minnie (Sep 28, 2009)

This might belong on a different thread, but... should Westminster Cathedral remove it's "stations of the cross" sculptures?  Since the artist's diaries were published revealing that he sexually abused his sister, his children and his dog?

Personally I feel that they are a fitting tribute to what we now know of organised religious orders, but if we are burning Gary Glitter records... well...


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

For doing the dog, certainly. For the others I would consider the 'retrospective application of contemporary morality' as it is my Phrase of the Day.


----------



## bigbry (Sep 28, 2009)

D'wards said:


> And it happened ages ago, i think that has a bearing on the way people view it, for some strange reason



Doesn't stop us chasing 90 year old war criminals


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

purplex said:


> Cancel the original trial based on the irregularities and then re-try him on all the original charges
> 
> Strictly enforce a media blackout of the case to prevent it turning into a media circus



He pled guilty before running off, so it will be interesting to see why he should get a retrial or be able successfully fight extradition.

In any case, it is very odd to see in these times so many people here, in various governments and in the media generally jumping up and down about how outrageous it is that the yanks are trying to nab him.


----------



## Lea (Sep 28, 2009)

Will they do a retrial or will he just be sent back to the US to do his sentence?


----------



## Lea (Sep 28, 2009)

He'll probably be given a sentence of 1000 hrs of community service as the grounds keeper at an all girls highschool!


----------



## Giles (Sep 28, 2009)

dylans said:


> With all respect to the victim, her opinion is irrelevant to the legal case. Polanski has already pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. His guilt in this matter is not in question.
> Let's say for a moment that the sentence had been carried out and polanski was serving his sentence. Let's say that halfway through his sentence the victim had come forward to forgive him and ask for his release. Would Polanski have been released? Of course not, because he has already pleaded guilty and sentenced. The only difference to this scenerio is that Polanski never served his sentence BECAUSE HE FLED.
> 
> The comparison with Paul Gadd is relevant because Gadd (despite serving his sentence and paying for his crime) was hounded and utterly demonised by the  tabloid press whilst Polanski, who fled his punishment, has been lauded with honours and awards.  I am baffled by the double standard.



Its because Gary's music was rubbish and Roman's films are quite good.....


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Lea said:


> He'll probably be given a sentence of 1000 hrs of community service as the grounds keeper at an all girls highschool!



Given the terms of his original - and astonishingly generous given what the allegation was - plea bargain that is by no means unlikely.


----------



## purplex (Sep 28, 2009)

Lea said:


> Will they do a retrial or will he just be sent back to the US to do his sentence?



He believes he had already done his sentence as the plea bargain which was that he would plead guilty to the lesser charge(dropping the rape and anal sex charges)  go to a detention centre for 90 days be psychologically assessed, he would then be given a 90 day sentence and the time hed served would be tic and he would be extradited. He served 42 days, was given the ok by the shrinks. On the eve of the sentencing he found out that the judge was about to renege on the deal by sending him to prison for a much longer time and did a runner. The American courts have since said that they would honour the original plea bargain agreement if he handed himself in (as long as he allowed the verdict to be televised). He hasnt handed himself in. Who knows what will happen. Maybe they will uphold the original agreement. 
Whats clear is the original case was pretty fucked up.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

I'm reeling that such a "socially acceptable" person has been so vile.  Has he faced  up to his victim and really tried to understand what he did?  And he's hailed as an artist, is he?

<spits>

At times like this, I understand why I find the company of so-called low-life preferable to the cultured and fashionable.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

purplex said:


> He believes he had already done his sentence as the plea bargain which was that he would plead guilty to the lesser charge(dropping the rape and anal sex charges)  go to a detention centre for 90 days be psychologically assessed, he would then be given a 90 day sentence and the time hed served would be tic and he would be extradited. He served 42 days, was given the ok by the shrinks. On the eve of the sentencing he found out that the judge was about to renege on the deal by sending him to prison for a much longer time and did a runner. The American courts have since said that they would honour the original plea bargain agreement if he handed himself in (as long as he allowed the verdict to be televised). He hasnt handed himself in. Who knows what will happen. Maybe they will uphold the original agreement.
> Whats clear is the original case was pretty fucked up.



Plea bargains are not set in stone, the judge can override them (as he should have in this case - after all a 44 year old man who grooms, drugs and then rapes a 13 year old girl should not get punished by a 90-day hospital stay).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> Polanski reached a deal with prosecutors in which he pleaded guilty to a count of unlawful sex with a minor and prosecutors agreed not to pursue rape, sodomy and other charges. A judge ordered Polanski to spend 42 days in state prison for pre-sentencing "diagnostic testing." Polanski served the time and was released. But on the eve of his sentencing in 1978, he boarded a plane for Europe, never to return to the U.S.
> 
> The court issued an arrest warrant that has remained in effect since.
> 
> ...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...arrest-becomes-an-international-incident.html


----------



## gnoriac (Sep 28, 2009)

According to the radio this morning, Polanski's far from an infrequent visitor to Switzerland - he even has a house there. So why have they suddenly done this? 
Hard to point the finger at US pressure, it makes little since that it'd be increased under Obama compared to the previous incumbent.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

gnoriac said:


> According to the radio this morning, Polanski's far from an infrequent visitor to Switzerland - he even has a house there. So why have they suddenly done this?
> Hard to point the finger at US pressure, it makes little since that it'd be increased under Obama compared to the previous incumbent.



According to the yanks, its because they have to swear out an arrest warrant every time they want to nab him, and were able to do it this time because they knew in plenty of time in advance where he would be.


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 28, 2009)

I hope they bang the little perv up.


----------



## dylans (Sep 28, 2009)

purplex said:


> He believes he had already done his sentence as the plea bargain which was that he would plead guilty to the lesser charge(dropping the rape and anal sex charges)  go to a detention centre for 90 days be psychologically assessed, he would then be given a 90 day sentence and the time hed served would be tic and he would be extradited. He served 42 days, was given the ok by the shrinks. On the eve of the sentencing he found out that the judge was about to renege on the deal by sending him to prison for a much longer time and did a runner. The American courts have since said that they would honour the original plea bargain agreement if he handed himself in (as long as he allowed the verdict to be televised). He hasnt handed himself in. Who knows what will happen. Maybe they will uphold the original agreement.
> Whats clear is the original case was pretty fucked up.



Ok. At last some clarity. That puts things in a different light.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

Free Roman Polanski now, demand France and Poland:




> A diplomatic war was brewing today over the arrest of the filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was detained in Switzerland on a decades-old warrant relating to the rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
> 
> France and Poland urged Switzerland to free the 76-year-old director on bail and said they would be lobbying the US government all the way up to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
> 
> ...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

gnoriac said:


> According to the radio this morning, Polanski's far from an infrequent visitor to Switzerland - he even has a house there. So why have they suddenly done this?
> Hard to point the finger at US pressure, it makes little since that it'd be increased under Obama compared to the previous incumbent.



Trial by Media - note the objection to a televised trial in a previous link. 

The victim took the Polanski to civil court, and settled the matter there, after which, she publicly forgave him and has publicly spoken out against continued media demonisation _and their reminding her of the incredibly traumatic time which she has put behind her _ every time he gets praised for one of his films, as well as appearing in the documentary film which explored both the crime and the trial.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 28, 2009)

because of the effect on her, not because he "deserves it for his art"


----------



## Stoat Boy (Sep 28, 2009)

gnoriac said:


> According to the radio this morning, Polanski's far from an infrequent visitor to Switzerland - he even has a house there. So why have they suddenly done this?
> 
> Hard to point the finger at US pressure, it makes little since that it'd be increased under Obama compared to the previous incumbent.




Why would it not be increased under Obama ? The point is constantly made that paedophilia is a crime most likely to be commited by white males so having a Black President could be a reason for the ratcheting up of the pressure. Or do you think that somebody like Obama is going to be easier on things like paedophillia ? Love to see your reasoning why. 

Personally I think Polanski is a disgusting nonce and have always avoided watching any film he was involved in the making of and am very chuffed to see him being nicked for it.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

Nothing to do with Obama FFS. Jesus.

I have no idea in this case but if you look at the career ambitions of the relevant District Attorney you aren't usually far from the truth.

The Guardian link above decribes how much time he spends in Switzerland.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

gabi said:


> This was her when she was 13.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He should spend the rest of his life in prison. He drugged,raped and sodomised a 13 year old and then fled the country. Scumbag of the 1st degree.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

I hope he does get extradited to America to service his jail sentance, money and privilege can not mean a person can rape children and get away with it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

> In 2008, Geimer (the victim) 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. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[36]



.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> I hope he does get extradited to America to service his jail sentance, money and privilege can not mean a person can rape children and get away with it.



The victim did bring a civil court case against Polanski and they settled the matter (I think in 1997).


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

Rich man nonces by anally raping a child, get nicked, pleads guilty to noncing, runs away, pays the victim a huge amount of money to "forgive him" and years later get nicked again for said noncing.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

Nice to know that rich people can rape children and not go to prison.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> Nice to know that rich people can rape children and not go to prison.



Says it all really. And as others have said it brings out the double standards of some people cos hes really arty and that......He deserves to die in prison.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Victim wants case against Polanski dropped. 


> LOS ANGELES — The woman who was raped by fugitive director Roman Polanski three decades ago when she was 13 has lashed out at the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, saying she is being victimized again by prosecutors' focus on lurid details of what happened to her.
> 
> Samantha Geimer, 45, filed a legal declaration Monday asking that the charge against Polanski be dismissed in the interest of saving her from further trauma as the case is publicized anew.
> 
> ...



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/roman-polanski-victim-urg_n_157391.html


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

IP Do you think he should go to Prison?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Worst handled rape case of all time? Probably not, but certainly the most well known.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Victim wants case against Polanski dropped.
> 
> 
> Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/roman-polanski-victim-urg_n_157391.html



The case doesnt need to be dropped, he has already pled guilty and just needs to be sentenced.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Worst handled rape case of all time? Probably not, but certainly the most well known.



Oh do fuck off.  

The worst thing about this is the blatant corrupting effect that great celebrity can have on judicial affairs, firstly at the time of the original unbelieveably lenient plea agreement; and then now, when we see a legion of celebrities and politicians lining up to defend a man who groomed, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and then fled justice.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> IP Do you think he should go to Prison?



I think the views of the victim are very important here. 

She says he's not dangerous to society and that she doesn't want him locked up forever. I guess since she's already been paid substantial damages (rightly so), that no further damages from Polanski are required. 

I guess she thinks he needs to be locked up, but not for the rest of his life. 

He certainly deserves some additional retribution for absconding before sentencing after his plea of 'unlawful sexual intercourse' was accepted. 

It's possible that the victim could bring a civil suit against the DA's office for the way they're mishandling this case today, as well as the mishandlings that occured 31 years ago. 

I think her views are important and so are her feelings. The prosecution aren't handling this case with the sensitivity required of a rape prosecution.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

agricola said:


> The worst thing about this is the blatant corrupting effect that great celebrity can have on judicial affairs, firstly at the time of the original unbelieveably lenient plea agreement; and then now, when we see a legion of celebrities and politicians lining up to defend a man who groomed, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and then fled justice.



There needs to be more protection of a victim's identity. The media bring it up time and time again, without any care as to the victim's feelings. Something also needs to be done about that too.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I think the views of the victim are very important here.
> 
> She says he's not dangerous to society and that she doesn't want him locked up forever. I guess since she's already been paid substantial damages (rightly so), that no further damages from Polanski are required.
> 
> ...



I think the views of the victim may be influenced by his ability to pay her considerable damages to avoid going to prison.
Which leaves the crime drugging raping and sodomising a 13 year old girl. The reason he has got away with this for so long is MONEY.
If he didnt have that he would have gone to prison. People should not be able to buy there way out of prison.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Thing is, not only was it statutory rape, (whatever one thinks of the age of consent) it was also a premeditated, coercive rape involving drugs and false imprisonment.



Polanski never went on trial over those allegations, but I guess that's how the prosecutor might have concluded his opening statements if he had.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 28, 2009)

He plied a 13 year old with alcohol and had sex with her. In my mind there's no argument-he should face the punishment and do whatever time they give him.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> I think the views of the victim may be influenced by his ability to pay her considerable damages to avoid going to prison.
> Which leaves the crime drugging raping and sodomising a 13 year old girl. The reason he has got away with this for so long is MONEY.
> If he didnt have that he would have gone to prison. People should not be able to buy there way out of prison.



The victim did bring a civil court case against Polanski. I think that was 20 years after the incident. This was 11 years after the crime occurred.

e2a: 





> The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress.





> Polanski, 43, pleaded guilty to one of six charges facing him, thereby avoiding a trial.
> 
> The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany such a trial.


http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

I don't think he got away with it because of money and he hasn't bought his way out of prison. He got away with it because he absconded before sentencing could occur to a country w/o an extradition treaty and consciously avoided recapture for 31 years. 

Incidently, I thought in the some US states, prisoners could legally buy a more cushy cell  WTF!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> He plied a 13 year old with alcohol and had sex with her. In my mind there's no argument-he should face the punishment and do whatever time they give him.



Like Michael Jackson, then?


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> For doing the dog, certainly. For the others I would consider the 'retrospective application of contemporary morality' as it is my Phrase of the Day.



I totally peaked too early today - just spent three hours in a uni tutorial where my most insightful contribution was "muhrm".  I should have saved up my multi-syllabic guff for an environment where it would have been properly appreciated


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I don't think he got away with it because of money and he hasn't bought his way out of prison. He got away with it because he absconded before sentencing could occur to a country w/o an extradition treaty and consciously avoided recapture for 31 years.
> 
> WTF!



Have you read what you just posted?


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

I'm inclined to agree with whatever careless AP associate it was whose notes got published by mistake:

http://gawker.com/5368903/aps-notes-on-roman-polanskis-arrest-leak-onto-news-wires-everywhere

The Swiss nabbed Polanski to appease the US over the ongoing dispute about UBS names and because of the attention the case has gotten since a recent documentary.

I think it'd be a miscarriage of justice if he was actually sent back to the US to face another trial, because there's little hope of finding an unbiased jury, meaning he won't get a fair trial.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Re. not getting a fair trial. - that seems to be what the victim has been saying. 

I side with the victim in this. I feel for her. It's unfair on her. She's tried to get the charges dropped, but to no avail. 

I don't give a shit about Polanski, but I do feel sorry for his children and his wife.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

What's a UBS name? AND what dispute is there with UBS names, AND why does the US require appeasement from CH?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Re. not getting a fair trial. - that seems to be what the victim has been saying.
> 
> I side with the victim in this. I feel for her. It's unfair on her. She's tried to get the charges dropped, but to no avail.
> 
> I don't give a shit about Polanski, but I do feel sorry for his children and his wife.



I do give a shit because he has used his fame and money to get away with a truly horrible crime.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> I think it'd be a miscarriage of justice if he was actually sent back to the US to face another trial, because there's little hope of finding an unbiased jury, meaning he won't get a fair trial.



He wont get a fair trial, but thats because there wont *be* a trial - he had already pled guilty before fleeing the day before they were due to sentence him.  




			
				invisibleplanet said:
			
		

> There needs to be more protection of a victim's identity. The media bring it up time and time again, without any care as to the victim's feelings. Something also needs to be done about that too.



Without wishing to criticize the victim here, the argument about protecting her identity clearly falls apart when one considers that she appeared in the _"Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired"_ documentary, discussed the case in that film and then went to the premier.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

I thought the media had already revealed her identity by then.

e2a: The victim revealed herself in 1997


> Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. It was not immediately clear when Polanski, director of "Chinatown," "Rosemary's Baby," and "Frantic" might return to Los Angeles.


From BOB2oo9's link below


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2009)

I just heard on the BBC Radio News that California prosecuters have confirmed they will be seeking his extradition from Switzerland.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> What's a UBS name? AND what dispute is there with UBS names, AND why does the US require appeasement from CH?



The US has been trying to squeeze the names of alleged American tax dodgers from the Swiss bank UBS for a couple of years now - UBS don't want to and the Swiss are reluctant to compel them to do so because doing so will essentially mean the end of the Swiss banking system. 

UBS turned over a thousand names a few months back but US prosecutors want 46,000 more and the Swiss are dragging their heels - in that context, their decision to arrest Polanski now after he (reportedly) made a couple of dozen visits there while he was wanted by US authorities looks like the Swiss are, as the AP stringer said, throwing a bone to the US.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 28, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> I think it'd be a miscarriage of justice if he was actually sent back to the US to face another trial, because there's little hope of finding an unbiased jury, meaning he won't get a fair trial.



But didnt he admit to all charge in the first place? in which case would there be a trial with jury? Is he pleading innocent this time? Sorry - I dont really keep up with cases like this so dont know what the latest is


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Samantha Geimer, Polanski's victim, doesn't back prison time for the director
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

ska invita said:


> But didnt he admit to all charge in the first place? in which case would there be a trial with jury? Is he pleading innocent this time? Sorry - I dont really keep up with cases like this so dont know what the latest is



Sorry - I should have said 'to face trial' instead of 'face another trial' because, as far as I know, he never had a trial the first time round.

I don't his case will get to trial in the US this time around either, at least not if the French decide to make an issue out of it.


----------



## Wilson (Sep 28, 2009)

fancy having something which happened to you when you were 13 keep barging its way in to your life for the next 30 years, something youd rather just forget and push back out... and because this flashy tosspot didnt just accept he had done wrong and do his sentence...


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 28, 2009)

not sure if posted

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html


----------



## Zabo (Sep 28, 2009)

Read the Grand Jury Testimony

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


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

Wilson said:


> fancy having something which happened to you when you were 13 keep barging its way in to your life for the next 30 years, something youd rather just forget and push back out... and because this flashy tosspot didnt just accept he had done wrong and do his sentence...



I don't want to sound like I'm defending a child rapist here - if Polanski's genuinely guilty on all charges then I don't care if he spends his late '70s licking the floors of San Quentin clean with so many shivs in his back he looks like a porcupine - but I think it's the fault of the new Polanski documentary and a couple of ambitious new prosecutors that the story's back in the news. 

LA prosecutors don't want to look slack and want to make certain that justice happens over this case from over 30 years ago that the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator just want to forget about, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that their faces are getting all over the news because of it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> not sure if posted
> 
> http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html



Very clear. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> I don't want to sound like I'm defending a child rapist here - if Polanski's genuinely guilty on all charges then I don't care if he spends his late '70s licking the floors of San Quentin clean with so many shivs in his back he looks like a porcupine - but I think it's the fault of the new Polanski documentary and a couple of ambitious new prosecutors that the story's back in the news.
> 
> LA prosecutors don't want to look slack and want to make certain that justice happens over this case from over 30 years ago that the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator just want to forget about, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that their faces are getting all over the news because of it.



There is nothing alleged about it, he went to trial and pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, which was a plea bargain from the intial charges of rape and sodomy.

He did a runner post-trial and pre-sentancing.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> There is nothing alleged about it, he went to trial and pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, which was a plea bargain from the intial charges of rape and sodomy.



Which makes him not guilty of rape and sodomy...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> There is nothing alleged about it, he went to trial and pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, which was a plea bargain from the intial charges of rape and sodomy.





> Originally published in The Washington Post, August 10, 1977
> The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany such a trial.
> http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html






			
				Bajie said:
			
		

> He did a runner post-trial and pre-sentancing.


He did, yes.
And then in 1988, the victim brought a civil suit against Polanski:


> The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Which makes him not guilty of rape and sodomy...



Yes legally he was convicted with having sex with a child.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Which makes him not guilty of rape and sodomy...



but guilty of "unlawful sex with a minor", plus "assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction" ?


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> He did, yes.
> And then in 1988, the victim brought a civil suit against Polanski:




Though as a civil suit does not cancel out a criminal conviction, the coniviction of unlawful sex with a child still stands.


----------



## Rainingstairs (Sep 28, 2009)

Dan U said:


> he made a good choice in France (as well as being part French) as iirc the French media pretty much leaves it's famous peoples private lives private.
> 
> maybe less so these days.



Weren't it the French who killed Lady Di?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> There is nothing alleged about it, he went to trial and pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, which was a plea bargain from the intial charges of rape and sodomy.
> 
> He did a runner post-trial and pre-sentancing.



But still people express sympathy for him. The terrible thing, and a shame on Europe, is that he was allowed to get away with it for so long.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 28, 2009)

I think you'll find that people here are expressing sympathy with the victim, not the perpetrator

The only person I know who has openly expressed sympathy for Polanski is the victim.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> And then in 1988, the victim brought a civil suit against Polanski:





Bajie said:


> Yes legally he was convicted with having sex with a child.



I'm not Polanski's lawyer - or any kind of lawyer - but aren't those responses just echoing what I already said?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Bajie said:


> Though as a civil suit does not cancel out a criminal conviction, the coniviction of unlawful sex with a child still stands.



Yes, he pled guilty. It's not condonation, but the times were somewhat different then. 

One time that might be more relevant to mention song lyrics - Stones, Stray Cat Blues, released in 1968: 



> I hear the click-clack of your feet on the stairs
> I know you're no scare-eyed honey.
> There'll be a feast if you just come upstairs
> But it's no hanging matter
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

beeboo said:


> I totally peaked too early today


Don't worry, story of my life


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I think you'll find that people here are expressing sympathy with the victim, not the perpetrator
> 
> The only person I know who has openly expressed sympathy for Polanski is the victim.



After he gave her an undisclosed amount of money.


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

What the fuck is wrong with some people - Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  How anyone can even begin to justify this is beyond me.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> What the fuck is wrong with some people - Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old child!  How anyone can even begin to justify this is beyond me.



but he's an artist, dear....


bar the luvvie love in amongst many of the film/media world, there is also the fact Polanski had gone a bit mad after Charlie Manson and his gang had slaughtered his missus.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

There's no question that Polanski pled guilty. There's no question that he broke the law. 

But my recollection from reading the daily papers at the time of the event, was that the facts weren't as clear cut as the mythology of the case would indicate. As well, there were political factors at work.





> ... while prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton were on differing sides of the situation, both acknowledged that Polanski would not be in self-imposed exile today if it weren’t for the fame whoring judge at the center of the case.
> 
> The late Laurence J. Rittenband is painted as a series of concerning contradictions, a man obsessed with high profile celebrity crimes who himself aspired to similar notoriety as the arbiter of same. He purposely asked to be on the Polanski case, and used it as the basis for his own surreal courtroom drama. Zenovich does a brilliant job of deconstructing the truth. As part of his plea, Polanski was promised probation. The judge felt such a stance would get him in hot water with the media. As a compromise, all decided on a 90 day stay at the State Prison at Chino. While it would technically be for further discretionary review, it was farcical formality. Once released, Polanski would be more or less free. And the director actually did go to jail. He served 42 days in isolation, administrators afraid of what the prison population would do to a convicted child molester.
> 
> ...



http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/polanski-case-finally-follows-the-truth


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

revol68 said:


> but he's an artist, dear....
> 
> 
> bar the luvvie love in amongst many of the film/media world, there is also the fact Polanski had gone a bit mad after Charlie Manson and his gang had slaughtered his missus.



Read the post below yours, about the attention seeking judge, who reneged on deals, and created a situation where polanski and his lawyers could no longer count on fair treatment by the US court.


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There's no question that Polanski pled guilty. There's no question that he broke the law.
> 
> But my recollection from reading the daily papers at the time of the event, was that the facts weren't as clear cut as the mythology of the case would indicate. As well, there were political factors at work.
> 
> ...



There's no doubt he drugged and sodomised a 13 year old and fucked other children, I don't really care what political factors were at work.

If having a dead wife excuses rape someone should be calling Jack Tweed.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

JC that is one of the most utterly cuntish articles that has ever been quoted on Urban.  I especially like:



> That both sides now acknowledge that this happened turns the story at the center of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired into one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever.



He was 44.  He slept with a 13 year old girl, after giving her champagne and quaaludes.  He admits it and pled guilty at trial.  How the fuck is that a miscarriage of justice?


----------



## Bajie (Sep 28, 2009)

Fact is he raped a child, and did it in a very planned way, nothing about the judge or his murdered wife changes that or excuses the pre-meditated rape of a child.

He knew he would be safe in France, so went there.

Simple as that really, what a cunt.


----------



## purplex (Sep 28, 2009)

Indeed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

agricola said:


> JC that is one of the most utterly cuntish articles that have ever been quoted on Urban.  I especially like:
> 
> 
> 
> He was 44.  He slept with a 13 year old girl, after giving her champagne and quaaludes.  He admits it and pled guilty at trial.  How the fuck is that a miscarriage of justice?



It's the part after the plea where the problem arises.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 28, 2009)

Who dares not to agree with the Internet !


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> There's no doubt he drugged and sodomised a 13 year old and fucked other children, I don't really care what political factors were at work.
> 
> If having a dead wife excuses rape someone should be calling Jack Tweed.



I didn't realize he'd been convicted of other crimes involving children.


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I didn't realize he'd been convicted of other crimes involving children.



Is one not enough?


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's the part after the plea where the problem arises.



The bit where he ran off?  Or the bit where he thought that the judge would object (which he has every right to, legally and morally) to a plea bargain that would have "sentenced" Polanski to 90 days psychiatric assesment at a hospital?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> Is one not enough?



You said he fucked other children.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

agricola said:


> The bit where he ran off?  Or the bit where he thought that the judge would object (which he has every right to, legally and morally) to a plea bargain that would have "sentenced" Polanski to 90 days psychiatric assesment at a hospital?



The basis of plea agreements, is certainty. As the article pointed out, Polanski had lots of money to fight the charges, had longterm incarceration been on the table as a potential outcome. Who knows what the outcome of an actual trial would have been?

He made a guilty plea in return for the agreed upon terms.


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I didn't realize he'd been convicted of other crimes involving children.



He hadnt, but he did have a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

agricola said:


> He hadnt, but he did have a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15.



Did she press charges?


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You said he fucked other children.



Didn't he fuck Nastassja Kinski too?  I also find it hard to believe a man like that raped his first 13 year old at the age of 44.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 28, 2009)

Just to make it clear I don't thinkhis missus getting gutted by Manson's crew excuses him, I was just saying it's one of the factors towards explaining why Polanski has got such soft treatment over drugging and raping a 13 year old.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> Didn't he fuck Nastassja Kinski too?  I also find it hard to believe a man like that raped his first 13 year old at the age of 44.


you're letting your argument down with silly stuff like this tbh.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> Didn't he fuck Nastassja Kinski too?  I also find it hard to believe a man like that raped his first 13 year old at the age of 44.



He must have got such a ribbing from his other paedo rapist mates.


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

He raped one child - isn't that enough?  Is rape only serious if there are multiple victims now?


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The basis of plea agreements, is certainty. As the article pointed out, Polanski had lots of money to fight the charges, had longterm incarceration been on the table as a potential outcome. Who knows what the outcome of an actual trial would have been?
> 
> He made a guilty plea in return for the agreed upon terms.



Thats very mendacious, JC.  The trial judge at the time, and indeed now, has the power to not accept the plea agreement, indeed anyone who is being honest about this would recognize that the judge *should* have done so.


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you're letting your argument down with silly stuff like this tbh.



What argument?  Rapists should go to prison?  That's my only argument, regardless of the age or number of victims.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> What argument?  Rapists should go to prison?  That's my only argument, regardless of the age or number of victims.



what even articulate, respectable, artistic ones?


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Did she press charges?



No, but thats not what I said.  Do you think a 44 year old bloke having a relationship with a girl of 13, at nearly the same time that he has a relationship with another girl of 15, is acceptable?


----------



## Thora (Sep 28, 2009)

revol68 said:


> what even articulate, respectable, artistic ones?



Tbh I'd shoot them all but the people don't seem to be behind me on this one


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 28, 2009)

Thora said:


> What argument?  Rapists should go to prison?  That's my only argument, regardless of the age or number of victims.


no. baseless speculation about other shadowy circumstances. leave it for the gossip pages.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 28, 2009)

agricola said:


> Thats very mendacious, JC.  The trial judge at the time, and indeed now, has the power to not accept the plea agreement, indeed anyone who is being honest about this would recognize that the judge *should* have done so.



Yes, they have that power. Do it enough times, and the plea bargain system will end.


The crux of what I'm saying, is that those were different times. That isn't an excuse, but the nature of his punishment, and of any plea deal, have to be considered in light of societal mores of the day.

The next year after all this went down, Brooke Shields, a 12 year old actress, starred in a movie about a child prostitute called Pretty Baby. And it wasn't the moralistic diatribe that one would expect if such a movie could even get made today.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 29, 2009)

Thora said:


> Tbh I'd shoot them all but the people don't seem to be behind me on this one



Have you seen Rosemary's Baby?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> No, but thats not what I said.  Do you think a 44 year old bloke having a relationship with a girl of 13, at nearly the same time that he has a relationship with another girl of 15, is acceptable?



Rape is always wrong.

He had a public relationship with Kinski, yet there was no hue and cry for his imprisonment, nor for him to be shot, at the time.


----------



## Thora (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes, they have that power. Do it enough times, and the plea bargain system will end.
> 
> 
> The crux of what I'm saying, is that those were different times. That isn't an excuse, but the nature of his punishment, and of any plea deal, have to be considered in light of societal mores of the day.
> ...



I wasn't alive in the 70s so maybe I don't understand the "societal mores" of the time - but drugging and raping children was acceptable back then?  Drugging and raping anyone was ok?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Thora said:


> I wasn't alive in the 70s so maybe I don't understand the "societal mores" of the time - but drugging and raping children was acceptable back then?  Drugging and raping anyone was ok?



No. Rape is always wrong.


But while finger pointing is going on, one might want to read up a little about Geimer's mother, and how it was that her 13 year old daughter came to be in circumstances where she's drinking champagne at Jack Nicholson's house.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No. Rape is always wrong.
> 
> 
> But while finger pointing is going on, one might want to read up a little about Geimer's mother, and how it was that her 13 year old daughter came to be in circumstances where she's drinking champagne at Jack Nicholson's house.



she could have been drinking Buckfast in a gutter and it would make fuck all difference to the rights and wrongs of Polanski drugging and raping her.


----------



## Thora (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No. Rape is always wrong.
> 
> 
> But while finger pointing is going on, one might want to read up a little about Geimer's mother, and how it was that her 13 year old daughter came to be in circumstances where she's drinking champagne at Jack Nicholson's house.



Irrelevant to Polanski.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

"Was it statutory rape or rape per se?"

Was the question I was going to ask. But having checked up on the esteemed resource that is wikipedia it seems that the crime is rather cut and dried in the worst possible way.

On the facts that looks really rather bad.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 29, 2009)

revol68 said:


> she could have been drinking Buckfast in a gutter and it would make fuck all difference to the rights and wrongs of Polanski drugging and raping her.



Innit - theres no mitigation ever for targetting, drugging and raping a thirteen year old child.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

revol68 said:


> she could have been drinking Buckfast in a gutter and it would make fuck all difference to the rights and wrongs of Polanski drugging and raping her.



We've been discussing how a child of tender years, like 12 or 13, can't consent, have limited abilities re judgement etc. Thus, they are to be under the protection of their parents. For example, if you fail to buckle your child into a car seatbelt and the kid gets hurt as a result, the parent can be sued [here, at least].

If a parent can be held liable for not buckling up a kid in a car, how about a parent who drops off a 13 year old girl at a Hollywood mansion, with Nicholson and Polanski grinning at the door, holding a bottle of champagne?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Also, there's been talk on the thread that Polanski had a rep for liking young girls. 

So, if it was your 13 year old daughter, and Polanski had invited her for a photo shoot, how far away would you be, while the photography was taking place?


----------



## Bajie (Sep 29, 2009)

From the court testimony it looks more like grooming tbh, and on the night it happend her mother did not drop her off, he came for her.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Also, there's been talk on the thread that Polanski had a rep for liking young girls.
> 
> So, if it was your 13 year old daughter, and Polanski had invited her for a photo shoot, how far away would you be, while the photography was taking place?



You're getting onto very dodgy ground here by attempting to magnify the negligence of parents over and above the criminal actions of a third party.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bajie said:


> From the court testimony it looks more like grooming tbh, and on the night it happend her mother did not drop her off, he came for her.



Oh: that makes all the difference.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> You're getting onto very dodgy ground here by attempting to magnify the negligence of parents over and above the criminal actions of a third party.



We're talking about a child. A 13 year old. Yes, I will talk about negligence or neglect of parental duty, if a parent knowingly or carelessly leaves a child in a situation where there's a reasonable risk of some harm.


----------



## Thora (Sep 29, 2009)

Mother's negligence is totally separate issue to Polanski's crime.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We're talking about a child. A 13 year old. Yes, I will talk about negligence or neglect of parental duty, if a parent knowingly or carelessly leaves a child in a situation where there's a reasonable risk of some harm.



But that isn't really the contemporary issue, is it?

The issue of the day is whether a man should face the consequences of his past actions, not whether the parents of the victim should share liability for her exploitation.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Oh: that makes all the difference.



It does, because you insinutated that her mother took her to the house the night she was raped.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The crux of what I'm saying, is that those were different times. That isn't an excuse, but the nature of his punishment, and of any plea deal, have to be considered in light of societal mores of the day.



JC that wasnt the 14th century, it was thirty-odd years ago.  It was illegal then, and is illegal now.  Someone who was not someone with the profile of Polanski would not have been given that plea bargain.

Also whats with this "blame the mother" thing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Thora said:


> Mother's negligence is totally separate issue to Polanski's crime.



Not if her negligence was a primary precondition for the crime happening.


As in, if she hadn't left her daughter alone for a 'photo shoot' with a man known to have a penchant for young girls, maybe none of it would have happened.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not if her negligence was a primary precondition for the crime happening.
> 
> 
> As in, if she hadn't left her daughter alone for a 'photo shoot' with a man known to have a penchant for young girls, maybe none of it would have happened.



So basically you are arguing that Polanski is a nonce, then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> Also whats with this "blame the mother" thing?



I'm blaming her, because she's partly to blame, imo.


Imo, the reason the mother left her daughter alone, is that she was a social climbing hollywood stage mother, who would be prepared to do most anything to get ahead in the business.


Did any of you see the movie Bruno, where Cohen interviews hollywood parents, and fills them in on some of the things their kids will have to do?

And they're all prepared to go along with it.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

I think the largest factor in the girl being raped was the person raping her rather than the person who dropped her off at the location where she was eventually raped.

But that's just me.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I think the largest factor in the girl being raped was the person raping her rather than the person who dropped her off at the location where she was eventually raped.
> 
> But that's just me.



You forget that she was dressed "like she was asking for it".


----------



## Bajie (Sep 29, 2009)

> I'm blaming her, because she's partly to blame, imo



Rubbish, the child was groomed and her mother was suckered into it, the court transcripts show this quite clearly

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


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> Someone who was not someone with the profile of Polanski would not have been given that plea bargain.





> *Rape case collapses over consent*
> rape case has collapsed after a 21-year-old student said that she had been too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to have sex.
> The woman had alleged she was raped by fellow student Ruairi Dougal in a hall of residence at Aberystwyth University.
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I think the largest factor in the girl being raped was the person raping her rather than the person who dropped her off at the location where she was eventually raped.
> 
> But that's just me.



It's a big factor, but not the only factor. If a parent delivers  or allows a child to be taken to a situation where it's reasonable to infer that harm may result, then the parent bears some responsibility as well.


We should do a poll: how many of you would have dropped off your 13 year old child for a 'photo shoot', then gone off to do a little shopping?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bajie said:


> Rubbish, the child was groomed and her mother was suckered into it, the court transcripts show this quite clearly
> 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html



So if the mother is a 'sucker', she is less responsible to take proper care of her child?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's a big factor, but not the only factor. If a parent delivers  or allows a child to be taken to a situation where it's reasonable to infer that harm may result, then the parent bears some responsibility as well.



Certainly that's correct but fundamentally they are two separate issues and it does appear as if you're trying to substitute one, namely the parental neglect, for the other, namely the rape.

Maybe I am misreading your emphasis but that is how it comes across.


----------



## Bajie (Sep 29, 2009)

Stop trying to blame the poor womans mother for gods sake, the last thing she was expecting was for her daugher to get raped by the bloke. You dont even know if she knew about his preference for underage girls. There is a high chance she had no idea.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

I feel that JC2 made a good point about the mother's lack of supervision/chaperoning of her daughter.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

I should make it clear: I'm not saying the mother's involvement lessens whatever responsibility or liability should attach to Polanski. 

What I'm saying is that _in addition_, the mother also bears responsibility.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bajie said:


> Stop trying to blame the poor womans mother for gods sake, the last thing she was expecting was for her daugher to get raped by the bloke. You dont even know if she knew about his preference for underage girls. There is a high chance she had no idea.



Before you left your 13 year old for a 'photo shoot', wouldn't you want to check him out a bit?

Would you leave a 13 year old girl for a photo shoot with an adult male?

And based on what I'm reading here, his apparent penchant for young girls was known around town, as it were.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

I suspect the key question with regard to the mother's actions was whether it was reasonable to expect her, given her specific knowledge of the situation, to

a) anticipate and therefore be aware of, and therefore mitigate against, the dangers of Polanski raping the girl

and secondly whether b) a reasonable person would have reasonably expected, anticipated and therefore mitigated against such similar dangers.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm



But the issue of consent is not especially relevant here, in some jurisdictions (for instance, the UK) a child below a certain age cannot legally consent (in the UK its below the age of 13).


----------



## Bajie (Sep 29, 2009)

Well we dont know that for sure, because we dont know what her mother did or did not know.

But one is for sure, from reading the court transcripts Polanski actively selected this girl and groomed her before the attack. And nor do we know what the mothers involvment was, so it is pointless speculating it, she probably thought because he was so well known that he was trust worthy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I suspect the key question with regard to the mother's actions was whether it was reasonable to expect her, given her specific knowledge of the situation, to
> 
> a) anticipate and therefore be aware of, and therefore mitigate against, the dangers of Polanski raping the girl
> 
> and secondly whether b) a reasonable person would have reasonably expected, anticipated and therefore mitigated against such similar dangers.



There is a much simpler question. Would you allow your 13 year old child to go to a photo shoot with an adult male, unattended by a parent or guardian?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bajie said:


> Well we dont know that for sure, because we dont know what her mother did or did not know.
> 
> But one is for sure, from reading the court transcripts Polanski actively selected this girl and groomed her before the attack. And nor do we know what the mothers involvment was, so it is pointless speculating it, she probably thought because he was so well known that he was trust worthy.



The fact that someone might be selecting and grooming our children for attack, is one of the various reasons why we don't leave them alone with adult males, for photo shoots.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Is that not just a rearticulation of the second question?


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The fact that someone might be selecting and grooming our children for attack, is one of the various reasons why we don't leave them alone with adult males, for photo shoots.



One assumes that, based on your current argument, you support his extradition from Switzerland and a lengthy period of incarceration in the US penal system, then?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> But the issue of consent is not especially relevant here, in some jurisdictions (for instance, the UK) a child below a certain age cannot legally consent (in the UK its below the age of 13).



Move the goalposts, why don't you. 

The issue with the quote I posted, was that plenty of men get away with far worse than Polanski in the law courts. 

Don't make me bring up the countless cases where the Judge has thrown out the case because the victim was wearing attractive clothing (provocatively dressed) and had a few drinks and was flirting (asking for it).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rape-victims-blame-short-skirts-flirting.html

We could easily argue that because it was a famous man and because the victim was a minor (13), that prosecution in the Geimer vs. Polanski case was successful in procuring a result of guilty, whereas in countless prosecutions against Mr.Nobodies, the rapist walks away scott free, and I mean scott free, no hounding by the press for years, no compensation for trauma, and the victim is treated by the prosecution as a liar and asking for sexual intercourse.


----------



## purplex (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not if her negligence was a primary precondition for the crime happening.
> 
> 
> As in, if she hadn't left her daughter alone for a 'photo shoot' with a man known to have a penchant for young girls, maybe none of it would have happened.



His penchant for young girls wasnt known at the time, there were no suspicions, nobody had made any claims against him, the mother was handing over her child to a famous film producer, which on the balance of probabilities was a relatively safe thing to do, as soon as she found about the pictures and the rape she immediately called the police.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> One assumes that, based on your current argument, you support his extradition from Switzerland and a lengthy period of incarceration in the US penal system, then?



I support his extradition back to the US, with whatever legal process to follow.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

purplex said:


> His penchant for young girls wasnt known at the time, there were no suspicions, nobody had made any claims against him, the mother was handing over her child to a famous film producer, which on the balance of probabilities was a relatively safe thing to do, .



Why?

Also, have you seen the films he'd made before then, like Repulsion?

I don't think - no, I know I wouldn't - leave my 13 year old daughter alone with the man who made Repulsion.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Move the goalposts, why don't you.
> 
> The issue with the quote I posted, was that plenty of men get away with far worse than Polanski in the law courts.
> 
> ...



Move the goalposts?  You were the one who posted a link about a 21-year old victim of rape, in a completely different set of circumstances, at a different time *and* in a completely different jurisdiction as evidence.   

Besides, I am not the one defending the rapist here.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I support his extradition back to the US, with whatever legal process to follow.



As do I.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> Besides, I am not the one defending the rapist here.



Nobody's defending a rapist here. But, if you keep using that kind of language, maybe we can get  a good ol' witch burning happening in no time.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Move the goalposts, why don't you.
> 
> The issue with the quote I posted, was that plenty of men get away with far worse than Polanski in the law courts.
> 
> ...



That is in no way germane to the Polanski case.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Nobody's defending a rapist here.



You should read the entire thread.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Nobody's defending a rapist here. But, if you keep using that kind of language, maybe we can get  a good ol' witch burning happening in no time.



You are the one who has invested his last round of posts with a particularly vitriolic and notably evidence free set of opinions on the victim's mother.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

agricola said:


> You should read the entire thread.



Oh.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> You are the one who has invested his last round of posts with a particularly vitriolic and notably evidence free set of opinions on the victim's mother.



Imo, there's nothing vitriolic in saying that it's negligent to leave your 13 year old daughter unattended with an adult male, for a photo shoot.

I've also said that her culpability doesn't in any way detract from his. Her culpability exists in addition to his.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

> Besides, I am not the one defending the rapist here.


The victim is the only one defending Polanski today. 
And Polanski's lawyers.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Imo, there's nothing vitriolic in saying that it's negligent to leave your 13 year old daughter unattended with an adult male, for a photo shoot.
> 
> I've also said that her culpability doesn't in any way detract from his. Her culpability exists in addition to his.



I'd disagree and point out that her culpability exists separately to his but possibly that's just semantics.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I'd disagree and point out that her culpability exists separately to his but possibly that's just semantics.



'In addition to' implies 'separately'.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> That is in no way germane to the Polanski case.


I was responding to this statement:



			
				agricola said:
			
		

> Someone who was not someone with the profile of Polanski would not have been given that plea bargain.



Someone who was not someone with the profile of Polanski has been allowed to walk away scott free when they are in fact, guilty. Using some appalling prosecution line such as 'she was dressed provocatively', or 'she was drunk and had been taking illegal drugs' or 'she was flirting with him'. This has happened countless times.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> 'In addition to' implies 'separately'.



To my mind it moves towards a cumulative and therefore plural understanding of causation which tends to dilute the individual actions that ended in a crime.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> To my mind it moves towards a cumulative and therefore plural understanding of causation which tends to dilute the individual actions that ended in a crime.



In order to add one thing to another, they must be two discrete things.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why?
> 
> Also, have you seen the films he'd made before then, like Repulsion?
> 
> I don't think - no, I know I wouldn't - leave my 13 year old daughter alone with the man who made Repulsion.



I would go so far as to argue that high profile cases like the Geimer/Polanski case have helped parents to realise the dangers their children can face when left w/o supervision at a vulnerable age.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> In order to add one thing to another, they must be two discrete things.



Sure, but you're still enacting a conceptual process whose end goal is synthesis leading to a particular consequence rather than, say, an episodic process.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Sure, but you're still enacting a conceptual process whose end goal is synthesis leading to a particular consequence rather than, say, an episodic process.



No, I don't have synthesis as any goal. Just the establishment of culpability, where it's warranted.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

If you drop a baby into a wolf pit, it's the wolves that do the eating.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2009)

Well it does look like Polanski is going back to California and some kind of conclusion will be reached.

It will be interesting if he is allowed to stay with the reduced charges or if he will be forced to start from scratch at drugging and rape of a 13 year old.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Well it does look like Polanski is going back to California and some kind of conclusion will be reached.
> 
> It will be interesting if he is allowed to stay with the reduced charges or if he will be forced to start from scratch at drugging and rape of a 13 year old.



I think it would be interesting to see a whole new trial.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I should make it clear: I'm not saying the mother's involvement lessens whatever responsibility or liability should attach to Polanski.



Good.

Now I'm sure that the mother has suffered the guilt for the past 30 odd years that her _mistake_ allowed a predatory paedophile within range of her daughter.

This case is about the predatory paedophile rapist and what's he been doing for the past 30 years. Living it up with all the luvvies. 

Send him to the US and let the fucker face the consequences of his sick actions.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 29, 2009)

Correct me if I have these definitions wrong

A paedophile rapist is someone who has the urge, and acts upon that urge, to have sex with pre-pubescent children. 

A rapist is someone who forces sex upon someone against their will

A sexual predator is someone who stalks or grooms anyone with the intent of facilitating sexual acts of any nature (forced or consensual)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Correct me if I have these definitions wrong



OK then



invisibleplanet said:


> A paedophile rapist is someone who has the urge, and acts upon that urge, to have sex with *pre-pubescent children*.



*my highlight as that seems to be your point.




			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia said:
			
		

> In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent)






			
				invisibleplanet said:
			
		

> A rapist is someone who forces sex upon someone against their will
> 
> A sexual predator is someone who stalks or grooms anyone with the intent of facilitating sexual acts of any nature (forced or consensual)



Correct. Therefore you're now bang up to date with why Roman Polanski is a predatory paedophile rapist.

Nice one.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 29, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Correct. Therefore you're now bang up to date with why Roman Polanski is a predatory paedophile rapist.



was. not is.


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 29, 2009)

Well, I'm not about to wade through 11 pages of nonce or not nonce, so setting that to one side & apologies if this has been covered.

Here in Zurich there is a pretty unanimous W.T.F? from pretty much all corners mainly relating to the fact that Polanski owns property in Switz & has been freely coming & going for years & was here for most of this summer editing.

Quick summary:
Politicians across the board are howling foul play and even suggesting fishy dealing in relation to the upcoming USA vs UBS tax evasion whohah.

The film festival organizers are absolutely furious, with this mornings papers even talking about the fact that the arrest might not be legal since Polanski was invited officially by the Zürich Film Festival which operates with the support of the Swiss Gov't.

The view on the street is one of embarrasment & general  at the Swiss Govt. 
(General amatureness in recent foreign policy dealings notably resulted the PM having his arse handed to him on a plate by Gadaffi a few weks ago.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 29, 2009)

Whilst there maybe some mileage in the IRS/UBS thing, it would seem that although Polanski owns a chalet in Gstaad, with Switzerland being a Schengen state there are no checks on people entering from France, so he can slip in and out.

In order to serve an extradition warrant the US authorities have to go through hoops and get a warrant over to the Swiss, this warrant has a time limit.

In this case the US authorities knew exactly when he would be arriving in Switzerland and they had enough notice to get the warrant raised.

This explanation sounds highly plausible to me.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 29, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> was. not is.



Yes. And I imagine Ian Huntly was a child killer and isn't now?


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> with Switzerland being a Schengen state there are no checks on people entering from France, so he can slip in and out.
> 
> In order to serve an extradition warrant the US authorities have to go through hoops and get a warrant over to the Swiss, this warrant has a time limit.
> 
> ...



Yes, except he's pretty high profile - they must've known his movements befor now on many occassions.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 29, 2009)

Probably, but the fact that he was not arrested in the past when he might have been doesn't really offer much.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 29, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> Yes, except he's pretty high profile - they must've known his movements befor now on many occassions.



AFAIK he's been exceptionally careful in his movements specifically to avoid the possibility of extradition. Seems that he fucked up this time.

And as Diamond says, it has fuck all bearing on the case.


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 29, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seems that he fucked up this time.



Indeed. Although still seems a bit odd for someone who's probably so used to being so careful. Complacency is a killer though.

Swiss claiming your hunch is correct:

Guardian:


> Although the director, who lives in France, often stayed at a chalet in the wealthy Swiss town of Gstaad and travelled widely in Europe, a Swiss official said this was the first time law enforcement authorities had solid information from the US enabling them to make an arrest.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 29, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes. And I imagine Ian Huntly was a child killer and isn't now?



Good comparison. The cases are strikingly similar.


----------



## purplex (Sep 29, 2009)

I still find it difficult to believe anyone would harbour him after what he did, let alone kick up a fuss at him getting himself caught.


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 29, 2009)

purplex said:


> I still find it difficult to believe anyone would harbour him after what he did



Well, from SS & other Nazi's to terrorists & serious murderers, Polanski's pretty low down the scale of bad compared to the cunts that numerous nations have 'harboured' over the years, really.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm not reading all this again so you may all know this, I didn't:



> His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, *sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement*.  But she has since joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over and at one point offering to come to court in Polanski's place to argue for dismissal



Now that's interesting . . .

Link


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 29, 2009)

So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?

Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?
> 
> Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?



But the fact that she may have been paid off, does not mean that a paedophile rapist should go unpunished. Does it?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm sorry,  I just don't have the will to address you.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?
> 
> Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?





weltweit said:


> But the fact that she may have been paid off, does not mean that a paedophile rapist should go unpunished. Does it?





London_Calling said:


> I'm sorry,  I just don't have the will to address you.



Seems strange, when you asked "nobody finds it interesting? I do and you suddenly havent the will to live ...


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 29, 2009)

(a) You don't find it interesting and (b) if you re-read your last sentence and mine it tells all that is needed.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I would go so far as to argue that high profile cases like the Geimer/Polanski case have helped parents to realise the dangers their children can face when left w/o supervision at a vulnerable age.



I would say a case like this will encourage more rapes because the way it has been handled.
Some people will be very encouraged that despite drugging,raping and sodomising a 13 year old Roman Polanski has escaped justice for so long.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> (a) You don't find it interesting and (b) if you re-read your last sentence and mine it tells all that is needed.



I'm sorry, I still don't really understand. 

I am interested that there was a civil case and that she won (undisclosed) damages and that you mention she appears to have been calling for the criminal case to be dropped since her civil victory. And you mention "paid in full" presumably to imply she is fully satisfied in the result. 

So for her the case is over. no?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2009)

Or with the paid off in full bit do you mean she perhaps agreed not to testify further against him?


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Like Michael Jackson, then?



Well Jackson was never convicted was he-not that that makes any difference.


----------



## Thora (Sep 29, 2009)

The girl's testimony is here if anyone's interested.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Well Jackson was never convicted was he-not that that makes any difference.



Polanski wasn't convicted either. He pled guilty.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?
> 
> Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?



Once a crime is reported and legal process begins, it becomes a crime against the state, rather than against the individual. The civil case between them in 1988 does not have the power to resolve that matter, and the State of California considers the civil case to be irrelevent, even though compensation for trauma and suffering was paid to the victim (at age 25). 

At age 45, the victim would like an end to the case. The perpetrator is still a fugitive. 

Vicitim and perpetrator would benefit from an end to this saga, and to do that, the conflict between State of California vs. Perpetrator has to be resolved.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 30, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Once a crime is reported and legal process begins, it becomes a crime against the state, rather than against the individual.



That's not totally true. The crime remains a crime against the individual, but in the interest of maintaining public order, the breach of the law itself becomes a matter that the state has control over, and against which it can proceed, with or without the consent of the individual victim.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 30, 2009)

I suspect that the basic purpose of the prosecution is whether there continues to be a public interest in following through on the crime.

I'd suggest that here, undoubtedly, that is the case.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 30, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> That's not totally true. The crime remains a crime against the individual, but in the interest of maintaining public order, the breach of the law itself becomes a matter that the state has control over, and against which it can proceed, with or without the consent of the individual victim.



Okay


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 30, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Once a crime is reported and legal process begins, it becomes a crime against the state, rather than against the individual. The civil case between them in 1988 does not have the power to resolve that matter, and the State of California considers the civil case to be irrelevent, even though compensation for trauma and suffering was paid to the victim (at age 25).
> 
> At age 45, the victim would like an end to the case. The perpetrator is still a fugitive.
> 
> Vicitim and perpetrator would benefit from an end to this saga, and to do that, the conflict between State of California vs. Perpetrator has to be resolved.


After 300 posts you want to care about very obvious procedural matters ?

Just about every post of the 300 in this thread is shouting from one posters moral high ground to another. On that basis, the fact she has been paid by by Polanski - allegedly a sum in the region of $225,000 - and subsequent to that payment has supported his case for dismissal seems pertinent to that shouting.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> After 300 posts you want to care about very obvious procedural matters ?
> 
> Just about every post of the 300 in this thread is shouting from one posters moral high ground to another. On that basis, the fact she has been paid by by Polanski - allegedly a sum in the region of $225,000 - and subsequent to that payment has supported his case for dismissal seems pertinent to that shouting.



Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil cases?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2009)

Thora said:


> The girl's testimony is here if anyone's interested.



managed a few pages. Grim reading.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> After 300 posts you want to care about very obvious procedural matters ?
> 
> Just about every post of the 300 in this thread is shouting from one posters moral high ground to another. On that basis, the fact she has been paid by by Polanski - allegedly a sum in the region of $225,000 - and subsequent to that payment has supported his case for dismissal seems pertinent to that shouting.



I think it's 225k pounds, 500k dollars, but I could be wrong.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 30, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think it's 225k pounds, 500k dollars, but I could be wrong.


But thanks for sharing anyway. It was great.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 30, 2009)

You got anything to offer beside snark?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 30, 2009)

Nothing at all. Oh, only the small detail of a $225,000 payment after 300 posts of non-research.

And you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> But thanks for sharing anyway. It was great.



Glad to be of assistance.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 30, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think it's 225k pounds, 500k dollars, but I could be wrong.



That was alot of money in 1988.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2009)

particularly  from the transcript is that she did her hair and put on her dress and went to the car and cried.

Man needs to answer the court


----------



## revol68 (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?
> 
> Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?



Not really, it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone could be paid off and yet justice not done.

Ironically the pathetic luvvy defences of Polanski have left me hoping they hang the cunt.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> particularly  from the transcript is that she did her hair and put on her dress and went to the car and cried.
> 
> Man needs to answer the court



in the neck CTR?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> in the neck CTR?



That one? I'd smother. Maximises the sense of helplessness in a way that neckshot doesn't. When you're neckshot, it's protracted but you know there is no hope. The smothered can flail and hope right up untill the last minute


----------



## revol68 (Sep 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> That one? I'd smother. Maximises the sense of helplessness in a way that neckshot doesn't. When you're neckshot, it's protracted but you know there is no hope. The smothered can flail and hope right up untill the last minute



and also there is a certain diginity in getting shot in the neck, like you have destroyed the body but not the soul. You're quite right we need a situation where he can degrade and belittle himself as he begs for mercy, the spinless cunt.

Still The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby have to remain two of the best movies made by a paedophile rapist.

Maybe that should be a new category at the Oscars.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2009)

'And the Award for best film made by a nonce goes to Jimmy Saville for _10 days in Cyrus_'


----------



## subversplat (Sep 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 'And the Award for best film made by a nonce goes to Jimmy Saville for _10 days in Cyrus_'


Please! Enough of this libellous nonsense. Saville only likes them _after_ they're dead. That's why he's got a residence on the grounds of Stoke Mandeville Hospital, quite near the morgue.


----------



## subversplat (Sep 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Nothing at all. Oh, only the small detail of a $225,000 payment after 300 posts of non-research.
> 
> And you?


As long as the kids get paid it's all A-OK


----------



## revol68 (Sep 30, 2009)

subversplat said:


> As long as the kids get paid it's all A-OK



Well, until some pesky Marxist starts giving off about surplus value.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> the spinless cunt.


that'll all be cured when he makes his phone call to max clifford.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 1, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8284452.stm


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2009)

subversplat said:


> Please! Enough of this libellous nonsense. Saville only likes them _after_ they're dead. That's why he's got a residence on the grounds of Stoke Mandeville Hospital, quite near the morgue.



You need to watch what you say about Jimmy Saville mate. He'll fuck your shit up, apparently.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 1, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So nobody finds it interesting that Samantha Geimer actively supported Polanski's bid for dismissal after she was paid but not before?
> 
> Does the phrase 'paid off in full' not come to mind?



No, not at all. Unless there some system of paying cash to avoid jail that I'm not aware of? 

Even if the victim says he should be free, it's about society as a whole. What kind of message would it send to other would be abusers if society says a man can walk free after raping a 13-yo if he pays her a bit of cash?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 1, 2009)

It's really grating with me that people are lining up in the media to protest at Polanski's arrest. The oft cited criteria that he is a famous artist seems to be an unusual reason to advance the case for leniency.


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 1, 2009)

Good on Luc Besson, shame on the rest.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 1, 2009)

TopCat said:


> It's really grating with me that people are lining up in the media to protest at Polanski's arrest



Innit, and the fact he was on his way to collect a lifetime achievement award when nicked. FFS he's a fugitive on the run after drugging and raping a 13 year old kid.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 1, 2009)

The only argument that has been worth a jot was about different sexual attitudes and culture during the 60s and 70's. I don't think anyone put forward that drugging and raping a 13 year old was an acceptable practice but certainly I recollect Forum magazine regularly featuring readers letters wishing for example that they had the chance to teach their sons how to have sex for the first time etc. Seems looney now but was more common place then. Sexual liberation maaan.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 1, 2009)

As I mentioned earleir, it was legal to marry 13-year olds in some States, as Jerry Lee Lewis demonstrated.


----------



## Thora (Oct 1, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> As I mentioned earleir, it was legal to marry 13-year olds in some States, as Jerry Lee Lewis demonstrated.



Not legal to rape them though.  Even if the victim had been 18, or 25, Polanski is still guilty.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 1, 2009)

Top Cat was talking only about sexual attitudes  in another time.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 1, 2009)

My attitude in this case is that Polanski should go to prison for the offence for which he has pled guilty. I don't suggest resurrecting the whys and wheres of the plea bargain he entered into.


----------



## g force (Oct 1, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> As I mentioned earleir, it was legal to marry 13-year olds in some States, as Jerry Lee Lewis demonstrated.



He didn't marry her though, he drugged her and raped her.


----------



## dylans (Oct 1, 2009)

I still find it unbelievable that he managed to maintain a high profile lifestyle for 30 years.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 1, 2009)

g force said:


> He didn't marry her though, he drugged her and raped her.


As a point of fact, both of those allegations remain unproven in a court.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I still find it unbelievable that he managed to maintain a high profile lifestyle for 30 years.



There was a bit of a kick off when The Pianist was nominated for an Oscar, but that was about it i think...


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Seems looney now but was more common place then. Sexual liberation maaan.


The "free love" brigade ignored the fact that people's freedom can conflict. Didn't seem to occur to them that a lothario's "freedom" to do what he liked would conflict with the freedom of a 13-year-old girl not to be drugged and raped. I hope it was idealism and naiveté rather than indifference, although that doesn't make it much better. 

Given the mealy mouthed moral cowardice/indifference of the Hollywood elite to Polanski over the years, I don't think that attitude's changed much. Just learned to keep quiet and box clever. The "hedonistic" seventies are condemned, but only, I suspect, for being too honest. We always condemn in others the thing we're most embarrassed about in ourselves.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Intastella said:


> There was a bit of a kick off when The Pianist was nominated for an Oscar, but that was about it i think...


And it still won. I remember the highlights of the ceremony, where it was announced that Polanski "couldn't be with us tonight". I don't think they even managed the cowardly euphemism "for legal reasons", although I'm happy to be corrected. 

Doubtless they'd say an artist and his work can be separated. And they're right, but only if the artist isn't benefiting. I'm quite happy to pay for Polanski's films when he's dead and buried. Until that day, no chance.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2009)

A question was raised on TV "This week" tonight by a studio guest and that was :

Why now? 

Polanski has been travelling to Switzerland frequently over the past gawd knows how many years indeed he apparently supervised the building of his house there. He could have been arrested at any point. 

Why now?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> As a point of fact, both of those allegations remain unproven in a court.



He plead guilty and left the country before sentencing and after his plea bargain.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> He plead guilty and left the country before sentencing and after his plea bargain.



Yes he did, but the allegations have not been proven in a court.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> A question was raised on TV "This week" tonight by a studio guest and that was :
> 
> Why now?
> 
> ...


A technicality, apparently. It's been reported that the State of California hasn't managed to get the right paperwork in before. Polanski was almost nabbed in Israel a few years ago. 

Even if there's some underhand deal gone on, I couldn't care less so long as the proper legalities are followed. It's an imperfect world, Polanski's guilt is undeniable, his obscene lack of remorse beyond contempt ("Everyone likes to **** young girls," to quote the great auteur from 1979), and his legions of defenders deserving of some comeback. It's rare I feel _schadenfreude_. I do over this.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> He plead guilty and left the country before sentencing and after his plea bargain.



I think the point is that he was never tried for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl because he plea bargained that down to unlawful sex with a minor. That was what he was tried and convicted for and for which he fled before sentencing. 

So he has NOT (yet) been found guilty of the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes he did, but the allegations have not been proven in a court.



Are they the actions of an innocent man?


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> He plead guilty and left the country before sentencing and after his plea bargain.


He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. 

The victims sworn evidence in relation to rape and drugs  has not been tested in court, nor did RP  plead in relation to those allegations.

Plea.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Are they the actions of an innocent man?



It's not about his innocence.

He gets busted. He's facing some serious jail time, maybe. They say 'plead guilty, save the time and cost of a trial, and we'll give you this deal'.

He pleads guilty, then it looks like the judge is going to renege on the prosecution side of the deal. The reason for the guilty plea is now off the table.

Polanski catches the first Concorde to France.

The running away doesn't sit well with me, but to me, it doesn't give some conclusive proof of guilt or innocence.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> A technicality, apparently. It's been reported that the State of California hasn't managed to get the right paperwork in before. Polanski was almost nabbed in Israel a few years ago.
> 
> Even if there's some underhand deal gone on, I couldn't care less so long as the proper legalities are followed. It's an imperfect world, Polanski's guilt is undeniable, his obscene lack of remorse beyond contempt ("Everyone likes to **** young girls," to quote the great auteur from 1979), and his legions of defenders deserving of some comeback. It's rare I feel _schadenfreude_. I do over this.



It has been suggested that the film that was made about him (last year I think) "Roman Polanski Wanted & Desired" in which California law was made to look an ass, may have served to motivate them to get him.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> It has been suggested that the film that was made about him (last year I think) "Roman Polanski Wanted & Desired" in which California law was made to look an ass, may have served to motivate them to get him.


Perhaps, although I doubt the film is impartial, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't claimed that Polanski is actually innocent of the allegations. All his defenders can do is raise procedural issues. 

Take the feeble defense that a judge would cancel his plea-bargain. This is not justification for fleeing, since plea bargains aren't set in stone, and it misses the elephant in the room: if Polanski had felt any kind of remorse for his horrific crime, he'd have thrown himself on the mercy of the courts.  

A point I've yet to see made: 30 years on the lamb has done Polanski no good. Surrounded by flatterers and plaudits, he's not been forced to confront his guilt and the consequences of his actions. He might be rich but at the price of a dirty, rotten soul. 

Of course it goes far beyond Polanski, to the libertine culture that abets him. It's interesting that lots of people who generally dislike conservative morality have been attacking him for feminist reasons, or out of general decency. I hope the amoral defences from nice, liberal people will make some reconsider their general worldview.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The running away doesn't sit well with me, but to me, it doesn't give some conclusive proof of guilt or innocence.



Everyone conspiring to stitch up poor innocent Polanski with fake evidence that would have blown his innocent plea out of the water? I don't buy it. I think you're looking at his version of what happened too uncritically. 

Plea bargain or not, convicted paedos don't get off lightly in the US. You would not confess to that shit if you were innocent.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> .
> 
> Take the feeble defense that a judge would cancel his plea-bargain. This is not justification for fleeing, since plea bargains aren't set in stone, and it misses the elephant in the room: if Polanski had felt any kind of remorse for his horrific crime, he'd have thrown himself on the mercy of the courts.  .



A lawyer once said to me that he'd rather be convicted of robbery, than accused of a sexual offence. 

Whatever the state of Polanski's guilt, once he was accused, he was facing nothing but terrible choices. Even if he was not guilty, or if there were extenuating circumstances, the thought of being put through a trial, is daunting, financially, emotionally, etc.

The prosecution wants a closed file. They want a guilty plea without the uncertainty of a trial, so they offer a bargain. The accused, looking for the fastest and easiest way out, goes for it.

But if the judge is going to do to you what he would have done at the end of a trial with a verdict of guilty, the accused is left in a bit of a quandary, isn't he?

You assume his guilt. He may well be guilty, but his plea bargain isn't necessarily evidence of his guilt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Plea bargain or not, convicted paedos don't get off lightly in the US. You would not confess to that shit if you were innocent.



Why not? The plea was to a lesser charge: unlawful sexual intercourse. The trial would have been on the rape charge.

Faced with the possibility of a long long jail term for rape, the relatively light sentence, plus the lesser charge, might start to look appealing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

It's funny. There are many threads on the boards about how unfair and arbitrary the cops can be, the courts can be, about how people can fall victim to a corrupt justice system.

But most people are unable or unwilling to bring those same thoughts, to this situation.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 2, 2009)

On a more light-hearted note, the name of the judge the victim wrote to couldn't be more  inappropriate:

Letter in support of RP


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Try to think of a scenario you yourself might be involved in. What if you got busted with some drugs, maybe enough to justify a trafficking charge, even if that wasn't your intention.

The crown comes to you and says, we can prosecute and try you for possession with intent to traffic, or you can plead to a simple possession charge, and get off with a fine and probation.

You say ok.

Then you find out, that the judge is going to toss the deal, and sentence you as if you'd been convicted of trafficking.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You assume his guilt. He may well be guilty, but his plea bargain isn't necessarily evidence of his guilt.


I assume Polanski's guilt not only because he pled guilty when he had more than enough resources to fight, but because he's never denied the allegations, even when safe in countries that won't extradite. Even his legions of defenders have never denied the allegations. And he's paid his victim, Samantha Geimer, an undisclosed amount in a civil settlement.

Here's Polanski speaking in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… ****ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!" [1]

And now former-prosecutor David Wells, who previously alleged irregularities, has admitted he lied to the makers of _Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired_. [2]. Presumably to spare himself a perjury charge if called to the stand by Polanski's lawyers. 

I'm no fan of plea bargains, and think they're one aspect of US justice that should be abandoned, but unless there's hard evidence of actual innocence, I'll continue to assume Polanski's guilt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I assume Polanski's guilt not only because he pled guilty when he had more than enough resources to fight, but because he's never denied the allegations, even when safe in countries that won't extradite. Even his legions of defenders have never denied the allegations. And he's paid his victim, Samantha Geimer, an undisclosed amount in a civil settlement.
> 
> Here's Polanski speaking in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… ****ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!" [1]
> 
> ...



Guilt of what, though? Drugging and rape?

I don't think he denies the sex with her, and his comments, though crude, would be consistent with that. Hence, unlawful sexual intercourse.

But I'm not sure about the guilt wrt drugging and rape, which are the things most mentioned.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

And of course, legally speaking, a guilty plea is evidence of guilt, plea bargain notwithstanding. 

I see no basis for debating Polanski's innocence, but it is guaranteed to get things side-tracked.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But I'm not sure about the guilt wrt drugging and rape, which are the things most mentioned.


I've yet to see him deny those charges, or sue any publication that printed them as fact for libel. He's sued _Vanity Fair_ for libel via telelink on an unrelated matter, so he's certainly litigious enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I've yet to see him deny those charges, or sue any publication that printed them as fact for libel. He's sued _Vanity Fair_ for libel via telelink on an unrelated matter, so he's certainly litigious enough.



Failure to deny = admission of guilt?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> And of course, legally speaking, a guilty plea is evidence of guilt,.



He pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Failure to deny = admission of guilt?


I've not actually accused Polanski by name of drugging or sodomy to cover myself legally. But hypothetically speaking, if you plead guilty to a charge your lawyers have bargained down from those underlying facts, a denial would be nice, yes. 

Even if you're just playing devil's advocate, I'm surprised Polanski's real defenders haven't started protesting his innocence. Perhaps they will. 

And given how rape victims used to be viewed, I don't buy for a minute that that Polanski wouldn't have fought if he was innocent. 

This is all a bit of a red herring really. Having sex with a 13-year-old girl is bad enough by itself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I've not actually accused Polanski by name of drugging or sodomy to cover myself legally. But hypothetically speaking, if you plead guilty to a charge your lawyers have bargained down from those underlying facts, a denial would be nice, yes. .



In our system, an accused is allowed to stand silent. Which means, an accused needn't take the stand, and a failure to take the stand and testify, cannot be used to create an inference of guilt.

That being the case, I'm reluctant to draw conclusions on guilt and innocence, based on a failure to give informal testimony, to the television stations and tabloid newspapers.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> He pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse.



so.....first time offender....today....no previous history

maybe a suspended sentence would be reasonable but the Daily Mail would regard it as being too light. If he was a catholic priest we'd be after his blood...he appears to have lured this young girl for a "photoshoot" with otherthings on his mind, and he was in a position to do so in the future.

so, take him back to LA and sentence with a suspended sentence, or 3 months inside for the original offence, but he needs 10 years for jumping bail. Bit like Ronnie Biggs. This man need to be locked up for a while, even if the fact that there are no allegations of continued child rape may be used as mitigation


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 2, 2009)

...and the civil settlement with the victim need to be opened, undoubtedly there was a clause requiring her not to make statement to the press. Until that agreement is set aside we can't, alas, believe a word she says.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Having sex with a 13-year-old girl is bad enough by itself.



True, and if you plead guilty to that and are prepared for a sentence..................




Ah, the hell with it. Let's just shoot him!


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> In our system, an accused is allowed to stand silent. Which means, an accused needn't take the stand, and a failure to take the stand and testify, cannot be used to create an inference of guilt.
> 
> That being the case, I'm reluctant to draw conclusions on guilt and innocence, based on a failure to give informal testimony, to the television stations and tabloid newspapers.


Actually that's the Canadian system. In England and Wales, juries or magistrates can draw "such inferences as appear proper" from the silence of the accused. 

I don't agree with this. In law. But to paraphrase Detective Jimmy McNulty:- 

This isn't a court of law. This here's an internet forum.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Actually that's the Canadian system. In England and Wales, juries or magistrates can draw "such inferences as appear proper" from the silence of the accused. -s.jpg[/img]



Are you sure about that? Our system is derived from the English Common Law, where all of this developed in the first place. That's a major departure from how it's been for a long time.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Very sure. The right to silence was "modified" by Home Secretary Michael Howard in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994, sections 34 and 35. Canada and the USA retain the old system, which is what I personally support. In a court of law.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Looks like it isn't a simple thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

It's a hideously complicated thing, which is probably why it's been of little use getting guilty men convicted, while pressuring innocent ones to talk. 

Even if we're talking about the right to silence as the USA and Canada have it, does the presumption of innocence apply when the accused pleads guilty to a crime his expensive lawyers have bargained down from some very nasty underlying allegations? 

Hypothetically speaking?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Even if we're talking about the right to silence as the USA and Canada have it, does the presumption of innocence apply when the accused pleads guilty to a crime his expensive lawyers have bargained down from some very nasty underlying allegations?
> 
> Hypothetically speaking?



Hypothetically speaking, a guilty plea pretty much would put paid to the presumption of innocence wrt the charges to which the accused made the plea, but would have little bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence wrt the more serious charges which were abandoned due to the plea bargain.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Presumably the criminal charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" that Polanski pleaded guilty to required underlying facts that were entered into evidence? If so, he presumably accepted the details of the incident given in the grand jury testimony. 

In short, Polanski might be legally innocent of more serious charges, but he accepts that the events behind them are factually true. Fair summary?


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm off to bed, but here's a detail account of the original allegations. As with a prisoner chained to the table in an interrogation room, I make no further comment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Presumably the criminal charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" that Polanski pleaded guilty to required underlying facts that were entered into evidence? If so, he presumably accepted the details of the incident given in the grand jury testimony.
> 
> In short, Polanski might be legally innocent of more serious charges, but he accepts that the events behind them are factually true. Fair summary?



I think we're getting all bolloxed up here. I'd assume that to the extent that there has to be an admission of the underlying facts, the facts that he'd admit to, would be those underlying the charge to which he's  pleading guilty. Those facts aren't necessarily synonymous with those necessary to prove the more serious charges.

ie. the fact of intercourse goes to proof of unlawful sexual intercourse,  but most likely isn't sufficient for charges involving drugging and rape.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's funny. There are many threads on the boards about how unfair and arbitrary the cops can be, the courts can be, about how people can fall victim to a corrupt justice system.
> 
> But most people are unable or unwilling to bring those same thoughts, to this situation.


They probably would, if Polanski stood up and said "I didn't do it!". Given that the victim has maintained her story for 30 years, and given that Polanski has never denied any aspect of it....

Sure, the judicial system may have been out to get him, but that doesn't change the fundamental facts of what he did.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think we're getting all bolloxed up here.


Agreed. Unless we know the exact underlying facts that Polanski pleaded guilty to, speculation about the extent of his guilt will take us round in circles. Until I can see details on the charge sheet, all I'll state as fact is that Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl and fled justice. This, combined with 30 years on the lamb, and a total lack of remorse, is bad enough. 

About inferring guilt from silence: I oppose it in a legal context, because of the coercive power of the state. In an extra-legal context I generally have no problem with it.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 2, 2009)

I think you should also note it took 12 pages of this thread just to get to the fact of the victim accepting a payoff from RP, and 15 pages to get to what he actually pleaded guily to i.e. research is not a stong suit on Urban, instant opinion is.


----------



## Thora (Oct 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I think you should also note it took 12 pages of this thread just to get to the fact of the victim accepting a payoff from RP, and 15 pages to get to what he actually pleaded guily to i.e. research is not a stong suit on Urban, instant opinion is.



I knew from the beginning what the plea bargain was, and that the girl had later sued him.  I just don't see the relevance of that to him raping a child.

Even if the child consented and it was "just" child abuse, that doesn't make him any less scum.  Maybe he even believed it was consenual - lots of paedophiles and child-rapists seem to believe those little temptresses were asking for it.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 2, 2009)

As above, there has been no admission of rape, nor a conviction of same.


----------



## Thora (Oct 2, 2009)

Abusing a child is rape, regardless of whether the child puts up a fight.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I think you should also note it took 12 pages of this thread just to get to the fact of the victim accepting a payoff from RP, and 15 pages to get to what he actually pleaded guily to i.e. research is not a stong suit on Urban, instant opinion is.



How long did it take you to totally change your mind? How many googles? How many pages inbetween?


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 2, 2009)

Go away Butchers, you should know by now I don't play your childlike games. 



Thora said:


> Abusing a child is rape, regardless of whether the child puts up a fight.


It might be to you, it is not in law in California.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Go away Butchers, you should know by now I don't play your childlike games.




It's all you play. Compare your posts on the first few pages to what you're saying now - it's the exact opposite. And you then berate others for not doing necessary research when the google-evolution of your own views is there for all to see. It's brilliant - quick example



> He's been prosecuted, he's admitted guilt,





> As the vicim states in her NYT article, the issue was not guilt, nor necessariliy a desire to avoid justice



*before being bought off!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> About inferring guilt from silence: I oppose it in a legal context, because of the coercive power of the state. In an extra-legal context I generally have no problem with it.



I don't know what this means. Does it mean that he can stand silent in the courtroom, but if he does so when the National Enquirer reporter shoves a mike in his face, we're entitled to infer guilt?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2009)

Roman Penonski


----------



## Azrael (Oct 2, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I don't know what this means. Does it mean that he can stand silent in the courtroom, but if he does so when the National Enquirer reporter shoves a mike in his face, we're entitled to infer guilt?


No, it means that if Polanski's had 30 years to deny aspects of the allegations, and on his own terms. I don't blame anyone for saying "no comment" when confronted by a media scrum. Polanski has had plenty more chances. 


Thora said:


> I knew from the beginning what the plea bargain was, and that the girl had later sued him.


Ditto. I edited the first post I made a few minutes after I made it, and inserted the proper legalise. 

What I personally believe is a different matter. But so far as I'm aware, even Polanski's libel lawyers can't nail a person for a private belief. 

Speaking of which, if Polanski is jailed for additional charges, do _Vanity Fair_ get back the damages they had to pay out? I'm still baffled how a man convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old had a reputation capable of damage. Guess that's English libel law for you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> No, it means that if Polanski's had 30 years to deny aspects of the allegations, and on his own terms. I don't blame anyone for saying "no comment" when confronted by a media scrum. Polanski has had plenty more chances. .



He went on the lam and is hiding in France. What would you have him do: ten years after the fact perhaps, at an interview about his latest film, pipe up with, "I may have had intercourse with that girl, but it wasn't rape'?


----------



## Azrael (Oct 3, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> He went on the lam and is hiding in France. What would you have him do: ten years after the fact perhaps, at an interview about his latest film, pipe up with, "I may have had intercourse with that girl, but it wasn't rape'?


No. Polanski could have arranged an interview like the 1979 _Tatler_ one with Martin Amis, and denied every allegation beside underage sex. If the underage sex allegation was unsound, he could have denied that as well, and claimed either that his victim was lying, or that the girl appeared over 16/18 (whatever the age of consent is in California). He could have expressed shame and regret without admitting wrongdoing. 

He didn't. Since he was happy to tell Amis that "Everyone wants to **** young girls!", it doesn't appear that Polanski was being delicate for legal reasons. I imagine most lawyers wouldn't advise their client to express such views when faced with "kiddie-raper" charges!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> No. Polanski could have arranged an interview like the 1979 _Tatler_ one with Martin Amis, and denied every allegation beside underage sex. If the underage sex allegation was unsound, he could have denied that as well, and claimed either that his victim was lying, or that the girl appeared over 16/18 (whatever the age of consent is in California). He could have expressed shame and regret without admitting wrongdoing.
> 
> He didn't. Since he was happy to tell Amis that "Everyone wants to **** young girls!", it doesn't appear that Polanski was being delicate for legal reasons. I imagine most lawyers wouldn't advise their client to express such views when faced with "kiddie-raper" charges!



I'm not sure how most lawyers would advise their clients concerning what sorts of admissions or denials should be made in the press.

To clarify, I think that Polanski is a distasteful man, who ducked and ran. Looking at his filmography, it's as I've said before. I stopped viewing his films after this happened. Ideally, I would like to see him returned to the US, to face whatever legal process that arises.

Taking a step back, I find his case interesting, from the viewpoint of how the justice system works, or doesn't, the power of the press in shaping public opinion, and the ways in which the public digests what the press feeds them, and which parts they choose to digest.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 3, 2009)

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape


----------



## Azrael (Oct 3, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm not sure how most lawyers would advise their clients concerning what sorts of admissions or denials should be made in the press.


I believe the legal eagles are keen on their client avoiding self-incrimination, if only because it makes their job so much easier. Since not even Lionel Hutz would nod through Polanski's curious views about underage sex, I think we can take it as given that self-incrimination isn't a worry to the good director. And even if he was, since he was safe from extradition, I can't see any legal reason for him not issuing a denial. 

I also find the case interesting, although less from the legal angle (beyond the duration of Polanski's flight, there's not much that's remarkable) than the moral one, and the way parts of the "cultural establishment" are rushing to his defence. I particularly like the phrasing in the petition for his release: calling his crime a "case of morals". Yes, quite a few people consider sex with a 13-year-old a case of morals.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 4, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I believe the legal eagles are keen on their client avoiding self-incrimination, if only because it makes their job so much easier. Since not even Lionel Hutz would nod through Polanski's curious views about underage sex, I think we can take it as given that self-incrimination isn't a worry to the good director. And even if he was, since he was safe from extradition, I can't see any legal reason for him not issuing a denial. .



You'll notice how the cops, politicians etc, refuse to comment on matters 'before the court'. I think they get good legal counsel.

As for being safe from extradition, so much for that, eh?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 4, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I believe the legal eagles are keen on their client avoiding self-incrimination, if only because it makes their job so much easier. Since not even Lionel Hutz would nod through Polanski's curious views about underage sex, I think we can take it as given that self-incrimination isn't a worry to the good director. And even if he was, since he was safe from extradition, I can't see any legal reason for him not issuing a denial.
> 
> I also find the case interesting, although less from the legal angle (beyond the duration of Polanski's flight, there's not much that's remarkable) than the moral one, and the way parts of the "cultural establishment" are rushing to his defence. I particularly like the phrasing in the petition for his release: calling his crime a "case of morals". Yes, quite a few people consider sex with a 13-year-old a case of morals.


What annoys me is the elision of statutory rape with actual rape.

This was a case of coerced buggery with a 13 year old that involvesdimprisonment, and the administration of drugs.

That's "morally dubious" to one and all; except, it seems, to the leading shapers of Hollywood values.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 4, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You'll notice how the cops, politicians etc, refuse to comment on matters 'before the court'. I think they get good legal counsel.


Sub judice


----------



## Azrael (Oct 4, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You'll notice how the cops, politicians etc, refuse to comment on matters 'before the court'. I think they get good legal counsel.


Polanski didn't expect to come before a court, so I doubt _sub judice_ was a concern.  (Besides, the concept doesn't apply to the US system, as the wikipedia link notes. Good thing too, in my view.) 


> As for being safe from extradition, so much for that, eh?


 

The good director got cocky and paid the price. That'll learn him. 





Jonti said:


> What annoys me is the elision of statutory rape with actual rape.
> 
> This was a case of coerced buggery with a 13 year old that involvesdimprisonment, and the administration of drugs.
> 
> That's "morally dubious" to one and all; except, it seems, to the leading shapers of Hollywood values.


Couldn't agree more. This case just goes to show what's wrong with plea bargaining, with reduces justice to horse trading, and helps the guilty while threatening the innocent. A few states tried ditching it and found it made no difference to guilty pleas. Polanski should have been prosecuted for the complete rap-sheet. Letting him plead out to a lesser charge has, like you say, given his odious Hollywood defenders just enough wiggle room.


----------



## ethel (Oct 4, 2009)

thank you chris rock

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 4, 2009)

sarahluv said:


> thank you chris rock
> 
> http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape


Quite.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Polanski didn't expect to come before a court, so I doubt _sub judice_ was a concern.  (Besides, the concept doesn't apply to the US system, as the wikipedia link notes. Good thing too, in my view.)
> .



I think the question was about what a lawyer would advise his client in terms of making admissions of guilt or declarations of innocence in the press. Given that a prudent lawyer would recognize that it ain't over till it's over, especially if you're a criminal trying to evade the US courts. The US seems to have a long memory and a long reach when it comes to these sorts of things.

There is no benefit to be gained from making these utterances in the press.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> (Besides, the concept doesn't apply to the US system, as the wikipedia link notes.



What the link says is a bit more nuanced than the way you're presenting it here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Polanski didn't expect to come before a court, so I doubt _sub judice_ was a concern.  (Besides, the concept doesn't apply to the US system, as the wikipedia link notes. Good thing too, in my view.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which states abandoned plea bargaining?


----------



## Azrael (Oct 5, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think the question was about what a lawyer would advise his client in terms of making admissions of guilt or declarations of innocence in the press. Given that a prudent lawyer would recognize that it ain't over till it's over, especially if you're a criminal trying to evade the US courts. The US seems to have a long memory and a long reach when it comes to these sorts of things.
> 
> There is no benefit to be gained from making these utterances in the press.


There's the substantial benefit of convincing the public that the allegations are lies, or at least, creating some doubt. This has to be weighed up against the risk of being extradited. If Polanski had been more cautious about where he travelled, there was no risk of this whatsoever. 

And if the statement of innocence was released through Polanksi's lawyer, would it even have been admissible in an American court?


Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What the link says is a bit more nuanced than the way you're presenting it here.


Not really. It says there's restrictions on attorneys. This is totally different to a general _sub judice_ law which gags the press. 


Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Which states abandoned plea bargaining?


Alaska, in 1975. The practice has been extended to some other jurisdictions, including Ventura County, California and Oakland County, Michigan (according to a reference on the wikipedia plea bargaining page: must check it out).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> There's the substantial benefit of convincing the public that the allegations are lies, or at least, creating some doubt.




To what purpose? To put the minds of internet pundits at ease?

I can't see how giving some sort of exculpatory excuse to the National Enquirer would have made any difference to the life that he lived in Paris. And I doubt that it would have put the Americans off from trying to bring him back after he scrammed out of the country.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Not really. It says there's restrictions on attorneys. ).




What it actually says, is this.


> In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case. Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants, and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned for a fairer trial.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Alaska, in 1975.




...for ten years.



> "[p]lea bargaining effectively was prohibited in most Alaska cases for about 10 years.




- from your own article.





http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...&gl=ca&sig=AFQjCNESXenLxknB7KEP51CNimwBSeLknw


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> The practice has been extended to some other jurisdictions, including Ventura County, California and Oakland County, Michigan (according to a reference on the wikipedia plea bargaining page: must check it out).




Seems like they're plea bargaining in Ventura County.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jul/08/da-offers-plea-bargain-to-mcinerney/#


...and here's a plea bargain form from the Oakland County court.

http://www.oakgov.com/circuit/assets/docs/division/final-plea-form.pdf


----------



## liquidlunch (Oct 5, 2009)

david dissadent said:


> FWIW Polanski was caught in the late 70s and I am not aware of any further accusations, Glitter was caught and was back at it ASAP.



Polanski did the offski to Russia didn't he?Never heard much out of there did we?


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 5, 2009)

He shagged Nastassja Kinski just prior to that when she was 15


----------



## g force (Oct 5, 2009)

Damn Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Scorcese and Darren Aronofsky signed the petition. Cunts


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 5, 2009)

g force said:


> Damn Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Scorcese and Darren Aronofsky signed the petition. Cunts



It's quite sad to lose so much respect for so many people in such little time, isn't it?


----------



## rikwakefield (Oct 5, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> It's quite sad to lose so much respect for so many people in such little time, isn't it?



I've never experienced it in my life time.

Like Chris "my hero" Rock said: "It's RAPE! RAPE!".


----------



## Thora (Oct 5, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> He shagged Nastassja Kinski just prior to that when she was 15



I think the Nastassja Kinski thing was part of the reason the he was worried about the judge imposing a long sentence - the judge allowed Polanski 3 months before sentencing to complete a movie, and then sees pictures of him in the paper with his 15 year old girlfriend


----------



## g force (Oct 5, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> It's quite sad to lose so much respect for so many people in such little time, isn't it?



Particualrly people I always thought were intelligent, considered people. That said I lost respect for Natalie Portman years ago so her support of Polanski is  merely a trend towards her evermore twattishness.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 5, 2009)

g force said:


> Particualrly people I always thought were intelligent, considered people. That said I lost respect for Natalie Portman years ago so her support of Polanski is  merely a trend towards her evermore twattishness.



http://jezebel.com/5372261/are-anti+polanski-celebs-afraid-to-speak-up


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 5, 2009)

I think most of those who signed the pro-Polanski petition must have thought they were signing a petition against a politically-motivated arrest. It was a bit stupid of them not to see how it would be perceived but I don't think they are attempting to defend child rape on the basis that he makes good movies.


----------



## Thora (Oct 5, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I think most of those who signed the pro-Polanski petition must have thought they were signing a petition against a politically-motivated arrest. It was a bit stupid of them not to see how it would be perceived but I don't think they are attempting to defend child rape on the basis that he makes good movies.



I think it was more that they didn't really care about the child rape, they were upset about the sanctity of the film festival being violated.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2009)

Interesting, i bet there's a lot of crossed fingers right now:



> Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 5, 2009)

mind you its been proved celebrities will spout any old shite if given camera time


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 5, 2009)

Thora said:


> I think it was more that they didn't really care about the child rape, they were upset about the sanctity of the film festival being violated.



Yes, I think that's true too.


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 5, 2009)

That article was quite interesting, I didn't realise Harvey Weinstein had signed (and was promoting) the petition.

There aren't many actors / actresses who'd want to fuck with him, the man's a maniac.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> It's quite sad to lose so much respect for so many people in such little time, isn't it?



How do you feel about Woody Allen?


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 5, 2009)

g force said:


> Damn Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Scorcese and Darren Aronofsky signed the petition. Cunts



On the plus side, Kevin Smith came out against Polanski. As did, er, Robert Llewellyn.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 5, 2009)

g force said:


> Particualrly people I always thought were intelligent, considered people. That said I lost respect for Natalie Portman years ago so her support of Polanski is  merely a trend towards her evermore twattishness.




http://www.showbizspy.com/article/191219/natalie-portman-recession-is-exciting.html
When Actors/Actresses say dumb things Part 9


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Also on the pro polanski petition: 

David Lynch

Wim Wenders

Tilda Swinton

Woody Allen 


Monica Belluci

Jonathan Demme

Terry Gilliam

John Landis


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Claude Lelouch

Jeanne Moreau

Barbet Schroeder

Whoopi Goldberg

Debra Winger

Harvey Weinstein


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 5, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Woody Allen



Yeah, quelle surprise.

Disappointed about David Lynch, but he lives on another planet anyway.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Yeah, quelle surprise.
> 
> Disappointed about David Lynch, but he lives on another planet anyway.



Terry Gilliam?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Oct 5, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> It's quite sad to lose so much respect for so many people in such little time, isn't it?



What exactly do you respect them for?

Their jobs? 


They do it because it makes them rich (some for the love, but still if the money wasnt there, they wouldnt be), not for respect.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Oct 5, 2009)

I did have a chuckle over that placard that said..... 

"Free Polanski Now!!!!" 

and someone had written under it with a biro or something 'really? for free? where can i get one?'


----------



## Intastella (Oct 5, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Terry Gilliam?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> On the plus side, Kevin Smith came out against Polanski. As did, er, Robert Llewellyn.


More antis-please.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> More antis-please.



Think about it: Terry Gilliam. Pro polanski.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 5, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> More antis-please.



Erm... Neil Gaiman I think. And Jamie Lee Curtis. And Roseanne Barr.


----------



## laptop (Oct 5, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> The US has been trying to squeeze the names of alleged American tax dodgers from the Swiss bank UBS for a couple of years now - UBS don't want to and the Swiss are reluctant to compel them to do so because doing so will essentially mean the end of the Swiss banking system.
> 
> UBS turned over a thousand names a few months back but US prosecutors want 46,000 more and the Swiss are dragging their heels - in that context, their decision to arrest Polanski now after he (reportedly) made a couple of dozen visits there while he was wanted by US authorities looks like the Swiss are, as the AP stringer said, throwing a bone to the US.




Oddly enough, the _Financial Times_ ran a diary item self-mockingly entitled "Enough to tax the conspiracy theorist’s mind" on 29 September, suggesting the arrest was the Swiss making nice to the US authorities after their bust-up over banking secrecy.

Then on 1 October Die Zeit ran nearly half a page entitled "Polanski and banking secrecy" saying the same in - those who've read it will not be surprised to hear - all seriousness.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2009)

**

So the French minister who backed Polanski now admits that he paid for sex with boys in Thailand. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8296578.stm



> Mr Mitterrand, 62, has denied being a paedophile, saying the term "boys" was used loosely.



Bit like Whoppi Goldberg's rape-rape then.

Oh France


----------



## trashpony (Oct 8, 2009)

A senior aide to President Sarkozy, Henri Guaino, on Thursday backed the minister, saying the row was "excessive and quite undignified".


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 8, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> How do you feel about Woody Allen?



As a film student - he made some great 'intelligent' comedies (Annie Hall's one of my favourite films).

Personally - he strikes me as a seedy, prickly old man (with a decent sense of humour).

I'm not at all surprised he signed the petition.




MightyAphrodite said:


> What exactly do you respect them for?
> 
> Their jobs?
> 
> They do it because it makes them rich (some for the love, but still if the money wasnt there, they wouldnt be), not for respect.



Some of the names on that list (specifically directors such as Scorsese, Gilliam and Lynch) have created fantastic films that not only reflected their time, but affected it.

In Scorsese's case especially, the man is a human encyclopedia of film, entertaining and passionate about his field.

To say all the names on that list do it for money is ridiculous.

However, to see them 'misjudge' the mood and reveal distinctly odd ethics in this way takes the sheen off their inspiration to me as a film-lover.

Tilda Swinton especially is an odd one, as she has a young daughter


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2009)

I've never liked woody allen personally.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 8, 2009)

This Polanski thing happened at Jack Nicholson's house, didn't it?   Why was the girl there?  Was he serving snacks?

What's he been saying about it?


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 8, 2009)

he was not there at the time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 8, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I've never liked woody allen personally.



He's not bad on the clarinet, though.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> However, to see them 'misjudge' the mood and reveal distinctly odd ethics in this way takes the sheen off their inspiration to me as a film-lover.



They're not "misjudging the mood."  They don't care about the "mood."  They're saying what they believe, strange as that concept evidently seems nowadays.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I think most of those who signed the pro-Polanski petition must have thought they were signing a petition against a politically-motivated arrest. It was a bit stupid of them not to see how it would be perceived



Has it never occurred to you that they might not care "how it would be perceived," because they actually believed what they said in the petition?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

Look: the fact that he made a plea bargain doesn't mean he's guilty.  Don't you know how the US justice system works?  

Innocents.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look: the fact that he made a plea bargain doesn't mean he's guilty.  Don't you know how the US justice system works?
> 
> Innocents.



There is, of course, the infamous 'everyone likes to fuck young girls' statement.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There is, of course, the infamous 'everyone likes to fuck young girls' statement.



Not an admission of legal guilt, very far from it.  If he even said it.  He was talking to _Martin Amis_ ffs.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I think most of those who signed the pro-Polanski petition must have thought they were signing a petition against a politically-motivated arrest.



Hahahaha how ridiculous of them.  Political motive behind the arrest hahahaha what nonsense, as if the US authorities would ever make an arrest for political reasons hahahahaha.

You, Brainaddict, are a _buffon._


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 8, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There is, of course, the infamous 'everyone likes to fuck young girls' statement.




...and the victim stating it also happened. Another factor to take into consideration possibly....


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

I swear threads like this one make me fear for the future of humanity.  People believe what they're told to believe, they don't use their reason.  Anyone who suggests they should use their reason is probably a paedo.  What utter, utter tripe you guys talk.

Let me spell it out.  Polanski made a plea bargain.  Then the judge was going to renege on the plea bargain.  Anyone sensible would have fled the country.  The _victim_ said she would have fled the country.  The victim's _lawyer_ said he would have fled the country.

Get it now?

Jesus.


----------



## untethered (Oct 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Jesus.



I suppose he would have fled the country too.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> I suppose he would have fled the country too.



He thought about it: "if it is possible, let this cup pass from me."


----------



## untethered (Oct 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> He thought about it: "if it is possible, let this cup pass from me."



But when push came to shove he was made of sterner stuff. Which is more than we can say for the wretched Polanski.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> But when push came to shove he was made of sterner stuff. Which is more than we can say for the wretched Polanski.



If christ is the gold standard, aren't all of us made of lesser stuff?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If christ is the gold standard, aren't all of us made of lesser stuff?


i know who my dad is, which is more than christ could say.


----------



## tombowler (Oct 8, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i know who my dad is, which is more than christ could say.



 are you really sure you're mother could have been cavorting with the gods too you know

But back on thread and its probably been said the victim in this has been made a victim again by this action poor lady i really feel for her having to go through all this again and having the whole world know what happened to her.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look: the fact that he made a plea bargain doesn't mean he's guilty.  Don't you know how the US justice system works?
> 
> Innocents.



The fact that he went to court, represented by a lawyer, and under oath declared before a judge that he was guilty, means he is guilty. 



> Marcia Clark: 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.



Now read for yourself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 8, 2009)

edit


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> The fact that he went to court, represented by a lawyer, and under oath declared before a judge that he was guilty, means he is guilty.



Legally, yes.  In practice however, many innocent people plead guilty under the terms of a plea bargain, to avoid the prosecution seeking a much longer sentence.  That is standard procedure in the US justice system, as is well-known (except it seems on here).  The court transcripts Marcia Clark quotes are _pro forma_ rituals that a plea bargain goes through in court, they mean nothing.

The message of this case for me is that people are ready, willing and very, very eager to hate who they are told to hate.  Even, perhaps especially, liberals.

I personally think he is guilty.  But even so, for the judge to accept a plea bargain and then renege on it and go for the longer sentence anyway is completely unacceptable.  I agree with the victim:

"He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.

I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?"

http://open.salon.com/blog/hal_m/2009/09/30/samantha_geimers_2003_op_ed_on_roman_polanski


----------



## purplex (Oct 9, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i know who my dad is, which is more than christ could say.



I believe in miracles
Where you from
You sexy thing
Sexy thing you


----------



## Azrael (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Legally, yes.  In practice however, many innocent people plead guilty under the terms of a plea bargain, to avoid the prosecution seeking a much longer sentence.  That is standard procedure in the US justice system, as is well-known (except it seems on here).


It happens, although it's hardly standard procedure. It tends not to happen to rich Hollywood directors who can afford top-dollar attorneys to fight the charges. 


> The court transcripts Marcia Clark quotes are _pro forma_ rituals that a plea bargain goes through in court, they mean nothing.


Are you a lawyer? If so, do you have qualifications in US law? Because from a layman's POV, the transcripts look like standard grand jury testimony. Its subsequent use isn't limited to plea bargaining. 


> The message of this case for me is that people are ready, willing and very, very eager to hate who they are told to hate.  Even, perhaps especially, liberals.


I'm a conservative, but even so, I've been told to excuse Polanski for yonks by film buffs. Calling him a convicted criminal wasn't a voice in the wilderness, but it was close. 

As for the plea bargain being reneged on, I know enough about them to know they're not binding contracts. If Polanski was guilty and remorseful, he should have thrown himself on the mercy of the court. I've yet to see a scrap of evidence that he's remorseful about any of it (beside, of course, being caught). 

Just read that he's been refused bail by the Swiss authorities. I should be amazed that he had the cheek to apply for it, but I'm not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

> It happens, although it's hardly standard procedure. It tends not to happen to rich Hollywood directors who can afford top-dollar attorneys to fight the charges.



I'm not familiar enough with the workings of the plea bargain system in California at the relevant time.



> Are you a lawyer? If so, do you have qualifications in US law? Because from a layman's POV, the transcripts look like standard grand jury testimony. Its subsequent use isn't limited to plea bargaining.



What does standard grand jury testimony look like? We don't have grand juries here: do you have them?



> I'm a conservative, but even so, I've been told to excuse Polanski for yonks by film buffs. Calling him a convicted criminal wasn't a voice in the wilderness, but it was close.



As a conservative, having liberal film yonks call for his exoneration is probably reason enough for you to take the opposite position.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What does standard grand jury testimony look like? We don't have grand juries here: do you have them?


Not since (I think) 1933. So far as I'm aware grand jury testimony is the same whatever the outcome. Some grand juries lead to plea bargains. Some lead to prosecutions. And there's the odd no bill. 

Since grand jury testimony on oath can be entered into evidence and used to bring criminal charges of perjury, it's absurd to claim it means nothing. It's substantive evidence, like any other testimony in a criminal hearing. 


> As a conservative, having liberal film yonks call for his exoneration is probably reason enough for you to take the opposite position.


 

I was a paid-up liberal myself at the time. This issue has brought together everyone from law & order right-wingers to liberal feminists. Who knew Polanski could be such a figure for unity!


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

It appears the French Minister of Culture has some difficulties of his own.. In 2005 he apparently wrote in his autobiography that "_I got into the habit of paying for boys," and also: "All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire. 

Mitterrand says he used the term "boys" loosely so it should not be taken as evidence of him being a paedophile. _"

His support for Polanski below.

"_Frédéric Mitterand said he was "dumbfounded" at the arrest, adding that he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them". The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, "is following the case with great attention and shares the minister's hope that the situation can be quickly resolved", the minister said_."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ts-paying-for-sex-but-denies-paedophilia.html


----------



## Diamond (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Legally, yes.  In practice however, many innocent people plead guilty under the terms of a plea bargain, to avoid the prosecution seeking a much longer sentence.  That is standard procedure in the US justice system, as is well-known (except it seems on here).  The court transcripts Marcia Clark quotes are _pro forma_ rituals that a plea bargain goes through in court, they mean nothing.
> 
> The message of this case for me is that people are ready, willing and very, very eager to hate who they are told to hate.  Even, perhaps especially, liberals.
> 
> ...



You're tring to reframe the parameters of the issue.

The substance of the matter in the present day is whether he should be extradited to face trial.

It's very difficult to come up with a strong moral argument that he should not be extradited.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Diamond said:


> You're tring to reframe the parameters of the issue.
> 
> The substance of the matter in the present day is whether he should be extradited to face trial.
> 
> It's very difficult to come up with a strong moral argument that he should not be extradited.



No it's not.  No-one would benefit from it.  It's politically motivated.  Anyone would have fled under the circumstances.  The victim wants it dropped.  His dreadful life experiences are moral mitigation. The US justice system could do with a come-uppance to show it is not all-powerful.  He's in the middle of making a film about Tony Blair being a war criminal.  And so on.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 9, 2009)

Given the status of the case, the public interest argument justifies the prosecution alone.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Given the status of the case, the public interest argument justifies the prosecution alone.



How is it in the public interest?  Deterrence?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 9, 2009)

It's in the public interest to extradite fugitive sex offenders in order to let people know that fugitive sex offenders will not be tolerated.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Diamond said:


> It's in the public interest to extradite fugitive sex offenders in order to let people know that fugitive sex offenders will not be tolerated.



Generally speaking, yes.  But we should look at each case on its merits.  This one is exceptional, for many good reasons.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look: the fact that he made a plea bargain doesn't mean he's guilty.  Don't you know how the US justice system works?
> 
> Innocents.



Well he pleaded guilt.

So both he and the girl he raped both admit this happened so what, we're unclear of the facts? 

He gave a 13 year girl drink and drugs and then had sex with with her, he admits this, the girl admits this. There is no ambiguity here Phil.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> How is it in the public interest?  Deterrence?



Shall we compare the cases of Glitter and Polanski?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Well he pleaded guilt.
> 
> So both he and the girl he raped both admit this happened so what, we're unclear of the facts?
> 
> He gave a 13 year girl drink and drugs and then had sex with with her, he admits this, the girl admits this. There is no ambiguity here Phil.



Read the thread.  There's plenty of ambiguity.

It's a fascinating case in all sorts of ways.  I admit that I was a bit pissed off at his apparent lack of remorse when he was on the lam, and I'm still a bit pissed off about the smug Frenchy artistes who do seem to think he's one of them and thus should be above the law.

But I'm more pissed off by the blood-lust of the law'n'order brigade who obviously know little about this particular case, and quite frankly are always looking for someone to hate on.  These people are dangerous, the others are just silly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Shall we compare the cases of Glitter and Polanski?



Good idea.  Go ahead.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Good idea.  Go ahead.



No you go ahead dear, you appear to the be the only person on the planet ambiguous about polanski's guilt.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Read the thread.  There's plenty of ambiguity.
> 
> It's a fascinating case in all sorts of ways.  I admit that I was a bit pissed off at his apparent lack of remorse when he was on the lam, and I'm still a bit pissed off about the smug Frenchy artistes who do seem to think he's one of them and thus should be above the law.
> 
> But I'm more pissed off by the blood-lust of the law'n'order brigade who obviously know little about this particular case, and quite frankly are always looking for someone to hate on.  These people are dangerous, the others are just silly.




No theres none. He admits giving booze pills and sitting in a hot tub with a 13 year old girl. Then he violated her. He admits to all this. Theres really no ambiguity here unless you think that there is something acceptable in a 40 year old man drugging and boozing a teenage girl before having sex with her is in any way acceptable. You don't think that there is Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> No theres none. He admits giving booze pills and sitting in a hot tub with a 13 year old girl. Then he violated her. He admits to all this. Theres really no ambiguity here unless you think that there is something acceptable in a 40 year old man drugging and boozing a teenage girl before having sex with her is in any way acceptable. You don't think that there is Phil?



I wondered how long it would be before you started on that route.

Twat.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> How is it in the public interest?  Deterrence?



It's like Ronnie Biggs isn't it?


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I wondered how long it would be before you started on that route.
> 
> Twat.



Which route, the route that leads the to actual facts about the case. Gosh thats an idiotic route.... You fucking moron.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> It's like Ronnie Biggs isn't it?



'Tis a bit.

Though I sympathized with Biggs.  I phoned him up once when I was in Rio--he was in the book.  Just above Bormann.  

No really, he was and I did.  I wanted to go for a pint with him but he'd just had a stroke.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Which route, the route that leads the to actual facts about the case. Gosh thats an idiotic route.... You fucking moron.



No, the route that leads to anyone expressing the slightest ambiguity about the case being accused of endorsing what he did.  

So far, no-one on this thread had sunk that low.  But once again, 8den wins the Cretin Prize.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> How is it in the public interest?  Deterrence?



The incredibly odd concept that if you drug and rape a child that you shouldn't escape the consequences? No matter how long the duration since the crime or the distance that have travelled to avoid the crime. Hey (and I break Godwin's law here) should we let off all those naughty nazis who escaped to Brazil and got captured in the 70s should have been let off because hey what kind of deterrent for genocide is there?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> The incredibly odd concept that if you drug and rape a child that you shouldn't escape the consequences? No matter how long the duration since the crime or the distance that have travelled to avoid the crime. Hey (and I break Godwin's law here) should we let off all those naughty nazis who escaped to Brazil and got captured in the 70s should have been let off because hey what kind of deterrent for genocide is there?



It's not often I encounter someone who is literally too stupid to argue with.  Someone with such a limited capacity for reason that no amount of careful, nuanced logic has the remotest chance of edging their understanding forward even one iota.

I have now.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, the route that leads to anyone expressing the slightest ambiguity about the case being accused of endorsing what he did.
> 
> So far, no-one on this thread had sunk that low.  But once again, 8den wins the Cretin Prize.



No you said;



> There's plenty of ambiguity.



I asked you to clarify what you meant by ambiguity, you got ambiguous  about what you meant about "ambiguity". 

Thats what so dishonest about you Phil. 

What don't you fuck off and list what you think is ambiguous about this event. Or fuck off this thread. Go on, clear off. Go away. Or I'll demand the mods ban you.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

When I first read this thread, I found JC2 gently pointing out that this case wasn't quite as black-and-white as it appeared at first glance, carefully noting the legal implications of a plea bargain, observing that the victim's wishes might be taken into consideration and so on.  I thought to myself: "I wonder who'll be the first to call him a paedo?"  

I narrowed it down to two candidates, of which 8den was one.   I really should have known better--next time, 8den will stand alone.  He truly is the Prize Prick of these boards.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> When I first read this thread, I found JC2 gently pointing out that this case wasn't quite as black-and-white as it appeared at first glance, carefully noting the legal implications of a plea bargain, observing that the victim's wishes might be taken into consideration and so on.  I thought to myself: "I wonder who'll be the first to call him a paedo?"
> 
> I narrowed it down to two candidates, of which 8den was one.   I really should have known better--next time, 8den will stand alone.  He truly is the Prize Prick of these boards.



Your still justifying a nonce who drugged raped and buggered a thirteen year old child, if not against her will not with it!


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

I thought that the plea bargain was advantageous to Polanski, he was originally charged with 6  counts including furnishing a drug to a minor, child molesting, rape by the use of drugs, sodomy, oral copulation and unlawful sexual intercourse. Under the plea bargain he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. If he were convicted of the original 6 counts surely his sentence would have been tougher.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> I thought that the plea bargain was advantageous to Polanski



It was.  Arguably too advantageous.  But the point is that, having accepted the plea bargain, the judge then planned to renege on it.

If Polanski had not been offered a plea bargain, he presumably would not have pled guilty.  He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain.  Then the bargain was broken.  That's when he fled.


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

If he were innocent of all offences he should not have accepted the plea bargain and should have pleaded NOT guilty. Now why didn't he do that, if he were innocent?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

As an aside, it strikes me that most posters on this thread seem unfamiliar with the concept of a "plea bargain," and the legal implications thereof.  Do they exist in the UK?


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

No plea bargain does not exist in the UK.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> If he were innocent of all offences he should not have accepted the plea bargain and should have pleaded NOT guilty. Now why didn't he do that, if he were innocent?



Because if he had pled not guilty and then been found guilty, the judge would have thrown the book at him.  

That is how the US justice system works.  Yes: of course it means that perfectly innocent people often plead guilty.  That is how it works.

Do you not have such a system in the UK?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> No plea bargain does not exist in the UK.



not officially no. But in my own experience I have been told one charge would be dropped ifn I pled to the humble charge.

It goes on.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> No plea bargain does not exist in the UK.



That explains the attitude of most posters on this thread.


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Because if he had pled not guilty and then been found guilty, the judge would have thrown the book at him.
> 
> That is how the US justice system works.  Yes: of course it means that perfectly innocent people often plead guilty.  That is how it works.
> 
> Do you not have such a system in the UK?



No, why would you plead guilty if you maintain that you are innocent of the crime? 

Clearly, I think in Polanski's case the evidence against him was overwhelming.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> not officially no. But in my own experience I have been told one charge would be dropped ifn I pled to the humble charge.
> 
> It goes on.



TIC?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> No, why would you plead guilty if you maintain that you are innocent of the crime?



As I have said, because if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty you will face a huge jail sentence.

I believe that in Polanski's case the choice was either: (a) plead guilty and get 90 days, of which he'd already served 42, or (b) plead not guilty and, if found guilty, get 25 years.

What would you have done?  Even if you were innocent?

Not say that Polanski was innocent, but the judge accepted his guilty plea, on the understanding that he'd get a sentence of 90 days.  Then the judge changed his mind and was going to give him 25 years.  So he fled.

Now is the situation becoming clearer?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2009)

Nigel said:


> TIC?



straight up dropped.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It's not often I encounter someone who is literally too stupid to argue with.  Someone with such a limited capacity for reason that no amount of careful, nuanced logic has the remotest chance of edging their understanding forward even one iota.
> 
> I have now.



Thats not even an attempt at argument. It's just abuse. But Phil once again you try and claim moral superiority without a shred of substance to your posts. Bravo Sir. Bravo. Now do you have an argument to address my points or are you peevishly going to demand that I leave this thread or be banned?


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I have said, because if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty you will face a huge jail sentence.
> 
> I believe that in Polanski's case the choice was either: (a) plead guilty and get 90 days, of which he'd already served 42, or (b) plead not guilty and, if found guilty, get 25 years.
> 
> ...



Thanks that makes it clearer about the plea bargain side. I didn't realise that he would only be given a sentence of 90 days in jail. That is a very light sentence for rape. I think in the UK he would have got at least 4 or 5 years in prison.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Thats not even an attempt at argument. It's just abuse. But Phil once again you try and claim moral superiority without a shred of substance to your posts. Bravo Sir. Bravo. Now do you have an argument to address my points or are you peevishly going to demand that I leave this thread or be banned?



Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I have said, because if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty you will face a huge jail sentence.
> 
> I believe that in Polanski's case the choice was either: (a) plead guilty and get 90 days, of which he'd already served 42, or (b) plead not guilty and, if found guilty, get 25 years.
> 
> What would you have done?  Even if you were innocent?




If I was innocent call me crazy I know not have begun a relationship with a 15 year old girl during sentencing. By fucking Kinski Polanski made a mockery of his plea bargain. I mean for fucks sake 'I'm terribly sorry for drugging and raping a teenage girl and I plea guilt for a reduced sentence", and before sentencing is carried out he's fucking around with another teenager, you really think any judge could stand by and let his plea bargain stand in light of this. 

Are you that fucking dumb?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> Thanks that makes it clearer about the plea bargain side. I didn't realise that he would only be given a sentence of 90 days in jail. That is a very light sentence for rape. I think in the UK he would have got at least 4 or 5 years in prison.



You bet.  And I'm sure he would in the States today.  And I'd even say he deserved it, if he was guilty.

But usually when prosecutors make such favorable deals it is because they don't have a very good case.  No idea if that was true in this instance, but the fact remains that a deal was done, and then broken.  

And the fact also remains that a guilty plea as part of a plea bargain certainly does _not_ mean that the accused is guilty.  Innocent people take plea bargains all the time.

Fucked up system?  You bet.  So fucked up that if you ever got involved in it, you'd probably do a Polanski too.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> If I was innocent call me crazy I know not have begun a relationship with a 15 year old girl during sentencing. By fucking Kinski Polanski made a mockery of his plea bargain. I mean for fucks sake 'I'm terribly sorry for drugging and raping a teenage girl and I plea guilt for a reduced sentence", and before sentencing is carried out he's fucking around with another teenager, you really think any judge could stand by and let his plea bargain stand in light of this.
> 
> Are you that fucking dumb?



If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.


----------



## rekil (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Thats not even an attempt at argument. It's just abuse.


And you calling me a paedo the other day was what?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> not officially no. But in my own experience I have been told one charge would be dropped ifn I pled to the humble charge.
> 
> It goes on.



I've had exactly the same thing. It goes on all the time.

In the US though it is different. Innocent people regularly accept a plea bargain and short sentence rather than face a trial that would carry a massive sentence if found guilty. And they will be found guilty as public defenders in the US are far worse than even the legal aid mob in the UK.

But that's the rub, Polanski wouldn't have used a public defender, he'd have engaged the finest defence lawyers that money could buy. Just like OJ did. But if he still been convicted then he'd probably still be inside now.


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You bet.  And I'm sure he would in the States today.  And I'd even say he deserved it, if he was guilty.
> 
> But usually when prosecutors make such favorable deals it is because they don't have a very good case.  No idea if that was true in this instance, but the fact remains that a deal was done, and then broken.
> 
> ...



System does sound a bit wrong to me. It also means that people who are guilty of a crime can be let of lightly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

copliker said:


> And you calling me a paedo the other day was what?



So it seems that 8den has form for this sort of thing.  We have a serial paedo-accuser on our hands.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> System does sound a bit wrong to me. It also means that people who are guilty of a crime can be let of lightly.



Since the 70's it's been modified a bit, now you usually have to grass someone else up too in order to achieve your plea bargain.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I have said, because if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty you will face a huge jail sentence.



I know there isn't plea bargain in the UK, but isn't there similar consideration for pleading guilty in terms of sentencing (in some cases) in the UK?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In the US though it is different. Innocent people regularly accept a plea bargain and short sentence rather than face a trial that would carry a massive sentence if found guilty. And they will be found guilty as public defenders in the US are far worse than even the legal aid mob in the UK.



Precisely.  It's the obscenely long possible sentences that do it.  An innocent person might take a gamble if the max was 4 or 5 years.  They won't if the max is 50-to-life, as it often is, even for non-violent offenses.  They'll plead guilty, take six months, and think themselves damned lucky.

And it's worth pointing out that legislatures have instituted these obscenely long sentences as a response to precisely the sort of law'n'order hysteria that the Polanski case has whipped up--not least, it seems, among the Brits.

Those of you calling for Polanski's head should be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Lea (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> I know there isn't plea bargain in the UK, but isn't there similar consideration for pleading guilty in terms of sentencing (in some cases) in the UK?



I think so yes. If you plead guilty you will usually get a lighter sentence than if you plead not guilty and then get found guilty in the end.


----------



## rekil (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So it seems that 8den has form for this sort of thing.  We have a serial paedo-accuser on our hands.


The liitle man might want to read a bit about Freudian projection at this point.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.



Answer not  another posters arguments, and instead respond with sophistry lest you be incapable of addressing their argument.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

copliker said:


> And you calling me a paedo the other day was what?



Considering you were just going "wa wa you just don't like SF" I figured if we're just going to make shit up, lets go hog wild, you fucking moron. 

Never let it be said that copliker will argue something on it's own merits, he'll drag another thread in and and try and infer bias.

Hey congrats man you're urban's lowest common denominator officially. I hear you like raping donkeys too.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

copliker said:


> The liitle man might want to read a bit about Freudian projection at this point.



Is the little man your euphemism for the cocktail sausage you call your cock?


----------



## rekil (Oct 9, 2009)

Classy stuff. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself and this sad carry on 8den?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2009)

Lea said:


> I think so yes. If you plead guilty you will usually get a lighter sentence than if you plead not guilty and then get found guilty in the end.



1/3 off if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Rarely worth it, unless you are 100% bang to rights.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

copliker said:


> Classy stuff. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself and this sad carry on 8den?



Copliker I did it to prove a point, you're incapable of arguing about an issue on it's own merits you like to drag up other irrelevant points. I turned the tables. Pigfucker.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 1/3 off if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
> 
> Rarely worth it, unless you are 100% bang to rights.



Which Polanski was. He entered the plea bargain, waited for the judgement, and shock and fucking horror realised that the judge wasn't going to take his claims of remorse seriously because he was fucking around with another teenage girl, he jumped bail.


----------



## rekil (Oct 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Copliker I did it to prove a point, you're incapable of arguing about an issue on it's own merits you like to drag up other irrelevant points. I turned the tables. Pigfucker.


I'd rather be a pigfucker than a liar and a fraud to be honest.


----------



## 8den (Oct 9, 2009)

copliker said:


> I'd rather be a pigfucker than a liar and a fraud to be honest.



Ruffles your hair, oh pigfucker you're so cute when you scramble for the high ground. It's like someone trying to climb Everest without Oxygen or a Sherpa... Endearing? Brave? Perhaps. But immensely retarded? Definitely.

But seriously here dude you're making my point; you're incapable of arguing the actual issues, and just try and drag up some old argument like you have a point. You're pathetic.


----------



## Onket (Oct 9, 2009)

Jesus, how old are you?!


----------



## subversplat (Oct 9, 2009)

Anyway, whatever happened to the good old Chopperism _never plead guilty to anything_.

Some people have no backbone you know


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2009)

subversplat said:


> Anyway, whatever happened to the good old Chopperism _never plead guilty to anything_.
> 
> Some people have no backbone you know



he would have been a mug to *not* plead guilty to the deal they offered him


----------



## Azrael (Oct 9, 2009)

agricola said:


> he would have been a mug to *not* plead guilty to the deal they offered him


Unless he was factually innocent, damn straight he would!


----------



## Thora (Oct 9, 2009)

agricola said:


> he would have been a mug to *not* plead guilty to the deal they offered him



Though he was pretty fucking stupid to start publicly seeing another underage girl before being sentenced and not to expect the judge would react to it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Thora said:


> Though he was pretty fucking stupid to start publicly seeing another underage girl before being sentenced and not to expect the judge would react to it.



Agreed.  I suspect that his childhood in the Krakow ghetto, then on the run as a 9 year-old in Nazi-occupied Poland, then his mother being murdered in Auschwitz, then the 8-month pregnant love of his life being hacked to bits by Charlie Manson's followers probably warped his mind a little bit.

If you watch his films, most of them are about female repulsion from male sexuality.  From the female perspective.


----------



## Thora (Oct 9, 2009)

No doubt there's something wrong with you if you want to rape a child.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Agreed.  I suspect that his childhood in the Krakow ghetto, then on the run as a 9 year-old in Nazi-occupied Poland, then his mother being murdered in Auschwitz, then the 8-month pregnant love of his life being hacked to bits by Charlie Manson's followers probably warped his mind a little bit.


As one feminist columnist splendidly wrote: "Having a rotten childhood gives you one free rape." 

Unless Polanski was criminally insane I couldn't care less what his past was. A great many people suffered even more than him and didn't become rapists. His suffering is likely coincidental. The uncomfortable truth is that suffering isn't a benediction, and all manner of people can endure it. If Polanski even tries to use his experiences as an excuse, he's doing far more to insult the memories of his fellow victims than people who call for him to be held to account.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Azrael said:


> As one feminist columnist splendidly wrote: "Having a rotten childhood gives you one free rape."
> 
> Unless Polanski was criminally insane I couldn't care less what his past was. A great many people suffered even more than him and didn't become rapists. His suffering is likely coincidental. The uncomfortable truth is that suffering isn't a benediction, and all manner of people can endure it. If Polanski even tries to use his experiences as an excuse, he's doing far more to insult the memories of his fellow victims than people who call for him to be held to account.



It's not about making excuses, but if you don't think his utterly horrific experiences have had an effect on his psyche, you're more of a nutter than he is.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Diamond said:


> You're tring to reframe the parameters of the issue.
> 
> The substance of the matter in the present day is whether he should be extradited to face trial.
> 
> It's very difficult to come up with a strong moral argument that he should not be extradited.



I don't think that extradition must follow in every case. For instance, Canada will not extradite individuals to the United States, if those individuals will face the death penalty there, regardless of guilt.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Agreed.  I suspect that his childhood in the Krakow ghetto, then on the run as a 9 year-old in Nazi-occupied Poland, then his mother being murdered in Auschwitz, then the 8-month pregnant love of his life being hacked to bits by Charlie Manson's followers probably warped his mind a little bit.
> 
> If you watch his films, most of them are about female repulsion from male sexuality.  From the female perspective.



as you well know, that is no excuse


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It's not about making excuses, but if you don't think his utterly horrific experiences have had an effect on his psyche, you're more of a nutter than he is.



Who does his victim get to rape then?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> as you well know, that is no excuse



But it is an explanation.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

agricola said:


> Who does his victim get to rape then?



Me, should she feel so inclined.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But it is an explanation.



Well, yes but that's why I said 'no excuse'. There is no excuse even if there is an 'explanation' and I'm not even sure it is an explanation. It's just background.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Diamond said:


> It's in the public interest to extradite fugitive sex offenders in order to let people know that fugitive sex offenders will not be tolerated.



Is Canada wrong not to extradite murderers back to the US, because by extraditing them, we'd show that murder is wrong?


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Is Canada wrong not to extradite murderers back to the US, because by extraditing them, we'd show that murder is wrong?




What's the reasoning behind that? You said earlier it was those facing the death penalty. Is there a distinction and if so, why?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But usually when prosecutors make such favorable deals it is because they don't have a very good case.  No idea if that was true in this instance, but the fact remains that a deal was done, and then broken.



That's true. If the Crown thinks they have a rock solid case against you, they don't as a rule come knocking on your lawyer's door, offering a deal. They throw their full weight against you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Unless he was factually innocent, damn straight he would!



As if there are no innocent people doing jail time, especially in the US.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Azrael said:


> As one feminist columnist splendidly wrote: "Having a rotten childhood gives you one free rape." .



I'm assuming that if Polanski's victim went out and sexually assaulted a minor, and brought up her own prior assault, at her trial, you'd respond with 'doesn't matter'.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> That's true. If the Crown thinks they have a rock solid case against you, they don't as a rule come knocking on your lawyer's door, offering a deal. They throw their full weight against you.



Innit.  So the fact that Polanski was offered such a favorable plea bargain suggests to me that their case against him was somewhat less than watertight.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Azrael said:


> A great many people suffered even more than him and didn't become rapists. His suffering is likely coincidental.



Is your argument that, just because some sufferers of a particular prior condition don't become criminals, that therefore the presence of that prior condition is never a factor in some people becoming criminals?

For example, many prostitutes have had sexual assault in their prior backgrounds. However, stats show that something like one in four women have undergone sexual assault prior to age of majority. But most women don't become prostitutes.

To follow your apparent line of reasoning, the sexual assault in the histories of the prostitutes, is just a coincidental red herring. Prostitution is illegal in UK, I believe. You seem to be saying that their past histories should not be taken into account, and we should just bring the full weight of the law down on them.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 9, 2009)

Prostitutes do not aggressively victimise people!

Seems like an odd comparison.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Prostitutes do not aggressively victimise people!



The voice of experience I fear.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 9, 2009)

Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> What's the reasoning behind that? You said earlier it was those facing the death penalty. Is there a distinction and if so, why?



We don't employ the death penalty.  Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights reads as follows:



> 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.



The Charter applies to all who are within Canada's borders.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> What's the reasoning behind that? You said earlier it was those facing the death penalty. Is there a distinction and if so, why?



I should have read your post more carefully. It is those facing the death penalty, but given that in the US, the death penalty is most usually assigned to murderers, it's safe to say that if the US is calling for extradition, the person they want, is a murderer.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I should have read your post more carefully. It is those facing the death penalty, but given that in the US, the death penalty is most usually assigned to murderers, it's safe to say that if the US is calling for extradition, the person they want, is a murderer.



No worries.. so what does Canada do with say a 'known' murderer from the US? Are they free to go about as they please?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Prostitutes do not aggressively victimise people!
> 
> Seems like an odd comparison.



The issue is, is the history of a criminal ever relevant, once the crime has been committed.

Polanski broke the law. Prostitutes break the law.

The call here, is for a good old strict application of the law. The law says that prostitutes are criminals as well.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> No worries.. so what does Canada do with say a 'known' murderer from the US? Are they free to go about as they please?



I'm not expert in these matters, but as I recall, they are usually behind bars in canada. What canada does, is seeks assurances from the US, that the death penalty won't be asked for at trial. Once the US gives that, we will extradite.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 9, 2009)

The law, as regards prostitution, is ill founded; but the laws on detention, drugging, and coercive sodomy seem to me to have more credence.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The law, as regards prostitution, is ill founded; but the laws on detention, drugging, and coercive sodomy seem to me to have more credence.



In other words, rigourous application of the laws that you personally consider to be justified or reasonable?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 9, 2009)

I don't have any say in this; I guess, if I were involved, I'd do as my job like most folks.

But you're right in a way ~ there's no dodging the fact that law and morality aren't always exactly congruent.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Legally, yes.  In practice however, many innocent people plead guilty under the terms of a plea bargain, to avoid the prosecution seeking a much longer sentence.  That is standard procedure in the US justice system, as is well-known (except it seems on here).  The court transcripts Marcia Clark quotes are _pro forma_ rituals that a plea bargain goes through in court, they mean nothing.



"Standard procedure". I referred to the commentary by Marcia Clark because unlike you and unlike me she is a member of the California Bar and an experienced prosecutor in that jurisdiction. So her contention that the proceedings transcribed and quoted represent an exhaustive examination, rather than the "_pro forma_ rituals" you claim them to be, carries a lot of authority.


> Marcia Clark: The transcript of Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea is one of the lengthiest, most thorough pleas I’ve ever seen.



For some reason you have chosen to act the contrarian and to stick up for the rich and powerful man who took advantage of a child whose mother was prepared to allow her to be exploited, and who administered alcohol and narcotic drugs to the girl before raping her several times. The victim testified in court as to what happened to her and the rapist corroborated what she said under examination by the prosecutor. He was legally represented at court when he did so and he was exhaustively examined to ensure that he know what was at stake, that he understood that no bargain was in place, and that the judge would determine any sentence that might be applied. He obtained release for a period to enable him to complete a business project subject to the requirement to attend a prison for assessment and fled the jurisdiction before doing so.

I do not believe that you have any special knowledge, other than episodes of Perry Mason, on which to base your assertion that the proceedings on which Marcia Clark commented were a smokescreen for a plea bargain. She says they weren't and that they should be read for what they say on the face of it. She is qualified to say that: I don't think you are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 9, 2009)

Jonti said:


> But you're right in a way ~ there's no dodging the fact that law and morality aren't always exactly congruent.



And that presents a huge problem in our society, imo.


----------



## Thora (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The issue is, is the history of a criminal ever relevant, once the crime has been committed.
> 
> Polanski broke the law. Prostitutes break the law.
> 
> The call here, is for a good old strict application of the law. The law says that prostitutes are criminals as well.



I don't think prostitution is illegal actually, soliciting is.  But even so, I don't think past abuse is taken into account.

There's been suggestions that the mother of Baby P and her boyfriend were abused as a children too, but that doesn't excuse their crimes.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 10, 2009)

Thora said:


> I don't think prostitution is illegal actually, soliciting is.  But even so, I don't think past abuse is taken into account.
> 
> There's been suggestions that the mother of Baby P and her boyfriend were abused as a children too, but that doesn't excuse their crimes.


do the "victim's" wishes have any bearing on the application of justice? and i mean in an objective "i've dealt with this and want to move on" sense, rather than any kind of power imbalance situation whereby someone adjudges their situation to become normalised. 

as kipling said, forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse...


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> he was not there at the time.


The girl just wandered into Jack Nicholson's house, did she?

'He was not there at the time' doesn't address the point that 'it' happened at his house, whatever 'it' was.   Were investigations made into other people, other kids, other times there?   Did Jack make a statement?   Why his house?

This whole thing was never tried in a court properly...I bet it could be very interesting.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> The girl just wandered into Jack Nicholson's house, did she?.



Did her mother drop her off at the front door?


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> The girl just wandered into Jack Nicholson's house, did she?


Roman Polanski drove her there. 

I guess if you had a friend with a big, flash house and he was out of town, you might go there to impress someone if you knew you were allowed access.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

Maltin said:


> Roman Polanski drove her there.
> 
> I guess if you had a friend with a big, flash house and he was out of town, you might go there to impress someone if you knew you were allowed access.



I guess Roman picked her up at mom's house, then?

Why did Roman have the keys to Jack's pad?


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Agreed.  I suspect that his childhood in the Krakow ghetto, then on the run as a 9 year-old in Nazi-occupied Poland, then his mother being murdered in Auschwitz, then the 8-month pregnant love of his life being hacked to bits by Charlie Manson's followers probably warped his mind a little bit.



Ah yes the tens of thousands of survivors of the ghetto who didn't go on to rape children sympathise.


Are you really trying to claim any sort of childhood trauma is a excuse of a crime. Theres a tellling bit in the book/film Manhunter, where the psychological  profiler says something akin to this is man who's been abused and I weep for that child, but the man he's become must be stopped. 

Theres no doubt that Polanski suffered immense trauma in his life, but that doesn't excuse his actions. And anyone trying to defend him in such a way doesn't have a right to call anyone a cretin.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

copliker said:


> Classy stuff. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself and this sad carry on 8den?



Do you have a point here at all here?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Are you really trying to claim any sort of childhood trauma is a excuse of a crime. Theres a tellling bit in the book/film Manhunter, where the psychological  profiler says something akin to this is man who's been abused and I weep for that child, but the man he's become must be stopped.
> 
> Theres no doubt that Polanski suffered immense trauma in his life, but that doesn't excuse his actions. And anyone trying to defend him in such a way doesn't have a right to call anyone a cretin.



We have to punish the guilty and protect society, but where the criminal was once himself/herself the victim, turned into the criminal, we can at least feel some compassion while we carry out our duty.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I guess Roman picked her up at mom's house, then?
> 
> Why did Roman have the keys to Jack's pad?


According to her testimony, he picked her up from her home.

He didn't have the keys to Nicholson's home. I imagine that the housekeeper/security let them in, although it seems that at some point in time, Angelica Huston was in the property, so perhaps she authorised access.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

Maltin said:


> According to her testimony, he picked her up from her home.
> 
> He didn't have the keys to Nicholson's home. I imagine that the housekeeper/security let them in, although it seems that at some point in time, Angelica Huston was in the property, so perhaps she authorised access.



Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.

I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Innit.  So the fact that Polanski was offered such a favorable plea bargain suggests to me that their case against him was somewhat less than watertight.



Yes because rape cases work out like that. Considering the pathetic sentence or indeed conviction rate for rape cases that exist, maybe the prosecution thought it was a win.

Furthermore phil if the case wasn't watertight 

A) why would Polanski plea guilty

and 

B) flee the country before sentencing. 

Your basic cluelessness is exposed again. Now be sure to call me a cretin and avoid answering this points as is your tired weak ass signature.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> B) flee the country before sentencing. .



Is this based on an assumption that the US legal system is some sterling example of how it should be done?


Nowadays, you get refugees from all over the world seeking asylum, based upon the fear of unfair treatment at the hands of the legal system back home.

Guilt is one reason to run, but not the only reason.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.
> 
> I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.


Why would she be culpable?  Who says she was there all the time?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.
> 
> I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.


tbh, all this conjecture doesn't prove a damn thing, other than no-one, adult-wise, is innocent to any real degree.

do you lock up your daughters JC2?


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.
> 
> I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.



by that logic a headmaster is guilty if a teacher rapes a child on school property. Lets not lose sight of the major factors Polanski raped  and drugged a teenage girl, unless you can provide evidence that Huston or Nicholsan intentionally contributed to this crime you've not got a leg to stand on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> do you lock up your daughters JC2?



No, but my children did commercial and movie work when they were young, and you can be damn sure that there was never a time that they were left alone with industry people behind closed doors.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Is this based on an assumption that the US legal system is some sterling example of how it should be done?
> 
> 
> Nowadays, you get refugees from all over the world seeking asylum, based upon the fear of unfair treatment at the hands of the legal system back home.
> ...



Johnny for fucks sake nothing you mention here has any relationship to the arguments on this thread.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

Maltin said:


> Why would she be culpable? Who says she was there all the time?


And to add further, why does it matter who else may have some guilt here? The girl's mother doesn't seem to have acted sensibly; Anjelica Huston and Nicholson's staff may feel guilty that something happened on the same property they were at; Nicholson may feel ashamed that a friend of his abused his trust, but we still come to the same issue that the girl claims she was raped by Roman Polanski and therefore, he is the one who was facing trial.


----------



## subversplat (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.
> 
> I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.


Well, they were there under the pretence of a photo shoot. Did you read the testimony on The Smoking Gun website?


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No, but my children did commercial and movie work when they were young, and you can be damn sure that there was never a time that they were left alone with industry people behind closed doors.



Yeah and every aspect of the film industry has changed since the 70s. I work i film, and it's not a bunch of coke addled drunks. It's a professional industry. Friday evening is a couple of drinks and thats it.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah and every aspect of the film industry has changed since the 70s. I work i film, and it's not a bunch of coke addled drunks. It's a professional industry. Friday evening is a couple of drinks and thats it.


Are you implying that the entertainment industry has cleaned up and that no one has died of drug overdoses since the 70's?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 10, 2009)

roman polanski hasn't.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> roman polanski hasn't.


Hasn't what?  Died of a drug overdose?  Changed?  Read the testimony on The Smoking Gun website?


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah and every aspect of the film industry has changed since the 70s. I work i film, and it's not a bunch of coke addled drunks. It's a professional industry. Friday evening is a couple of drinks and thats it.



oh come on..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

Maltin said:


> Why would she be culpable?  Who says she was there all the time?



If your buddy brings over a 13 year old and rapes her in your bedroom with the door closed, perhaps you might be considered an accomplice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> by that logic a headmaster is guilty if a teacher rapes a child on school property..



Perhaps, perhaps not. The contention is that Polanski perhaps got entry because Huston was there and let them in. That presupposes knowledge that polanski is there, who his guest is, and where they go. 

A headmaster might have no idea that a teacher and student are staying late over in Building C.

And as mentioned above, the law includes the concept of accomplice. An accomplice needn't necessarily be in there, helping to hold the girl down, to be considered an accomplice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Johnny for fucks sake nothing you mention here has any relationship to the arguments on this thread.



It's entirely possible that you don't see any connection; that doesn't mean that there is none.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah and every aspect of the film industry has changed since the 70s. I work i film, and it's not a bunch of coke addled drunks. It's a professional industry. Friday evening is a couple of drinks and thats it.



I agree. And even with the modern more professional industry, I would not leave my 13 year old alone with anyone for an alleged photo shoot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 10, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> oh come on..



I wasn't going to bother calling him on it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 10, 2009)

For the record prostitution is not illegal in the United Kingdom.

And I can not think of one non death penalty country that will extradite someone to face the death penalty in another country. Indeed many countries such as Spain will not extradite if the wrongdoer faces a sentence of more than 30 years. Of course assurances will be given to ensure extradition, the US will not break the assurance to award death, but they will break it to give a sentence of more than 30 years.

And while we're here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8299944.stm


> A 46-year-old man has been jailed for 14 years after he was found guilty of raping two girls in the 1980s and 1990s and indecently assaulting a third



It was a long time ago, he probably had a hard time of it when he was younger, why are we picking on him?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> "Standard procedure". I referred to the commentary by Marcia Clark because unlike you and unlike me she is a member of the California Bar and an experienced prosecutor in that jurisdiction. So her contention that the proceedings transcribed and quoted represent an exhaustive examination, rather than the "_pro forma_ rituals" you claim them to be, carries a lot of authority.
> 
> 
> For some reason you have chosen to act the contrarian and to stick up for the rich and powerful man who took advantage of a child whose mother was prepared to allow her to be exploited, and who administered alcohol and narcotic drugs to the girl before raping her several times. The victim testified in court as to what happened to her and the rapist corroborated what she said under examination by the prosecutor. He was legally represented at court when he did so and he was exhaustively examined to ensure that he know what was at stake, that he understood that no bargain was in place, and that the judge would determine any sentence that might be applied. He obtained release for a period to enable him to complete a business project subject to the requirement to attend a prison for assessment and fled the jurisdiction before doing so.
> ...



You do know who Marcia Clark is, right?  If so you might pause to consider whether a woman who could not even convict OJ Simpson is the best available source of legal knowledge.

In any case, she nowhere denies that the words she quotes are _pro forma_ for a plea bargain.  They are not a "smokescreen."  They are a formulaic recital designed to fulfill legal niceties.  Thus they should not be taken as denying that the judge and Polanski had made an arrangement, all they do is prevent that arrangement from being legally binding.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah and every aspect of the film industry has changed since the 70s. I work i film, and it's not a bunch of coke addled drunks. It's a professional industry. Friday evening is a couple of drinks and thats it.



Utter nonsense, as anyone who knows anything of the film industry is fully aware.  I suspect that your colleagues tell you they are going home after a couple of drinks, then sneak off to the party without you.


----------



## Thora (Oct 10, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hm, I wonder if she's culpable in any way. She's in charge of the premises, when polanski shows up with a 13 year old, then goes into a room and locks the door.
> 
> I wonder if she had a duty to at least knock on the door and ask if everything's alright.



Actually she did knock on the door.  Polanski initially claimed the girl was making it all up and he never had sex with her - then Angelica Huston agreed to testify against him and he changed his story and went for the plea bargain.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Maltin said:


> Are you implying that the entertainment industry has cleaned up and that no one has died of drug overdoses since the 70's?



No I'm bemoaning the fact that in 10 years working in film no one has chopped off a line of finest peruvian on my my desk, or invited nubile sex kittens into my office. The closest thing to debauchery has been a crafty spliff after work, or a friday evening beer. 

Although mind you I've been to some mental wrap parties.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Utter nonsense, as anyone who knows anything of the film industry is fully aware.  I suspect that your colleagues tell you they are going home after a couple of drinks, then sneak off to the party without you.



Phil the list of shit you know fuck all about grows ever longer. I've worked with people who did films for Peckinpah and Roeg, they'll tell stories that will set your hair on end. Now days more than a glass of wine at lunch is considered a no no. Christ back on Michael Collins the camera op had three pints of guinness at lunch. The days of Hal Ashby* cutting with a spliff in one hand are well gone.  



*Ask a grown up who this is.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You do know who Marcia Clark is, right?  If so you might pause to consider whether a woman who could not even convict OJ Simpson is the best available source of legal knowledge.


Don't be obtuse. Marcia Clark is a member of the California Bar and an experienced prosecutor, and eminently qualified to comment on a court transcript. Her success in bringing home a prosecution in a particular trial is neither here nor there and doesn't diminish her credibility. 



phildwyer said:


> In any case, she nowhere denies that the words she quotes are _pro forma_ for a plea bargain.  They are not a "smokescreen."  They are a formulaic recital designed to fulfill legal niceties.  Thus they should not be taken as denying that the judge and Polanski had made an arrangement, all they do is prevent that arrangement from being legally binding.


"Formulaic recital." Marcia Clark makes it clear that this was an exhaustive examination and that the accused was pleading guilty, and expressing his awareness and understanding that no plea bargain existed and that that he was liable for a sentence of up to 25 years for the crime to which he was pleading guilty. Your contention seems to be based on having watched too many US crime dramas. Mine is based on commentary by people who have conducted prosecutions in that legal system.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Your contention seems to be based on having watched too many US crime dramas. Mine is based on commentary by people who have conducted prosecutions in that legal system.



 Now thats a bitchslap down.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Now thats a bitchslap down.



I'm not trying to be rude, but he's basically making stuff up and I'm assuming he's getting it off the telly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Don't be obtuse. Marcia Clark is a member of the California Bar and an experienced prosecutor, and eminently qualified to comment on a court transcript. Her success in bringing home a prosecution in a particular trial is neither here nor there and doesn't diminish her credibility.
> 
> 
> "Formulaic recital." Marcia Clark makes it clear that this was an exhaustive examination and that the accused was pleading guilty, and expressing his awareness and understanding that no plea bargain existed and that that he was liable for a sentence of up to 25 years for the crime to which he was pleading guilty. Your contention seems to be based on having watched too many US crime dramas. Mine is based on commentary by people who have conducted prosecutions in that legal system.



Unlike yourself I live in the USA, and am familiar with its legal system.  Let me assure you that Marcia Clark is a nationwide laughing-stock in the USA, and a veritable by-word for legal incompetence.  As she knows perfectly well, exchanges of the kind she reports are used in every plea bargain.  They are entirely formulaic, as I said.  If they meant anything, no plea bargain would ever be accepted and the US justice system would collapse.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Unlike yourself I live in the USA, and am familiar with its legal system.  Let me assure you that Marcia Clark is a nationwide laughing-stock in the USA, and a veritable by-word for legal incompetence.  As she knows perfectly well, exchanges of the kind she reports are used in every plea bargain.  They are entirely formulaic, as I said.  If they meant anything, no plea bargain would ever be accepted and the US justice system would collapse.



The United States has many legal systems, many very different to each other. I don't put a lot of store in your assurances about the juridical bona fides of a particular US lawyer. You say you live in the USA but you have shown that you don't know much about the law. On the other hand, you probably have access to a lot of telly.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> I'm not trying to be rude, but he's basically making stuff up and I'm assuming he's getting it off the telly.



Phil has been shown up as a persistent liar.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Let me assure you that Marcia Clark is a nationwide laughing-stock in the USA, and a veritable by-word for legal incompetence.



Is she, now? 


> Marcia Rachel Clark gained national prominence as the prosecutor of legendary football player O.J. SIMPSON. Yet, long before the Simpson trial made her famous, Clark had built an enviable legal reputation. The one-time professional dancer left private practice to become a Los Angeles assistant district attorney in 1981, a fortuitous career choice that allowed the 28-year-old lawyer to combine her interest in victim advocacy with powerful preparatory skills and a strong courtroom style. Clark prevailed in 19 successful HOMICIDE prosecutions in just over a decade against such high-profile defendants as the murderer of TV actress Rebecca Schaeffer and Los Angeles vigilante James Hawkins. Colleagues and adversaries alike praise her abilities. She is noted for her ability to critically examine complex SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Is she, now?



Yes she is.  Late-night chat-show hosts only have to mention her name in order to produce hilarity.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes she is.  Late-night chat-show hosts only have to mention her name in order to produce hilarity.



Then it should be easy for you to produce a clip to support this claim.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Then it should be easy for you to produce a clip to support this claim.



Nothing could be easier.  Youtube is censored here in Turkey, so no clips, but this transcript is from the Letterman show.  There are literally thousands of similar jokes about her doing the rounds:


Top Ten Chapter Titles in Marcia Clark's Book


10. My Five Most Romantic Sidebars

9. L.A.P.D. Crime lab Bloopers and Practical Jokes

8. Working with Chris Darling -- Uh, I Mean Darden

7. Every Hour is Happy Hour with F. Lee Bailey

6. Oh Shut Up, Cochran!

5. A $4.2 Million Book Deal? Thanks, O.J.!

4. Keeping in Touch with My Kids, Billy and Um, That Other One

3. Why I Chose Not to Use that Videotape of O.J. Committing the Murders

2. Planting "Evidence" in Chris Darden's Pants

1. Okay, Okay, I'm the Real Killer


From "The Late Show with David Letterman", 05/29/1997

http://www.jokebug.com/joke/top_ten...ten_chapter_titles_in_marcia_clarks_book.html


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I live in the USA.





phildwyer said:


> Youtube is censored here in Turkey



You get around a bit don't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> You get around a bit don't you?



That I do.  Off to Japan on Monday, then Israel in November.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That I do.  Off to Japan on Monday, then Israel in November.



I'm starting to think you're my suitcase?


----------



## Intastella (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes she is.  Late-night chat-show hosts only have to mention her name in order to produce hilarity.



Chat show hosts and their audiences ey? Well, they're the experts, right?

What do her peers say about her?


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Nothing could be easier.  Youtube is censored here in Turkey, so no clips, but this transcript is from the Letterman show.  There are literally thousands of similar jokes about her doing the rounds:
> 
> 
> Top Ten Chapter Titles in Marcia Clark's Book
> ...



So a decade old joke about the media farce surrounding the OJ trial proves she's incompetent? Jesus phil the joke is on you.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

Letterman - isn't he that rich and powerful man who has just been forced to admit that he is a serial exploiter of younger women in the company he controls? I wonder if a pattern is emerging here. 

See, even out here in the sticks we Brits are in touch with the real world of unfunny late night US telly programmes.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

Intastella said:


> Chat show hosts and their audiences ey? Well, they're the experts, right?
> 
> What do her peers say about her?



She's a national laughing stock.  Trust me on this one.  Quoting Marcia Clark on the law is like quoting Harold Shipman on medicine.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> She's a national laughing stock.  Trust me on this one.



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. 

Phil I wouldn't take your word on anything. 




> Quoting Marcia Clark on the law is like quoting Harold Shipman on medicine.



Shipman was a perfectly capable doctor, he just had a thing for murdering people. Simile fail!


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Trust me on this one.


See, there's the problem right there. Whenever someone uses that phrase I make my mind up. I can't help it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Shipman was a perfectly capable doctor, he just had a thing for murdering people. Simile fail!



I think not.  Marcia Clark was a perfectly capable prosecutor, she just had a thing for failing to convict obvious psychopaths who leave their DNA all over the crime scene.

Q: What did OJ Simpson say to Marcia Clark on his way out of the courtroom?
A: Pass me my hat and gloves please.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think not.  Marcia Clark was a perfectly capable prosecutor, she just had a thing for failing to convict obvious psychopaths who leave their DNA all over the crime scene.



If thats you're understanding of what happened during the OJ trial, you once again surpass my understanding of the depth of your stupidity. 

For example Vincent Bugliosi's criticism of Clark centers on the fact that prosecution case spent too much time *focusing on DNA evidence*, and not on more basic things like timeline, past behaviour of OJ towards Nicole etc....


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2009)

My favorite OJ joke:

Q: What did Ron Goldman say to Nicole Simpson in heaven?
A: Here's your fucking sunglasses.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 10, 2009)

I think we're allowing Mr Dwyer to distract us from the point that Marcia Clark was making, which is that Mr Polanski confessed to raping a child, and there was no plea bargain, and that the moral case for him to not be extradited to be sentenced and punished is very weak.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

I was thinking about this. You get these older people sort of vacillating about this, when to a lot of posters, it just seems so obvious. It's like the vacillating posters are defending a pedophile or something.

When I examine my own hesitation, it's because of my awareness of what the times were like back then. I know those things are no excuse, but it's something to consider.

One of the consequences, or one of the constituent parts of the 'countercultural revolution', was an examination of, and often, a jettisoning, of longheld conservative values and morals. It was an attempt to determine what was of value, what was true, and what was useful. People stopped accepting 'because that's how it's done', as a reason or excuse for the various laws or moral strictures.

In a rejection of the conservative society's mores, most everything went out the window, for a time, at least.

Talking about our particular little concern here, I'd mention a book that was in wide release in 1974, called Show Me. I recall thumbing through it in the local bookstore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me!


> Show Me! is a controversial sex education book by photographer Will McBride. It appeared in 1974 in German under the title Zeig Mal!, written with psychiatrist Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt for children and their parents. It was translated into English a year later and was widely available in bookstores on both sides of the Atlantic for many years, but later became subject to expanded child pornography laws in jurisdictions including the United States. In Germany, the book was followed in 1990 by a second edition that included, among other additions, a discussion of the AIDS epidemic.
> 
> 
> While many parents appreciated Show Me! for its frank depiction of pre-adolescents discovering and exploring their sexuality, others called it child pornography. In 1975 and 1976, obscenity charges were brought against the publisher by prosecutors in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Toronto, Canada. In all four cases, the judges ruled as a matter of law that the title was not obscene.



If you search 'show me' on google images, even with the filter off, you'll find the cover, but none of the contents. Because nowadays, the photos inside the book, would get you busted.

At the extremes, were groups such as the Children of God, where there was not only 'free love', but free love practiced by family members, together, including the kids.

I'm not mentioning these things to say that they're right, but to attempt to explain that the temper of the day was much more elastic than now, because the time was in the midst of a reshaping of values. As part of the learning/experimentation process, things went on that ultimately were recognized as not being of value, of not being useful, and in some cases, of not being right, or morally acceptable.

But the clarification of the good from the bad took time. It's arguable that it's still going on today.

But the people of the time, including the prosecutors offering easy plea bargains, the fellow Hollywood types, lots of people, were influenced by the somewhat amoral atmosphere of the times.

That, inelegantly explained, is somewhat of the nature of those times. To us who are older, we remember the 'experimental' nature, the amoral nature of the times, such that it's not startling that Polanski's deeds were met with ambivalence, as opposed to the simple abhorrence and rejection that we would get today. It's the same ethic operating that had some people back then hating Charles Manson, and others lionizing him as a countercultural warrior and hero.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> I think we're allowing Mr Dwyer to distract us from the point that Marcia Clark was making, which is that Mr Polanski confessed to raping a child, and *there was no plea bargain,* and that the moral case for him to not be extradited to be sentenced and punished is very weak.



There was a plea bargain.  That is undeniable.  Whether or not he should escape extradition because of it is a separate question.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> There was a plea bargain.  That is undeniable.  Whether or not he should escape extradition because of it is a separate question.



The point of the process set out painstakingly in the transcript was to make it clear to the world and its significant other that there was no plea bargain. Mr Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime for which the maximum sentence is 25 years imprisonment. So it is not undeniable. And lots of people are, clearly, denying it. There was no plea bargain.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> The point of the process set out painstakingly in the transcript was to make it clear to the world and its significant other that there was no plea bargain. Mr Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime for which the maximum sentence is 25 years imprisonment. So it is not undeniable. And lots of people are, clearly, denying it. There was no plea bargain.



There was a plea bargain.  To my knowledge, Marcia Clark is the only person denying it.  She provides no meaningful evidence, since the exchanges she reports are purely _pro forma._  In any case, she is about the least reliable authority you could possibly have chosen to cite.  There was a plea bargain.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

Phil/Johnny, have you bothered to read the victim's statement?

A child of thirteen was groomed by him. She was lured to a house. She was drugged and raped orally, vaginally and anally. 

He, like so many nonces before and after him used his status to downplay what he had done.

Get t' fuck if you can offer ANY excuse for drugging and raping a child.

Seriously, times were not different then. Her mother bears no responsibility for a paedo-rapist's actions, the girl could not consent.

The US justice system is fucked up, that doesn't mean there are no malfaiteurs in the US. Polanski raped a child. He tried to worm out of it, when his worming looked like it was coming to shit he legged it. 

Fuck him, let him rot. And may the careers and fortunes of the scum that defend him come crashing down too.

Fucking lifetime achievement award, yeah you've achieved to rape a child you sick cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Phil/Johnny, have you bothered to read the victim's statement?
> 
> A child of thirteen was groomed by him. She was lured to a house. She was drugged and raped orally, vaginally and anally.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I won't be joining the rage dance.  I think that attitude leads straight to authoritarianism.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

@Banhoff. It's not about excusing him. What he did was illegal then, as it is now. I was trying to provide a bit of background as to why these things, including public reaction then and now, have developed as they did.

Times were different.

Gary Glitter committed his crimes in recent years. You didn't see any celebrities standing up and asking that he be shown leniency.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but I won't be joining the rage dance.  I think that attitude leads straight to authoritarianism.



So now it's authoritarianism to want to impose sanctions on child rapists? 

Fuck off.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> @Banhoff. It's not about excusing him. What he did was illegal then, as it is now. I was trying to provide a bit of background as to why these things, including public reaction then and now, have developed as they did.
> 
> Times were different.
> 
> Gary Glitter committed his crimes in recent years. You didn't see any celebrities standing up and asking that he be shown leniency.




Times were not different, drugging and raping a child was wrong in the 70's. He used his wealth and celebrity to water down the charges, then shat it off facing up to even those.

Gary Glitter deserved his public shunning, his career wrecked and his jail terms.

Polanski's crime is of a higher order than Glitter's, yet he has some nonce minister in the French government backing him, the luvvies falling over themselves to explain that this was a different sort of child rape to some other type of child rape and he goes to Switzerland to pick up a lifetime achievement award.

Cunt deserves everything that's coming to him.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So now it's authoritarianism to want to impose sanctions on child rapists?
> 
> Fuck off.



No in both cases.  

It's the tangible _relish_ people take in hatred that I find off-putting.  Like once they've found someone they can really, definitely _hate_ and they're pretty sure no-one will criticize them for it, they just let it all hang out shamelessly.  Distasteful I find it.

Also, it does _lead_ to authoritarianism.  Once you say "yes, the justice system is flawed, yes the judge handled the case atrociously, but who cares about the law, let's just lynch the fucker" you're on a very slippery slope, it seems to me.

Finally, are you familiar with the concept of "mitigating circumstances?"  And don't just say "there are no fucking mitigating circumstances, he's a cunt, kill him kill him."  Think about what he's been through.  To me, those are mitigating circumstances.

Then there's the fact that his confession was made in the context of a plea bargain and would presumably not have been made outside that context.  And many other factors I don't have time to mention now.  It's a complicated case.  As in not a simple one.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> @Banhoff. It's not about excusing him. What he did was illegal then, as it is now. I was trying to provide a bit of background as to why these things, including public reaction then and now, have developed as they did.
> 
> Times were different.
> 
> Gary Glitter committed his crimes in recent years. You didn't see any celebrities standing up and asking that he be shown leniency.


I'll allow there was a far more accepting and understanding attitude twoards the sexuality of children and young people back then; but I don't think, even then, that imprisoning, drugging and sodomising a child was seen as a "counter-cultural" value.  

Interesting too, that there's been no allegations of imprisonment, drugging and anal rape of a minor against Glitter.

Glitter looks like a decent and honourable man, compared to Polanski.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Phil/Johnny, have you bothered to read the victim's statement?
> 
> A child of thirteen was groomed by him. She was lured to a house. She was drugged and raped orally, vaginally and anally.



And this is another thing.  The lurid, pornographic fascination with the victim's statement.  While the victim herself has said that it was the media, with its salacious dwelling on such details, that ruined her life--not Polanski.

Everyone seems eager to disregard her wishes on the matter, which is odd for those who claim to be so outraged on her behalf.  She says she understands why he fled, given the judge's treachery.  She believes he's sorry.  She believes he's been punished enough.  She wants the case dropped.

To me, that calls into question the true motives of those who insist that it continue.  I know that the LA prosecutors want it to continue because they _are_ authoritarians and they just want to exercise as much power as they possibly can.  Others, in my opinion, are motivated by pure blood-lust.  Like a public execution.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Times were not different, drugging and raping a child was wrong in the 70's.



I haven't disagreed. I've said, what he did was illegal; a crime. But there are a lot of things about what happened, that are difficult to understand today. The extremely light plea bargain is one example. The apparent continuing support of the arts community is another.

Imo, neither of those things would occur, if a movie producer committed the same crime today.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Polanski's crime is of a higher order than Glitter's, .



Why?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 11, 2009)

> The apparent continuing support of the arts community is another.


Perhaps we have the artists we deserve?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The extremely light plea bargain is one example.



Times haven't really changed there either.  The media were all over the plea bargain at the time, denouncing it as too lenient (which it was).  That is why the judge decided to renege on it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No in both cases.
> 
> It's the tangible _relish_ people take in hatred that I find off-putting.  Like once they've found someone they can really, definitely _hate_ and they're pretty sure no-one will criticize them for it, they just let it all hang out shamelessly.  Distasteful I find it.
> 
> ...



Well here we seem to differ in our opinions. 

I dislike ALL rapists.

I don't believe that there can be mitigating circumstances when it comes to raping a child. Undergoing extremely nasty shit in your life does not entitle you to a free rape.


The plea bargain comes in the context of the victim's statement, the witness statement, his fucking a 15 year old at the time and his own words claiming that everyone wants to fuck children. Dress it up how you like, the universal hate fest directed at this cunt comes about because he raped a child. Sometimes anger and hatred can be justified, when it is directed at child rapists that is such a time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Glitter looks like a decent and honourable man, compared to Polanski.



I don't agree. Whatever cultural ambiguity existed when Polanski committed his crime, did not exist when Glitter committed his.



> He moved to Cambodia but was permanently deported from there in 2002 for suspected child sexual abuse,[19] to Vung Tau in Vietnam.[20] In 2005, he was arrested by Vietnamese authorities, was tried and convicted of child sexual abuse charges in June. He was released from prison on 19 August 2008 and returned to London three days later, after being refused entry into Thailand and Hong Kong.
> 
> Despite having applied for permanent residence in Vietnam, Gary Glitter fled his home on 12 November 2005. Three days later, he was arrested in Ho Chi Minh City while trying to board a flight to Thailand. Six Vietnamese females, aged from 11 to 23, claimed that Glitter had had sex with them; the age of consent in Vietnam is eighteen.[21]



After being deported from one country, Glitter went to another, and kept it up. He also tried to flee, unsuccessfully.

Aside from the public abhorrence of sex crime involving children, there has been a lot of publicity concerning the abuses committed by 'sex tourists' in the third world. There is no ambiguity for Glitter to hide behind.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why?



AFAIK Glitter didn't drug and rape anyone. Whilst kiddie porn and noncing around in Asia is beyond the pale, it is a couple of rungs down the ladder from drugging, raping and sodomising.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I don't believe that there can be mitigating circumstances when it comes to raping a child. Undergoing extremely nasty shit in your life does not entitle you to a free rape.



But that is the whole point about mitigating circumstances.  They do not expunge guilt, they _mitigate_ it.  It's really not that difficult a concept.  Nothing to do with "a free rape"--why would you even say such a thing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> AFAIK Glitter didn't drug and rape anyone. Whilst kiddie porn and noncing around in Asia is beyond the pale, it is a couple of rungs down the ladder from drugging, raping and sodomising.



No, he didn't drug anyone. He went to third world countries where people are so poor that they will look the other way when their children are used for sex in return for money.

It's not drugging. It's first world affluence having its way in the third world, with people too poor to refuse.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well here we seem to differ in our opinions.
> 
> I dislike ALL rapists.



And I don't?  That is the "difference of opinion" you see here?

I'm strongly tempted to use the language you've been using.


----------



## subversplat (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I don't believe that there can be mitigating circumstances when it comes to raping a child. Undergoing extremely nasty shit in your life does not entitle you to a free rape.



_A rape for a rape and the whole world's_, well, you get the idea.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Undergoing extremely nasty shit in your life



Perhaps it's also worth differentiating between "undergoing extremely nasty shit" and "being directly and personally victimized by the two most evil men of the twentieth century."

Seriously: mother murdered by Hitler, wife and child murdered by Charles Manson.

That goes beyond bad luck.  The man is cursed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

Phil.



> Mitigate
> 
> –verb (used with object) 1. to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate.
> 2. to make less severe: to mitigate a punishment.
> ...



So in your world being among the millions persecuted by the Nazis and having a wife murdered somehow lessens the severity of drugging and raping a child?

Sorry but that holds no water.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Perhaps it's also worth differentiating between "undergoing extremely nasty shit" and "being directly and personally victimized by the two most evil men of the twentieth century."
> 
> Seriously: mother murdered by Hitler, wife and child murdered by Charles Manson.
> 
> That goes beyond bad luck.  The man is cursed.



And that affects his drugging and raping a child how?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No, he didn't drug anyone. He went to third world countries where people are so poor that they will look the other way when their children are used for sex in return for money.
> 
> It's not drugging. It's first world affluence having its way in the third world, with people too poor to refuse.



And he has been imprisoned for his crimes, twice. He's also currently not allowed to leave the UK.

What he did is wrong and deserving of the punishments meted out to him.

And what Polanski did is deserving of punishment, something he's evaded for decades, but the bell is now tolling.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So in your world being among the millions persecuted by the Nazis and having a wife murdered somehow lessens the severity of drugging and raping a child?



Of the crime, no.  Of the punishment, yes.  

You say that millions were persecuted by the Nazis, but how many of those millions also had their 8-months pregnant wife hacked to death by the Manson family?

None, that's how many.

Obviously a life that profoundly tragic is going to cause mental disturbance.  Which is why Polanski was sent for psychiatric evaluation, and presumably why that evaluation resulted in his being offered an incredibly generous plea bargain.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of the crime, no.  Of the punishment, yes.



So if your daughter is drugged, raped and sodomised you'd be OK with the rapist being treated leniently cos he had bad shit happen to him in the past?

Fine if that's your position, it is not mine.



> You say that millions were persecuted by the Nazis, but how many of those millions also had their 8-months pregnant wife hacked to death by the Manson family?
> 
> None, that's how many.



And that mitigates rape does it? 



> Obviously a life that profoundly tragic is going to cause mental disturbance.  Which is why Polanski was sent for psychiatric evaluation, and presumably why that evaluation resulted in his being offered an incredibly generous plea bargain.




So now you're resorting to making up facts and skewing the timeline of events to make apologies for a child rapist. Nice.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It's not about making excuses, but if you don't think his utterly horrific experiences have had an effect on his psyche, you're more of a nutter than he is.


Unless they robbed Polanski of the ability to tell right from wrong, or made him physically incapable of controlling himself, their effect on his psyche is irrelevant. Given that he was able to direct several masterpieces, he clearly isn't too debilitated in general, is he? 

The grand jury testimony describes premeditation and calculation, not the actions of a crazed man acting on impulse.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So if your daughter is drugged, raped and sodomised you'd be OK with the rapist being treated leniently cos he had bad shit happen to him in the past?



Of course not.  But if it was my daughter, I wouldn't be in a position to evaluate the case rationally, would I?  We don't administer justice on the principle of _wergeld_ any more.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And that mitigates rape does it?



Of course it does.  If you accept the idea of mitigation in principle, which our justice system certainly does, then it must apply to every crime.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So now you're resorting to making up facts and skewing the timeline of events to make apologies for a child rapist. Nice.



No I'm not.  You don't actually know much about this case at all, do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No I'm not.



it wouldn't be the first time you'd made something up.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Unless they robbed Polanski of the ability to tell right from wrong, or made him physically incapable of controlling himself, their effect on his psyche is irrelevant. Given that he was able to direct several masterpieces, he clearly isn't too debilitated in general, is he?



On the contrary.  His films are clearly the product of a profoundly disturbed mind--and disturbed quite specifically over the issue of sexuality, and even more specifically over the issue of the violation of female innocence.  Have you ever seen "Repulsion" or "Tess of the D'Ubervilles?"  They are practically cries for help.  The guy is twisted, and given his biography it is not hard to see why.



Azrael said:


> The grand jury testimony describes premeditation and calculation, not the actions of a crazed man acting on impulse.



They describe a crazed man acting with premeditation and calculation.  Crazed men are more than capable of such action, you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of the crime, no.  Of the punishment, yes.
> 
> You say that millions were persecuted by the Nazis, but how many of those millions also had their 8-months pregnant wife hacked to death by the Manson family?
> 
> ...


what about poor charles manson, who never really had a chance in life? eh?


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 11, 2009)

You might find it enlightening to sit in on a daily court session some time. Every single person in the dock has a sob story of some sort. Every single one. Some of them are pretty horrific. Polanski is not a special case.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> You might find it enlightening to sit in on a daily court session some time. Every single person in the dock has a sob story of some sort. Every single one. Some of them are pretty horrific. Polanski is not a special case.



I beg to differ.  Polanski's personal history is just about the most tragic I have ever heard.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I beg to differ.  Polanski's personal history is just about the most tragic I have ever heard.



That's because you're not a copper or a magistrate


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I beg to differ.  Polanski's personal history is just about the most tragic I have ever heard.




Probably because as someone who became famous, his story has been heard, as opposed to the equally tragic stories of those who never became famous which were never heard individually, but became statistics of for example, the Holocaust..


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> That's because you're not a copper or a magistrate



If anyone has a history remotely comparable to Polanski's, they should certainly use it in mitigation for any crime they commit.  But I really can't imagine that many do.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> Probably because as someone who became famous, his story has been heard, as opposed to the equally tragic stories of those who never became famous which were never heard individually, but became statistics of for example, the Holocaust..



The Holocaust _and_ the Manson murders?

That's pretty rough, you have to admit it.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 11, 2009)

yeah i would think you can fuck anyone you want after that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I beg to differ.  Polanski's personal history is just about the most tragic I have ever heard.


what about primo levi or thadeusz borowski?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> yeah i would think you can fuck anyone you want after that.


phildwyer's certainly fucked.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The Holocaust _and_ the Manson murders?
> 
> That's pretty rough, you have to admit it.



I didn't say it wasn't, but unless you're suggesting he is the only victim of the Holocaust who suffered subsequent tragedy, then your point doesn't stand. It's just that his story is known..


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 11, 2009)

we need a tragic meter, so you know when you can rape kids...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> I didn't say it wasn't, but unless you're suggesting he is the only victim of the Holocaust who suffered subsequent tragedy, then your point doesn't stand. It's just that his story is known..



Realistically, how many victims of the Holocaust also had their 8-month pregnant wives hacked to death by maniacs?

OK, perhaps a very few did, or suffered comparable tragedies.  If so, I've no doubt that they suffered severe psychological damage as a result of their experiences.

I don't see how that is disputable. 

Now, if you want to argue that the perpetrator's personal history should not be taken into account when he is sentenced for a crime, that is another matter.  It would be a very unusual and in my view an absurd argument, but it makes more sense than saying Polanski's experiences left him just fine and dandy.

Do you want to make that argument?  Does anyone?


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 11, 2009)

I want to know how tragic my life has to be before i can rape a 13 year old up the bum please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> I want to know how tragic my life has to be before i can rape a 13 year old up the bum please.


you've encountered phildwyer so it's already had an element of tragedy injected into it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> I want to know how tragic my life has to be before i can rape a 13 year old up the bum please.



I suspect you're very nearly there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Realistically, how many victims of the Holocaust also had their 8-month pregnant wives hacked to death by maniacs?
> 
> OK, perhaps a very few did, or suffered comparable tragedies.  If so, I've no doubt that they suffered severe psychological damage as a result of their experiences.
> 
> ...


seems to me that manson was rather harsher on sharon tate than on roman polanski.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 11, 2009)

Safe


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Realistically, how many victims of the Holocaust also had their 8-month pregnant wives hacked to death by maniacs?
> 
> OK, perhaps a very few did, or suffered comparable tragedies.  If so, I've no doubt that they suffered severe psychological damage as a result of their experiences.
> 
> ...



I haven't said nor would I say that. 

I'm disputing your comment that places his background as unique by saying that he is not the only Holocaust survivor to have suffered personal tragedy afterwards. 

Personally I don't believe that gives him carte blanche to sodomise minors, if only because that response to what happened to him is not an automatic response of all victims and was therefore avoidable.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 11, 2009)

as i said we need a tragic meter, then we all know when it's ok.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> I haven't said nor would I say that.
> 
> I'm disputing your comment that places his background as unique by saying that he is not the only Holocaust survivor to have suffered personal tragedy afterwards.
> 
> Personally I don't believe that gives him carte blanche to sodomise minors, if only because that response to what happened to him is not an automatic response of all victims and was therefore avoidable.



Hence the concept of _mitigation,_ as opposed to _exoneration._ 

I know such subtle distinctions are lost on many, but I would not have ranked you among them.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Hence the concept of _mitigation,_ as opposed to _exoneration._
> 
> I know such subtle distinctions are lost on many, but I would not have ranked you among them.



Thank you. I've patted myself on the head. I don't agree with the view you're expressing.

I'm more than happy to accept mitigation, but not the argument his suffering was unique nor that he of all victims didn't have the opportunity to address the psychological fallout before committing the act, which seemed to be both pre-meditated and part of a pattern of behaviour.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And he has been imprisoned for his crimes, twice. He's also currently not allowed to leave the UK.
> 
> What he did is wrong and deserving of the punishments meted out to him.
> 
> And what Polanski did is deserving of punishment, something he's evaded for decades, but the bell is now tolling.



I was responding to this comment by you, which I disagreed with.



> Polanski's crime is of a higher order than Glitter's,


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Unless they robbed Polanski of the ability to tell right from wrong, or made him physically incapable of controlling himself, their effect on his psyche is irrelevant. Given that he was able to direct several masterpieces, he clearly isn't too debilitated in general, is he?
> 
> The grand jury testimony describes premeditation and calculation, not the actions of a crazed man acting on impulse.




As phil said, prior circumstances/condition won't go to the issue of guilt, but to possible mitigation wrt sentencing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me that manson was rather harsher on sharon tate than on roman polanski.



What does that mean?

I'm finding hard to understand this incredible sangfroid about someone who barely survived the holocaust, only to have his eight months pregnant wife stabbed to death a couple of decades later. And to make matters worse, because he's famous, the photos of the death scene were in papers, and are available on the internet.

Most people who have family members murdered, don't have reminders like that to bring it back, over and over.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> I'm disputing your comment that places his background as unique by saying that he is not the only Holocaust survivor to have suffered personal tragedy afterwards. .



I haven't read a post by phil claiming that Polanski's past is unique. He is saying that it is horrific.


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I haven't read a post by phil claiming that Polanski's past is unique. He is saying that it is horrific.



It shouldnt be completely mitigating though. Polanski's actions were premeditated, he sought legal advise, and plea guilt, then was documented wandering around with a 15 year old girl, after the trial but before sentencing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What does that mean?


sharon tate died. which is in anyone's book pretty fucking harsh.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> sharon tate died. which is in anyone's book pretty fucking harsh.



Yes she did. And as a result, those who survived her, are left with grief.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> It shouldnt be completely mitigating though. Polanski's actions were premeditated, he sought legal advise, and plea guilt, then was documented wandering around with a 15 year old girl, after the trial but before sentencing.



Not sure that anyone has said they should be completely mitigating, but just that they're something to take into account at time of sentencing, along with a number of other factors.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The Holocaust _and_ the Manson murders?
> 
> That's pretty rough, you have to admit it.





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I haven't read a post by phil claiming that Polanski's past is unique. He is saying that it is horrific.



There you go JC2.. unless you're saying there was another victim of both the Holocaust and the Manson murders (semantics I know, but phil I believe took the points on board)?

On the point of mitigation, I would accept it had his crime or any crime for that matter been commited against one of the Manson family, including Kasabian, either then or any time afterwards, but to sodomise a minor 8 years after the murders, when he of all victims would have had more of an opportunity to avoid such a scenario, and for his relationship with other minors, seems to me at least, not to warrant mitigation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes she did. And as a result, those who survived her, are left with grief.


what proportion of people who've lost family members then turn to minors to assuage their grief? frankly if sharon tate had lived much longer she'd have found out some rather disturbing things about her husband.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 12, 2009)

Maybe Polanski could have another go at 'Twinkie Defence'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> There you go JC2.. unless you're saying there was another victim of both the Holocaust and the Manson murders (semantics I know, but phil I believe took the points on board)?



Isn't he saying that it was......rough?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> On the point of mitigation, I would accept it had his crime or any crime for that matter been commited against one of the Manson family, including Kasabian, either then or any time afterwards, but to sodomise a minor 8 years after the murders, when he of all victims would have had more of an opportunity to avoid such a scenario, and for his relationship with other minors, seems to me at least, not to warrant mitigation.



If he comes back to the US and stands trial, we'll see what the judge makes of that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what proportion of people who've lost family members then turn to minors to assuage their grief? .



Likely an infinitesimal number. That wasn't the point, I believe. I think the point was that he had had a horrific life, and one of the components, was the murder of his eight months pregnant wife.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 12, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You say that millions were persecuted by the Nazis, but how many of those millions also had their 8-months pregnant wife hacked to death by the Manson family?
> 
> None, that's how many.



That's the 'unique' quote JC2..



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I haven't read a post by phil claiming that Polanski's past is unique. He is saying that it is horrific.





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If he comes back to the US and stands trial, we'll see what the judge makes of that.



As I said very clearly, waiting 8 years after the event to sodomise a minor, and then claim mitigation doesn't fit with me. He had plenty of opportunity to access help etc., avoid it becoming a pattern of behaviour.

Yes, I guess we will see what the judiciary thinks, but I'm expressing my opinion, not speaking on behalf of any official body. So my opinion doesn't actually matter..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> That's the 'unique' quote JC2..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, your opinion matters to you.  What I'm getting at is, does the court agree with you that these things shouldn't be taken into account? Maybe we'll get to see.

As for unique, the specific details of Polanski's life are pretty unique. But if you get down to that level of detail, all of our lives are unique.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2009)

Fucking hell this thread is fucked up.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 12, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I beg to differ.  Polanski's personal history is just about the most tragic I have ever heard.





paulhackett66 said:


> Probably because as someone who became famous, his story has been heard, as opposed to the equally tragic stories of those who never became famous which were never heard individually, but became statistics of for example, the Holocaust..





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Well, your opinion matters to you.  What I'm getting at is, does the court agree with you that these things shouldn't be taken into account? Maybe we'll get to see.
> 
> As for unique, the specific details of Polanski's life are pretty unique. But if you get down to that level of detail, all of our lives are unique.



That's our original exchange above.. I felt phil was overstating the point in defence of his argument, to the extent where his defence was losing some validity, rather than looking objectively at the case. I'm not denying the awfulness of what happened to him, simply saying that his fame gave him disadvantages and advantages.

Without wanting to be repetitive, I think the timescales involved and the act(s) would lessen mitigation.

Like everyone else on here, including you, I'm just expressing an opinion, and making no claims to know how the judiciary will view the case today, although I did earlier draw parallels with Ronnie Biggs. 

I am certain you know more about the US judiciary than me, so it's pointless me trying to engage with you on that.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 12, 2009)

I find it very difficult to see how any court could reasonably be persuaded that there are any mitigating factors to either Polanski's crime or his subsequent behaviour.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 12, 2009)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dzy93
On tonight on BBC4 at 23:25


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> I am certain you know more about the US judiciary than me, so it's pointless me trying to engage with you on that.



Don't be too certain about that: I'm a Canadian, after all.

As for the amount of time passing, I don't know how much time it would take to heal from living through the events of the Holocaust, or to heal after your pregnant wife has been stabbed to death.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 13, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> On the contrary.  His films are clearly the product of a profoundly disturbed mind--and disturbed quite specifically over the issue of sexuality, and even more specifically over the issue of the violation of female innocence.  Have you ever seen "Repulsion" or "Tess of the D'Ubervilles?"  They are practically cries for help.  The guy is twisted, and given his biography it is not hard to see why.


You can apply vague words like "twisted" and "profoundly disturbed" to Polanski all you like, but only things are relevant: did he know it was wrong and illegal to have sex with a 13-year-old girl; and was he capable of stopping himself?   

If the answer to both is yes, then his background is a smokescreen. 


> They describe a crazed man acting with premeditation and calculation.  Crazed men are more than capable of such action, you know.


True. And crazed men can be held criminally liable if they made a deliberate choice to commit a crime.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2009)

Azrael said:


> You can apply vague words like "twisted" and "profoundly disturbed" to Polanski all you like, but only things are relevant: did he know it was wrong and illegal to have sex with a 13-year-old girl; and was he capable of stopping himself?  .



Are those the only two considerations? How do we determine if he was capable of stopping himself? Are you paraphrasing mens rea and actus reus?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Don't be too certain about that: I'm a Canadian, after all.
> 
> As for the amount of time passing, I don't know how much time it would take to heal from living through the events of the Holocaust, or to heal after your pregnant wife has been stabbed to death.



I'm sure every rapist if you asked them would have some sort of sob story, it doesn't really excuse what they did. And most holocaust survivors also lived through other tragedies in their lives, it doesn't mean that they went around raping people


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I'm sure every rapist if you asked them would have some sort of sob story, it doesn't really excuse what they did. And most holocaust survivors also lived through other tragedies in their lives, it doesn't mean that they went around raping people



Which is the point I brought up about prostitutes. Most prostitutes tell of sexual abuse when they were young. But as it turns out, approx 25% of women have undergone some form of underage sexual abuse. But the fact that most women do not  become prostitutes, does not mean that the sexual abuse wasn't a factor for those who did become prostitutes.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

I find this fucking offensive tbh. It's claiming that a rapist should be let off because of his past. If we started examining the "tragic past" or everyone who had ever committed a crime we wouldn't be sending anyone to jail and we'd all gather round and start singing kum ba ya 

or something


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I find this fucking offensive tbh. It's claiming that a rapist should be let off because of his past. If we started examining the "tragic past" or everyone who had ever committed a crime we wouldn't be sending anyone to jail and we'd all gather round and start singing kum ba ya
> 
> or something


terrifying them with our close harmony singing


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)




----------



## Azrael (Oct 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Are those the only two considerations? How do we determine if he was capable of stopping himself? Are you paraphrasing mens rea and actus reus?


I'm paraphrasing the common law position on insanity (M'Naghten Rules, which of course involve _mens rea_), and modifications by certain jurisdictions to expand it to include irresistible impulse. As to how the latter works in practice, you'd have to ask them.

Those are the only relevant criteria I can think of. Are there others you think should be considered?


----------



## Azrael (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I'm sure every rapist if you asked them would have some sort of sob story, it doesn't really excuse what they did. And most holocaust survivors also lived through other tragedies in their lives, it doesn't mean that they went around raping people


Art Spiegelman's _Maus_ made this point nicely, when Vladek Speignman's neighbours, fellow survivors, pointed out that the Holocaust hadn't turned them or anyone else they knew into embittered old misers. Some people are just like that. Just as some people think it's OK to have sex with 13-year-old girls, skip bail, and go on the lamb for 30 years.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I find this fucking offensive tbh. It's claiming that a rapist should be let off because of his past. If we started examining the "tragic past" or everyone who had ever committed a crime we wouldn't be sending anyone to jail and we'd all gather round and start singing kum ba ya
> 
> or something



An issue often raised in cases where a woman kills her husband, is the 'tragic past'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Art Spiegelman's _Maus_ made this point nicely, when Vladek Speignman's neighbours, fellow survivors, pointed out that the Holocaust hadn't turned them or anyone else they knew into embittered old misers. Some people are just like that. Just as some people think it's OK to have sex with 13-year-old girls, skip bail, and go on the lamb for 30 years.



Unfortunately though, some people are possessed of a thin skull.


----------



## Thora (Oct 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> An issue often raised in cases where a woman kills her husband, is the 'tragic past'.



Killing an abuser after years of abuse is different to killing someone because of something unrelated in your past.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2009)

Thora said:


> Killing an abuser after years of abuse is different to killing someone because of something unrelated in your past.



But it boils down to individual psychological makeup. Many women are abused, but don't kill their spouses. There are other choices, but for some, their personal makeup leads them to commit murder. 

If Polanski had raped the thirteen year old daughter of an ex concentration camp commander, would you consider that to be an extenuating circumstance worthy of consideration?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 15, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But it boils down to individual psychological makeup. Many women are abused, but don't kill their spouses. There are other choices, but for some, their personal makeup leads them to commit murder.
> 
> If Polanski had raped the thirteen year old daughter of an ex concentration camp commander, would you consider that to be an extenuating circumstance worthy of consideration?



Someone killing their abuser could well have no other choice and/or no control over there own actions. i.e. they are driven to utter despair and desperation. 

Polanski drugging and raping a kid (or anyone with a fucked up past going on to  fuck up other people) is in no way a comparable situation.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> Someone killing their abuser could well have no other choice and/or no control over there own actions. i.e. they are driven to utter despair and desperation.
> 
> Polanski drugging and raping a kid (or anyone with a fucked up past going on to  fuck up other people) is in no way a comparable situation.



No one said it was. It's a general question as to whether or not the prior history of a criminal can or should be relevant at any point in the proceedings.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 15, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> Polanski drugging and raping a kid (or anyone with a fucked up past going on to  fuck up other people) is in no way a comparable situation.


Likewise, someone so traumatised by abuse that they rely on heroin to block it out is different to someone who runs a protection racket and happens to have been abused. 

There can be no general rule when it comes to prior history being a mitigating factor. Each case must be taken on its merits.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 15, 2009)

so no grief meter then


----------



## 8den (Oct 15, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No one said it was. It's a general question as to whether or not the prior history of a criminal can or should be relevant at any point in the proceedings.



Hands shovel. Try digging up.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> An issue often raised in cases where a woman kills her husband, is the 'tragic past'.



How on earth are becoming a prostitute or killing an abusive husband comparable to rape. 

If you're talking about a woman who herself abuses her husband and kills him as a result of the abuse she is inflicting or because he "looked at another girl",  then you might have a point.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> How on earth are becoming a prostitute or killing an abusive husband comparable to rape.
> 
> If you're talking about a woman who herself abuses her husband and kills him as a result of the abuse she is inflicting or because he "looked at another girl",  then you might have a point.



Nobody said that they were comparable. The original question was, should a person's prior history be relevant, or taken into consideration, at any stage of criminal proceedings.

How those people bear something in common, is that at some point, they might end up being referred to as 'the accused'.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2009)

btw does anyone know johnny depp's position on it - did he come out for/against?


----------



## Pie 1 (Oct 21, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> > Originally Posted by Bahnhof Strasse  View Post
> > Seems that he fucked up this time.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, well
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/21/roman-polanski-tipoff-from-swiss-officials


----------



## weltweit (Nov 25, 2009)

Polanski has been granted bail in Switzerland of $4.5 million


----------



## Azrael (Nov 25, 2009)

That's about half a movie fee, isn't it? 

Mad decision. What's the Swiss definition of "flight risk"?  Still, at least Polanski spent a few months in lock-up, and he hasn't been released yet. Hope the Justice Ministry stick in an appeal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2009)

It'd be an expensive runner if he tried to outrun the law again, at 4.5 large.

Who knows though, maybe he can afford that.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2009)

Under his bail conditions, Polanski will have an electronic tag and live in his Swiss house, under house arrest.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 26, 2009)

Switzerland joined the Schengen Agreement in 2008, so I guess it depends how close Polanski's house is to the (open) French border. CNN and the like could have another OJ chase on their hands.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 26, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Under his bail conditions, Polanski will have an electronic tag and live in his Swiss house, under house arrest.


I assume there's some mechanism in place to stop him putting the tag on his dog and doing a runner for the French border…


----------



## Giles (Nov 26, 2009)

If I was him I would be tempted to f*** off. I mean, he's 76. 

However much money he's got, he can't take it with him, and the thought of dying in some US prison cannot be pleasant.

Giles..


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2009)

Giles said:


> If I was him I would be tempted to f*** off. I mean, he's 76.
> 
> However much money he's got, he can't take it with him, and the thought of dying in some US prison cannot be pleasant.
> 
> Giles..



But, I mean there is no history of him running from the law before ... 

Oh, but that is how this whole darned thing started ... 

Yes, I think he might be tempted to fuck off .. They have retained his passport but I am not sure that is needed to go from Switzerland to France, is it?


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 26, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It'd be an expensive runner if he tried to outrun the law again, at 4.5 large.
> 
> Who knows though, maybe he can afford that.


----------



## Giles (Nov 26, 2009)

The Octagon said:


>



If that twat knocked on my door I would shoot him in the face, straight off.

He deserves it just for the hairstyle.

Giles..


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2009)

and the red-necked racism


----------



## weltweit (Dec 22, 2009)

US court rejects Polanski appeal over sex case 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8425538.stm




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> Film director Roman Polanski's attempt to have his sex case dismissed has been rejected by a California appeals court.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 10, 2010)

*Roman Polanski asks to be sentenced in absentia *
Film director Roman Polanski has asked a judge in Los Angeles to sentence him in absentia over the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8444869.stm


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 10, 2010)

weltweit said:


> *Roman Polanski asks to be sentenced in absentia *
> Film director Roman Polanski has asked a judge in Los Angeles to sentence him in absentia over the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8444869.stm





> A California appeals court last month rejected Mr Polanski's request to have the case dropped on the grounds of judicial misconduct.
> 
> But it ruled that the allegations of misconduct were "extremely serious" and should be investigated.
> 
> ...




..............................


----------



## weltweit (Jan 10, 2010)

Oh, I missed that bit :-(


----------



## T & P (Jul 12, 2010)

Well well... the Swiss authorities have decided to deny the extradition request by the US, and have lifted the house arrest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10601930.stm


Quelle fucking surprise...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2010)

LOL, nazi gold? yes please. Drug money stained in the blood of a hundred turf murders? yes please. 

'Give me your nonces, your drug dealers and your practitioners of genocide. So long as they pay.'


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

The Swiss are not handing him over it seems. 

The Swiss government declared Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting the US extradition request.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

Oh, already posted ^


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

Badgers said:


> The Swiss are not handing him over it seems.
> 
> The Swiss government declared Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting the US extradition request.



Good for them.  An all-too rare one in the eye for the law'n'order fanatics.


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Good for them.  An all-too rare one in the eye for the law'n'order fanatics.



what an unsurprising post


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 12, 2010)

This is why Raoul Moat should have become a celebrity _before_ his violent spree


----------



## Gromit (Jul 12, 2010)

US: He's a naughty man, give him to us.

Swiss: Okay we got him, send your proof.

US: Nah we can't be bothered, just take our word for it. We are the mighty US and you should comply in fear of our mightyness.

Swiss: Nah sod off.

US: Please?

Swiss: Send the details.

US: It s in the mail.

Swiss: We're waiting.

US: we sent it honest.

Swiss: Look this is costing us a fortune, sod it we'll just let him go.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 12, 2010)




----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Good for them.  An all-too rare one in the eye for the law'n'order fanatics.



Yes, because didling 13-years-olds is the same as sticking it to "the man."


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Good for them.  An all-too rare one in the eye for the law'n'order fanatics.



Oh aye, take that state and capital, rich and celebrated man continues to escape prosecution for drugging and anally raping an underage girl.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

> The Swiss said US authorities failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.


Here is the excuse



> The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.


Here is the reason

So the convicted nonce get to walk, lets not forget he was "originally charged with six offences including rape and sodomy, pleaded guilty to unlawful sex following a plea bargain"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2010)

in fairness to the massive nonce, and he doesn't really deserve any but lets have the facts, he done one cos the US were going to renege on the plea bargain and jail him for ever.

I'd like to see Polanski on 'to catch a predator'


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

He should get the added monica Roman _Slippery_ Polanski!


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> in fairness to the massive nonce, and he doesn't really deserve any but lets have the facts, he done one cos the US were going to renege on the plea bargain and jail him for ever.



Yep.  He's served his time, his victim says he should be freed, the Swiss authorities say he should be freed, basically everyone except the crazed US prosecutors and a few bigots on here say he should be freed, and thus freed he shall be.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  He's served his time, his victim says he should be freed, the Swiss authorities say he should be freed, basically everyone except the crazed US prosecutors and a few bigots on here say he should be freed, and thus freed he shall be.



yeah us bigots and our prejudices against anal rapists.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> in fairness to the massive nonce, and he doesn't really deserve any but lets have the facts, *he done one cos the US were going to renege on the plea bargain and jail him for ever.
> *
> I'd like to see Polanski on 'to catch a predator'


Do you have a source for that?

My understanding was that he fled prior to sentencing and no sentence was given, he ran because the Judge told his lawyer that he thought a prison sentence was in order.

A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Apparently, because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

I think he should be punished. 

Sends the right message out to other would be kiddie fiddlers!


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  He's served his time, his victim says he should be freed, the Swiss authorities say he should be freed, basically everyone except the crazed US prosecutors and a few bigots on here say he should be freed, and thus freed he shall be.


So for you 42 days out of a 90 day psychiatric evaluation at the Chino state prison, is him serving his time.

You think that is an aproprate sentance for someone charged with rape of a child (she was 13) rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

I hope it never happens to your child, I think you would expect more from the justice system than 42 days in a psyc-ward


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

1%er said:


> So for you 42 days out of a 90 day psychiatric evaluation at the Chino state prison, is him serving his time.
> 
> You think that is an aproprate sentance for someone charged with rape of a child (she was 13) rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.



I don't know the facts of the case, so can't say whether it was an appropriate sentence.

It was the sentence, however.  And the sentence was served.  That should have been the end of the matter.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I don't know the facts of the case, so can't say whether it was an appropriate sentence.
> 
> It was the sentence, however.  And the sentence was served.  That should have been the end of the matter.



You've some odd beliefs but I never had you down as the kind of coward who thinks justice begins and ends with a court decision.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 12, 2010)

You still trolling Dwyer? What a fucking surprise!


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> *I don't know the facts of the case,* so can't say whether it was an appropriate sentence.
> 
> It was the sentence, however.  And the sentence was served.  That should have been the end of the matter.


hahahahahahahaha you really are a fool 

He was not sentenced for fuck sake!

The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time, in response the film maker was ordered to a 90 day psychiatric evaluation at the Chino state prison, that was not his sentence.

Why I am even bothering 

So you admit you don't know the facts but in some schoolboy sort of way you think this is a good way at getting back at America and its legal system to allow a convicted child rapist to get away free.

I think maybe you need a psychiatric evaluation


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 12, 2010)

Stobart Stopper said:


> You still trolling Dwyer? What a fucking surprise!



I always wondered why people automatically said "Fuck off, Dwyer" every time he posted.  It's totally clear now.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

Interesting though that France does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. 

I wonder if it has been mentioned in Obama meetings with the French.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

Stobart Stopper said:


> You still trolling Dwyer? What a fucking surprise!



Long time Stobes, where you bin?


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Interesting though that France does not have an extradition treaty with the USA.
> 
> I wonder if it has been mentioned in Obama meetings with the French.


Isn't there some sort of European extradition treaty with the USA? I have no idea but it seems to me that someone has missed a trick there if there isn't one


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

1%er said:


> hahahahahahahaha you really are a fool
> 
> He was not sentenced for fuck sake!
> 
> ...



The facts of the case are these:

1.  A plea bargain was struck, with the full support of prosecution, defense and victim.
2.  The bargain was reneged upon by a publicity-hungry judge.
3.  Polanski had every right to flee under the circumstances.
4.  The Swiss authorities agree that he has served his time.
5.  He is a free man.
6.  And a good thing too.

There is really no more to be said on the matter.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

1%er said:


> Isn't there some sort of European extradition treaty with the USA? I have no idea but it seems to me that someone has missed a trick there if there isn't one



Well as I understand it Polanski has been restricting his movements to only places from which he thought he could not be extradited. His visit to Switzerland must have been an oversight on his behalf because they patently have a treaty, now at least.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> The facts of the case are these:
> 
> 1.  A plea bargain was struck, with the full support of prosecution, defense and victim.
> 2.  The bargain was reneged upon by a publicity-hungry judge.
> ...



I take it you don't have children dwyer? 

Particularly not young girls? 

I think if you did you might think differently. 

He needs punishing, his evading justice just gives succour to others.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I take it you don't have children dwyer?
> 
> Particularly not young girls?
> 
> ...



These are the facts:

A.  He did not evade justice.  He stood trial and was sentenced by the court.
B.  He complied in full with the terms of that sentence.
C.  Just as he was due to be freed, a weird judge decided to renege on the terms.
D.  His flight was fully supported by all in possession of the facts.
E.  He has lived a blameless life for over 30 years.
F.  The Swiss court has freed him of their own free will.
G.  He is free.

And there the matter should rest.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> These are the facts:
> 
> A.  He did not evade justice.  He stood trial and was sentenced by the court.



Your point A. The fact is that he skipped the country before he was sentenced. He was not sentenced. 

He should be sentenced and serve his sentence, in the USA where he did the crime.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

Why are you so keen to stand up for a paedophile dwyer?


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> *I don't know the facts of the case*, so can't say whether it was an appropriate sentence.
> 
> It was the sentence, however.  And the sentence was served.  That should have been the end of the matter.


You said the above less than an hour before writting this,



phildwyer said:


> The facts of the case are these:
> 
> 1.  A plea bargain was struck, with the full support of prosecution, defense and victim.
> 2.  The bargain was reneged upon by a publicity-hungry judge.
> ...


and you are wrong in some respect on every "fact" you claim above.

But the answer to where you are wrong in some respect in each of your "facts" is in this thread, so you don't have to look far


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Why are you so keen to stand up for a paedophile dwyer?



Why are you so keen to deny the verdict of two separate courts of law?  Do you think you know better?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Why are you so keen to deny the verdict of two separate courts of law?  Do you think you know better?



The only court that has given a verdict is the Swiss one just now. The original US case never gave its sentence because the revolting Polanski had already fled.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 12, 2010)

weltweit said:


> The only court that has given a verdict is the Swiss one just now. The original US case never gave its sentence because the revolting Polanski had already fled.



I think anyone would have fled under the circumstances.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> These are the facts:
> 
> A.  He did not evade justice.  He stood trial and was sentenced by the court.
> B.  He complied in full with the terms of that sentence.
> ...



That isn't right. He skipped before sentencing. The judge advised him his time at a mental institution (he was sent there pre-sentencing) would be taken into account, and the parole board both recommended a non-custodial sentence, but this was not an agreement.

You may be confusing this with the plea-bargain which led to four of the charges being dropped - to preserve the victims anonymity - on the agreement that Polanski would accept a statutory rape charge.

Irrespective of his body of work, he drugged and sodomised a thirteen year old girl. He initiially pleaded not guilty, despite later accepting his guilt. He legged it under threat of a mere 90 day sentence, has demonstrated little remorse and a lot of self-pity, and it took him a decade to get round to paying the full amount to Geimer after he lost the civil case in the late 80's. It's pretty hard to paint a sympathetic case without falling back on the 'oh but he's a wonderful director' bullshit.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I think anyone would have fled under the circumstances.



Ah right in that case it's fine


----------



## Belushi (Jul 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Irrespective of his body of work, he drugged and sodomised a thirteen year old girl. He initiially pleaded not guilty, despite later accepting his guilt. He legged it under threat of a mere 90 day sentence, has demonstrated little remorse and a lot of self-pity, and it took him a decade to get round to paying the full amount to Geimer after he lost the civil case in the late 80's. It's pretty hard to paint a sympathetic case without falling back on the 'oh but he's a wonderful director' bullshit.



Spot on.

Transcript of the victims evidence, be warned it's pretty harrowing The Smoking Gun


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Why are you so keen to deny the verdict of two separate courts of law?  Do you think you know better?



since when did you develop such faith in bourgeois justice?


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Why are you so keen to deny the verdict of two separate courts of law?  Do you think you know better?


Did you even read the news report?

What you are supporting here is the freeing of a convicted child rapist for this;



> The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.



So your one in the eye to the "man" in the USA is also you supporting another government taking a decision in the "National Interests" over the rights of a victim of child rape.


----------



## T & P (Jul 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  He's served his time, his victim says he should be freed, the Swiss authorities say he should be freed, basically everyone except the crazed US prosecutors *and a few bigots on here *say he should be freed, and thus freed he shall be.



Well of course, Dwyer. He's a Jew. Textbook case of anti-semitic persecution if you ask me. Typical Urban.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 13, 2010)

He is a scum bag.

I'd somehow never read the details before today.


----------



## JWH (Jul 13, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  He's served his time


You're a pillock and ignorant of the facts (no great surprise there). Polanski has not served any part of his sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor because he left the US before sentencing. 

The psychiatric assessment was not part of the sentence: first, assessment is not a punitive process; second, they are used to inform what the sentence should be and so necessarily take place _before_ sentencing.



phildwyer said:


> I think anyone *who was a convicted child rapist *would have fled under the circumstances.


FTFY, FW.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Transcript of the victims evidence, be warned it's pretty harrowing The Smoking Gun



That is the first time I have read that. 

It is pretty awful.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2011)

Roman Polanski to collect festival honour in Zurich
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14944430


> Director Roman Polanski is to collect a career honour at the Zurich Film Festival, two years after his arrest in the city on child sex charges. Organisers say the 78-year-old will attend the gala to receive his award which he was set to pick up in 2009.


----------

