Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 134

Thread: Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

  1. #1
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823

    Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

    Polanski arrested in connection with sex charge

    Filmmaker Roman Polanski has been arrested on an arrest warrant stemming from a decades-old sex charge, Swiss police said Sunday.

    The Academy Award-winning director pleaded guilty in 1977 to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, acknowledging he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, but fled the United States before he could be sentenced. U.S. authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in 1978.

    He was taken into custody trying to enter Switzerland on Saturday, Zurich police said.

    Polanski, 76, has lived in France for decades to avoid being arrested if he enters the U.S. He declined to collect his Academy Award for Best Director in person when he won it for "The Pianist" in 2003.

    He was en route to the Zurich Film Festival, which is holding a tribute to him, when he was arrested by Swiss authorities, the festival said.

    Polanski was nominated for best director Oscars for "Tess" and "Chinatown," and for best writing for "Rosemary's Baby," which he also directed.

    "Roman Polanski, who is one of the greatest film directors of all time, would have been honored for his life's work in Zurich today," the film festival said in a statement.

    "However yesterday, on Saturday, he was taken into custody while attempting to enter Switzerland due to a request by U.S. authorities in connection with an arrest warrant from 1978."

    The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." But whether he can be extradited to the United States "can be established only after the extradition process judicially has been finalised," a ministry spokesman said in an e-mail.

    "It is possible to appeal at the federal penal court of justice against an arrest warrant in view to extradition as well as against an extradition decision," the spokesman wrote. "Their decisions can be taken further to the federal court of justice."

    Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and a sliver of a quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house. He was 43 at the time.

    Nicholson was not at home, but his girlfriend at the time, actress Anjelica Huston, was.

    According to a probation report contained in the filing, Huston described the victim as "sullen."

    "She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between -- could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing," Huston said.

    She added that Polanski did not strike her as the type of man who would force himself on a young girl.

    "I don't think he's a bad man," she said in the report. "I think he's an unhappy man."

    Polanski pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

    There have been repeated attempts to settle the case over the years, but the sticking point has always been Polanski's refusal to return to attend hearings.

    Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man to go free who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child."

    Polanski's lawyers tried earlier this year to have the charges thrown out, but a Los Angeles judge rejected the request.

    In doing so, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza left the door open to reconsider his ruling if Polanski shows up in court.

    Espinoza also appeared to acknowledge problems with the way Polanski's case was handled years ago.

    According to court documents, Polanski, his lawyer and the prosecutor thought they'd worked out a deal that would spare Polanski from prison and let the young victim avoid a public trial.

    But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.

    Polanski fled the United States for France, where he was born.

    In the February hearing, Espinoza mentioned a documentary film that depicts backroom deals between prosecutors and a media-obsessed judge who was worried his public image would suffer if he didn't send Polanski to prison.

    "It's hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct," said Espinoza.

    But he declined to dismiss the case entirely.

    Legal experts said such a ruling would have been extremely rare.

    Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.

    Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "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."

    Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She long ago came forward and made her identity public -- mainly, she said, because she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled.

    Following Espinoza's ruling earlier this year, Geimer's lawyer, Larry Silver, said he was disappointed and that Espinoza "did not get to the merits and consider the clear proof of both judicial and prosecutorial corruption."

    He argued in court that had "Mr. Polanski been treated fairly" his client would not still be suffering because of publicity almost 32 years after the crime.

    Polanski was arrested two days after one of his wife's killers died.

    The director's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four others were butchered by members of the Manson "family" in August 1969. Polanski was filming in Europe at the time.

    By her own admission, Susan Atkins held the eight-months-pregnant Tate down as she pleaded for mercy, stabbing the 26-year-old actress 16 times.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/...ted/index.html

  2. #2
    if he comes back to the us,
    he will be denied bail as he will be a flight risk.
    but they should let him post $5 million cash bail.
    and let him flee again.
    california needs the money.

    the victim wont testify
    he has paid her off already

    he is not phil spector,who is a true nut job and murderer

    has Arnold commented on this yet?

  3. #3
    I think he was already convicted and fled before they took him into custody. I suspect that he will have to serve his all his time.

  4. #4
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823
    That case was corrupted from the start, starting with the judge. It never should have went as far as it did. Polanski still hadn't gotten over his wife's (and fetus) murder & was very unhappy at the time. The girl looked like she could have been in her early 20's and was a willing participant. Think of the girl in Californication (who slept with Hank in the first episode...yeah, she was also underaged but looked older).

    The so-called 'victim' has forgiven Polanski & wants the case to end. It has brought unwanted attention upon her & her family. She wants to put it in the past & have people leave them alone. It's understandable and she definitely wasn't 'bought off'. The main reason why he escaped the US was because he felt authorities (e.g. the judge) had or were about to break their promise & he'd spend more time in jail when he had been told he wouldn't. He simply left his adopted country & went back to France, where he was born. It's not like he committed a crime & escaped to Mexico. He went back home.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 09-28-2009 at 11:12 PM.

  5. #5
    *************editted***********
    Last edited by CS Martin; 12-25-2009 at 05:25 AM.

  6. #6
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by CS Martin View Post
    Has this occurred in Montreal, ABSOLUTELY. Because of board rules, I won't quote what I know, but guys protect yourself. Even the ones who look old enough, sometimes aren't. Girls are subject to "Californication" "even in Montreal". LOL
    I agree. Again. I'd also like to point out that many people who participate on this board (and many who don't) were possibly once in the same shoes (or whatever) as 'Hank Moody'....unknowingly that is....while hobbying in Mtl. They'd possibly be in for quite a surprise if they knew the real age of some of the sps they've seen & raved about. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I'm simply speculating & pointing out what we're being told or made to believe isn't always so, especially in this sometimes immoral business. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, i'm just generalizing. Always be vigilant when agreeing to 'see' a girl 'brand new to the business' listed as anything between 18 and 21. You just never know. People should also be careful whom they review. Leaving a paper trail can be a biatch!

    Finally, people should use their better judgement when they see someone whom makes them wonder if she's of legal age (to be an escort) or not. I know it's hard to use better judgement when using the smaller of the two brains, but you must. If you have to refuse someone because you're suspicious, do so. If you have to ask for i.d. to be certain that the girl is of legal age, so do it. You wouldn't be the first one who has, trust me. Again, there are a lot more 'Hank Moodys' out there than we're led to believe & many of them are unsuspicious 'johns'.

    p.s. Even agencies have been known to get fooled once in a while. So if they can get fooled, so can the customers. Much easier.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 09-28-2009 at 12:59 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Hello Doc,

    All things considered you are making excuses. It doesn't matter what a 13 year old looks like, or what he was feeling. If you base law on that then the subjectivity of looks for every personal perception and the unknowable inner feelings of every exploiter becomes the basis to excuse everything. If you go that way then how do you convict anyone. The fact is he was convicted and ran. I am not saying throw away the key or even put him in prison. But he should be made accountable at least in some rationally just way.

    Importantly, each country has the right to make their own legal standards. Canada's laws are not applicable here, nor that of any other country. If you are going to base laws on the most minimum standards of any country in the world then you risk allowing men to marry 6 year old girls as some Muslims do.

    And what does the John Phillips episode have to do this. Are you trying to say that because you imply statutory rape, of a 13 year old in this case, isn't as morally reprehensible as incest or murder we should just dismiss it.

    These are all diversions Doc. She was 13 and he was 44. The law says that's statutory rape and he got tried and convicted. Case closed. Given the sentiment on this board and society in general about minors having sex with much older middle age men your position surprises me. Certainly age 13 is a good standard in any country to forbid adults from exploiting them. Then add to that the fact that Polanski plied her with a "Quaalude and champagne".

    Whatever your standards are about age, or the wrong committed by the judge...IT WASN'T CONSENSUAL in the first place according to her testimony:

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...lanski_arrest/

    Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

    COURT TRANSCRIPT LINKS CONTAINED:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

    The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

    WARNING, GRAPHIC!!
    Q. What did he say?
    A. He asked, he goes, “Are you on the pill?”
    And I went, ‘No.”
    And he goes, “When did you last have your period?”
    And I said, “I don’t know. A week or two, I’m not sure”.
    Q. And what did he say?
    A. He goes, “Come on. You have to remember.”
    And I told him I didn’t.
    Q. Did he say anything after that?
    A. Yes. He goes, “Would you want me to go in through your back?”
    And I went, “No”.
    Q. Did he say anything else?
    A. No.
    Q. How long did he have his penis in your vagina?
    A. I can t remember how long, but not a very long time.
    Q. Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before March 10th?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Approximately how many times?
    A. Twice.
    Q. How did you know that he had his penis in your vagina?
    A. I could tell. I could feel it.
    Q. What happened after he says “Do you want me to – “was it go through the back?
    A. Yes.
    Q. What happened then?
    A. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then”.
    And I just went– and he goes — and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.
    Q. When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
    A. He put his penis in my butt.
    Q. Did he say anything at that time?
    A. No.
    Q. Did you resist at that time?
    A. A little bit, but not really because –(pause)
    Q. Because what?
    A. Because I was afraid of him.

    Cheers Doc,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-28-2009 at 01:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlot View Post
    Are you trying to say that because you imply statutory rape, of a 13 year old in this case, isn't as morally reprehensible as incest or murder we should just dismiss it.
    I'm just pointing out how ridiculous this witch hunt has become & that after nearly 35 years, it's time to move on to more important things. I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but his accusers are no saints either.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 09-28-2009 at 11:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
    Basically what i'm trying to say is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones at other people.

    (I'm also pointing out how ridiculous this witch hunt has become & that after nearly 35 years, it's time to move on to more important things. I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but his accusers are no saints either.)
    Well Doc,

    There is no glass house like this that relates to me or the vast majority of us. Glass houses still have nothing to do with what he did. And..if he hadn't run like a coward it would have been over 35 years ago. It's HIS fault it isn't, and it's His fault there was ever a case to make against him. If he was a Muslim you would the first one volunteering to fry him personally.

    Cheers,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-28-2009 at 02:18 PM.

  10. #10
    ‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^› Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Red Sox Nation
    Posts
    5,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
    Think of the girl in Californication (who slept with Hank in the first episode...yeah, she was also underaged but looked older).
    This point has no validity since the actress portraying the 16 year old was actually 22 or 23. BTW, season 3 kicked off last night. Love this show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
    Many people knew John Phillips was sleeping with his own doctor.
    He was sleeping with his MD too! That dirty bird!
    Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction) English, motherfu*ker, do you speak it?

    Typical Yankee fan in the Merb Sports Section!! Bwwaahh.

  11. #11
    ‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^› Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Red Sox Nation
    Posts
    5,108
    If things really happened the way Merlots' transcript points out, there's no doubt Polanski should be extradited and jailed. He's a f'n predator! If he wasn't a world famous director would we even be having this discussion?
    Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction) English, motherfu*ker, do you speak it?

    Typical Yankee fan in the Merb Sports Section!! Bwwaahh.

  12. #12
    THANK YOU BURKIE !!!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Quebec City
    Posts
    689
    There is an HBO documentary called "Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired" that's worth taking a look at. In it, you see that in this case Polanski was a complete scumbag who drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl once she was unconscious. Even if the girl hadn't been underage, he deserved to spend a decent amount of time in jail for that.

    In the documentary you also see that a deal was worked out with the prosecution (too sweet in my opinion) and to his credit, he did show up and serve 42 days behind bars under psychiatric evaluation. During these 42 days and based on public and private comments made by the judge whom all agreed loved to see himself on TV, it became clear that the judge was leaning towards reneging on the deal and that's why Polanski understandably panicked and fled the country.

    Today that judge is dead and the victim has stated she will not pursue the case so I doubt much will happen if he's extradited to California.

    Lastly, the comparison with the character Mia in Californication is ridiculous, that character is supposed to be 17 and is played by an actress who stand about 5'10" and who is actually 24 years old. Polanski's victim was 13, probably stood around 5" tall and looked very much like a child as you can see in this picture of her.
    http://e.pardon.pl/pa599/7872f7a300047ea048479cf1
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]The hockey game most enjoyed by Canadians from coast to coast since 1972.

  13. #13

    to Doc holiday

    Hello to All.
    I really feel sorry to Polanski regarding his tragic family history and the slaughtering of his wife. However, by no means, should he be freed..he did a crime and he should be prosecuted even it was one day in the prison.

    I am sure if he was a Muslim, everybody would have condemned. Doc Holiday, you were the one who were decrying the Saudi sheikh who married a 13 year old girl…funny how standard change….it is obvious to me you are very subjective gentleman.

    he is Jews and his family suffered injustice, but that does not give the right to inflict injustice to others. He was 44 and mature and highly intellectual person, he was aware what he was doing with an innocent 13 year old girl .....he should and must be put on trial so that nobody is above the law....not even the Pope himself....
    regards

  14. #14
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Special K View Post
    BTW, season 3 kicked off last night. Love this show.
    It did? I thought the new season started tonight! Thanks!!

  15. #15
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by newman1 View Post
    Doc Holiday, you were the one who were decrying the Saudi sheikh who married a 13 year old girl…funny how standard change….it is obvious to me you are very subjective gentleman.
    The girl was younger than 13. Way younger.

    I just think that after nearly 35 years, it's time to move on. The only reason he ran away was because the judge was about to screw him after promising him he wouldn't be going back to prison. Tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't have tried to do the same thing he did.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 09-28-2009 at 11:06 PM.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •