Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[Merlot]

Look, what he did was wrong, he was arrested and spent some time in jail and had worked out a deal with the judge. Then the judge reneged on the deal and it looked like he was going to be made an example of for the purposes of the judge's career so he ran. Now I'd like to see anyone here tell me that they wouldn't have done the same thing. And if you start by saying you would never bang a 13 year old, well he didn't know she was 13 either and was probably wacked out of his head. If you found yourself in the same situation, you would have done the same thing.

From witness statements, she did not seem to be a 13 year old girl so it is highly likely that Polanski did not know she was underage. And what the hell was a 13 year old girl doing there in the first place? Where were her parents? Who was respoonsible for her? It seems like there is a lot of blame to go around and some important questions to be answered.

It was over 30 years ago and the girl has grown up and has a family and three children and has shown no negative results of her encounter other than the constant hassles from the press about her past. She just wants it to go away.

As far as I am concerned, he should be brought back to the US and they should finally put an end to this mess. He has never re-offended which shows that he is not a pedophile and the case should be dismissed.

C'mon Techman,

"He didn't know she was 13 either". You're using the oldest dodge in the world for any guy to have sex with any young girl as an excuse...I didn't know. Isn't it the rule of thumb around here if you don't know the age of any young escort escort...JUST ASK for ID! I do. Also Techman, it's not just a matter of a 13 year old having sex with a 44 year old (statutory). It was RAPE according to her testimony and the judgment of the court. Whatever the judge was about to do, he raped her. Then he fled to live a very nice life of wealth and fame. Time to take responsibility. Way past time.

The girl also admitted to having sex on two prior occasions, of being drunk on prior occasions, and of taking quaaludes on a prior occasion. Essentially, and to be blunt, the evidence suggests that her mother decided to whore her daughter out in the hopes that it would lead to her having success in Hollywood.

That doesn't not excuse what Polanski did of course, but I have a hard time understanding why the US justice system (which fucked up the trial in the first place) is still obsessed with Polansky some 30+ years later.

Just implying that such behavior by any lady makes Polanski actions allowable is ridiculous. It would then follow men who RAPE women or very young girls who have had sex and get drunk form time to time or use drugs not face justice. Did you also forget it was RAPE! I am sure you didn't mean to imply any woman who likes to party can be coerced to have sex or RAPED without the rapist facing justice. And if her mother did "whore her out" doesn't the 13-YEAR OLD GIRL still have rights against RAPE! Or are you implying because mom tried to whore her out it was just a business deal.

Note to all college girls: if you have had sex any time in your life, drink much, or do drugs, the guys can rightfully get way with having sex with you against your will based on the Justbob ethics of...you are free game because you party.

C'mon JB, the implications of what you are saying are nuts.

And finally, you are telling us that because you know the mind of the judge Polanski was right to flee. So you either have hard evidence of this, you read his mind, believe in rumors or he told you. Otherwise, you think he was right to flee because you are at best guessing what he might have done. At least I provided transcripts...not guesses.

Now all you apathists out there try to remember...IT WAS FREAKIN RAPE!!!. Statutory...and full blown.

Cheers,

merlot

 

[Doc Holliday]

Ok Doc
so i guess, we should also forget the genocide of the jews and aremenians and tell them to stop remenbering it and just accept it.....because it has been now more than 35 years.....funny how we can twist things....a crime is a crime...time does not erase it unless punished.

You're putting two massive genocides of millions of innocents on the same platform as a statutory rape? Okay. I think i'm starting to figure you out. For once, i'm speechless!

 

[Techman]

Merlot, what I am saying is based on published reports of the events. They have always said that a deal was reached and that the judge changed his mind. I'm not saying that he was right to run or that he should have gone free. He did serve some time and he did stand up. What he refused to do was be railroaded by an over zealous judge. He was afraid of the consequences and so he ran as most people would have done.

Was what he did wrong? Damn right it was. But it was not on a par with a predator who deliberately selects a young girl and rapes her. He has compensated the girl financially and lived in exile for 30 years. What will any prison term accomplish? Punishment for punishment's sake? How about sentencing him to donate a decent sum of money to a women's shelter instead?

He made a mistake 30 years ago and it has never been forgotten. Why not end it in a positive way and see some good come out of it?

 

[Doc Holliday]

I know this off-topic, but i'm just trying to point out that many people condemming Roman Polanski for the terrible mistake & lack of judgement on his part might also have unknowingly seen underaged sps over the years. Should they feel guilty today, even if they were under the impression that the sp(s) was at least 18? Does their ignorance absolve them of any responsibility?

 

[newman1]

I would suggest to Polenski to do a movie about little girls beeing raped and the psychological consequences and the profit goes to help girls who were victimes to surmont their horrific experience.

 

[Merlot]

Merlot, what I am saying is based on published reports of the events. They have always said that a deal was reached and that the judge changed his mind. I'm not saying that he was right to run or that he should have gone free. He did serve some time and he did stand up. What he refused to do was be railroaded by an over zealous judge. He was afraid of the consequences and so he ran as most people would have done.

Was what he did wrong? Damn right it was. But it was not on a par with a predator who deliberately selects a young girl and rapes her. He has compensated the girl financially and lived in exile for 30 years. What will any prison term accomplish? Punishment for punishment's sake? How about sentencing him to donate a decent sum of money to a women's shelter instead?

He made a mistake 30 years ago and it has never been forgotten. Why not end it in a positive way and see some good come out of it?

Hello Techman,

If you read my first post on this I did say: "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." So I am not suggesting prison. And now that the first judge is dead dead dead, isn't it time Polanski got this taken care of legally instead of hiding. And the wishes of the victim often carry significant weight.

I know this off-topic, but i'm just trying to point out that many people condemming Roman Polanski for the terrible mistake & lack of judgement on his part might also have unknowingly seen underaged sps over the years. Should they feel guilty today, even if they were under the impression that the sp(s) was at least 18? Does their ignorance absolve them of any responsibility?

Doc, that's all probably perfectly true. I accept it may have happened to me. But your point has the key fault basically of two wrongs don't make a right. And, what does what anyone else does or gets away with have to do with the facts of any specific case anyway. A lot of people get away with murder. I know you are not suggesting that because of this situation we should let all proven murderers go free. Right!

And let's face it. This wasn't a matter of someone suffering from the horrible slaughter of his wife 8 years before, and probably not a mistake in age. He could get as many adult women one way or another if he wanted. Also being 44 there is plenty of distance from her age even if she was 16 or 17 in the first place where he should have backed off. The fact is he let the little brain (DICKEY) run his choices.

really,

Merlot

 

[Doc Holliday]

And let's face it. This wasn't a matter of someone suffering from the horrible slaughter of his wife 8 years before...

Let's face what? How would you know if he was still suffering or not? I know people who've lost a kid years ago who are still a shell of their old self & i know others who've never recovered. Others have become alcoholics & others have committed suicide of it.

I hope i never have to go through what someone like Roman Polanski did. Never!

 

[Techman]

Hello Techman,

If you read my first post on this I did say: "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." So I am not suggesting prison. And now that the first judge is dead dead dead, isn't it time Polanski got this taken care of legally instead of hiding.

Merlot, in that case we are in perfect agreement. The problem is that he and he laywers have been trying to work this out for decades and the US justice system has always refused. The reason he has not returned is that he still fears being sent to prison for an extended period of time. Maybe this will finally put an end to it.

Doc, I have also met many dancers over the years who started dancing when they were 15 or 16. In fact the lady who went to court to challenge the law against contact dancing, and won, was 15 when she started dancing at the now defunct Filles d'Eve club on Stanley. I remember a dancer I knew who brought her younger sister into the biz and paid for her to dance for me so that she would get the first few dances under her belt so to speak. She was gorgeous and had the most incredible breasts I had seen. Much later I discovered that she was only 16 at the time.

And today with computers it is even easier for girls to obtain or make their own fake id to show clients to 'prove their age'.

Trust me, anyone can be fooled.

 

[Merlot]

Let's face what? How would you know if he was still suffering or not? I know people who've lost a kid years ago who are still a shell of their old self & i know others who've never recovered. Others have become alcoholics & others have committed suicide of it.

I hope i never have to go through what someone like Roman Polanski did. Never!

Oh come on Doc,

I didn't say he wasn't suffering. But your logic follows that the emotionally distraught or suicidal are excused from responsibility for their actions, including criminal actions. If so...between you and JB the emotionally afflicted can force sex on party girls with impunity. That's utterly silly, to be gentler. And why are your positions so opposite of your usual very harsh hang 'em philosophy about aged abusers of young girls????? I think Newman has a very good point today about Doc the "subjective gentleman".

Merlot, in that case we are in perfect agreement. The problem is that he and he laywers have been trying to work this out for decades and the US justice system has always refused. The reason he has not returned is that he still fears being sent to prison for an extended period of time. Maybe this will finally put an end to it.

Under the circumstances he will face responsibility, regardless of his fears.

Finally,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

I think Newman has a very good point today about Doc the "subjective gentleman".

But it is subjective, Merlot. It has to be. As I said, what he did does not compare at all with a habitual predator who is specifically looking for underage girls to molest. It does not excuse what he did but he cannot be painted with the same brush as a true pedophile who knows the age of the girl he rapes. In Polanski's case, I consider the fact that she was 13 to be irrelevant as he didn't rape her because of her age, he thought she was older. What he did would be called 'date rape' today. While that does not excuse what happened, nothing can do that, it doesn't make him a pedophile either.

As far as I'm concerned, true pedophiles should be hanged from a tree by their balls.

 

[Merlot]

But it is subjective, Merlot. It has to be. As I said, what he did does not compare at all with a habitual predator who is specifically looking for underage girls to molest. It does not excuse what he did but he cannot be painted with the same brush as a true pedophile who knows the age of the girl he rapes. In Polanski's case, I consider the fact that she was 13 to be irrelevant as he didn't rape her because of her age, he thought she was older. What he did would be called 'date rape' today. While that does not excuse what happened, nothing can do that, it doesn't make him a pedophile either.

As far as I'm concerned, true pedophiles should be hanged from a tree by their balls.

Hmmmmm,

I dare you to create a poll asking only ladies if "date rape" deserves prison. Make it public so we can be sure only ladies answer. Joe.t doesn't count either...bwahahaha.

And theoretically, I bet the if you asked any guy here his opinion about some 44 year old guy mistaking his 13 year old daughter for 16, 17, or 18 and slamming her non-consensually up the touche the answer wouldn't be...oh well, I understand...I just hope you both had a good time...LOL!

Go for it,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

I never said that date rape didn't deserve prison.

And if some 44 year old guy allowed his 13 year old daughter to go to a hollywood party, which in the 70's pretty much guaranteed drugs and alcohol use, unescorted and unwatched, I would suggest sending him to prison also. There's a lot of blame to go around here, Merlot. The girl herself, her parents, the other people at the house... Funny how Polanski is the only one taking it all.

And once again, I am not excusing him for what he did but let's not go overboard here by seeing pedophiles where there are none.

 

[daydreamer41]

I can see all sides of everybody's argument. Polinski made a plea agreement and the original Judge on the case seem to indicate he may not honor it. So Polinski fled.

The dilema the Judge on the case now has is not that Polinski is a threat to society or will ever repeat what he did, because there is evidence he has not. He has led a productive life and has not been in trouble in France where he has lived for more than 30 years.

Polinski fled and never received his sentence for his plea. Fleeing in all states in the US is an additional crime. Many others who have fled have received additional time in addition to the time for their original sentences..

But is it productive to incarcerate him at this time? The victim is against it and is a fully functioning adult woman with children. There is evidence of corruption between the deceased Judge and the Prosecutor. He is 77 and incarcerating him will take special considerations such as putting him in an isolated prison block, etc. for his protection. What really would be the purpose of sentencing him for fleeing, because originally he was to get timed served for his plea?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Your favorite Roman Polanski movie

So what's your favorite?

I loved The Pianist, Chinatown & Frantic. I've yet to watch 'Rosemary's Baby'. I just saw glimpses of it & it looked boring, even though the reviews i've read claimed it's a great movie. I've yet to see "Tess", which was very well reviewed.

I never realized he was 77. Wow! Time flies!!

 

[JustBob]

Just implying that such behavior by any lady makes Polanski actions allowable is ridiculous. It would then follow men who RAPE women or very young girls who have had sex and get drunk form time to time or use drugs not face justice. Did you also forget it was RAPE! I am sure you didn't mean to imply any woman who likes to party can be coerced to have sex or RAPED without the rapist facing justice. And if her mother did "whore her out" doesn't the 13-YEAR OLD GIRL still have rights against RAPE! Or are you implying because mom tried to whore her out it was just a business deal.

Note to all college girls: if you have had sex any time in your life, drink much, or do drugs, the guys can rightfully get way with having sex with you against your will based on the Justbob ethics of...you are free game because you party.

C'mon JB, the implications of what you are saying are nuts.

"That doesn't not excuse what Polanski did of course"

Do you have reading comprehension problems? What part of the above do you not understand? I implied nothing of what you wrote... Furthermore, taking a classless shot at another poster's "ethics" based solely on imaginary stuff you make up in your own head is downright idiotic. And I'm being kind... Shame on you.

And finally, you are telling us that because you know the mind of the judge Polanski was right to flee. So you either have hard evidence of this, you read his mind, believe in rumors or he told you. Otherwise, you think he was right to flee because you are at best guessing what he might have done. At least I provided transcripts...not guesses.

Cheers,

merlot

Damn, where the heck did I say that? You really have a knack for putting words into other people's mouths...

Yeah, you provided excerpts of transcripts. Did you bother reading about the actual trial? The judge fucked up by violating the plea bargain. That's grounds for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[obvio007]

wanted and desired

if you want answer on this subject you should try to rent out or buy the documentary ``wanted and desired` directed by marina zenovich.
the documentary start When his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, some elements of the press accused Polanski of the crime. The media attention was ugly and enough to make the Polish survivor of German death camps leave the country. He didn't leave. He stayed to make classics like "Chinatown". Several years later, the director had sex with a thirteen-year-old girl. The legal conflagration this created is the center of this documentary. Polanski admitted to the sex act, but he did not plead guilty to the commission of a crime. After being sentenced to a ninety day period of psychological assessment, he was released early. The media outrage at this "reduction" of his sentence forced the sentencing judge to rethink a deal he'd struck with both the defense and prosecution. Meanwhile, having lost all faith in a system corrupted by personal ego and inappropriate grandstanding, Polanski fled to Fred where he has avoided extradition back to the US ever since. This move put an end to his Hollywood career, but it did not put an end to his film-making. Polanski himself is not interviewed specifically for this film, but he does appear on screen in an interview with UK talkshow maven Clive James. A solid piece of journalism.

 

[Kepler]

The judge fucked up by violating the plea bargain. That's grounds for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

No. Judges are allowed to reject deals. Especially sweetheart "45 days in jail for rape" deals. Try Googling: judge rejects deal criminal and you'll see many examples.

If the judge was wrong, Polanski should have appealed. Criminals don't get to decide for themselves if their treatment was fair.

 

[JustBob]

No. Judges are allowed to reject deals. Especially sweetheart "45 days in jail for rape" deals. Try Googling: judge rejects deal criminal and you'll see many examples.

Sure judges can reject deals but they sure are not allowed to have ex-parte communications with a district prosecutor who had nothing to do with the case prior to sentencing.

If the judge was wrong, Polanski should have appealed. Criminals don't get to decide for themselves if their treatment was fair.

Correct, Polanski should not have fled but considering what transpired, his trust in the US justice system was probably not that high at the time.

 

[JustBob]

I just want to repeat something : if the girl was killed instead of being raped, (another kind of crime against a person...), would all of you who think that is exagerate to take him now after all those years to face the consequences, think the same way???

Here's what the victim said, prior to the Polanski arrest:

Roman Polanski Victim Urges Case Dismissal
LINDA DEUTSCH | 01/13/09 09:24 AM AP

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.

Now a wife and mother of three children, Geimer said that the insistence by prosecutors and the court that Polanski must appear in person to seek dismissal "is a joke, a cruel joke being played on me."

Geimer said she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details of the case to distract from their office's own wrongdoing 31 years ago. The alleged wrongdoing was brought to light in the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which prompted the director's lawyer to file a motion for dismissal.

A hearing is set for Jan. 21 on Polanski's motion for dismissal. But prosecutors have said he must appear in person _ an act which would risk his arrest.

"If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do," she said in the declaration signed at her home in Kilauea, Hawaii.

In a motion filed Jan. 6, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren provided sexually explicit descriptions of the 1977 assault of Geimer during a photo shoot by Polanski. It included extensive testimony from grand jury transcripts at the time which included graphic details of the incident. The details of Polanski's sexual activity with the girl had never before been described in legal documents

Geimer said she was disappointed that the district attorney "has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again."

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said. "I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney."

Geimer suggested that her feelings should have been considered and she should have been consulted before the prosecution document was filed.

"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing,"she said. "It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."

The 75-year-old Polanski, living in exile in France, wants to return to the United States. While in exile, he won the 2002 Oscar for directing "The Pianist," a Holocaust drama.

Geimer said that the decision for Polanski to plead guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse was intended to save her from a trial which would have drawn worldwide attention.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said, adding she now believes Polanski fled "because the judicial system did not work."

She said her views have been well known since 1995 when she wrote a letter to then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti suggesting the case be dismissed. She said she raised it again in 1997 when the case was brought to Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler.

Sandi Gibbons, the district attorney's spokeswoman, said the office would have no comment because the declaration is part of pending litigation.

The crime was committed against the state. And I normally do not believe in "victim's based justice" because justice should remain principled, impartial and impersonal. However, in this particular case, 30+ years later, when the victim almost begs for the charges to be dismissed, I'm not so sure "justice" would be served by pursuing this case any further.

 

[Techman]

Actutally. Maria, the woman involved did sue Polanski and won a settlement, the amount of which was not disclosed, which she has already received.

If you read the quote in JustBob's post, you will see that she is blaming the judicial system for the current situation, not Polanski himself. She has already moved past that, most probably decades ago. The following section pretty much says it all. In fact according to the victim, he pleaded guilty to save her from the consequences of a trial. She, the victim, has actively petitioned the justice department to dismiss the case. It's time they agreed to her request.

Geimer said that the decision for Polanski to plead guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse was intended to save her from a trial which would have drawn worldwide attention.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said, adding she now believes Polanski fled "because the judicial system did not work."

She said her views have been well known since 1995 when she wrote a letter to then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti suggesting the case be dismissed. She said she raised it again in 1997 when the case was brought to Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler