Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[Doc Holliday]

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition was partly based on U.S. authorities' failure to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case, in which could prove that Polanski already served his sentence.

Considering the incompetence of the US justice system, i'm not surprised that this happened. Once again, the US justice system dropped the ball & only has itself to blame for this one.

By the way, i wouldn't mind on seeing a thread where the case of Leslie Van Houten is discussed. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this now elderly woman is still locked up behind bars. She's not a thread to society & her incarceration costs tax payers up to $100 000 a year.

 

[JH Fan]

Yup ! and all along while people are debating such a case which is far from being clear... the mighty US (world's only superpower) can't even get Ben Laden.

That's what people on the streets, outside US are looking at when they talk about this case.
Whatever it is between us or in London, Paris, etc...

People basically switch the conversation on 'Instead of wasting your time and money to nail these small fry, why don't you get the ones who really matter' ?

What the people in US wants ? get this guy and pay taxes to put him in a 'Club FED' jail ; like they did with Madoff for instance ?

What the hell is going on with u people ?

You want to put so much effort into this case ? then do something about the amount of rape going on both in Canada and the US because that is really discusting.

Last I heard, we were in the top ten countries per capita and that is sick.

That's what really matters. capiche ?

 

[Ricky bonds]

They never caught laden .. Because he's a puppet!, and they knew all along where he was, but there's no reason to stop him.. I thought this was common knowledge ?
They can see inside your living room.. From a satellite?, track every ones 'every ' moves., you think they couldn't find one individual.. Lol...
And mr.Polanski deserves to be punished, but how come nobody asks why a 13 year old was partying at jack's mini mansion? Whoever brought her there.. Obviously had the same intentions.
She probably wanted the young handsome actors by the pool.. But ended up with a 44 year old .

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yup ! and all along while people are debating such a case which is far from being clear... the mighty US (world's only superpower) can't even get Ben Laden.

China isn't too far behind, if they're not there already.

 

[Doc Holliday]

They never caught laden .

They never caught Bin Laden & never will because he's smarter than all of those idiots who've been on his trail. He's likely living in some mountains in Pakistan & no one will dare go there.

 

[Dee]

Where were her parents? This "child" was already sexually active & into the drug scene by the time she met Polanski. I'm not saying that what eventually happened was correct, but there's a whole lot of difference between an 'innocent child' being raped and molested & what happened here. And if you consider the prosecutors should be ashamed for agreeing to such a lenient sentence, blame the incompetent US justice system, not Polanski. A deal's a deal.

"A deal's a deal." - Read what Merlot posted and you'll see that the deal had a proviso. Even if one weren't stated and the judge did something wrong he could be overturned on appeal. Even, even, even...

You posted:

Where were her parents? This "child" was already sexually active & into the drug scene by the time she met Polanski.

I wish that there was some reason to believe that this is just a bad joke on your part. I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone would ever post anything like this in this day and age! What about babies who are sexually active?

And yet... why should I be surprised... some here argue that an older man who liquors up and drugs and rapes a 13 year old should escape punishment... even when they are shown that what they thought was the deal wasn't. Shame on you, shame. Disgusting is too mild of a word.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

Where were her parents? This "child" was already sexually active & into the drug scene by the time she met Polanski. I'm not saying that what eventually happened was correct, but there's a whole lot of difference between an 'innocent child' being raped and molested & what happened here. And if you consider the prosecutors should be ashamed for agreeing to such a lenient sentence, blame the incompetent US justice system, not Polanski. A deal's a deal.

You posted:

Where were her parents? This "child" was already sexually active & into the drug scene by the time she met Polanski.

I wish that there was some reason to believe that this is just a bad joke on your part. I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone would ever post anything like this in this day and age! What about babies who are sexually active?

And yet... why should I be surprised... some here argue that an older man who liquors up and drugs and rapes a 13 year old should escape punishment... even when they are shown that what they thought was the deal wasn't. Shame on you, shame. Disgusting is too mild of a word.

Doc, I saw your post when it was made and I have been thinking about how to reply. You are probably aware that Dee and I have been opposites for some time. But even though Dee has been guilty of slanderous accusations himself, here he and I are exactly on the same page. Let me repeat: "I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone would ever post anything like this in this day and age!" I am really having trouble understanding how you could say anything like that. What you are doing is condoning child molestation, usually legally defined as sex with any girl under the age of 14, just because she is not a virginal angel. Do you realize how many girls you in effect threw to the predators with a sad excuse? MILLIONS!

Then there is the implied guilt of the parents you made above. Are you really saying that (theoretically) if your daughter was with a relative, friend, or authority figure you thought you could trust, and had every reasonable reason to trust, that as a parent if this guy got your daughter drunk, plied her with drugs, then coerced or forced her for sex...it would be YOUR FAULT as the parent??? It really doesn't matter if the girl was the daughter of this Russian pervert who let or made his daughter sell herself for sex. If anyone touches and 13- year-old girl, regardless of the circumstances, it's child molestation and statutory rape...period.

You and others also keep knocking U.S. law, and in particular cite the fact Polanski never got a trial. When you cite this you show you do not understand U.S. law in the first place. Polanski did not get a trial because he and his lawyer DID NOT WANT ONE!!! They could have gotten a trial but Polanski and lawyer chose to take a plea agreement because in their view they could get a lighter sentence with a plea rather than going to trial and putting 40-year-old man who had gotten drunk, drugged, and molested a 13-year-old girl in front of a jury which most likely would have parents. So he didn't get a trial because they refused one.

It's been amazing reading this thread. People have either made up the facts to suit themselves, taken poor segments of the news reports and/or incomplete information and hearsay to assemble a distorted view of the facts, injected their personal feelings erroneously on the real facts, or ignored them altogether. If you bother to read the transcript the real facts are:

1. Polanski molested and legally and in fact raped an 13-year-old girl he plied with liquor and drugs.

2. He and his lawyer said no to a jury trial in favor of a plea agreement.

3. As the judge stated in the plea agreement transcript in front of Polanski and his lawyer, the judge had every legal right to drop the agreement as Polanski and his lawyer acknowledged under oath. There was absolutely no trick or broken promise.

4. As part of the plea agreement Polanski and his lawyer agreed to he knew he was pleading guilty to a felony, and by running he became a fugitive felon.

How anyone may feel about the passage of time and the wish of the victim to move on, or whether Polanski should be pursued and put in prison, or whether the U.S. has bumbled it's way in pursuing this matter...none of this can change the facts as they were. GET OVER IT.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[daydreamer41]

There is no state in the US where a Judge must accept a proposed plea bargain deal between the defendant and the prosecutor. Most the time they do because it is an expedient way of resolving court cases, and most jurisdictions have more than they can handle.

I think the girl's mother who was a small part actress brought her to the party because Polanski requested a photo of the girl. I think I remember from an interview with the woman who was the girl who was raped that her mother was actively trying to get the girl parts in moivies. The mother knew Polanski professionally.

It was no doubt no place for a 13-year-old girl to be. Polanski said he thought she was over 18. Polanski was indicted on Rape charges and inducement of a minor, amongst other heavy charges, but at the request of the girl because she did not want to reveal her identity at the criminal trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop the more serious charges. Probably, if it was not for the girl not wanting to go thru a trial, Polanski would have been convicted and sentenced to a very long prison term.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Doc, I saw your post when it was made and I have been thinking about how to reply. You are probably aware that Dee and I have been opposites for some time. But here he and I are exactly on the same page.

I'm glad to see that you two are finally seeing eye-to-eye.

(Sorry to spoil the party for you guys.....the great director Roman Polanski will not be spending any more time in a US prison. Never, ever!)

 

[Techman]

Sure the judge can reject the plea bargain, but if he does that he also has to reject the guilty plea that came with it and go to a jury trial. From all indications the judge was going to toss the deal out the window but retain the guilty plea and impose a heavier sentence. No one can say what the result of a trial would have been because there was no trial and it's pretty much impossible to hold a trial today on events that happened so long ago. If they even tried to do that, the victim would most likely refuse to testify and the charges would go out the window. The whole thing is one big cluster fuck because from the judge and prosecutor to Polanski himself, everyone screwed up.

And Doc, Lesley Van Houten should die in jail because she should have been executed in the first place along with all the other Manson family members.

Van Houten proceeded to stab Rosemary 16 times in the lower torso. The autopsy showed that several of the wounds had been inflicted post-mortem

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

 

[Doc Holliday]

Doc, Lesley Van Houten should die in jail because she should have been executed in the first place along with all the other Manson family members.

I see......so now, what do we do with Orenthal James Simpson?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Polanski was indicted on Rape charges and inducement of a minor, amongst other heavy charges, but at the request of the girl because she did not want to reveal her identity at the criminal trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop the more serious charges. Probably, if it was not for the girl not wanting to go thru a trial, Polanski would have been convicted and sentenced to a very long prison term.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Too many maybes. 90% of trials are plea-bargained. If it wasn't the case, you'd have to wait 10 years for a routine case to go to trial. Who really knows what would have happened if the case would have went to trial. As far as i know, he could have got off on a technicality. There were so many fuck-ups in that case that it wouldn't have surprised me one bit.

 

[JH Fan]

Here's another one who didn't serve all his term :
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/02/mobile_county_rapist_charged_i.html

And here's another who hopefully will pay.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/cleveland_teacher_indicted_for.html
Weird how they can't even say a 7year old child and instead 'a 7 year old female student'.

And here's another one who originately was charged with 1st degree rape (of a 13 year old) but will likely go away with 1 count of 2nd degree rape and 2 counts of sexual abuse.
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/513561.html?nav=5008


Now...you want a positive action by Americans ?

Here's something they are doing right ...!

It's only one of the many positive actions that you almost never see in the news.
Instead of always getting stigmatized on one case and cultivate hatred.

http://www.abanet.org/rol/news/news_drc_mobile_courts_strike_blow against_crimes_1109.shtml

 

[Techman]

I see......so now, what do we do with Orenthal James Simpson?

I don't remember him ever being convicted of anything unlike Van Houten. But if you want my personal opinion, shove some raw steaks in his pockets and toss him in a cage with some pitbulls that haven't been fed in a week. Show it on pay per view and give the money to a battered women's shelter.

 

[eastender]

O.J. Simpson

I don't remember him ever being convicted of anything unlike Van Houten. But if you want my personal opinion, shove some raw steaks in his pockets and toss him in a cage with some pitbulls that haven't been fed in a week. Show it on pay per view and give the money to a battered women's shelter.

Convicted of various felonies in 2008. Presently in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

 

[Techman]

Not convicted of murder though which is what Van Houten was convicted of. I kinda figured that the way Nicole Brown Simpson was killed and the way Van Houten butchered her victim was the reason Doc brought O.J. up in the first place.

 

[Techman]

No but at least the cocksucker is in jail for a very long time. What he got convicted off in my own opinion, if it had of been anybody else they would of got off much easier but they were out to get him, looks good on him.

No arguement there! They should tattoo a pair of lips on his ass and let the other inmates have some fun.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Not convicted of murder though which is what Van Houten was convicted of. I kinda figured that the way Nicole Brown Simpson was killed and the way Van Houten butchered her victim was the reason Doc brought O.J. up in the first place.

Exactly. He not only murdered Nicole Brown in cold blood, but he also butchered Ron Goldman.

 

[Techman]

Just goes to show you that if a case goes to trial there's no guarantee of a conviction. Something that everybody who has such a hard-on for Polanski should realize.

 

[daydreamer41]

Sure the judge can reject the plea bargain, but if he does that he also has to reject the guilty plea that came with it and go to a jury trial. From all indications the judge was going to toss the deal out the window but retain the guilty plea and impose a heavier sentence. No one can say what the result of a trial would have been because there was no trial and it's pretty much impossible to hold a trial today on events that happened so long ago. If they even tried to do that, the victim would most likely refuse to testify and the charges would go out the window. The whole thing is one big cluster fuck because from the judge and prosecutor to Polanski himself, everyone screwed up.

And Doc, Lesley Van Houten should die in jail because she should have been executed in the first place along with all the other Manson family members.



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

No, that is not true. A judge can accept the guilty plea and at sentencing sentence within the guidelines of the law. There is nothing binding with a plea agreement. Once you plead guilty you cannot go back on it because a Judge rejects the sentencing recommendations from the prosecutor.

When you plea guilty to a crime, you are admitting that you have done the crime. A Judge will have you admit to the crime and in effect you are giving a confession in court which is admissible as evidence.

Most Judges will honor the plea agreement. In Polanski case, Polanski would have only pled guilty to the lesser offenses anyhow. The Judge has the option of rejecting the plea and the lesser charges per the plea agreement and forcing it to trial if he thinks that the evidence submitted in the indictment was too strong, or he could give the defendant the most stringent sentence under law, far greater than the plea agreement with the prosecutor.

When you take a plea agreement, you always take a gamble with the sentence.

You do have the right to appeal a sentence if the sentence given by the Judge is too harsh.

A good example of a plea gone wrong is the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard plea was for spying for an ally, which is not espinoge. The agreement with the prosecutors was a sentence of 4 to 7 years. The Judge turned around and gave him Life in Prison. He has been in Max. Security for 23 years. In Pollard's case, while in prison awating sentencing, Pollard gave an interview to the media which was against his plea agreement. He received the maximum sentence for his admitted charge.