Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?

[Techman]

Another failed actress who probably has a book to promote. For one thing, whatever did happen with her happened in France, not the US so the US has no jurisdiction on it. And once again, we only have one side of the story that is immediately being taken as the absolute truth. Whatever happened to people having to be proven guilty in a court of law instead of declared guilty in a press conference?

If the guy is guilty, charge him and prove it in a court of law. If he is found guilty by a jury, then let him be sentenced and jailed.

 

[Dee]

And once again, we only have one side of the story that is immediately being taken as the absolute truth. Whatever happened to people having to be proven guilty in a court of law instead of declared guilty in a press conference?

In the first case he plead guilty for heaven's sake. Is it OK to think that he might be guilty when, with the best lawyers' advice, he plead guilty, admitted he was guilty and fled the country to avoid lawful punishment??? or would this be unfair to admitted and convicted pedophiles every where?

I will admit that my comments may be coloured, as I am prejudiced against pedophiles.

 

[Techman]

In the first case he plead guilty for heaven's sake. Is it OK to think that he might be guilty when, with the best lawyers' advice, he plead guilty, admitted he was guilty and fled the country to avoid lawful punishment??? or would this be unfair to admitted and convicted pedophiles every where?

I will admit that my comments may be coloured, as I am prejudiced against pedophiles.

First of all, Dee, a pedophile is someone who goes after pre-pubescent children, not sexually active adolescents, and they have no sexual interest in anyone else. Second thing, he never plead guilty to the original charge, he accepted a plea bargain where he plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor which the judge reneged on. If you consider Polanski to be a pedophile, in my opinion you are sadly mistaken. In fact I have never read such a diagnosis regarding him from any source.

Finally, as far as pedophiles are concerned, I think they should be either locked up for life or executed. I do not think they can be cured and they should be removed from society. I do not consider Polanski to be a pedophile and there is no evidence that he is one.

 

[Dee]

First of all, Dee, a pedophile is someone who goes after pre-pubescent children, not sexually active adolescents, and they have no sexual interest in anyone else. Second thing, he never plead guilty to the original charge, he accepted a plea bargain where he plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor which the judge reneged on. If you consider Polanski to be a pedophile, in my opinion you are sadly mistaken. In fact I have never read such a diagnosis regarding him from any source.

Finally, as far as pedophiles are concerned, I think they should be either locked up for life or executed. I do not think they can be cured and they should be removed from society. I do not consider Polanski to be a pedophile and there is no evidence that he is one.

Ah I see... sex with 13 year old girls who are liquored up and given drugs deserve ... sorry I'm lost here.. I think I know what you are saying, but I just can't bring myself to articulate it.

Let's see what your answer is to this... no hair splitting... no diversions... no rants, no banning me, just a simple yes or no answer:

Here's what happened - undisputed:

Fact: Polanski fled the U.S. for France, escaping sentencing after pleading guilty to a charge of unlawful sex with then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer in 1977. (13 for Gawd's sake!!!!!!)

Fact: He gave her booze and drugs.

Fact: It was his legal duty to remain (I won't confuse you with anything about a moral duty) and make what ever representations he thought fit if he thought the judge was acting incorrectly.... people who drug and feed liquor to 13 year olds shouldn't be making the choice, in their own cases (this latter part is an opinion and not a fact... one would have thought it self evident , but apparently not... we should let Mom Boucher decide what constitutes murder? The lunatics should run the asylum?)

Question - "yes or no" (it's not an unfair one like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" yes or no):

Should a man who did what Polanski did and admitted to it escape because he has moved?

Yes or no.

 

[Techman]

You really don't understand the point I'm trying to get across to you, do you Dee? Polanski had a deal, he served the time stipulated by that deal after-which he was told that the deal was going to be reneged upon, so he fled. THAT is what happened. As a comparison, Karla Homolka struck a deal with the Canadian justice system. She served the penalty she was given and then she was released. After the deal was struck, evidence came to light showing that she had most likely lied and was much more a willing participant than she portrayed herself to be to get the deal. But the deal was made and it was upheld.

This is the point I'm trying to get across to you. I don't care what the charge was or what you or anyone happens to think about the deal he was given. He had a deal, he abided by it's terms and he should be a free man today. Even the girl involved has stated the same thing, that this should be dropped and Polanski left alone. If he was some nobody, some average guy on the street, this would never have gotten to this point. This case is no longer about justice, it's all about politics at this point in time, just as it was when it first came to court and the deal was reneged upon.

Now, if you have anything else to say, say it clearly without your little insinuations.

As for your question, it's irrelevant. He served the time given him in the plea bargain. He didn't escape anything other than a corrupt judge.

 

[nuprin001]

You really don't understand the point I'm trying to get across to you, do you Dee? Polanski had a deal, he served the time stipulated by that deal after-which he was told that the deal was going to be reneged upon, so he fled. THAT is what happened. As a comparison, Karla Homolka struck a deal with the Canadian justice system. She served the penalty she was given and then she was released. After the deal was struck, evidence came to light showing that she had most likely lied and was much more a willing participant than she portrayed herself to be to get the deal. But the deal was made and it was upheld.

This is the point I'm trying to get across to you. I don't care what the charge was or what you or anyone happens to think about the deal he was given. He had a deal, he abided by it's terms and he should be a free man today. Even the girl involved has stated the same thing, that this should be dropped and Polanski left alone. If he was some nobody, some average guy on the street, this would never have gotten to this point. This case is no longer about justice, it's all about politics at this point in time, just as it was when it first came to court and the deal was reneged upon.

Now, if you have anything else to say, say it clearly without your little insinuations.

As for your question, it's irrelevant. He served the time given him in the plea bargain. He didn't escape anything other than a corrupt judge.

... except he didn't serve out his sentence as detailed in the plea bargain.

If he had, your argument might make some sense. And there's at least some indication that wasn't the only time Polanski raped someone.

The Canadian and American legal systems are not the same. Judging the American judicial system by the standards of the Canadian justice system would be the same thing as throwing all the escorts in Montreal in jail under American prostitution laws.

 

[Techman]

First of all, the plea bargain was arranged by the 'victim's' lawyer, presumably to preserve her identity. After which Polanski was ordered to spend 90 days in prison to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and he was released after 42 days. He was RELEASED, he did not make that decision, the prison authorities did. So in effect, he served the time he was given. He was supposed to receive probation at sentencing but it was made known to Polanski's attorneys that he would actually be sentenced to prison and then deported, and as a result he fled to France.

As a matter of fact, during the proceedings he actually traveled to Europe to complete a film and returned to the US to serve his evaluation period. These are not the actions of a man with the intention to flee justice.

In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion".

In a 2003 interview, 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."

The 'victim' herself wants this to be over with and to be able to put it past her and move on. I see no logical reason that her wish should not be granted.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I totally agree with Techman in this arguement. The Karla Homolka case is a good reference point. What Polanski did was wrong. But a part of the blame should also go with the girl's parents for not peforming their duties properly when raising their then sexually active, drug using, partying 13 year old girl. She was no saint, and has admitted to this in many interviews. But the fact of the matter is that if the judge hadn't renegged on his deal, this matter would have been forgotten long ago, and Roman Polanski likely would still be a great movie director working in Hollywood. He was wrong, admitted he was wrong, was forgiven by the so-called victim herself, had fullfilled his end of the bargain until....the judge changed his mind, likely because of a picture that was shown to him showing Polanski with some friends at a dinner in Germany, appearing to be having a great time. The judge was convinced by prosecutors that Polanski was making a mockery out of the whole case, showed disrespect towards the judge, so the judge changed his mind & decided to send him to prison to make an example out of him. People at that dinner later stated that the whole picture thing was totally blown out of proportion & explained what led to the picture being taken in the first place.

Anyways, the reason this case is still being talked about today still has to do with politics. Always was, always is, always will be. Politics, politics, politics. These two people, Polanski & the victim, should once & for all be left alone. Pushing this matter further won't do any good. The harm, if any, has already been done.....decades ago.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

You really don't understand the point I'm trying to get across to you, do you Dee?

Do you think he's trying, or just stirring things?

I totally agree with Techman in this arguement. The Karla Homolka case is a good reference point. What Polanski did was wrong. But a part of the blame should also go with the girl's parents for not peforming their duties properly when raising their then sexually active, drug using, partying 13 year old girl. She was no saint, and has admitted to this in many interviews. But the fact of the matter is that if the judge hadn't renegged on his deal, this matter would have been forgotten long ago, and Roman Polanski likely would still be a great movie director working in Hollywood. He was wrong, admitted he was wrong, was forgiven by the so-called victim herself, had fullfilled his end of the bargain until....the judge changed his mind, likely because of a picture that was shown to him showing Polanski with some friends at a dinner in Germany, appearing to be having a great time. The judge was convinced by prosecutors that Polanski was making a mockery out of the whole case, showed disrespect towards the judge, so the judge changed his mind & decided to send him to prison to make an example out of him. People at that dinner later stated that the whole picture thing was totally blown out of proportion & explained what led to the picture being taken in the first place.

I really don't see the validity in your point. You are saying she was a sexually active, unsupervised, drug-using, partying 13-year-old...so the point at which Polanski decided to exploit a markedly underage girl while he was in his 40s is partly the parents fault and the girls fault, even though he as a much older and responsible adult made the entire decision to use her when no one else but he was 100% responsible for his decision to...do it????! Is that the argument? This sounds so much like the old..."she was just asking for it" excuse. Putting aside the legal situation that developed in this case, whatever your view may be, the simple facts were: her 13...him 43...only correct decision...no sex...NO EXCUSES POSSIBLE. It just should not have happened at all...period.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[GTA refugee]

This sounds so much like the old..."she was just asking for it" excuse. Putting aside the legal situation that developed in this case, whatever your view may be, the simple facts were: her 13...him 43...only correct decision...no sex...NO EXCUSES POSSIBLE. It just should not have happened at all...period.

Cheers,

Merlot

I think that the old JUST ASKING FOR IT would have been much more accepted to the public back at the time when the incident happened. These days they will hang him because it is politicaly correct to do so.
He did the crime he must do the time, he also fled.

 

[EagerBeaver]

There is one important legal detail I am not understanding from the original story that was cited by Merlot in his original post. It may be a nuance in the criminal law of California.

Although it is not my area of specialty, I have in the past represented clients in criminal matters and arranged plea bargains. Usually what happens is a deal is negotiated with the prosecutor, and it is then entered on the record in Court, SUBJECT to the court's approval, although my experience is that unless there is something badly amiss, the criminal judge will rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor is recommending. There are some exceptions to this with young and inexperienced prosecutors and/or defense attorneys who between themselves negotiate deals that overlook applicable law.

So what I am wondering about is what is meant exactly by the Judge "reneging" on the deal? Did he approve it on the record and then change his mind? Or did he tell the attorneys at a pretrial conference in chambers that he would approve it and then change his mind? If this was off the record in chambers and he did not have the file in front of him that is one thing. That happens all the time that Judges do not have the files in front of them and give opinions on deals which are off the record. If this is what happened I would not call it reneging on a deal because there was no deal. If the deal was on the record and the Judge then changed his mind that would be HIGHLY unusual, because the Judge is expected to have looked at the file at that point. He also would probably alert counsel that he was going to do something other than what was recommended off the record in chambers, and I am suspecting that is what happened here. Then Polanski's attorney told him that the deal the prosecutor had agreed to was off the table, and Polanski fled. But I would not call the latter situation the Judge reneging on a deal, because at that stage of the legal proceedings there is no deal between Polanski and the Court. The deal that is struck is between prosecutor and defense attorney. The Court is simply the approving mechanism.

I did one time have a prosecutor renege a deal on me that we had reached on a client who had threatening and creating a public disturbance charges against him. The original deal was an unconditional nolle (suspension of the prosecution pending a probationary period) because my client had no criminal record, then when the prosecutor's supervisor found out a gun was involved, that offer was pulled off the table even though the mediator recommended it. I still ended up getting the charges nolled, but a number of conditions were attached, and then met by my client.

 

[Dee]

Note to the Mods and fellow members...

When I re-entered this debate I decided that I would not participate for long as I knew what would happen... so I won't ask Techman why he thinks a drugger and defiler of a 13 year old child gets to pick and choose which laws he follows or why, the drugger and defiler of the 13 year old, doesn't come back to the US to show that the law doesn't allow any further punishment.

But there is a cogent point to be made for all of us here.... poster, hobbyist, Mod, board owner and advertiser.

So as not to miss the point and get bogged down in the "to and fro" of the debate please consider what I say with the following assumptions (they are only assumptions, I don't agree with them):

Techman is correct in his support of the man who drugged and then statutorily raped the 13 year old child and further, there is nothing wrong with Techman talking about the "coming out" the underage girl in the other thread.

It has often been stated on these boards that LE becomes interested in the "activities" we discuss when either drugs or children are involved. Here we have both. Is it so hard to believe that LE may become interested in the board, with the potential for fallout for any one of us? Could you imagine the pressure that would be brought to bear if a group that supports children who have been raped reads the thread. Gosh there's even now a suggestion that it was the girl's fault... what is that about for gawd's sake?

If LE or support groups get involved, no amount of red herring, hair splitting, chest beating, posturing, banning those who are against child rape by Techman et al will carry one ounce of weight... it will just add to the fire... this is an absolute guarantee.

Let me appeal to the self interest of the few; forget the arguments in support of those who rape children, look at your own self interest and withdraw your odious posts.

This is so serious for the right thinking members of the board that I am now pursuing this further in the hope of protecting ALL.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Dee,

This discussion is about a case having nothing to do with Montreal. Montreal LE are only going to be interested if someone started posting about an agency or a strip club or a massage parlor using a minor or minors. That has happened on MERB in the past, and from what I saw, the Mods acted swiftly and, in one case, a bit harshly, leading me to ask for a reduction of the ban on the offending member. That request for clemency, which I asked for on my own initiative and not the banned member's, was granted.

 

[Dee]

Dee,

This discussion is about a case having nothing to do with Montreal. Montreal LE are only going to be interested if someone started posting about an agency or a strip club or a massage parlor using a minor or minors. That has happened on MERB in the past, and from what I saw, the Mods acted swiftly and, in one case, a bit harshly, leading me to ask for a reduction of the ban on the offending member. That request for clemency, which I asked for on my own initiative and not the banned member's, was granted.

Hi EB,

Thanks for your clear explanation in your post before this one.

I understand your point. However I fear the worst when the character is being supported on a Montreacentric board by a knowledgeable Montreal resident and the suggestion follows that the girl is to blame. It's always been a mystery to me why there isn't a hue and cry against the board in any event and believe we can lessen the odds of being in the spotlight if we keep our support of statutory rapists to ourselves.

(BTW I've been wondering how it worked out with your your lease car when the bandit tried to add on for the oil change which you had but not at the dealership?)

 

[EagerBeaver]

(BTW I've been wondering how it worked out with your your lease car when the bandit tried to add on for the oil change which you had but not at the dealership?)

I got a 75% credit, $150 out of the $200 for the oil change I allegedly never had which they claimed was "failure to service vehicle". Total bullshit as you have noted as I got the oil change, but at Jiffy Lube. It was the only scheduled oil change after the car came out of warranty before the end of the lease. The reason it worked out that way ($150) is they agreed to the credit of $200 for the bogus charge, but after the smoked cleared and my deposit and other credits were washed against what I legitimately owed, I came out with them owing me $50 - but they would not issue a refund check. I thought about bringing a small claims action against them for the $50, but only for about 10 seconds, and then my anger subsided and gave way to common sense. I let the $50 go.

 

[Dee]

I got a 75% credit, $150 out of the $200 for the oil change I allegedly never had which they claimed was "failure to service vehicle". Total bullshit as you have noted as I got the oil change, but at Jiffy Lube. It was the only scheduled oil change after the car came out of warranty before the end of the lease. The reason it worked out that way ($150) is they agreed to the credit of $200 for the bogus charge, but after the smoked cleared and my deposit and other credits were washed against what I legitimately owed, I came out with them owing me $50 - but they would not issue a refund check. I thought about bringing a small claims action against them for the $50, but only for about 10 seconds, and then my anger subsided and gave way to common sense. I let the $50 go.

I understand. Well done... I'm not surprised.

 

[Techman]

Find me one post, Dee, just one, where I defend what Polanski did! Just one!

I would not defend what he did any more than I would defend the actions of people who come here from out of town to prey, yes - prey, on drug addicted, alcoholic street girls who most likely have a psychological age equivalence of 12 and then post about their 'conquests' on the boards. I'm sure that if these people were to meet a drug addicted 17 year old on the street today they would pass her by but if tomorrow was her birthday these same people would gladly come back to pay her 20 bucks for a blow job.

If I had been on a jury trying the case in 1977 when it happened, I would have voted for locking him up to the extent that the law would provide if the evidence supported his guilt. But there was no jury trial and no evidence presented, there was a deal that was not honoured. And I am basing my argument on that fact, not the charges that were leveled at him and never proven in a court of law and could not be proven in a court of law today.

If you will remember, or take the time to look up on MERB, you will see that I was also in favour of Karla Homolka being given unconditional freedom upon her release with no restrictions as she had served her entire sentence. I did not base that opinion on the gravity of the crimes she committed but on the fact that she was sentenced and had served her time and by our justice system is entitled to her freedom.

Now why don't you stop your holier than thou bullshit and just go away?

 

[Dee]

This is so serious for the right thinking members of the board that I am now pursuing this further in the hope of protecting ALL.

Even though it's a Sunday, I've been able to do what I set out to do. There is always room for another view, but I hope my actions will help all... it may be a help that wasn't necessary, but better safe then sorry methinks. I have not sought any punitive action against anyone. I think I have been temperate (I appreciate that that may be more of an insult than a compliment to me, given the subject at hand). We'll see what happens. I'm optimistic.... watch this thread... on verra.... I compliment the mods for not banning me.

Peace... may our 13 year old children be allowed to grow into adulthood without being drugged, raped and have the vile perpetrator defended and excused from answering to the law. What sort of world do we live in where this statement is subject to attack?

I'll do the best to make this my last post here, although I acknowledge that I am weak.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I have reviewed the transcript of the deal that was put on the record on August 8, 1977 and it appears to me that it was a done plea deal contingent upon a psychiatric evaluation, which apparently found that Polanski should not serve time. It's very unusual for a Judge to approve a conditional plea deal on the Court record like this, have the conditions met, and then indicate he was going to do something else at sentencing, especially when the prosecution, defense attorney and victim's attorney are urging acceptance of the deal. It's rare that it would not be approved unless it was somehow determined to be in violation of some important public policy of the State of California, although what is interesting is that the prosecutor alludes to those policy considerations in the transcript of the plea deal. It seems like Judge Rittenband did "renege" on a done deal.

I think that between the time of the plea deal going on the record in August 1977 and the time of sentencing in February 1978, the Judge felt some political pressure to imprison and then deport Polanski. If Polanski had stuck around for sentencing, he may have ended up getting imprisoned and then quickly deported, which in effect would have achieved the exact same practical result as what ended up occurring by him fleeing to France. The problem, both in Polanski's mind and the Judge's, is that even if he was briefly imprisoned where such prisoners are normally sent, the chances of him getting ass-raped or killed would have been very high. Apparently, the Judge was very worried about this, due to the high profile nature of the case. However, it's not clear why he reneged on the plea deal or at least made comments that he would at the sentencing hearing. He must have felt some pressure from somewhere above him.

From what I read, Polanski claimed the sex was consensual, even though by law it cannot be, and that the girl did not respond negatively to his inquiries about whether she was enjoying DATY. These "defenses" are legally meaningless, and I am sure his attorneys told him that. It's also possible that when this got out in the press at that time, it created a wild public backlash against Polanski, because they are also somewhat hideous admissions of his conduct.