Forever Roman

[Bob]

Just saying high profile cases are expensive, it's past history, he's not a future threat, so let sleeping dogs lie.

I understand your views but I'm also happy that the prosecutor doesn't. It certainly is past history but so what? All crimes prosecuted are "past history" and, in this particular case, the main reason it wasn't disposed of timely was because the guilty guy (he did plead guilty under oath, ya know) committed another crime by violating his sworn bond and fleeing the jurisdiction. Your logic seems to imply that I ought to be able to escape liability for my acts so long as I can hide from authorities long enough?

I also don't understand how you can conclude that he's not a future threat. Most paedophiles (and, yes, I call a guy who drugs and rapes a 13-year-old a paedophile) are a future threat. Not too long ago, an 82-year-old guy not to far from here was arrested for molesting teens. Polanski's deviant orientation may be lower now due to his older age but, again, I don't see that as a valid reason that he should escape liability for what he most certainly did.

If you do the crime, you ought to do the time. He hasn't but he ought to (his celebrity "star" status ought to afford him no extraordinary privleges whatsoever; in fact, a good argument could be made that the opposite should occur).

It's actually kinda wierd/embarrassing that ol' Roman has gotten 7 pages of posts but I at least suspect that part of that is due to the strong views on both sides of the issue.

[Beer Chang]

Actually my views aren't strong. It doesn't matter too much either way to me how it's handled as I think both ways are reasonable.

[Wino]

Both views have valid points. Like Beer Chang, I do not really care what happens. I think Roman will take exception to Bob's paedophile label. I believe Roman stated he did not know how old she was. After viewing an old photograph of the victim, I dare to say most people would judge her to be of legal age. Of course, ignorance is no excuse, but I don't think this one incidence means he is a paedophile.

[rucus7]

I believe Roman stated he did not know how old she was. After viewing an old photograph of the victim, I dare to say most people would judge her to be of legal age.

Therefore, secretly administering a sedative(Quaalude) for the purpose of rape is OK?

[lvdkeyes]

I have not seen the photo of the victim, but I find it hard to believe a 13 year old could pass for 18.

[Wino]

I saw the picture on the internet. I could not believe it either. Google it and see what you think.

[Bob]

I saw the picture on the internet. I could not believe it either. Google it and see what you think.

I simply don't understand the problem here with understanding what happened. The grand jury testimony of the girl is online and I'd suggest that anybody that might even harbor the possibility of any sympathy for Polanski read it. Polanski met the girl at her mother's house (and the mother was younger than Polanski). And we're not talking about consensual sex with a 13-year-old either - we're talking about rape here. Her testimony was that she told him no repeatedly but he continued anyway. And she was telling him no repeatedly even after he gave her champagne and a qualude.

And he shouldn't go to jail for that?

[Wino]

I have not read the testimony. Granted, Polanski committed terrible offenses and has admitted as such. But the paedophile statement is unfair. Because he is older than the girl's mother he should have know the girl was underage? I believe he stated he did not know she was underage. If my memory serves me right, in the photo I saw she had rather large breasts. In my opinion and judging from the photo I saw, she could have easily passed as an eighteen year old.

[Bob]

I have not read the testimony. Granted, Polanski committed terrible offenses and has admitted as such. But the paedophile statement is unfair. Because he is older than the girl's mother he should have know the girl was underage? I believe he stated he did not know she was underage. If my memory serves me right, in the photo I saw she had rather large breasts. In my opinion and judging from the photo I saw, she could have easily passed as an eighteen year old.

Until you read her testimony, why speculate. Fairly easy to do. And she was still 13 when she testified.

I'm not sure which photo you're referring to and I also don't know how old she was when it was taken. Regardless, part of the issue is what she looks like in person versus what a photo might show (and both of those might be rather different). Besides, even if she was 80, it was still the crime of rape when it was non-consensual.

As to the paedophile comment I made about Polanski. Sorry, I stand by that comment and he can try to sue me (that'd be a laugh). He photographed this particular girl more than once in varying stages of undress and that alone, along with his rape of this girl, qualifies for that term. But I also happen to believe that he's shown an unusual interest in very young girls otherwise.

And I'm sorry again that you simply don't understand how the plea system works. A judge cannot accept a guilty plea unless the person pleading guilty acknowledges all the elements of the crime (i.e., Polanski couldn't have just said "guilty" without acknowledging that he was aware he was having sex with an underage person - as that was a significant element of the crime he was charged with). He did not say in court "well, I guess now I understand she was 13 but, at the time, I thought she was of legal age" because, had he said that, then the Court could not have accepted the guilty plea. So Polanski admitted under oath in Court that he was aware he was diddling a minor. Any comment Polanski makes (like zillions of other criminals) afterwards not under oath that contradicts what he said in Court ought to be ignored and, frankly, laughed at.

[lvdkeyes]

I just looked at the photo of the victim when she was 13 and believe me she looks no where near 18. She looks like a typical 13-14 or maybe 15 year old. Anyone who would have sex with a girl that young is a pedophile.

[rucus7]

Until you read her testimony, why speculate. Fairly easy to do.

A judge cannot accept a guilty plea unless the person pleading guilty acknowledges all the elements of the crime (i.e., Polanski couldn't have just said "guilty" without acknowledging that he was aware he was having sex with an underage person - as that was a significant element of the crime he was charged with). He did not say in court "well, I guess now I understand she was 13 but, at the time, I thought she was of legal age" because, had he said that, then the Court could not have accepted the guilty plea. So Polanski admitted under oath in Court that he was aware he was diddling a minor.

Yes, Polanski's guilty plea in court is very relevant. I took the time to read the transcript two or three weeks ago. Remember that this guilty plea was to a reduced charge, with that in mind, the severity becomes very clear.

Perhaps reading it will help clarify the actual events, and help to end speculation.

If I find the link I will post it here.

[rucus7]

I think this may change the perception of some people, it is difficult to rationalize this away.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

[Bob]

Rucus, thank you very much for posting that. And I'd suggest that anybody that doesn't read it ought to quit commenting substantively about what happened or what Polanski admitted to.

As I noted before, the Judge went through an exhaustive effort to not accept any plea until there was a clear admission of all of the elements of the crime. For brevity, I'll only quote a couple of the comments (again, folks, Polanski is under oath here!):

On Page 14:

Question: Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10th, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?

Polanski: Yes.

A few pages before that, you'll notice that the Judge told him quite explicitly that Polanski could get 1-20 years in prison for pleading guilty to the offense and Polanski answered "yes" to whether he understood that the Judge had not as yet determined what the sentence would be [so much for Polanski's claim that the Judge was going to violate a plea deal - as there was no plea deal with the Judge!]. Polanski also answered "yes" to a question as to whether he understood that the prosecutor could argue for county jail or prison time [Again, so much for what Polanski claimed was a "sentencing deal" with the prosecutor!].

Finally, the Judge told Polanski that, before sentencing, Polanski had to go for a 45-day examination at the state hospital to determine if Polanski was an MDSO (Mentally Disordered Sex Offender} and, if he was determined to be one, that Polanski could be sent to a state psychiatric prison hospital for an indeterminate period of time. Again, Polanski said "yes" to whether he understood that potential problem.

Polanski went for the 45-day examination at the state hospital and it was right after that when he fled the jurisdiction. I don't know (but I smell) that Polanski maybe didn't like what they determined. We'll know for sure if/when Polanski returns to California.

In any event, I would hope that anybody who reads this sentencing transcript will not believe a single word Polanski has uttered outside of Court. End of story.

[Wino]

Quote, "And I'd suggest that anybody that doesn't read it ought to quit commenting substantively about what happened or what Polanski admitted to."

Don't you just love freedom of speech? You are sounding a little like the Myanmar generals and our Chinese friends.

[Bob]

Quote, "And I'd suggest that anybody that doesn't read it ought to quit commenting substantively about what happened or what Polanski admitted to."

Don't you just love freedom of speech? You are sounding a little like the Myanmar generals and our Chinese friends.

Lol. Nope, everybody has to right to post whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps my wording was a bit awkward but what I meant to say was something to this effect: If you want to post something about Polanski that is flatly contradicted by his sworn testimony in court, go right ahead but expect somebody else to call you a pinhead for doing so.

For example, somebody surely would have the right to post the following:

"I believe he stated he did not know she was underage. If my memory serves me right, in the photo I saw she had rather large breasts. In my opinion and judging from the photo I saw, she could have easily passed as an eighteen year old."

Before I even read the sentencing transcript, I do believe that I made some comment that there was no possible way that the judge could accept the guilty plea without Polanski admitting in court that he knew the girl was a minor at the time. Hmmm, guess I was right. And I do sincerely hope that we don't have to hear any more of the "Oh, but Polanski said...." explanations given we've got his sworn testimony; besides, if what you said is true (that Polanski said he didn't know she was a minor), then I suppose we can add "serial liar" to the other lovely attributes that Polanski can claim title to.

[Wino]

I made some comment that there was no possible way that the judge could accept the guilty plea without Polanski admitting in court that he knew the girl was a minor at the time.

You are right. The judge or prosecutor probably required the defendant to allocute as part of the plea bargain. I guess the defendant would never lie under oath in order to receive the deal promised? That only happens on Law and Order.

go right ahead but expect somebody else to call you a pinhead for doing so.

First you sound like General Than Shwe and now like something off the Bill O'Reilley show. The pinhead and patriots? 55555555.

[rucus7]

Sorry for being obtuse Wino, but what are you suggesting Polanski was lying about? His guilt? He plead guilty to a lesser charge only to expedite the process? He then settled a civil suite out of court out of the goodness of his heart? To protect the 13 year old from media scrutiny? Do you think Polanski was/is the victim because of his celebrity?

What was the promised deal?

What color is the sky in your world?

[Bob]

You are right. The judge or prosecutor probably required the defendant to allocute as part of the plea bargain. I guess the defendant would never lie under oath in order to receive the deal promised?

No, the law requires the on-record allocution. It's the Judge's job to not accept any plea unless it's clear on the record (so an appellate court can read what happened, if need be) that the defendant has clearly admitted to all elements of the crime.

You know, one time you're defending Polanski and then another time you say you don't care what happens. Doesn't quite sound like you're in the "don't care" camp very often.

I also don't understand your glib comment about defendants would never lie under oath. Now you're suggesting that Polanski lied under oath but was being truthful later when he wasn't under oath? And you're relying on what he said later which directly contradicted what he said under oath in Court? Strange, dude, very strange.

[Wino]

You know, one time you're defending Polanski and then another time you say you don't care what happens. Doesn't quite sound like you're in the "don't care" camp very often.

I am really in the "don't care" camp. Strange but interesting to look at the case from different aspects.

[lvdkeyes]

Post anything to get more posts.

[Wino]

Post anything to get more posts.

Look who is calling the kettle black?

[Wino]

Here is the latest in the Roman Polanski case.

By Kim Willsher in Paris guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 May 2010

Roman Polanski has broken his silence to decry the US for seeking his extradition from Switzerland on a 33-year-old child sex case.

Oscar-winning film-maker Roman Polanski has broken his silence to criticise America for seeking his extradition on an under-age sex case that dates back 33 years.

In an emotive open letter, published in France and entitled, I Can Remain Silent No Longer, the director, who is under house arrest in Switzerland, says he is only seeking to be "treated fairly".

He accuses the US of wanting to serve him "on a platter" to the media. "I have had my share of dramas and joys, as we all have, and I am not going to try to ask you to pity my lot in life. I ask only to be treated fairly like anyone else," he writes.

The case against Polanski, 76, whose films include The Pianist, Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, dates back to 1977 when he was arrested in the US and pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. He spent 42 days in a Californian prison but fled before a final court appearance for sentencing.

He was arrested in September last year at Zurich airport after travelling from his home in Paris to collect a lifetime award for his work. After two months in prison he was put under house arrest on bail of €3m (£2.5m) at his chalet in Gstaad.

In the 900-word statement circulated by his friend, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, Polanski argues why he should be set free. "It is true: 33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison.

"That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence. By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil [sic] the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States," he writes.

He lays out eight points in support of his case, each headed with the title phrase: "I can remain silent no longer because the American authorities have just decided, in defiance of all the arguments and depositions submitted by third parties, not to agree to sentence me in absentia even though the same court of appeal recommended the contrary.

"I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victim's numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more."

Polanski says the extradition request to Switzerland is based on a lie, in that it suggests the time he spent in prison was for the purposes of "diagnostic study".

"The said request asserts that I fled in order to escape sentencing by the US judicial authorities, but under the plea-bargaining process I had acknowledged the facts and returned to the United States in order to serve my sentence. All that remained was for the court to confirm this agreement, but the judge decided to repudiate it in order to gain himself some publicity at my expense," he writes.

He says prosecutors from the original case have testified under oath that he has already served whatever jail term he would have been given.

"I can no longer remain silent because the United States continues to demand my extradition more to serve me on a platter to the media of the world than to pronounce a judgment concerning which an agreement was reached 33 years ago.

"I can remain silent no longer because I have been placed under house arrest in Gstaad and bailed a very large sum of money which I have managed to raise only by mortgaging the apartment that has been my home for over 30 years, and because I am far from my family and unable to work."

Addressing the Swiss authorities, he concludes: "Such are the facts I wished to put before you in the hope that Switzerland will recognise that there are no grounds for extradition, and that I shall be able to find peace, be reunited with my family, and live in freedom in my native land."

[rucus7]

Roman Polanski has a very selective memory. Memory that is not based on historical fact.

[Bob]

Roman Polanski has a very selective memory. Memory that is not based on historical fact.

A very nice way to acknowledge that ol' Roman has lied through his teeth (either in public or in the court under oath.....or both).

[Wino]

Roman Polanski has a very selective memory. Memory that is not based on historical fact.

Roman Polanski is not the only one with a very selective memory. Was Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony based on historical fact?