Roman Polanski victim: Director is not a threat, prosecution should end

:popcorn:

Roman Polanski victim: Director is not a threat, prosecution should end

Samantha Geimer, who as a 13-year-old girl was at the center of the Roman Polanski sex case, called on prosecutors to halt the case against the famed director.

"Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago," she said in an interview with The Times on Monday night.

Polanski had sex with Geimer at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977 -- sparking the epic case that appeared to end Monday when Swiss officials said they would not extradite the Oscar-winning director back to L.A. to face sentencing.

Geimer, who has in the past publicly forgiven Polanski, said she can't understand why prosecutors continue to pursue the director, maintaining that he's not a threat to anyone.

"At 76 years old? I don't think so."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/roman-polanski-victim-director-is-not-a-threat-prosecution-should-end.html

(Bet you saw "penetrator", didn't you?)

Revenge/retribution, in a rational society, should be pretty low in the list of priorities. Protection of the public should be THE main motivation.

The whole point of deterrence is to avoid crime by motivating potential criminals not to commit crimes.

But you do have a point.

To serve as a deterrent.

Example: a white-collar worker sees a chance of embezzling some money, but thinks twice out of fear of destroying his life. I think this happens more often than murderers thinking about the death penalty (or any penalty).

Same applies for statutory rape.

What is up with the groundhog-wearing-glasses avatars? I'm slow, I know I missed something with the reference.


I agree with you about protecting the public. I think Polanski committed the greater crime, by far, but I also think Gibson is more likely to hurt someone for real in the future.

n/t

The case is between the People of the State of California and Roman Polanski.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

It's going to be hard to press someone, a person who really is the #1 witness, to testify accurately or at all when she just doesn't care anymore.

The victim does not have to say anything at sentencing.

I see no reason why she would have to testify about his jumping sentencing.

The court will probably give him the maximum. Given his flight risk, I'd make sure it was maximum security too.

Her opinion at least sells newspapers and generates fun on DU

:rofl:

case. Cases are not meant to be used for some purpose other than the to judge the merits of case at hand.

What is this nonsense that cases are meant to be used as lessons for people not even involved? As if that works anyhow.

Each case should be judged on its OWN merits and when the victim delcares justice has been done it is cruel to force her to spend decades suffering because of the hateful inability to accept when something is over and because of a sick need for revenge. And for what? A victim you obviously care nothing about?

Only in America do we have this 'let's punish, even the victim, (because that's what you're doing) to satisfy some pathological need to punish people' attitude.

She is satisfied. That is the ultimate declaration that justice was done.

Americans need some serious deprogramming from the effects of living in this authoritarian, sick, punishing society.

but she, like all of the rest of us, lives in a civilized society. We have a criminal justice system to punish malefactors because vigilante justice is barbaric.

A horrible crime was committed against her and all of the rest of us as well. She may be over it, but Mr. Polanski still owes the people of the state of California a debt that has not been repaid, and probably never will. When we allow the wealthy to get away with crimes that would land the rest of us in jail for the balance of our lives we reinforce an authoritarianism based on privilege.

The criminal justice system does not exist to satisfy the injured. Vindication should not be a consumer product provided by the state. Punishments are not ordered to make somebody else feel better. Our system of justice exists to insure a measure of reciprocity among the members of society. When that system doesn't work we lose faith in it, and that lack of faith will eventually destroy it.

We torture people, and we kill innocent people with impunity. We do not hold war criminals accountable. So stop with the righteous anger over an ancient case that has been settled, thankfully now by a more civilized nation.

We are in no position to be giving the kind of lecture you just gave, until we restore the rule of law and provide justive for the millions of victims we have and still are creating.

The same one that just voted to ban the building of minarets? :rofl:

So your argument is that because America is not perfect (and what country is), we can't sentence a rapist. Oh, and that it's an "ancient case". You know, the cops that shot up people at that bridge are suddenly being pursued, despite the fact that America is not perfect and that the event happened years ago.

Your rather irrational defense of Polanski based on your opposition to certain American policies is funny, to say the least. The funniest part is that you call for us to restore the rule of law. Well, this is exactly that.

by people who care nothing at all for victims because if they did they would respect her wishes.

As for the Swiss, I'm not aware of them torturing people around the globe, or raping women and children in the cause of the great WOT.

No, we CAN sentence rapists, but we don't, do we? We are told to look forward and not look back at those crimes. But apparently we want to pick and choose what we are to forget and what we are not to forget.

The rule of law means that no one is above it. So long as some are, we simply look like hypocrites when we hide the evidence of rape and torture of helpless women and children and protect the guilty but spend 33 years going after one man even when the victim wants it to be over. And we deny the victims of our torturers and rapists justice even in civil court.

I will repeat, I will save my outrage for those women and children if you don't mind. This case is over and the victim has received the justice she wanted.

Let's see how many posts a thread on some of those Iraqi women and children will get here. How many outraged people will fill the thread with demands for justice?

All I've seen regarding the ongoing torture of innocent people in our secret gulags around the world, or the refusal to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay, scene of nightmares for many innocent people, are excuses. 'Oh, we can't do that, it's not politically expedient right now'.

I will write a post, as I've often in the past on other boards, about one of those Iraq women who has not and will not receive justice for what happened to her. But I doubt it will get more than a few posts.

So spare me the hypocrisy. We do not punish rapists and torturers of women and children. Or maybe the victims have to have to be Americans to get our attention. Those foreigners apparently don't evoke the same outrage.

Well, for one, justice isn't about the wants of the victim, so there goes that idea.

For your second, that the level of outrage over this doesn't match others, well I certainly agree with you that that should not be the case. But what that has to do with whether or not Polanski should be sentenced is nothing. You see, Polanski getting off with nothing for raping a girl is part of the problem, not the solution to other injustices. Don't know where you are getting your ideas.

Every country is hypocritical. Just look at the Swiss and their ban of minarets, which is pretty much about as neandrathal as a country can get, but which you gloss over.

If we didn't care what victims go throught when crimes are committed against them, we would have no need for a judicial system. Everyone could just do as they pleased.

In this country, victims opinions are very important to the outcome of a trial, so you're just wrong about that. If, eg, a prosecutor cannot get a victim to cooperate, the case is often dropped.

Even in this case, in the initial legal wranglings, the victim's input was very much considered which is why there was a deal. The prosecutor knew that without her full cooperation, he most likely would not have gotten a conviction. Juries DO consider victims' input, very much so. A Prosecutor's worst nightmare is a victim who will not testify against the person being charged. Victims have rights also. You are denying this victim HER rights to get on with her life, and for what?

And yes, I am very much on the side of victims, always. As far as I am concerned, that is the reason we have a judicial system, to ensure that people who are wronged get justice. This victim has stated over and over again that she has received justice and wants people to leave her alone.

I wish people would put as much effort into getting even a tiny fraction of the justice this woman says she got, for the people, men, women and children who were raped and tortured by this government. But that topic is not so popular since Democrats told us to move past it. And where do you see as much outrage as you are seeing about this case, when we read that the current DOJ has denied victims of torture even the right to some civil justice? All I've seen are a few posts, a few recs and then the story goes away.

Justice is about upholding the law of society, not making exceptions because of what certain victims say. Especially when said victims can be paid off. It's not fair to society at large if a victim claims she doesn't want sentencing after being paid off handsomly. That's not justice and has nothing to do with victim's rights. The victim's feelings about what should or should not be done in sentencing are irrelevant. It is the laws of society that matter.

This is not, nor will it ever be, the utopia that you desire because it is run by human beings that are simply not perfect.

I am willing to bet that you are able to navigate through your day without having to face anarchy in the streets.

I'll direct my righteous anger anywhere I please thankyouverymuch. Did it occur to you that W, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest of those fuckers will get off scot free for exactly the same reason Polanski will? How long do you think all the people they brutalized will take to get over it and "be satisfied"?

one case where apparently the victim has gotten over it. It is intefering outsiders who can't seem to leave her alone. She is being victimized over and over by mobs of angry, revenge seekers.

But I never see a thread on the women of Iraq, or the children who were raped by U.S. troops under the direction of the war criminals you just mentioned and who roam free here with the knowledge that this country does NOT hold its torturers and rapists accountable. I can walk around fairly safely, yes, but Iraqi and Afghan women are not so safe thanks to our presence in their countries, nor are their children. So while I can be happy for me, as long as women and children and men, are being tortured in my name, it's hard to be overly jubilant.

I'll save my outrage for women like Noor, whose name is never mentioned on this board, by the same people who are so outraged over this case. No one is going to spend a day in jail for what happened to that woman and no one seems to care whether she lived or died.

As for Somalia, I do not look to countries like Somalia as a guage of what I expect this country to be. Why would you do so? We claim to be a civilized society, no one claims Somalia to be civilized do they? I compare this country to countries that are considered civilized. Interesting that you don't.

We do not have the moral authority to be outraged over what other countries do, and certainly not over a case where the victim has gone on with her life and simply wants to be left alone. Have some respect for her if you really care about victims.

it doesn't matter if she's gotten over it. The criminal justice system does not exist to offer comfort to victims. Just because it happened a long time ago and she doesn't mind any more does not obviate the facts of the case. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl and got away with it. Furthermore, his career has flourished in spite of his crime. That is a travesty of justice.

If you're so upset about never seeing a thread on the women of Iraq or the children who were raped by U.S. troops or Noor, why haven't you started a one yourself?

We may or may not have the moral authority to be outraged over what other countries do, but we certainly have the moral authority to be outraged over what our own country does. Some call it a conscience. That's how change happens. From what I understand Switzerland made the right call because we screwed up.

You overlooked the point of my reference to Somalia, no doubt caused by your hasty ascension to high dudgeon. This may come as a shock to you, but Somalia is populated by human beings just like the United States. The example was not offered as a gauge of what this country should be, but an example of what it could be and most certainly will become if we continue to allow the wealthy and well connected to escape justice with impunity.

position that what the victim wants or thinks does not matter. Yes, it does. I know this from firsthand experience with the judicial system so you are just spouting authoritarian nonsense. Juries and judges will and do take into account the opinions of victims, as they did in this very case you are determined to continue to rail about. Her wishes were definitely considered in the case 33 years ago. She and her family wanted this case ended, and the prosecutor made a deal as a result of that. So your continued claim that 'it doesn't matter what victims want' is just nonsense. It may be how you would like it to be, but that is not how it is. A victim, eg, has the right to file charges which will lead to a prosecution, or the victim can drop charges. If a DA files charges a victim can request MORE or LESS charges and that opinion will be considered.

And that is how it should be. This nonsense that the law is not about victims is BS. Of course it is.

You must not have read my posts re posting articles on Iraqi Women and Children. I spent years doing that on other boards, back when Democrats cared about such things. And I will post them again, probably here and elsewhere but I know that they will never get the attention on THIS board that this case gets and that shows me that there is some kind of strange dynamic going on here, where this case is considered to be far more worthy of attention than the rapes, torture and murders of other women and children for some reason. And I don't think it is about justice, I know it's not about victims, I believe it is may be about deeply held prejudices.

As for Somalia, I know the point you were trying to make. I responded to it. Somalians are tragically the victims of the kind of Colonialism WE are now engaged in. And the U.S. is the aggressor, therefore it is ridiculous to use Somalia to compare the U.S. to.

When this country gets invaded by some Colonial power, then you could use Somalia, but it is utterly ridiculous to use that country to tell us how lucky we are in the U.S. Of course we are compared to them. No one has invaded us yet.

"Juries and judges will and do take into account the opinions of victims, as they did in this very case you are determined to continue to rail about. Her wishes were definitely considered in the case 33 years ago. She and her family wanted this case ended, and the prosecutor made a deal as a result of that."

Her parents let her attend a private photo shoot to boost her modeling career where she was drugged and raped by Roman Polanski. Where were her parents? Why weren't they charged with child endangerment? No doubt her family wanted the case ended. Are you sure you know what the victim actually wanted? I see she sued him when she was old enough to think for herself.

I've only been dimly aware of this story (every post I have made in this forum about this issue is in this thread) but it looks like the payoff boomeranged on her. She is probably being harassed as a side effect of outrage at another wealthy, well connected pervert that gets off scot free by throwing around a pile of money. Like I said, a travesty of justice.

Maybe if her mother had not been allowed to interfere in the judicial process justice might have been served. I'm sure she had no motivation other than the anonymity of her poor daughter since her acting career to date consisted of one appearance each in Starsky and Hutch and Police Woman in 1975 and 1976 respectively. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that she sent her child to a private photo shoot with a Hollywood producer in 1977. She couldn't possibly have had any motivation to come to sort of arrangement with that same Hollywood producer after he raped her. Like I said. A travesty of justice.

I know how it is. And I know how I want it to be. This entire website is little more than an academic exercise. Post #39 (and my response) are the most accurate so far.

I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the outrages committed against Samantha Geimer and the thousands if not millions of women who have been brutalized. The rape of all those anonymous women happened almost exclusively and certainly in no small part because a small coterie of wealthy, privileged people were able to use their influence to pervert the judicial process. Without equal protection under the law we will be left with medieval barbarity.

I would respectfully suggest that instead of railing about how some Hollywood pervert has upstaged an issue that you have personally embraced you use the outrage and attention that people have shown for this little drama to help them understand the causes of all these injustices because they are the same. From Roman Polanski to Dick Cheney to the World Bank, the wealthy have used their power to deny justice to the poor. When liberals start squabbling among each other for not paying due respect to each others personal pet crusades we form circular firing squads and lose elections. When we do that, we cede power to all the wrong people and allow them to get away with the shit that concerns both of us so much.

Thus it really is irrelevant if the victim doesn't want the criminal prosecuted. The criminal while attacking a specific victim has violated the laws of the state and thus the criminal justice system goes beyond the desires of just the victim.

I understand why she wants the whole thing to go away but the reason it's gone on this long is that Polanski fled. At 76 he's still a coward.

skipping town on the police/court system - the victim hardly has a say about that. If she is upset that this is still dragging on, she should be upset with Polanski for being a criminal.

And he did not "have sex with her" - he raped her.

And, considering she was paid off by him 20 years ago. she's the poster child for why this si so in most states.

He agreed to $500,000 in a settlement of the civil suit and then never paid it.

release the terms of the settlement agreement they purportedly came to, post-judgment.

Apparently, a settlement agreement was reached in which he was supposed to pay her X amount of money and that money wasn't ever paid. Seems to be his MO... agreeing to something then skipping out on what he agreed to.

She files civil suit. She wins a judgment. He doesn't pay it. THAT is the open judgment that shows in court records.

Then Polanski tries to rehabilitate himself, and purportedly enters into a settlement agreement with her on the civil judgment.

It's that later settlement agreement--which can be done without court oversight, that Polanski and Geimer refuse to comment on. Neither one will answer questions about who paid what and under what terms.

Now, the prior court judgment from the civil suit still appears on record...with no 'release.' This is a form document that Geimer would file to release the judgment. There are many reasons that they might agree to not file that document. We have no idea who paid what, and to whom.

That was part of the settlement agreement -- a gag order.

Just done by attorneys, privately.

ie there's a private gag order in the private settlement.

settlement that the court would have no oversight over....

Which is probably why no public 'release' of the judgment was ever filed. Most jurisdictions would require the 'satisfaction of judgment' terms in order to accept a release of judgment.

Get the people dropping quarters in the collection plate to PAY for their

Crimes Against Nature

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/crime_nature.htm

were the qualudes given with her knowledge and consent or did Polanski drug her without her knowledge?

Personal experience with other varieties of recreational drugs, at that age, demands consistency on my part :)

to a pony ride, much less drugs and sex.

She repeatedly told Polanski no both before and during his sex act. She repeatedly begged him to take her home. She was crying throughout the sex act. There simply was no consent, period.

Even if you can somehow discount his crime of giving alcohol to a child, even if you can somehow discount his crime of giving drugs to a child, even if you can somehow discount that she actually WAS a child, it's still rape, and no reasonable person can possibly discount those things anyway.

should not turn its back on the raping of thirteen year-olds by adults regardless of the amount of Oscar figurines on their mantle. The notion of equal justice is sufficient enough to pursue Polanski for the rest of his life or until he comes back and faces justice.

I asked in the US or abroad---that would mean before this incident or after. This could be the one people heard about, while there were whispers of others. Hence my question. And if abroad, it's irrelevant. European culture is a bit different in their approach of sexual ages.

I don't get why posters act like Europe is full of people and laws who think sexual relations with a child is okay. I have lots of friends from many different European countries, and none of them would think it was okay.

This was even a huge plot point of "The Reader," which was set in postwar Germany, and that was an older woman with a teenaged boy, which is much more acceptable.

Natasha Kinski has come out, and a woman came forward about two or three months ago,. It was discussed on here.

I'm not stating my post the European culture versus US culture in a strict sense. But the way the law is approached is different and as such would have nothing to do with what's going on with our country in regards to this case. That was my meaning by irrelevant. It's like how each state has different laws and outlooks on minors and this is stemming through the culture. And every state in the US has a different listing on the age of consent, marriage and so on.

But the fact that he's now 76 doesn't mean that he's less of a threat than he was when he was in his 40s. In any event, its not just about what he may do in the future,its about what he did in the past.

You can only rape a 13-year-old.

I hate when news reports say this. "Sex" is consensual.

One of the other posters noted that the victim had been drugged. If that is true, it doesn't matter how old she was because it was rape by force. That's a crime at any age. So he's guilty on two different legal theories.

We have age of consent laws that spell it out.

He was convicted of a crime. At this point, her opinion is irrelevant and carries no legal weight.

He did not have sex WITH Geimer, you might say ON her, a scared 13 year old kid, if you really want to continue the apologia.

The act was done against her, the CRIME wasn't. This is a shining example of why we have both criminal and civil courts. Her opinion is completely irrelevant in the matter.

I'm going to guess that the majority of those carrying the pitchforks and torches, really have nothing more then personal animosity towards Polanski.

I know you claim that this is about "justice" and not vengeance, but with some of the posts I've read, it's definitely vengeance

Did any of you bother to read the statement from the Swiss Justice Minister?

On 12 July 2010, the Swiss authorities announced that they would not extradite Polanski to the U.S. in part due to a fault in the American request for extradition. Polanski was no longer subject to house arrest, or any monitoring by Swiss authorities. In a press conference held by Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, she stated that Polanski's extradition to the U.S. was rejected, in part, because U.S. officials failed to produce certain documents, specifically "confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement." According to Swiss officials, the records were required to determine if Polanski's 42-day court-ordered psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison constituted Polanski's whole sentence according to the now-deceased Judge Rittenband. Reasoning that if this was the correct understanding, then "Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation."

And why aren't you questioning the L.A. prosecutor's refusal to provide all of the documents pertaining to this case?

Would any of you be happy with a case brought against you and not be allowed access to all of the documents?

And if Polanski were in front of me, I'd try to be polite and call him a cowardly piece of shit who happened to have made a number of great films, but still a cowardly piece of shit.

Pitchfork? No, those would be for anyone idiotic enough to create a defense for the rape of a scared kid.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). 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.

...

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

And if she hadn't been a child, it probably would never have even made it to a grand jury.

:thumbsup:

to rape. he needed a kid, ... to rape.... because he. is. a. coward.

Especially if it's drug rape -- no chance to react, adult or not. No need to actually subdue the person. Let the chemical do all the dirty work for you.

It's tragic that if she hadn't been 13, there'd likely have even less people refusing to make excuses the act.

He jumped sentencing.

He kidnapped, drugged, and raped a 13-year-old child, after she said no no no.

What one person may melodramatically perceive as "pitchforks" is just as validly another person's justice.

All too many Americans equate justice with vengeance- even though they're not the same concept.

per u.s. system. it was the courts to decide the case resolved or not, not Polanski. what a concept. Polanski decides he has had enough, walks and swiss say, yup, Polanski can decide.

not that it isn't know, but... just to state the obvious, not Polanski place to make this decision. nor swiss courts.

"questioning the L.A. prosecutor's refusal to provide all of the documents pertaining to this case"

I would really like to know why this happened because he is getting off because someone didn't do what they needed to.

swiss has no desire to prosecute criminals... as a whole. why the hell should i believe anything the swiss put out to validate their decision to let a child rapist go. it was a hot potato for the swiss. they dont tend toward prosecuting, they had world pressure, they needed an excuse.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

have any right to any documents other than a lawful extradition order. If Polanski wanted more, then he needed to show up in CA to argue it. It's projection by the Swiss, who know damn well they were looking for any excuse.

They wanted to readjudicate the case, and the LA prosecutors refused--Polanski had the option of either returning to CA to appeal, or filing for an in-absentia sentencing.

He did neither.

press the issue.

There are protections to discovery, but they are few and far between. that those docs aren't avalable means that the DEFENSE had a reason for keeping them under wraps and just using the issue to sell a sham to the press.

The defense could have argued to the judge to allow them to be revealed, but either they didn't or the judge, in his/her power, decided they were not to be disclosed. for whatever reason. I'm in the legal field, and I respect the wisdom of the court even when I disagree with it.

The defense apparently didn't make a compelling case for their disclosure.

case in Switzerland. Polanski pled guilty, then fled.

Polanski, if he wanted any documents, needed to show up in California to get them. He can appeal from a jail cell in CA.

What, you think we run a justice system where a person who has pled guilty to rape gets to flee the jurisdiction and THEN gets to tell the jurisdiction what they will hand over???

As for the Swiss, they very conveniently decided to ignore a lawful extradition request by putting up a smokescreen, saying they needed 'more documents.'

Now, just because the Swiss are too stupid to understand that legally, court-ordered psychiatric evaluation CANNOT and DOES NOT constitute part of your sentence--and just because the Swiss REFUSED to read the plea agreement transcript, where Polanski testified that he knew he was facing jail time does not mean that the LA prosecutors are at fault.

Frankly, the statement from the Swiss just tells me how stupid they think we are.

due to the prosecutor's failure to provide the requested documentation...and that Polanski remains a fugitive from justice, a convicted rapist, and a general scumbag.

Maybe Polanski's evaluation constituted his entire sentence (I hope not). That doesn't make him any less a rapist and a fugitive, because the matter was never settled.

Although technically correct, the Swiss's ruling is unsatisfactory in terms of settling the case.

Legally, psychiatric evaluation is not criminal punishment. Even if the judge promised that, it was NOT a promise that could be fulfilled legally.

Here's the plea transcript--read pages 7, 8 9....Polanski testified to knowing he faced more than a psychiatric eval.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea7.html

On edit--it is not appropriate for the Swiss to readjudicate this case. Polanski pled guilty. If he had a problem with his plea, he needs to do what poor defendants do--appeal from the jurisdiction.

You shouldn't get rewarded for flight.

Since the prosecution failed to produce the requested documentation, the Swiss (correctly, I think) erred on the side of Polanski's rights. Do I like it? No way.

Is Polanski a scumbucket? Yup. Is he a slimy, cowardly, weasel rapist? Yes, yes, and yes.

I could see how one would interpret the Swiss's ruling as a "reward" for flight, but legally, I think they did the right thing. I wouldn't call it "re-adjudication." The prosecution did not meet the Swiss's criteria for extradition. Now, we could argue that the criteria are ridiculous, or impossible to meet, or arbitrary. All possible, likely even.

But, the Swiss said, "we'll hand him over to you if you give us x, y, and z." That didn't happen. No deal. And no one should be surprised by the Swiss behaving this way. They don't give a crap and they never have.

Read the Swiss statement.

They do NOT dispute the legality of the extradition order. They chose, as they say to "obey the spirit of the law." They chose to ask for things unrelated to the extradition order.

Why? Because they didn't want to extradite him.

Do you understand that even if they had handed over everything, the Swiss still woudl have said no?

And no...not surprised.

He was effectively removed from American society. While remaining at large to rape and pillage the communist, socialist anti-American French. Who wouldn't be happy.

Hence the reason I don't hold any actor up to any special standard, because many still consider him a legend and would kill to work with him.

depending if he hops to some other country that will be less willing to protect a child rapist.

Besides, it's not about want the victim wants in the legal system.

I doubt it. Celebrity culture is completely different from our own. I'm sure you've heard of the Mackenzie Phillips drama.

In 1996, she sued him saying he still owed her $604,000.

The child wasn't a celebrity, she was used by a celebrity. As was Mackenzie Phillips.

From what I can see still not enough to have her say she pardoned him and if she's suing what would stop her from pushing his sentence rather than saying people need to get over this and move on. That doesn't make sense. I'd doubt he'd sue her for saying he should pay for his crimes. Lastly, Mackenzie Phillips was actually an adult when she had sex with her father...or so she says. As for Mick Jagger her statement was more along the lines of she was willing and wanting---although i find it disturbing that a 14 year old would think that way. But it's whatever---age of consent in Japan and Mexico for girls is 13 and in some states in the US goes as far as 12. In any event, I'm not lambasting the victim, but I'm not making her some innocent in this----especially so many years after the fact---since she's suing for more money and basically advocating for his freedom.

Yes you are.

Blaming the victim is always very popular in rape cases.

For some reason, you think Polanski being an "celebrity" excuses his actions.

:puke:

Which was my statement. Not that I like getting into my private life, but I've had a similar experience.

:wtf:

Yes, yes you are lambasting the victim.

The article in question is looking at what the victim is saying currently. And my response is looking at what the victim is saying currently. I don't understand how money is the sole definer of her defense of the man who violated her.

You can go to post 42 which started it all. I'm hardly going to protect the actions of the victim.

WHAT?

That's what majority of my commentary was. Why is she defending him in all this and I don't think it's all about money.

I understand forgiving and moving on, from personal experience I'm not going to post about either.

You seem to be saying she says she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to "suffer" any more repercussions, but that she has an ulterior motive in having him go to jail so she can get money out of him? Please explain, thank you.

And read my post carefully although I do jump from one point to another. There is nothing in my post which states that she was forgiving him and doesn't him to "suffer" any more repercussions. I will admit I may have implied an ulterior motive because of what the posters in 35 and 49 state---which is that she was paid off.<---What do you read out of it?! That would say to me I'd have to be wary of this person since as recent as '96 the victim is scrounging for money owed.

As said previously, the poster who responded to was in 35 stating this was a pay off. This is not about forgiving and moving on. And I was questioning her actions as a pay off. which was again posted in post 49 saying how she was suing for 604,000. and this is where I am not making the victim an innocent. Why protect this man if he owes her money and she's going as far as suing. And how does one protect the victim again since the original poster says this is about money and hence her protecting him (or that was the impression I was given by post 35). I wanted to know why it is all money. The original poster to all of this actually started in line by discrediting the victim in the first place...I wanted to know why and then a poster after me stated it is definitely about money.

Go to post 42.
And read my post carefully although I do jump from one point to another.

42 "Please...He's been paying her off for 33 years?
I doubt it. Celebrity culture is completely different from our own. I'm sure you've heard of the Mackenzie Phillips drama." I see you disbelieving that he's been paying her for 33 yrs. Nothing in the post you replied said "he's been paying her for 33 yrs" though research does show he was sued by her, paid her, then she had to fight to get the money he was supposed to pay her.


There is nothing in my post which states that she was forgiving him and doesn't him to "suffer" any more repercussions.

However, she has said she forgives him and doesn't want him to "suffer" any more repercussions.

I will admit I may have implied an ulterior motive because of what the posters in 35 and 49 state---which is that she was paid off.<---What do you read out of it?! That would say to me I'd have to be wary of this person since as recent as '96 the victim is scrounging for money owed.

The record shows that as recent as '96 she was still trying to collect the money the court told him to pay her. I see this as a far difference from "scrounging for the money owed". Do I read you correctly here in that because she was still owed court ordered fees 14 yrs ago, she has an ulterior motive in not having him go to prison?

As said previously, the poster who responded to was in 35 stating this was a pay off. This is not about forgiving and moving on. And I was questioning her actions as a pay off. which was again posted in post 49 saying how she was suing for 604,000. and this is where I am not making the victim an innocent. Why protect this man if he owes her money and she's going as far as suing.

Perhaps she wants to get the money the court ordered him to pay and has decided for some reason that's all? Perhaps she was bought off? Or perhaps it is because what she says has nothing to do with the case now?

And how does one protect the victim again since the original poster says this is about money and hence her protecting him (or that was the impression I was given by post 35). I wanted to know why it is all money. The original poster to all of this actually started in line by discrediting the victim in the first place...I wanted to know why and then a poster after me stated it is definitely about money.

I don't see the OP or #35 poster discrediting her. OP quotes a news article. #35, start of this subthread, says "She forgave him because of a pay-off." Neither of these are a discredit. She was paid off after her civil suit and simply wants to have it all go away. If I were drugged and raped as a child and managed to get a civil suit settlement, or even if not, after 33 yrs I'd want to not have to deal with it again also.


Back to your #52 reply that set off indignation of several of us:
I'm not lambasting the victim, but I'm not making her some innocent in this----especially so many years after the fact---since she's suing for more money and basically advocating for his freedom.

Where is she suing him for more money? All I see is 14 yrs ago she sued to collect what the court ordered him to pay. You seem to be saying that she doesn't want him to go to jail because then she couldn't get more money out of him. I see no evidence of that and yes, you are lambasting the victim.

Made it appear as though it was a pay off, ie...she forgave him because of a "pay-off". That was not my post. I am in disbelief that she would be willing to be so forgiving if it was a pay-off. And my posts after were in lieu of the first post...and the victim as an adult---not so much the nuances of the article.

In relation to the statement of the ulterior motives, yes and no. Since even if he went to prison she would still get the money from his estate. So it's not so much to keep him out of prison. However, I do question why she wants him to be kept out of prison, irrespective of his age---considering money is involved. I can honestly say I don't understand the paying. Apparently they signed a settlement deal for 500,000 which happened in 1988. Then she wasn't getting her money for one year, she sued to garnish wages...but says something was owed to the tune of 604K+ which I don't get, if he's paying off for the last few years. Unless court cases were included.

As to your point about her standing in relation to the case, I don't know how she doesn't have anything to do the case now, when she's wants her money. You even state that she was probably bought off <---maybe I have issues with this idea of her being bought off and pay off if she's a victim---especially as an adult. Which was what was totally implied by the op in post 35.

Actually by stating that the entire act was a pay off does discredit her. There is one thing in getting your money and then walking away. But she continually allows herself to be pushed back into the lime light with these quotes and suggesting that he can't hurt anyone now because of his age. Which irks me beyond belief because she's pushing for his innocence while he's not innocent. That's what's in the article. But now you tell me she's doing it to forget about it? If people are so upset by what he did, and apparently has since done...how is her defense of him legitimatized by by her wanting "to not deal with it again."

She filed the suit in 1988, and it dragged out until 1993 when she finally agreed to a $500,000 settlement. Polanski agreed to pay her the $500,000 but never did which is the reason why her attorneys continued to fight for another two years trying to get him to pay and why the amount went up to $604,416.22... that's the original $500,000 he NEVER paid plus interest.

The original settlement agreement amount of $500,000 became known as a result of the court documents filed to attempt legal recourse to force him to pay what he agreed to in the original settlement.

http://wbztv.com/national/roman.polanski.settlement.2.1225463.html

Bottom line is that she never got ANY of the money he agreed to pay unless he paid her a lot of money since his recent arrest and nobody knows about it. According to court documents she never got any of that settlement money to this day.

There are articles all over the internet that explain all this. I realize you're trying to make it appear that the reason she is defending him now is because he paid her a lot of money, and that simply isn't true because he never paid it. That certainly seems to be his MO... agree to something in a court of law and then skip out on that agreement once the legal pressure to resolve the issue is gone.

I believe she is defending him now for the simple reason that after all these years she's managed to bury the bad memories of the whole affair and him finally being arrested forces her to deal with that which is VERY typical of rape victims... they often don't want any reminders of the incident even when that reminder comes in the form of finally being able to see their rapist punished. She seems to be very typical of just wanting the whole thing to go away even if that means he doesn't ever face the music. Having been sexually assaulted myself more than once, I totally get that mentality.

who were put on trial in their old age for their crimes. They are so old, let it go.

lie this country into a devastating war that has killed thousands of Americans,hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

One would think that would be at least as much a priority as going after Polanski, which after all this time is more symbolic than anything else. Yes, he should be in jail. Period. He's not and not going to be. That is the symbol of a very imperfect justice system. Bush-Cheney* et al being free of prosecution is the sign of a broken one.


As a postscript. This is my last post on DU for awhile. I've found there is a small group of people that I believe intentionally misconstrues what is said to start flame wars. So, for any that want to bastardize the meaning of this post to somehow say I am defending Polanski, feel free. You are wrong and disingenuous to do so, but I will not be surprised. (and no, I am not posting a separate GBCW thread, so that group can save their snark). I wish all well. I truly do.

Really falls flat, IMO.

seek her comment?

Are you really that suspicious--or naive?

that she made comments to the press that she was tired of the attention, and just wanted to put all this behind her. The media (and those sympathetic to Polanski's arguments) probably did seek her out yet again, despite her appeals to be left alone.

FUGGEDABOUDIT where I'm concerned. Find a fresher case to pursue und LASS MICH BITTE ENDLICH IN RÜHE!!! Bitte.'

Maybe turn attention to Republican sex scandals less than 30 years old...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x814

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:grr:

but victims don't get to decide the legal fate of their transgressors.

He would have got off clean, and could still live in the States.

the torture and rape of women and children. So many excuses from the same people here for our new policy of 'looking forward' and forgetting all those rapes and murders. The hypocrisy of America is stunning, no wonder the world pays no attention to anything we have to say anymore.

I'm waiting for some of those so righteously outraged and unforgiving over this one case, to write some OPs about the raped women and children of Iraq. And the murdered babies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think it's going to happen. Polanski was in wrong business, you are absolutely right.

This really is a strange phenomenon, the way this case generates so many outraged posts, but a post on tortured and/or raped Iraqis is lucky to get any attention at all. Especially now that Democrats are in charge.

in war and the rest of the time.

This is about a celebrity, so it's interesting. :grr:

Please do tell what your research into this question has yielded in terms of cold, hard facts...

I'd really like for you to explain how this rape is okay, or unimportant, because women are being raped in Iraq (and literally every other country in the world). Why, exactly, doesn't this rape "matter"? Because it happened in the US? Because Roman Polanski makes good movies? Because it happened a long time ago? Please tell me exactly how it is that you've determined that some rapes don't deserve publicity and others do.

Your heart-rending concern over the women and children of Iraq would be a hell of a lot more credible if you were starting all those OPs about them that you snidely suggest others should do, and if you weren't so damn busy trying to pretend that what Polanski did was no big deal because you can't figure out how to make any ideological hay out of it.

are logical.

He remained an evil child abusing & wife abusing bastard until the day he died. Anything female within his reach he groped. His own child, her little friends, other relatives... Some family knew and kept their daughters away, others didn't and thought him a harmless friendly old man until too late.



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-so-thats-ok-then-its-fine-to-abuse-young-girls-as-long-as-youre-a-great-film-director-2025067.html