Roman Polanski Arrested in Switzerland

[R~O~S]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment/20090927/EU.Switzerland.Polanski/


At 76 years old, he's been taken into custody in Switzerland. He flew in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film festival, on a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

He fled the US in 1978 when he thought he had a plea deal. In exchange for pleading guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, he was supposed to serve 42 days. But the judge didn't approve the sentence, the 42 days was only for evaluation & Polanski fled before the additional sentence & deportation order was handed down.

His victim has since joined him in calling for the case to be dismissed, she reached a financial settlement with him years ago.

[VC2]

ah geeze... i know i am going to be flamed to smithereens for this, but you have a 78 year old, an unwilling "victim", a guy who seems to have kept his nose clean for a few decades and will likely die in a couple of years anyway.

Is it really worth the time and expense to extradite him and go to trial? Half of the witnesses they would have called are probably dead, the girl involved likely will refuse to testify (and imo is furious that they are going to upend her life at this point, she probably has settled down to having grandkids herself and wont want the notoriety) a celeb trial that is going to cost millions just in security for what? to upset the life of the girl involved when Polanski likely won't make it to trial bc of his age?

I wish they would spend the time and money on finding the predators to steal little children and keep them locked up for 18 years, or go after the ones that are dangerous now.

[phylcore]

No flaming here,VC2.I remember when this happened.Yes lets spend the money for a trial on getting the people out there harming our children.

[lune3]

I feel the same way,... and so does the victim:

"The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement."

http://www.popeater.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested/?icid=main|main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeate r.com%2F2009%2F09%2F27%2Froman-polanski-arrested%2F

[VC2]

I feel the same way,... and so does the victim:

"The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement."

http://www.popeater.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested/?icid=main|main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeate r.com%2F2009%2F09%2F27%2Froman-polanski-arrested%2F

Exactly. she doesn't need this and neither does "society". I doubt anyone is going to say he is a danger right now and there are so many really life and death cases happening which need the manpower and money. They are acting like its Ira Eikhorn fgs.

[KatieLady]

exactly. She doesn't need this and neither does "society". I doubt anyone is going to say he is a danger right now and there are so many really life and death cases happening which need the manpower and money. They are acting like its ira eikhorn fgs.

ita vc2!!!

[Lyndawitha"Y]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment/20090927/EU.Switzerland.Polanski/


At 76 years old, he's been taken into custody in Switzerland. He flew in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film festival, on a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

He fled the US in 1978 when he thought he had a plea deal. In exchange for pleading guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, he was supposed to serve 42 days. But the judge didn't approve the sentence, the 42 days was only for evaluation & Polanski fled before the additional sentence & deportation order was handed down.

His victim has since joined him in calling for the case to be dismissed, she reached a financial settlement with him years ago.

I hate to look like an idiot..but isnt there a statute of limitations on a 30+ year old case?...There has to be some sort of benefit for the US to go to all this trouble to get this guy arrested in a foreign country?..

Also, IF Polanski plead guilty, would he even have to go to trial?..Boy what a waste of money...just to get this old man back onto US soil, to encarcerate..

LMS:rolleyes:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I hate to look like an idiot..but isnt there a statute of limitations on a 30+ year old case?...There has to be some sort of benefit for the US to go to all this trouble to get this guy arrested in a foreign country?..

Also, IF Polanski plead guilty, would he even have to go to trial?..Boy what a waste of money...just to get this old man back onto US soil, to encarcerate..

LMS:rolleyes:

Polanski plead guilty -- yet never served his time. He ran away and "hid" (in plain sight ) for 31 years. Statute of limitations would not apply—he never served his time yet, he was found guilty.

I am of the thought that if you run away from your sentence and stay away long enough for your victim to forgive you--and you have given her a monatary settlement you should not have to serve your sentence in the courts eyes?

IMO it would encourage others out on bail before sentencing to run and hope for the best.

[Hanalei]

I say throw his butt in prison he is a coward. Let remember what he did

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.


So you all say because the victim was paid off and he ran away to France then it's ok for him not to do his time? What kind of message are we sending to other pedophiles? Run away to France and you won't do prison??? :thumbdown: It's sad the famous pedophile get treated different then regular pedophiles. This guy won awards and it's crazy that people respect him he is a sick man for what he did I can't believe someone would marry him again and have kids with him.

Sharon Tate must be rolling in her grave knowing she was married to a pedophile.

[Mr. Moto2]

He had been convicted of statutory rape in the US in 1977, but fled the country before sentencing was completed.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b146269_director_roman_polanski_arrested_in.html

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I say throw his butt in prison he is a coward. Let remember what he did

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.


So you all say because the victim was paid off and he ran away to France then it's ok for him not to do his time? What kind of message are we sending to other pedophiles? Run away to France and you won't do prison??? :thumbdown: It's sad the famous pedophile get treated different then regular pedophiles. This guy won awards and it's crazy that people respect him he is a sick man for what he did I can't believe someone would marry him again and have kids with him.

Sharon Tate must be rolling in her grave knowing she was married to a pedophile.

I get where you are coming from..and do agree that those predators who have the money can and do get away with things like this...I also believe that he will get his punishment when final judgment day comes for Roman....and I rather doubt he changed his ways either..he was just able to get away with it, because of his money and living in countries who tend to look the other way....Maybe it is worth making him a poster boy for running away, avoiding paying his dues...

I guess, I was just wondering when some poster here was suggesting the victim will have to be re-victimized..as in there would be another trial....This case is so old, my grown adult children dont even know about this case...but of course I do recall it..and also remember all what Roman P. had to do to avoid being caught...Money sure does help and I am sure he has spent it well over the past 30 years!! too bad he didnt pay off the victim in this case sooner..and no charges would have been laid in the beginning....Sort of rings a bell, doesnt it?

LMS:wink:

[Firehead11]

From the article:

"Polanski pled guilty to one of six counts and had served the 42-day sentence that prosecutors had agreed to for the crime, but the director, apparently believing the judge was about to renege on the plea bargain agreement and throw him back in jail, fled the country."

Hasn't the victim requested this matter put to rest?

I was wondering the same thing.

[R~O~S]

ah geeze... i know i am going to be flamed to smithereens for this, but you have a 78 year old, an unwilling "victim", a guy who seems to have kept his nose clean for a few decades and will likely die in a couple of years anyway.

Is it really worth the time and expense to extradite him and go to trial? Half of the witnesses they would have called are probably dead, the girl involved likely will refuse to testify (and imo is furious that they are going to upend her life at this point, she probably has settled down to having grandkids herself and wont want the notoriety) a celeb trial that is going to cost millions just in security for what? to upset the life of the girl involved when Polanski likely won't make it to trial bc of his age?

I wish they would spend the time and money on finding the predators to steal little children and keep them locked up for 18 years, or go after the ones that are dangerous now.


Except the trial is already over, he plead out, thinking he had a deal, but knowing the judge didn't have to accept the agreement when setting sentence.

Remember Michael Vick? He got an extra 3 or 6 months above what the Pros were asking for, because his deal was dependent upon him being honest in his statements to LE regarding his culpability and that he not get into trouble while on release. He lied about his actions and then failed a drug test.

So, the plea has already been made, it can't be withdrawn. He took flight before the final sentence was handed down when the judge tipped his had stating he wasn't inclined to leave it at just the 42 days for evaluation.

[R~O~S]

I hate to look like an idiot..but isnt there a statute of limitations on a 30+ year old case?...There has to be some sort of benefit for the US to go to all this trouble to get this guy arrested in a foreign country?..

Also, IF Polanski plead guilty, would he even have to go to trial?..Boy what a waste of money...just to get this old man back onto US soil, to encarcerate..

LMS:rolleyes:

Nope, he had his trial, he plead guilty then he high tailed it before the sentence was handed down. He's already guilty, never served his time, no statute of limitations on escape.

[GentleBreeze]

Nope, he had his trial, he plead guilty then he high tailed it before the sentence was handed down. He's already guilty, never served his time, no statute of limitations on escape.

So how much time was the DA asking for?

imo

[R~O~S]

I get where you are coming from..and do agree that those predators who have the money can and do get away with things like this...I also believe that he will get his punishment when final judgment day comes for Roman....and I rather doubt he changed his ways either..he was just able to get away with it, because of his money and living in countries who tend to look the other way....Maybe it is worth making him a poster boy for running away, avoiding paying his dues...

I guess, I was just wondering when some poster here was suggesting the victim will have to be re-victimized..as in there would be another trial....This case is so old, my grown adult children dont even know about this case...but of course I do recall it..and also remember all what Roman P. had to do to avoid being caught...Money sure does help and I am sure he has spent it well over the past 30 years!! too bad he didnt pay off the victim in this case sooner..and no charges would have been laid in the beginning....Sort of rings a bell, doesnt it?

LMS:wink:


He's been so determined to avoid paying his debt, he didn't chance coming to the US to collect his Oscar for Direction of "The Pianist" in 2002.

He lost his bid to have the original judges order overturned earlier this year. Based on misconduct by a prosecutor not involved in the case, the request was tossed because he wouldn't appear in court here in the US to press the request.

[R~O~S]

So how much time was the DA asking for?

imo

The plea agreement called for the 42 days served for evaluation would be the only time he spent in jail. The judge didn't agree and made statements from the bench that he'd decide on the sentence after the evaluation.

I'm sure there were probably probation restriction to follow up the 42 days in the original agreement.

[openminded]

Nope, he had his trial, he plead guilty then he high tailed it before the sentence was handed down. He's already guilty, never served his time, no statute of limitations on escape.

Exactly. Should he escape justice because he's Roman Polanski and he's 76 years old and the girl, who reached a settlement with him, says she has forgiven him (and I wonder how much money that took)?

I seriously doubt there will be much punishment at this point but it will mark this case finally closed.

[R~O~S]

Exactly. Should he escape justice because he's Roman Polanski and he's 76 years old and the girl, who reached a settlement with him, says she has forgiven him (and I wonder how much money that took)?

I seriously doubt there will be much punishment at this point but it will mark this case finally closed.

I honestly don't understand why he didn't come back to press his case to have the judges ruling overturned. He had a sympathetic judge and years to gather the information. I find it difficult to believe they're going to go very hard on him, remember they can't sentence him under todays laws and sentencing guidelines.

The sentences given out for this kind of thing back in the 70's were a slap on the wrist, no registry even though she was only 13.

As for the victim, at some point you have to make the decision to move on with your life or forever be a victim. She's moved on and I don't blame her for a moment. She's not going to press for a stiff sentence.


ETA: I don't know what should be done, there are other people smarter than me regarding such things who should make such decisions. What I do know is he shouldn't get off scott free because he managed to stay out of the reach of extradition for thirty years while carrying on as if he wasn't a child rapist, a pedophile who used his position to victimize.

[openminded]

I honestly don't understand why he didn't come back to press his case to have the judges ruling overturned. He had a sympathetic judge and years to gather the information. I find it difficult to believe they're going to go very hard on him, remember they can't sentence him under todays laws and sentencing guidelines.

The sentences given out for this kind of thing back in the 70's were a slap on the wrist, no registry even though she was only 13.

As for the victim, at some point you have to make the decision to move on with your life or forever be a victim. She's moved on and I don't blame her for a moment. She's not going to press for a stiff sentence.


ETA: I don't know what should be done, there are other people smarter than me regarding such things who should make such decisions. What I do know is he shouldn't get off scott free because he managed to stay out of the reach of extradition for thirty years while carrying on as if he wasn't a child rapist, a pedophile who used his position to victimize.

BBM.

I agree with that. It sends the wrong message not to do anything.

[Jay]

I hate to look like an idiot..but isnt there a statute of limitations on a 30+ year old case?...There has to be some sort of benefit for the US to go to all this trouble to get this guy arrested in a foreign country?..

Also, IF Polanski plead guilty, would he even have to go to trial?..Boy what a waste of money...just to get this old man back onto US soil, to encarcerate..

LMS:rolleyes:


He had an International arrest warrant out or him since 2005 I read. Flight to another country to avoid prosecution is a federal crime "in and of itself". Even interstate flight is a crime, per 1073.

He could even have been awaiting trial and fled, still innocent, still a federal crime.

Being a French citizen, they would not extradite him. His mistake was traveling to a country that would.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001073----000-.html

This is a federal charge, not state.

Arrest warrants, federal or state, never expire, as a general rule, especially such as this. They can be cancelled by the issuing authorities, yes, if they choose, but in felony cases, won't happen.

Some states have abrogated thier SOL for felonies/major felonies, meaning none exist anymore.

[birdwatch]

Except the trial is already over, he plead out, thinking he had a deal, but knowing the judge didn't have to accept the agreement when setting sentence.

Remember Michael Vick? He got an extra 3 or 6 months above what the Pros were asking for, because his deal was dependent upon him being honest in his statements to LE regarding his culpability and that he not get into trouble while on release. He lied about his actions and then failed a drug test.

So, the plea has already been made, it can't be withdrawn. He took flight before the final sentence was handed down when the judge tipped his had stating he wasn't inclined to leave it at just the 42 days for evaluation. Hope he gets 42 days - suspended. This so ridiculous at this point. Let it be over now.

[birdwatch]

I say throw his butt in prison he is a coward. Let remember what he did

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.


So you all say because the victim was paid off and he ran away to France then it's ok for him not to do his time? What kind of message are we sending to other pedophiles? Run away to France and you won't do prison??? :thumbdown: It's sad the famous pedophile get treated different then regular pedophiles. This guy won awards and it's crazy that people respect him he is a sick man for what he did I can't believe someone would marry him again and have kids with him.

Sharon Tate must be rolling in her grave knowing she was married to a pedophile.I remember the "child" was living the life of a 30 yr old. I believe that she and her mom set RP up for blackmail. I don't think he thought he would be prosecuted due to the character of the victim and her mother - or he would have paid off back then, I'm sure. I can't remember - did he even have any idea she was 13?
I also seem to remember that he turned to drugs and alcohol after the death of his wife and baby. I'm sure Sharon Tate would have forgiven him, from beyond, by now. Apparently she was a really lovely, loving person and they adored each other. So sad.

[barskin&co.]

I remember the "child" was living the life of a 30 yr old. I believe that she and her mom set RP up for blackmail. I don't think he thought he would be prosecuted due to the character of the victim and her mother - or he would have paid off back then, I'm sure. I can't remember - did he even have any idea she was 13?
I also seem to remember that he turned to drugs and alcohol after the death of his wife and baby. I'm sure Sharon Tate would have forgiven him, from beyond, by now. Apparently she was a really lovely, loving person and they adored each other. So sad.

The "child" was in fact a 13 year old child. He gave her alcohol laced with drugs and forcibly raped her. These facts are not in dispute. Let's not rewrite history.

[barskin&co.]

Nope, he had his trial, he plead guilty then he high tailed it before the sentence was handed down. He's already guilty, never served his time, no statute of limitations on escape.

Yes. The clock on the Statute of Limitation stops when the perp flees the jurisdiction.

[Jay]

Yes. The clock on the Statute of Limitation stops when the perp flees the jurisdiction.


That's called "tolling". Here though, meaning CA, a prosecution was commenced before any SOL expired, so it was within the SOL, but both scenarios equate to the same.

As long as an arrest warrant is in effect before the SOL, there need not be any tolling consideration.

If such warrant were not on record, and a person fled state, then the tolling applies to the commencement of a prosecution also.

I read further, the US applied for an arrest warrant in 1978, and it seems a renewed effort was initiated in 2005.

[R~O~S]

From the article:

"Polanski pled guilty to one of six counts and had served the 42-day sentence that prosecutors had agreed to for the crime, but the director, apparently believing the judge was about to renege on the plea bargain agreement and throw him back in jail, fled the country."

Hasn't the victim requested this matter put to rest?


After having been paid a large sum by Mr Polanski.

Since when do you get to flee this country, after having plead guilty, to avoid the sentence? Since when do you get to buy your way out of your debt to society, the debt you acquired by being a admitted pedophile who used his position to victimize a child?

Yes, the victim doesn't want any more involvement in the case. At some point you have to move on, or forever be a victim.

What does that have to do with a businessman who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and fled the country to avoid sentence?

& I do believe fleeing the jurisdiction in and of itself is a federal crime for which he's yet to be tried.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Hope he gets 42 days - suspended. This so ridiculous at this point. Let it be over now.

Why? Because he hid from the law for 31 years? He pled guilty and NEVER served his sentence because he ran.

Wow this is amazing to me. As long as you hide for a long time you are no longer required to serve a sentence and it is "ridiculous" to assure that a rapist who drugged his victim serves time.

Sends a great message to other rapists.

[R~O~S]

Why? Because he hid from the law for 31 years? He pled guilty and NEVER served his sentence because he ran.

Wow this is amazing to me. As long as you hide for a long time you are no longer required to serve a sentence and it is "ridiculous" to assure that a rapist who drugged his victim serves time.

Sends a great message to other rapists.

His victim was 13 years old. He's not just a rapist who drugged his victim, he's a pedophile who used his position to gain access to a child, drug her and repeatedly rape her.

& fleeing the jurisdiction is an entirely seperate crime all unto itself.

But yes, it's unbelievable anyone would think that if you avoid the consequences of your actions long enough the consequences should just disappear. Tis nice to have reason to agree with you. :)

[barskin&co.]

Why? Because he hid from the law for 31 years? He pled guilty and NEVER served his sentence because he ran.

Wow this is amazing to me. As long as you hide for a long time you are no longer required to serve a sentence and it is "ridiculous" to assure that a rapist who drugged his victim serves time.

Sends a great message to other rapists.

Guess what? We agree.

I wonder how many of Polanksi's supporters would be for forgiving and forgetting the crime of a 45 year old man who fed drug laced liquor to a 13 year old and forcibly raped her while she cried, "stop," if that particular 45 year old man was just Joe Blow from the streets.

He is a great director. "The Pianist" was an extraordinary film. He's still a rapist, and a child rapist at that.

[Spyder88]

After having been paid a large sum by Mr Polanski.

Since when do you get to flee this country, after having plead guilty, to avoid the sentence? Since when do you get to buy your way out of your debt to society, the debt you acquired by being a admitted pedophile who used his position to victimize a child?

Yes, the victim doesn't want any more involvement in the case. At some point you have to move on, or forever be a victim.

What does that have to do with a businessman who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and fled the country to avoid sentence?

& I do believe fleeing the jurisdiction in and of itself is a federal crime for which he's yet to be tried.

ITA with your opinion of this slimey, little worm. Even as a young man he was icky and age has done nothing to make him anything less than what he is.

Just because years have passed doesn't make the crime any less perverse, nor does it take away from the fact he's a phedophile who should have been locked up then and should still be locked up today.

Anyone who defends this low-life has got some serious issues of their own when it comes to children. I wouldn't want him near any little girl who's just beginning to develop not only physically, but mentally. While some young girls may seem worldly, they simply are NOT capable of handling a man who has no respect for their innocence and wants to take it away from her. I don't care if she took her clothes off and spread-eagled herself in front of him. When you have an adult and a child together in a compromising situation, it's not fair to expect the child to behave like an adult.

Men like him are just plain sick in the head and the passage of time doesn't make that kind of depravity fade away. He makes my skin crawl. :thumbdown:

[Adalena935]

I agree VC. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. I was stunned and don't see the point after so long. I do hope they dismiss it, but with lawyers standing to make a lot of money due to his famous name they're probably circling like a pack of wolves.

[Adalena935]

Maybe they will take him on a group outing to the fair like this brutal murderer. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/18/patient-with-violent-past-escapes-at-fair/

It's a crazy world.

[Jayne]

30 years, thereabouts...he'd probably never return to the US voluntarily..and if he'd committed the same crime where he is, he'd have gotten a much stiffer sentence. Seems he's kept his XXX out of trouble?

yes...ROS and Spyder..I agree..but if the victim doesn't want to be involved, this will be an exercise in futility, sort of. All that expense, time (decades)..and the "man" is nearly 80 years old and apparently hasn't harmed another child or person..I suppose?

He'll pay his time and further punishment after he's dead, no matter what. I just don't think spending all the money to bring him back here, go through a trial, etc. and/or pay for him sitting in a jail is worth it. Can hardly believe I'm saying that, but that's how I see it, for some strange reason. (OK..I know he "took off" after he Pled...but he never came back and apparently hasn't been on the "most wanted" lists.) On the otherhand...wonder if ol "Charlie" won't be salivating over this one..then maybe put them both in the same cell?

Don't get me wrong..what he did was reprehensible..but he's been essentially "banished" (albeit on his own) for so many years and the girl he violated wants nothing to do with bringing it up again. He was a coward, bully, and felt he was "above the law" no doubt. But..he's not stepped a toe in this country since and that's a good thing. He's been living his "life sentence" outside the USA and without us paying the cost to feed, clothe, and "rehab" him.

I just see this as causing more pain and re-living it, even if refusing to testify in the courtroom, for the Woman, and "godforbid" being forced to testify. I'd say...let him stay where he is...we don't need him here..we have enough "new ones" to deal with, prosecute and put away for life. I'm all for pedofiles and rapists to have a life sentence along with the murderers...the effect is the same...a life "lost".

jmo

J

[Pat]

Those crying crocodile tears for Polanski are assuming the 13-year old child he raped and sodomized was the only child he'd ever abused before and assume he's never done it since.

We have no idea if that's true or not, and I would imagine not. Pedophiles will indulge, regardless of who they are, and the wealthier the pedophile, the easier it is to hide.

What is it about people who are so blinded by cult personalities they will pretty much forgive them for any crime? Including rape and sodomy of a drugged 13-yr old child?

MO

[barskin&co.]

Maybe they will take him on a group outing to the fair like this brutal murderer. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/18/patient-with-violent-past-escapes-at-fair/

It's a crazy world.

Adelena, I suggest you take an outing to read the Grand Jury testimony which describes the violence and heinousness of the attack on this drugged 13 year old child.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

[Casspian]

I say throw his butt in prison he is a coward. Let remember what he did

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.


So you all say because the victim was paid off and he ran away to France then it's ok for him not to do his time? What kind of message are we sending to other pedophiles? Run away to France and you won't do prison??? :thumbdown: It's sad the famous pedophile get treated different then regular pedophiles. This guy won awards and it's crazy that people respect him he is a sick man for what he did I can't believe someone would marry him again and have kids with him.

Sharon Tate must be rolling in her grave knowing she was married to a pedophile.



Thank you. The man is a pedophile. And, don't forget N. Kinski.

Polanski The Predator
Recently unsealed grand jury minutes detail 1977 sex assault
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

[Casspian]

I remember the "child" was living the life of a 30 yr old. I believe that she and her mom set RP up for blackmail. I don't think he thought he would be prosecuted due to the character of the victim and her mother - or he would have paid off back then, I'm sure. I can't remember - did he even have any idea she was 13?
I also seem to remember that he turned to drugs and alcohol after the death of his wife and baby. I'm sure Sharon Tate would have forgiven him, from beyond, by now. Apparently she was a really lovely, loving person and they adored each other. So sad.


He fed her alcohol and valium and then raped her vaginally and anally.

What if it was your daughter?

[Casspian]

Those crying crocodile tears for Polanski are assuming the 13-year old child he raped and sodomized was the only child he'd ever abused before and assume he's never done it since.

We have no idea if that's true or not, and I would imagine not. Pedophiles will indulge, regardless of who they are, and the wealthier the pedophile, the easier it is to hide.

What is it about people who are so blinded by cult personalities they will pretty much forgive them for any crime? Including rape and sodomy of a drugged 13-yr old child?

MO


Very well said ...

[Amy]

Exactly. Should he escape justice because he's Roman Polanski and he's 76 years old and the girl, who reached a settlement with him, says she has forgiven him (and I wonder how much money that took)?

I seriously doubt there will be much punishment at this point but it will mark this case finally closed.

Wonder if additional time would be added for the escape? I don't know where they house sexual offenders, but maybe he would be an acceptable cell mate for Phil Spector? :wink:

[ish]

I saw a documentary on HBO last year that went into detail on this case.

What Polanski did was disgusting and he deserved to be punished. However, it appeared that his attorney and the district attorney had come to an agreement as to sentencing (agreed to by the victim and her family) and Polanski served time in Chino prison, was evaluated by the probation department and psychologists who all recommended probation as a his punishment. It was remarked by the District Attorney that the judge had agreed to sentence him in accordance with the recommendation of those reports and at the last minute reneged and was going to send him to prison for an undetermined sentence. The district attorney publicly stated that he felt neither the prosecution nor the defense could have any faith or confidence in the judge. Polanski left the country and the judge was later removed from the case. Polanski should have returned later to face his punishment but I guess once you're in his position it would be tough to come back not knowing what would happen.

[Emerald]

Why now, when he is set to receive a well deserved lifetime achievement award in his industry?

Polanski owns a home in Gstaad, IIRC.

[Debb]

I saw a documentary on HBO last year that went into detail on this case.

What Polanski did was disgusting and he deserved to be punished. However, it appeared that his attorney and the district attorney had come to an agreement as to sentencing (agreed to by the victim and her family) and Polanski served time in Chino prison, was evaluated by the probation department and psychologists who all recommended probation as a his punishment. It was remarked by the District Attorney that the judge had agreed to sentence him in accordance with the recommendation of those reports and at the last minute reneged and was going to send him to prison for an undetermined sentence. The district attorney publicly stated that he felt neither the prosecution nor the defense could have any faith or confidence in the judge. Polanski left the country and the judge was later removed from the case. Polanski should have returned later to face his punishment but I guess once you're in his position it would be tough to come back not knowing what would happen.

I saw it too! What this man pleaded guilty too was terrible but so was the way the crooked judge behaved. It made me look at the situation quite differently.

I don't really care how they handle the case, but I do find it amusing that we can't properly supervise sex offenders who live right here under out noses but yet we want to grab people who live in other countries to come back and deal with them. I think we have enough on our plate already. Why not spend the energy on sex offenders in our own backyard like the convicted sex offender in CA living with a kidnapped child in his own backyard.

[ish]

I saw it too! What this man pleaded guilty too was terrible but so was the way the crooked judge behaved. It made me look at the situation quite differently.

I don't really care how they handle the case, but I do find it amusing that we can't properly supervise sex offenders who live right here under out noses but yet we want to grab people who live in other countries to come back and deal with them. I think we have enough on our plate already. Why not spend the energy on sex offenders in our own backyard like the convicted sex offender in CA living with a kidnapped child in his own backyard.

I agree Debb, How does a guy keep a young girl and 2 infants in a tent in his yard for 18 yrs, WHILE being on supervised parole? Heads better roll on that one.

[Jayne]

Wonder if additional time would be added for the escape? I don't know where they house sexual offenders, but maybe he would be an acceptable cell mate for Phil Spector? :wink:

Amy...was thinking the same thing or Charles Manson.

jmo

j

[withay]

I have really mixed feelings on this. One one hand, I have dealt professionaly with young girls who "consented" and know what damage that can do to them. I also do not think that someone should escape their legal punishment by running away. Especially when they hide in plain sight and are able to live a life of luxury. One the other hand, the judge was going to change the agreement (though he did have the right to) and I think there are better ways to use the cell Polanski would inhabit. I'm just not sure what I would do and am glad I am not the judge making the decision.

[birdwatch]

I saw a documentary on HBO last year that went into detail on this case.

What Polanski did was disgusting and he deserved to be punished. However, it appeared that his attorney and the district attorney had come to an agreement as to sentencing (agreed to by the victim and her family) and Polanski served time in Chino prison, was evaluated by the probation department and psychologists who all recommended probation as a his punishment. It was remarked by the District Attorney that the judge had agreed to sentence him in accordance with the recommendation of those reports and at the last minute reneged and was going to send him to prison for an undetermined sentence. The district attorney publicly stated that he felt neither the prosecution nor the defense could have any faith or confidence in the judge. Polanski left the country and the judge was later removed from the case. Polanski should have returned later to face his punishment but I guess once you're in his position it would be tough to come back not knowing what would happen. So help me out here ish; I know RP pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. I don't think anyone bought the rape story at that time - but it is, of course, statutory rape. Nicholson was out of town, but Angelica Houston was in the house at the time - and she didn't hear the girl holler out or anything. She was also surprised to find out the girl was 13. She looked like a grown-up and was known to visit nightclubs. Sad to say she was not new to sex, drinking or drugs. I remember I thought her mother should be in jail!
I don't remember - did RP know she was only 13, do you know?

[Hanalei]

I can't believe you are defending him! Where is your proof the the mother and child were blackmailing him? Even if the child was a party girl doesn't excuse what he did to her and I'm sure he knew she was not of legal age if he knew her mother.

I remember the "child" was living the life of a 30 yr old. I believe that she and her mom set RP up for blackmail. I don't think he thought he would be prosecuted due to the character of the victim and her mother - or he would have paid off back then, I'm sure. I can't remember - did he even have any idea she was 13?
I also seem to remember that he turned to drugs and alcohol after the death of his wife and baby. I'm sure Sharon Tate would have forgiven him, from beyond, by now. Apparently she was a really lovely, loving person and they adored each other. So sad.

[Hanalei]

Why does everyone say that by bring him back that the victim will have to be involved with a trial again? There was not going to be a trial he plead guilty if he is brought back he will be sentenced to what he plead to plus other charges for leaving the country.

[Details]

I can't believe so many support him. He raped a child - over and over, as she said "no!". He got a lax plea bargain, both on charges and on sentence - however - a judge is NEVER part of the plea bargain - it's just an agreement that the prosecutor will recommend a given sentence - the judge does NOT have to agree. No jail time for raping a child - that's ridiculous.

Then he ran - another crime. He should be sentenced properly now for both crimes.

The victim - I don't blame her for wanting to put it behind her - but first - she doesn't need to testify - he's already been found guilty - he's admitted to what he did. Second - the justice system is about justice - to let him go suggests all other wealthy/powerful/famous paraphiles can rape as they like and get away with it - just pay off your victim. That's not how it works.

There is no statute of limitations, once you are convicted - it applies to filing charges - and the girl filed charges after it happened.

[Debb]

So help me out here ish; I know RP pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. I don't think anyone bought the rape story at that time - but it is, of course, statutory rape. Nicholson was out of town, but Angelica Houston was in the house at the time - and she didn't hear the girl holler out or anything. She was also surprised to find out the girl was 13. She looked like a grown-up and was known to visit nightclubs. Sad to say she was not new to sex, drinking or drugs. I remember I thought her mother should be in jail!
I don't remember - did RP know she was only 13, do you know?

I read the article as suggested by a previous poster that is supposedly taken from grand jury testimony. I don't see any violence or heinous nature to it. The questions he allegedly asked the girl that night seem indicative of ones asked of an adult, such as are you on birth control? He also supposedly asked what kind of sex she preferred. I didn't see any violence or threats to the child. However, it is always the responsiblity to the adult to ensure the other party is of legal age. Ignorance or mistake of the age is no excuse nor a legal defense. I do have trouble labeling him a child sexual predator if he did in good faith believe the girl was 18, but that is still no excuse.

I hope he learned a big lesson and never went near an underage girl again. I find it hard to imagine that Agelica Houston would have stood by and done nothing while he had sex with this girl, if she knew the child's age. Surely she would have been scared of criminal charges against herself.

[Details]

I read the article as suggested by a previous poster that is supposedly taken from grand jury testimony. I don't see any violence or heinous nature to it. The questions he allegedly asked the girl that night seem indicative of ones asked of an adult, such as are you on birth control? He also supposedly asked what kind of sex she preferred. I didn't see any violence or threats to the child. However, it is always the responsiblity to the adult to ensure the other party is of legal age. Ignorance or mistake of the age is no excuse nor a legal defense. I do have trouble labeling him a child sexual predator if he did in good faith believe the girl was 18, but that is still no excuse.

I hope he learned a big lesson and never went near an underage girl again. I find it hard to imagine that Agelica Houston would have stood by and done nothing while he had sex with this girl, if she knew the child's age. Surely she would have been scared of criminal charges against herself.Really? He gives her drugs and booze (I doubt she was capable of resisting physically with that), then proceeds to have a variety of types of sex with her, as she says "No", and begs to be taken home. This is rape even were she old enough - and in a 13 year old child - it's far worse.

And in Europe - when he fled his sentencing - first thing he does pretty much is goes for a 15 year old girl.

[Debb]

Really? He gives her drugs and booze (I doubt she was capable of resisting physically with that), then proceeds to have a variety of types of sex with her, as she says "No", and begs to be taken home. This is rape even were she old enough - and in a 13 year old child - it's far worse.

And in Europe - when he fled his sentencing - first thing he does pretty much is goes for a 15 year old girl.

I didn't mean it wasn't rape. IMO having sex with her even if she said yes is still rape because a child that age cannot give legal consent. I didn't see the things you are describing above in the article taken from the grand jury transcript. Perhaps they were included elsewhere. I meant that there was no mention of heinous violence such as beating, slapping, hitting or restraining her. That's what I meant. I didn't intend to downplay the attack. It was wrong and terrible, however, I do think the law treated people differently in the past if they in good faith believed the other person was of legal age. As I said, it doesn't matter. You must make sure. His mistake is no excuse.

[R~O~S]

I didn't mean it wasn't rape. IMO having sex with her even if she said yes is still rape because a child that age cannot give legal consent. I didn't see the things you are describing above in the article taken from the grand jury transcript. Perhaps they were included elsewhere. I meant that there was no mention of heinous violence such as beating, slapping, hitting or restraining her. That's what I meant. I didn't intend to downplay the attack. It was wrong and terrible, however, I do think the law treated people differently in the past if they in good faith believed the other person was of legal age. As I said, it doesn't matter. You must make sure. His mistake is no excuse.


So drugging her, without her knowledge doesn't count, is that it?

The man plead guilty of one count when he was facing six. He ran like the coward he is and stayed out of the reach of extradition. He had a sympathetic judge just one year ago to hear his case to overturn the original judges order and was so much of a coward he wouldn't come back to pursue his petition resulting in it being tossed out.

He plead guilty, he is guilty, he needs to come back and serve his sentence whatever it might be.

Escape, flight to avoid his sentence in and of itself is another crime.

Lets try to avoid pinning metals on a coward & pedophile, shall we?

[impartial]

So drugging her, without her knowledge doesn't count, is that it?

The man plead guilty of one count when he was facing six. He ran like the coward he is and stayed out of the reach of extradition. He had a sympathetic judge just one year ago to hear his case to overturn the original judges order and was so much of a coward he wouldn't come back to pursue his petition resulting in it being tossed out.

He plead guilty, he is guilty, he needs to come back and serve his sentence whatever it might be.

Escape, flight to avoid his sentence in and of itself is another crime.

Lets try to avoid pinning metals on a coward & pedophile, shall we?


Did you read the transcript? He did not drug her without her knowledge ... he had a pill and asked her if it was a qualude, she said yes it was ... she admitted to having taken a qualude when she was 10 or 11. He asked her if she wanted to have a portion of it, she said yes.

Alcohol was not new to her, drugs were not new to her, nor was sex. IIRC, he did not know she was underage ... and that's the reason for the plea to only 1 count ... not knowing her actual age is not a defense to statutory rape.

The transcript also reveals that they continued to have sex after Angelica Houston knocked on the door and asked if he was in there. The girl did not run to the door, nor did she call out to Angelica. She had put her underwear on, and off they came again and they continued to have sex.

Additionally, the plea deal was that he serve 42 days, which he did serve. He pled guilty in exchange for the plea ... Roman served the time, and the judge was not going to honor the deal. Like it or not, plea deals are a big part of our criminal justice system, saving tax payers monies, buys the risk of losing at trial, etc.

I'm not defending Roman, but when the government agrees to a deal, the defendant serves the time under the plea agreement, then the government renigs and wants to impose a larger sentence totally undermines the criminal justice system.

imo

[True2Blues]

So drugging her, without her knowledge doesn't count, is that it?

The man plead guilty of one count when he was facing six. He ran like the coward he is and stayed out of the reach of extradition. He had a sympathetic judge just one year ago to hear his case to overturn the original judges order and was so much of a coward he wouldn't come back to pursue his petition resulting in it being tossed out.

He plead guilty, he is guilty, he needs to come back and serve his sentence whatever it might be.

Escape, flight to avoid his sentence in and of itself is another crime.

Lets try to avoid pinning metals on a coward & pedophile, shall we?
Thank You.

Well said! I have no sympathy for a child rapist. He committed a horrible, disgusting crime on a child and pedophiles don't just stop. He ran from justice when he was offered a slap on the wrist. All he had to do to avoid any of this was NOT RAPE A CHILD. He chose otherwise.

The only way he should ever be allowed in this country is if he's in jail. We don't need any more pedophiles here and that's what he is, above and beyond anything else. I don't care how many awards he's had, a child rapist is #1 on the list.

[True2Blues]

Did you read the transcript? He did not drug her without her knowledge ... he had a pill and asked her if it was a qualude, she said yes it was ... she admitted to having taken a qualude when she was 10 or 11. He asked her if she wanted to have a portion of it, she said yes.

Alcohol was not new to her, drugs were not new to her, nor was sex. IIRC, he did not know she was underage ... and that's the reason for the plea to only 1 count ... not knowing her actual age is not a defense to statutory rape.

The transcript also reveals that they continued to have sex after Angelica Houston knocked on the door and asked if he was in there. The girl did not run to the door, nor did she call out to Angelica. She had put her underwear on, and off they came again and they continued to have sex.

Additionally, the plea deal was that he serve 42 days, which he did serve. He pled guilty in exchange for the plea ... Roman served the time, and the judge was not going to honor the deal. Like it or not, plea deals are a big part of our criminal justice system, saving tax payers monies, buys the risk of losing at trial, etc.

I'm not defending Roman, but when the government agrees to a deal, the defendant serves the time under the plea agreement, then the government renigs and wants to impose a larger sentence totally undermines the criminal justice system.

imo

I always understood that Judges cannot take part in a plea bargain. The Prosecution could offer a deal, but the final decision is always up to the Judge. Prosecutors can't speak for Judges so anyone taking a deal is risking a Judge not agreeing.

In the end this case still boils down to a an adult male raping a child and running from the punishment for his crime. It doesn't matter if the girl was a virgin, if she'd had alcohol or drugs before. As for RP not knowing her age, that's what he says, it's up to the individual to decide. Her behavior before this event doesn't excuse his behavior during it.

The Government didn't go back on the deal. The Judge didn't agree with the slap on the wrist the Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys recommended.

[juliekan]

Just because this guy had a ton of money to run off with, and then pay the family off with, does not mean he should not have to pay the price for his crime. jmo

[tartangirl]

Hiding behind his wealth and fame and running away 31 years ago only begins to show the true colors of this selfish coward. I agree with another poster who brought up the fact that we do not know if he has continued this practice of his with young girls in his adopted country. I applaud the prosecutors who made the decision that the time was ripe to make a move on this man. I have always wondered why he has been allowed to flaunt his crime the way he has these many years. :confused: No forgiveness here, he was convicted. Now he has to face the piper. It should be interesting.

[Details]

I didn't mean it wasn't rape. IMO having sex with her even if she said yes is still rape because a child that age cannot give legal consent. I didn't see the things you are describing above in the article taken from the grand jury transcript. Perhaps they were included elsewhere. I meant that there was no mention of heinous violence such as beating, slapping, hitting or restraining her. That's what I meant. I didn't intend to downplay the attack. It was wrong and terrible, however, I do think the law treated people differently in the past if they in good faith believed the other person was of legal age. As I said, it doesn't matter. You must make sure. His mistake is no excuse.With drugs - there's no need for much violence - she couldn't resist (other than saying "No").

This was rape, no matter her age. The age only makes it worse.

[impartial]

I always understood that Judges cannot take part in a plea bargain. The Prosecution could offer a deal, but the final decision is always up to the Judge. Prosecutors can't speak for Judges so anyone taking a deal is risking a Judge not agreeing.

In the end this case still boils down to a an adult male raping a child and running from the punishment for his crime. It doesn't matter if the girl was a virgin, if she'd had alcohol or drugs before. As for RP not knowing her age, that's what he says, it's up to the individual to decide. Her behavior before this event doesn't excuse his behavior during it.

The Government didn't go back on the deal. The Judge didn't agree with the slap on the wrist the Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys recommended.



When a deal is made, the DA has authority to enter into it, otherwise the plea of guilty is meaningless. The guilty plea is entered in exchange for the sentence the DA has agreed upon. Without the deal, there is no guilty plea, there is a trial ... and we all know there is no guaranty of a guilty verdict. The plea guarantees the guilty finding, and in exchange for that guaranty, a reduced sentence is given. A plea deal is a contract between the State and the Defendant.



imo

[Jester]

Why now, when he is set to receive a well deserved lifetime achievement award in his industry?

Polanski owns a home in Gstaad, IIRC.

I think he has use of a home in Gstaad.

I'm probably in a minority here, but I have to wonder about the objective in the arrest. As I see it, jail has a couple of uses ... punishment, and rehabilitation. If he hasn't rehabilitated in the last 31 years, then there's no hope. No additional jail time will make any difference. As for punishment ... he agreed to plead guilty to the one charge in exchange for probation. I think that the Judge became concerned that probation would be considered to be too lenient in the eyes of the public, so it was then changed to probation after a psych eval. After 42 days he was released from psych eval, but when the Judge was supposed to keep up his end of the deal and give probation, word came down that the Judge was not going to keep his word. Polanski had already experienced the Judge making deals and changing his mind, so Polanski left the country.

The case, in my opinion, was completely botched by the collusion between the prosecution and the Judge ... so I'm not convinced that Polanski should now have to return to a system that was corrupt at the time that he was being tried for statutory rape. He acted in good faith when he made a deal to have probation after pleading guilty to one charge ... and the State did not follow through in good faith. Does the State really deserve another crack at it after screwing up the first time? I'm not convinced.

[Jester]

When a deal is made, the DA has authority to enter into it, otherwise the plea of guilty is meaningless. The guilty plea is entered in exchange for the sentence the DA has agreed upon. Without the deal, there is no guilty plea, there is a trial ... and we all know there is no guaranty of a guilty verdict. The plea guarantees the guilty finding, and in exchange for that guaranty, a reduced sentence is given. A plea deal is a contract between the State and the Defendant.



imo

That's how I see it as well. This isn't really about the statutory rape anymore, as that was dealt with 31 years ago. The State entered into an agreement, Polanski kept his end of the agreement, and the State intended to (or has) renege on it's end of the deal. Should there be another chance for the state to do it over again ... do it right ... after they violated the law the first time around? I don't really think so. This arrest will result in the collusion between Judge and Prosecution being exposed for all the world ... and one consequence could be a complete mistrust of the US judicial system. I don't think this is a good move.

[Jester]

Did you read the transcript? He did not drug her without her knowledge ... he had a pill and asked her if it was a qualude, she said yes it was ... she admitted to having taken a qualude when she was 10 or 11. He asked her if she wanted to have a portion of it, she said yes.

Alcohol was not new to her, drugs were not new to her, nor was sex. IIRC, he did not know she was underage ... and that's the reason for the plea to only 1 count ... not knowing her actual age is not a defense to statutory rape.

The transcript also reveals that they continued to have sex after Angelica Houston knocked on the door and asked if he was in there. The girl did not run to the door, nor did she call out to Angelica. She had put her underwear on, and off they came again and they continued to have sex.

Additionally, the plea deal was that he serve 42 days, which he did serve. He pled guilty in exchange for the plea ... Roman served the time, and the judge was not going to honor the deal. Like it or not, plea deals are a big part of our criminal justice system, saving tax payers monies, buys the risk of losing at trial, etc.

I'm not defending Roman, but when the government agrees to a deal, the defendant serves the time under the plea agreement, then the government renigs and wants to impose a larger sentence totally undermines the criminal justice system.

imo

Exactly. Probation may have been an improper deal to make at that time (who knows) but that is the deal that was made. Prosecutors, lawyers, and the accused all over the country make deals every day. If the prosecution made deals and then reneged, that entire practice would have ended a long time ago. A deal is a deal.

[forensicfan]

As far as I'm concerned, you do the crime, you do the time. I don't care who you are!

[Jester]

As far as I'm concerned, you do the crime, you do the time. I don't care who you are!

What about the fact that he entered into an agreement with the courts to plead to one charge, receive probation and that would be the end of it? Does that factor into it, or should he be put back into the system as though there never was an agreement between his lawyer and the prosecution? Does the State really deserve a chance to do it all over again after botching it the first time?

[FREEMORE]

What about the fact that he entered into an agreement with the courts to plead to one charge, receive probation and that would be the end of it? Does that factor into it, or should he be put back into the system as though there never was an agreement between his lawyer and the prosecution? Does the State really deserve a chance to do it all over again after botching it the first time?
How did the state botch this case? The case would have been closed by now had he not fled.

[Jester]

How did the state botch this case? The case would have been closed by now had he not fled.
Collusion between prosecution and Judge, and judicial misconduct.

"Earlier this year, a judge in Los Angeles rejected the fugitive's bid to dismiss the case, despite new evidence showing the original trial judge colluded illegally with prosecutors in 1978.

In his ruling, the new judge said there appeared to be substantial judicial misconduct in the original case."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-29-voa21.cfm

Polanski had reached a deal with Los Angeles prosecutors to plead guilty to the sex charge and receive 42 days in prison for psychiatric tests -- time he had already served. But Polanski believed the judge might overrule the plea and sentence him to as much as 50 years in jail."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE58S2ID20090929

"Mr. Polanski's decision to fight extradition opened the door to another long legal battle to decide his fate. He could have opted to return to California in the hope that his conviction would be dismissed. Earlier this year, he appealed his conviction in a California court, arguing that the judge who heard his case was guilty of misconduct. The court acknowledged "substantial misconduct" by the presiding judge in the original 1978 case, but refused to rule on any appeal as long as Mr. Polanski was on the run."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125421545336948717.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStor ies

[kennedy06]

Some of you have expressed my feeling all to well. He should be brought back and face any charges applicable he isn't any more special than any other man. To do that to a 13 year old child, no 13 year old little girl no matter how tall or physically mature for their years... whatever would understand the true perversion of a man that age doing what he did. Age matters and grown men know that. Forgive him then should we forgive all men that did that to other 13 yr girls or boys... no matter how far into their court procedures or sentence who ran from the system?

[museumgirl]

I cannot believe the whole 'oh she was no stranger to sex' or the celebs saying he made a 'little mistake'... wth??? If this happened today in the news, there would be no sympathy for him.

I say screw him... he is a POS... she has managed to put her life together and move on, good for her. He's lived a damn good life despite running like a coward from his own crimes. Bet he would have had a sh*t fit had Manson run after having Sharon killed.

[True2Blues]

When a deal is made, the DA has authority to enter into it, otherwise the plea of guilty is meaningless. The guilty plea is entered in exchange for the sentence the DA has agreed upon. Without the deal, there is no guilty plea, there is a trial ... and we all know there is no guaranty of a guilty verdict. The plea guarantees the guilty finding, and in exchange for that guaranty, a reduced sentence is given. A plea deal is a contract between the State and the Defendant.



imo

I know what a plea deal is. The agreement is between the DA and the Defense, not the the Judge. The DA cannot guarantee the behavior of a Judge, only what they will request of the court. The DA didn't back out of the deal, it was rejected by the Judge, who doesn't represent either side.

[Jester]

I know what a plea deal is. The agreement is between the DA and the Defense, not the the Judge. The DA cannot guarantee the behavior of a Judge, only what they will request of the court. The DA didn't back out of the deal, it was rejected by the Judge, who doesn't represent either side.

The Judge actually knew all about the deal and agreed to it. The guilty plea was accepted in exchange for probation. The psych eval was then added, which was not part of the deal and didn't sit well with Polanski, but he accepted that. Then, even though Polanski pleaded guilty and kept his end of the deal, it was apparent that the Judge intended to again renege on the deal. Polanski learned this from his lawyer and the prosecutor. The judicial process was corrupt, and Polanski was a pawn of that corruption. He chose to leave the country rather than be subjected to further judicial misconduct.

[Jester]

It's scary and sickening! I was THRILLED they arrested him! How would these defenders feel if it were their daughter? granddaughter?

He was arrested 31 years ago and agreed to a plea deal. The State promised probation in exchange for a guilty plea. How would anyone feel if they entered into a plea agreement with the State, and after pleading guilty to the agreed upon crimes, the State reneged on the deal? That's what this is about, not the actual crime. That was settled 31 year ago according to the standards, laws, and beliefs in 1978.

It's reasonable to be outraged today about the sentences that were agreed upon 30 years ago, but that's not the issue here. This is about an agreement between accused and State where it was apparent to the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and the accused that the State judicial process was corrupt.

[True2Blues]

The Judge actually knew all about the deal and agreed to it. The guilty plea was accepted in exchange for probation. The psych eval was then added, which was not part of the deal and didn't sit well with Polanski, but he accepted that. Then, even though Polanski pleaded guilty and kept his end of the deal, it was apparent that the Judge intended to again renege on the deal. Polanski learned this from his lawyer and the prosecutor. The judicial process was corrupt, and Polanski was a pawn of that corruption. He chose to leave the country rather than be subjected to further judicial misconduct.


The Judge didn't officially seal the deal, until that was done, the sentence was in the air. As far as I am aware, it has not been officially investigated and determined that there was legal misconduct. One Judge said it looked like it, but I cannot find an official ruling. If you have a link to a ruling I'd be grateful.

Either way, it doesn't excuse RP from being sentenced for the crime he committed. RP plead guilty to raping a child and then fled before sentencing. He was even allowed to plead to a lesser charge of statutory and have other charges dropped, but that wasn't good enough for him.

Roman Polanski is not a poor abused baby. He's a pedophile. He admitted raping a child. He fled, rather than serve a sentence. He isn't an innocent victim, he's a predator, a victimizer. He's no different from any other child rapist and certainly no better.

Being rich doesn't make anyone better or innocent.

[Spyder88]

He fed her alcohol and valium and then raped her vaginally and anally.

What if it was your daughter?

He'd be dead, and I mean that most sincerely. I'd follow him into hell before he'd get away with doing anything like that to my daughter or to another child.

It appears that some people wouldn't care what happened to their child 30+ years ago as long as the attacker said he didn't know how old their kid was and fled to another country. :rolleyes: Apparently, for some posters, as long as some rich, old, movie maker runs long enough from the law, he should be allowed to remain free.

Like I said before, anyone who justifies this man has some serious issues of their own when it comes to children vs adults. She was a little girl!!! Saying she lived and looked like a 30 year old and how everyone was so "surprised" she was only 13, is giving every pedophile in this country a reason to rape and sodomize any victim they can get their filthy paws on. "Oh gee. I thought she was 30 when I drugged her and forced myself on her. I know she didn't mean it when she said no." :rolleyes:

[Jester]

The Judge didn't officially seal the deal, until that was done, the sentence was in the air. As far as I am aware, it has not been officially investigated and determined that there was legal misconduct. One Judge said it looked like it, but I cannot find an official ruling. If you have a link to a ruling I'd be grateful.

Either way, it doesn't excuse RP from being sentenced for the crime he committed. RP plead guilty to raping a child and then fled before sentencing. He was even allowed to plead to a lesser charge of statutory and have other charges dropped, but that wasn't good enough for him.

Roman Polanski is not a poor abused baby. He's a pedophile. He admitted raping a child. He fled, rather than serve a sentence. He isn't an innocent victim, he's a predator, a victimizer. He's no different from any other child rapist and certainly no better.

Being rich doesn't make anyone better or innocent.

This presents an overview: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/polanski-misrable/

"The rape had occurred in the house of Jack Nicholson, a place Polanski used as he wished. In the legal negotiations that followed [his arrest], Polanski never denied the charges, but they were dismissed under the terms of the plea bargain by which he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. With a view to proper sentencing, the judge — Laurence Rittenband — ordered that Polanski be confined for psychiatric examination. That led to 42 days’ confinement in the Chino State Prison over the 1977-8 period. In that examination Polanski was passed as fit to stand trial. It was the director’s understanding that the 42 days in Chino would satisfy punitive instincts. There might be a fine, too, but he would be freed. Then, just before sentencing, Polanski heard that Rittenband was ready to break the agreement — because he feared public criticism of a verdict that seemed too lenient on Polanski."

There's also a documentary floating around about the entire case ... aired on the movie channels last month.

[impartial]

The Judge didn't officially seal the deal, until that was done, the sentence was in the air. As far as I am aware, it has not been officially investigated and determined that there was legal misconduct. One Judge said it looked like it, but I cannot find an official ruling. If you have a link to a ruling I'd be grateful.

Either way, it doesn't excuse RP from being sentenced for the crime he committed. RP plead guilty to raping a child and then fled before sentencing. He was even allowed to plead to a lesser charge of statutory and have other charges dropped, but that wasn't good enough for him.

Roman Polanski is not a poor abused baby. He's a pedophile. He admitted raping a child. He fled, rather than serve a sentence. He isn't an innocent victim, he's a predator, a victimizer. He's no different from any other child rapist and certainly no better.

Being rich doesn't make anyone better or innocent.


True, this is where I have a problem. Roman plead guilty based on a plea arrangement. The DA in interviews indicated that the judge agreed to the plea, and thereafter made judicial decrees that were unethical and illegal.

In order for a plea to be entered into, the defendant must plead and must make admissions, otherwise the plea is constitutionally invalid. So, for people to now say he plead guilty is misleading in that he plead only in exchange for the plea agreement. The victim's lawyer made a heartfelt plea on her behalf for Roman to enter into the plea to save her from having to go to court, which was Roman's constitutional right to have a trial. The victim did not want a trial. The alternative for Roman once it was realized that the judge did not intend to honor the agreement was to withdraw his guilty plea and go forward with a trial ... the exact thing the victim did not want to occur.

imo

[oxfordfox2]

Is there anything we can do to make sure this worm Polanski is brought to justice? To whom do we write or protest? Who are they trying to kid? This creep is a pedophile sex offender. Were we supposed to let Phil Specter go because he was a great musical genius? Probably in France they would have. What's a woman's life when weighed against such musical genius? This whole situation is outrageous. I am outraged. Without the internet and shows like Nancy Grace this story would have just faded away after a few newspaper articles. Thank God for trhe internet and the new crime shows that allows us to see the actual affadvits and know what happened to this poor child. Mark Klaas was just outraged, I'm sad that that poor man has to witness this!

[Jay]

He was arrested 31 years ago and agreed to a plea deal. The State promised probation in exchange for a guilty plea. How would anyone feel if they entered into a plea agreement with the State, and after pleading guilty to the agreed upon crimes, the State reneged on the deal? That's what this is about, not the actual crime. That was settled 31 year ago according to the standards, laws, and beliefs in 1978.

It's reasonable to be outraged today about the sentences that were agreed upon 30 years ago, but that's not the issue here. This is about an agreement between accused and State where it was apparent to the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and the accused that the State judicial process was corrupt.


IF a defendant pleads guilty due to a plea bargain, the Judge is aware of it prior. There is NO defacto evidence the Court was going to vacate the deal. If it did, they would loose on appeal and or Polanski by and through his attorney's would have filed a Motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

After a guilty plea was entered and the plea was breached, say as a material fact, to try him again, he would have had a strong case for double jeopardy.

There is no way any appeals court, IMO, would permit a new trial to go forward after the court so called tricked him into pelading guilty.

[Jester]

IF a defendant pleads guilty due to a plea bargain, the Judge is aware of it prior. There is NO defacto evidence the Court was going to vacate the deal. If it did, they would loose on appeal and or Polanski by and through his attorney's would have filed a Motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

After a guilty plea was entered and the plea was breached, say as a material fact, to try him again, he would have had a strong case for double jeopardy.

There is no way any appeals court, IMO, would permit a new trial to go forward after the court so called tricked him into pelading guilty.

That's certainly how things are today, but we're talking about 31 years ago when judicial misconduct was seemingly okay. If it were not okay, this would have been looked into at the time. Instead, it took 30 years before the corruption was properly exposed. It's possible that there was so much corruption at the time that many laws would have been violated.I wouldn't hinge my life on a corrupt system and apparently Polanski felt the same way.

As I said yesterday. This arrest will expose not only the extremely lenient plea deals that were given for statutory rape 31 years ago in California, but the corruption, and inappropriate collusion between prosecutor and Judge. This is not a good situation for international opinion.

[Details]

Why now, when he is set to receive a well deserved lifetime achievement award in his industry?

Polanski owns a home in Gstaad, IIRC.Because he went to a country where we have an extradition treaty, at a well advertised time so we could alert their police. They've made numerous attempts through the last several decades to get him - this is just the one that worked.

[Details]

Exactly. Probation may have been an improper deal to make at that time (who knows) but that is the deal that was made. Prosecutors, lawyers, and the accused all over the country make deals every day. If the prosecution made deals and then reneged, that entire practice would have ended a long time ago. A deal is a deal.The prosecution didn't reneg. They dropped the other charges, as agreed. They recommended the ridiculously short sentence. They lived up to the plea bargain.

The judge, however, reportedly at least, decided the bargain was not just, and was not going to follow the prosecution's recommendation. Judges can do that. They do do that all the time. There's not a thing wrong with it.


We'd be cheering the judge, if it happened today, if some lousy child rapist managed to get a prosecutor to some ridiculous plea deal where the rapist didn't have to spend any time, other than the evaluation in jail - we'd be cheering that judge for doing what is right. And that is the judge's role - to make the punishment that is just - even if it is higher or lower than what the prosecutor is requesting. The judge is the one with the final choice.

[Jay]

The prosecution didn't reneg. They dropped the other charges, as agreed. They recommended the ridiculously short sentence. They lived up to the plea bargain.

The judge, however, reportedly at least, decided the bargain was not just, and was not going to follow the prosecution's recommendation. Judges can do that. They do do that all the time. There's not a thing wrong with it.


So he did NOT plead guilty in open court, am I right there? He agreed to plead guilty only if the deal was met?

[Details]

So he did NOT plead guilty in open court, am I right there? He agreed to plead guilty only if the deal was met?I believe he plead guilty in open court. There is no "I did it, if you only sentence me to time served" plea. He plead guilty, said what he did. That's his part of the plea deal. The prosecutor's part of the plea deal is to recommend the sentence agreed on - they did.

The judge is NO part of the plea bargain - they can go along with it - or they can say it is wrong and do something totally different.

[Jay]

I believe he plead guilty in open court. There is no "I did it, if you only sentence me to time served" plea. He plead guilty, said what he did. That's his part of the plea deal. The prosecutor's part of the plea deal is to recommend the sentence agreed on - they did.

The judge is NO part of the plea bargain - they can go along with it - or they can say it is wrong and do something totally different.


If it was in open court it was under the approval of the Judge. An open court plea under a plea bargain is approved before hand.

IF the court reneged, Polanski would have been cleared by the appeals court and the agreement upheld.

[CRRJJ]

I'm thinking that he felt the need to drug her before he continued with his sick assault so he must have had a pretty good idea she was going to refuse his advances without them.
Last night on Nancy Grace they showed some being interviewed who were shocked and ashamed that he would be arrested and treated like this on such an important occasion. Why would they be so stunned about that when he wasn't ashamed about what he did?
And anyway, we are reminded day after day that it is very difficult, if not impossible to rehabilitate pedophiles and they have to stay so many yards from where young people congregate and be registered as a sex offender. Why should he not be held responsible just as you or I would have to?
MOO of course

[Details]

If it was in open court it was under the approval of the Judge. An open court plea under a plea bargain is approved before hand.

IF the court reneged, Polanski would have been cleared by the appeals court and the agreement upheld.Then no need to run, was there?

But I don't think you're correct there - because the judge WAS able to change the sentence, that is what Polanski feared, so obviously the judge was not bound by anything.

[Jay]

Then no need to run, was there?

But I don't think you're correct there - because the judge WAS able to change the sentence, that is what Polanski feared, so obviously the judge was not bound by anything.



No need to run, no.

The plea deal is all aproved before hand, sentence included, it can't be changed, if it were it would create a myriad of Constitutional challenges for the state they would fall prey to on appeal.

[Details]

No need to run, no.

The plea deal is all aproved before hand, sentence included, it can't be changed, if it were it would create a myriad of Constitutional challenges for the state they would fall prey to on appeal.I've never heard of a plea bargain being something a judge is required to follow - all I've ever heard of is that they may include a sentencing recommendation. Judges USUALLY follow it - but do not always do so, nor are they forced or required to do so.

IIRC - in the recent Michael Vick case, the judge added several months on to the plea bargain they agreed to at sentencing. He thought Vick hadn't been truthful enough (IIRC), and thus added time.

But Polanski ran. Not so appealable, not a certainty, I'd say.

[museumgirl]

He ran and hid behind his $$ and the fact that he was a grown man who preyed on a young girl.... disgusting.

And anyone who is boo hooing him should be ashamed....

[Jay]

I've never heard of a plea bargain being something a judge is required to follow - all I've ever heard of is that they may include a sentencing recommendation. Judges USUALLY follow it - but do not always do so, nor are they forced or required to do so.

IIRC - in the recent Michael Vick case, the judge added several months on to the plea bargain they agreed to at sentencing. He thought Vick hadn't been truthful enough (IIRC), and thus added time.

But Polanski ran. Not so appealable, not a certainty, I'd say.


Here is Vick's federal plea bargain.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/vick_plea_agreement.pdf

IF the Judge accepts a guilty plea in open court, s/he MUST abide by the terms. This can include an X range of penalty, but as long as it is within the deal agreed to by the defendant, it is legal. No, the court does not have to accept a plea deal BEFORE any open plea, but this is not the case. The court can reject a plea deal recommendation before the fact, not after.

[True2Blues]

True, this is where I have a problem. Roman plead guilty based on a plea arrangement. The DA in interviews indicated that the judge agreed to the plea, and thereafter made judicial decrees that were unethical and illegal.

In order for a plea to be entered into, the defendant must plead and must make admissions, otherwise the plea is constitutionally invalid. So, for people to now say he plead guilty is misleading in that he plead only in exchange for the plea agreement. The victim's lawyer made a heartfelt plea on her behalf for Roman to enter into the plea to save her from having to go to court, which was Roman's constitutional right to have a trial. The victim did not want a trial. The alternative for Roman once it was realized that the judge did not intend to honor the agreement was to withdraw his guilty plea and go forward with a trial ... the exact thing the victim did not want to occur.

imo


The fact that he was willing to plead guilty at all is enough for me personally, though I know it doesn't work for everyone. Raping a child is a heinous crime, I can't see anyone pleading to it even if it's knocked down to Statutory rape. I also believe it shows consciousness of guilt that he fled.

I understand the victim didn't want to have to testify and that was why a deal was asked for, but as far as I can see the Judge never made the deal official and never pronounced sentence. In fact, every account says Polanski 'got word' or heard in the wind, that the Judge was considering giving him time and fled because he didn't want to take the chance of actually doing time. No one knows for certain what the Judge would have done at that moment, because it never happened. After that, of course, the Judge was furious.

If he'd wanted to change his mind and have a trial, he could have and, I believe, would have done so. He stood a good chance of getting convicted of worse and other charges as well and he knew it. I don't believe for a single moment he didn't know the age of the girl and I don't believe he would have given her drugs and alcohol if she was willing.

After seeing that he blamed it on his parents being in a prison camp and Sharon Tate's murder, I was more certain. Why try shifting blame if it isn't true? His defense tried to say age of consent in California was 14, so she was 'almost' legal. It was 16, in fact, but that's beside the point.

For me, it all comes down to the fact that all of this could have been avoided if he'd chosen not to rape a child. He chose otherwise, that makes him a Sex offender and a pedophile and when he feared his celebrity and money wouldn't get him set free, he ran. Just like every other pedophile would if they had the means.

[True2Blues]

I'm thinking that he felt the need to drug her before he continued with his sick assault so he must have had a pretty good idea she was going to refuse his advances without them.
Last night on Nancy Grace they showed some being interviewed who were shocked and ashamed that he would be arrested and treated like this on such an important occasion. Why would they be so stunned about that when he wasn't ashamed about what he did?
And anyway, we are reminded day after day that it is very difficult, if not impossible to rehabilitate pedophiles and they have to stay so many yards from where young people congregate and be registered as a sex offender. Why should he not be held responsible just as you or I would have to?
MOO of course

They can't be fixed and they don't stop, as a film director I'm sure he's had plenty of access to others. Scary thought, isn't it?

[Jay]

Here is a transcript of his open court plea deal. The court was bound by the terms.


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

[Details]

Here is Vick's federal plea bargain.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/vick_plea_agreement.pdf

IF the Judge accepts a guilty plea in open court, s/he MUST abide by the terms. This can include an X range of penalty, but as long as it is within the deal agreed to by the defendant, it is legal. No, the court does not have to accept a plea deal BEFORE any open plea, but this is not the case. The court can reject a plea deal recommendation before the fact, not after.Then - no reason to run, right?

Of course - having run - now he's up on more charges, for fleeing.

[Jay]

Then - no reason to run, right?

Of course - having run - now he's up on more charges, for fleeing.


IMO, it was all planned to flee before any plea deal, it was all a ruse on his part, he knew full well he was going to do it.

[True2Blues]

So he did NOT plead guilty in open court, am I right there? He agreed to plead guilty only if the deal was met?

I know this is a Fox news link, but it's an AP article. It says in here that there was an 'Open Plea' in court, meaning there was no agreement in place as to what the sentence would be, if that's any help. It's about 14 paragraphs down.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477112,00.html

helps if the link is there.

[True2Blues]

IMO, it was all planned to flee before any plea deal, it was all a ruse on his part, he knew full well he was going to do it.

Very probably.

[Jay]

I know this is a Fox news link, but it's an AP article. It says in here that there was an 'Open Plea' in court, meaning there was no agreement in place as to what the sentence would be, if that's any help. It's about 14 paragraphs down.


Did you read the plea agreement link for Polanski I linked above. He plead guilty under the terms of it!

As I said, if the agreement has an X range of a sentence, as long as the court is within it, it is legal, maximum or minimum.

[Details]

Here is a transcript of his open court plea deal. The court was bound by the terms.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.htmlDid you read all of that?

Page 11 - he's asked to verify he knows the maximum and minimum sentences, that only the judge will decide if he gets jail or probation, that he'll be subject to further evaluation that could end with him being committed...

Page 12 - Do you understand that at this time the court has made NO decision about what sentence you will receive? That the court will NOT make that decision until after getting all the reports and recommendations?

Page 14 - Do you understand that a legitimate defense to this crime is that you believed the defendant to be 18 or older? - Yes. Did you know she was 13 when you had sex with her - Yes.

Page 15 - Has anyone made promises to you to get you to plead guilty - of lesser sentences, probation, etc.? - No.

Page 16 - The court is NOT bound by any plea agreement.

Polanski pleads guilty - after saying Yes, he understood all of this, the fact that the court could issue any sentence was understood, that the court was not bound by any plea agreement was understood (he could revoke his guilty plea in response - but they were NOT bound).


Your link explicitly and repeatedly denies your contention that the judge was bound by the plea agreement. It is explicitly stated numerous times - before Polanski pleads guilty, that it is NOT bound, and that NO sentence is guaranteed.

[True2Blues]

What link are you talking about?

Did you read the plea agreement link for Polanski I linked above. He plead guilty under the terms of it!

I added it, sorry. I forgot to put it on. Yes, I have read what the Smoking Gun said. Of course, there's always someone who will say different. It's hard to know what to believe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477112,00.html

[Details]

I know this is a Fox news link, but it's an AP article. It says in here that there was an 'Open Plea' in court, meaning there was no agreement in place as to what the sentence would be, if that's any help. It's about 14 paragraphs down.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477112,00.html

helps if the link is there.Read the TSG link Jay posted - quoted in my post above. The judge clearly spells out what the plea means, and he does then plead guilty - even after numerous restatements of the fact that the plea does not guarantee any particular sentence, the judge can change his mind at any time, and an outright statement that he has not been promised probation in exchange for his plea.

It's pretty short, and interesting reading.

[True2Blues]

Read the TSG link Jay posted - quoted in my post above. The judge clearly spells out what the plea means, and he does then plead guilty - even after numerous restatements of the fact that the plea does not guarantee any particular sentence, the judge can change his mind at any time, and an outright statement that he has not been promised probation in exchange for his plea.

It's pretty short, and interesting reading.

Well, that's an official document, so I guess that's that. He plead to an agreement that didn't guarantee a sentence. His attorneys should have been more careful. You'd think they, of all people, would know that you never leave anything up in the air. Always get it in the official documents.

[Cornblossom]

well hells bells......let's let Andrew Luster go....he was sentenced then ran...he raped 3 women...no big deal.....let 'em all go!(sarc) Justice is justice no matter how long it takes. I feel for the victim because she doesn't want to go through this now, but he broke the law and he should do the time. So what if he's in his 70's....old men are put in prison......if his age is a factor-then so is Phil Spector's and a few other old men and women's.....I know there's a difference in the crimes but right is right.

[Jay]

Did you read all of that?

Page 16 - The court is NOT bound by any plea agreement.


Your link explicitly and repeatedly denies your contention that the judge was bound by the plea agreement. It is explicitly stated numerous times - before Polanski pleads guilty, that it is NOT bound, and that NO sentence is guaranteed.

If no sentence is guaranteed, then he knows it before hand.


The part also states it is bindable under the CA penal code, and Polanski agreed. Therefore the judge is bound by the terms of it under 1192.5. This is one of the legal grey areas of law.

In a crime of this magnitude, if the court does not follow the plea and permits he DF to plead guilty, and changes it, they are sunk.

1192.5. Upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an accusatory
pleading charging a felony, other than a violation of paragraph (2),
(3), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) or (4)
of subdivision (a) of Section 262, Section 264.1, Section 286 by
force, violence, duress, menace or threat of great bodily harm,
subdivision (b) of Section 288, Section 288a by force, violence,
duress, menace or threat of great bodily harm, or subdivision (a) of
Section 289, the plea may specify the punishment to the same extent
as it may be specified by the jury on a plea of not guilty or fixed
by the court on a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or not guilty, and
may specify the exercise by the court thereafter of other powers
legally available to it.
Where the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open
court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as
otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea
to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the
court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the
plea.
If the court approves of the plea, it shall inform the defendant
prior to the making of the plea that (1) its approval is not binding,
(2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for
probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in the
light of further consideration of the matter, and (3) in that case,
the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea if he or
she desires to do so. The court shall also cause an inquiry to be
made of the defendant to satisfy itself that the plea is freely and
voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.
If the plea is not accepted by the prosecuting attorney and
approved by the court, the plea shall be deemed withdrawn and the
defendant may then enter the plea or pleas as would otherwise have
been available.
If the plea is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, it may not be
received in evidence in any criminal, civil, or special action or
proceeding of any nature, including proceedings before agencies,
commissions, boards, and tribunals.

[True2Blues]

I have another question about the document from the Smoking Gun. It says in there that on the day of sentencing the DA would make a motion to have the other charges dropped. Since Polanski never showed up, did that request get made and were the other charges officially dropped? Just curious.

[Details]

If no sentence is guaranteed, then he knows it before hand.It's right there in your link, he agrees that he knows that there is no sentence that is guarenteed - and he did know it before he plead guilty.The part also states it is bindable under the CA penal code, and Polanski agreed. Therefore the judge is bound by the terms of it under 1192.5. This is one of the legal grey areas of law.

In a crime of this magnitude, if the court does not follow the plea and permits he DF to plead guilty, and changes it, they are sunk...That was the bit I mentioned that was later - that he could revoke his guilty plea if the agreement was changed - however no agreement of a particular sentence was stated. In fact, it was EXPLICITLY denied. They asked if he had been promised any particular sentence or probation for his plea, he said No. They asked who was going to choose his sentence, he said the court. They made it clear no sentence was currently determined, nor would it be determined until all reports came in - he said he understood that.

[Jay]

I have another question about the document from the Smoking Gun. It says in there that on the day of sentencing the DA would make a motion to have the other charges dropped. Since Polanski never showed up, did that request get made and were the other charges officially dropped? Just curious.


I would surmise they were left intact as Polanski breached his end.

[True2Blues]

well hells bells......let's let Andrew Luster go....he was sentenced then ran...he raped 3 women...no big deal.....let 'em all go!(sarc) Justice is justice no matter how long it takes. I feel for the victim because she doesn't want to go through this now, but he broke the law and he should do the time. So what if he's in his 70's....old men are put in prison......if his age is a factor-then so is Phil Spector's and a few other old men and women's.....I know there's a difference in the crimes but right is right.

They've already given the man an Oscar. (and I just cried for days knowing he couldn't be here to accept it. Really and I mean that. NOT) Maybe we should give him a Thank You card for gracing our country with his presence and a medal too.:rolleyes:

Funny you should bring up Spector. When the original Judge retired, this case was handed to Judge Larry Paul Fidler, who presided over PS's case. He couldn't ask for a fairer Judge than that, IMO. If it's still his, of course.

[True2Blues]

I would surmise they were left intact as Polanski breached his end.

Does that mean they could still bring them up or are they out of bounds?

[ResJudicata]

Is there anything we can do to make sure this worm Polanski is brought to justice? To whom do we write or protest? Who are they trying to kid? This creep is a pedophile sex offender. Were we supposed to let Phil Specter go because he was a great musical genius? Probably in France they would have. What's a woman's life when weighed against such musical genius? This whole situation is outrageous. I am outraged. Without the internet and shows like Nancy Grace this story would have just faded away after a few newspaper articles. Thank God for trhe internet and the new crime shows that allows us to see the actual affadvits and know what happened to this poor child. Mark Klaas was just outraged, I'm sad that that poor man has to witness this!

You can offer to pay for all the expenses connected to "bringing him to justice." California can't afford to deal with its current offenders, much less from 30 years ago, and for which the victim has made it clear she wants the DA to let it go.

[Jay]

It's right there in your link, he agrees that he knows that there is no sentence that is guarenteed - and he did know it before he plead guilty.That was the bit I mentioned that was later - that he could revoke his guilty plea if the agreement was changed - however no agreement of a particular sentence was stated. In fact, it was EXPLICITLY denied. They asked if he had been promised any particular sentence or probation for his plea, he said No. They asked who was going to choose his sentence, he said the court. They made it clear no sentence was currently determined, nor would it be determined until all reports came in - he said he understood that.


Yes, if he agreed to any part, he knows what it is, and his counsel even stated they briefed him.

As long as the court followed 1192.5, per the agreement, he agreed to that.

As I stated earlier, IMO, he knew was was splitting long before any plea deal.

[True2Blues]

While I'm asking questions, is the plea deal still in tact, the part that was in open court, since he ran? Is that a deal breaker(not that they'd open that can of worms)?

[Jay]

Does that mean they could still bring them up or are they out of bounds?



There was a letter in the back of the SMG link that stated the victim approved of the deal.

I don't know how the Prosecution/court would handle it, rescind the original plea, abide by it and sentence the max or re-indict or what?

[Details]

You can offer to pay for all the expenses connected to "bringing him to justice." California can't afford to deal with its current offenders, much less from 30 years ago, and for which the victim has made it clear she wants the DA to let it go.There is nothing our money should go to more than justice - even justice for the wealthy and famous, even - or especially - justice for those who have made it difficult to catch them.

[Cornblossom]

They've already given the man an Oscar. (and I just cried for days knowing he couldn't be here to accept it. Really and I mean that. NOT) Maybe we should give him a Thank You card for gracing our country with his presence and a medal too.:rolleyes:

Funny you should bring up Spector. When the original Judge retired, this case was handed to Judge Larry Paul Fidler, who presided over PS's case. He couldn't ask for a fairer Judge than that, IMO. If it's still his, of course.

I was just saying if Polanski is too old to go to prison,then so is Spector..or his age should have been taken into consideration. If he's too old to go to prison...then let's reverse that....there's quite a few in prison who are too young to be there...but they are there. If he had gone to prison and served his time-he probably would have been out in time to receive his Oscar with no problem LOL

[True2Blues]

There is nothing our money should go to more than justice - even justice for the wealthy and famous, even - or especially - justice for those who have made it difficult to catch them.

Not to mention that tossing out a rape case like sex offenses against children don't matter, would set a bad precedent.

Polanski caused the problem, he should get the bill.

[True2Blues]

There was a letter in the back of the SMG link that stated the victim approved of the deal.

I don't know how the Prosecution/court would handle it, rescind the original plea, abide by it and sentence the max or re-indict or what?

They're having enough trouble as it is. It's probably the last thing they want to think about doing, but these things just make you wonder.

[Cornblossom]

You can offer to pay for all the expenses connected to "bringing him to justice." California can't afford to deal with its current offenders, much less from 30 years ago, and for which the victim has made it clear she wants the DA to let it go.

Would you say that had he killed someone 30 years ago? Justice is Justice. "Let him go cause California can't afford to prosecute John Doe for murdering and raping little Jane Doe"?

[Jay]

There is nothing our money should go to more than justice - even justice for the wealthy and famous, even - or especially - justice for those who have made it difficult to catch them.


In the case of Fatty Arbuckle, his fame I think is what did him in??

Oh, he was found not guilty after a 3rd trial but his career was ruined.

[True2Blues]

I was just saying if Polanski is too old to go to prison,then so is Spector..or his age should have been taken into consideration. If he's too old to go to prison...then let's reverse that....there's quite a few in prison who are too young to be there...but they are there. If he had gone to prison and served his time-he probably would have been out in time to receive his Oscar with no problem LOL

I meant to agree with you. Sorry, I didn't mean to argue! :blushing: There's none too old as far as I'm concerned and I think Juvenile law should not apply to things like rape, murder, kidnap either, above the age of 11 or 12. Do an adult crime, do adult time. Of course, I'm mean.

You're right, if he'd showed up for sentencing he may have even gotten probation, but he would probably be out by now even if he got time. Another one of the special people, like Spector.

[birdwatch]

Would you say that had he killed someone 30 years ago? Justice is Justice. "Let him go cause California can't afford to prosecute John Doe for murdering and raping little Jane Doe"?
There is a big difference between a murder and a statutory rape charge. I think it is important not to blow this up.
I think we miss an important opportunity by not sticking to the facts.
In those days it may have been unusual for a 13 yr old to look like a woman in her 20's and be seen out drinking and drugging on the nightclub scene. IMPORTANT - the man should have checked on her actual age and did not do so. The responsibility is his. It is a crime.

Nowadays it is really common for young girls to act in the same manner. And I think older boys and men think they don't have to check carefully on a girl's age. They are wrong - and it is a crime.
So having folks now twisting the story and saying that RP was a violent rapist and attacked a girl against her will ......simply allows the men and boys these days to think "Well I wouldn't do that - so I'm not a pedophile". Well RP didn't do that either - and he was convicted of sex with a minor and we need to get the word out.... that it is a crime.

[Cornblossom]

I meant to agree with you. Sorry, I didn't mean to argue! :blushing: There's none too old as far as I'm concerned and I think Juvenile law should not apply to things like rape, murder, kidnap either, above the age of 11 or 12. Do an adult crime, do adult time. Of course, I'm mean.

You're right, if he'd showed up for sentencing he may have even gotten probation, but he would probably be out by now even if he got time. Another one of the special people, like Spector.I know you weren't arguing with me....we usually do think alike......which mite get you in trouble j/k LMAO

[True2Blues]

There is a big difference between a murder and a statutory rape charge. I think it is important not to blow this up.
I think we miss an important opportunity by not sticking to the facts.
In those days it may have been unusual for a 13 yr old to look like a woman in her 20's and be seen out drinking and drugging on the nightclub scene. IMPORTANT - the man should have checked on her actual age and did not do so. The responsibility is his. It is a crime.

Nowadays it is really common for young girls to act in the same manner. And I think older boys and men think they don't have to check carefully on a girl's age. They are wrong - and it is a crime.
So having folks now twisting the story and saying that RP was a violent rapist and attacked a girl against her will ......simply allows the men and boys these days to think "Well I wouldn't do that - so I'm not a pedophile". Well RP didn't do that either - and he was convicted of sex with a minor and we need to get the word out.... that it is a crime.

According to the witness herself, she was forced, against her will. I guess it depends on whose facts you believe. The reason he was allowed to plead down to statutory was to keep the victim from having to go through a trial.

It doesn't matter if she looked like a 30 year old and was wearing a string bikini, rape is never excusable.

[True2Blues]

I know you weren't arguing with me....we usually do think alike......which mite get you in trouble j/k LMAO

I'm used to it! :laugh:

[Cornblossom]

There is a big difference between a murder and a statutory rape charge. I think it is important not to blow this up.
I think we miss an important opportunity by not sticking to the facts.
In those days it may have been unusual for a 13 yr old to look like a woman in her 20's and be seen out drinking and drugging on the nightclub scene. IMPORTANT - the man should have checked on her actual age and did not do so. The responsibility is his. It is a crime.

Nowadays it is really common for young girls to act in the same manner. And I think older boys and men think they don't have to check carefully on a girl's age. They are wrong - and it is a crime.
So having folks now twisting the story and saying that RP was a violent rapist and attacked a girl against her will ......simply allows the men and boys these days to think "Well I wouldn't do that - so I'm not a pedophile". Well RP didn't do that either - and he was convicted of sex with a minor and we need to get the word out.... that it is a crime. I asked the poster IF they would say not bring him back because California couldn't afford it had the crime been a 30 year old murder? Justice is Justice no matter what the crime is. Even a prostitute can be raped.

[Jay]

I'm used to it! :laugh:


Notice how she spelled might/mite?

Does that mean you are a termite, tick!

Ha!!

[True2Blues]

Notice how she spelled might/mite?

Does that mean you are a termite, tick!

Ha!!

Ooh, not ticks! :scared: The only tick I don't hate is the cartoon character.

[Cornblossom]

Notice how she spelled might/mite?

Does that mean you are a termite, tick!

Ha!!sometimes I spell night/nite tough/tuff educated/edjamakated -whatever floats my boat at the time.

[Jay]

sometimes I spell night/nite tough/tuff educated/edjamakated -whatever floats my boat at the time.


I know, I do it too, such as tuff, I was fooling with True blue! :smile:

[CRRJJ]

well hells bells......let's let Andrew Luster go....he was sentenced then ran...he raped 3 women...no big deal.....let 'em all go!(sarc) Justice is justice no matter how long it takes. I feel for the victim because she doesn't want to go through this now, but he broke the law and he should do the time. So what if he's in his 70's....old men are put in prison......if his age is a factor-then so is Phil Spector's and a few other old men and women's.....I know there's a difference in the crimes but right is right.

And if you think their sex drives leaves in old age you haven't worked in a nursing home. :wink:

[Jester]

If it was in open court it was under the approval of the Judge. An open court plea under a plea bargain is approved before hand.

IF the court reneged, Polanski would have been cleared by the appeals court and the agreement upheld.

If you look up the definition of a plea agreement and plea bargain (the following link is only one source, there are many others), there's nothing in there about the Judge being able to change the rules of the agreement during sentencing.

The deal is that the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for reduced charge and/or a lighter sentence.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/criminal_plea_bargain.html

Imagine if a defendant agreed to plead guilty to, for example, assault, when the charges were much more severe. The prosecution sees it as a first offense, and agrees to a sentence of psych eval and probation. The defendant pleads guilty, is sentenced to the psych eval, and then the judge turns around and says ... "fooled ya ... you get 50 years in jail." Obviously the defendant would be pretty upset about that and the whole process of plea bargains would cease to work. Fortunately, that is not how plea bargains work.

[Jester]

Corrupt? I think you have LOTS to learn about the judicial process...eyeroll........

I'm getting my information from the recently reviews of the case. The words "collusion" and "judicial misconduct" are there. That, like it or not, is a form of corruption.

[Jester]

The prosecution didn't reneg. They dropped the other charges, as agreed. They recommended the ridiculously short sentence. They lived up to the plea bargain.

The judge, however, reportedly at least, decided the bargain was not just, and was not going to follow the prosecution's recommendation. Judges can do that. They do do that all the time. There's not a thing wrong with it.


We'd be cheering the judge, if it happened today, if some lousy child rapist managed to get a prosecutor to some ridiculous plea deal where the rapist didn't have to spend any time, other than the evaluation in jail - we'd be cheering that judge for doing what is right. And that is the judge's role - to make the punishment that is just - even if it is higher or lower than what the prosecutor is requesting. The judge is the one with the final choice.

The deal was not just to drop the other charges, but there was also an agreement to probation. It was not a sentencing recommendation, it was a plea agreement. A sentencing recommendation is something that happens after a trial where the defense and prosecution make sentencing recommendations and the Judge takes it under advisement.

[True2Blues]

If you look up the definition of a plea agreement and plea bargain (the following link is only one source, there are many others), there's nothing in there about the Judge being able to change the rules of the agreement during sentencing.

The deal is that the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for reduced charge and/or a lighter sentence.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/criminal_plea_bargain.html

Imagine if a defendant agreed to plead guilty to, for example, assault, when the charges were much more severe. The prosecution sees it as a first offense, and agrees to a sentence of psych eval and probation. The defendant pleads guilty, is sentenced to the psych eval, and then the judge turns around and says ... "fooled ya ... you get 50 years in jail." Obviously the defendant would be pretty upset about that and the whole process of plea bargains would cease to work. Fortunately, that is not how plea bargains work.

The terms of the plea deal Polanski participated in stated very clearly that there was no sentence or probation promised beforehand.
That is made clear in this link to the agreement Jay posted earlier today.


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

[Jester]

The terms of the plea deal Polanski participated in stated very clearly that there was no sentence or probation promised beforehand.
That is made clear in this link to the agreement Jay posted earlier today.


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

I think that's where things get messy with the prosecutor and the judge. There has been a decision that there was collusion, and there was misconduct. This is not a clear cut case ... that much we know.

[birdwatch]

I asked the poster IF they would say not bring him back because California couldn't afford it had the crime been a 30 year old murder? Justice is Justice no matter what the crime is. Even a prostitute can be raped.
I agree absolutely. My point is that this was (is) a crime. The court apparently believed this was statutory rape; that she was not forced - it is still a crime.... and the issue of force obfuscates that. As I said - men these days think "Oh I wouldn't force anything like RP did, so its OK" Wrong message. Doesn't matter that he didn't force her. Its a crime.

[barskin&co.]

There is a big difference between a murder and a statutory rape charge. I think it is important not to blow this up.
I think we miss an important opportunity by not sticking to the facts.
In those days it may have been unusual for a 13 yr old to look like a woman in her 20's and be seen out drinking and drugging on the nightclub scene. IMPORTANT - the man should have checked on her actual age and did not do so. The responsibility is his. It is a crime.

Nowadays it is really common for young girls to act in the same manner. And I think older boys and men think they don't have to check carefully on a girl's age. They are wrong - and it is a crime.
So having folks now twisting the story and saying that RP was a violent rapist and attacked a girl against her will ......simply allows the men and boys these days to think "Well I wouldn't do that - so I'm not a pedophile". Well RP didn't do that either - and he was convicted of sex with a minor and we need to get the word out.... that it is a crime.

You are mistaken about the facts of this case. He did force himself. She said "keep away from me." She said "no." He penetrated her anally. Not to mention that he gave her alcohol and drugs.

[barskin&co.]

I think that's where things get messy with the prosecutor and the judge. There has been a decision that there was collusion, and there was misconduct. This is not a clear cut case ... that much we know.

So, you would like a rapist to go free on a technicality?

[barskin&co.]

I agree absolutely. My point is that this was (is) a crime. The court apparently believed this was statutory rape; that she was not forced - it is still a crime.... and the issue of force obfuscates that. As I said - men these days think "Oh I wouldn't force anything like RP did, so its OK" Wrong message. Doesn't matter that he didn't force her. Its a crime.

The statutory rape designation came from the plea bargain, which is yet another reason this plea bargain was a sweetheart/celebrity free pass, deal.

[True2Blues]

I think that's where things get messy with the prosecutor and the judge. There has been a decision that there was collusion, and there was misconduct. This is not a clear cut case ... that much we know.

Do you have a link to an official decision of collusion and misconduct by the prosecutor and Judge in the Polanski rape case? I've looked and can't find any actual legal finding of such a thing. TIA

I've seen speculation but that's it.

[True2Blues]

So, you would like a rapist to go free on a technicality?

I saw an article that stated even if there was some misconduct, the normal proceeding would be to send the sentencing to another Judge, not to drop all charges. I'm sure it depends on the individual circumstances, but I can find no actual legal decision that states there even was misconduct.

[True2Blues]

I agree absolutely. My point is that this was (is) a crime. The court apparently believed this was statutory rape; that she was not forced - it is still a crime.... and the issue of force obfuscates that. As I said - men these days think "Oh I wouldn't force anything like RP did, so its OK" Wrong message. Doesn't matter that he didn't force her. Its a crime.

The court didn't say they believed it was consensual, what was said was that the family requested a plea to keep the victim from having to go to trial, so they allowed RP to plead down.

[barskin&co.]

When has Roman Polanski apologized, shown any remorse, payed any price for his crime? He has lived a very happy and fulfilled life abroad. And now, he is crying like he is the victim, and God knows how many enabling celebrities are making excuses for him and endorsing the concept of his victimhood, as well. Frankly, this is making me sick.

[barskin&co.]

The court didn't say they believed it was consensual, what was said was that the family requested a plea to keep the victim from having to go to trial, so they allowed RP to plead down.

Yes, he gave her alcohol and a Quaalude and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally. But, what's the big deal? He's a celebrity.

[BlueTurtle]

Really? He gives her drugs and booze (I doubt she was capable of resisting physically with that), then proceeds to have a variety of types of sex with her, as she says "No", and begs to be taken home. This is rape even were she old enough - and in a 13 year old child - it's far worse.

And in Europe - when he fled his sentencing - first thing he does pretty much is goes for a 15 year old girl.

You're right he did.

[R~O~S]

Do you have a link to an official decision of collusion and misconduct by the prosecutor and Judge in the Polanski rape case? I've looked and can't find any actual legal finding of such a thing. TIA

I've seen speculation but that's it.

That's the case Polanski brought to the court last year only to have it tossed because he wouldn't come to court to pursue it.

If that's his claim, why isn't he here to press it?

That's why there's never been a ruling.

He had a sympathetic judge who stated in dismissing the case that there was indeed "significant misconduct", without specifying who/what.

He was too much of a coward to show up, the court wasn't packed with 13 year old girls he was going to be able to drug and violate.

[Cornblossom]

When has Roman Polanski apologized, shown any remorse, payed any price for his crime? He has lived a very happy and fulfilled life abroad. And now, he is crying like he is the victim, and God knows how many enabling celebrities are making excuses for him and endorsing the concept of his victimhood, as well. Frankly, this is making me sick.

I wonder how many other girls/women he has raped and they have been afraid to report him because he is a celebrity? Why report someone who has ran from the United States and has openly lived freely?

[True2Blues]

When has Roman Polanski apologized, shown any remorse, payed any price for his crime? He has lived a very happy and fulfilled life abroad. And now, he is crying like he is the victim, and God knows how many enabling celebrities are making excuses for him and endorsing the concept of his victimhood, as well. Frankly, this is making me sick.

Many, Many, including Woody Allen who is leading one crusade. Though that's a surprise to no one, I should think.

[True2Blues]

I wonder how many other girls/women he has raped and they have been afraid to report him because he is a celebrity? Why report someone who has ran from the United States and has openly lived freely?

He did a remake of Oliver, which I found disturbing. Not to mention the fact that he has a daughter.

[True2Blues]

That's the case Polanski brought to the court last year only to have it tossed because he wouldn't come to court to pursue it.

If that's his claim, why isn't he here to press it?

That's why there's never been a ruling.

He had a sympathetic judge who stated in dismissing the case that there was indeed "significant misconduct", without specifying who/what.

He was too much of a coward to show up, the court wasn't packed with 13 year old girls he was going to be able to drug and violate.

Curious, isn't it? So sure he's in the right, but still too cowardly to come and pursue it.

[True2Blues]

Yes, he gave her alcohol and a Quaalude and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally. But, what's the big deal? He's a celebrity.

Some of the older things I've read have said he claimed America wasn't as sexually advanced as Europe.

I guess us rubes ain't classy enuff to think raping children is a-okay.:rolleyes:

[Spyder88]

Yes, he gave her alcohol and a Quaalude and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally. But, what's the big deal? He's a celebrity.

Not only that, but he's got lots of money and that is the God in Hollywood that most of those people are willing to fall down and worship. Let's rally 'round the admitted pedophile. He might give one of us a starring role in his next movie. :rolleyes: This whole thing is disturbing, to say the least.

For anyone who's supporting him, I have a question. Are you willing to leave him alone with some pretty, little girl you love?

[Jester]

So, you would like a rapist to go free on a technicality?

This is about what the prosecutor and Judge discussed and agreed on 31 years ago. My understanding is that they agreed that Polanski would plead to one count of statutory rape (sex with a female not his wife under the age of 18), and receive probation. That reflects the opinions, morals, and ethics from 31 years ago.

Times were different.

[Jester]

Do you have a link to an official decision of collusion and misconduct by the prosecutor and Judge in the Polanski rape case? I've looked and can't find any actual legal finding of such a thing. TIA

I've seen speculation but that's it.

I haven't looked ... I've been reading about the case in the news. I'm assuming that the New York Times, The Guardian, and other legitimate newspapers did their homework. Lisa Bloom was on HLN today, and she said she's done nothing but research this case in the last 2 days. According to her, Polanski was due to receive a 90 day sentence and he's already served 42 days. I don't know where she got that from. I don't have time to investigate anything, so I read multiple news sources and look for confirmation of information by at least three independent sources. That's enough to convince me that I'm reading facts.

[Jester]

Yes, he gave her alcohol and a Quaalude and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally. But, what's the big deal? He's a celebrity.

Jaycee Dugard's kidnapper had a sweetheart deal too from the same time period. Times were different ... Garrido is no celebrity, he was determined to be a sexual deviant (unlike Polanski) and 10 years later he was back on the street. We can't go back in time and apply today's laws, standards, and sentences retroactively 31 years.

[Mr. Moto2]

I haven't looked ... I've been reading about the case in the news. I'm assuming that the New York Times, The Guardian, and other legitimate newspapers did their homework. Lisa Bloom was on HLN today, and she said she's done nothing but research this case in the last 2 days. According to her, Polanski was due to receive a 90 day sentence and he's already served 42 days. I don't know where she got that from. I don't have time to investigate anything, so I read multiple news sources and look for confirmation of information by at least three independent sources. That's enough to convince me that I'm reading facts.

I read somewhere that the sentence was 90 days of psychological evaluation, but the evaluation was finished in 42 days and he was let go because they determined there was nothing wrong with his head.

[Jester]

I read somewhere that the sentence was 90 days of psychological evaluation, but the evaluation was finished in 42 days and he was let go because they determined there was nothing wrong with his head.

Maybe I misunderstood what I heard on HLN this afternoon. Polanski had to be assessed to determine whether he was a sexual deviant. I also understood that it was determined that he was not a deviant. What I do know is that Polanski was led to believe by defense, prosecution, and conversations that prosecution had with the judge, that he would be sentenced to probation. On the evening before sentencing, he was told by prosecution and defense that the judge was concerned about public opinion and would not keep his word.

[Jester]

2008 agreement regarding misconduct during original court hearing

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/exclusive-polanski-prosecutor-and-defense-attorney-charge-la-superior-court-made-false-and-reprehensible-statement/

[Jester]

Grand jury indictment:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

[R~O~S]

Jaycee Dugard's kidnapper had a sweetheart deal too from the same time period. Times were different ... Garrido is no celebrity, he was determined to be a sexual deviant (unlike Polanski) and 10 years later he was back on the street. We can't go back in time and apply today's laws, standards, and sentences retroactively 31 years.

That's the point! He never served his sentence, he took off before it was handed down.

Nobody is suggesting todays laws apply, only that he needs to serve the sentence for the crime he pleaded guilty. Of course the entire flight thing is another crime on top of that, at todays standards.

There's a world of difference between 10 years and 44 days.

[R~O~S]

I read somewhere that the sentence was 90 days of psychological evaluation, but the evaluation was finished in 42 days and he was let go because they determined there was nothing wrong with his head.

No, he was to be evaluated and then sentence would be based on the evaluation. His agreement with the prosecutor was that it should be probation after the evaluation. The judge made statements from the bench indicating he wasn't likely to leave it at that. He took off rather than find out even though he know the range of possible sentences and that the judge wasn't bound by the prosecutions suggestion when he plead.

[Jester]

I want to see the movie, and a brilliant artist should not be restrained nor constrained by the vices of his youth.

[Jester]

Perhaps it should be called folly.

In any case, it's not like he's a war criminal. In fact, born in Poland in 1933, he is a victim of war criminals. He did move to the US in search of a safe place, only to have his pregnant wife slaughtered by maniacs. 8 years later, he was committing statutory rape with a 13 year old whom he thought was much older. Ultimately, he pled guilty to the crime of having sex with a woman who was not his wife and was under the age of 18.

31 years later, what should be done with him?

[Jester]

Keeping in mind that he was born in 1933 and was 6 years old in Poland at the start of the war. He was Jewish, so of course his family was required to wear a star; even children, was put out of his home, tattooed, and moved to a concentration camp.

Polanski would have been about 12 years old in a world without order at the end of WW2.

Would jail further any objective and, if so, what is it?

[Jester]

Somehow, I doubt Polanski has continued with seducing women under the age of 18 since the 1970s.

It took Polanski a long time to remarry after the Charles Mansion murder of his wife and unborn child.

[barskin&co.]

Jester:

Excuses. excuses, excuses and, also, balderdash.

Here are my replies to your last 4 comments:

1) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

2) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

3) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

4) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

[Jester]

Would jail further any objective and, if so, what is it?

If Jail is meant as a deterrent to US citizens about the laws of statutory rape in 1978, couldn't the US find a local citizen rather than someone who was about to be expelled from the country; but chose to leave first, to make as an example of statutory rape? The kidnapper of Jaycee Duggard was sentenced in the same year of 1978 after he kidnapped and brutally sexually assaulted a woman. He, a sexual deviant, was on the street in 10 years so Polanski, who did not use any brutality and was deemed not sexually deviant, was not in any way like a typical US sex offender, rapist, and murderer. Polanski is in a completely different category.

What should be done with? What is the objective: punishment or rehabilitation?

[Jester]

Jester:

Excuses. excuses, excuses and, also, balderdash.

Here are my replies to your last 4 comments:

1) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

2) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

3) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

4) He fed alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old child, then forcibly raped her vaginally and anally.

And then the nice judge agreed with the prosecutor to give a sentence of psych eval, and probation. Too bad there was collusion between prosecutor and judge ... just doesn't look good in the big picture of justice.

[barskin&co.]

And then the nice judge agreed with the prosecutor to give a sentence of psych eval, and probation. Too bad there was collusion between prosecutor and judge ... just doesn't look good in the big picture of justice.

And more excuses.

[Jay]

Would jail further any objective and, if so, what is it?

What should be done with? What is the objective: punishment or rehabilitation?


Scenario! NO state has any SOL on Murder. A person committed murder of 5 people in 1965, since then he lead a so called normal life, they solve the case, charge him, would this be right or should they leave him alone??

[barskin&co.]

Scenario! NO state has any SOL on Murder. A person committed murder of 5 people in 1965, since then he lead a so called normal life, they solve the case, charge him, would this be right or should they leave him alone??

The issue of SOL is moot actually. When he fled, the clock on any SOL stopped.

Jay, I am so sick of the excuses. As I posted before, he has never even apologized or shown any remorse for his crime.

His apologists constantly talk about the victim letting it go. Well, of course. People have defended and made excuses for Polanski, the great artiste from day one. If people recognized her as the victim of a violent crime, she might have felt easier about testifying in open court. Remember this happened when the victims were put on trial, the defendant was rich and a celebrity and she would have been ripped to shreds without the protections victims now have. Since then, she has been saddled with the label of the girl who made Roman Polanski flee America. He wins and Oscar (and, by the way, I do believe he deserved that award), and she is the woman who is keeping the "poor man" from coming to pick it up personally. He is arrested as a fugitive, and look what happens. People are minimizing, even negating the nature of his crime. They are blaming her. Of course she feels traumatized, but it is not by the people who want to bring Polanski, at long last, to justice. It is by the people who have never admitted that this defendant committed a vile act.

[lune3]

I've given this much more thought, after initially believing the case should be dismissed based on the victim's statement and settlement......then on reading more, being on the fence...and now being of the firm opinion that Polanski needs to be extradited and face the consequences of his crime.

This article clinched it for me...it's a must read as far as I'm concerned.

Polanski defenders lose sight of true victim

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column

[barskin&co.]

I've given this much more thought, after initially believing the case should be dismissed based on the victim's statement and settlement......then on reading more, being on the fence...and now being of the firm opinion that Polanski needs to be extradited and face the consequences of his crime.

This article clinched it for me...it's a must read as far as I'm concerned.

Polanski defenders lose sight of true victim

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column

Thanks for the link, lune.

Polanski stood in a Santa Monica courtroom on Aug. 8, 1977, admitted to having his way with a girl three decades his junior and told a judge that indeed, he knew she was only 13.

There may well have been judicial misconduct.

But no misconduct was greater than allowing Polanski to cop a plea to the least of his charges. His crime was graphic, manipulative and heinous, and he got a pass. It's unbelievable, really, that his soft-headed apologists are rooting for him to get another one.

Amen!

[tartangirl]

Recent news has brought forth information about RP and his weakness for young girls. He has admitted so in his own words in a documentary about his life. His well known relationship with German actress Natassia Kinski when she was 15 is just one. If this is accepted as a progressive way of life in Europe, then I am happy to have my feet planted in the good old, and what some might consider, backward USA. :mellow:

The blame has been shifted to the victim, surprise there ... not ... and to the prosecutors and judge at the time. Excuses and slippery criminal tricks aside, this is pathetic. He was a coward then, and remains one to this day. I greatly hope they bring him back and make him pay the piper. It is the only right and just thing to do!

[lune3]

Recent news has brought forth information about RP and his weakness for young girls. He has admitted so in his own words in a documentary about his life. His well known relationship with German actress Natassia Kinski when she was 15 is just one. If this is accepted as a progressive way of life in Europe, then I am happy to have my feet planted in the good old, and what some might consider, backward USA. :mellow:

The blame has been shifted to the victim, surprise there ... not ... and to the prosecutors and judge at the time. Excuses and slippery criminal tricks aside, this is pathetic. He was a coward then, and remains one to this day. I greatly hope they bring him back and make him pay the piper. It is the only right and just thing to do!



I am European, and from a very liberal northern European country. Let me assure you that this behaviour is definitely NOT a progressive way of life in Europe. Polanski is a creep unto himself.

[True2Blues]

Perhaps it should be called folly.

In any case, it's not like he's a war criminal. In fact, born in Poland in 1933, he is a victim of war criminals. He did move to the US in search of a safe place, only to have his pregnant wife slaughtered by maniacs. 8 years later, he was committing statutory rape with a 13 year old whom he thought was much older. Ultimately, he pled guilty to the crime of having sex with a woman who was not his wife and was under the age of 18.

31 years later, what should be done with him?

Since he is an admitted sex offender, he should be sentenced and then serve that sentence.

After that, he should be banned from ever re entering this country. We have enough Sex offenders here already.

The misfortunes of his past do not excuse his behavior in this case. They are completely irrelevant.

[True2Blues]

I am European, and from a very liberal northern European country. Let me assure you that this behaviour is definitely NOT a progressive way of life in Europe. Polanski is a creep unto himself.

I believe you. I'm sure his comments about things like that didn't please the European community. He's one of those 'artists' who use their profession to excuse their wrong doing.

[True2Blues]

And then the nice judge agreed with the prosecutor to give a sentence of psych eval, and probation. Too bad there was collusion between prosecutor and judge ... just doesn't look good in the big picture of justice.

There is no official record of the Judge doing that. That's the point. The official documents state very clearly that no sentence was agreed upon in open court.

So far, other than the statement of Polanski's lawyers, which isn't proof, since they have an obvious bias towards their client, there has been no official finding of any 'collusion'. A lot of speculation and finger pointing, which the Judge can't deny because he is dead (and the motion claiming this wasn't brought when he was alive to deny it). If Polanski pays enough, the prosecutor may claim there was some agreement too. As far as anyone knows, outside of the Court, there is No documentation of that supposed deal.

What they need is some official recognized legal document to prove that, because the one actual document states there was No Sentence Agreed On. The 90 day evaluation was part of the agreement, also mentioned in the Plea Agreement which RP agreed to, even though it's claimed it was an unexpected surprise. His lawyer swore to knowing it too, under oath.

If this ever comes before another Judge, he or she will still be the one to decide the sentence. Don't worry though, California being what it is, they'll probably let RP walk away. They may even give him a party.

I mean, what is the rape of one child when a Director is on the other side? After all he was a victim of WWII, he should be offered more innocent children to destroy.(sarcasm, if it isn't obvious)

[KittyMom]

If this were Roman Polanski, retail manager, there wouldn't be a question of whether he should be punished or not. Just because he's famous does not mean he's above the law.

BTW, seen this...

http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tate-roman-polanski-debra-tate-today-matt-lauer-arrest-rape-video/

<thud>

Wonder how Sharon would feel?

[KittyMom]

And I bet folks start coming out of the wood work telling about incidences with this pedophile.

[TBIBeg]

I want to see the movie, and a brilliant artist should not be restrained nor constrained by the vices of his youth.


Vices of his youth? Newsflash: He WASN'T the child here! :cursing:

[True2Blues]

If this were Roman Polanski, retail manager, there wouldn't be a question of whether he should be punished or not. Just because he's famous does not mean he's above the law.

BTW, seen this...

http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tate-roman-polanski-debra-tate-today-matt-lauer-arrest-rape-video/

<thud>

Wonder how Sharon would feel?

I imagine the sister is defending Sharon Tate by saying this. At least I hope that's the reason. With the death of Susan Atkins focus has been on Sharon Tate. Maybe the Sister feels marriage to a pedophile (even though she wouldn't have known) may cast a negative light on her sister.

It shouldn't, but you know what I mean.

[True2Blues]

Vices of his youth? Newsflash: He WASN'T the child here! :cursing:

Thank You. At 43, a person is past the 'youthful indiscretion' phase and well into the 'knows better' stage of life.

[Amy]

I've given this much more thought, after initially believing the case should be dismissed based on the victim's statement and settlement......then on reading more, being on the fence...and now being of the firm opinion that Polanski needs to be extradited and face the consequences of his crime.

This article clinched it for me...it's a must read as far as I'm concerned.

Polanski defenders lose sight of true victim

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column

Wonder what the heck Winger means by his arrest is "exploiting" the Zurich Film Festival? This has NOTHING to do w/the film festival, or even Zurich, except that Zurich is a place that doesn't protect him from being arrested on the outstanding warrant.

I'm not sure who the exteemed scholar Weinstein is, but he's not showing any intelligence in a statement that says "so called" crime--HEY, MISTER, HE WAS CONVICTED of the crime, "so called" doesn't even come into play here----and that he has already served his sentence. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? I certainly don't see galavanting all over everywhere but the USA, free to make films (award winning or not) and to take up w/15 y/o girls in other countries as "serving his time." THAT would entail BEING IN PRISON. Geesh!!!! I hope not too many put much stock in this, what was it, HARVARD educated scholar because if this is an example of his being a smart person, I'd hate to see what other words of his people hand their hats on. Hope it's nothing earthshaking or important, that's for sure!!!!!!

[Amy]

If this were Roman Polanski, retail manager, there wouldn't be a question of whether he should be punished or not. Just because he's famous does not mean he's above the law.

BTW, seen this...

http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tate-roman-polanski-debra-tate-today-matt-lauer-arrest-rape-video/

<thud>

Wonder how Sharon would feel?

I realize that Debra Tate's sister is dead, murdered in a heineous rampage. I feel just as she does about parole for those who murdered her sister--no parole.

I also feel that her BIL should have to face the consequences of HIS actions. There should be no reprieve for him, just as there should not be for any of the Manson family.

I just don't get it--even SHE is talking about a trial. THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL. It is over and done. He has been CONVICTED of that crime already. What is left is the SENTENCING and for the perp to serve said sentence. Do people really think that there will be a retrial?

[Amy]

Vices of his youth? Newsflash: He WASN'T the child here! :cursing:

I have since passed the age of 40, and while someone 40 is somewhat younger than me, "youth" isn't exactly the term I would use to descibe someone of that age. I dunno, maybe Jester is even older than I, and to him/her, someone 40+ is a "youth." I pretty much had figured "youth" to describe up thru the teen years, maybe to 21 or so, but come, @ some point, we leave "youth" for adulthood. IMO

[Amy]

Since he is an admitted sex offender, he should be sentenced and then serve that sentence.

After that, he should be banned from ever re entering this country. We have enough Sex offenders here already.

The misfortunes of his past do not excuse his behavior in this case. They are completely irrelevant.


That would, IMO, include having to register as a sex offender.

[msjoni]

This man is a pedophile and should be in prison. I always liked Whoopie Goldberg, but after what she said on the view "It wasn't rape, rape" I think I'll change the channel.

[True2Blues]

That would, IMO, include having to register as a sex offender.

Oh YES. Good point.

[Jay]

This man is a pedophile and should be in prison. I always liked Whoopie Goldberg, but after what she said on the view "It wasn't rape, rape" I think I'll change the channel.


She is an absolute idiot!~ I can't stand her.

This is not the 1st time she has shot her mouth off! The Gates disorderly conduct charge brought race into it according to her, a white policeman harassing a black.

If I were a celebrity and invited on the view, I would not go near her!!

Maybe if she were raped, the police could say "well it was not rape rape", we can't prosecute it.

With the tremendous violence against women in this country, how could ANY woman support Polanski, yet, of course, the mouth did!!

[tartangirl]

Waiting, I am waiting, while I have been reading about this these last few days. Waiting and wondering who, besides Lisa Bloom from CNN and a few others with legal background, in Hollywood would speak out to support the rights of women and girls. That business of speaking out and showering this artist RP with special favors because he is "gifted" :confused: just does not fly! Let his art stand for itself and the artist stand in judgement! Please do not tell me they are all afraid to stand behind the legal system that is put there to help protect them and their loved ones? What about the prosecutors who are doing their job now to bring this man finally to justice? Open your mouth and support the good guys for a change! The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.

[True2Blues]

She is an absolute idiot!~ I can't stand her.

This is not the 1st time she has shot her mouth off! The Gates disorderly conduct charge brought race into it according to her, a white policeman harassing a black.

If I were a celebrity and invited on the view, I would not go near her!!

Maybe if she were raped, the police could say "well it was not rape rape", we can't prosecute it.

With the tremendous violence against women in this country, how could ANY woman support Polanski, yet, of course, the mouth did!!

Everyone in the film industry will probably support him. They stick together about things like that. If they think differently, you'll never hear it. Nobody wants to torpedo their career.

It is disgusting for a woman to throw another female, a child yet, away like that, but $$ and status in the 'Industry' are everything.

If you were an actor, you wouldn't want to ruin your chances of working with such sterling characters as Polanski and Woody Allen, would you? (sarcasm)

[True2Blues]

Waiting, I am waiting, while I have been reading about this these last few days. Waiting and wondering who, besides Lisa Bloom from CNN and a few others with legal background, in Hollywood would speak out to support the rights of women and girls. That business of speaking out and showering this artist RP with special favors because he is "gifted" :confused: just does not fly! Let his art stand for itself and the artist stand in judgement! Please do not tell me they are all afraid to stand behind the legal system that is put there to help protect them and their loved ones? What about the prosecutors who are doing their job now to bring this man finally to justice? Open your mouth and support the good guys for a change! The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.




Hi TG! :seeya: The people who think this pedophile should go to jail aren't the rich and famous, who don't like the idea that their money and status can't keep them out of jail. It's the normal, thinking American citizen who supports criminals being sentenced for their crimes.:patriot:

[oodi]

Here's another interesting article about this case, and some others that are similar:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=21977718

[tartangirl]

Hi TG! :seeya: The people who think this pedophile should go to jail aren't the rich and famous, who don't like the idea that their money and status can't keep them out of jail. It's the normal, thinking American citizen who supports criminals being sentenced for their crimes.:patriot:

Although, among the thinking American citizen, it seems the artist is in danger of becoming
more famous for the fact he had sex (rape) with a teenager than for his work. My, what a legacy! :mellow: This man has no honor about him!

[Jay]

If you were an actor, you wouldn't want to ruin your chances of working with such sterling characters as Polanski and Woody Allen, would you? (sarcasm)


Oh my, to work with Woody Allen, such an esteem honor, why I would swim the deepest Ocean, climb the highest mountain.

(Where's that barf icon)!!

[True2Blues]

Oh my, to work with Woody Allen, such an esteem honor, why I would swim the deepest Ocean, climb the highest mountain.

(Where's that barf icon)!!


:laugh: ...

[Spyder88]

Perhaps it should be called folly.

In any case, it's not like he's a war criminal. In fact, born in Poland in 1933, he is a victim of war criminals. He did move to the US in search of a safe place, only to have his pregnant wife slaughtered by maniacs. 8 years later, he was committing statutory rape with a 13 year old whom he thought was much older. Ultimately, he pled guilty to the crime of having sex with a woman who was not his wife and was under the age of 18.

31 years later, what should be done with him?

For me, personally, I'd like to see him strung up to the nearest tree, because if you think he stopped being what he is with his move to Europe, you are sadly mistaken. God only knows how many victims he's left in his wake over there.

String him up or lock him up I couldn't care less. Just get rid of him. Throw away the key. Help his future victims live their lives free from his dirty perversions.

MHO

[Spyder88]

She is an absolute idiot!~ I can't stand her.

This is not the 1st time she has shot her mouth off! The Gates disorderly conduct charge brought race into it according to her, a white policeman harassing a black.

If I were a celebrity and invited on the view, I would not go near her!!

Maybe if she were raped, the police could say "well it was not rape rape", we can't prosecute it.

With the tremendous violence against women in this country, how could ANY woman support Polanski, yet, of course, the mouth did!!

WTFlock is a rape, rape as opposed to a rape? :confused: This would have been a rape if that little girl HAD been 30 effing years old. People can so stupid, they make me want to hurl. Whoopie needs a good, solid :punch: Lord knows it couldn't hurt her any. :cursing:

[Details]

Would jail further any objective and, if so, what is it?

If Jail is meant as a deterrent to US citizens about the laws of statutory rape in 1978, couldn't the US find a local citizen rather than someone who was about to be expelled from the country; but chose to leave first, to make as an example of statutory rape? The kidnapper of Jaycee Duggard was sentenced in the same year of 1978 after he kidnapped and brutally sexually assaulted a woman. He, a sexual deviant, was on the street in 10 years so Polanski, who did not use any brutality and was deemed not sexually deviant, was not in any way like a typical US sex offender, rapist, and murderer. Polanski is in a completely different category.

What should be done with? What is the objective: punishment or rehabilitation?Jail is both.


If I murder a few people - then have an accident and loose the ability to move - should I be let go? Because I'm no threat? Nope.

Jail is punishment, along with rehabilitation. It is a message to the other people looking at a helpless 13 year old - if you do it, you will pay. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. No, it doesn't matter how rich you are. No, it doesn't matter how talented you are. None of this gives you the right to rape a 13 year old girl.

I cannot believe anyone on this site thinks it's OK to just excuse raping a 13 year old girl!

[Details]

And then the nice judge agreed with the prosecutor to give a sentence of psych eval, and probation. Too bad there was collusion between prosecutor and judge ... just doesn't look good in the big picture of justice.I read the court transcript - have you?

The plea bargain guaranteed NO sentence at all. Polanski knew all of this before he plead. He was asked if he had received any promise of probation, and told that such a promise would not be binding on the court - he said there was no such promise. He was asked if he knew the possible sentences - he listed them. He was asked if he knew the court decided - and that the court would make no final decision until all reports were in - he said Yes, he knew that. Then, with all of those answers, he was asked if he wished to enter a plea - and he plead guilty, stated he knew she was 13, stated he knew that BEFORE he had sex with her.

[True2Blues]

For me, personally, I'd like to see him strung up to the nearest tree, because if you think he stopped being what he is with his move to Europe, you are sadly mistaken. God only knows how many victims he's left in his wake over there.

String him up or lock him up I couldn't care less. Just get rid of him. Throw away the key. Help his future victims live their lives free from his dirty perversions.

MHO

I bet I know what you'd like to see him strung up by. (the same as I'd like to see.)

[R~O~S]

Everyone in the film industry will probably support him. They stick together about things like that. If they think differently, you'll never hear it. Nobody wants to torpedo their career.

It is disgusting for a woman to throw another female, a child yet, away like that, but $$ and status in the 'Industry' are everything.

If you were an actor, you wouldn't want to ruin your chances of working with such sterling characters as Polanski and Woody Allen, would you? (sarcasm)

Kristie Alley has been very vocal today blasting out the Hollywood community for their support. Naming names and calling the crime what it is, referencing the age of the victim & the particulars of the assault. Querries if J. Daumer was "only making Zombies" as opposed to "murder".

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-eonline/20090930/b146725/

Kristie's not real concerned about the inevitable backlash. I think she's pretty well set financially and not real interested in the next potential film role. I can't remember the last time I saw her in anything but a commercial.

[juliekan]

This man is a pedophile and should be in prison. I always liked Whoopie Goldberg, but after what she said on the view "It wasn't rape, rape" I think I'll change the channel.

YEP.

Can't believe anyone would want to sign a petition along-side WOODY ALLEN...what a joke that HE doesn't think it's a crime.

[True2Blues]

Kristie Alley has been very vocal today blasting out the Hollywood community for their support. Naming names and calling the crime what it is, referencing the age of the victim & the particulars of the assault. Querries if J. Daumer was "only making Zombies" as opposed to "murder".

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-eonline/20090930/b146725/

Kristie's not real concerned about the inevitable backlash. I think she's pretty well set financially and not real interested in the next potential film role. I can't remember the last time I saw her in anything but a commercial.


Good for her! Let's hope she starts a backlash.

[Jester]

Kristie Alley has been very vocal today blasting out the Hollywood community for their support. Naming names and calling the crime what it is, referencing the age of the victim & the particulars of the assault. Querries if J. Daumer was "only making Zombies" as opposed to "murder".

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-eonline/20090930/b146725/

Kristie's not real concerned about the inevitable backlash. I think she's pretty well set financially and not real interested in the next potential film role. I can't remember the last time I saw her in anything but a commercial.

I'm obviously really missing something. This is a 31 year old crime, it's not new news. Are people outraged that the Judge made a deal with Polanski to serve probation for statutory rape? I really don't think there's much chance of that deal changing. Are people outraged that Polanski left the country because he didn't trust the Judge? Are people outraged that this crime happened 31 years ago? Seems like a huge delayed reaction if the issue is that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape.

[R~O~S]

I'm obviously really missing something. This is a 31 year old crime, it's not new news. Are people outraged that the Judge made a deal with Polanski to serve probation for statutory rape? I really don't think there's much chance of that deal changing. Are people outraged that Polanski left the country because he didn't trust the Judge? Are people outraged that this crime happened 31 years ago? Seems like a huge delayed reaction if the issue is that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape.

It's not old when the perp fled the sentence. Since when do you get to flee the sentence and if you hide long enough we just say "oh nevermind"?

The judge made no deal with Polanski. I think you already know a judge has no authority to do so & you've already been provided the court document that shows Polanski never had a promise of probation.

He knew the range of possible sentence and knew full well when he entered his plea the judge wasn't bound by anything he'd been told was agreed by the prosecution and his attorney. He confirmed such in open court.

He also confirmed in open court he knew she was only 13 at the time of the rape.

You're not missing anything, it's been stated again and again. You simply have some affection for this pedophile. I'm just not sure yet if you have the same affection for all of them.

[Details]

I'm obviously really missing something. This is a 31 year old crime, it's not new news. Are people outraged that the Judge made a deal with Polanski to serve probation for statutory rape? I really don't think there's much chance of that deal changing. Are people outraged that Polanski left the country because he didn't trust the Judge? Are people outraged that this crime happened 31 years ago? Seems like a huge delayed reaction if the issue is that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape.I think you're missing the basics.

A powerful man lured a 13 year old to a house, the promise of doing some honest modelling work - she'd done it before, without rape. He starts coming on to her, she tries to make an excuse to go home, he gives her a sedative (under the pretense it was something to help her asthma) to make her pliable, then rapes her, over and over, vaginally and anally, as she cries No, begs to just go home.

That's what you are missing.

He plead guilty, to a reduced charge in a plea bargain so she wouldn't have to testify. The plea bargain explicitly did not guarentee a set sentence (it's in the transcripts, the judge makes this VERY clear), and he does say he knew she was 13 before sex, and pleads guilty.

Now the outrageous bit. This child rapist decides to flee - and France welcomes him with open arms, never mind the rape, all is well because you are rich and talented. He evades justice for 30 years - and when we finally catch him, the same apologists are out there ready to make light of the crime, to act like he should be forgiven merely because he has evaded justice so long, has such a talent. The outrage is that anyone thinks this guy should just be let go.

[Jester]

It's not old when the perp fled the sentence. Since when do you get to flee the sentence and if you hide long enough we just say "oh nevermind"?

The judge made no deal with Polanski. I think you already know a judge has no authority to do so & you've already been provided the court document that shows Polanski never had a promise of probation.

He knew the range of possible sentence and knew full well when he entered his plea the judge wasn't bound by anything he'd been told was agreed by the prosecution and his attorney. He confirmed such in open court.

He also confirmed in open court he knew she was only 13 at the time of the rape.

You're not missing anything, it's been stated again and again. You simply have some affection for this pedophile. I'm just not sure yet if you have the same affection for all of them.

I've read the testimony, and I linked the document signed by the prosecutor stating that there was inappropriate conduct by the Judge. We've read that there was collusion between prosecutor and judge, that there was judicial misconduct (I provided links yesterday). What is written in the transcript is one thing, and what was agreed to outside of court by all parties is different. That's where the problem lies. It seems that there's more outrage about the fact that there was statutory rape 31 years ago than the fact that there were problems with the system.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

YEP.

Can't believe anyone would want to sign a petition along-side WOODY ALLEN...what a joke that HE doesn't think it's a crime.

:cursing:


Quite-- of all people, let me molest my stepdaughter then MARRY her when she turns 17 after my girlfriend found nude photos of her in my apartement!!

No wonder he supports a child rapist!!

[Mr. Moto2]

No, he was to be evaluated and then sentence would be based on the evaluation. His agreement with the prosecutor was that it should be probation after the evaluation. The judge made statements from the bench indicating he wasn't likely to leave it at that. He took off rather than find out even though he know the range of possible sentences and that the judge wasn't bound by the prosecutions suggestion when he plead.

Well there seems to be a bunch of confusion about the sentencing issue. Here's an interesting blog about on a motion filed by Polanski's lawyers:

http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/half-of-a-90-day-sentence/

Here's an excerpt:
Paragraph 16 of the declaration of Polanski’s lawyer says: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison . . .” The other conditions were that there would be no further hearing, and that Polanski “deport himself.” Polanski had been sent to prison for a “90-day diagnostic” and had served only 42 days; the 48 days was meant to complete the 90 days.

If Polanski was looking at another 48 days to complete a very lenient term of 90 days in prison, it's pathetic that he didn't even want to do that and fled the country. Stupid, really.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I'm obviously really missing something. This is a 31 year old crime, it's not new news. Are people outraged that the Judge made a deal with Polanski to serve probation for statutory rape? I really don't think there's much chance of that deal changing. Are people outraged that Polanski left the country because he didn't trust the Judge? Are people outraged that this crime happened 31 years ago? Seems like a huge delayed reaction if the issue is that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape.

Yes, I am outraged that people believe just because someone hides long enough-- they believe they sould not be held accountable for their actions-- he hid from his sentence no way around it.

[True2Blues]

I've read the testimony, and I linked the document signed by the prosecutor stating that there was inappropriate conduct by the Judge. We've read that there was collusion between prosecutor and judge, that there was judicial misconduct (I provided links yesterday). What is written in the transcript is one thing, and what was agreed to outside of court by all parties is different. That's where the problem lies. It seems that there's more outrage about the fact that there was statutory rape 31 years ago than the fact that there were problems with the system.

Lawyers signing a statement is just that. It isn't an official judgment, it's just a piece of paper. There is no official Judgment. The word you need, since you keep insisting on this, is 'Alleged", because that's all it is, an allegation.

[Details]

I've read the testimony, and I linked the document signed by the prosecutor stating that there was inappropriate conduct by the Judge. We've read that there was collusion between prosecutor and judge, that there was judicial misconduct (I provided links yesterday). What is written in the transcript is one thing, and what was agreed to outside of court by all parties is different. That's where the problem lies. It seems that there's more outrage about the fact that there was statutory rape 31 years ago than the fact that there were problems with the system.Hmmmm....

13 year old girl drugged and raped as she cried no, begged to go home.


Rumors and allegations of potential issues in the sentencing that never happened.



Yep - I'm far more outraged about a girl being raped.

And only what is said in court is binding.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Hmmmm....

13 year old girl drugged and raped as she cried no, begged to go home.


Rumors and allegations of potential issues in the sentencing that never happened.



Yep - I'm far more outraged about a girl being raped.

And only what is said in court is binding.

It just kills me to see these people defend this man WHO admitted what he did and PAID the victim off. However he hid and the CONVICTED child rapist now claims that the judge was going to pull the rug out and he had to run. Cry me a river!! Why is anyone believing a child rapist??

[Details]

Hey - some new info:

http://cbs2.com/local/Roman.Polanski.2.1219573.html

The prosecutor who was in the documentary talking about some irregularities - now says he lied. "Embellished" his part to have some time in the film.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Hey - some new info:

http://cbs2.com/local/Roman.Polanski.2.1219573.html

The prosecutor who was in the documentary talking about some irregularities - now says he lied. "Embellished" his part to have some time in the film.

What an idiot! Only thought it was going to be shown in France. So what!

[Jester]

Yes, I am outraged that people believe just because someone hides long enough-- they believe they sould not be held accountable for their actions-- he hid from his sentence no way around it.

He hasn't been hiding at all. He's been making films, attending film festivals, and making movies. He left the US because he believed there was judicial misconduct. The Judge had made a deal with the prosecution and defense lawyers (that shouldn't have happened, but it did), and the Judge was going to renege on the agreement and send Polanski to jail for 50 years. That also shouldn't have happened.

[oodi]

And two wrongs don't make a right. Nor does any misconduct by the judge and/or prosecution make him NOT guilty. He admitted guilt, and needs to serve his debt to society.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

He hasn't been hiding at all. He's been making films, attending film festivals, and making movies. He left the US because he believed there was judicial misconduct. The Judge had made a deal with the prosecution and defense lawyers (that shouldn't have happened, but it did), and the Judge was going to renege on the agreement and send Polanski to jail for 50 years. That also shouldn't have happened.

He has been hiding from justice for 31 years. He has refused to come back even when negations were going on a few years back with his victim and the state. He did not want to face the music period.

What amount of time do you think is fair for child rapists?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

and two wrongs don't make a right. Nor does any misconduct by the judge and/or prosecution make him not guilty. He admitted guilt, and needs to serve his debt to society.

applause! ..........

[Clara Harris]

If this were Roman Polanski, retail manager, there wouldn't be a question of whether he should be punished or not. Just because he's famous does not mean he's above the law.

BTW, seen this...

http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tate-roman-polanski-debra-tate-today-matt-lauer-arrest-rape-video/

<thud>

Wonder how Sharon would feel?


I have alway thought the vicitim's pictures resembled Sharon Tate. That is not an excuse or a motive, just always struck me for some reason.

Debra Tate didn't buy the excuses of the Manson followers and none of them were 13. To me, it is ironic and pitiful that she does a 180 and thinks a 43yo man was conned by this little girl. Hollywood seems to have no moral compass.

One man's "folly" is a felony and people are confused????

[Clara Harris]

He has been hiding from justice for 31 years. He has refused to come back even when negations were going on a few years back with his victim and the state. He did not want to face the music period.

What amount of time do you think is fair for child rapists?

Therein is the rub all his defenders refuse to acknowledge ~ He was arrested because he was a fugitive of justice. He wasn't arrested because of his felony plead to sex assault.

Did security only get heightened in the US after 9/11? Was RP free to travel between European countries despite his felony plea and fugitive warrant?

[True2Blues]

He has been hiding from justice for 31 years. He has refused to come back even when negations were going on a few years back with his victim and the state. He did not want to face the music period.

What amount of time do you think is fair for child rapists?

An eternity in He!!. Oh, sorry. Did you mean how long a sentence or how long he should be given between plea and sentencing? :sneaky:

[Spyder88]

I've read the testimony, and I linked the document signed by the prosecutor stating that there was inappropriate conduct by the Judge. We've read that there was collusion between prosecutor and judge, that there was judicial misconduct (I provided links yesterday). What is written in the transcript is one thing, and what was agreed to outside of court by all parties is different. That's where the problem lies. It seems that there's more outrage about the fact that there was statutory rape 31 years ago than the fact that there were problems with the system.

There were problems with the system all right. He was able to get himself out of the country and hide out in Europe where that government is apparently willing to put their children at risk just to keep a monster like him from having to face what HE chose to do to a little girl. What is it about child rape you don't think needs punishment to the fullest extent of the law?

I think anyone who's admitted they committed such a heinous crime should be locked up until their trial. Another creep who got away for a long time was that Luster rapist. Mexico liked him, too. :rolleyes: So yeah, I must agree. The system has its flaws.

Just so you know and there's no confusion: I personally am far more outraged over the rape of a child than I am about a system that would have been willing to let Polanski get away with 40 or so days of incarceration. :rolleyes: Personally, 50 years would have been about right and nothing should EVER have been up for negotiation. I think plea deals suck. IMVHO.

[juliekan]

anyone remember the scene from "Ghost" with Patrick Swayze where the demons come up from the sewer and grab the killer and take him down......

yeah that's what I'm thinking....

[Jester]

There were problems with the system all right. He was able to get himself out of the country and hide out in Europe where that government is apparently willing to put their children at risk just to keep a monster like him from having to face what HE chose to do to a little girl. What is it about child rape you don't think needs punishment to the fullest extent of the law?

I think anyone who's admitted they committed such a heinous crime should be locked up until their trial. Another creep who got away for a long time was that Luster rapist. Mexico liked him, too. :rolleyes: So yeah, I must agree. The system has its flaws.

Just so you know and there's no confusion: I personally am far more outraged over the rape of a child than I am about a system that would have been willing to let Polanski get away with 40 or so days of incarceration. :rolleyes: Personally, 50 years would have been about right and nothing should EVER have been up for negotiation. I think plea deals suck. IMVHO.

Here is a link outlining the sentence for statutory rape in various states, including California. I don't think 50 years is an option.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

[barskin&co.]

Kristie Alley has been very vocal today blasting out the Hollywood community for their support. Naming names and calling the crime what it is, referencing the age of the victim & the particulars of the assault. Querries if J. Daumer was "only making Zombies" as opposed to "murder".

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-eonline/20090930/b146725/

Kristie's not real concerned about the inevitable backlash. I think she's pretty well set financially and not real interested in the next potential film role. I can't remember the last time I saw her in anything but a commercial.

Finally, one person in Hollywood who will speak out! God bless you, Kirstie. She is being incredibly brave to do this.

It seems everyone else in spreading misinformation, confusing the issues, victim-blaming and claiming an undo victimhood for Polanski, the rapist, the perpetrator of the crime. No, Whoopi Goldberg, you are wrong when you say this was not "rape rape." It was not only "rape rape" (I guess you mean forcible rather than statutory), but "rape rape" of a child, including anal penetration, with the use of his power over her as the authority figure who was going to make her a modeling star and drugs and alcohol.

Once again, because it cannot be said enough, thank you, Kirstie Allie.

[Clara Harris]

Here is a link outlining the sentence for statutory rape in various states, including California. I don't think 50 years is an option.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm



In 1977, the maximum sentence RP faced for his guily pleawas 30 years. It was an option JMOO and that why RP fled. FWIW, it was not "statutory rape."


Two weeks after the encounter on Mulholland Drive, Polanski was indicted for furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14, unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion (oral copulation) and sodomy.

So Polanski pleaded guilty to just one count -- unlawful sexual intercourse. The other charges were dropped.

Polanski spent 42 days in prison for pre-sentencing diagnostic tests. After his release, but before his sentencing in 1978, he skipped, boarding a plane for Europe because he feared he would be ordered to serve more time in prison. A warrant for his arrest has been in effect ever since, and Polanski was arrested this week in Switzerland.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column





If any RP defender or their minor child had been drugged and sodomized and sexually violated, would the support and excuses be so kind?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

An eternity in He!!. Oh, sorry. Did you mean how long a sentence or how long he should be given between plea and sentencing? :sneaky:

Quite right!!

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Finally, one person in Hollywood who will speak out! God bless you, Kirstie. She is being incredibly brave to do this.

It seems everyone else in spreading misinformation, confusing the issues, victim-blaming and claiming an undo victimhood for Polanski, the rapist, the perpetrator of the crime. No, Whoopi Goldberg, you are wrong when you say this was not "rape rape." It was not only "rape rape" (I guess you mean forcible rather than statutory), but "rape rape" of a child, including anal penetration, with the use of his power over her as the authority figure who was going to make her a modeling star and drugs and alcohol.

Once again, because it cannot be said enough, thank you, Kirstie Allie.

I thought Hollywood had gone insane. They first embrace Woody Allen child molestor and now Polanski. *vomit*

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I forgot about the director Victor Salva ( Powder director) a pedophile in Hollywood

[True2Blues]

Hey - some new info:

http://cbs2.com/local/Roman.Polanski.2.1219573.html

The prosecutor who was in the documentary talking about some irregularities - now says he lied. "Embellished" his part to have some time in the film.

So I guess those misconduct allegations aren't all they're cracked up to be. Surprise, surprise.

[barskin&co.]

I thought Hollywood had gone insane. They first embrace Woody Allen child molestor and now Polanski. *vomit*

Well, here's the thing. A lot of people don't know the truth. They think he was just having a dalliance with a girl, and he misjudged her age. Blah, blah, blah. It was "consensual," they think. Of course, the truth couldn't be more at odds with that notion. But one person repeats it in defense of Polanski, and others believe it...It's like the telephone game. The fact is they don't want to know the truth. They want to believe he made a simple mistake. And they will hold their ears, apparently, and sing "la la la la" to keep from hearing the truth. But, I think some of them are honestly mistaken, and the rest aren't trying terribly hard to clear things up for them.

[True2Blues]

I thought Hollywood had gone insane. They first embrace Woody Allen child molestor and now Polanski. *vomit*


Now they're embracing each other. Woody is out there pitching for his fellow child molester.

[True2Blues]

Well, here's the thing. A lot of people don't know the truth. They think he was just having a dalliance with a girl, and he misjudged her age. Blah, blah, blah. It was "consensual," they think. Of course, the truth couldn't be more at odds with that notion. But one person repeats it in defense of Polanski, and others believe it...It's like the telephone game. The fact is they don't want to know the truth. They want to believe he made a simple mistake. And they will hold their ears, apparently, and sing "la la la la" to keep from hearing the truth. But, I think some of them are honestly mistaken, and the rest aren't trying terribly hard to clear things up for them.


I think that's true. Polanski and his supporters went running to the press(and then he ran on to the airport), the court didn't. Besides, the press prefers the more dramatic tale and the court only deals in boring old facts.

[Jester]

In 1977, the maximum sentence RP faced for his guily pleawas 30 years. It was an option JMOO and that why RP fled. FWIW, it was not "statutory rape."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column

If any RP defender or their minor child had been drugged and sodomized and sexually violated, would the support and excuses be so kind?

Polanski's charges have been reduced to statutory rape. That's all he's pled guilty to, and that's all he can be sentenced for.

[Jester]

So I guess those misconduct allegations aren't all they're cracked up to be. Surprise, surprise.

Was the prosecutor lying then, or is he lying now? Why would the prosecutor lie? He says it's because he didn't think the movie would be shown anywhere but in France ... :rolleyes:

There's the signed document from 1997 where the prosecutor agreed there was misconduct. (link yesterday)

[Mr. Moto2]

Now they're embracing each other. Woody is out there pitching for his fellow child molester.

Has Morgan Freeman weighed in on this yet? hehe

[Mr. Moto2]

Hey, I'm curious to know how the crime was reported to the police back in 1977, when it happened. Was it the parents of the child who went to the police? Was it reported right away? Do you think Polanski was set up?

[Jester]

Hey, I'm curious to know how the crime was reported to the police back in 1977, when it happened. Was it the parents of the child who went to the police? Was it reported right away? Do you think Polanski was set up?

The girl told her mother when she came home, and the mother contacted police.

[barskin&co.]

Hey, I'm curious to know how the crime was reported to the police back in 1977, when it happened. Was it the parents of the child who went to the police? Was it reported right away? Do you think Polanski was set up?

Her mother called the police when she got home and told her. No, he wasn't up. He told this young girl he could make her a model. He had her take off her clothes to be a "real model." He gave her champagne and quaaludes. She said keep away from me and he forced himself on her vaginally and anally.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

[Mr. Moto2]

Thanks for the info Jester and Barskin. I should have known to check the smoking gun.

[barskin&co.]

Thanks for the info Jester and Barskin. I should have known to check the smoking gun.

No problem, Mr M!

[forensicpsy~]

Has Morgan Freeman weighed in on this yet? hehe

:lol::lol: Good one!

When's the last time Debra Winger made a movie?:biggrin:

imo

[kellygreen]

It's reprehensible Polanski was allowed to plead down to just statutory rape--he should have been charged with kiddie porn, too.

Let's see, he plies his 13-year-old-victim with booze and 'ludes, orders her to strip, gets out his camera for some kiddie porn, then visciously rapes her--and all the time she's feigning an asthma attack. I wonder if he still has the photos; perhaps he's like other kiddie pornographers and gets out the photos to relive the moment. What happened to those photos?

Now the victim says she has moved on--I've watched her on LKL and listened to what she had to say; however, I don't believe her when she speaks--she looks dead from the eyeballs back--vacant, if you will. I'd love to see the paper work affiliated with the settlement she and her mother received. Perhaps she has no choice but to say she wants the whole thing dropped? Perhaps there's a clause in the settlement that does not allow her to discuss her rape or her starring role in kiddie porn?

Like others, I am disgusted by Hollywood's reaction. Thank heavens for Kirstie. Shame on Harvey Weinstein, et al. Since Harvey refers to child rape and kiddie porn as "so called" crimes, and since Project Runway is on Lifetime, and since Lifetime is television for women, I'm off to their site--I want to know why they do buisness with a man who doesn't view child rape and kiddie porn as real crimes.

[R~O~S]

I've read the testimony, and I linked the document signed by the prosecutor stating that there was inappropriate conduct by the Judge. We've read that there was collusion between prosecutor and judge, that there was judicial misconduct (I provided links yesterday). What is written in the transcript is one thing, and what was agreed to outside of court by all parties is different. That's where the problem lies. It seems that there's more outrage about the fact that there was statutory rape 31 years ago than the fact that there were problems with the system.


No, the problem lies in the fact that the trial was already held, the plea already entered.

Any of those things that you'd like to suggest have an impact may be valid if taken to court, problem is Mr Polanski would have to appear in court to do so.

He's yet to do so, here's his chance. Fleeing the country, isn't now and wasn't then an acceptable response and added another charge to his legal woes.

[Jester]

It's reprehensible Polanski was allowed to plead down to just statutory rape--he should have been charged with kiddie porn, too.

Let's see, he plies his 13-year-old-victim with booze and 'ludes, orders her to strip, gets out his camera for some kiddie porn, then visciously rapes her--and all the time she's feigning an asthma attack. I wonder if he still has the photos; perhaps he's like other kiddie pornographers and gets out the photos to relive the moment. What happened to those photos?

Now the victim says she has moved on--I've watched her on LKL and listened to what she had to say; however, I don't believe her when she speaks--she looks dead from the eyeballs back--vacant, if you will. I'd love to see the paper work affiliated with the settlement she and her mother received. Perhaps she has no choice but to say she wants the whole thing dropped? Perhaps there's a clause in the settlement that does not allow her to discuss her rape or her starring role in kiddie porn?

Like others, I am disgusted by Hollywood's reaction. Thank heavens for Kirstie. Shame on Harvey Weinstein, et al. Since Harvey refers to child rape and kiddie porn as "so called" crimes, and since Project Runway is on Lifetime, and since Lifetime is television for women, I'm off to their site--I want to know why they do buisness with a man who doesn't view child rape and kiddie porn as real crimes.
<my bold>

This is the point that I agree with. I understand that there should be outrage about the fact that the charges were reduced to statutory rape, but that can no longer be undone. I don't understand all the outrage about a 31 year old crime. The facts of the case are not news, but have been known for 31 years.

The prosecutor and Judge made many mistakes, not only in reducing the charge to something that has only a sentence of a couple of years, but also in what has been documented as collusion and misconduct. Garrido (Jaycee Duggard) was treated much the same way. He premeditated a kidnapping and it was a violent rape ... 10 years and free to do the same thing again.

The victim has said that her life was ruined by media coverage, being labeled a Lolita. Is the media doing the same thing all over again? It seems so.

[Jester]

No, the problem lies in the fact that the trial was already held, the plea already entered.

Any of those things that you'd like to suggest have an impact may be valid if taken to court, problem is Mr Polanski would have to appear in court to do so.

He's yet to do so, here's his chance. Fleeing the country, isn't now and wasn't then an acceptable response and added another charge to his legal woes.

The prosecutor, and an independent Judge, have both reviewed the case and concluded there was judicial misconduct. I think that could play a role in whether or not additional charges are justifiable. No reasonable person would want to be subjected to judicial misconduct ... and that's the reality of this situation.