Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[dennilfloss]

http://www.theaustralian.news....26145091-12377,00.html

Attitudes, certainly amongst some elites, towards sexual crimes might be quite different from what we're used to here. Yesterday on Radio-Canada television, a guest commented on how Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand recently sold hundreds of thousands of copies of a biographical book in which he details sodomizing young boys in Thailand during his trips as a sexual tourist.

Looks like this is the book in question.

http://www.biblioblog.fr/index...ie-frederic-mitterrand

 

[jonks]

And France backpedals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

 

[JeepinEd]

I'm still waiting to see what all you rapist pedophile supporters have to say after reading the court transcripts.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jonks

And France backpedals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

:thumbsup:

 

[Pliablemoose]

Actually if you read the article, France, England, and Poland favor his extradition.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Actually if you read the article, France, England, and Poland favor his extradition.

I think thats what he meant by backpedals (since they seemed to support him in the past) Anyway I hope he gets what he deserves in a long sentence in a PTMA prison.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
For all you loons trying to protect this pedophile, here is the actual court transcript of Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony.

For you loon not reading the thread; the testimony was posted and dicussed days ago.

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Note that none of the defense attorneys disputed any of her statements.

Note that Douglas Dalton was Polanski's sole attorney, and was not invited to the testimony, but did contest some aspects of it in court.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm still waiting to see what all you rapist pedophile supporters have to say after reading the court transcripts.

I think you may be edified a bit if you understood better the nature of Grand Jury testimony. a link This is the Federal Grand Jury but State GJ's are very much the same.
That aside, there is evidence that a few crimes were committed by Polanski. But, he's pleaded to one and committed another in the illegal flight. As far as I can tell he has a deal that still exists. He admitted to the sole charge listed. He needs being sentenced on that charge. I can see no mitigating factors that should reduce the sentence other than his 'clean' record before and after that event. How much weight that should carry is for the judge but I think not much due to the illegal flight which is another charge that should be brought against him. Concurrent sentences... maybe.
IF he were Joe Smith he'd be just another criminal who skipped out.
IF I were the judge... I'd give him 70% of the max on the admitted charge.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Fucker needs to burn.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
For all you loons trying to protect this pedophile, here is the actual court transcript of Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony.

For you loon not reading the thread; the testimony was posted and dicussed days ago.

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Note that none of the defense attorneys disputed any of her statements.

Note that Douglas Dalton was Polanski's sole attorney, and was not invited to the testimony, but did contest some aspects of it in court.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that someone who is cheering for the Talibans is defending actions that they commit daily.

I just wonder, if it was YOUR daughter who was drugged and raped in the arse, would you think "well she had it coming" still? You probably would think that, wouldn't you?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
http://www.theaustralian.news....26145091-12377,00.html

Attitudes, certainly amongst some elites, towards sexual crimes might be quite different from what we're used to here. Yesterday on Radio-Canada television, a guest commented on how Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand recently sold hundreds of thousands of copies of a biographical book in which he details sodomizing young boys in Thailand during his trips as a sexual tourist.

Looks like this is the book in question.

http://www.biblioblog.fr/index...ie-frederic-mitterrand

Wow... that's really sick. That guy should be in prison, but instead he's a "culture minister". That's a pretty sad reflection on that society.

 

[LunarRay]

IF that was my daughter and she was 13, 18, 28 or what ever Mr. Polanski would have appeared on US soil somehow. Not quite sure but I think I'd have chartered a jet or something and given him a free ride to the site of his.... ummm... error in judgment. Not for me to harm him but for me to fetch him back if no one else would.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jonks

And France backpedals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

:thumbsup:

:wine:

Thankfully it appears that some of the other citizens of the world see this rapists for who he is it.

In particular, kuddos to filmmaker Luc Besson for not joining in with other filmmakers in protesting Polansi's arrest.

 

[SAWYER]

Without reading this thread, how can anyone be an apologist for this scumbag?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It doesn't surprise me in the least that someone who is cheering for the Talibans is defending actions that they commit daily.

I am no fan of any Taliban types, which is why people like yourself disgust me.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I just wonder, if it was YOUR daughter who was drugged and raped in the arse, would you think "well she had it coming" still? You probably would think that, wouldn't you?

I don't think she had it coming, you moron. I think Polanski committed a horrible crime against her, which you'd know if your brain wasn't too damn small to wrap your head around my comments here. Unfortunately, being the mindless dolt that you are, you have to make shit up and put in quotes to slander me instead.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
http://www.theaustralian.news....26145091-12377,00.html

Attitudes, certainly amongst some elites, towards sexual crimes might be quite different from what we're used to here. Yesterday on Radio-Canada television, a guest commented on how Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand recently sold hundreds of thousands of copies of a biographical book in which he details sodomizing young boys in Thailand during his trips as a sexual tourist.

Looks like this is the book in question.

http://www.biblioblog.fr/index...ie-frederic-mitterrand

Wow... that's really sick. That guy should be in prison, but instead he's a "culture minister". That's a pretty sad reflection on that society.

That it is, and it is only the tip of the iceberg at that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Without reading this thread, how can anyone be an apologist for this scumbag?

We, the US, revere our Nobles and Royalty. The SAG folks are our Peer folks... the Dukes and Earls of the US. The President and Congress are the Royalty. The Rich Rich folks fit in there too but they are more like Marquess (between a Duke and Earl), Barons and others. They don't make movies so unless they are really rich they don't give us weak knees as they go to and fro...

OJ Simpson, Remember him?

Sport figures are lumped in there too somewhere but only if they have gained name recognition..

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
OJ Simpson, Remember him?

I remember OJ got away with his crimes because he could afford to hire an expert shyster to boggle the jury in our fucked up legal system, which is a very different thing than Polanski being able to afford a plane ticket to run from a fucked up judge in our fucked up legal system. But yeah, let's wave and point the finger at everyone but ourselves, that makes everything so much better.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
There was no trial. There was a plea agreement. It happens all the time. The prosecution, defense, and the judge agreed on a plea and a sentence.

Except that AFTER the guilty plea, the judge decided he wasn't going to abide by the agreement.

If the legal system claims that the amended sentence stands, then ALL plea-bargains are history. Why on earth would any defendant agree to a guilty plea when the judge can do the old switcheroo?

Frankly, it's impossible to conceive that the guilty plea would be allowed to stand. And if the guilty plea is retracted, Polanski is presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. From a legal standpoint, none of us on this thread "knows" jack-sh!t about what Polanaski did or did not do. We don't even "know" the grand jury testimony (which is NEVER revealed to a jury) and one-sided, anecdotal stories.

Due process is one thing, but it looks as if you're disputing the facts. At the very least, he had sex with her. That's statutory rape, at the minimum. And if you accept her allegations, which she has maintained for decades, he gave her alcohol and drugs, she resisted his advances, and he had 3rd input sex with her. He then fled the country when the sweet deal didn't go his way instead of withdrawing his guilty plea after the judge rejected it, and going to trial.

Saying we know jack shit about what happened is not true, we know a helluva lot about what happened. Her grand jury testimony (which actually is available) was under oath and wouldn't be any more or less true if she uttered it during the trial.

Polanski "grudgingly went along"(!) with a deal that would have avoided jailtime for statutory rape or worse? He leapt at that shit like a lifeline.

Presumption of innocence is merely a legal construct describing the burden of proof in court. It has absolutely no bearing on public discourse regarding the facts as we understand them. Again, at the very least, a 43 year old had sex with a 13 year old girl, and if you accept the particulars, with the aid of drugs and against her will. He deserves due process, he does not deserve our sympathy.

ED: after a little more reading, whether he could withdraw his plea depended upon the deal as structured. However, as he plead to a misdemeanor, a sentence imposed could likely not exceed one year (general rule), so would be subject to review if not outright rejected.

When I say "we know jack sh!it," I'm saying that from a LEGALISTIC standpoint. Suppose Polanski is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and then goes to trial, and we somehow find a jury of people that have been living in caves and know nothing of this case. Suppose you're on that jury. What do you - as a juror - know? The answer is NOTHING. Geimer would be called to testify, and Polanski's lawyers would dispute everything she says on cross-examination. They'd most surely would use the fact that she drank champagne and took a quaalude to challenge her memory. Maybe there's DNA evidence, or maybe not (this was 1977, after all, before DNA fingerprinting - so preservation of DNA evidence might be an issue). But the point is that everything you've read and heard about this case would NOT available to the jury - it would all have to be established in a court of law.

Look at a similar case another way: Do we KNOW that OJ killed Nicole? Answer: no (yes, we strongly suspect is, but we don't "know"). Now, suppose back when OJ was indicted, he agreed to a plea bargain and very much the same thing that happened to Polanksi happened to OJ - the judge reneged on his agreement to give OJ a light sentence, OJ retracted his guilty plea, and then went to trial. And also supposed all of this behind-the-scenes stuff was made public. NOW you'd say "we know" OJ did it, and be outraged if he got off. Do you see the problem?

As to his "jumping" at the chance: Read that Larry King transcript you found. According to Geimer's lawyer, he went along grudgingly.

 

[Patranus]

Funny how people want to let this guy go after he plead guild AND THEN FLED THE COUNTRY.

 

[shira]

All you posters claiming you want to see Polanski fry seem to think you're supporting the rule of law. Yet you can't seem to understand that letting the guilty walk is sometimes required by the rule of law. That's not "excusing" bad acts, it's upholding the rule of law.

The irony is, dismissing this case might be what the rule of law requires, yet you're outraged at that prospect. If so, what does that say about your commitment to the rule of law?

Suppose a suspect to a heinous crime is tortured by investigators into revealing information that proves the suspect committed the crime. Suppose also that it's pretty clear that without that forcibly-obtained information, no case would have been possible. Do you believe that the suspect should be tried and convicted on this basis, or do you think the rule of law requires dismissal?

 

[SAWYER]

I don't pity criminals, especially pedophiles

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: loki8481
if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

You might characterize the situation like that, if you are flagrantly ignorant to the details of it.

He drugged a 13 year old girl for his own sexual purposes. What other details does one need to know?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
OJ Simpson, Remember him?

I remember OJ got away with his crimes because he could afford to hire an expert shyster to boggle the jury in our fucked up legal system, which is a very different thing than Polanski being able to afford a plane ticket to run from a fucked up judge in our fucked up legal system. But yeah, let's wave and point the finger at everyone but ourselves, that makes everything so much better.

Polanski Plead to a charge. He didn't have the same kind of situation as OJ Simpson did but I'd wager Polanski had more money! The lawyers were fair but the Prosecution team were so inept it was incredible. The 'Dream Team' didn't boggle the jury. The jury accepted the evidence they were presented with. Heck, I was hard pressed to return a guilty verdict in my estimation of the evidence.. Oh.. he did it all right but beyond reasonable doubt... Read just Lee's testimony and Baden's.. then Officer ''I'm not a racist"...
Polanski ADMITTED guilt.... HE IS GUILTY! Full stop. Where would you like to go from there? To trial? There exists a Prima Facie case against him. He can't hope to rebut it. There are at least Four counts that he could have faced. You can assume that his attorney advised him he was a 'dead duck' given he plead to the one count. Besides illegal flight IS evidence of guilt but somewhat arguable in this case...
Our legal system is about as good as it can get. I don't know, however, of one criminal who'd agree with me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira
All you posters claiming you want to see Polanski fry seem to think you're supporting the rule of law. Yet you can't seem to understand that letting the guilty walk is sometimes required by the rule of law. That's not "excusing" bad acts, it's upholding the rule of law.

The irony is, dismissing this case might be what the rule of law requires, yet you're outraged at that prospect. If so, what does that say about your commitment to the rule of law?

Suppose a suspect to a heinous crime is tortured by investigators into revealing information that proves the suspect committed the crime. Suppose also that it's pretty clear that without that forcibly-obtained information, no case would have been possible. Do you believe that the suspect should be tried and convicted on this basis, or do you think the rule of law requires dismissal?

The short answer is: The rule of law IS the rule of law. We must follow it no matter where it leads. In law the jury does not find the defendant Innocent. They find either Guilty or Not Guilty. Did the People prove their case!
At times evidence which would be admissible is denied entry because of flagrant misconduct like not giving the evidence to the other side as a strategy to sand bag a witness or to undermine the other side's case. The rule of law is all about the rights of the People AND the Defendent in a Criminal Case. (change the terms for Civil cases)

Polanski's case is no aberration of law. (imo). As I understand it. He plead to a charge was sent for mental evaluation which could determine if he should be sent to a mental hospital as a sentence and/or to insure he was mentally able to submit a plea. But, once the plea is entered it is the judge who determines if the desire of the People regarding sentence is serving justice... I can't find where the judge signed off on the plea agreement and fixed the sentence at any time. Usually the judge signs the order AFTER he actually sentences the defendant.
IF he is brought back and IF he is sentenced and IF he appeals and prevails and the matter is sent back to the court below. He can have another bite at the apple. I'd think he'd be advised to plea again or swim back to France.

Edit: I'd add that if the case is dismissed for what ever reason I'm fine with that too. IF they give him a parade afterward up Sunset Blvd. I'd hope it rained on his parade.