Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira
The fact is, the judge's misconduct may have doomed any chance Polanski had to receive due process. Obviously, if Polanski returned to the U.S., he would be allowed to retract his guilty plea (otherwise, the actions of the court would invalidate the entire concept of plea bargaining). But no subsequent jury could possibly "ignore" the fact that there was an earlier guilty plea, even if instructed by a judge to do so. So a defense motion to dismiss on the basis that Polanski could not now receive a fair trial would be compelling.

I think the current L.A. prosecutor should recognize the above, and move to dismiss.

Edit: Note that dismissing this case is NOT saying that Polanski's actions were not execrable - they were. But when a defendant is irreconcilably deprived a due process, the court has no choice but to dismiss. All of you who claim that the rule of law must be followed should recognize that the rule of law in THIS case points to dismissal.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system. Under your proposition, no high profile case could ever be tried because of possible juror bias. I seriously doubt most americans would even be able to tell you who Roman Polanski is, let alone the particulars of his plea deal 30 years ago. Put the assfucker on trial.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Arrange a detail of twelve men, take him out back and shoot him.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skitzer
...this Polasnski situation is frivolous nonsense?

Dragging him back to the US is frivolous nonsense. If he would have turned up on our soil on his own will, I would be all for throwing him in jail and putting him though the courts for his crimes. However, this is just a media circus to keep people distracted from anything that could do some real good for the world, and a waste of our tax dollars to boot.

This man fucked a 13 year old girl in the ass after she protested though he had drugged her up plenty and you think this is "frivolous nonsense".

Well that explains a lot to me, you don't like justice.

I did not expect any more from you though, you are like that, pathetic piece of sheit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skitzer
...this Polasnski situation is frivolous nonsense?

Dragging him back to the US is frivolous nonsense. If he would have turned up on our soil on his own will, I would be all for throwing him in jail and putting him though the courts for his crimes. However, this is just a media circus to keep people distracted from anything that could do some real good for the world, and a waste of our tax dollars to boot.

so should we just not bother pursuing anyone who flees criminal sentencing for another country?

Youre making a generalization from a very specific case. If the prosecutor believes the original charges IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE would be dismissed on appeal (see my post above), it IS frivolous to continue to pursue him.

This man raped a 13 year old girl in the arse after getting her high and drunk to a point where she had no ability to do anything but what she did, which was to say no.

A no is a no is a no is a no. you do not persist and you do not continue, you do not rape women for fun and expect to get away with it, you do NOT rape underaged girls and expect to get away with it .... EVER!

How fucked in the head are you people?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
This is not about the victim (who he paid off and whom probably gave up on him ever being caught) as so much about this animal serving the sentence he was supposed to serve before he fled.

Being a rich white guy with the means and social clout to flee the country for the past 25+ years after raping a young girl is not an excuse to allow a child rapist to go unpunished once he is apprehended.

Then again he is a darling of the liberal Hollywood left crowd so now I am realizing why there is so much support for this guy amongst liberals.

If he had been a catholic priest you'd probably see these same supporters foaming at the mouth and demonizing the entire Christian religion.

1) This "monster" you speak of is one of the greatest living directors on the face of this planet.
2) The girl was "13 going on 30", and it wasn't rape, it was consensual sex.
3) The judge reneged on an arrangement, leaving Polanski with the prospect of spending years in prison as a "pedophile"; basically, he signing a death sentence for the director, 'cause we all know what happens to "pedophiles" in jail.
4) In the last 30 years Polanski has made more good movies than you will ever deserve to watch.
5) The "victim" herself has spoken publicly, urging for this witch-hunt to end.

5) You are a narrow-minded lowlifer... Sadly, you're not the only one.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skitzer
...this Polasnski situation is frivolous nonsense?

Dragging him back to the US is frivolous nonsense. If he would have turned up on our soil on his own will, I would be all for throwing him in jail and putting him though the courts for his crimes. However, this is just a media circus to keep people distracted from anything that could do some real good for the world, and a waste of our tax dollars to boot.

This man fucked a 13 year old girl in the ass after she protested though he had drugged her up plenty and you think this is "frivolous nonsense".

Well that explains a lot to me, you don't like justice.

I did not expect any more from you though, you are like that, pathetic piece of sheit.

Piss off, woodman! you're only showing the true extent of your intelligence.
You're a Taliban, pure and simple.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
This is not about the victim (who he paid off and whom probably gave up on him ever being caught) as so much about this animal serving the sentence he was supposed to serve before he fled.

Being a rich white guy with the means and social clout to flee the country for the past 25+ years after raping a young girl is not an excuse to allow a child rapist to go unpunished once he is apprehended.

Then again he is a darling of the liberal Hollywood left crowd so now I am realizing why there is so much support for this guy amongst liberals.

If he had been a catholic priest you'd probably see these same supporters foaming at the mouth and demonizing the entire Christian religion.

1) This "monster" you speak of is one of the greatest living directors on the face of this planet.
2) The girl was "13 going on 30", and it wasn't rape, it was consensual sex.
3) The judge reneged on an arrangement, leaving Polanski with the prospect of spending years in prison as a "pedophile"; basically, he signing a death sentence for the director, 'cause we all know what happens to "pedophiles" in jail.
4) In the last 30 years Polanski has made more good movies than you will ever deserve to watch.
5) The "victim" herself has spoken publicly, urging for this witch-hunt to end.

5) You are a narrow-minded lowlifer... Sadly, you're not the only one.

1) Irrelevant
2) There's no such thing as consensual sex with a 13 year old. Particularly on that he got drunk and drugged.
3) The judge wanted to give him another 48 days, not years. He is a pedophile.
4) Who cares.
5) There's no need to put quotes around "victim". She was the victim of a crime.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
This is not about the victim (who he paid off and whom probably gave up on him ever being caught) as so much about this animal serving the sentence he was supposed to serve before he fled.

Being a rich white guy with the means and social clout to flee the country for the past 25+ years after raping a young girl is not an excuse to allow a child rapist to go unpunished once he is apprehended.

Then again he is a darling of the liberal Hollywood left crowd so now I am realizing why there is so much support for this guy amongst liberals.

If he had been a catholic priest you'd probably see these same supporters foaming at the mouth and demonizing the entire Christian religion.

1) This "monster" you speak of is one of the greatest living directors on the face of this planet.
2) The girl was "13 going on 30", and it wasn't rape, it was consensual sex.
3) The judge reneged on an arrangement, leaving Polanski with the prospect of spending years in prison as a "pedophile"; basically, he signing a death sentence for the director, 'cause we all know what happens to "pedophiles" in jail.
4) In the last 30 years Polanski has made more good movies than you will ever deserve to watch.
5) The "victim" herself has spoken publicly, urging for this witch-hunt to end.

5) You are a narrow-minded lowlifer... Sadly, you're not the only one.

1) who fucking cares?
2) are you serious? fuck thats idiotic.
3) if he des nto want to be labled a pedoohile she shoudlnt rape 13 yr old girls
4)again who fucking cares?
5) i feel for the victim. but in terms of his crimes after pleading guilty ti does nto matter.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
The fact is, the judge's misconduct may have doomed any chance Polanski had to receive due process. Obviously, if Polanski returned to the U.S., he would be allowed to retract his guilty plea (otherwise, the actions of the court would invalidate the entire concept of plea bargaining). But no subsequent jury could possibly "ignore" the fact that there was an earlier guilty plea, even if instructed by a judge to do so. So a defense motion to dismiss on the basis that Polanski could not now receive a fair trial would be compelling.

I think the current L.A. prosecutor should recognize the above, and move to dismiss.

Edit: Note that dismissing this case is NOT saying that Polanski's actions were not execrable - they were. But when a defendant is irreconcilably deprived a due process, the court has no choice but to dismiss. All of you who claim that the rule of law must be followed should recognize that the rule of law in THIS case points to dismissal.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system. Under your proposition, no high profile case could ever be tried because of possible juror bias. I seriously doubt most americans would even be able to tell you who Roman Polanski is, let alone the particulars of his plea deal 30 years ago. Put the assfucker on trial.

Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from what I wrote. By the time Polanski arrived back in the U.S., I've no doubt that this case would be pretty well reported and broadly known. It isn't reasonable for the prosecution to insist that the jury consist entirely of highly uninformed people - that's not exactly a "jury of peers." And the information that could bias the jury - Polanski's prior guilty plea - is MUCH more prejudicial than anything else I can think of in any other high profile case in my memory.

Regardless, here's a further point:

The victim says she doesn't want Polanski re-tried, and she probably would NOT agree to testify. Without her testimony, there's really no case. Perhaps the prosecution would get around that problem by re-reading the victim's original testimony and cross-examination into evidence - I'm not sure that would be allowed, but let's assume THAT difficulty isn't fatal. Anyway, the defense could credibly argue that if a plea bargain had not been in the offing back then, they would have taken a far more confrontational approach with the victim in their original cross examination. Thus (they could argue), the original trial transcript would be skewed against the defendant, and without the victim available to cross-examine NOW, it's not anything that could be corrected.

Frankly, I think these issues are fatal to any prosecution. Last night, I caught a snippet of NPR's To The Point in which a Los Angeles criminal laywer being interviewed said he was pretty confident that a motion to dismiss would succeed. I didn't hear his reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if his reasoning overlapped mine. I also heard him say that because he couldn't be of the outcome, he would recommend that Polanski fight extradition.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skitzer
...this Polasnski situation is frivolous nonsense?

Dragging him back to the US is frivolous nonsense. If he would have turned up on our soil on his own will, I would be all for throwing him in jail and putting him though the courts for his crimes. However, this is just a media circus to keep people distracted from anything that could do some real good for the world, and a waste of our tax dollars to boot.

This man fucked a 13 year old girl in the ass after she protested though he had drugged her up plenty and you think this is "frivolous nonsense".

Well that explains a lot to me, you don't like justice.

I did not expect any more from you though, you are like that, pathetic piece of sheit.

Piss off, woodman! you're only showing the true extent of your intelligence.
You're a Taliban, pure and simple.

uh..wow talk about lack of intelligence.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: wetech
The judge wanted to give him another 48 days, not years. He is a pedophile.

Bullshit.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Craig234

*Obviously*. If it were, this wouldn't be a quwstion. It's a *factor* on the issue.

No, it's not. It is completely irrelevant in this case.

I disagree and view this as relvant to the moral issue.

Rich people are not allowed to buy the silence of their victims to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

The American legal system is not the European legal system. The same system is supposed to apply to everyone. Even President Clinton has faced sanctions for his disregard of the judicial system. We are not supposed to have an out for royalty/aristocracy.

You sound like you are briniging an existing agenda and applying it. What does 'rich person' have to do with the point under discusion, thevicti's wishes?

If the issue were about his getting off because he's rich, we'd agree, he shouldn't.

Just because he's rich doesn't mean that's the issue. It's not in this discussion.

I'm *very* against the rich buying their own justice. Now let's talk about this case.

The 42 days were for a psychiatric evaluation. He fled before sentencing. Defense/prosecution agreement isn't the necessary end, too.

*Obviously.* If it were, this wouldn't be an issue. It's a *factor* on the issue.

Yes, fleeing is a huge negative factor and a reason to use resources against him. Complete disregard for the judicial system is dangerous to allow. See the Clinton argument above and the judge's reasoning.

The *prosecution* agreed that the 42 days he spent was adequate punishment. That's a pretty strong indication a case can be made that it was.

Serving the time the prosecution says is a fair sentence is a far cry from fleeing after serving no time.

As I said, it's a factor. Yes, there's a point to what you're saying as well - but it's a gray issue, not black and white. Was the judge being excessive going beyond the prosecution?

We can't let defendants decide they are and simply evade the system, but again it's a factor, and there are others.

One *factor* is whether the guy is a career criminal/repeat offended/menace to society. Usually courts have to try to predict, in this case we have history - he's not.

Yes, that is one of many factors among one philosophical school of thought of people interested in the public policy issues of punishment. In the real world there is a balance and considerations among many different issues. Another important factor is deterrence.

Remember, Polanski is wanted more for just the original crime. He is also wanted for fleeing.

Your raising nazis is illogical inflammatory hyperbole, not an relvant point.

Sorry, it is not. Many people are pursued for their crimes through the decades. It is an internationally acceptable legal doctrine. The difference here is that Polanski already plead guilty. He's in a much worse legal position.

Yes, it is. The fact that you can't distinguish between Polanski and nazi war criminals from the holocaust indicates to me you are not reasonable and likely not rational.

There are many crimes with statutes of limitations and other lesser treatment, because not every criminal is a nazi leader, no matter how fun it is for you to play the Nazi card.

You make any discussion pointless with your obstinate absurdity.

You seem locked on to one point of view, and are simply ignoring any other points about the case, it seems to me. Blinders on.

You've stated your points, I've listened and stated mine, I'm not seeing much more promising at this point.

But it seems to me that you have latched on to Polanski as some sort of poster child for you to get some cause you believe in furthered.

Celebrities who develop a sense of entitlement and abuse others disgust me. Michael Vick is an example, I guess, and the consumers who support their getting off disgust me as well, just because the consumers want to see them play ball or whatever. If the question were Polanski evading justice for this when he did it, I'd be against it.

But justice does not seem served to me at this point on this for his criminal mistake over 30 years ago. But you are not seeming to response to my points much IMO.

You are locked in to one angle - he's a celebrity who cheated the system, so you want him punished, without regard for the various other factors that weigh on the situation.

Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

Please explain how a new trial would proceed when the original victim won't testify?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

Please explain how a new trial would proceed when the original victim won't testify?

oh she will testify. not much choice in that if the DA wants.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: wetech
The judge wanted to give him another 48 days, not years. He is a pedophile.

Bullshit.

Link

But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
The fact is, the judge's misconduct may have doomed any chance Polanski had to receive due process. Obviously, if Polanski returned to the U.S., he would be allowed to retract his guilty plea (otherwise, the actions of the court would invalidate the entire concept of plea bargaining). But no subsequent jury could possibly "ignore" the fact that there was an earlier guilty plea, even if instructed by a judge to do so. So a defense motion to dismiss on the basis that Polanski could not now receive a fair trial would be compelling.

I think the current L.A. prosecutor should recognize the above, and move to dismiss.

Edit: Note that dismissing this case is NOT saying that Polanski's actions were not execrable - they were. But when a defendant is irreconcilably deprived a due process, the court has no choice but to dismiss. All of you who claim that the rule of law must be followed should recognize that the rule of law in THIS case points to dismissal.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system. Under your proposition, no high profile case could ever be tried because of possible juror bias. I seriously doubt most americans would even be able to tell you who Roman Polanski is, let alone the particulars of his plea deal 30 years ago. Put the assfucker on trial.

Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from what I wrote. By the time Polanski arrived back in the U.S., I've no doubt that this case would be pretty well reported and broadly known. It isn't reasonable for the prosecution to insist that the jury consist entirely of highly uninformed people - that's not exactly a "jury of peers." And the information that could bias the jury - Polanski's prior guilty plea - is MUCH more prejudicial than anything else I can think of in any other high profile case in my memory.

Regardless, here's a further point:

The victim says she doesn't want Polanski re-tried, and she probably would NOT agree to testify. Without her testimony, there's really no case. Perhaps the prosecution would get around that problem by re-reading the victim's original testimony and cross-examination into evidence - I'm not sure that would be allowed, but let's assume THAT difficulty isn't fatal. Anyway, the defense could credibly argue that if a plea bargain had not been in the offing back then, they would have taken a far more confrontational approach with the victim in their original cross examination. Thus (they could argue), the original trial transcript would be skewed against the defendant, and without the victim available to cross-examine NOW, it's not anything that could be corrected.

Frankly, I think these issues are fatal to any prosecution. Last night, I caught a snippet of NPR's To The Point in which a Los Angeles criminal laywer being interviewed said he was pretty confident that a motion to dismiss would succeed. I didn't hear his reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if his reasoning overlapped mine. I also heard him say that because he couldn't be of the outcome, he would recommend that Polanski fight extradition.

was there a trial?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
The fact is, the judge's misconduct may have doomed any chance Polanski had to receive due process. Obviously, if Polanski returned to the U.S., he would be allowed to retract his guilty plea (otherwise, the actions of the court would invalidate the entire concept of plea bargaining). But no subsequent jury could possibly "ignore" the fact that there was an earlier guilty plea, even if instructed by a judge to do so. So a defense motion to dismiss on the basis that Polanski could not now receive a fair trial would be compelling.

I think the current L.A. prosecutor should recognize the above, and move to dismiss.

Edit: Note that dismissing this case is NOT saying that Polanski's actions were not execrable - they were. But when a defendant is irreconcilably deprived a due process, the court has no choice but to dismiss. All of you who claim that the rule of law must be followed should recognize that the rule of law in THIS case points to dismissal.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system. Under your proposition, no high profile case could ever be tried because of possible juror bias. I seriously doubt most americans would even be able to tell you who Roman Polanski is, let alone the particulars of his plea deal 30 years ago. Put the assfucker on trial.

Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from what I wrote. By the time Polanski arrived back in the U.S., I've no doubt that this case would be pretty well reported and broadly known. It isn't reasonable for the prosecution to insist that the jury consist entirely of highly uninformed people - that's not exactly a "jury of peers." And the information that could bias the jury - Polanski's prior guilty plea - is MUCH more prejudicial than anything else I can think of in any other high profile case in my memory.

Regardless, here's a further point:

The victim says she doesn't want Polanski re-tried, and she probably would NOT agree to testify. Without her testimony, there's really no case. Perhaps the prosecution would get around that problem by re-reading the victim's original testimony and cross-examination into evidence - I'm not sure that would be allowed, but let's assume THAT difficulty isn't fatal. Anyway, the defense could credibly argue that if a plea bargain had not been in the offing back then, they would have taken a far more confrontational approach with the victim in their original cross examination. Thus (they could argue), the original trial transcript would be skewed against the defendant, and without the victim available to cross-examine NOW, it's not anything that could be corrected.

Frankly, I think these issues are fatal to any prosecution. Last night, I caught a snippet of NPR's To The Point in which a Los Angeles criminal laywer being interviewed said he was pretty confident that a motion to dismiss would succeed. I didn't hear his reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if his reasoning overlapped mine. I also heard him say that because he couldn't be of the outcome, he would recommend that Polanski fight extradition.

was there a trial?

My bad. The victim's testimony was from the grand jury hearing. That's inadmissible as evidence in a new trial, since that old testimony can't be challenged.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

Please explain how a new trial would proceed when the original victim won't testify?

oh she will testify. not much choice in that if the DA wants.

I can just see the victim testifying:

Prosecutor: "So, what did the defendent do then?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Prosecutor: "What did the defendant say at that point?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Defending attorney: "Is it possible that no penetration occurred?"

Victim: "It's possible, I really can't remember one way or the other."


Yeah, that'll get him convicted for sure.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

Please explain how a new trial would proceed when the original victim won't testify?

oh she will testify. not much choice in that if the DA wants.

I can just see the victim testifying:

Prosecutor: "So, what did the defendent do then?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Prosecutor: "What did the defendant say at that point?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Defending attorney: "Is it possible that no penetration occurred?"

Victim: "It's possible, I really can't remember one way or the other."


Yeah, that'll get him convicted for sure.

yeah i don't think thats how its going to go. she is tired of the press? lieing under oath is not the way to go about it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
This is not about the victim (who he paid off and whom probably gave up on him ever being caught) as so much about this animal serving the sentence he was supposed to serve before he fled.

Being a rich white guy with the means and social clout to flee the country for the past 25+ years after raping a young girl is not an excuse to allow a child rapist to go unpunished once he is apprehended.

Then again he is a darling of the liberal Hollywood left crowd so now I am realizing why there is so much support for this guy amongst liberals.

If he had been a catholic priest you'd probably see these same supporters foaming at the mouth and demonizing the entire Christian religion.

1) This "monster" you speak of is one of the greatest living directors on the face of this planet.
2) The girl was "13 going on 30", and it wasn't rape, it was consensual sex.
3) The judge reneged on an arrangement, leaving Polanski with the prospect of spending years in prison as a "pedophile"; basically, he signing a death sentence for the director, 'cause we all know what happens to "pedophiles" in jail.
4) In the last 30 years Polanski has made more good movies than you will ever deserve to watch.
5) The "victim" herself has spoken publicly, urging for this witch-hunt to end.

5) You are a narrow-minded lowlifer... Sadly, you're not the only one.

What's really interesting about this post is that the European comments towards Polanski are geared towards his artistic talents rather than the legal issue. They make pig-headed comments on how the girl deserved it, claim she wasn't raped, etc.

Psychologically, Europeans have been hurting for decades. Their Empires of Death were dismantled. They have been devastated on the world stage economically, militarily, morally, and politically. Culturally is about to be added to that list.

Polanski is one of the last worldwide European cultural icons due to his exile from the United States. Any imprisonment of him is basically the end of an era of European culture.

The extradition of Polanski to the United States is the manifestation of their fears. What else do they have left? Not much besides a new Dark Age.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Judges have the discretion to throw out pleas. Thats what happened. He's likely to get a new trial. And then hes going to serve even longer.

Please explain how a new trial would proceed when the original victim won't testify?

oh she will testify. not much choice in that if the DA wants.

I can just see the victim testifying:

Prosecutor: "So, what did the defendent do then?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Prosecutor: "What did the defendant say at that point?"

Victim: "I'm sorry, it's been a long time, I really can't remember any details."

Defending attorney: "Is it possible that no penetration occurred?"

Victim: "It's possible, I really can't remember one way or the other."


Yeah, that'll get him convicted for sure.

Well that'd be perjury seeing as how she told the whole story in a 2003 interview on Larry King.

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

everything you posted has to be a joke. your defense is he's made some good movies since the rape? nice.

Interesting:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA...TS/0302/24/lkl.00.html
CALLER: If he came back now and you're grown, would you testify against him?

GEIMER: I would hope I wouldn't have to. I'm not quite sure how that works.

KING: There is nothing he can be charged with.

SILVER: Right. All the charges -- the only thing is the guilty plea to the unlawful sexual intercourse. There wouldn't be a trial.

KING: So if he came back tonight in Los Angeles, what would happen to him? He's at the airport. Would somebody grab him?

SILVER: I would think so.

KING: And for what? Bring him into the plea agreement? Or the judge never -- the judge is dead and the judge never sentenced him. So he is a non-sentenced person.

SILVER: He is a non-sentenced person. There is a warrant out for his arrest for being a fugitive. And he is subject to being arrested and receiving the sentence that he would have or should have gotten 25 years ago.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

What's really interesting about this post is that the European comments towards Polanski are geared towards his artistic talents rather than the legal issue. They make pig-headed comments on how the girl deserved it, claim she wasn't raped, etc.

have you actually seen the opinion polls coming out of Europe on this?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

What's really interesting about this post is that the European comments towards Polanski are geared towards his artistic talents rather than the legal issue. They make pig-headed comments on how the girl deserved it, claim she wasn't raped, etc.

have you actually seen the opinion polls coming out of Europe on this?

They have opinion polls on the handful of political and cultural aristocracy of Europe?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?