swiss judge allows child rapist to go free.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
chicago tribune


BERN, Switzerland (AP) — Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday after Switzerland rejected a U.S. request to extradite him to be sentenced for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss government blamed the decision on U.S. authorities, saying they had failed to address defense arguments that the 76-year-old filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago.

Nine months after arresting Polanski, the Swiss Justice Ministry said U.S. officials should have backed up their request by providing confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in L.A.

/sniped



guess thats the end of that. i don't see the US going after him anymore since no country will extradite him.
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The US failed to provide the requested evidence. What else could the Swiss do?
 
Fern

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
EagleKeeper said:
The US failed to provide the requested evidence. What else could the Swiss do?
Click to expand...

Yes.

However, if it was the DoJ that refused to provide the necessary testimony/info, an interesting question might be why?

His case heated up in 2008 when he released a documentary critcizing the US prosecution in his case. Now, somehow in 2010 a decision was made not to cooperate with the Swiss effectively dropping the case and freeing Polansky. Who made this non-cooperation decision and why?

Fern
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
EagleKeeper said:
The US failed to provide the requested evidence. What else could the Swiss do?
Click to expand...


And in most cases request like that never happen. They asked for "confidential testimony". For a extradition request they, swiss, seem to be trying to find any way to not extradite him, not to see if the extradition request was legal.
 
T

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Marlin1975 said:
And in most cases request like that never happen. They asked for "confidential testimony". For a extradition request they, swiss, seem to be trying to find any way to not extradite him, not to see if the extradition request was legal.
Click to expand...

So following standard procedure is "trying to find any way not to extradite" these days?

Seriously, if you want to extradite someone and you have a whole department of lawyers, I'm pretty sure you can follow standard procedure.
 
P

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Fern said:
Yes.

However, if it was the DoJ that refused to provide the necessary testimony/info, an interesting question might be why?

His case heated up in 2008 when he released a documentary critcizing the US prosecution in his case. Now, somehow in 2010 a decision was made not to cooperate with the Swiss effectively dropping the case and freeing Polansky. Who made this non-cooperation decision and why?

Fern
Click to expand...

Polanski and his fellow hollywood types are strong Obummer supporters.... you connect the dots.
 
M

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
The fact that this is even newsworthy is ridiculous. Where's the DoJ when we have a bunch of greedy banksters that brought us into an economic depression through fraud, reckless speculation and willful negligence?
 
P

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Munky said:
The fact that this is even newsworthy is ridiculous. Where's the DoJ when we have a bunch of greedy banksters that brought us into an economic depression through fraud, reckless speculation and willful negligence?
Click to expand...

They are nowhere to be found because the bolded part of your post is complete fabrication.
 
William Gaatjes

William Gaatjes

Lifer
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
PokerGuy said:
They are nowhere to be found because the bolded part of your post is complete fabrication.
Click to expand...

Although there is no illegal actions performed...
You might find that they did it legally by the use of lobbying certain laws to non laws. This has been systematically done for the last 80 years. Every time a law made to protect the citizen was blocking investment banks commerce or wall street commerce, lobbying was started to remove the law or legislation.

I am not going to provide you with evidence. You can look for it yourself if you want to know. You can start with the start of Goldman Sachs round 19 20.
Then you can do research on investment banks.

There is never done anything illegal because everytime the politicians where supported and at their return made sure certain laws passed or where removed. Bribe has happened but is very rare.

The greed of people and persuading those same people that liberalism or neo liberalism was the way to go and that less government involvement was needed, was all the tools that where needed. And still are needed. Liberalism does not have to be a bad thing. But it can be the sausage to blind the hungry fools.
 
Last edited:
JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Fern said:
Yes.

However, if it was the DoJ that refused to provide the necessary testimony/info, an interesting question might be why?

His case heated up in 2008 when he released a documentary critcizing the US prosecution in his case. Now, somehow in 2010 a decision was made not to cooperate with the Swiss effectively dropping the case and freeing Polansky. Who made this non-cooperation decision and why?

Fern
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Seems to me it is the fault of the United States this man walks a free man, everywhere except the US!!!

What I find to be totally amazing is that after 32 years and with testimony from the victim we are still out to get this man!!
 
Last edited:
JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
I especially Love their reason for freeing this man.......to which I totally agree BTW!!

After 32 years the man is 72 years old -- Gotta Love the Swiss!!

here is their reason --

The government said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."

In justifying the decision, Switzerland also invoked what it called the "public order" — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.
 
M

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
PokerGuy said:
Do you have any evidence to back up your allegation, or just the usual lefty "but but... obummer said it was so!"?
Click to expand...

You can't seriously be asking this question. Who ELSE if not the banks would have blown up a housing bubble, driven by ever-increasing demand for "profits" based on CDO, CDS, insuring sidebets you have no means to pay, buying insurance on capital you don't own, and other activities that would be perfect for a bunch of drunken party boys at a casino with an unlimited credit card?
 
JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
xj0hnx said:
So if you rape someone, after 32 years you should be scott free?
Click to expand...

He is 72 years old...nothing is to be gained by putting the man in jail.
If he was put in jail it would only act as a deterrent to horny elderly men!

Plus as I told the judge when I went for Jury duty and he told me I was compelled to follow the letter of the law when deciding the outcome of the trial....

I told him I don`t see some laws as absolute...there are some laws that are just plain stoopid.

He let me off jury duty.

This is one of those things that IMO if they would have tried him when it happened perhaps it was rape....perhaps not. According to law we still have debate as to if polansky actually "raped" her........

No I am not going to argue this point. It has been hashed and re-hashed over and over.

72 years-- leave the man alone -- hell even his proported victim said -- LEAVE HIM ALONE!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom