Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   Actors, Awards, & Directors (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Swiss detain Roman Polanski (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=20784)

tramp 09-27-09 09:57 AM

Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Looks like Swiss authorities have detained Polanski for extradition to the US. After all these years, how do you feel about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/...rland_polanski

ZURICH The Swiss Justice Ministry says director Roman Polanski is being held by Swiss authorities ahead of his possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.
The ministry says in a statement that Polanski was arrested Saturday upon arriving in Zurich. It says U.S. authorities have sought Polanski's arrest around the world since 2005.
The 76-year-old was flying in to receive an award at the Zurich Film Festival.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 11:30 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I think its total bullsh*t and the United States should be ashamed of itself. If this is supposed to be about the victims (which it isn't) then this should have long been forgotten. Instead, we'll most likely have yet another media circus.

beelzebubbles 09-27-09 11:49 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Being rich and a celebrity is a two pronged skewer. The rich can often buy their way out of trouble, but the powers that be love to make an example of celebrities. It's like going bear hunting. The bigger the bear the better the trophy, but if nobody sees your trophy what's the point? Catch a celebrated bear and everyone is going to see your trophy.

Used Future 09-27-09 12:07 PM

The fact remains he raped a thirteen year old girl, and has has admitted it. Regardless of how long ago it was I don't think something that serious can be ignored. I know he already served some (hardly any actually) time for the offense, and his victim just wants closure. But I don't think we should let the fact he's a celebrated filmmaker obscure the truth. Here's a wealthy convicted child rapist that jumped bail and fled the US. I bet lots of people are quick to have a go at Woody Allen, a man who was never convicted of anything. Yet because Polanski also made a few great films he's supposed to be untouchable. Nonsense.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Polanski's films and think that if this situation can be resolved sensibly then it might actually work out in his favour. I mean it'll sure be a load off for him. I also think the man should be made accountable for his actions and take some responsibility.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 12:29 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
UF, you need to see: Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. His "trial" was a joke. And his victim has gone on record publicly stating that she wants this to be over. Which it was until 2005 apparently, when someone inside the states decided to drag it up out of the depths again.

mikeython1 09-27-09 12:44 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I thought the Swiss were very big on not taking sides.

king_of_movies_316 09-27-09 12:51 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Woah, i learnt about Roman Polanski and his crazy past only a few weeks ago, so it's pretty weird that like after years of avoding the US that all of a sudden he gets caught.

Caitlyn 09-27-09 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570134)
I think its total bullsh*t and the United States should be ashamed of itself. If this is supposed to be about the victims (which it isn't) then this should have long been forgotten. Instead, we'll most likely have yet another media circus.
What the United States should be ashamed of is the fact that they didn't drag his ass back before now to face the consequences of his actions… the man drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl and then after he was tried and found guilty, fled the country to avoid going to jail for a few weeks… and while he was off bragging about the fact he was smarter than the US authorities… and making statements that he preferred very young girls… and making another movie for your enjoyment… his victim was going through years of therapy… and, if memory serves, she also had to have surgery to correct some of the damage he inflicted to her rectum… but yeah, let's just forget all that and hang our heads in shame because someone has finally decided on the side of justice in this case…

Powdered Water 09-27-09 01:28 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Uh, no he didn't. He did in fact go to jail. The crooked judge then later changed his mind and was trying to give even more time after already agreeing to a plea bargain. In what even the prosecuting attorney called: "A probation case."

Yoda 09-27-09 01:28 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I tend to think that a crime's a crime, and whether or not his trial was fair or not, I don't know of anyone -- even his supporters -- who thinks this didn't actually happen. If it did, what argument is there, really? He committed a fairly heinous crime, ran from the law by hiding halfway across the world, and should be punished for it somehow. I don't think this should change just because he managed to wait it out somewhere else for a few decades. That only encourages people to go on the LAM all the more, really.

tramp 09-27-09 01:32 PM

Yea, I wasn't sure how I felt about this. He never did take responsibility and you can't just run away.

I'm surprised, too, that the Swiss detained him. I, too, thought they wouldn't get involved in something like this.

I wonder what the US will do?

meatwadsprite 09-27-09 01:34 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
First , The Ninth Gate and now this ?

tramp 09-27-09 01:52 PM

I forgot to add that I think Polanski should get a new trial where I guess he would have to plead not guilty even if he had plead guilty before. I wonder if that is how it will play out. I get the feeling he deserves a new trial and if the victim won't testify, what would happen then?

There was a documentary where the prosecutor stated that he didn't blame Polanski for running. While he committed a crime, it wasn't fair what happened to him and I also think that is important.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 01:54 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
For all of you people that keep saying he "ran from the law" you really need to look into the whole thing a little deeper.

He DID NOT run from the law. He did in fact go through the entire legal process. It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be "made an example of" did he leave the country.

I strongly urge you all to see Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. There is a lot more to this case than simply. "Oh that's the dude that fled the country yeah?"

Yoda 09-27-09 02:01 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I understand that he didn't just up and run as soon as he was charged. I just don't make a big distinction between going on the lam right away, and waiting until he sees that he's going to be prosecuted before doing so. It's running from the law either way, isn't it?

Powdered Water 09-27-09 02:04 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
He was prosecuted. He plead guilty. Do I have to lay out the entire case?

42ndStreetFreak 09-27-09 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570185)

I strongly urge you all to see Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. There is a lot more to this case than simply.
Spot on. That was an excellent look at the case.

Bottom line...One 13 (going on 21 and no mistake) girl was pushed and shoved and manipulated by others and on one fateful day she ended up in the house of a seriously disturbed and emotionally devastated man and something nasty happened.

Polanski admitted what he did went along with what the justice system told him to go along with and was lied to about promised outcomes.
Then he fled.

I have no love for Polanski.
He should have been punished (with all the circumstances taken into account...as the girl was herself one very sad and messed up character with a sexuality years ahead of her years that had already been used by others) but he should not have been treated as some trophy celeb case and tricked by a supposed justice system.

I agree that Polanski simply BEING Polanski should make no difference. I have no time for these poncy ****s who go on about how he is a genius, so should be cut some slack!
No...He gets punished.
But punished fairly and openly and yes, with things taken into account at the time (messed up all round).

At least now this tragedy can hopefully be ended some way. Back to Prison for Polanski for a short term. Psychiatric evaluation. Then back on with life...For everyone.

Classicqueen13 09-27-09 02:32 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
He was a grown man who had sexual relations with a thirteen-year-old girl. Bottom-line. He knew the consequences of his actions, and he needs to pay for them fully.

Holden Pike 09-27-09 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Classicqueen13 (Post 570206)
He was a grown man who had sexual relations with a thirteen-year-old girl. Bottom-line. He knew the consequences of his actions, and he needs to pay for them fully.
Yes, but those of you taking this emotional and moral view of the incident are ignoring the CASE and the LAW of what happened. As has already been suggested, watch the excellent documentary Wanted & Desired. Nobody is saying what he did was nothing or less than vile, but the leaving the United States, the longstanding "fugitive" status and now this detainment and possible extradition are NOT about the vile act in and of itself, they are about the various legal elements which, if you watch that very revealing documentary, are FAR beyond reproach. When the State Prosecutor who handled the case goes on camera and confesses that if he were in Polanski's shoes having witnessed all of the improper, irrational and unfair ways the media-hungry Judge was handling the case, if that Prosecutor says he would have left the country too...legally you can see, it's a damn mess.

If you want to shun the man, boycott his films, write a letter to your local paper, etc. because of the rape, absolutely, more power to you. But if you're going to cheer a series of improper legal maneuvers just because you don't like the man...no, that ain't cool. This "needs to pay for them fully" kind of stuff is about your moral outrage and shouldn't have anything to do with the law, which is what the detainment and extradition are. And as the doc points out, you must remember this was 1977 California Law and Statutes. All of those well-versed in the California legal code circa '77 who have read all the evidence and testimony of the trial and who can render a legal opinion, please step forward. All of those who think a man who had sex with a young teenage girl is a scumbag, what does that have to do with these legal matters?

http://filmmakermagazine.com/sundanc...sir-760092.jpg http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...nd_desired.jpg

tramp 09-27-09 03:21 PM

I think most people don't know all the details about the legal matters and that's why people react to this story the way they do. He still left the country rather than go to jail. People that have seen the documentary or read about it realize that it's not so cut and dry.

Right?

I think it's good he's coming back. This all needs to be resolved for everyone's sake -- Roman's, the legal system, and the victim. There needs to be closure on this once and for all.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 04:45 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
It's not cut and dried that he's returning to the states either. Extradition is dicey at best even in the more sophisticated societies. He's being held right now and from what I've read is already appealing this in the Swiss court. So, we'll see.

nebbit 09-27-09 06:41 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I am a big Fan of Roman :yup: but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup;

Holden Pike 09-27-09 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 570249)
I am a big Fan of Roman :yup: but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup;
Jeepers, I didn't realize he was being extradited to The Vatican. Here I was thinking this was a late 1970s California legal matter. :indifferent:

jrs 09-27-09 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 570249)
but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup:
So does that mean we all should be detained by the swiss? :laugh:

rufnek 09-27-09 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570134)
I think its total bullsh*t and the United States should be ashamed of itself. If this is supposed to be about the victims (which it isn't) then this should have long been forgotten. Instead, we'll most likely have yet another media circus.
It's never about the victim; it's about the violation of law. Polanski admitted he violated the law, but then ran rather than have sentence executed. Had he stayed for sentencing and served his time, it would be all over by now. How tough would the California court system be on a famous movie director? Look at subsequent treatment of stars in the California justice system. The case has been prolonged only because Polanski ran. He did the crime. He admitted to the crime. He fled from the crime. It's his own fault.

Personally, I think it's his own fault in spades after he came back to the US for that awards program a few years ago, which was like thumbing his nose at the law. According to one account I read, the US resumed actively seeking Polanski's extridition in 2005.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 07:14 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
And yet another person who has absolutely ZERO knowledge of the facts of the case or what actually happened, apparently.

mark f 09-27-09 07:14 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Polanski hasn't been in the U.S. for over 30 years.

Tacitus 09-27-09 07:20 PM

I think that for those of us who've either seen the Wanted and Desired doc (which I have) we probably have come to the conclusion that Polanski was running from the judge... I am, though, (to gasps from the audience, no doubt :p) no lawyer and enjoyed a film which sought as much balance as it could. Just like me, though, Wanted and Desired hasn't passed its bar exams. ;)

Nevertheless, the only matter about the case itself which seems to be in doubt is the question of consent.

Even if things were consensual (and I'm not saying they were), they were consensual in the mind of a 13 year old child... I don't think I need to spell things out any clearer.

Yes, the case turned into a show trial and yes, everyone should be entitled to a justice system free from prejudice. Maybe he'll get the opportunity for a balanced hearing if the extradition goes ahead.

rufnek 09-27-09 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by tramp (Post 570182)
I forgot to add that I think Polanski should get a new trial where I guess he would have to plead not guilty even if he had plead guilty before. I wonder if that is how it will play out. I get the feeling he deserves a new trial and if the victim won't testify, what would happen then?

There was a documentary where the prosecutor stated that he didn't blame Polanski for running. While he committed a crime, it wasn't fair what happened to him and I also think that is important.
In a criminal case, the victim doesn't have a choice about testifying if the prosecution wants to put her on the stand and the judge doesn't rule against it for some unusual reason. The prosecution has the right to call the victim as a witness and, if the witness is uncooperative, treat her as an unfriendly witness. She can purposely be a lousy witness, but she still has to answer the prosecutor's questions, and if the witness says something contrary to the sworn statements she gave earlier, the prosecution has the option to charge her with perjury. The law is not something a private citizen--not even the victim--can turn on or off like a faucet. If you report a crime and the police take your statement and begin an investigation and the DA's office files charges, then the case takes on a life of its own. You come back later and say, "I didn't mean it,, I was only kidding" and you open yourself to criminal charges of filing false reports and perjury. I know of one case where a guy went to jail because as a lark he identified a buddy as a suspect being sought by police. Just playing a joke on a friend, but he was jailed for knowingly filing a false report.

Holden Pike 09-27-09 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570259)
Personally, I think it's his own fault in spades after he came back to the US for that awards program a few years ago, which was like thumbing his nose at the law. According to one account I read, the US resumed actively seeking Polanski's extridition in 2005.
For someone who prides themselves on a newsman's grasp of the cold hard facts and the minutiae of the historical record you have shockingly few correct here. He did not come back to the United States for an awards show or any other reason (and he won the frippin' Oscar in absentia). In 1997 after Polanski's attorney and the original Prosecutor brought the original Judge's actions to a new Judge, a verbal deal was struck between the parties that Polanski would return to Los Angeles, be booked and immediately released on bail, meet with the Probation Department, have a probation report ordered, conduct a hearing on said report, and have the probation officially terminated then and there without any additional jail time or legal consequences. When Roman discovered this would be an open hearing that would be televised (on the new Judge's insistence) and another surefire media circus, he declined. He also doesn't feel especially trustful of the American legal system for some reason.

But yes, continue to believe what you will! Why should facts muddy the waters of righteous indignation? They rarely do.

rufnek 09-27-09 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570185)
For all of you people that keep saying he "ran from the law" you really need to look into the whole thing a little deeper.

He DID NOT run from the law. He did in fact go through the entire legal process. It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be "made an example of" did he leave the country.

I strongly urge you all to see Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. There is a lot more to this case than simply. "Oh that's the dude that fled the country yeah?"
The thing about the law is that the defendent doesn't get to decide if the sentence is right or not, or fair or not or whether he should do time or not. If he failed to show up for sentencing or failed to surrender himself after being sentenced, then he did indeed run from the law. Period. Your statement "It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be 'made an example'" sounds to me that they were anticipating a sentence rather than reacting to one. But one cannot claim a sentence is unfair until the sentence is given. Even then, a good attorney could have gotten him out on bail while the sentence was being appealed. If it were an illegal or cruel or unusual sentence or if Polanski did not get a fair trial, then a higher court could set it aside. As it was, Polanski did not exhaust his legal options; he just grabbed an outbound flight to escape justice. I've yet to hear that any attorney has appealed on the grounds that he was not fairly tried or received a cruel or unusual sentence. He simply decided on his own not to serve time and ran.

Besides, I question just how "unfair" the original court was or how determined it was to "make an example" of Polanski if the judge didn't even order him to surrender his passport while out on bail. Or did Polanski obtain a fake passport to make his escape? Certainly he should not have done anything to elude justice on the advice of his attorney as that would open his attorney to disbarment and criminal charges.

42ndStreetFreak 09-27-09 07:45 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
they were consensual in the mind of a 13 year old child... I don't think I need to spell things out any clearer.
Far from your normal 13 year old girl though. Sexually she was somewhere in her late teens and had a shocking sexual history thanks to her Christ awful upbringing if memory serves.

But yes, she was still 13 and Polanski has to pay for that in a fair way with everything taken into account.

Tacitus 09-27-09 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570278)
Far from your normal 13 year old girl though
I don't think that matters a fig, to be honest, even if it's true, although I think you agree judging by your final sentence. :)

I don't wanna get all "if it happened to my 13 year old I'd cut his swingers off" Daily Mail channelling, though, but the fact remains I do have a 13 year old daughter who thinks she's oh so mature. She's probably more mature than I was at that age but that just means she doesn't laugh at fart jokes. :)

Powdered Water 09-27-09 07:51 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I love how people in the world today are so consumed with "justice". "He needs to pay!" "He should pay!"

He did pay, he was also jailed. For God's sake rufnek. Your points are completely empty because you apparently only have a very rudimentary knowledge of what happened.

rufnek 09-27-09 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570270)
For someone who prides themselves on a newsman's grasp of the cold hard facts and the minutiae of the historical record you have shockingly few correct here. He did not come back to the United States for an awards show or any other reason (and he won the frippin' Oscar in absentia). The reason they've been trying to get him back recently is that after the documentary that was very clearly damning of the Judge and his clerk, the current Court in California was more or less shamed into just saying, 'Come back, we'll have a hearing, pronounce the time served, blah-blah, and it'll be over with'. When Roman discovered this would be an open hearing and another surefire media circus, he declined. He also doesn't feel especially trustful of the American legal system for some reason.

But yes, continue to believe what you will! Why should facts muddy the waters of righteous indignation? They rarely do.
Jeeze, Pike, I guess I missed that issue of People magazine. I only recalled there was whoopla at some point about whether or not he would return to the US. I thought it unlikely myself. But between that point of will he/won't he and his current apprehension, I've given zero thought to Polanski.

For that matter, I never claimed inside or comprehensive knowledge of Polanski's chase beyound current news reports that he pled guilty to his crime. If that's not the case, then like Bogart in Casablanca, "I was misinformed." My remarks are addressed to the fundamentals of the law, which none of Polanski's fans want even to acknowledge. I do find odd your statement that Polanski wanted to avoid a "media circus," seeing as how he has been at the center of one ever since his escape. A movie person who abhors a "media circus"--now that is unsual.

As for "righteous indignation," I leave that to you and his other fans, seeing as how I really don't give a flying f**k what happens to Polanski. Bring him back, don't bring him back--it's all far short of a truly historic moment.

42ndStreetFreak 09-27-09 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 570280)
I don't think that matters a fig, to be honest, even if it's true, although I think you agree judging by your final sentence. :)

I don't wanna get all "if it happened to my 13 year old I'd cut his swingers off" Daily Mail channelling, though, but the fact remains I do have a 13 year old daughter who thinks she's oh so mature. She's probably more mature than I was at that age but that just means she doesn't laugh at fart jokes. :)
Anyone can put me straight...But if I remember from the Documentary she was virtually pimped out at parties by her Mother.
I'm not saying she was simply a 'mature beyond her years' 13 year old...I'm saying she was a sexually active, sexually experienced, messed up 13 year old.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 08:02 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
@ rufnek

You say you don't give a **** and yet here you are spreading around a bunch of misinformation and somehow trying to give out a sermon on the law? I don't buy it.

rufnek 09-27-09 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570281)
I love how people in the world today are so consumed with "justice". "He needs to pay!" "He should pay!"

He did pay, he was also jailed. For God's sake rufnek. Your points are completely empty because you apparently only have a very rudimentary knowledge of what happened.
I don't recall ever saying anything about someone needs to "pay" or should "pay." I just don't buy that Polansk was so mistreated by the law that he had to flee and "suffer" all these years being fawned on all over Europe.

I reiterate, I couldn't care less whether Polanski does time or not. But don't play like a big-name movie celebrity with a high-priced lawyer was being railroaded by a California court!

jrs 09-27-09 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
I've given zero thought to Polanski....

I really don't give a flying f**k what happens to Polanski. Bring him back, don't bring him back--it's all far short of a truly historic moment.
Perfectly said. ;)

Holden Pike 09-27-09 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
For that matter, I never claimed inside or comprehensive knowledge of Polanski's chase beyound current news reports that he pled guilty to his crime. If that's not the case, then like Bogart in Casablanca, "I was misinformed." My remarks are addressed to the fundamentals of the law, which none of Polanski's fans want even to acknowledge.
Yes, you are broadly applying some fundamentals of the law as you understand it to a 1977 California case with very specific laws, which is of little use in a discussion of the Polanski case. But it sure is fun to speculate and assume!


Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
I do find odd your statement that Polanski wanted to avoid a "media circus," seeing as how he has been at the center of one ever since his escape. A movie person who abhors a "media circus"-- now that is unusual.
Yes, I know Paparazzi following you out of a restaurant and the attention on the red carpet of a movie premiere are roughly analogous to a criminal court proceeding...oh, wait.

rufnek 09-27-09 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570289)
@ rufnek

You say you don't give a **** and yet here you are spreading around a bunch of misinformation and somehow trying to give out a sermon on the law? I don't buy it.
Pike has already pointed out and I acknowledged my major mistake in relying on my faulty memory in thinking Polanski has ever returned to the US.

If I'm wrong on the points of law I quoted, please feel free to do your own search of the law books and refute my mistakes point by point. It's been a long time since I covered felons in Texas courts. Maybe the law has changed or is different in the Kingdom of California.

Let’s see, I said:
“It's never about the victim; it's about the violation of law. Polanski admitted he violated the law, but then ran rather than have sentence executed. Had he stayed for sentencing and served his time, it would be all over by now. How tough would the California court system be on a famous movie director? Look at subsequent treatment of stars in the California justice system. The case has been prolonged only because Polanski ran. He did the crime. He admitted to the crime. He fled from the crime. It's his own fault.”

I also said:
“In a criminal case, the victim doesn't have a choice about testifying if the prosecution wants to put her on the stand and the judge doesn't rule against it for some unusual reason. The prosecution has the right to call the victim as a witness and, if the witness is uncooperative, treat her as an unfriendly witness. She can purposely be a lousy witness, but she still has to answer the prosecutor's questions, and if the witness says something contrary to the sworn statements she gave earlier, the prosecution has the option to charge her with perjury. The law is not something a private citizen--not even the victim--can turn on or off like a faucet. If you report a crime and the police take your statement and begin an investigation and the DA's office files charges, then the case takes on a life of its own. You come back later and say, 'I didn't mean it, I was only kidding' and you open yourself to criminal charges of filing false reports and perjury. I know of one case where a guy went to jail because as a lark he identified a buddy as a suspect being sought by police. Just playing a joke on a friend, but he was jailed for knowingly filing a false report.”

In another post, I said:
“The thing about the law is that the defendent doesn't get to decide if the sentence is right or not, or fair or not or whether he should do time or not. If he failed to show up for sentencing or failed to surrender himself after being sentenced, then he did indeed run from the law. Period. Your statement "It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be 'made an example'" sounds to me that they were anticipating a sentence rather than reacting to one. But one cannot claim a sentence is unfair until the sentence is given. Even then, a good attorney could have gotten him out on bail while the sentence was being appealed. If it were an illegal or cruel or unusual sentence or if Polanski did not get a fair trial, then a higher court could set it aside. As it was, Polanski did not exhaust his legal options; he just grabbed an outbound flight to escape justice. I've yet to hear that any attorney has appealed on the grounds that he was not fairly tried or received a cruel or unusual sentence. He simply decided on his own not to serve time and ran.”

“Besides, I question just how 'unfair' the original court was or how determined it was to 'make an example' of Polanski if the judge didn't even order him to surrender his passport while out on bail. Or did Polanski obtain a fake passport to make his escape? Certainly he should not have done anything to elude justice on the advice of his attorney as that would open his attorney to disbarment and criminal charges.”

Sorry, I don't see that as saying anything other than Polanski should have given the legal system a chance to play itself out rather than skipping bail and escaping to Europe.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 08:17 PM

Fine, if you want to get all technical how about this?

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570259)
Polanski admitted he violated the law, but then ran rather than have sentence executed. Had he stayed for sentencing and served his time, it would be all over by now.
He was sentenced. He did serve his time. The judge "changed his mind" and was going to give him more time. What does your extensive knowledge of the law tell you about that? A judge can just ignore procedure and do whatever he wants? How many times in your history of following the courts in Texas did you see something like that?

Tacitus 09-27-09 08:17 PM

If you'll allow me to quote you selectively. ;)

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570288)
I'm saying she was a ..... messed up 13 year old.
Which is why I don't think it matters a jot how 'experienced' she was. Anyway, this is gonna go round in circles and isn't as much fun as the "Burn him!" and "Don't burn him!" stuff.

Does Roman Polanski weigh as much as a duck?

rufnek 09-27-09 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570297)
Fine, if you want to get all technical how about this?



He was sentenced. He did serve his time. The judge "changed his mind" and was going to give him more time. What does your extensive knowledge of the law tell you about that? A judge can just ignore procedure and do whatever he wants? How many times in your history of following the courts in Texas did you see something like that?
What you're saying is a procedural impossibility. There is no judge in the land who can "change his mind" after imposing a sentence. Once the sentence is entered, it is set in stone unless overturned by an appellate court. If the sentence has not yet been entered, then it has not yet been passed and has no official standing, whether the judge has "made up his mind" or not.

It is possible that the defendent and the prosecution agree to a plea which the prosecution then presents to the judge, but the judge maintains the authority to accept or reject that plea. If he accepts, he imposes the sentence reccommended by the DA's office. If he rejects it, the defendent then has the right to withdraw his plea and seek a trial by his peers.

If, as you say, Polanski "served his time," the sentence for that original offense cannot be extended, not even for bad behavior while serving his time ("bad behavior" merely reduces one chances for earlier parole, but once a full sentence is served the prisoner is free. Period. Until he commits another crime.) If what you claim actually happened, the appelate court of Califorina would have long ago set aside that judgement or his attorney could have taken it to the US Supreme court in Polanski vs. California. Basically, if a sentence had been entered and if Polanski had served the time sentenced, (time incarcerated prior to trial does not apply to the sentence unless the judge says so) the case would not still be open and California would not have the authority to seek his detention. Nor would the Swiss or anyone else detain him without documented facts that a warrant was in force. Check the law, which is basically the same in any state. As presented, your interpretation of the "facts" just doesn't hold up.

jrs 09-27-09 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 570298)

Does Roman Polanski weigh as much as a duck?
The largest duck can weigh up to 7 kilograms (or about 15 pounds) so I doubt it. :nope:

Used Future 09-27-09 10:45 PM

Crikey! since I left to watch a movie this thread has gotten like an episode of Perry Mason.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570318)
What you're saying is a procedural impossibility. There is no judge in the land who can "change his mind" after imposing a sentence. Once the sentence is entered, it is set in stone unless overturned by an appellate court. If the sentence has not yet been entered, then it has not yet been passed and has no official standing, whether the judge has "made up his mind" or not.
Maybe that's my error then. I may very well be mistaken in saying he was sentenced. I think I'm confusing the time he spent in jail doing the psyche eval as his actual sentence. If so I hope you're right about it being a "procedural impossibility" because I need to be able to believe that at least some of our justice system isn't corruptible.

It is possible that the defendent and the prosecution agree to a plea which the prosecution then presents to the judge, but the judge maintains the authority to accept or reject that plea. If he accepts, he imposes the sentence reccommended by the DA's office. If he rejects it, the defendent then has the right to withdraw his plea and seek a trial by his peers.

If, as you say, Polanski "served his time," the sentence for that original offense cannot be extended, not even for bad behavior while serving his time ("bad behavior" merely reduces one chances for earlier parole, but once a full sentence is served the prisoner is free. Period. Until he commits another crime.) If what you claim actually happened, the appelate court of Califorina would have long ago set aside that judgement or his attorney could have taken it to the US Supreme court in Polanski vs. California. Basically, if a sentence had been entered and if Polanski had served the time sentenced, (time incarcerated prior to trial does not apply to the sentence unless the judge says so) the case would not still be open and California would not have the authority to seek his detention. Nor would the Swiss or anyone else detain him without documented facts that a warrant was in force. Check the law, which is basically the same in any state. As presented, your interpretation of the "facts" just doesn't hold up.
This is why it can be so frustrating to talk to you sometimes. If you would just take the time to watch the great documentary perhaps you'd at least understand why people such as myself are extremely frustrated. All of your points are valid of course and yet there is so much more to the story. You tend to always try to demonstrate how cut and dried a situation is but in this instance I don't think that's the case.

I doubt you will though, because as you say, you don't really give a f*** about him in the first place. You should though, the trial (what there was of it) was laughable. And when the Prosecuting attorney himself states that Polanski should have left the country then that screams to me that something was terribly wrong with the whole proceeding.

TheUsualSuspect 09-27-09 11:06 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Polanski? Oh that's the dude that fled the country yeah?

rufnek 09-27-09 11:33 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
According to the Associated Press, Polanski was arrested for having sex with an underage girl, whom he had hired as a model for a photo shoot at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. He was accused of giving her part of a Quaalude pill and champagne, taking her into a hot tub and having sex with her. Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts and faced up to life in prison. Instead, he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and the other counts were dismissed. The maximum sentence he could have faced was 50 years, although prosecutors had said at the time that the typical sentence was 16 months to three years in prison.

The report said Polanski reached a plea deal in 1978, but "was threatened with more prison time than previously agreed upon" and fled to France before he was formally sentenced." Which means to anyone who has ever covered criminal court cases or watched a season of Law & Order that the DA and the defense attorney worked out a plea agreement that the judge refused to go along with. Only the attorneys are involved in working out the details of a plea, but it doesn’t mean a damn until the judge approves it when it is presented in court. It’s totally up to the judge whether or not to accept a plea or order the case to trial, and obviously the judge, now deceased, did not accept it. That left the case open with no sentence yet entered or served.
According to AP, “Polanski's long-running legal saga gained new momentum late last year with the release of an HBO documentary, ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,’ which claimed misconduct by the now-deceased judge who handled 1977 case and reneged on a plea deal. With the new evidence presented in the film, Polanski sent a team of lawyers to court in Los Angeles seeking dismissal of the charges [which acknowledges there has been no decision or sentence in the case]. But despite acknowledging ‘substantial misconduct,’ [the report didn't say by whom] a judge ruled that Polanski would have to appear in person to pursue his motion [not unusual in the case of a fugitive]. Polanski's lawyers said he decided not to risk arrest on a fugitive warrant, and planned instead never to set foot in the United States.
The AP report quoted: "The big issue is whether it would have been better for him to negotiate a surrender when he had the chance," Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson said. "Now it has become an international incident and the district attorney may be under pressure not to negotiate a sweetheart deal. They've gone to all this trouble of getting Switzerland involved. It could make it harder on him."
Nevertheless, some believe the arrest of the 76-year-old Academy Award winner could lead to a resolution that will allow him to once again travel freely.
"I think he will finally get his day in court," criminal defense attorney Steve Cron said, "and there's a good chance his case will be dismissed or the sentence will be commuted to time served."
The report noted, “It's also not clear how hard authorities was searching for him. The Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement that U.S. authorities have sought Polanski's arrest around the world since 2005, although he has been a fugitive much longer. "There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. He rejected the idea that politics may have played a part in the action.”
The report also quotes US authorities as saying, “It was publicized on the Internet that he was going to be at the Zurich Film Festival. They were selling tickets online."

What that report tells me is that my assessment of the letter of the law was right on. It also tells me the US hasn't been looking for Polanski very hard in recent years and that something that happened in the last 4 years, even before the HBO program, caused his case to heat up. I suspect that, being small potatoes as a criminal, Polanski would have continued to fall through the cracks if not for all the new international cooperation to track down terrorists and other fugitives. Meanwhile, the appellate process can be long and is extremely political. Some European country a couple of years back refused to extradite some scum-bag who murdered his live-in and stuffed her in a trunk years earlier until the US promised not to seek the death penalty. There was a teenager here in Houston that killed a shop-owner in a botched holdup--on tape--and then fled to Israel on his folks' dough to claim protection against political prosecution. Didn't work-Israel bounced him back. But the process takes time, and lots of countries today like to thumb their noses at Uncle Sammy, especially when other European nations are officially requesting mercy for poor Polanski.


So I'm willing to bet money, marbles or chalk that Polanski is never extradited (unless Switzerland can trade him for a break on being forced to repatriate Nazi gold to the Jews who were killed in the theft of it). If the Swiss have the backbone to extradite him after the initial hoopla dies down, Polanski can probably get off with a sweetheart deal that puts it all behind him, gives him another 15 minutes in the spotlight, and frees up his travel arrangements. He might even get a new movie out of it. And if he does, good for him!!! It's the American Dream of fame and fortune by turning lemons into lemonade.

rufnek 09-28-09 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570323)
Maybe that's my error then. I may very well be mistaken in saying he was sentenced. I think I'm confusing the time he spent in jail doing the psyche eval as his actual sentence. If so I hope you're right about it being a "procedural impossibility" because I need to be able to believe that at least some of our justice system isn't corruptible.


This is why it can be so frustrating to talk to you sometimes. If you would just take the time to watch the great documentary perhaps you'd at least understand why people such as myself are extremely frustrated. All of your points are valid of course and yet there is so much more to the story. You tend to always try to demonstrate how cut and dried a situation is but in this instance I don't think that's the case.

I doubt you will though, because as you say, you don't really give a f*** about him in the first place. You should though, the trial (what there was of it) was laughable. And when the Prosecuting attorney himself states that Polanski should have left the country then that screams to me that something was terribly wrong with the whole proceeding.
Sorry, I don't get HBO. So I've never had access to the documentary. But you're right--I'd come closer to watching a documentary on how to cure athelete's foot than about Polanski--it would be more relevant.

So you see me demonstrating how cut and dried a situation is instead of bleeding over poor Polanski. I on the other hand hear everyone making wrong assumptions about how the court system works and the power of judges, and I try to point out the realities of the law. The simple truth is that if Polanski had remained for trial or accepted whatever sentence the judge handed down, this would have all been over decades ago. And hell, even Fatty Arbuckle got acquited of charges in his sex trial as did Errol Flynn way before the permissive 1960s-1970s.

The smart thing would have been for Polanski to ask for a trial by a Los Angeles jury and then bring in Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston and 50 other movie stars to testify about him and how he had been distraut all those years over the murder of his wife and the time spent in Nazi death camps, and by the end of the trial the star-struck jurors would have put the rape-vicitim in juvenile detention and lauded Polanski as Big Brother of the year for trying to save her soul. Even if it had gone against him, the documentary as described seems to give him good grounds for an appeal, so the system likely would have worked in his favor. And let's face it, he was the adult in the relationship; he really should have shown some level of moral responsibility and self-denial.

As it is, he's now front-page news for the first time in years. He could work out a sweetheart deal in advance, come back, shed a tear in court and have all his transgressions forgiven, and then get a star spot on every talk show couch for the next 2-3 months.

Powdered Water 09-28-09 12:19 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
We're definitely in agreement there. I doubt very much that he'll be extradited as well. And it angers me to think of how many more tax payers dollars are going to be wasted on however many more press conferences and whatever else is needed to properly demonstrate what a terrible man Polanski is.

Holden Pike 09-28-09 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570332)
Sorry, I don't get HBO. So I've never had access to the documentary. But you're right--I'd come closer to watching a documentary on how to cure athelete's foot than about Polanski--it would be more relevant.
The documentary premiered theatrically. Of course it has long since been available on DVD everywhere...even in Texas. Cable television not required.

*and spoiler alert: flip-flops in public showers and locker rooms will help avoid foot issues in the first place.


As it is, he's now front-page news for the first time in years. He could work out a sweetheart deal in advance, come back, shed a tear in court and have all his transgressions forgiven, and then get a star spot on every talk show couch for the next 2-3 months.
Yes, once again you've demonstrated that you know quite a lot about Polanski's specific public personality. He is such a media junkie, and always has been. He'll probably extradite himself back to Los Angeles, no matter what the Swiss decide, just so he can be on "Dancing with the Stars" next season. You may not remember, but back after his wife was savagely murdered and their unborn child ripped from her mutilated womb by Charles Manson's followers he did a full month of co-hosting "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In". What a ham!

jrs 09-28-09 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570359)
..Cable television not required.
It premiered on HBO back in June of 2008. So yeah, he did miss it when it aired on cable.

nebbit 09-28-09 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570250)
Jeepers, I didn't realize he was being extradited to The Vatican. Here I was thinking this was a late 1970s California legal matter. :indifferent:
That is soooo funny :nope:

Iroquois 09-28-09 09:34 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Forget it, everyone. It's Switzerland.

42ndStreetFreak 09-29-09 07:36 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Seems Polanski is going to stupidly fight an extradition.
Just get it over with, get it sorted out so you can move on, you foolish little man!

regnif 09-29-09 11:46 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
hmmmm, so i guess i wasnt the only one who thought that there was always something f***ed up about his look...

beelzebubbles 09-29-09 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570705)
Seems Polanski is going to stupidly fight an extradition.
Just get it over with, get it sorted out so you can move on, you foolish little man!
Ever been to jail?

jrs 09-29-09 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by beelzebubbles (Post 570829)
Ever been to jail?
Have you?

42ndStreetFreak 09-29-09 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by beelzebubbles (Post 570829)
Ever been to jail?
No.
Sure it's not meant to be too groovy though.
Polanski best not **** any 13 year old girls then...OOOPS! Too late!


Better to get this sorted, who says there will even be any prison time anyway, as the time he may serve will not be that long now and its better than facing the rest of your life (he's an old guy now) still as a fugitive. A film making fugitive who can't even collect his own Oscar no less.

Holden Pike 09-29-09 09:43 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I spent a night in a County lockup in Maryland. Barely a jail, definitely not prison. Still, it didn't encourage me to ever return.

mark f 09-29-09 10:02 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Yeah, I mean, maybe not in Maryland, but in Cali, guys are sleeping in the corrner in their own piss. Lovely and intoxicating.

42ndStreetFreak 09-29-09 10:05 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Polanski will never end up in a piss covered corner of anything. Come on.

mark f 09-29-09 10:23 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
That was obviously not my point. I did. How do you know he already didn't? It goes with the territory. Oh yes, oh yes, it does! Wrong! It does. (At least it did when they busted him and sent him to Psych. He was definitely in the system, just as I was.)

honeykid 09-29-09 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570924)
Polanski will never end up in a piss covered corner of anything. Come on.
Not without paying some serious money, anyway. ;)

FILMFREAK087 09-29-09 11:37 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
It seems Hollywood is collectively coming to the defense of Roman Polanski. It's like they're trying to prove how tolerant they are, yeah very tolerant of a fellow disconnected millionaire, movie maker. If Roman Polanski was the director of Critters, or Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them. Artistic achievements shouldn't factor in to judging one's actions. If he was a ditch-digger in Illinois, he would still be serving his original sentence.


Then on the flip side, this is another one of those cases that proves that children are more important than people in this society. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, rape is rape, but had his victim been a fully grown woman, or man, then the anger wouldn't be nearly as visceral. Like all these female teachers who have sex with teen students, I don't hear anyone bring up locking them up for life, or even hear of them being harassed near as much as male molesters, strange considering that male molesters are practically driven into seclusion.

Anyway, back on topic, I think that there is a disproportionate amount of both anger and sympathy for this man.

mark f 09-30-09 12:12 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Look, I really don't know what Polanski's "excuse" may have been. Maybe, as Iroquois mentioned, he just felt he was enveloped in the plot of Chinatown, this time on the Noah Cross Side. Booze and Drugs were involved. But I think the reason many felt for him up front was his relationship to the Manson victims, and then later on, he seemed to be another victim. I'm not saying that he wasn't the biggest abuser in the specifics of his own case because he was and wouldn't be in his situation if he hadn't instigated inappropriate activity. It's just that a lot of people, including the victim in this case, feel that he's been punished enough, especially based on the entirety of his life.

John McClane 09-30-09 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by jrs (Post 570361)
It premiered on HBO back in June of 2008. So yeah, he did miss it when it aired on cable.
Did you not even read the post above you?

beelzebubbles 09-30-09 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570887)
No.
Sure it's not meant to be too groovy though.
Polanski best not **** any 13 year old girls then...OOOPS! Too late!


Better to get this sorted, who says there will even be any prison time anyway, as the time he may serve will not be that long now and its better than facing the rest of your life (he's an old guy now) still as a fugitive. A film making fugitive who can't even collect his own Oscar no less.
Maybe if you had been to jail you might understand why Polanski is not all fired up to get on a big ol' jet airplane to sunny California. Closure isn't all it's cracked up to be especially when it means you become a guest of the state.

I knew a man who had done what Polanski confessed to and he went to jail for his crime. Twenty years later another fourteen year old girl accused him of rape again. Rather than face the ordeal of a trial or jail time he killed himself.

I don't feel particularly sorry for Polanski, but I understand his tremendous reluctance to head back to the US.

42ndStreetFreak 09-30-09 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 570932)
not without paying some serious money, anyway. ;)
:D

If Roman Polanski was the director of Critters, or Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them.
LMAO! Now this is right on the nail! Indeed you would not.

I have already stated that I think there were many circumstances that should be taken into consideration, and that the girl was no ordinary 13 yar old by anyone's standards.
But a crime is a crime...and yeah, if Polanski had only directed "Pirates" no one would give a crap.

I don't feel particularly sorry for Polanski, but I understand his tremendous reluctance to head back to the US.
The Director of "Jeepers Creepers" does okay.
And actually not wanting to go to prison is I'm sure a tremendous reluctance which is shared by any criminal. Hardly worth caring about through.

beelzebubbles 09-30-09 05:36 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I was just responding to this post of yours, which states that Polanski is 'stupid' for fighting his extradition.

Seems Polanski is going to stupidly fight an extradition.
Just get it over with, get it sorted out so you can move on, you foolish little man!
I am arguing that there are worse things than living in limbo and getting caught and allowing the system to eat you up is one of them.

42ndStreetFreak 09-30-09 09:54 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I sincerely doubt even Polanski thinks any American justice system will ever eat up an Oscar winning, world famous and lauded movie director.

I mean ****, he's got Whoopi Goldberg on his side...He's laughing.

TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_ 09-30-09 01:55 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
that 13 year old was clearly not in her right mind

honeykid 09-30-09 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 571045)
... I mean ****, he's got Whoopi Goldberg on his side...He's laughing.
You do know she's Satan, don't you?

Anyway, everytime I'm in this thread, this song starts playing in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa3h3pnhg8s&feature=PlayList&p=C9E25BD227D65447&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

beelzebubbles 09-30-09 09:55 PM

I love that song, but this is the song that keeps spinning around in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zgtxoAsFV8&feature=related

Harry Lime 09-30-09 10:55 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Speaking of extradition, Marc Emery was sent off to the U.S. to sit in prison for five years for selling marijuana seeds to Americans from Canada. Here in Vancouver I can walk into a variety of stores and buy them legally.

7thson 09-30-09 11:08 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
The legal thing is a farce and I agree that he should just be let go if you asked the legal leaning side of me. OTOH, I hope he goes to prison and gets raped. Simple enuff.

mark f 09-30-09 11:52 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
By a 13-year old girl?

hoshiko 09-30-09 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by FILMFREAK087 (Post 570943)

Anyway, back on topic, I think that there is a disproportionate amount of both anger and sympathy for this man.
Isn't it always disproportionate with the media/celebs? We see them disproportionately anyhow becaue of their success. They make excellent targets. Personally, aside from his work, I could give a **** about Roman Polanski's life/past. Who i really feel sorry for is the girl.
She said publicly that she just wanted to be over. Now if I had gone through something like that when i was 13, let' not get TOO personal now, then it would be like re-living the whole damn thing over again. once is enough, thanx.

Originally Posted by 7thson (Post 571194)
The legal thing is a farce and I agree that he should just be let go if you asked the legal leaning side of me. OTOH, I hope he goes to prison and gets raped. Simple enuff.
True Dat!

hoshiko 09-30-09 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by mark f (Post 571206)
By a 13-year old girl?
:nope:

7thson 09-30-09 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by mark f (Post 571206)
By a 13-year old girl?
No, a 13 inch man - sry, but no sympathy here.

honeykid 10-01-09 05:22 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
There's no way a 13 inch man is going to be able to overpower Roman Polanski. I know Roman's short, but even so.

rufnek 10-01-09 03:14 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Saw the sure-to-be recipient of Hollywood's next great humanitarian campaign on the news yesterday--a man who ran off with his pregnant 12-year-old step-daughter and her 11-year-old sister.

hoshiko 10-01-09 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 571305)
Saw the sure-to-be recipient of Hollywood's next great humanitarian campaign on the news yesterday--a man who ran off with his pregnant 12-year-old step-daughter and her 11-year-old sister.
The 13 Inch man is gonna have a field day!:yup:

7thson 10-02-09 01:28 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
You go David Letterman, you go.
:down:

Loner 10-02-09 11:52 AM

Prosecutor says he lied at Polanski's 1977 trial

Recently unsealed grand jury minutes detail 1977 sex assault

Caitlyn 10-05-09 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Loner (Post 571523)

This actually should read:

'Prosecutor says he lied about Polanski's trial'


lying at a trial and lying about a trial are two very different things...


But it doesn't surprise me at all that Wells was persuaded to embellish his story to make it more sensational for the documentary... what does surprise me is that so many seem to believe documentaries are the absolute truth... and that Roman Polanski deserves some kind if get out of jail free card based on the fact he's a brilliant director and has suffered during the Holocaust... as far as I'm concerned, Polanski is a pedophile... and should spend the remainder of his days in prison.

He took sex from me and my innocence. I don't think it occurred to him that someone wouldn't want sex with him. ~ Samantha Jane Gailey Geimer (25 July 2005)

42ndStreetFreak 10-05-09 04:26 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Hold on!

So this guy says he did a bad thing when Polanski seemed out of reach and none of it really mattered (A HBO/BBC documentary would only be shown in France??? I smell another lie right there)
And why is that an excuse anyway? "Hey, you can trust me now okay, i thought at the time I was only lying to the French". :suspicious:

But then, with Polanski suddenly having the chance to become a very real person sitting in an American Court, where what this guy says he did before is now going to REALLY matter...he says "I made it all up and did nothing wrong after all, so just lock Polanski away and let's not hear any more about it...I'm off to do some fishing. Thank you very much".

Like I said I have no time for people saying Polanski should be treated different because he simply IS Polanski...
But the circimstances at the time, the life the girl led and had been indoctrinated into before she was even alone in Polanski's house, and the double dealing in Court afterwards...mean that not all is cut and dried.
Punishment yes. What kind? We shall see.

But quite frankly this mealy mouthed prick can crawl back under his rock. He's a liar which ever way you look at it, and a State Prosecutor who admits he's a liar? No thanks.

Loner 10-05-09 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Caitlyn (Post 572178)
This actually should read:

'Prosecutor says he lied about Polanski's trial'


lying at a trial and lying about a trial are two very different things...
That's because the all truthful news changed the name of the article.

Here are the comparisons.

Prosecutor says he lied about Polanski's trial

Prosecutor says he lied at Polanski's 1977 trial

Read it fast before it changes again.

honeykid 10-11-09 09:00 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
"Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired" is on tomorrow (Monday) on BBC Four at 11:25pm, for those in the UK who want to see it.

Used Future 10-11-09 09:03 PM

Boo hoo, don't got BBC 4 :(

honeykid 10-11-09 09:19 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
You don't have digital? Not even freeview? No wonder you can afford lots of dvd's. :D

Used Future 10-11-09 09:29 PM

Nope, I don't have either. I only use the TV for dvd playback, and watch stuff like Peep Show (is anyone else loving the new series?) on 4OD.

brotee mukhopadhyay 10-23-09 04:59 AM

The Oscar-awarded Roman Polansky`s contribution to the history of film-making is undeniable. We have been impressed greatly by his film ‘The Pianist’. He is now 77 and has been arrested on a 32-years old charge of having sex with a child of 13. I do not find any reason to accept that he has little assessment on the meaning of having sex with a child when he was maturely 45. It is in the news that a deal of $500,000 with Samantha Geimer ( that unfortunate girl now) will settle up every thing.
Molestation and rape of women are the worst of the crimes committed by some people. It is not at all expected from a person of the height of Roman Polansky.

GodsOtherMonkey 10-23-09 06:16 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Well, this whole thing is going to delay post-production on The Ghost. That’s all I know.

Rosemary's Baby - Writer (screenplay), Director
Chinatown - Man with Knife, Writer (uncredited), Director
The Tenant - Trelkovsky, Writer (writer), Director
The Pianist - Director, Producer, Voice Dubbing

Without doubt, Roman made a very big mistake. He has paid for it for 32 years. Now he is an old man, and still paying for it.

The “victim”, on the other hand has profited her whole life from the event.
The whole thing is really a kind of sick joke. If he had done it in Arkansas, is would have been okay. So long as he traded a goat or something.


The Ghost:
"Polanksi will continue post-production work on this project during his incarceration" - production notes from IMDBPro.
Hee hee.

Slug 10-24-09 03:07 PM

Random thoughts about Roman Polansky.
This has been an interesting thread.
I freely admit that I don't know much about the man or the case other than what I have read here, or heard at school.
  • Wasn't he the husband of Sharon Tate? The murdered actress? I wonder if that screwed him up? Not that it would be an excuse to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
  • I'll bet he was pretty buzzed, and took his chances, like other older guys have done. But he got caught.
  • I get the feeling the consequences for his crime were light compared to what he could have got.
  • I don't know if he even knew her age, but 13 isn't even close to 18.
  • I think over the centuries, societies have come up with very severe penalties to discourage this sort of behavior, and to punish older males who engage in it, to protect our young females.
  • I'll bet as this whole thing has played out over the years, Roman was reminded by his buddies, that his celebrity, money, and connections would help him with this crime.

GodsOtherMonkey 10-24-09 04:38 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Wouldn’t it be funny is Samantha Geimer, who asked that these charges be dropped more than ten years ago, decided to sue the government of California, the government of Switzerland, and every media outlet reporting on this case.

She would be absolutely in her rights to do so. I think she has a case for a $100 million dollar lawsuit. There is an army of parasites feeding off of this thing. There is nothing lower on this earth than a lawyer. Well … a child rapist is lower.
Doh!

Caitlyn 07-12-10 11:14 AM

Roman Polanski won't be extradited to the U.S. for rape of a child

SoulInside 07-12-10 11:24 AM

Bah!

rufnek 07-12-10 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Caitlyn (Post 639673)
You know, that really doesn't bother me a bit. The Swiss have had him in custody since Sept. 26, far longer than his original 90-day sentence. Some of that time was spent in jail and some under house arrest, but either way, the state deprived him of his freedom.

He had gotten to the point where he thought he could travel anywhere in Europe despite the outstanding warrant. Now he knows better. I suspect it will curtail his future travel plans quite a bit, since the warrant is still out there because he hasn't resolved his legal problem in the US.

Meanwhile, the media rehashed through all the details of the crime and his guilty plea, escape, etc., reminding the world Polanski had to drug a 13-year-old to get laid.

At his age and the way he looks, we'll likely be reading his obit before much longer, and in addition to the movies he made they'll report again he admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old and fled the US to escape the law.

Thing is, nobody really knows what would have happened had Polanski stuck around for his final day in court those decades ago. Maybe he'd had to serve the last 48 days of his original sentence in jail or maybe he'd gotten probation, or the judge might have decided to hell with it and turned him loose. Either way, it would have been over and done with decades ago and essentially forgotten by most people by now.

Had he waived extradition, he could have played it out like a movie scene, expressing remorse and wanting to settle his debt to society. Could have made it sound like it was his own idea to come back and set things straight. What's the likelihood a man his age would get a long sentence after his victim and maybe even the old prosecutor testified on his behalf?

He likely could have gotten it all over with and maybe even some favorable publicity out of it instead of staying 9 months in Swiss custody. Seems Polanski has made one bad decision after another in this whole process.


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Movie Forums