Subscribehad she been of age it's not clear that it would have crossed the line from aggressive seduction to rape.Really? Huh! I'll keep that in mind next time I have some quaaludes and a girl who keeps telling me to keep away and to stop.
I know that there was judicial misconduct in his trialCan someone explain this to me? Because googling polanski judicial misconduct reveals things like this, which don't seem to back this claim up to me.
(1) 1977: Roman Polanski rapes someone.How is that "judicial misconduct"?
(2) He pleads guilty. The trial is over.
(3) He flees the country before sentencing.
(4) 2008: A soon-to-be-released movie is about to claim that in 1997, twenty years after the rape and guilty plea and end of the trial, the judge said that Polanski could only return to the US if his sentencing were televised.
(5) The chief press officer of the court tells the director that this claim is untrue, and demands that it be removed from the film.
(6) The director removes the claim from the film.
(7) The chief press officer sends off some emails to press outlets, saying that the claim is untrue, and that he got the director to remove it from the film.
The statute of limitations usually refers to the time within which a charge must be brought, not the time within which a defendant must be arrested or tried. There is the notion of "speedy trial," but that can be waived and usually it is deemed waived when the accused flees and thus avoids trial.Additionally, he didn't flee and avoid trial. The trial ended over thirty years ago, with him being found guilty. He fled and avoided sentencing.
Flunkie, you really ought tomediareport, you really ought to notice that I did not make any claim as to why he fled. I was responding to someone who said "flee and avoid trial". I was simply pointing out that he did not "avoid trial"; he has already been found guilty. What he has thus far avoided is sentencing.
utterly misleading mantra, "OMGZ HE RAPED A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL FAIL!"In what way is it misleading?
I don't carry feelings of anger towards Polanski. I even have some sympathy for him, what with his mother dying in a concentration camp and then his wife Sharon Tate being murdered by Charles Manson's people and spending the last 20 years as a fugitive. Life was hard for him, just like it was for me. He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life.Well there you go then. Except I'm pretty sure it won't end for a few more years yet (how old is he, 76?).
Even now, so-called experts are using my situation on TV talk shows to push their own points, which have nothing to do with how I feel. Twenty years ago everything said about me was horrible. But these days it's not fashionable to bad-mouth the victim. Now I'm all ready to stand up and defend myself and everyone is saying "oh, you poor thing." But I'm not a poor thing. And I can't oblige everyone by becoming freaked out and upset just to make things sound more interesting. If Polanski comes back—fine. That would at least end it. It will never be over until that happens.
That's false. Polanski testified that he had understood her to be thirteen years old.How old did Polanski think she was?Nobody knows.
the prosecutor's statements that the whole thing should be droppedThe closest I heard the prosecutor come to saying that the whole thing should be dropped was that he wasn't surprised Polanski had fled.
prosecutorial misconductNothing in the film suggested prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, it was clear that the prosecutor agreed that the judge was misbehaving in the pre-sentencing period, and in fact he helped the defense get the judge dismissed because of it.
Good eye, HP LaserJet P10006. I intentionally chose the word "thinks" because I believe it is not at all uncommon for a victim of a non-stranger related rape to be confused about what she wants, particularly in a high profile case.She doesn't sound confused. I think what you said is pretty sexist "oh the sweet innocent girl just doesn't know what's best for her. Since she doesn't agree with us, it must because she's all mixed up and confused"
Horseshit. That's not what I meant and you know that's not what I meant.Part of its purpose is to give me a sense of justice being done.translation - we must get revenge on that fucker
If Roman Polanksi were anyone else, I don't think we'd be having this argument.Normally I find the FTFY thing super annoying, but in this case, that is more or less exactly what I meant to say, please excuse the horrible typo and lack of proof-reading.
If it were anyone else but Roman Polanksi, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
FTFY
A number of people seem to want to dwell on the fact that Polanski admitted to having sex (from his point of view) with Geimer, as if his admission as part of a plea bargain was somehow further evidence of his depraved character. I would have thought that a denial would be more of an indictment, but it seems that perhaps if he had denied it all and the case had collapsed he would be better off for it. After all it was just her word against his.Well, I don't understand this attitude that denying it would have been more of an indictment than admitting it, unless you're already presuming that he did it. But in any case:
Roman Polanski served his time. He finished his sentence as it was required by law.Roman Polanski never even received a sentence. He served 42 days for psychiatric evaluation as part of pre-sentencing. This was less than half of the ninety days that he was to serve for psychiatric evaluation as part of pre-sentencing.
No matter how you feel about Polanski, it's pretty clear that Rittenband is a villain.No matter how you feel about Rittenband, the claim that Roman Polanski finished his sentence as it was required by law -- and in fact even the claim that Roman Polanski was sentenced -- is false.
He presided over the case of Mr. Polanski, the film director who fled to France in 1978 rather than appear for sentencing after he had been convicted of having unlawful intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.If he's running from one crazy judge, how does that explain the 1994-2009 period?
Despite his vow to sit on the bench until Mr. Polanski returned, Judge Rittenband stepped down in 1989, saying, "I can't wait that long." But he added, "I'll quote a Gilbert and Sullivan opera: 'I've got him on my list.' "
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.The reason is that our system of appeals courts is based on error correction, and not on re-trying cases at each level. This is common to virtually all court systems based on Anglo-American law, including New Zealand's. If an actually innocent person was convicted, you could probably show some error in the process. Regardless, it's a great reason to not have any executions.
Frémaux again: "No, we're not denouncing America here -- the American justice system must take its course, no one disputes that. No one is saying Roman is above the law, no one's saying that because he's rich and famous and a brilliant cineaste he shouldn't face justice. We're denouncing the form -– the fact that he was arrested on his way to an international festival."Won't somebody think of the real victim here -- the Zurich Film Festival?
The 43-year old man didn't know she was 13? Yeah, that's a meaningful defense(<>It's not a defense that Polanski made. He testified that he understood her to be thirteen years old.
This is not really relevant to this particular situation."shame on France and the other countries who shielded him."My understanding is this is the law in France. I'm reminded of this oft quoted exchange:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Whether France should have extradition laws; especially with a country that condones torture; is I'm sure a debate with all sorts of nuances that seem lacking from this flat out declaration.Right, because Jimmy Carter was torturing Iraqis left and right, as we all know.
This is exactly what I was talking about.It doesn't seem to me to be remotely similar to what you were talking about. You were talking about the need to apply the law equally to all; you were talking about the United States torturing people.
The sentencing Judge then makes press saying he's going to throw out the sentencing terms of the agreement (which was timed served yes?) and instead put the guilty party in gaol; possibly for something closer to the maximum sentence of several decades instead of the common sentence of 16 months to 3 years.Where did you get this information from? It's not what the movie portrayed.
It should have ended three decades ago, when Polanski pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He would have been given credit for time served while undergoing an evaluation and placed on probation.and
But Polanski fled the country before sentencing, fearing the judge would back out of the plea bargain and sentence him to prison.
Every time the case resurfaces her wounds reopen.Essentially saying that if Polanski wouldn't have ran perhaps she wouldn't have been so wounded so often by the courts.
It should have ended three decades ago, when Polanski pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He would have been given credit for time served while undergoing an evaluation and placed on probation.I don't think the implications of that are entirely accurate, either. As I understand it, the judge was saying that he would sentence Polanski to prison. For 48 days.
But Polanski fled the country before sentencing, fearing the judge would back out of the plea bargain and sentence him to prison.
That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarified Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”Polanski Case Exposes Divisions in France
Still, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director’s defense.
Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed “stupefaction” with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”
Septuagenarian child rapist and fugitive Oscar-winner in the news, Roman Polanski is stewing in a Swiss jail while celebrities including Woody Allen, known for his high morals, protest his possible extradition to the U.S.The Roman Polanski-Seattle Connection
Well, it gets better, the prosecutor at the heart of the allegations of judicial misconduct has recanted his interview with the documentarians.Huh - this guy (David Wells) was shown in the movie maybe something like four times, briefly. I didn't even realize he was a prosecutor - I thought he was a cop. Meanwhile, there was another prosecutor who was interviewed extensively, and who was definitely portrayed as being the prosecutor, Roger Gunson. There were no allegations in the movie of prosecutorial conduct against Gunson, and in fact Gunson helped get the judge dismissed during post-sentencing.
[Wells had] been the one who first caught the case, and he’d interviewed the victim, her mother, her brother, and Polanski himself. Because that kind of involvement would have made him a witness if the case went to trial (which lawyers, and especially prosecutors must avoid), Wells was taken off the case and Roger Gunson was assigned.
« Older "The old distinction between mosquito territo... | September 22, 1939:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by caddis at 7:01 AM on September 27 [3 favorites]