• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

nightwind said:
Absolutely ridiculous arresting Polanski for this after 32 years.

Good grief.

Laws in the U.S. on this are totally ludicrous anyway, and not based upon research. The woman involved has said she doesn't want him to serve time, and I doubt there was any great harm done here.

With all of the criminals running rampant, some prosecutor arrests a guy for what sounded like consensual sex, 32 years ago? Some kind of statute of limitations has to apply somehow to this. If not it should. Please, this prosecutor must be some kind of moron.

I have a very strong feeling that Polanski will be free before long, and he should be. Watch and see. Not all justice systems are as stupid as the U.S.

Geeezzzzz.
Click to expand...
The support Polanski is getting from the entertainment industry is due to the fact that he's an acclaimed director. It's pathetic.

But then there's the real stalwarts -- staunch apologists for sexual violence against children no matter the circumstance; no matter if the perp is a celebrity. Such as nightwind.
 
How about if he were not a celebrity? The story would be the same?

I am sure nobody would make this noise after 32 years if he were an average guy.
 
let`s talk said:
How about if he were not a celebrity? The story would be the same?

I am sure nobody would make this noise after 32 years if he were an average guy.
Click to expand...

That's true, no one would make a documentary trying to get him cleared if he weren't a celebrity.

Oh wait, you were referring to something else?

Keep in mind, this response is a backlash to an attempt to clear him. No one in the world all of a sudden decided it's time to go after Roman Polanski. His _supporters_ brought it up, so don't blame those responding for making it a story.
 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/reaction_to_roman_polanski.html

Anne Applebaum at the Wash. Post continues to dig a deeper hole for herself with her defence of Polanski.

I will, however, note the disturbing number of overtly anti-semetic remakrs in the commentary. She's may be an idiot but the nastyness of the anti-semetic remarks -- as opposed to those calling her out for being a moron -- is very sad.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
Or be able to plea-bargain to reduce the charges as he did?
Click to expand...

I suspect, as I think was suggested earlier in this thread, the facts admitted in the girl's testimony may have contributed to the prosecution's willingness to accept a plea-bargain.
 
zooterkin said:
I suspect, as I think was suggested earlier in this thread, the facts admitted in the girl's testimony may have contributed to the prosecution's willingness to accept a plea-bargain.
Click to expand...

The girl said 'no'. The fact that it may not have been energetic enough (though, 'no' is 'no') to suit the prosecution was because she had been drugged. I agree that it was the safer course to go, but believe that if it had been someone of last stature, they would have gone after the rape conviction.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I'm curious, though. Did Polanski have a reputation as having a thing for young girls? I hadn't heard that until now; but it has no bearing on anything as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
He dated Nastassja Kinski when she was 15, around 1975, however it's possible that this was not reported until 1979, when she was working on Tess.
Click to expand...

Not only that, one of the 'issues' with his case surrounds pictures taken of Polanski "partying" with what appear to be undearge girls while he was in Europe. Granted, it is impossible to determine someone's age simply from photos, and its quite possible that the girls were over 18; however, their appearance suggests that he had a thing for younger girls.
 
headscratcher4 said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/reaction_to_roman_polanski.html

Anne Applebaum at the Wash. Post continues to dig a deeper hole for herself with her defence of Polanski.

I will, however, note the disturbing number of overtly anti-semetic remakrs in the commentary. She's may be an idiot but the nastyness of the anti-semetic remarks -- as opposed to those calling her out for being a moron -- is very sad.
Click to expand...

Most people are just calling her out on her being just plain wrong.
There are some pretty virulent anti-semites there, but their writing style so similar that I suspect an army of sock puppets at work.

I can imagine someone making the mistake of defending Polanski initially. Without looking too deep into the case.
Long ago, May not have known her age. Victim doesn't want him to go to jail and has forgiven him. Traumatic childhood. Wife killed. Great director. He's old and fragile. Etc.

But once you look into the case, his behaviour is inexcusable. She should acknowledge that. Her stance defies all logic and even an idiot can see it.
 
zooterkin said:
I've already pointed out THREE TIMES in this thread... that documentary is based, at least in part, on incorrect facts. One of the people interviewed in the documentary has since admitted that his statements were lies.
Click to expand...
Well, he clearly has lied at least once; how are we to tell which time, though?
Click to expand...

Your right, he COULD be lying right now. The motivation to hide or minimize his past mistakes would be a powerful one.

Either way, Polanski's lawyers (and the documentary) were basing their claims of judicial misconduct in part on the statements of an individual who was willing to lie. Doesn't make for a very 'air tight' case.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
The girl said 'no'. The fact that it may not have been energetic enough (though, 'no' is 'no') to suit the prosecution was because she had been drugged. I agree that it was the safer course to go, but believe that if it had been someone of last stature, they would have gone after the rape conviction.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the fact that the girl not only recognised the quaalude, but had taken them before, and had had sex at least twice before. While you and I may think this does not make any difference to what Polanski did, I can see his defence attourney making hay with that sort of admission.
 
There's an article about the legal aspects of the case in this morning's L.A. Times.

Some interesting details I've not seen elsewhere:
L.A. Times said:
Under the terms of the deal, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Judge Laurence Rittenband would determine the sentence. Rittenband sent the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day "diagnostic evaluation" that he said would "enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision."

Prison officials released Polanski after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. Rittenband labeled the prison report "a whitewash" and said he planned to send Polanski back to prison for an additional 48 days if he voluntarily agreed to deportation. Informed of this by his attorney, Polanski left the country, seeking refuge in France.
Click to expand...
 
Segnosaur said:
Not only that, one of the 'issues' with his case surrounds pictures taken of Polanski "partying" with what appear to be undearge girls while he was in Europe. Granted, it is impossible to determine someone's age simply from photos, and its quite possible that the girls were over 18; however, their appearance suggests that he had a thing for younger girls.
Click to expand...

They could even have been 15, which was apparently the age of consent in Germany at the time; so, not underage for Germany, but underage for California.
 
zooterkin said:
I was referring more to the fact that the girl not only recognised the quaalude, but had taken them before, and had had sex at least twice before. While you and I may think this does not make any difference to what Polanski did, I can see his defence attourney making hay with that sort of admission.
Click to expand...


Maybe...if the girl were 18...but she was 13 and completely and legally incapable of consent under any circumstances. She could have been -- please excuse me here -- ther randiest little Lolita to come down the pike, she could have been a drug pusher and a old hand at kiddie-porn pictures, and the law (rightly) states she can not give consent.

Now, back in the 70s, the case might have been a little harder because attitudes about rape and the no-ness of "no" and the imateriality of much of the victems past hadn't settled in. However, I don't think there is a lawyer anywhere today who would try to defend an 44 year old man with the argument that a 13 yearold had a knowing attitude about drugs and sex and so was somehow somewhat responsible for her own violation.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Maybe...if the girl were 18...but she was 13 and completely and legally incapable of consent under any circumstances. She could have been -- please excuse me here -- ther randiest little Lolita to come down the pike, she could have been a drug pusher and a old hand at kiddie-porn pictures, and the law (rightly) states she can not give consent.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that it meant that she gave consent? And wasn't that exactly the charge to which he did plead guilty?

Now, back in the 70s, the case might have been a little harder because attitudes about rape and the no-ness of "no" and the imateriality of much of the victems past hadn't settled in. However, I don't think there is a lawyer anywhere today who would try to defend an 44 year old man with the argument that a 13 yearold had a knowing attitude about drugs and sex and so was somehow somewhat responsible for her own violation.
Click to expand...
That was rather my point, though I clearly didn't make it well. He was tried in the 1970s,when the things I mentioned would have been used by the defence, not today.
 
He doesn't interest me. He's a child rapist. I'm not giving him any more attention than this. I don't know why anyone, aside from the law, would.
 
slingblade said:
He doesn't interest me. He's a child rapist. I'm not giving him any more attention than this. I don't know why anyone, aside from the law, would.
Click to expand...

I think we're partly trying to understand why he was effectively nearly let off, at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom