Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Skeptic Guy]

This isn't skepticism or rationality, this is deliberate ignorance and deliberate spin.

Saying Polanski "drugged her" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since it's technically accurate but misleading.

Saying Polanski "raped her" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since you might have dropped the vital word "statutorily" by accident, and might not have known that there is no such offence on the California books.

Saying that she said "no" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since plenty of idiots have claimed it as a fact when it's merely an unsupported and contested allegation, so you could have been forgiven for thinking that it was actually an established and agreed-upon fact.

However insisting on running all of these errors together, after you have been corrected once already, indicates to me that you're not interested in truth or accuracy.

Spin? Spin? You have got to be kidding. He plead guilty to California Penal Code Section 261.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/261.5.html), which is equivalent to statutory rape. Please go ahead and read the penal code above, we'll wait.

Polanski admitted to providing her a part of a Quaalude, so that's not in dispute.

She said "no", you can choose to not believe her if you want, but I have to question why you would automatically assume a 13-year old would lie about it, while a 40-something old sexual predator wouldn't.

Wells was not the DA on the Polanski case. That was Gunson.

Wells indeed recanted the statement that he showed the judge the Oktoberfest photos and coached on a longer sentence. Upon recanting, he said that he gave the photos to a bailiff who in turn gave them to the judge.

Why he made those statements is a mystery. Has he already been censured by the bar for that? Isn't those lies also interfering with an ongoing case?


Polanski's lawyers claim they heard the judge wanted hm in prison and subsequently deported.


Of course not. But then the US should show Switzerland that everything went fine and dandy. The whole decades-long discussion shows that there have been quite some irregularities going on at the LA court in 1977.

Bolding mine.

I didn't say he was the DA on the case, he was a prosecutor uninvolved with the case at the time. Wells may be censured, especially if Polanski is ever brought back to the US to face justice, which, in my opinion, lends credence to his recantation.

Whether Polanski's lawyers heard that or not does not allow Polanski to make a run for it. That is not part of the California penal code. What is part of the code is "failure to appear" which will likely result in additional time, if or when he does appear before the bench.

If they, indeed, have a case of judicial maleficence, then Polanski needs to come back to the US and say his piece.

That makes sense... using a term you know is incorrect ("statutory rape") and then deciding that it would be even more fun to illegitimately drop the vital qualifier and just call it "rape" is just fine. Correcting the people who pull that stunt is "a deliberate attempt to muddy the water".



I think it's the other way around. People who want to exaggerate the seriousness of what Polanski did (which was serious enough in and of itself) love to cash in on the associations of the word "rape". They love the sound of the word "rape" so much they can't stop saying it, and if you tell them they aren't allowed say "rape" any more they react like a toddler who has had its favourite rattle taken away.

"Unlawful sex with a minor who may or may not have consented, and was certainly already sexually active" describes exactly the same event in more factual terms, but it's not nearly as much fun for them to say.

Again, bolding mine.

Ah, this explains much of your attitude toward this case and is despicable.

 

[NoScotsman]

Middle-aged men having sex with teenage girls is the plot of most European films. In this county, we have "To Catch a Predator" on MSNBC.

This, in part, explains why Europeans and Americans see this case differently.

 

[Vortigern99]

Spin? Spin? You have got to be kidding. He plead guilty to California Penal Code Section 261.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/261.5.html), which is equivalent to statutory rape. Please go ahead and read the penal code above, we'll wait.

I think you need to read it again; we'll wait. There is no use of the word "rape", statutory or otherwise, in that article. Your personal opinion that unlawful sex with a minor qualifies as rape of any description is not shared by the laws of California.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Spin? Spin? You have got to be kidding. He plead guilty to California Penal Code Section 261.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/261.5.html), which is equivalent to statutory rape. Please go ahead and read the penal code above, we'll wait.

Incidentally, two sixteen-year-olds having sex would also violate this section of the Code.
And, as has been pointed out, the word "rape" isn't found anywhere in the section.

 

[elgarak]

Spin? Spin? You have got to be kidding. He plead guilty to California Penal Code Section 261.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/261.5.html), which is equivalent to statutory rape. Please go ahead and read the penal code above, we'll wait.

As far as I can tell, this is the current (2010) version of the code. Are you sure that it was the same in 1977, when Polanski plead guilty?

 

[qayak]

No he hasn't. He was never even sentenced.

Wrong. Do you know why the Swiss let him go? Because he already served the agreed to sentence. The problem was, the judge wanted to change the plea deal and the Swiss agreed, as any civilized person would, that it was just wrong for the judge to do that.

Irrelevant.

Absolutely not. He wronged the victim and made amends to the satisfaction of the victim.

No.

Well. he served the agreed sentence so society was served, he paid the agreed amount to the victim, what more is there to justice.

Irrelevant.

Only if you have a screwed up definition of justice.

 

[qayak]

. . . actually its not really our business what you do with your convicted criminals. But can understand if some don't want that.

So then why should people have issues with China and Iran . . . it isn't our business what they do with their convicted criminals?

 

[DC]

So then why should people have issues with China and Iran . . . it isn't our business what they do with their convicted criminals?

peoples should have issues with them, but as states, what do we do against that? nada

 

[ixolite]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

First of all, keep in mind that Polanski himself made a statement about how "everyone loves to **** little girls". (I put a link in a post earlier in the thread). So he doesn't seem to be any more or less 'classy' than Polanski is.

Secondly, I really do have to question just why so many european politicians and members of the artistic community are bending over backwards to support Polanski. He did something that was incredibly wrong, and he fled justice. If people in europe are going to go out on a limb and consider him a 'national treasure' and condemn the U.S. for trying to get him sentenced, then I think Europe deserves a little scorn.

Middle-aged men having sex with teenage girls is the plot of most European films. In this county, we have "To Catch a Predator" on MSNBC.

This, in part, explains why Europeans and Americans see this case differently.

What the hell? No, the general european public are not rape-apologists. Just because we have some ****tards amongst us, doesn't make us all ****tards. How would you like it, if we take the Polanski-support of i.e. 'It wasn't rape-rape'-Whoopie and Woody Alan as general US-support of him?

Oh, and nothing of this would have happened, if that D.A. and judge would have made their job in the first place. Offering a deal to a childrapist of 90 days (!!!) not even in prison, even letting him out of the country and letting him flee instead of putting him behind bars without bail is *********** disgraceful.

P.S. In case you missed it, I am pretty pissed that that childrapist is free again.

 

[Segnosaur]

He served his time....

Ummm... no he didn't. We won't know until he actually gets sentenced.

...and settled a civil suit with the victim.

First of all, as another poster pointed out, the fact that they settled a civil suit is irrelevant when discussing criminal matters.

Secondly, while there was supposedly a settlement, its possible that Polanski never actually paid what he was supposed to. (This is from last year, so I don't know if there were any updates)

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/movies/05arts-POLANSKICIVI_BRF.html
...Roman Polanski was to pay at least $500,000 to Samantha Geimer, the victim in his 1977 child-sex case, under a settlement in a civil suit...It remained unclear whether the settlement was ever paid, though Ms. Geimer was still trying to collect as of 1996

Was justice served? The victim seems to think so.

I don't remember the victim ever claiming "justice was served". She has said she has forgiven him and wants the case dropped so she can avoid the publicity, but that's not the same thing as "justice being served".

 

[Pardalis]

I don't remember the victim ever claiming "justice was served".

Besides, that's not her call anyway.

 

[Segnosaur]

Wrong. Do you know why the Swiss let him go? Because he already served the agreed to sentence. The problem was, the judge wanted to change the plea deal and the Swiss agreed, as any civilized person would, that it was just wrong for the judge to do that.

Once again...

There was no "agreed to" sentence. If you read the court transcripts, Polanski is told outright that he can be liable for more than the time spent during his psychiatric evaluation. When he's asked whether he understands that he might be liable for more jail time, Polanski answers "yes".

The judge was not bound by "time spent getting evaluated is your complete sentence", nor is the judge required to follow any of the recommendations by the prosecutors or defense.

 

[Darat]

Wrong. Do you know why the Swiss let him go? Because he already served the agreed to sentence. The problem was, the judge wanted to change the plea deal and the Swiss agreed, as any civilized person would, that it was just wrong for the judge to do that.

...snip...

That is not what the official statement gives as the reason they refused extradition.

 

[SezMe]

And I really do struggle to understand why the USA did not make the documents available.

I really do struggle with your struggle. As noted, the documents are sealed. That means they are not available for just anybody who wants to see them, including the Swiss.

You have rightly emphasized in this thread the need to follow laws and precedent in this matter. Well, not giving away sealed documents is doing that very thing.

Can the documents be unsealed? I don't know, but I would guess there are court proceedings that could lead to that end. Since the Swiss are the ones who want secret documents, it would seem to me the next step for them is to go to the US courts and make their case why unsealing the documents serves the end of justice. Or at least meets the criteria for such a step.

 

[SezMe]

Well you are right. Reading your comment I am not so sure it makes any sense whatsoever that they keep the document sealed...

See my post above. Whether someone gets embarrassed or whatever is NOT the basis for unsealing documents. It makes sense to keep them sealed because they are, in fact, sealed. That is the de facto situation. To overturn it requires more than someone thinking it makes sense.

 

[Darat]

I really do struggle with your struggle. As noted, the documents are sealed. That means they are not available for just anybody who wants to see them, including the Swiss.

You have rightly emphasized in this thread the need to follow laws and precedent in this matter. Well, not giving away sealed documents is doing that very thing.

Can the documents be unsealed? I don't know, but I would guess there are court proceedings that could lead to that end. Since the Swiss are the ones who want secret documents, it would seem to me the next step for them is to go to the US courts and make their case why unsealing the documents serves the end of justice. Or at least meets the criteria for such a step.

I think you have forgotten it is the USA that applied for extradition, not the Swiss.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't know what the fascination is with the word "rape". Some forumites here go through the most amazing mental gymnastics to justify using the term "rape", unqualified, to describe what Polanski did, and they use it at every possible opportunity.

That's a mirror you're looking at Kevin. Coming from someone who makes bizarre leaps to turn a plate of buffalo wings into mass murder, this is hysterical. You're the Nadia Comăneci of child molester apologists.

Use of drugs + 13 year old victim always equals rape.

Good luck with that dismount.

 

[drkitten]

I really do struggle with your struggle. As noted, the documents are sealed. That means they are not available for just anybody who wants to see them, including the Swiss.

The Swiss are under no obligation to respect the decision of a US court. Or of a California court.

Indeed, that's the whole purpose of extradition proceedings, is to give the Swiss all the information they want so that they will agree to respect any particular decision of interest.

You have rightly emphasized in this thread the need to follow laws and precedent in this matter. Well, not giving away sealed documents is doing that very thing.

Can the documents be unsealed? I don't know, but I would guess there are court proceedings that could lead to that end. Since the Swiss are the ones who want secret documents, it would seem to me the next step for them is to go to the US courts and make their case why unsealing the documents serves the end of justice.

The Swiss did their part. The Swiss went to the State Department and said "without those documents, Polanski will not be extradited." That's what they're supposed to do, under the treaty. It's neither necessary nor appropriate for the Swiss to interact directly with the relevant state court -- in fact, it would probably violate US law for them to do so (foreign relations are explicitly a federal issue).

At that point, the ball is in the US Federal government's, er, court,... to go to the relevant courts and make their case why unsealing the documents serves the end of justice. And they've got at least as strong an argument as the Swiss have. Without those documents, Polanski will walk.

 

[drkitten]

That is not what the official statement gives as the reason they refused extradition.

It's pretty close. The reason given was not that "the judge wanted to change the plea deal," but that the California courts couldn't prove to the Swiss satisfaction that the judge did NOT want to change the plea deal.

Here's the quote: "it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski had already served the sentence to which he was condemned at the time."

 

[Nogbad]

This is a criminal case, not a civil one - her wishes are completely irrelevant.

That seems a tad ironic.

First they came for the child rapists....

then they came for holders of sealed bank accounts.....

Actually Roman isn't poor, couldn't he have just hired Jackson's lawyer?