Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Ziggurat]

it was claimed that he was promised that the 42 days were all he had to serve.

Promised by who?

 

[Aepervius]

I have no time to asnwer to everything with precision but :
1) msot of us arguying in this thread could not care less if polanski paid or did not paid geimer but are arguying abotu Swiss request on docs. it is a red herring to continue to pursue this in THIS thread, when there is alread another thread discussing this

2)"Ummm... "usually a law"? Can you point to whether such a law actually exists in Switzerland?" Such law exists in france and in germany. it make PERFECT sense that such a law exists in a country which do not have english as first language. How the heck would you feel if the USA started making statement in chinese, without *ANY* translation ? Comon show a bit of common sense. In non english speaking country, it is usually law to provide any statement or official docs at least in the local language.

3) "The person that had made the statement was described as a "Ministry spokesman". Just how many government spokesmen do you know who actually keep their jobs after more or less "making things up"?"

A *LOT* if the voter (in case of direct vote) or the superior (in case of nomination) don't think it is important. Again I will ask you a bit of common sense. How high do you think this story rate to the average swiss voter ? Really... You are really arguying for the sake of finding *ANY* way to pause that decision in a bad light.

"You're right, they are not binding. And of course the Swiss can completely change their mind at any point after that statement."

Swiss is not THE BORG. Swiss is not a COLLECTIVE. That guy made a statement which was deemed acceptable. Then the local lawyer looked more carefully and decide to request another doc. Ever heard of changing opinion after having EXPERT looking at something ?

"But to me, it is at least suggestive that the decision to release Polanski may not have been based on a true desire for the document, but on simply using it as a red herring to hide their true motives."

The conspiracy theory forum is the other way.

"Soooo... that magic document gave them the ability to tell the future? Amazing thing that. Can it also predict next week's lottery numbers?"

Strawman.

"Once again... regardless of what was in the document, the ultimate decision for what Polanski would receive for sentencing would ultimately be up to the judge. Even if the document stated that the prosecutor suggested Polanski should be released immediately and given a medal, and be given an honorary position teaching acting to public school girls, the judge was under no requirement to follow that recommendation for sentencing. The judge had the option of sentencing Polanski to time served, a full 90 days, 2 years, or anything in between."

So, the Swiss were basically trying to predict the future with that magic document."

That *ALL* hinge on YOU assuming the judge DID NOT really have a certain agreement. That also HINGE on you KNOWING what's in the docs. You don't.

And also do you really think the Swiss had a PSYCHIC ability to see that the USA would not unseal the docs to get polanski ? get real, youa ccuse other of seeing the future use straweman argument, but your own argument hinge on the swiss knowing in advance that the USA would refuse ??? Jeez. Read between the line on what you wrote.

"The issue is why they requested it. The reason why they requested it seems a bit suspicious. The assumption by many is that the only reason they requested it is to give them some excuse to squash the extradition request."

No the issue is that the USA refused the docs, and now a lot of people SECOND guess the swiss, while at the same time being UTTERLY blind at the refusal of the USA to provide the docs.

Remember causality ?

Causality is :
(1)USA request extradition->(2)Swiss request docs->(3)USA refuse docs->(4)swiss therefore refuse extradition.

It is clear for anybody with common sense that the reason the extradition failed is at (3), not at (2).

"Once again... he was never sentenced. You can't tell 'remaining sentence' if the sentence has never been given. Unless of course you can predict the future."

And ocne again this HINGE on the judge not making a huge error of promising to respect amn agreement or even being the author of the agreement itself. Which you don't know.

"Think the Swiss should apply for the Million Dollar Challenge?"

After you do. After all the causality law seem to be broken around you.


"Yup, they can request anything they want. However, its possible that such requests can be made not because they truly need the information, but because they simply want to stonewall the extradition request. That appears to be the case here."

The USA REFUSED to provide the docs, and you say the swiss stonewalled the extradition ? Ever heard of causality ? The USA could have provided the doc, redacted if necessary. they refused. THAT is the causality.

"Yeah, sentence length is important. But the sentence had never been determined. Unless you can predict the future with that magic document."

Again HINGE on the judge not making an error.

Or maybe that magic document has some sort of mind-control technology built in.

Or maybe you are spouting non sense as you don't know what's in that doc.

As long as you are unwilling to recognize that CAUSALY what made the extradition shatter is the USA refusing to provide some docs, there is no discussion possible. I can discuss only with people accepting the usual law of causality. .

At point (2) the extradition was still ongoing and was not stopped. If at (3) the USA *HAD* provided the docs the process could have continued. But at point (3) the extradition stopped and the only reason is the refusal of providing the requested docs.

 

[DC]

Promised by who?

the judge from 77. and this was confirmed in court, by the new judge, and this was expected to be proven by the requested document.

 

[Aepervius]

Promised by who?

It is the problem , isn't it ?

Some say it was only promised by the DA and the judge don't have to respect.

Some say the judge made the error to promise it himself agaisnt the victim, DA wish, and only saw the political error he made later.

The things is, apparently , seemingly, the doc showing the veracity of a proposal or the other are sealed.

Although I think the highest probability is the first proposal (DA promising) at this moment there is no way to exclude the less probable proposition (judge blunder).

 

[Aepervius]

the judge from 77. and this was confirmed in court, by the new judge, and this was expected to be proven by the requested document.

I missed that completely. I thought it was still pretty much still in the gray zone of word agaisnt word ?

 

[jimtron]

Promised by who?

From this LA Times article (Gunson is the prosecuting attorney, Dalton was Polanski's lawyer).

Judge Rittenband ordered Polanski to undergo a 90-day psychiatric study at the state prison in Chino. Both Gunson and Dalton understood that this would be Polanski's punishment, according to declarations they signed recently.

Polanski reported to Chino on Dec. 16. He was released after 42 days.

The psychiatric report, made public in a recent appellate court filing, echoed the probation report.

"There was no evidence that the offense was in any way characterized by destructive or insensitive attitude toward the victim," wrote Philip S. Wagner, Chino's chief psychiatrist. "Polanski's attitude was undoubtedly seductive, but considerate. The relationship with his victim developed from an attitude of professionalism, to playful mutual eroticism. . . . Polanski seems to have been unaware at the time that he was involving himself in a criminal offense, an isolated instance of naivete, unusual in a mature, sophisticated man."

Rittenband called the report a "whitewash."

He met in chambers with Gunson and Dalton on Jan. 30 to discuss the sentencing two days later. He told them he wanted Polanski to do more time in prison -- and then leave the country, according to the attorneys' declarations. Rittenband said he would send him back to Chino for 48 days to complete the 90-day stint, then release him, if Polanski agreed to voluntary deportation. If not, he would face a longer prison term.

Dalton relayed that to his client. Polanski left the lawyer's office, drove to LAX and bought the last seat on the next British Airways flight to London.]

 

[Ziggurat]

the judge from 77. and this was confirmed in court, by the new judge

No it wasn't. According to your own links, the records that Polanski's lawyers argued would confirm this remain under seal.

Look, if you want to argue that the Swiss courts were right to let this child rapist off on a technicality, then go ahead. Sometimes upholding the process is more important than the particular outcome. But don't even pretend that the actual outcome here is in any way admirable. And don't even pretend that the Swiss aren't being snakes in the grass either. The whole "reasonable expectation" crap in their official statement stinks to high heaven. The argument that since he got away with being a fugitive from justice for so long, he could reasonably expect to continue to get away with it, and therefore we should let him get away with it, is just FUBAR. That's not a principle that deserves any respect.

But hey, Polanski's got the right politics, so never mind his pedophilia.

 

[jimtron]

More on misconduct by the judge (according to both the defense and prosecution): http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-cite-new-allegations-of-judicial-misconduct/

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I try not to read any of Kevin_Lowe's posts in threads dealing with sexual abuse of children.

Then why should anybody read your posts, if they are selectively ignoring relevant information?

I think it's reasonable to expect a participant in an ongoing discussion to read what other people are saying, and avoid needlessly repeating mistakes that have already been corrected. You don't have to live up to that expectation, but if everyone behaved like you then discussion would be impossible.

I call Polanski a rapist because that's what he is, regardless of what California law has to say on the matter, and regardless of what he has been convicted of. I've seen enough evidence to be convinced that what he actually did is rape. Rape rape not "just" statutory rape.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

(Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking-Glass)

Whether you like it or not, we as a society have well-defined rules about which crime is which. Occasionally those rules have holes, of course, but you haven't shown any evidence whatsoever to indicate that Polanski avoided a rape charge by means of such a loophole, rather than avoiding a rape charge because what he admitted to doing is not considered rape, and what he was accused of doing could not be proven.

All you apologists should ask yourself if you would be going to the same lengths to justify a very strained interpretation of extraditions law were the subject of it NOT a famous and talented film director.

If the anal-rapist pedophile was a black labourer with a previous assault conviction for example.

Describing Polanksi as an anal rapist is inaccurate. He's an alleged anal rapist, to be sure, however he denies that allegation and more importantly the forensic evidence flatly contradicts the girl's claim that she was anally raped as she described.

I'm trying to figure out if you guys are being deliberately obtuse to make a point or not. We are defining the term unlawful sexual intercourse and the term "statutory rape".

However, what I say that California's statute to which Polanski plead guilty to is the same as the definition of "statutory rape" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape). Statutory rape is unlawful sex with a minor, whether with consent or without. See, you can define it without using the word "rape".

So why not just say "unlawful sex", which is the actual crime he pleaded guilty to? The only reason I can see is that you prefer the more inflammatory term that has "rape" in it because you like saying "rape".

Add to it the drugs and the fact that she said "no" and I would be willing to remove the qualifier "statutory".

I think this is either the third or fourth time I've corrected this particular factual misapprehension in this thread. She alleged she said no, Polanski denies she said no, there is no other evidence either way and the matter has never been tested in court. You do not know whether or not she said "no".

As for the drugs, in California it is considered rape to have sex with someone who is unable to consent because they are under the influence of drugs, which means they have to be fairly seriously impaired at the time. One third of a quaalude is not even close to making consensual sex rape in California, any more than consensual sex after a couple of glasses of wine is rape in California.

(As to why Polanski wasn't charged for providing a minor with alcohol and providing a minor with quaaludes given that he admitted to doing those things and they are both criminal offences, I have absolutely no idea).

To repeat, my point is that what Polanski plead to in California is the same thing as "statutory rape" in other states and trying to sugarcoat it by removing the word "rape" from the description is asinine.

This is simply hypocrisy on your part. Referring to things by their proper name is not "sugar-coating" them.

when she said no, it is rape in my book, and dependent on the drug, a no isnt even needed to be rape.

Please see the corrections above.

This is why a few of the posters here remind us that she was "already sexually active," and that she said that she said "no," but we don't know for sure, etc. They are consciously trying to minimize the fact that a 13-year-old simply can't consent, in the same sense as an adult.

If you have mind-reading powers go win the million. If you don't, then stop making defamatory claims about people based on your pretence to mind-reading powers.

A thirteen-year-old's consent in California has limited legal weight. It makes the difference between an unlawful sex charge and a rape charge. That is simply a legal fact, and if you don't like it you can go take it up with California.

The fact that she was already sexually active is very much relevant to assessing whether it is at all plausible that she had consensual sex with Polanski as he claims. (It's also forensically relevant for reasons that we went into in the older Polanski thread). It has absolutely nothing to do with minimising the seriousness of an unlawful sex charge, and everything to do with assessing whether Polanski or the alleged victim was lying about certain parts of their stories.

ETA - I can't find the transcripts of the girl's testimony now, but I read them a few years ago and they were pretty chilling.

They are. They are also factually false in important aspects, as shown by the forensic evidence obtained by a prompt medical examination.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Then why should anybody read your posts, if they are selectively ignoring relevant information?

You have a history of coming down on the pro-sex-with-minors side of these issues, and I'd rather not continue to tarnish my opinion of you, as a poster I normally respect, by reading such posts. Therefore, I selectively ignore your posts in any threads dealing with such issues.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You have a history of coming down on the pro-sex-with-minors side of these issues, and I'd rather not continue to tarnish my opinion of you, as a poster I normally respect, by reading such posts. Therefore, I selectively ignore your posts in any threads dealing with such issues.

Well yes, and that's because there are far too many people pushing an anti-sex-with-minors position on this forum that goes beyond what's factually supportable. If this forum was mostly inhabited by NAMBLA types who tried to tell people that it does no harm to have sex with young children then I'd have an equivalent history of coming down on the "anti-sex-with-minors side".

There's good empirical reason to think that people under sixteen shouldn't be having sex, even if it's safe sex, and thus good evidence-based reasons to punish adults who have sex with under-sixteens.

However the idea some people put forward that consensual sex with sexually mature under-sixteens is equivalent to raping sexually-mature under-sixteens is utter garbage. There's simply no factual basis for that claim, either in psychology or in law. The law reflects the reality that there is a huge difference in the harm caused in each case.

The bottom line is I don't have a "side", I have the evidence. If you take a position which is incompatible with the evidence then you're just wrong, and I'll be happy to tell you so.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Describing Polanksi as an anal rapist is inaccurate. He's an alleged anal rapist, to be sure, however he denies that allegation and more importantly the forensic evidence flatly contradicts the girl's claim that she was anally raped as she described.



So why not just say "unlawful sex", which is the actual crime he pleaded guilty to? The only reason I can see is that you prefer the more inflammatory term that has "rape" in it because you like saying "rape".



I think this is either the third or fourth time I've corrected this particular factual misapprehension in this thread. She alleged she said no, Polanski denies she said no, there is no other evidence either way and the matter has never been tested in court. You do not know whether or not she said "no".

As for the drugs, in California it is considered rape to have sex with someone who is unable to consent because they are under the influence of drugs, which means they have to be fairly seriously impaired at the time. One third of a quaalude is not even close to making consensual sex rape in California, any more than consensual sex after a couple of glasses of wine is rape in California.

I guess we're not allowed to call OJ Simpson a murderer either. Nor are we allowed to call Michael Jackson a Child Molester, since he was never convicted either.

 

[jimtron]

I guess we're not allowed to call OJ Simpson a murderer either. Nor are we allowed to call Michael Jackson a Child Molester, since he was never convicted either.

I don't think anyone's saying you're not "allowed" to use any words. You can call OJ a murderer, but it would be inaccurate, legally speaking. In the U.S., defendants are innocent until proven guilty. But I don't think anyone's challenging your free speech.

 

[applecorped]

Do civil trials count?

 

[DC]

Please see the corrections above.

corrections dismissed

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether you like it or not, we as a society have well-defined rules about which crime is which. Occasionally those rules have holes, of course, but you haven't shown any evidence whatsoever to indicate that Polanski avoided a rape charge by means of such a loophole, rather than avoiding a rape charge because what he admitted to doing is not considered rape, and what he was accused of doing could not be proven.

Actually, it is considered rape. It's called statutory rape. If you want to play the semantics game, learn to play it right.

So why not just say "unlawful sex", which is the actual crime he pleaded guilty to? The only reason I can see is that you prefer the more inflammatory term that has "rape" in it because you like saying "rape".

I think the word better describes what he actually did. That he pleaded to statutory rape rather than forcible rape doesn't change the fact that he raped her. The Whoopi Goldberg defense of Polanski doesn't hold water.

 

[DC]

No it wasn't. According to your own links, the records that Polanski's lawyers argued would confirm this remain under seal.

Look, if you want to argue that the Swiss courts were right to let this child rapist off on a technicality, then go ahead. Sometimes upholding the process is more important than the particular outcome. But don't even pretend that the actual outcome here is in any way admirable. And don't even pretend that the Swiss aren't being snakes in the grass either. The whole "reasonable expectation" crap in their official statement stinks to high heaven. The argument that since he got away with being a fugitive from justice for so long, he could reasonably expect to continue to get away with it, and therefore we should let him get away with it, is just FUBAR. That's not a principle that deserves any respect.

But hey, Polanski's got the right politics, so never mind his pedophilia.

do you know what the content of the requested and sealed document is?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I guess we're not allowed to call OJ Simpson a murderer either. Nor are we allowed to call Michael Jackson a Child Molester, since he was never convicted either.

Oh look, a derail...

OJ's trial verdict is widely and justifiably regarded as a miscarriage of justice, on good factual grounds. You can call him a murderer who got away with it as far as I'm concerned.

Michael Jackson, well, personally I'd say that you should call him an alleged child molester. I'm not familiar with any of the details of his 2005 acquittal but I hadn't heard that there were good grounds to call it legally unsound. You can call him creepy, certainly, but based on what I know I wouldn't go so far as to say that I know he was a child molester.

Polanski is certainly guilty of having unlawful sex with an underage person in the USA, and is known to have had a consensual, legal affair with a woman in Europe who would have been underage had the affair taken place in the USA. However I'm pretty sure there is insufficient evidence to allow any of us to say that we know he ever raped anybody.

 

[applecorped]

Oh look, a derail...

OJ's trial verdict is widely and justifiably regarded as a miscarriage of justice, on good factual grounds. You can call him a murderer who got away with it as far as I'm concerned.

Kinda of like Polanski.

 

[Ziggurat]

do you know what the content of the requested and sealed document is?

It's sealed, so obviously I don't. Neither do you. Do you have a point? I mean, aside from defending a pedophile.