• 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)...

Whitewashing Roman Polanski
More than 30 years after he raped a 13-year-old girl, the fugitive director hoped a skewed documentary would reopen his case. Thankfully, a judge said no dice.
By Bill Wymanhttp://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index1.html

Was it only me that did the double-take there?

http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/popstar-sex-scandals.php?ssid=5

Former Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman caused shock when he got together with former "wild child" Mandy Smith. He was 47, she was just 13. What's worse, the relationship apparently had her mother's blessing!
 
I can believe at the time, they would have had a hard time getting a rape conviction. However, I don't think they would have any problem getting a rape conviction today. Even if she were of age, they still could probably get a rape conviction (see Mike Tyson).

I wouldn't be so sure. Getting a rape conviction for The Baddest Man on the Planet is a bit different than getting one for a fragile, old Hollywood director.
 
Former Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman caused shock when he got together with former "wild child" Mandy Smith. He was 47, she was just 13. What's worse, the relationship apparently had her mother's blessing!

I presume this has been discussed elsewhere, but what on earth was the mother thinking in the Polanski case? It doesn't absolve him of any responsibility, but the opportunity should never have arisen in the first place.
 
I presume this has been discussed elsewhere, but what on earth was the mother thinking in the Polanski case? It doesn't absolve him of any responsibility, but the opportunity should never have arisen in the first place.

Wasn't it a photo shoot?

Wiki:

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot.
 
Wasn't it a photo shoot?

Wiki:

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot.

That doesn't answer the question, why would a mother allow a private photo shoot for a 13 year old girl with any man, let alone a man like Polanski who already had a reputation?
 
Last edited:
Polanski acknowledged that he knew she was 13 in open court.
Then I stand corrected, the pauses and deliberations with lawyers before Polanski answering the question notwithstanding.
Reading the girl's grand jury testimony, I can understand better why the prosecution was willing to plea bargain. The girl drank the champagne voluntarily, took the quaalude voluntarily (and admitted having taken one before), and also said she'd had sexual intercourse before Polanski raped her. That is definitely the kind of case that ensures that her behavior would be an issue in the trial.
I think it would be naive not to recognise that there was a lot about the girl's behaviour that Polanski took as a green flag, no matter how old he thought she was. We do, however, run into the difficult area that even if he stuck around to take whatever sentence he might have got, public opinion now would almost inevitably lead to it being more severe now. Whatever next? People being re-tried because they weren't "punished enough" according to the different opinions of today, or even people seeking compensation because they were punished more harshly in the past than they would be now? Personally, I think under the circumstances, something in the region of four years would be appropriate.
 
What are we to make of the victim's opinion that "Polanski has paid for his crimes" and that the US should pardon him?
Nothing. Why should we? Should we permit rapists to escape justice if only they can successfully bribe their victims? No. A crime was committed. The state needs justice, even if the victim claims she doesn't.
That being the case, why do we have "victim impact statements"?
 
That being the case, why do we have "victim impact statements"?

Good question. I presume it's to make the victims feel better, but I don't think it's the right thing to have it as part of the court proceedings. If a homeless person is killed, and they have no relatives to submit a victim impact statement, should the killer get a lighter sentence than if a well-loved member of the community is the victim?

Anyway, I'm not sure that's relevant. I don't know if they have 'victim impact statements' in the US, now or in 1977.
 
I remember being completely baffled why the big deal about Buffy sleeping with Angel but not till after midnight on the eve of her birthday. Never occurred to me the age of consent was so high in California.

It's 16 here.

Rolfe.

As mentionned earlier it wildly vary with historical and cultural setting. On some palce it is 12ish today, and it used to be 10, then it even depended whether you were homosexual or heterosexual, or even your gender (in France up to 1940 something it was/still is 15 with hetero, but 21 if you were homo).

As far as I can tell it is a real mess in the US where you can go from 15 to 21 as age of consent (21!!!!) with a median at 18.
 
The "Evidence" is probably that documentary about the Polanski case which is, frankly, hopelessly biased in favor of Polanski.

That would be true, except apparently it was wells himself which gave the bit about the photo and influencing the judge. As reported above he now retracted. but still. That make something which was murky, even murkier. And certainly bring reasonable doubt on the judge conduct.
 
I just simply fail to see what's to argue here. That Polanski comitted crimes is undeniable. That he has yet to pay his legally-mandated debt to society for those crimes is undeniable. Everything else is empy rhetoric.

We are like old men at a bar slowly sipping a cheap beer and discussing the in and out of a political decision. We might not be competent (as in professionally competent) to discuss it, but it pass time.

There you have it.
 
I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time. Given the state of finances in the city and state, I wonder if that has anything to do with the timing? Would a protracted trial be a financial windfall for the city of Los Angeles or would they go more bankrupt with all the security that would be required? Was the financial aspect even a factor in the timing? Who knows... But I'm definitely for sending him back to face the sentence. For all anybody knows, the Judge may say that the original plea deal is valid.

From what I've read, some of the "blame" for this has been laid at the feet of Polanski's lawyers. A few months ago, when arguing that any charges against Polanski should be dropped and the matter closed, they pointedly complained that California had made no attempt at extradition in over 30 years and that this was obviously a case they preferred to ignore.

California, apparently, decided to up the ante.
 
That doesn't answer the question, why would a mother allow a private photo shoot for a 13 year old girl with any man, let alone a man like Polanski who already had a reputation?

Because he was officially a guest-editor for the magazine?

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.
 
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.
Well, he clearly has lied at least once; how are we to tell which time, though?
 
We do, however, run into the difficult area that even if he stuck around to take whatever sentence he might have got, public opinion now would almost inevitably lead to it being more severe now. Whatever next? People being re-tried because they weren't "punished enough" according to the different opinions of today, or even people seeking compensation because they were punished more harshly in the past than they would be now?

There's something of a slippery slope fallacy there, I think. If Polanski had stuck around and served his time, this would be a dead issue, and there would be a reasonable case against anyone who wanted to reopen it on the grounds that changing attitudes had resulted in a consensus that his punishment was inadequate. In this instance, though, there's no question of a dead case being revived; the case is still very much a live case, and solely because of Polanski's subsequent, and illegal, actions. There's no reason why any action taken in this case should create any precedent applicable to a case where the guilty party has actually served a sentence.

Dave
 
Because he was officially a guest-editor for the magazine?
Oh, that's alright then...

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.

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.

And as I said before, I don't think this reduces his guilt in anyway, I'm just staggered that a mother would put her daughter in this situation. If anyone was taking photos of my daughter when she was that age, I or her mother would have been present.
 

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