Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[LostAngeles]

This is getting boring now, not least because I've already made it very plain that not only do I think Polanski should be punished for what he did, but also quantified that punishment, which turns out to be the maximum he could get for what he pleaded guilty to. That so many posters keep ignoring that says more about their opinions than mine. I'll leave them to their reassuringly black-and-white view of the world.

Oddly, one would think if you had a stronger argument, you wouldn't have this problem.

I'd add to your parting shot that the posters ignoring what Polanksi actually did says something as well.

Thoughtcrime.

Sorry. I take back the words, "parting shot." I forgot we were on the Internets.

Thoughtcrime? Hardly. It's called put-up-or-shut-up. Either you can defend your position or you can not. You can consider the arguments others are making or you can not.

I'm certainly not condoning his behavior but was she bombed by the pool?
My best friend in HS said she was out at night dating and drinking at 13. Do we know if she struggled violently against him? I never read what she had to say and I hope she wasn't traumatized.

As stated, you can read her testimony on The Smoking Gun website that people have already linked to. This will provide you with substantially more information than your best friend in HS.

Also, her dating and drinking and whether or not she, "struggled violently," would not mitigate what happened. Read the testimony.

 

[jimbob]

Your post from that other thread is very relevant to this case. Even if she hadn't been fed drugs and alcohol it looks like the research says that she couldn't have given her informed consent to sexual intercourse.

As has been said before there was no consent:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away."

The rest I won't post.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There are very good reasons as to why I'm asking that. Don't evade the questions.

I'm certain you know where I'm going with this (hell, it's in my next response). Answer the questions.

So tell us where you're going with this, and explain how it's relevant to what I actually posted. I'm not your trained monkey, and if I'm right in thinking I know where you're going with this, it's got nothing to do with the points I have made.

I'm getting the feeling that what we're seeing in this thread is parallel to little kids wanting to imitate the big kids. We've got posters who've read a few impassioned articles emphasising the serious nature of what Polanski was accused of, and bashing the stupid pro-Polanski arguments that have come from Hollywood celebrities, and they want to get in on the fun. (I've got nothing against bashing such stupid arguments - low hanging fruit tastes good every now and then). So they run to the JREF forums to shout "Polanski's a rapist!" because that's what they've been reading and they want to have fun bashing stupid pro-Polanski arguments.

The teensy problem, which has been brought up repeatedly and ignored repeatedly, is that this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and Polanski has never been convicted of anything other than unlawful sex, nor has the accusation that he did worse been corroborated by Polanski, by any third party or by any forensic evidence. It's a straightforward he said/she said scenario.

As such if you're claiming that you know Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of then you're just wrong and you need to go back to that remedial skeptic training I mentioned earlier.

Sure if the girl's statement is completely accurate, or even mostly accurate with some important bits left out, Polanski is scum and he belongs behind bars. However you currently don't know that her statement is true.

I can only account for the curious inability of the posters here to grasp that as symptomatic of a witch-hunt mentality. It's much more fun to assume Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of, because then you can fly into a good old self-righteous rage. You might even be able to direct that rage at some JREF posters too, which is always fun for a certain ugly minority of posters here. However as skeptics you ought to hold yourselves to higher standards and if you're stating as a fact that Polanski is guilty of everything he's accused of you should be embarrassed for yourself.

 

[Checkmite]

The teensy problem, which has been brought up repeatedly and ignored repeatedly, is that this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and Polanski has never been convicted of anything other than unlawful sex, nor has the accusation that he did worse been corroborated by Polanski, by any third party or by any forensic evidence. It's a straightforward he said/she said scenario.

As such if you're claiming that you know Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of then you're just wrong and you need to go back to that remedial skeptic training I mentioned earlier.

Sure if the girl's statement is completely accurate, or even mostly accurate with some important bits left out, Polanski is scum and he belongs behind bars. However you currently don't know that her statement is true.

I can only account for the curious inability of the posters here to grasp that as symptomatic of a witch-hunt mentality. It's much more fun to assume Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of, because then you can fly into a good old self-righteous rage. You might even be able to direct that rage at some JREF posters too, which is always fun for a certain ugly minority of posters here. However as skeptics you ought to hold yourselves to higher standards and if you're stating as a fact that Polanski is guilty of everything he's accused of you should be embarrassed for yourself.

I don't get it. Polanski admitted to the drugs, admitted having sex with her. What else is anyone here accusing him of?

Is your problem that some people are calling it "rape"? So what? I consider drugging and then screwing a kid to be rape as well. And what is rape if not unlawful sex? It's like the difference between a term and its definition.

Or wait...hold on. Is this one of those things where you think what happened being unlawful is just an arbitrary "legal fiction"? Are we going to get to hear about how a 30- or 40-year-old man getting in trouble for having sex with a 13-year-old is as unjust as an 18-year old getting in trouble for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before she turned 18, or how the girl's having periods at the time means she's "sexually mature" and therefore sex with her is only looked down on because of society's moral hangups and Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all?

 

[applecorped]

I don't get it. Polanski admitted to the drugs, admitted having sex with her. What else is anyone here accusing him of?

Is your problem that some people are calling it "rape"? So what? I consider drugging and then screwing a kid to be rape as well. And what is rape if not unlawful sex? It's like the difference between a term and its definition.

Or wait...hold on. Is this one of those things where you think what happened being unlawful is just an arbitrary "legal fiction"? Are we going to get to hear about how a 30- or 40-year-old man getting in trouble for having sex with a 13-year-old is as unjust as an 18-year old getting in trouble for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before she turned 18, or how the girl's having periods at the time means she's "sexually mature" and therefore sex with her is only looked down on because of society's moral hangups and Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all?

Just get back from the pub?

 

[applecorped]

Never mind. Seems I must have just got back from the pub and mis-read your post. My bad.

 

[Checkmite]

Just get back from the pub?

It was fish fry night.

 

[Yoink]

So...I see this thread is still devoted almost entirely to attacking straw men. You can't go three posts in a row in this thread without finding someone being accused of "ignoring" what Polanski did or of "excusing" his actions or of claiming that there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 13 year old if she consents.

Oddly enough it's impossible to find a single post in this entire thread where anybody actually makes any of those arguments. All anybody has tried to argue is that what Polanski pleaded guilty to was the only crime he was likely to be convicted of in the event of a trial (unlawful sex with a minor) and that there is not sufficient evidence to establish his guilt when it comes to the several other crimes that he was originally charged with (as for example "rape by use of drugs"--one of the original indictments that was dropped in the plea deal).

 

[Checkmite]

So...I see this thread is still devoted almost entirely to attacking straw men. You go three posts in a row in this thread without finding someone being accused of "ignoring" what Polanski did or of "excusing" his actions or of claiming that there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 13 year old if she consents.

This is true, of course; nobody has said those things yet. I'm just leery because when a certain individual joins a thread involving sex and minors in any way, that's always where it ends up going. Like, without exception. If it didn't happen here, it would surprise the stuffing out of me - though I admit it would be a very, very pleasant surprise.

 

[applecorped]

It was fish fry night.

mmmmmmm...

 

[Yoink]

This is true, of course; nobody has said those things yet. I'm just leery because when a certain individual joins a thread involving sex and minors in any way, that's always where it ends up going. Like, without exception. If it didn't happen here, it would surprise the stuffing out of me - though I admit it would be a very, very pleasant surprise.

This is page 12 (Twelve) of this thread. If this is where they "always" go, doesn't it seem to be taking rather a long time? And even if it were true that this is where they always go, how does that make it fair to pretend that the people who have not made any such claim have done so?

 

[Yoink]

I don't get it. Polanski admitted to the drugs, admitted having sex with her. What else is anyone here accusing him of?

Is your problem that some people are calling it "rape"? So what? I consider drugging and then screwing a kid to be rape as well. And what is rape if not unlawful sex? It's like the difference between a term and its definition.

Or wait...hold on. Is this one of those things where you think what happened being unlawful is just an arbitrary "legal fiction"? Are we going to get to hear about how a 30- or 40-year-old man getting in trouble for having sex with a 13-year-old is as unjust as an 18-year old getting in trouble for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before she turned 18, or how the girl's having periods at the time means she's "sexually mature" and therefore sex with her is only looked down on because of society's moral hangups and Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all?

This, by the way, is a case in point. The poster made nothing like the claim that "Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all." The only point the poster was making was that just because we know Polanski to be guilty of unlawful sex with a minor DOES NOT MEAN that every single claim made by the girl in her grand jury testimony is thereby rendered holy writ, unshakable and unquestionable.

Whether you personally think that unlawful sex with a minor should be punished exactly the same way whether or not the minor in question gave consent is neither here nor there. That is not the opinion of the law. Polanski was originally faced with a charge of "rape by use of drugs" which was a separate charge from the crime of "unlawful sexual intercourse." Had Polanski been found guilty of BOTH "unlawful sexual intercourse" AND "rape by use of drugs" he would have faced--potentially--a graver sentence than for "unlawful sexual intercourse" alone. It is therefore reasonable to discuss whether there is compelling evidence to support the charge of "rape by use of drugs" and it is equally reasonable to suggest that at least at the time of the trial the evidence for that charge was not such as would rise to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

To argue, then, that Polanski probably could not have been properly convicted of "rape by use of drugs" is NOT to say that was not properly found guilty of "unlawful sexual intercourse" NOR is it to say that he should not face punishment for that crime. It is merely to try to be precise about what charges he should face and what penalties he should suffer.

 

[Checkmite]

This is page 12 (Twelve) of this thread. If this is where they "always" go, doesn't it seem to be taking rather a long time? And even if it were true that this is where they always go, how does that make it fair to pretend that the people who have not made any such claim have done so?

First of all, they were questions, not claims. I suppose it could always be argued that a question is just a claim in disguise; but I'll leave such quaint platitudes to students of rhetoric. Secondly, I said it's where all such threads END UP going when said individual joins them. And yes, some of them took a while - but the ones I read all ended up there eventually. And this person seems to be a newer poster to the thread. I was just asking to see if that was the intention here, so the issue could be brought out immediately and the thread did not have to get dragged out over a dozen more pages of hints, vague references, and subtly-directed responses. And thirdly, my post was directed toward a certain person, not anyone else.

If the thread doesn't go there - great, let that issue die.

 

[gtc]

As has been said before there was no consent:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html



The rest I won't post.

I know that. I am just saying that, even if she had given her consent, it wouldn't have been informed consent.

I posted that because of the suggestion made by others that she might have consented.

 

[Whiplash]

Kevin.. Kevin..

I think your overwhelming need to be a maverick non conformist and contrarian is really getting the better of you in this thread. You couldn't be more wrong, yet you just keep on digging.

 

[Yoink]

I know that. I am just saying that, even if she had given her consent, it wouldn't have been informed consent.

I posted that because of the suggestion made by others that she might have consented.

People have argued that she consented in fact. No one has argued that she gave informed consent. You might consider the distinction irrelevant, the law at the time of Polanski's arrest did not.

That is, Polanski would have been subject to a more severe criminal penalty had the prosecution been able to establish (either through evidence presented in court or by Polanski's admission) that the girl had in fact said what she claims to have said in her grand jury testimony.

The point repeated ad infinitum in this thread that 'a thirteen year old cannot properly consent to sexual intercourse with an adult' has not been disputed by anyone. Nor has anyone in this thread argued that Polanski should not have been charged with unlawful sexual intercourse or that he should not be punished for that unlawful sexual intercourse. The only argument that has been made is that A) there are legal consequences to the question of whether or not the girl consented de facto to that sexual intercourse and B) that the mere fact of the girl's testimony to that effect is not, by itself, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that she did not, in fact, give that consent.

 

[gtc]

People have argued that she consented in fact.

Her testimony would suggest that this is not the case.

No one has argued that she gave informed consent.

I did not say otherwise.

You might consider the distinction irrelevant

I did not say that.

, the law at the time of Polanski's arrest did not.

That is, Polanski would have been subject to a more severe criminal penalty had the prosecution been able to establish (either through evidence presented in court or by Polanski's admission) that the girl had in fact said what she claims to have said in her grand jury testimony.

The point repeated ad infinitum in this thread that 'a thirteen year old cannot properly consent to sexual intercourse with an adult' has not been disputed by anyone. Nor has anyone in this thread argued that Polanski should not have been charged with unlawful sexual intercourse or that he should not be punished for that unlawful sexual intercourse. The only argument that has been made is that A) there are legal consequences to the question of whether or not the girl consented de facto to that sexual intercourse and B) that the mere fact of the girl's testimony to that effect is not, by itself, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that she did not, in fact, give that consent.

I don't see the relevance to what I posted.

He has admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. In a very self serving biography he claims that she was a willing participant. Her testimony suggests that he is not telling the truth.

I strongly believe that a jury would find her testimony more convincing than his. However, I recognise allowing child molesters to plead guilty to a lesser offence saves the victims from facing the sort of attacks on her credibility that we have seen in this thread and elsewhere and ensures that the perp faces at least some punishment. Which I hope he receives.

I addition, he is also a fugitive from justice and ought to face prosecution for this.

 

[varwoche]

Polanski has never been convicted of anything other than unlawful sex, nor has the accusation that he did worse been corroborated by Polanski, by any third party or by any forensic evidence. It's a straightforward he said/she said scenario.

This is often true in these situations. There are additional facts that must be considered though -- information that is available to us now, after the fact.

• We know he plead guilty to unlawful sex (aka rape)
• We know it's typical that plea bargains are for lesser charges than the crime(s) committed
• We know he settled a lawsuit with the victim
• Polanski doesn't deny boozing/drugging the girl; he doesn't rebut her at all so far as I know
• Her word gains credence by the fact that she sticks to her story yet she's not trying to profit; not grinding an axe

Would I convict him of greater charges based on this? No. Is it enough to form an operating assumption? I think so.

 

[LostAngeles]

So tell us where you're going with this, and explain how it's relevant to what I actually posted. I'm not your trained monkey, and if I'm right in thinking I know where you're going with this, it's got nothing to do with the points I have made.

I'm getting the feeling that what we're seeing in this thread is parallel to little kids wanting to imitate the big kids. We've got posters who've read a few impassioned articles emphasising the serious nature of what Polanski was accused of, and bashing the stupid pro-Polanski arguments that have come from Hollywood celebrities, and they want to get in on the fun. (I've got nothing against bashing such stupid arguments - low hanging fruit tastes good every now and then). So they run to the JREF forums to shout "Polanski's a rapist!" because that's what they've been reading and they want to have fun bashing stupid pro-Polanski arguments.

The teensy problem, which has been brought up repeatedly and ignored repeatedly, is that this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and Polanski has never been convicted of anything other than unlawful sex, nor has the accusation that he did worse been corroborated by Polanski, by any third party or by any forensic evidence. It's a straightforward he said/she said scenario.

As such if you're claiming that you know Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of then you're just wrong and you need to go back to that remedial skeptic training I mentioned earlier.

Sure if the girl's statement is completely accurate, or even mostly accurate with some important bits left out, Polanski is scum and he belongs behind bars. However you currently don't know that her statement is true.

I can only account for the curious inability of the posters here to grasp that as symptomatic of a witch-hunt mentality. It's much more fun to assume Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of, because then you can fly into a good old self-righteous rage. You might even be able to direct that rage at some JREF posters too, which is always fun for a certain ugly minority of posters here. However as skeptics you ought to hold yourselves to higher standards and if you're stating as a fact that Polanski is guilty of everything he's accused of you should be embarrassed for yourself.

Dodging the questions yet again? Failing to read where I actually explained what the reasoning behind the questions are? Not knowing that Polanski admitted to the sex, the giving of alcohol, and the drugs?

So are you just being contrarian or are you the new Danish Dynamite?

 

[shuize]

Polanski agreed to a $500,000 civil settlement with his rape victim -- which he may or may not have ever paid:

Film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a lawsuit 15 years after he fled the United States, according to court documents provided to media outlets Friday.

Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, reached the deal in October 1993. The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay...

In a December 1995 filing, Silver said "defendant has failed to pay any part of the sum due or the interest due on the attached note." Silver added that he talked to Finkle, who agreed Polanski was in default.

Making your child rape victim have to sue to try and collect the settlement you agreed to pay after fleeing criminal responsibility.

Now there's class.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_on_en_mo/us_polanski_settlement_7