Roman Polanski Finally Arrested for 1977 Rape of Minor

[Flashy]

this is absolutely the best piece i have read on the topic...and shuts up all the apologists

this snippet below states it perfectly, but the article goes even further

"Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm."

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon.com

 

[B_Stronzo]

The "girl" (Samantha Geimer) now a grown woman of forty-four appeared on a Larry King interview in 2003.

I quote: "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child."

She chided the district attorney's office for not dismissing the case earlier and for

"yet once again (giving) great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read again. True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me ... I have become a victim of the actions of the District Attorney."

In her declaration, Geimer said if Polanski cannot appear in court, she will do so to seek dismissal.

"My position is absolutely clear," she said.

She stated she'd settled for an undisclosed cash amount at the time in the Civil Suit from Polanski. She has no interest in a pound of flesh. It's an American thirst for blood we're now witnessing. I think the times were very different then and the popular mentality was that the Studio 54 mentality of excess (which, as it happens, we're beginning to embrace again) allowed many people to do many reckless things.

As for Polanski? If the girl feels he's done his time and paid his price I think that ought to suffice. The man's been in virtual hiding for over three decades and the world's been arguably denied one if its best directors. Anyone recall Rosemary's Baby or The Pianist? The former is, in my view, one of the finest movies ever produced.

Beyond that the fellow lost Sharon Tate (pregnant with their child) to that butcher Manson. That Polanski was able to muddle through all these years hence working and with a modicum of sanity gives me a reason to look at this from more than the Los Angeles County District Attorney's point of view.

The entire situation screams tragedy.

Some things should simply be allowed to be left where Jesus flung them.

 

[Northland]

As for Polanski? If the girl feels he's done his time and paid his price I think that ought to suffice.

With that I am in agreement.

The man's been in virtual hiding for over three decades and the world's been arguably denied one if its best directors. Anyone recall Rosemary's Baby or The Pianist? The former is, in my view, one of the finest movies ever produced.

So, what you are saying is that great directors should not have to follow the same law as the people who truly make the world operate?

Beyond that the fellow lost Sharon Tate (pregnant with their child) to that butcher Manson. That Polanski was able to muddle through all these years hence working and with a modicum of sanity gives me a reason to look at this from more than the Los Angeles County District Attorney's point of view.

.

What, now you want to use the 'dead murdered wife' defense? That was a few years prior to what he did with his victim. Or are you suggesting that anyone who endures the murderous death of their loved one be allowed to dash off into the world doing whatever they please; since, after all, they've suffered so immeasurably already? Or is it, once again, merely because he's a big mucky-muck?

 

[Flashy]

and once again stronzo, you never fail to miss the facts.

it does not matter what the victim wants:

it does not matter that Sharon Tate being murdered was a tragedy

-





But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?


In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.

-


"Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case ... Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed."

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child.



---


once again Stronzo, your hysteria and overembellishment knows no bounds

"She has no interest in a pound of flesh. It's an American thirst for blood we're now witnessing."

what are you nuts? thirst for blood? no, it is called *justice*. if you commit a crime, you have to pay for it in some way...that is the *LAW*.

" I think the times were very different then and the popular mentality was that the Studio 54 mentality of excess (which, as it happens, we're beginning to embrace again) allowed many people to do many reckless things."

yes, so because Studio 54 existed, that excuses reckless behavior, such as the deliberate oral, vaginal and anal rape of a 13 year old with champagne and drugs

The man's been in virtual hiding for over three decades and the world's been arguably denied one if its best directors. Anyone recall Rosemary's Baby or The Pianist? The former is, in my view, one of the finest movies ever produced.

the man has been in "virtual hiding"? what planet are you from Stronzo? the guy has been a "fugitive" in france for 30 years...ah yes... virtual hiding

his only "hiding" is that he has not traveled to countries likely to extradite him...the guy has never hidden while in france...

he has a Chalet in Gstaad

oh, the terrible life on the run of a true fugitive, in virtual hiding

the guy is in public all the time...he was going to a *FILM FESTIVAL* in Zurich when they captured him

he has been at the Cannes Film Festival soaking in adulation several times.

he has made several cameos in films during that time...oh yeah, that is virtual hiding if a i have ever seen it

he travels andc works in France germany, Poland the Czech Republic,

the world has been "arguably denied" one of its best directors? he has made 9 films since he fled.


congrats Stronzo...you are LPSG's first astronaut...because you are truly in outer space.

 

[D_Claude Hopper]

So has anyone thought of the classic nature of this case. "Man with power abusing a child with none."

Lets see, if I have this right here, he was romantically involved with Natassja Kinski at age 15. That would be 1975-1977 depending on birth date information correctness from differing sources. So he would have been 42 to 44 years old for that. Maybe he didn't sleep with her, but it sounds like a pattern of illicit behavior to me: The kind of behavior that screams pedofile, sexual predator in the making, and Michael Jackson.

I think a person can run from their past, but it catches up to them in the end.

 

[Incocknito]

Some of you pederasts and underage rapist sympathisers need to familiarise yourselves with the concepts of crime and punishment.

And Polanski has a history of dubious activity with underage girls.

I don't know how anyone can excuse a 44 year old man drugging and sodomising a girl of 13.

 

[jason_els]

If justice isn't serving the victim or the people, then isn't it we who are serving justice as if she were Kali out of Indiana Jones?

I don't see how his arrest, trial, and possible incarceration would serve anyone any good and justice must serve the good. Maybe at the time it would have, but not now.

Yes he raped a girl and it is a horrible crime but most pivotal is that the victim has stated unequivocally that she would be most harmed by dragging all this back into the spotlight. If the original intent of pursuing him was to do her good and prevent him from doing anything to anyone else, those reasons have long since evaporated. What are we left with? Putting the victim through another Hollywood show trial where she'll be asked to testify? She knows Polanski will ask for, and get, a new trial and that she'll be subpoenaed to testify in that trial.

How does it serve justice to open wounds she would much rather leave healed? How does incarcerating him protect the people of California when he doesn't even live there?

Anyone?

 

[dreamer20]

Lets see, if I have this right here, he was romantically involved with Natassja Kinski at age 15. That would be 1975-1977 depending on birth date information correctness from differing sources...Maybe he didn't sleep with her, but it sounds like a pattern of illicit behavior to me: The kind of behavior that screams pedofile,and Michael Jackson.

No it doesn't scream "pedophile" as pedophilia by definition involves sex with pre-pubescent children. Attraction to young, sexually mature adolescents is biologically normal and referred to as ephebilia. Less than a generation ago the ages of consent in different U.S. states varied from 12-18 years of age.

Jerry Lee Lewis & 13 year old wife Myra in London in 1958 - photograph is in Kyle Esplin's rock n'roll scrapbook

Thus sex with a 15 year old would be legal in one jurisdiction, but illegal in another jurisdiction. Currently U.S.A. ages of consent range between 16-18 years of age:

Age Of Consensual Sex | LIVESTRONG.COM

 

[HazelGod]

I don't see how his arrest, trial, and possible incarceration would serve anyone any good and justice must serve the good.

Anyone?

Because our social order is ostensibly built upon the rule of law. Everyone is beholden to it, and failure to abide carries consequences.

Absolving Polanski of culpability because of the time gone by or any other factors undermines the integrity of the system itself. If he can escape justice here by fleeing to France for three decades, what's to deter me from scamming a bank out of a few million bucks and skipping town?

Preservation of the principle overrides the concerns of any single case.

 

[DiscoBoy]

I don't see how his arrest, trial, and possible incarceration would serve anyone any good and justice must serve the good. Maybe at the time it would have, but not now.

Completely agree with Jason.

Following through with 'justice' seems like it would be a complete injustice. To cause a victim to relive a completely traumatic and stressful time is completely unethical, when she's so clearly stated she's moved past it.

 

[jason_els]

Because our social order is ostensibly built upon the rule of law. Everyone is beholden to it, and failure to abide carries consequences.

Absolving Polanski of culpability because of the time gone by or any other factors undermines the integrity of the system itself. If he can escape justice here by fleeing to France for three decades, what's to deter me from scamming a bank out of a few million bucks and skipping town?

Preservation of the principle overrides the concerns of any single case.

Yet ironically, that may be what happens. He will get a retrial, the key witness will not testify, and it will be a media frenzy and he will be found not-guilty. The man needs a retrial so that he can't be held for fleeing sentencing. If he can't be convicted of the crime he allegedly did, he can't be held liable for escaping from the penalty. He will go from being guilty to not-guilty and thus free to move about the world without fear. In the mean time the people of Orange County will be paying for his jail stay and show trial and, most horribly, a woman's life may be rendered all over again.

I see no point in preserving principles which damage the very society they were created to protect. Justice may be blind but she ain't stupid. Or maybe she is when a 15 year old boy convicted as a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 12 year old girl is forced to live in a camp full of adult male sex offenders who prey on boys.

The rule of law requires discretion and compassion. Without these, it's just a tyrant and not worthy of preservation.

 

[D_Claude Hopper]

No it doesn't scream "pedophile" as pedophilia by definition involves sex with pre-pubescent children.

Fair enough, but I still think that in his case, it establishes a behavior which, if you have a heart, is PREYING ON THE YOUNG and POWERLESS.

Statutory RAPE is still RAPE. Whether committed by a motion picture director or a homeless person.

 

[BigTaTas36F]

He commited a crime and he belongs in jail. The law is the law no exceptions. as soon as you make an exception it becomes the law. its not a matter of opinion.

 

[HazelGod]

The man needs a retrial so that he can't be held for fleeing sentencing. If he can't be convicted of the crime he allegedly did, he can't be held liable for escaping from the penalty.

That's not how it works, Jason...and I suspect you already know this.

When convicted, in error or otherwise, defendants may appeal but are not set free to do so. Their conviction stands, and the guilty party remains in state custody, until overturned by due process. Polanski fled the country to escape sentence passed by a court in good standing for a despicable crime that he admitted to. Regardless of the eventual outcome of that case, this offense stands on its own and he must be held accountable.

 

[BigTaTas36F]

This thread urks me! lol

 

[jason_els]

That's not how it works, Jason...and I suspect you already know this.

When convicted, in error or otherwise, defendants may appeal but are not set free to do so. Their conviction stands, and the guilty party remains in state custody, until overturned by due process. Polanski fled the country to escape sentence passed by a court in good standing for a despicable crime that he admitted to. Regardless of the eventual outcome of that case, this offense stands on its own and he must be held accountable.

Nah, all my courses were in business law, not criminal (though, come to think of it, maybe they should have combined the two).

I can understand being tried for fleeing a court but the court reneged on its deal. In my mind, that would make the court's rulings invalid because it was an improperly administered court.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

Just stumbled across this thread. I don't know if Polanski is upset he got arrested or thinks he deserves it or even thinks he did anything wrong. But I'm sure I doubt he'd think it was ok for the Manson family to fly from the country for 30 years b/c they didn't think they did anything wrong and get away with it for 30 yrs.

 

[HazelGod]

I can understand being tried for fleeing a court but the court reneged on its deal. In my mind, that would make the court's rulings invalid because it was an improperly administered court.

Criminal courts in this country have frightening latitude to behave in any manner they choose when adjudicating offenses. In plea bargains, the defendants and prosecutors can agree to anything they like...but unless the judge approves, it doesn't amount to spit. And when conditions are set forth in such an agreement, the judge has sole authority to evaluate whether they were satisfied.

All of the court's actions are subject to review on appeal, of course, but convicted felons do not have the right to say "you reneged on our deal" and skip town. They must present their case to an appellate court and await a decision after due consideration has been given. Again, this is all a matter of the rule of law...if people disregard it without consequence, the entire system comes unraveled.

 

[Mem]

Isn't the ultimate goal of the judicial system supposed to be to serve justice? I find it impossible to do so now, because the victim herself has stated that she won't pursue charges. What are they going to do, make an example of him? Leave the man alone. If the victim doesn't want him incarcerated, what purpose could it possibly serve?

The victim should not be the one to decide a perpetrators fate. In court it's the people VS, not the victim VS. I wonder how her parents feel about it if they are still alive.

 

[earllogjam]

Who cares?