It is not about Polanski being a scumbag, he is. It is about the US legal system being about itself and not about society or the parties involved.

If you go to thesmokinggun.com you can read the letter to the court from the lawyers of the girl's parents stating that they did not want a trial, did not want Polansky to server jail, wanted Polansky to attend rehab and wanted to Polanksy to admit his guilt. Polansky then plead guilty and went into a rehab/observation clinic. The judge and prosecutor had agreed to let Polansky off with time served. You only plead guilty when there is a deal set up and agreed upon.

However Polansky's lawyers received word that the judge was going back on is word and was going to throw Polansky in jail. That is why he bolted. The judge was probably bowing to political pressure.

The crime is with the LA judicial system not Polansky.

Then let him come back and face it and make it so. Otherwise it is just cowardice and coverup. And once again, a member of a "privileged" group getting away with a horrendous crime.

Polanski is a fugitive from the law in the State of California. This is in addition to admitting guilt of drugging and rapping a 13 year old. That the judge was going to dismiss the plea agreement is beside the point. The judge has the final say. It also is not up to the parent who willfully allowed the rape to occur and could have possibly been bribed not to cooperate with the State due to putting her daughter in the position in the first place (child endangerment).

I hope Polanksy sees the rest of his life in prison where he belongs...

WHY IS EVERYONE bending over backwards to protect this slime ball?

Stop the the bullshit "cowardice". Only a complete idiot would go to jail if there was any way to avoid it. Only an fool such as yourself would call it cowardice.

Maybe that's why you are just a dumb fuck working class monkey?

The point is, it's Polanski's fault. I don't blame him for trying to avoid jail, but he's the rapist. He's the reason this is dragging on.

" Polanski is a fugitive from the law in the State of California. This is in addition to admitting guilt of drugging and rapping a 13 year old. That the judge was going to dismiss the plea agreement is beside the point. The judge has the final say. It also is not up to the parent who willfully allowed the rape to occur and could have possibly been bribed not to cooperate with the State due to putting her daughter in the position in the first place (child endangerment)."

Prolapsed24/7,

Comments like this are why I can't take law and order monkeys like yourself seriously. Get the facts straight. He plead guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor". this is not rape. And a fundamental of the judicial system is built on negotiating terms. A deal was set up between all three parties and then the government reneged which is bullshit. and stop hypothesizing that the parent were not looking after the welfare of their child. Read the fucking transcript! They were. They felt, rightly, that a public trial would be far worse for their daughter than a plea bargain.

Mouth breathing snow monkey.

"That the judge was going to dismiss the plea agreement is beside the point."

So if a Judge promises you won't have to serve jail time if you plead guilty, and changes his mind after you give up your right to a fair trial, that is OK because the guy is a scumbag?

"So if a Judge promises you won't have to serve jail time if you plead guilty, and changes his mind after you give up your right to a fair trial, that is OK because the guy is a scumbag?

#8 | Posted by crispee_oc"

Exactly! The so-called "Libertarians" here should be screaming for the judge's head.

Actually, the judge never promised not to send Polanski to prison. That is an inaccurate myth that has evolved as the case has aged. It was the DA that was not recommending prison.

Judges have every right to reject a plea deal. Even if it were true that the judge gave the impression he would accept it and later changed his mind, I'm glad he did, because what's happening now is what should be happening to a scumbag like Polanski.

I've got zero sympathy for Polanski. I just read the transcript of the grand jury testimony by the girl. Sounds like rape to me. Give a 13-year-old champagne and quaaludes, take nude pix of her, then invite her into a jacuzzi, then bang her while she resists? And then he flees the country rather than face justice? Fuck him with a 2x4.

I also don't believe the case should be dropped just because the witness wants it to be. I understand she doesn't want it all dragged out again. I respect that, and I wish she didn't have to go through this. But when a crime occurs, it's the state versus the defendant, not the victim versus the defendant.

From my admittedly limited knowledge of the law, I believe judges do have the authority to reject a plea settlement they feel is inappropriate.

Ha - Joe, you and I posted at the same time. I agree with you.

Drugging a 13 year old child and then anally violating her is RAPE, even if she says it is not. Her reasons for 'forgiving' are not even part of the discussion.

ANYONE, for ANY reason, who does something like he did, should be skinned alive. Sadly (but for good reason), skinning bastards like that alive is illegal, so as a next best alternative, a few decades in prison where he can be annally raped himself is an excellent alternative.

Again, he did did it, it is rape no matter what Hollywood or even the victim says, and to let him go BECAUSE HOLLYWOOD LIKES HIM.......

.....words escape me, but my passionate passionate LOATHING of the hollywood/liberal culture is beyond measure.....

He annally raped a 13 year old child.

That it was 30 years ago is NOT an issue.
Bad conduct by a judge does not "UNRAPE" a CHILD.
Brillant films mean NOTHING.
"Forgiveness" by the victim does not make him NOT a child raping piece of shit.

That ANYONE for ANY reason can let them selves lose focus on the FACT that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl is PROOF that such people have no ACTUAL ethics.

There is ONE, and ONLY ONE, core fact here: He raped a 13 year old girl. If you lose on focus on that point in any conclusion, YOU have no ethics.

"So if a Judge promises you won't have to serve jail time if you plead guilty,"

Polanski plead guilty to one of six charges facing him, avoiding a trial, the judge then ordered him serve time to under go a 90-Day psychiatric study, to determine sentencing.

The only accusation about sentencing that Polanski's attorneys made towards the judge in the case was that he prejudiced, not that he broke any agreement.

#7 | Posted by furio

The judge has the final say in sentencing period. The judge does not arrange the plea deal the prosecutor and the defense do, the judge either accepts or rejects the arraignment.

I also have no use for a drug addled pedophile to be given special consideration like you do.

I hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of a situation like this.

As far as your childish comment at the end of you post most people would consider me more liberal than anything else. I just know the difference between a child molester and a undeserving movie director...

"There is ONE, and ONLY ONE, core fact here: He raped a 13 year old girl. If you lose on focus on that point in any conclusion, YOU have no ethics.

#14 | Posted by USAF242"

The judicial system has nothing to do with ethics or justice the sooner you realize that the safer you will be if you ever get caught up in the system. The system is about following proper procedure both explicit and implicit.

Another thread, another beatdown of furyhole.

I think I know why furyhole moved to europe and is defending Polanski...Precedent.

There was a plea deal, Polanski took it. The judge reneged. That judge is dead. What mother would let a 46 year old man take her 13 year old daughter alone at night? Many layers of bad in this one.

101-
You defended the torture techniques of the Chi-coms, so I guess anything goes...

"As far as your childish comment at the end of you post most people would consider me more liberal than anything else. I just know the difference between a child molester and a undeserving movie director...

#16 | Posted by Prolix247"

the worse offenders in the judicial system must be treated the same as everyone else for the system to work. It was very obvious a deal was made between all parties.

I hope you never have to be in this situation due to a case of false conviction. You don't want the DA and/or judge lying to your lawyer do you?

Have you ever had to plea to a DA? I have to reduce a speeding ticket to an equipment failure. No points, just the fine. the judge was already aware of what the DA was doing. For all intents and purposes it is the same thing as Polansky's situation when it comes to procedure.

"Another thread, another beatdown of furyhole.

I think I know why furyhole moved to europe and is defending Polanski...Precedent.

#18 | Posted by 101Chairborne"

It was either move to Buffalo and hang out at the local Applebee's or live in Moldova. Easy decision.

"It was very obvious a deal was made between all parties. "

Again - judges are not a party to the deal. The DA can only recommend a particular sentence to the judge. The judge can reject the deal if it is in the interests of justice to do so. The fact that the judge may have given the impression that he was on board does not matter in the least if, in the end, a child rapist will be put in jail.

#15... He gave up his right to a fair trial because of the plea. There was no guarantee he would have been convicted. Obviously the DA and or Judge also felt the same way. Unless it was all due to the family not wanting this to escalate and go to trial. Either way, Polanski was offered and he accepted. What I don't get is how Polanski knew the Judge was going to renig. Seems to me he would have had a better shot staying and fighting, rather than running.

The fact that the judge may have given the impression that he was on board does not matter in the least if, in the end, a child rapist will be put in jail.

That impression made Polanski waive his constitutional right to a fair trial. Rapist or otherwise.

For the record the penalty was way to lenient and I have no problem with a trial, conviction and jail time.

"It is about the US legal system being about itself and not about society or the parties involved."

Prosecuting Polanski is in the best interest of our society. That is why what the victim says after being bought off doesn't matter. It is in the best interest of society to lock up people who give 13 years olds drugs and then have sex with them. It is in the best interest of society to administer justice equally rather than to show preferential treatement to the rich and famous. It is in the best interest of society that people who use their wealth and status to circumvent our legal system be brought to justice if at all possible no matter how long it takes.

It is not in the best interest of our society to allow wealthy rapists to buy the support of their victims.

And for someone who just wants to be left out of this, the victim is talking to alot reporters. I've only seen her name in print twice since Polanski was arrested in Sweden and both times it was because she was giving quotes to reporters in support of Polanski. Her claim that the courts are keeping her name in the press don't stand up to even passing scrutiny.

It was either move to Buffalo and hang out at the local Applebee's or live in Moldova. Easy decision.

#22 | Posted by furio

Is there toilet paper in Modova ?

As Chair would say:

Fuck France!

Is there toilet paper in Modova ?

The better question is, are there Buffalo BOobs in Modova?

This isn't about a statute of limitations - this is about a punishment never served.

Fuck this asshole.

Toss his pedophile ass in jail in accordance with his lawfully-rendered sentence.

"Is there toilet paper in Modova ?

#27 | Posted by wisgod "

No but there are many fine maple leaves. It is an easy compromise compared to life in Buffalo.

"Her claim that the courts are keeping her name in the press don't stand up to even passing scrutiny.

#26 | Posted by Sully "

What you mean your limited opinion? So what she states and her family states does not matter?

Do you think it is better for her to have to get on the witness stand in a public courtroom and describe to all how she was ass fucked and had cum leaking out into her panties? And of course the defense will have to question her and try to make it out as if she wanted it. that's the job of defense attorneys. She did have sex before Polansky and she also tried drugs as well. She would have been painted as a Lolita.

You think that is better for her than a plea?

The better question is, are there Buffalo BOobs in Modova?

I think think that's where he's setting up his second country, bOoBistan (pop 2)

FURIO

You are mostly correct, BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT.

Again:

There is ONE, and ONLY ONE, core fact here: He raped a 13 year old girl. If you lose on focus on that point in any conclusion, YOU have no ethics.

As for your point and Law vs Ethics, you are mostly correct.

There is a REASON I said that "justice" would involve the scumbag being skinned alive, but that sadly (but correctly), our legal system makes this illegal.

All decent Legal systems are based on "law", with an intend to establish "order", and eye towards "justice", usually in that order, but not always successfully.

For a legal system to put "Justice" first is 100% sure to fail, and badly. "Order", with an eye towards "justice" , by its nature, prevents huge amounts of injustice from happening in the first place.

Pure "justice" is gang warfare.

Pure "order" is pointless.

Forgetting "Justice" is a failure of ethics (which is the point of this whole issue).

On a side note, "order" can become harmful in and of itself when it becomes excessively restrictive on people living their lives and making a living.

The best systems achieve a BALANCE of these things. Excessive focus on any one of them, even to save the lives of children that could PROVEABLY be saved, will do more harm than good.

"What you mean your limited opinion?"

No, it isn't a matter of opinion at all. People who don't want to be in the news don't give multiple interviews. Your failure to understand this common sense point is not MY limitation.....

"Do you think it is better for her to have to....."

He's already been found guilty.

I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if I'm rpeating what someone else has said.

I find it very strange that this woman doesn't want this to go any further, to drop it....and let her rapist go free because every time it's brought up it causes her, her family more harm.....but she's is in a documentary for HBO about Polanski that includes her ordeal??? Which will undubtedly be aired over and over??

Hmmmmm

And she "long got over it"?

Maybe our circumstances are different.

I have long forgiven, but forgotten???

25 years later, residual damage still surfaces for me.

I don't know....to me, all of this is odd behavior.

He's already been found guilty.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2009-09-29 04:55 PM

Not to play semantics... But he plead guilty.

"He's already been found guilty.

#35 | Posted by Sully "

No he was not, he plead guilty giving up his right to trial. There was obviously an agreement. This is what the whole issue is about not him being a scumbag.

Do you want the government uphold its obligations to its citizens or not?

And if there are exceptions in the case of scumbags like Polansky then who defines what a "scumbag" is?

The crime is with the LA judicial system not Polansky.

#1 | Posted by furio

Post like this ENRAGE me!!!! What the hell is wrong with you libs. Polanksy got this 13 YEARD OLD GIRL drunk on champagne an gave her a quaalude then sodomized her! The crime is not with Polansky? That's fucking insane.

Get the facts straight. He plead guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor". this is not rape.
#7 | Posted by furio at

You are such a dumbass!!! Unlawful sex with a minor is STATUTORY RAPE you stupid fuck. It's legally rape!

Just to educate more liberal morons like yourself, a judge is under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO ACCEPT A PLEA BARGAIN. When you enter into a plea bargain and plead guilty you throw yourself onto the mercy of the court whether that court chooses mercy or not. Every trial judge makes sure that a defendant understands that right when entering a guilty plea. 90%+ of the time, the judge will accept what a prosecutor works out but is under no obligation to do so. Polanski plead guily to rape because he was guilty of rape.

One last point idiot. When you are a criminal defendant, it does NOT matter what a victim wants as a resolution of a criminal case. Why? Because such charges are between The People of the State of California versus the Defendant NOT the Victim. Get fucking educated. Stop gettng your information from MSNBC. You will sound like a moron everytime!

"Post like this ENRAGE me!!!! What the hell is wrong with you libs. Polanksy got this 13 YEARD OLD GIRL drunk on champagne an gave her a quaalude then sodomized her! The crime is not with Polansky? That's fucking insane.

#39 | Posted by utastaff"

StaffInfection, rage little monkey, rage. why don't you rage at the government in general and not just Obama?

#38 - Furio, are you serious about moving to Moldova? I'm in the PR business, and a couple of years ago two Moldovan PR professionals came to my business for a couple of days on a visit sponsored by a local exchange group. They were highly educated and worldly, although their view of public relations was, I'll just say, a little less developed than ours. One of the women in particular was quite easy on the eyes. But it was really her incredibly sexy, Eastern European accent that sent me to my happy place.

I still have a Moldovan 10-spot from their visit. Like all their bills, it had some 15th century king or something on it. We went to lunch before they left, and I asked the waiter, in my most deadpan voice while holding a handful of the country's currency, if they took Moldovan. The look on the waiter's face was priceless, until I broke into my 'gotcha' laugh.

During lunch my Moldovan friend talked about how Moldova was mostly a poor, agrarian country, but its capital Chişinău was quite cosmopolitan and full of lovely young women. "All ze vimmen in Chişinău vear miniskirts," she offered. "You should come see. You vould be killed."

Um, I would be killed?

"Uh, vell, how you say? Ze vimmen so beautiful you vould just die."

Ah, ok. That's different.

Not sure why I put the #38 in my last post...

CBOB,

Never been there. Hung out with a chick from there once who said the streets are amazingly clean with beautiful tree lined boulevards. She also said the local chapter of the young mafia will steal students text books and hold them for ransom.

I would say Moldova is still a far better choice than Buffalo with shitty lake effect weather, fat women and an ugly post-industrial waste land of a city. I guess it was a move up for Stillborne

I'm with Uta on this one.

I don't understand how anyone could think he shouldn't serve the time.

Aw, hell, I was going to have you look up Olga and Diana. They drank cognac and brandy and I forget what else.

"I'm with Uta on this one.

I don't understand how anyone could think he shouldn't serve the time.

#45 | Posted by Lisa"

So do you also think criminals should get retried and re-sentenced if it didn't look like they are getting enough punishment to fit the crime?

"No he was not, he plead guilty giving up his right to trial. There was obviously an agreement. This is what the whole issue is about not him being a scumbag. "

Was part of the agreement for him to flee the country and live it up in France for 30 years? Somehow I think Polanski broke the deal.

"And if there are exceptions in the case of scumbags like Polansky then who defines what a "scumbag" is? "

If the government was going to give him a sweetheart deal, then THAT would have been the exception and it would have been made because he is rich and famous. Locking him up for what he did is not an exception.

"Aw, hell, I was going to have you look up Olga and Diana. They drank cognac and brandy and I forget what else.

#46 | Posted by cbob"

coke and red wine.

So do you also think criminals should get retried and re-sentenced if it didn't look like they are getting enough punishment to fit the crime?

The US Constitution prohibits that

Furio:

What has that got to do with this case.

Polansky didn't serve time...he ran.

You don't think he should do any????

But to answer your question...I don't think that can happen.

"Was part of the agreement for him to flee the country and live it up in France for 30 years? Somehow I think Polanski broke the deal. "

No, it was for a sentencing of time served.

This is sick fucking low life bastard who deserves to be anally raped in a prison the same way he anally raped a 13 year old girl.

She forgave him and wants it over with !! She may have forgiven him and not want him punished but she has no authority to drop the minimum charges required by law for his sick crime.

This man is a fucking piece of shit who has used influence and money to escape justice.

"So do you also think criminals should get retried and re-sentenced if it didn't look like they are getting enough punishment to fit the crime?

The US Constitution prohibits that

#50 | Posted by goatman"

That's the issue with Polansky he ran before the sentencing because the deal that was arranged was taken off the table BUT after he already plead guilty. He forfeited his constitutional right to a fair trial based upon an agreement that was technically non-binding but obviously promised. If he and his lawyers hadn't felt it was iron clad he would have never have pleaded guilty. He was hung out to dry. The question is should the judicial system hold up its quid pro quos?

"No, it was for a sentencing of time served."

Then why did he run? He had some kind of psychic revelation that the government was going to screw him?

And don't they always tell people when they agree to a plea that the prosecutor is only making a recommendation and that the sentence is up to the judge?

"If the government was going to give him a sweetheart deal, then THAT would have been the exception and it would have been made because he is rich and famous."

Yes Sully that is part of a capitalistic and democratic society. the wealthy can afford the best services and lawyers and they can influence politicians. Would you prefer a communist society where everyone is absolutely equal? That is what you are asking for.

"Then why did he run? He had some kind of psychic revelation that the government was going to screw him? "

His lawyer was somehow informed. I would suspect it was the DA who found out the judge was backing out. DAs and defense attorneys work for years together in the same courtrooms and develop relationships which is why most cases never go to trial as they are plea bargained.

Going to trial even for a speeding ticket is very expensive especially for large cities. Always contest speeding tickets unless you have a number of points or for doing 100 in a 40 zone the ticket will get dropped.

Yes Sully that is part of a capitalistic and democratic society. the wealthy can afford the best services and lawyers and they can influence politicians. Would you prefer a communist society where everyone is absolutely equal? That is what you are asking for.

See Also: Universal health care.

"Would you prefer a communist society where everyone is absolutely equal?"

LOL. No they aren't. The connected wield even greater power in the commie governments than they do here. The reason why Russian mafia is largely led by ex-government officials is because communism devolves into government run by gangsters.

And if you plead guilty to drugging and sodomizing a thirteen year old, not judge is ever going to agree to time served. That is just too high profile and way to obvious. I find it hard to believe that any high paid defense attorney would even believe such an offer were true.

"That is what you are asking for."

Nice try.

" The reason why Russian mafia is largely led by ex-government officials is because communism devolves into government run by gangsters."

Soviet communism "devolved" into gangster capitalism because they took the advice of the West and employed a "shock treatment" of rapid deregulation and privatization.

"LOL. No they aren't. The connected wield even greater power in the commie governments than they do here. The reason why Russian mafia is largely led by ex-government officials is because communism devolves into government run by gangsters."

Yeah I know former communist countries. It's human nature to get an advantage any way you can.

" I find it hard to believe that any high paid defense attorney would even believe such an offer were true."

His attorney probably had a long history with the DA and the judge. There was a deal and then there was political pressure which probably forced the judge to change his mind.

My issue is the judicial system depends on deals being made to reduce costs and speed up the process. While it is "informal" it occurs far more often than trials do.

The sick pervert anally raped a 13 year old. Then, he split after pleading guilty. It doesn't matter much what the victim wants. Polanski needs to do the time for both crimes. Any other result would be unjust.

"Soviet communism "devolved" into gangster capitalism because they took the advice of the West and employed a "shock treatment" of rapid deregulation and privatization."

Of course, Comrade. There is nothing problematic about handing unelected government officials huge amounts of power. Communism is immune to human nature. The party of Stalin wouldn't allow anyone to do something unethical.

Now, wanna take a look at this bridge I have to get rid of at a real good price?

Spiritually, unrepentance and every unconfessed sin will drag the person to hell. His/her own fault. No dirts allowed into heaven. For the serious seeker, cleansing is available (1 John 1:5-10).

The rich man went to hell because he did not repent (Luke 16:30) --- and he is pleading readers not to end up where he is.

"My issue is the judicial system depends on deals being made to reduce costs and speed up the process. While it is "informal" it occurs far more often than trials do."

I generally agree that system relies on pleas and therefore plea arrangments have to be honored or it all breaks down.

I'd need to know there is proof that this happened to Polanski before I start worrying about his rights though. I'm unwilling to take his word for it.

"I'd need to know there is proof that this happened to Polanski before I start worrying about his rights though. I'm unwilling to take his word for it."

The fact he waived his trial or the fact the DA did not pursue the case, should be enough evidence he was offered a plea.

The crime is with the LA judicial system not Polansky. -- #1 | Posted by furio

Why is the MEDIA continuing to print the name of a victim who was a child at the time? How can it be the case that juvenile OFFENDERS' records are sealed, but juvenile RAPE VICTIMS' records get splashed all over the papers?

I heard an interesting point on one of the news shows. The comentator asked if it were "Father Polanski" would the Holywood types be running to his defence?

" Spiritually, unrepentance and every unconfessed sin will drag the person to hell. His/her own fault. No dirts allowed into heaven. For the serious seeker, cleansing is available (1 John 1:5-10).

The rich man went to hell because he did not repent (Luke 16:30) --- and he is pleading readers not to end up where he is.

#65 | Posted by takitez "

You actually read that pyramid marketing shit?

He RAPED a 14 year old girl. If this were your daughter or mother or wife (any of you) would you feel the same way?

Juxtapose Israel's "GENOCIDE" in Gaza - IS THIS HYPOCRISY OR WHAT???

So Soon After the US Govt APPROVED (financed and militarily equipped) the State of Israel to Wage its Gutless,Murderous "GENOCIDE" on the unarmed Palestinians in Gaza - now its so Sanctimoniously Concerned about Polanski having sex with a 13 year old 32 years ago! What about all the innocent,little children the US Govt and Israel together "M-U-R-D-E-R-E-D" in Gaza???

Frankly,

Polanski should be glad it wasn't my daughter. He wouldn't have made it to his current age unscathed.

BUT, as a matter of LAW, he needs to return. Face justice. Otherwise, we are only giving lip service to the idea of the US as a "nation of laws."

No surprise that the Hollywoodies who are so self-serving wouldn't understand that. (Obligatory rant on the duplicity of woodies complaining about high salaries omitted)

"Toss his pedophile ass in jail in accordance with his lawfully-rendered sentence."

Not to suggest that your intent is incorrect (ass in jail), but he's not a pedophile. Pedophilia, by definition (legal at least), refers to sex with prepubescents. She was not. She was young, and the act was beyond wrong, but she was not prepubescent. Just sayin'.

"No surprise that the Hollywoodies who are so self-serving wouldn't understand that."

I keep seeing comments like this, here and otherwise. Have any Hollywood denizens come out and commented on this in any way?

Is Polanski actually getting special treatment because he's who he is, or is it that his money and status has allowed him to get away with what he has gotten away with? It's not as if he has been in California all this time and has been given a free ride by the cops there. (And no, I"m not suggesting that he shouldn't face trial. I'm simply saying that the implications by some regarding treatment and escape are ... odd.)

How many battered wives say that their man is just misunderstood?

That's why we have laws! Abused women, especially when sexually abused, can defend men's abominable behavior.

How many battered wives say that their man is just misunderstood?

There wouldn't be so many battered wives if they'd just shut up and fucking listen.

how much has it/will it cost to prosecute this case? how much to lock him up for 20 years in high security because other prisoners are wont to shiv child molesters?

any way this does not end up costing the bankrupt state of california anything less than 1 million taxpayer dollars?

"Polanski should be glad it wasn't my daughter. He wouldn't have made it to his current age unscathed.

#73 | Posted by daprof"

Then you would end up in jail and your daughter would be without a male role model. Of course the last role model she would have is a rebel killer. Guess what type of guys she will be hooking up with while you spend time in jail?

Why is the MEDIA continuing to print the name of a victim who was a child at the time? How can it be the case that juvenile OFFENDERS' records are sealed, but juvenile RAPE VICTIMS' records get splashed all over the papers?

~Phoenix

THIS.

Polanski is scum and he should prolly see the inside of a jail fer his crime.

That sed the way he has been pursued around the globe does make this look very much like a vendetta.

Seriously, he was arrested in Switzerland picking up a life time achievement award after intense pressure from the US government.

An extrodinary rendition, indeed.

Be Well.

They need to re-write the law to make it more simple.

Here, like this: Fuck a 13 year old = Lots of Hard Labor for many years.

Pretty straight forward.

"So Soon After the US Govt APPROVED (financed and militarily equipped) the State of Israel to Wage its Gutless,Murderous "GENOCIDE" on the unarmed Palestinians in Gaza - now its so Sanctimoniously Concerned about Polanski having sex with a 13 year old 32 years ago! What about all the innocent,little children the US Govt and Israel together "M-U-R-D-E-R-E-D" in Gaza???"

anticadillac is soooo "right." We should allow 13 year-old girls to be raped by middle-aged pervs out of a sense of collective liberal guilt.
Get help, moron.

Very interesting article at "The Daily Beast" this morning: Marcia Clark's "Polanski's Lost Alibi." Summary:

Have any Hollywood denizens come out and commented on this in any way?
Posted by Pragmatist

* * * * *

Many have. Debra Winger, most recently, whom I will never watch again.

"Winger said the festival was used unfairly (Polanski was attending to receive an award). "We stand by and wait for his release and his next masterwork," she said, according to Reuters.

German producer Henning Molfenter, who was scheduled to attend the film festival, says he is boycotting it in protest of Polanski's arrest. "There is no way I'd go to Switzerland now -- you can't watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5 km away," Molfenter told The Hollywood Reporter. Others from the film world, including Italian actress Monica Bellucci, French actress Fanny Ardant, president of the Cannes film festival Gilles Jacob and Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai, issued a petition demanding his immediate release."

Clark's article is interesting indeed, Doc. But she seems to be all over the place. Lots of "on the other hand" type statements. The key passage to me seems to be this: "Rittenband could legally have let Polanski withdraw his plea and either set the case for trial or set new terms for the plea bargain and see if Polanski would accept them."

I think Polanski should be required to either take his chances with the plea he entered or withdraw his plea and stand trial. I don't see this as a vendetta - it's simply a case that was never resolved. There's no statute of limitations on a felony, and when you flee the country, you don't get off scot-free. It's that simple.

The victim doesn't want this all brought out again because it was an unpleasant part of her life. She was 13 and already not a virgin. She'd also done quaaludes before, according to her grand jury testimony. So naturally she'd prefer to put the whole thing behind her.

But she was raped. Justice requires that this case be adjudicated once and for all.

I heard an interesting point on one of the news shows. The comentator asked if it were "Father Polanski" would the Holywood types be running to his defence?

#69 | Posted by sawdust
* * * *

Not a chance. And if he were an executive with Haliburton, even the libtards here wouldn't sit still for it.

But a Hollywood director, living in France, enjoying the support of the liberal film community? Ah--what's a little rape of a 13-year-old girl among friends? "It looks like a vendetta!"--says Spud. "It's nothing compared to Gaza!"--says Anticaddy. "The victim wants to move on--so should we!"--says everyone else.

Despicable. He drugged a 13 year old girl. He performed cunnilingus on her, he raped her, then turned her over and raped her anally.

Yes, it's a vendetta, Spud. A lot of us are like that.

Yes, it's a vendetta, Spud. A lot of us are like that.

#86 | Posted by rightisright

Tater?

"Many have. Debra Winger, most recently, whom I will never watch again."

That's one. One.

"Winger said the festival was used unfairly (Polanski was attending to receive an award). "We stand by and wait for his release and his next masterwork," she said, according to Reuters.:

Well, I'm not defending him (or her), but you know, the timing is odd. It's been 30 years, and there's never been a festival where he could get picked up before? Just sayin'.

"German producer Henning Molfenter, who was scheduled to attend the film festival, says he is boycotting it in protest of Polanski's arrest. "There is no way I'd go to Switzerland now -- you can't watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5 km away," Molfenter told The Hollywood Reporter. Others from the film world, including Italian actress Monica Bellucci, French actress Fanny Ardant, president of the Cannes film festival Gilles Jacob and Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai, issued a petition demanding his immediate release.""

Those people aren't Hollywood people. The only one I'm sure had done Hollywood movies is Bellucci.

All I'm saying here is that there's a huge leap to "Hollywood liberals are doing x." If lefties started throwing accusations at "corporate rethugs," the rightwingers would jump all over us. And rightly so.

That's one. One.

#88 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-30 10:26 AM | Reply

Scorcese, Woody Allen, Weinstein, etc

There's an article that lists a bunch of Hollywierdos that signed a petition in support of the rapist.
But it wasn't "rape-rape", according to Whoopi.

Yeah, fuck the law. As long as the victim says no foul what the hell. Nice way to run a railroad.

Now it makes sense:

Polanski molested his victim more than 30 years ago. Hasn't the statute of limitations run on his crime?

No. The statute of limitations for a crime requires the state to make a formal charge against the defendant within a certain timeframe. Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking.

Be a pedophile and as long as you're a liberal Hollywood elite, the American Idol watching retards like Furio will defend you to the end.

"Be a pedophile and as long as you're a liberal Hollywood elite, the American Idol watching retards like Furio will defend you to the end.

#92 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE"

SPIT_OR_SWALLOW, when your puppy fucking habits come to the attention of the law, and they will, I will be one of the first to demand the judicial system upholds its obligations to you.

There is nothing liberal about defending Polanski. His actions undermine our entire justice system. He deserves to be sentenced for his guilty plea, and he deserves to be charged for being a fugitive. I can't believe anyone would bother defending someone like him. He deserves to do zero time and suffer zero punishment for the crime he admitted? I don't understand that at all.

That's one. One.

#88 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-30 10:26 AM | Reply
* * * *

Have you ever heard of Google? It isn't hard, you know. Might save you from looking like a dumbass on occasion.

Yes, it's a vendetta, Spud. A lot of us are like that. -- RiR

Well at least you're honest about it.

I recognize the urge for vengeance. I also recognize it as a destructive and counterproductive emotion, as seen on 9/11, for example. And the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the thirty years of troubles in Northern Ireland. History is rife with examples.

The important fact is that we have a Department of Justice, not a Department of Vengeance.

"Courts Did More Harm Than Polanski"

...What a asinine headline! Uh, if Polanski wouldn't have drugged and raped the 13 year-old chick in the first place then the courts wouldn't have had to get involved now would they?

Yeah, fuck the law. As long as the victim says no foul what the hell. Nice way to run a railroad.
#89 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

"Have you ever heard of Google? It isn't hard, you know. Might save you from looking like a dumbass on occasion."

I'm _conversing_. I didn't make the assertion; I don't need to back up anything with data. I asked a question, got an incomplete answer, responded with that in mind. The person named one. I called that person on it.

You asserting that I look dumb does not apply. I said "That's one," not "Only one Hollywood person defended him." You do know what conversation is, right?

And of course, you neatly ignored my overall point. Typical.