Roman Polanski seeks dismissal of charges

[LinasK]

Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, as well as others, are DEMANDING his immediate release. :\

Of course Woody Allen would! He who marries his step-daughter:sick::sick::sick:
Birds of a feather...

 

[Trino]

Of course Woody Allen would! He who marries his step-daughter:sick::sick::sick:
Birds of a feather...

While I have no respect for Woody Allen, technically, he did not marry his step-daughter. Allen and Mia Farrow were never legally married. His current wife was the adopted daughter of Farrow and Andre Previn.

Allen and Soon-Yi have been married 12 years. IMO she's not the best looking apple on the tree, but, then, I have no idea of her personality.

 

[believe09]

While I have no respect for Woody Allen, technically, he did not marry his step-daughter. Allen and Mia Farrow were never legally married. His current wife was the adopted daughter of Farrow and Andre Previn.

Allen and Soon-Yi have been married 12 years. IMO she's not the best looking apple on the tree, but, then, I have no idea of her personality.

With all due respect, Mr. Allen raised this child since she was 9 I believe. I was not inside the walls of their house, but Mia Farrow was her mother and Woody Allen was Mia's longtime partner-in many states he would have been considered a common law husband. The evolution of their relationship is beyond creepy given societal norms. JMO.

I am intrigued by the hue and cry on behalf of Mr. Polanski. I am intrigued by countries like France that choose to come out on his side citing a sort of "boys will be boys" mentality. I think that California has a legitimate point in chasing him down. I think that Polanski needs to face this down in a court of law and have it be resolved in a proper fashion. OK, 30 years ago he took a deal and agreed to plead guilty because he thought he would get his wrist slapped vs having to go to trial and be charged with EVERYTHING. He can claim bait and switch, but he has to do it in front of a judge. I will leave you guys to this thread simply because I am repeating myself and it is annoying even to me, lol. Peace...

 

[MomofBoys]

Since I originally posted my thoughts on this subject, I've done a rare full reversal of my opinion. After reading the docs, I'm horrified. A lot of people will have you believe this was some kind of "consensual" (no such thing) scenario. He sodomized a child.

Throw the book at him. I don't care what kind of life he's had.

 

[sniperacer]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-09-27-polanski_N.htm


"This is a legal story," Balmer told The AP. "There is no room for political pressure."

Authorities in Los Angeles consider Polanski a "convicted felon and fugitive."

Polanski at the time had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation. Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain.

On the day of his sentencing in 1978, aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France.

Yes, he plead guilty to having sex with her, but it was a different charge than current ones like child molestation, rape of a child under 14, etc. that would have been filed today. Unlawful sexual intercourse could probably have covered a lot of things 30 years ago, including adultery and gay sex. I don't think it was a "100 years" thing. (hell, most murderers don't even get 100 years!) He did not plead to drug related charges.

Since the plea deal was not followed, I think the whole guilt/innocence goes back to the beginning. It is null and void. And that is where I think this is a big waste, because they will never be able to find him guilty with no evidence and a reluctant victim. I wouldn't be surprised if the civil settlement included an agreement that she would not pursue any other charges, plus a confidentiality clause.

This is exactly correct. Polanski plead guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor" - at the time it was NOT considered rape (note after 30 years, some states now call this statutory rape). This was the least charge available.

His guilty plea was based upon a plea bargin deal that stipulated a 42 day sentence. The plea bargin deal was approved by the state/DA, his lawyers, and himself.

The judge accepted Polanski's plea based upon the plea bargin. BUT then the judge reneged on the sentence agreement in the deal. I do not know what latitude judges have in plea agreements, BUT I do NOT believe they can change (double cross the defendant) the terms of the agreement. Judges can certainly accept or decline the WHOLE agreement, but not change 1/2 of an agreement.

Now it is a mess - or a lawyer$ dream.

 

[sniperacer]

I'm afraid all this will result in more harm than good. Although everyone uses terms as "rape", "sodomy", "illegal drugging", etc......, Polanski was only charged with "unlawful sex with a minor".

Unfortunately, I believe, the statute of limitations has passed on additional charges, such as those worded above.

So now you have a mess of judicial misconduct with a dead judge, an old plea agreement that, with the exception of the judge, was satisfied, a defendent fleeing perceived judicial misconduct, an uncooperative victim, 30 years, and differing public opinion.

I see Polanski getting another agreement of time served. Rather than (re)open the whole judicial misconduct "can of worms". Not sure what example of justice this all shows....

 

[STEADFAST]

Since I originally posted my thoughts on this subject, I've done a rare full reversal of my opinion. After reading the docs, I'm horrified. A lot of people will have you believe this was some kind of "consensual" (no such thing) scenario. He sodomized a child.

Throw the book at him. I don't care what kind of life he's had.

You're not the only one, MoB.

"The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law. . . " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

"[Mitterrand's] comments backfired badly when politicians across the spectrum accused the government of elitism and acting in haste.
Green Member of the European Parliament Daniel Cohn-Bendit said Mitterrand should have waited before more details of the case were known. Extreme right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen denounced a "political-artistic caste" claiming special privileges.
Several members of President Nicolas Sarkozy's own UMP party said even great artists should not enjoy legal immunity.
"Charges of raping a 13-year-old child, that's not something trivial," UMP parliamentarian Marc Laffineur said.
Poland has also softened its tone, with Prime Minister Donald Tusk urging moderation. . ."
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE58T4ZM20090930

 

[southcitymom]

With all due respect, Mr. Allen raised this child since she was 9 I believe. I was not inside the walls of their house, but Mia Farrow was her mother and Woody Allen was Mia's longtime partner-in many states he would have been considered a common law husband. The evolution of their relationship is beyond creepy given societal norms. JMO.

I am intrigued by the hue and cry on behalf of Mr. Polanski. I am intrigued by countries like France that choose to come out on his side citing a sort of "boys will be boys" mentality. I think that California has a legitimate point in chasing him down. I think that Polanski needs to face this down in a court of law and have it be resolved in a proper fashion. OK, 30 years ago he took a deal and agreed to plead guilty because he thought he would get his wrist slapped vs having to go to trial and be charged with EVERYTHING. He can claim bait and switch, but he has to do it in front of a judge. I will leave you guys to this thread simply because I am repeating myself and it is annoying even to me, lol. Peace...

All due respect, believe, but I'm not annoyed at all the great points you have made on this thread, and I doubt anyone else is either! :crazy: (though I very much relate to sometimes feeling repetitive when discussing things here)!!

This is a complicated case. I don't care that he has some notoriety (both "good" as a director and "bad" as a Holocaust survivor and a victim of a terrible crime) attached to his name. I do care that he manipulated a child for his own sexual satisfaction and that is never right.

But then, he did plead guilty and it sounds like the Judge acted very very hinky after accepting his good faith plea. That's wrong too. I can understand his fleeing in light of it. Add to that a victim who is publicly supportive of him and does not want him prosecuted and no indication that he has continued such behavior (I'm not saying he hasn't, but I tend to believe that if he had, it would have gotten out) and I tend to wind up where angelmom is - which is to say, doubtful that trying to prosecute him now makes a great deal of sense.

 

[Velouria]

This is exactly correct. Polanski plead guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor" - at the time it was NOT considered rape (note after 30 years, some states now call this statutory rape). This was the least charge available.

But according to the victim's testimony, it WAS indeed rape. She was a child, plied with alcohol and drugs, whose repeated protestations of "NO" went ignored by Polanski. He was willing to plead out to the lesser crime of "unlawful sex with a minor" in exchange for a relative slap on the wrist.

His guilty plea was based upon a plea bargin deal that stipulated a 42 day sentence. The plea bargin deal was approved by the state/DA, his lawyers, and himself.

The judge accepted Polanski's plea based upon the plea bargin. BUT then the judge reneged on the sentence agreement in the deal. I do not know what latitude judges have in plea agreements, BUT I do NOT believe they can change (double cross the defendant) the terms of the agreement. Judges can certainly accept or decline the WHOLE agreement, but not change 1/2 of an agreement.

Plea agreements include a sentencing RECOMMENDATION by the State. Judges are still within their purview to apply a sentence within the set guidelines for the crime in question. Polanski simply got wind that his sweetheart deal was not a sure thing, so he fled like a coward. He still had the option of going to trial like any other, non-celebrity defendant, but chose to run. :hen:

I'm sick and tired of hearing him portrayed as the victim when he drugged and sodomized a child, only to spend the last 30 years living the good life in France.


“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
-Roman Polanski, Visiting Mrs. Nabokov and Other Excursions, by Martin Amis

 

[ziggy]

Ewwww, see, this is what I hated about the ballroom dance industry: if you were an expert at your art, it didn't matter what kind of person you were or what horrible things you may do, you were still supported and loved. That's what i hate about Hollywood. No one can distance themselves from icky, sick twisted men like Woody Allen and it disgusts me. I"ve never understood the defense that, "he's just so talented..blah, blah, blah".

Roman Polanski raped AND sodomized a 13 year old girl and he used drugs and alcohol to do it. It doesn't matter what she says now. This is our country Roman, and while you are here you follow the rules.

He did flee like a coward. He had plenty of money to hire a defense attorney and go to trial, but I'm guessing he took the better deal knowing he was guilty and a jury may not be so kind as the "dealers" in the justice system.

It doesn't matter if he's never done it again either. Pay for the one you did do like a man and then move along.

I'm so angry about this! I will never watch a Woody Allen movie anyway, but now I have a few others to add to the list.

 

[thefragile7393]

I am getting tired of people defending him, talking about his achievements as though he does not need to pay for his crime because of them. I won't deny he's a brilliant artist...I love several of his movies. He has a past that is tragic for sure, but still...it does not matter. I do not know why in the world this girl was allowed to be at this party but she was failed twice, once by people who allowed her to be there, twice by a man who took advantage of her.

I believe this was a one time use of poor judgement (though it appears that he has a thing for young girls:sick...allowing himself to drink to the point of losing rationality, allowing himself to do what he did with the girl. It does not matter, he needs to pay for his crime. I fail to see how he has paid for this crime when he was still living a free life overseas, making movies and winning an Oscar. Why should he be treated any differently then a Joe-Schmoe non-famous person in Minnesota?

I get that the prior judge and the whole hoopla in the past may not have been done by the book and may not have been completely fair, although he's welcome to try and prove his case. He still committed a crime however, and he needs to pay the price under the legal system. I think Trino is right and he likely won't get much of anything in serving a sentence but I could be wrong.

To be fair, the comparisons to Woody Allen aren't exactly accurate, as it appears that the relationship he had with his now-wife started at the age of 18. Icky? Yes. Illegal? No.

 

[Velouria]

Ewwww, see, this is what I hated about the ballroom dance industry: if you were an expert at your art, it didn't matter what kind of person you were or what horrible things you may do, you were still supported and loved. That's what i hate about Hollywood. No one can distance themselves from icky, sick twisted men like Woody Allen and it disgusts me. I"ve never understood the defense that, "he's just so talented..blah, blah, blah".

I hear ya, Ziggy. And on that note, did you know that Charles Manson is actually quite a talented musician/songwriter? Now, if only the parole board was staffed by Hollywood insiders...

 

[sniperacer]

My sleuth curiosity got the better of me. I looked for current pictures of the victim. What I found, IMO, is rather strange.

Most all the current pictures are of her posing at what appears to be a "red carpet" event celebrating the opening of the 2008 HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired".

You can clearly see the "Polanski" film logo in the background of the photos.

I have NOT seen the documentary, but still this seems a rather strange place to appear and be photographed?

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

If I recall correctly, even though the relationship between Woody Allen and his now wife allegedly began after she turned 18 she had complained to Mia about how he creeped her out for years. Still sounds like some sort of grooming and seduction of a vulnerable girl. And I'm not sure those nude photos Mia found of her that were taken by Woody were after the age of 18.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I would like to know what is in Polanski's mental evaluation. I think it might be very revealing.

I join the ranks of those that would like to see this criminal serve time for what he has done. Better late than never, IMO.

MOO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1, 2009
Polanski Prosecutor: I Lied in Documentary
Says he Made up Story 30 Years Ago about Telling Judge to Give Director More Prison Time

Roman Polanski, center, pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse; in exchange, the remaining charges were dropped, and the judge agreed to send Polanski to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. (AP Photo)

(AP) A former prosecutor says he made up a story he told a film crew about advising a judge handling Roman Polanski's sex case to send the director to prison.

In "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," David F. Wells is depicted as conferring with a trial judge more than 30 years ago about Polanski's case. Wells said in the documentary that the judge took his advice in deciding to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski additional prison time.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

He also said he overstated his actions after being told the film would air in France, not the United States. The film aired on HBO.

more at the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...main5354975.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[sniperacer]

I would like to know what is in Polanski's mental evaluation. I think it might be very revealing.

I join the ranks of those that would like to see this criminal serve time for what he has done. Better late than never, IMO.

MOO

It was reported that his evaluation 30 years ago revealed he was not a pedophile. I have no idea how they determine this.

 

[believe09]

It was reported that his evaluation 30 years ago revealed he was not a pedophile. I have no idea how they determine this.

See, and I thought I could stay away from this thread, lol. O/T but related, my SIL was a victim of SA when she was 12. The perp was eventually convicted 15 years later and although she was one of several prepubescent victims of his, he was also determined not to be a "pedophile." Because, supposedly, she and the other victims were somewhat physically mature. Uh huh.

Now, at the minimum, we know Mr. Polanski is/was guilty of performing sexual intercourse with at least two underage females-this victim and Natasha Kinski. All kinds of arguments can be made for and against how much of all of it was consensual I am sure. But on at least two occasions, he has proven his attraction to very young females who were legally children.

Just sayin.

 

[Trino]

If I recall correctly, even though the relationship between Woody Allen and his now wife allegedly began after she turned 18 she had complained to Mia about how he creeped her out for years. Still sounds like some sort of grooming and seduction of a vulnerable girl. And I'm not sure those nude photos Mia found of her that were taken by Woody were after the age of 18.

Somehow I don't see her as a victim. She's been married to Allen for 12 years and will be financially taken care of for the rest of her life. They also have two adopted children together.

But, this thread is about RP rather than Allen.

 

[Nikolai]

Woody Allen is a creep, the dude is just flat out creepy. How these actors can be around him and act as if everything is normal is beyond me. And 13 years old is so young, that is ridiculous, someone being sexually attracted to someone that young means theyre a pedophile. Not only that, he deserves to go to prison for fleeing american charges and law for France. He's a IMO.