Roman Polanski seeks dismissal of charges

[Miss_Scarlett]

I remember this as being a seedy case back when it happened, but seedy on both sides.

But how could it be seedy on the side of a 13 year old? Well, now maybe you understand why the case needs to be dropped.

People who are defending Polanski may have more info then what is currently in the public domain. Before you judge Whoopi, read what she said. That was not a flippant comment.

The woman wants this all to go away and be done with. People need to listen to her.

Roman should be ashamed of himself but if she has forgiven him and moved on then everybody else should also.

Remember we had two events, the actual event and testimony about the event. They may not be the same.

People need to listen to experts on sex offenders who state that they do not change.

 

[opme]

Would you forgive John Couey? What About the perv that took Elizabeth Smart or any of the other pervs in the headlines lately.. Likely not. Were it your child even an adult child would you so easily forgive his indiscreasions? because it wasnt rape rape or its been 30 years or what ever excuse you are using.. especially the hollywood folks. I think not. If this had been one of us we would be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.. no one would be defending you .. letting you go after 30 years of deliberate hiding etc.. Sorry the law applies regardless of who you are, how much you make, or how long you can hide.

 

[ziggy]

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/09/28/the-roman-polanski-case/

"At first, I feared that the movie was going to tiptoe around the issue of Polanski’s guilt. But no, it never denies that he committed a heinous crime. Yet by showing how a media feeding frenzy shaped the story, oozing like slime into the wheels of justice, and by going deep behind the closed doors of the hearings and negotiations (presided over by a judge on such a star trip he made Lance Ito look like Solomon), the movie creates an indictment of a legal system that was corrupted and warped by the celebrity culture — that is, by the very entitlement it was trying so hard to rein in."

I think there is plenty of finger pointing that needs to go on here with the legal system in LA at the time. But trying to mitigate what Polanski did is irresponsible.

You don't point to other bad behavior to justify bad behavior.

It's all bad, dirty, corrupt and deserves exposure. If you committed a heinous crime as apparently Polanski did, then there is no forgetting and just letting it go because it was 30 years ago or because the victim (who may have benefited by recanting, who knows...) has forgiven him.

If this film does not deny a heinous crime was committed, then why is Hollywood in denial?

 

[sniperacer]

I remember this as being a seedy case back when it happened, but seedy on both sides.

But how could it be seedy on the side of a 13 year old? Well, now maybe you understand why the case needs to be dropped.

People who are defending Polanski may have more info then what is currently in the public domain. Before you judge Whoopi, read what she said. That was not a flippant comment.

The woman wants this all to go away and be done with. People need to listen to her.

Roman should be ashamed of himself but if she has forgiven him and moved on then everybody else should also.

Remember we had two events, the actual event and testimony about the event. They may not be the same.

WTH? Are you trying to infer she lied? No one thus far has questioned the victims truthfulness. Not even RP. And there is the small issue that RP even says he did the crime. And RP plead guilty. Is there more than naked pictures, drugs, alcohol, sex, sodomy that we do not know?

Do tell....

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

I can't believe that Whoopi Goldberg would say that it "wasn't rape rape." I'm just stunned. That's a little like saying "separate but equal" isn't really racist.

 

[sniperacer]

People need to listen to experts on sex offenders who state that they do not change.

Define "sex offenders"?

Because right now sex offenders, as defined by the sex offenders registry, include folks caught peeing in public (exposure), the folks that annually "moon" the coaster train (exposure), the 18 year old with an under 18 high school couple (sex with a minor), performed anal sex (against the law in many places), ..... all filling up the SOR (sex offenders registry).

And you believe all these folks to be repeat offenders?

If you made a case against LEVEL II and LEVEL III offenders I might be more inclined to agree with ya.

And to put this O/T, IMO, I believe RP should be on the SOR.

 

[believe09]

Are you implying it's because of race? Because I don't see that at all. Or maybe you mean something else.

I see a lot of blaming-the-victim on various sites. A lot of "he's paid his dues." Heck, I used the latter myself, at first. Until the docs I really didn't understand the crime.

I think Vick is a vile human being. I think Polanski is a vile human being, after reading the extent of what he did. Before, I was someone who lambasted Vick and gave Polanski a bit of a pass. It wasn't because of race; it was because of my ignorance on what went on that day.

:waitasec: Race?

Hollywood insiders are protecting their own it appears. Regardless of the facts of the case-OK, he pled guilty to a lesser charge to avoid being charged with everything. That is what sympathy and notoriety got him 30 years ago. Someone was willing to deal. Then he ran when he caught wind of the judge possibly changing the terms.

I don't get where Vick comes in at all, but I am certain that race has nothing to do with whether either man is guilty of his crimes.

 

[sniperacer]

I can't believe that Whoopi Goldberg would say that it "wasn't rape rape." I'm just stunned. That's a little like saying "separate but equal" isn't really racist.

Yeah. I always thought Whoopi was much smarter than the Hollywood norm.

To be fair, there are many, many types of rape - all with different meaning to different folks. For example; date rape, gang rape, marital rape or spousal rape, incestual rape, child sexual abuse, prison rape, acquaintance rape, war rape and statutory rape.

But there is no "rape rape". :waitasec:

 

[MomofBoys]

I don't get where Vick comes in at all, but I am certain that race has nothing to do with whether either man is guilty of his crimes.

I didn't really get the Vick comparison, either, but the race comment was just an honest question regarding Adnoid's post. My mind, for whatever reason, didn't jump to the whole Hollywood protecting its own thing. It seems logical now, at least in thought process. I'm not sure why anyone would want to hook their wagons to either Vick or Polanski, but that's just me. Two people can be morally corrupt without having to draw equivalencies. They're both bad people, IMHO. Some bad people are worse than others, but they're still bad.

 

[southcitymom]

I wonder if the Pros will be able to make the case with a victim who doesn't want to testify? - that would be challenging.

 

[LinasK]

I wonder if the Pros will be able to make the case with a victim who doesn't want to testify? - that would be challenging.

They do it all the time with battered women that won't testify against their batterers, and some even plead for them to be let go!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Brwnigirl]

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.

I'm with you on the Woody Allen thing. And I might not be able to watch Debra Winger either. Now she's not a pedophile, but I cannot understand a mother standing up to defend someone who admitted these acts and whining about the poor art community. She should be ashamed of herself.

I just picture RP in jail..surrounded by some big male prisoners and his comments coming full circle right back at him- ''Do you want me to go through the back" (the question he asked his victim before sodomizing her, like she had a choice!)
Wonder how he would feel with no power to do anything but submit....that's what these kids go thru

 

[4n6]

I am appalled by the number of people who seem to feel the drug facilitated sexual assault of a 13 year old child by a 44 year old adult should be ignored simply because time has passed. I doubt those same people would feel the same if it was thier 7th or 8th grader (the grade a 13 year old typically would be in) who was chemically restrained with drugs and alcohol and raped vaginally and anally. I have sympathy for the victim having an episode I'm sure she would prefer be left in the past being brought up all over again, but Mr. Polanski should have to pay for his criminal behaviour. In 1979 Mr. Polanski was interviewed by Martin Amis, during which he is reported as having stated “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!” In my opinion, that quote clearly shows he sees nothing wrong with his behavior. Disgusting!

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

Define "sex offenders"?

Because right now sex offenders, as defined by the sex offenders registry, include folks caught peeing in public (exposure), the folks that annually "moon" the coaster train (exposure), the 18 year old with an under 18 high school couple (sex with a minor), performed anal sex (against the law in many places), ..... all filling up the SOR (sex offenders registry).

And you believe all these folks to be repeat offenders?

If you made a case against LEVEL II and LEVEL III offenders I might be more inclined to agree with ya.

And to put this O/T, IMO, I believe RP should be on the SOR.

Did we really need to go to the "define your terms" argument? Clearly, we are discussing rape, not peeing in public. Who belongs on the official sex offender registry is another issue.

ETA: But a very valid issue. Not only is it not fair for people who fall into some categories, but it's not even remotely helpful for us to know, either.

 

[porkchop]

I didn't really get the Vick comparison, either, but the race comment was just an honest question regarding Adnoid's post. My mind, for whatever reason, didn't jump to the whole Hollywood protecting its own thing. It seems logical now, at least in thought process. I'm not sure why anyone would want to hook their wagons to either Vick or Polanski, but that's just me. Two people can be morally corrupt without having to draw equivalencies. They're both bad people, IMHO. Some bad people are worse than others, but they're still bad.

The point I was making with Vick is that he committed a crime and served his time. However some of the same people that say that RP should be let go are the same people that were screaming that Vick should never be allowed to play again and will probably protest any game that he plays in. These people will throw their arms around a child rapist who fled prosecution yet demonize a man who killed dogs, admitted his guilt and served his time. I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying that the "Hollywood" types think they are better than the rest of us because they are "artist" and the rules don't apply to them. They live in a different reality from the rest of us and thinking a child rapist should go free just proves it.

 

[Trino]

The point I was making with Vick is that he committed a crime and served his time. However some of the same people that say that RP should be let go are the same people that were screaming that Vick should never be allowed to play again and will probably protest any game that he plays in. These people will throw their arms around a child rapist who fled prosecution yet demonize a man who killed dogs, admitted his guilt and served his time. I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying that the "Hollywood" types think they are better than the rest of us because they are "artist" and the rules don't apply to them. They live in a different reality from the rest of us and thinking a child rapist should go free just proves it.

I'm definitely not Hollywood. As for Vick, IMO he served his time. Let's move on.

RP is 76 yrs. old. In the past SEVERAL years has he demonstrated he's likely to re-offend? To me it's a waste of money when there are bigger fish to fry. My money says he'll not be jailed.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

I haven't read through all the threads so I apologize in advance if this is a repeat.

There's no doubt that what Polanski did was illegal. Regardless of which decade it occurred in. Sex with a minor child is illegal. He knew that and he pleaded guilty to it. The fact there were drugs and alcohol involved only makes it worse. No matter the decade it was wrong. Child rape was tried in the 70's just the same as today; as an illegal and extremely deviant behavior.

If he was such a victim of this judge and the legal inequities he felt he was subjected to there is a legal way to handle it. Why couldn't his attorney(s) filed something to a higher court citing such? Why not appeal the judge's decision while doing his time? No? Instead he ran, and thus, made a mockery of the system that was set up to protect true innocents.

I won't touch this child's (now woman) history because I don't care if she was a temptress or party girl. Sex with her was wrong, period. He should have accepted his sentence and took proper legal channels for any and all matters in which he felt he received an unfair trial.

ETA: I am disheartened by so many in Hollyweird voicing their opinion that seemingly dismisses any pain/suffering this woman went through as a child and paints Polanski as the only victim in this. GMAB.

 

[Velouria]

RP is 76 yrs. old. In the past SEVERAL years has he demonstrated he's likely to re-offend? To me it's a waste of money when there are bigger fish to fry. My money says he'll not be jailed.

Respectfully snipped

He may very well never be jailed for this. However, how exactly do we know Polanski hasn't re-offended when he's been hiding out in France for the last 30 years?

 

[CyberLaw]

Do you remember the teenage actress who had a relationship with Roman when she was 15. He obviously has not problem being a pervert.

He rapes a 13 year old and has a relationship with a minor child when she was 15 and he was well into 40's early 50's.

Once a pervert, always a pervert.....

 

[mister happy]

Did you see Chris Rock ranting about Polanski on Jay Leno the other night? Chris can really shout it out:

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape