" Is Roman Polanski Above the Law?" by Science Becoming Religion / LJWorld.com

Blogs home Science Becoming Religion

Is Roman Polanski Above the Law?

Supporters of convicted criminal, movie director Roman Polanski believes he should be allowed to get away with skipping out on sentencing 32 years ago. He had originally been charged with giving a 13-year-old aspiring model champagne and part of a Quaalude and then raping and sodomizing her among other charges in spite of her pleas that he stop. According to the girl's grand jury testimony he photographed her topless, ostensibly for a magazine, and then had her completely disrobe before attacking her.

He managed to plea bargain the charges down to a simple unlawful sex with a minor charge. However, he fled the country when it appeared the judge might sentence him to a longer jail term than what he had agreed to in the plea bargain.

As many people know, male Hollywood producers, directors, etc. have long had a reputation for requiring woman who wanted to succeed to grant them sexual favors via the casting couch. Polanski possibly thought this tradition meant he could get away with attacking a young girl who wanted to become a model.

40-year-old men who rape 13-year-olds usually are sexual predators who have preyed on more than one girl. I wonder if there are other girls who were raped by Polanski but didn't report it because they were ashamed, considered rape part of the cost of getting in show business, felt it wouldn't do any good to charge someone so well known or were paid to forget the incident.

Polanski has avoided arrest for 32 years because France allows it criminals to return home without fear of being extradited for their crimes. French leaders apparently believe it is perfectly acceptable for French citizens to rape American girls.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand was quoted in French media as saying, "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face." French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told France-Inter radio that he and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski asked Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Polanski be released on bail, calling his arrest a "bit sinister."

French opposition shouldn't be too surprising considering the country's past support for accused artists.

Polanski has been flaunting the law for 32 years. It's time for him to be returned and serve out his sentence.

Ordinary citizens who have done the same have been required to return to jail. Why shouldn't big shot film makers?

Are entertainers in particular or the rich in general above the law? Are they only required to pay compensation to their victims and check into rehab when they get caught breaking the law? Do the entertainers who support Polanski believe rape of children by film directors is acceptable behavior?

It's not like Polanski questioned the charges by attempting to establish his innocence in a trial like Michael Jackson did. Jackson challenged the charges against him and the jury found him not guilty. Polanski readily admitted his guilt by agreeing to a plea bargain that implied only a minor violation of the law.

By reasonmclucus

September 30, 2009

Science Becoming Religion

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

30 September 2009
at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

I wholeheartedly agree with this blog.

Roman Polanski should serve time for the rape of his victim.

What I find appalling is how some entertainers, such as Whoppi Goldberg, who think he should be released because what he did wasn't “real rape.” I kind of think a middle age man who give a 13 year old girl drugs and then proceeds even when she says stop is guilty of rape.

So, personally, I hope he is extradicted and given a longer sentenced not only for the original rape but also because he fled.

Dena
1 October 2009
at 12:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

What a sniveling coward. Not only should he be jailed, but they should prosecute him for fleeing. And how innocent was Jack Nicholson, at whose home this took place? Is it even remotely possible that he was unaware that this scumbag had taken the child outside to the hot tub and was forcing himself on her?

I have to assume that Nicholson knew exactly what was going on. He should've been prosecuted for not reporting it and/or for complicity in allowing it to happen at his house. It's totally disgusting, even after so many years. This girl had to grow up with this horrible burden and live with the effects of it all her life. From what I've been reading, she's still battling demons. No surprise there.

I have to wonder how many other children Polanski's raped in the intervening years. Pedophiles do not typically just stop molesting on their own. Since slinking out of the US, Polanski has spent his time in countries that were more likely to look away and let him do as he pleased.

As if we needed it, this story should remind us of the possible dichotomy between someone's professional success (which may reflect great talent and skill) and their sordid inner workings. We seem too willing to fawn over people who are greatly successful—especially entertainers and sports figures—instead of regarding them with the same wariness with which we would view “ordinary” people.

Would that girl's mother have allowed her to spend a day with a couple of factory workers they had just met? or a neighbor guy down the street that they had just met? Why did she feel safe allowing her 13-year-old daughter to go with this man, unchaperoned? I have read that they had only met him once before.

There are creeps and pedophiles in every walk of life, so no one should expect that just because someone is respected and successful in a high-profile profession, that he is necessarily a good and decent person.
1 October 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

polanski should face prosecution just like us plain folk. he has enjoyed freedom, galavanting around the four corners of the world— playing olly olly oxen free w/ america— for a good amount of time. ship the dirtbag back over here and try him just like they would anyone else. this has gone on for long enough.

and it doesn't matter if the victim forgives him now. it might help her reconcile her own feelings but it should have zero bearing legally. she was a child at the time. period.
1 October 2009
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

i noticed that, santini! i'm thinking “okay… who the hell is woody allen to endorse ANYONE when it comes to that kind of stuff?” all we need now is r. kelly to weigh in on the topic and we'll have all the knuckleheads present and accounted for.
1 October 2009
at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

But it wasn't rape rape.

—

He drugged, raped and sodomized a little girl.

My favorite part of all this is how his supporters say he has been living in exile for 30 years. He's been living in his home country. Sicko.
1 October 2009
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

i know, right? this fool has been living high on the hog everywhere BUT america. how is that punishment?
1 October 2009
at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

good question…. but then again, looking at the r. kelly debaucle, no one played the black card there. atleast not to my knowledge.

1 October 2009
at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Bukhari (007.062.64) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim:

“This is diferrent just how?”
1 October 2009
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

santini's statement: “I wonder if his supporter/enablers will play the “anti-semitism card?” leads me to believe that you, sir, are an unmitigated, unreconstituted anti-semite.
1 October 2009
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

To answer the question, nope. Let his lawyers file an appeal once he is safely behind bars.
1 October 2009
at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

grammaddy (Anonymous) says…

This girls' mother was present when Mr. Polanski gave the girl the drugs to help her relax for the photo shoot. What kind of mother would leave her 13 year old daughter with a known womanizer while she was under the influence of drugs. Who the hell leaves their 13 year old daughter in that situation. Whoopi was right, it was not rape rape only statutory, and by the way, the girl was not a virgin at the time. Not saying I condone what he did, but the victim wants to let it go so who are we to deny her any more embarrasment.
1 October 2009
at 6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

No one is above the law… except those who make or enforce the law.
1 October 2009
at 8:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

“….it was not rape rape only statutory…”

Statutory rape *is* rape. Secondly, during the trial, the victim testified that she repeatedly asked Mr. Polanski to stop. He didn't. She then stopped asking. The prosecution asked her why she stopped telling him to stop and she replied, “I was afraid of him.”

Seems to me that is “rape..rape.” The victim said no or stop repeatedly. The only reason she stopped saying no or stop was because she was afraid. She didn't consent when she stopped saying no. She simply made a strategic decision to stay alive.

Dena
1 October 2009
at 8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim: “This is diferrent just how?”…

Well for starters, this is the 21st century and not the 7th century. Secondly, child brides and betrothals were not uncommon in most societies throughout history regardless of religion. So sorry, as much as you would like to take this opportunity to religion bash, your example really doesn't apply.

Dena
1 October 2009
at 9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Of course many in Hollywood show their slimy side
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she…

1 October 2009
at 10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“denak (Anonymous) says…

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim: “This is diferrent just how?”…

Well for starters, this is the 21st century and not the 7th century. Secondly, child brides and betrothals were not uncommon in most societies throughout history regardless of religion. So sorry, as much as you would like to take this opportunity to religion bash, your example really doesn't apply.

Dena”

Marion writes:

Ok, how about this one and there are many more examples of contemporary child brides taken by Muslims:

” Walthy Indonesian Muslim cleric who married a 12-year-old girl faces up to 15 years in jail after being arrested for obscenity, local media reports.

Pujiono Cayho Widiyanto, a 43-year-old businessman and cleric, was arrested by police in the Central Java city of Semarang yesterday, The Jakarta Globe English-language daily said.

Mr Widiyanto sparked nationwide outrage by taking a poor village girl, Lutfiana Ulfa, as his second wife in August last year.

“We've collected enough evidence to charge him with under age obscenity under the Criminal Code,” chief detective Royhardi Siahaan was quoted as saying, adding the charges carried a maximum of 15 years' jail.

The cleric was arrested after police collected documents proving Ulfa was under age, Mr Siahaan said.

Mr Widiyanto and his supporters say his actions are acceptable under Islam but others say he should abide by state law, which sets 16 as the minimum age for marriage.”
1 October 2009
at 10:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“denak (Anonymous) says…

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim: “This is diferrent just how?”…

Well for starters, this is the 21st century and not the 7th century. Secondly, child brides and betrothals were not uncommon in most societies throughout history regardless of religion. So sorry, as much as you would like to take this opportunity to religion bash, your example really doesn't apply.

Dena”

Marion writes:

Another contemporary example of Muslim child brides; little girls used as payment for the death of a dog:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/…

“How many times has the Western World been chastised, denounced as Islamophobic and threatened by muslims for saying that the muslim religion is “soft on pedophilia”? If this taboo subject, abhorred by ALL Western nations, has no place in Islam then why are little girls - ages between 3 - 10 years old - considered old enough to be bartered (for a dead dog) as marriageable = brides??

Whereas it is commendable that some government officials, in Pakistan, are voicing their outrage— the origination of the source of the mindset that foments much of the muslim population to consider the use of little girls (referred to in article as “ladies”) as chattel capable of performing “wifely” duties - though “unspeakable” is clear.”
1 October 2009
at 11:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Barack Hussein Obama employs people who do not report sexual crimes perpetrated against children:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/…

“President Obama's “safe schools czar,” under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he “should have handled [the] situation differently” years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, “I hope you knew to use a condom.”
2 October 2009
at 12:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverdrifter (Anonymous) says…

His mother was murdered by Nazis, his dad survived a concentration camp and Roman basically was a WWII street urchin. Later, his pregnant wife was murdered by Charlie Manson's slime. And he made great motion pictures: Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown (one of the greats) and The Pianist, also one of the greats.
“May you live in interesting times.”
10,000-1, I would rather sit down to supper and wine with Polanski than any other blogger here.
2 October 2009
at 2:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

Riverdrifter can share a jail house meal, cell and three hots and a cot as well! Lol.

He will get sentenced under the old law sentence guidelines and do more time that if he'd did the deed today. ……and register as a sex offender. But he will die in prison for sure.

Who you are and what you've done only counts if your Bil Clinton, and the president.

I bet Obama, will give him a pardon, just wait and see!
2 October 2009
at 5:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

The ‘Free Roman Polanski’ Petition signed by the following slime plus there's more….I think people need to remember that people in Hollywood are like circus carnys. Think about it. The only difference is they have money and good teeth.

Woody Allen, I guess a few people think he's funny but I never cared for his humor
Wes Anderson, Directed, “The Royal Tenenbaums”
Darren Aronofsky, Directed, “The Wrestler”
Jonatham Demme, Academy Award, Director, “The Silence of the Lambs”
Stephen Frears, Directed “The Grifters” and also “The Queen”
Terry Gilliam, “Monty Python” fame (mostly just animator), Directed a bunch of big budget flops
Taylor Hackford, Director/producer, “Ray,” Director “An Officer and a Gentleman”
Neil Jordan, Academy Award Best Screenplay “The Crying Game”
John Landis, Director, writer, actor, producer for a whole bunch of good movies
David Lynch, Director, nominated 3 times for Academy Awards
Mike Nichols, Director/writer/producer, Won an Oscar, Grammy, Emmy and Tony Award.
Salman Rushdie, writer fame “The Satanic Verses,” and went into hiding for a decade
Martin Scorsese, director, Academy Award “The Departed” did a mess of movies some good/bad
Steven Soderbergh, director, movies some good some bad
Diane von Furstenberg, fashion designer

For all the other “elite,” click here:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/big…
2 October 2009
at 6:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Blessed4x (Anonymous) says…

“grammaddy (Anonymous) says…

Whoopi was right, it was not rape rape only statutory, and by the way, the girl was not a virgin at the time. Not saying I condone what he did, but the victim wants to let it go so who are we to deny her any more embarrasment.”

You, sir or madam, make me want to vomit. I certainly hope you are not a real grandparent. At this point I'm not certain you are human.
2 October 2009
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Bukhari (007.062.64) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim:

“This is diferrent just how?”
===============================

Leave it to you to attempt to derail this blog to spout your bigoted attitudes. There are a multitude of christian sects/cults in the United States that do the same thing yet you do not vilify them.

2 October 2009
at 12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Bukhari (007.062.64) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim:

“This is diferrent just how?”
===============================

Leave it to you to attempt to derail this blog to spout your bigoted attitudes. There are a multitude of christian sects/cults in the United States that do the same thing yet you do not vilify them.”

Marion writes:

Wrongo, Boyo!

I “vilify” any such group but none of you defend the Christian groups as you defend Muslim when its abuse of children is held up for attention.

Whatup with that?

IMHO, the Polansky case is so littered with errors and problems that it probably should go away.

Not to support Polansky in any way but now we have a victm who wants the case over with, we have one of the original prosecutors admitting that he later lied to the press, thereby begging the question, “If he lied after the case, did he lie before and during the case?”

He just had to go for a additional fifteen minutes of fame and has quite likely provided grounds for appeal, if not a straight-up-from-the-bench dismissal of the entire affair.

It needs also be remembered that Polansky did not flee to avoid prosecution; he had indeed reached a plea agreement, as virtually any defendant could do and fled only when it became apparent that the presiding judge was not going to abide by that agreement.

The state of California is near bankruptcy and there is little to be accomplished by writhing about over a 30-plus old case which now has more holes in it than a collander.

As a practical matter and regardless of how we feel about it, I think this case needs to go away.
2 October 2009
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

brujablanco (Anonymous) says…

Gee, Marion, never thought I would see the day you 'd condone child molester. Tsk tsk.
2 October 2009
at 5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pantheon (Anonymous) says…

From the excerpts I read from the testimony, it sounded like rape rape in addition to statutory rape. In fact, it sounded specifically like anal rape of a 13 year old.
On the other hand, the pitchforks and torches mentality I've been seeing in conjunction with the case suggest that people have what I would consider wrong concepts of justice.

Here's the breakdown as I understand it: He raped a 13 year old, was sentenced for statutory rape, served half that, then fled. I don't know much about “the law” but I would think the thing would be for him to finish his sentence for statutory and have a trial for whatever skipping bail is. If you guys are going to get all emotional about the justice system, just go put on a cape and DIY.
2 October 2009
at 6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

brujablanco (Anonymous) says…

Gee, Marion, never thought I would see the day you 'd condone child molester. Tsk tsk.”

Marion writes:

Thank you for your pathetic attempt at spin(Read:lie!)!

In the post to which you refer, I in no way “condone child molester”(sic), and your allegation proves that there is no depth to which Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialists will not stoop.

For the benefit of the Gentle Readers who may not have read the post to which this Junior Wannebe Spin Doctor refers, I am reprinting it below:

“Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Bukhari (007.062.64) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Marion asks the supporters of Muslim:

“This is diferrent just how?”
===============================

Leave it to you to attempt to derail this blog to spout your bigoted attitudes. There are a multitude of christian sects/cults in the United States that do the same thing yet you do not vilify them.”

Marion writes:

Wrongo, Boyo!

I “vilify” any such group but none of you defend the Christian groups as you defend Muslim when its abuse of children is held up for attention.

Whatup with that?

IMHO, the Polansky case is so littered with errors and problems that it probably should go away.

Not to support Polansky in any way but now we have a victm who wants the case over with, we have one of the original prosecutors admitting that he later lied to the press, thereby begging the question, “If he lied after the case, did he lie before and during the case?”

He just had to go for a additional fifteen minutes of fame and has quite likely provided grounds for appeal, if not a straight-up-from-the-bench dismissal of the entire affair.

It needs also be remembered that Polansky did not flee to avoid prosecution; he had indeed reached a plea agreement, as virtually any defendant could do and fled only when it became apparent that the presiding judge was not going to abide by that agreement.

The state of California is near bankruptcy and there is little to be accomplished by writhing about over a 30-plus old case which now has more holes in it than a collander.

As a practical matter and regardless of how we feel about it, I think this case needs to go away.”
2 October 2009
at 7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Save

the

column

inch

.

Polansky

should

be

behind

bars

.
2 October 2009
at 7:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

What about the prosecutor who has admiited lying, snap?
2 October 2009
at 7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

And I also think that based on the evidence presented there was more than a bit of this sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24FT3u…
2 October 2009
at 8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Seems to be you are blaming the victim here. Surely grown men have the ability to have self control and just say no….unless they have an illness.

2 October 2009
at 9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ferrislives (Anonymous) says…

Marion Lynn = Roman Polanski's best friend and advocate; how sweet. Will you two go in a hot tub together?

Back to the subject and excluding the copying and pasting of previous drivel, Polanski is a rapist, pure and simple. If anyone questions the seriousness of what he did back then, here's a complete transcript from the trial: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/…

Marion, please try not to copy and paste only what you like, and it's awkward that you could still find a way to pull Obama into this topic. Obsess much?
2 October 2009
at 10:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Negative;

I am not blaming the victim and if you take the time to *READ* my post and respond unemotionally, you will see the reality of my thoughts on the matter.

Evidence also indicates that her mother “gave” her to Polansky.

Why is Mommy not being prosecuted?
2 October 2009
at 10:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Seems to be you are blaming the victim here. Surely grown men have the ability to have self control and just say no….unless they have an illness.”

Marion writes:

No; not blaming the victim at all.

Ronda, you know my thoughts are not about anything that supports any kind of child abuse; my posts on this forum confrim that.

I'm only writing that this case has gone down the toilet and is not worthy of spending any money on by an essentially bankrupt state.
2 October 2009
at 11:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fangorn (Anonymous) says…

riverdrifter: “His mother was murdered by Nazis, his dad survived a concentration camp and Roman basically was a WWII street urchin. Later, his pregnant wife was murdered by Charlie Manson's slime. And he made great motion pictures: Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown (one of the greats) and The Pianist, also one of the greats.”

The vast majority of people who suffer even great tragedy in their lives do not commit horrible criminal acts like this. And great talent or skill in some enterprise should not excuse such behavior. Mike Vick is an exceptional football player, but there has been more outrage over his cruel treatment of animals than riverdrifter shows over the fact that Roman Polansky **anally raped** a 13-year-old girl. I realize asterisks are an internet equivalent of shouting, but some here - and in Hollywood - seem to have a determined moral deafness that prevents them from understanding this.

Polansky lived in luxurious “exile” at posh estates in Europe for the last three decades because one of our alleged allies refused to extradite him back to the US to face sentencing for a crime to which he plead guilty. Giving him a cot, three meals a day and basic medical care until he dies in prison hardly seems like enough punishment for his deeds.
2 October 2009
at 11:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“CNN) — A retired prosecutor whose comments in a 2008 HBO documentary threatened to derail a 31-year-old sex case against film director Roman Polanski now says he lied.

David Wells told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that he “buttered up” his role in the Polanski case for the documentary crew. He said he lied about trying to goad a judge to sentence Polanski to prison in 1978 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Wells' comments in “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” raised questions of judicial misconduct and spawned Polanski's most recent effort to get the case dismissed. But the legal challenge stalled when Polanski refused to return to the United States, where he faced certain arrest.

“I made these imprudent comments, just to liven it up a little,” Wells said. “In retrospect, it was a bad thing to do, and I never knew this thing was going to be shown in the United States.” Watch Wells' rueful admission »

Wells now says he never spoke with the judge about the Polanski case, as he had claimed in the documentary. “I never discussed this case with [the judge] at any time,” Wells told Blitzer.

Asked why he should be believed now, Wells said, “I'm destroying my character in public and everybody in the world knows about it. … I don't like admitting this.”

He agreed to take a polygraph test to set the record straight.

Polanski was arrested last weekend in Switzerland on a 1978 fugitive warrant and will fight extradition, his lawyers said. They had no immediate comment on Wells' recantation.

“I am astonished that he has now changed his story,” Marina Zenovich, the documentary's director, said in an e-mailed statement. “It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens.”

She said Wells signed a release form, never raised any doubts or concerns, and vouched for the documentary when he spoke to The New York Times in July 2008.

Wells also acknowledged that he lied to The New York Times. “I figured Polanski never was going to come back,” he said. “I didn't want to put myself out as a liar.”

Polanski's arrest in Switzerland made Wells' public exposure inevitable, he said. “I'm going to tell it the way it is and if I take a beating over it, I deserve it,” he said.

Blitzer challenged Wells to a polygraph test, and he agreed to take one if his former employers at the Los Angeles County, California, District Attorney's office allow it. “I'm not going to do anything more to hamper the District Attorney's case,” he said.

District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office had no position on the polygraph challenge. “Mr. Wells is retired,” she said. “We have no control over him.”
cont'd
2 October 2009
at 11:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Wells was a bit player in a high profile case that has haunted the courts of Los Angeles for three decades. He was a calendar prosecutor, handling routine matters in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Laurence Rittenband, who oversaw the Polanski case.

Rittenband, who died in 1993, had a fascination with celebrity cases, and was so publicity conscious that he directed his courtroom staff to keep a scrapbook of news clippings, according to court records.

Polanski was charged with six felonies, including sodomy and rape, but pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under a plea bargain. The director, his lawyer and the prosecutor handling the case believed they'd reached a deal that would spare the young victim a public trial and Polanski jail time, according to court records.

Polanski fled the United States before sentencing. He was spooked when Rittenband indicated he would not honor the deal and instead intended to send the famed director to prison. Watch how the plea bargain went south »

The charges stemmed from Polanski's March 1977 encounter with the 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive. Polanski told the girl's mother he was on assignment for French Vogue, according to court records.

Wells said he was critical about the manner in which the case was handled. He believed Polanski should go to prison. He told the documentary makers that he suggested to Rittenband that Polanski be sent for 90 days of “diagnostic testing” at a state prison facility in Chino, California, to determine whether he was a sex offender.

He admitted to CNN that he was lying about suggesting the 90-day evaluation, adding that Rittenband routinely sent defendants for evaluation.The evaluation was completed in 42 days, and Polanski was freed early after it determined he was not a sex offender. Watch CNN's Jeff Toobin call it a sideshow »

Polanski was given permission to travel to Europe to complete a film before he was formally sentenced. It was understood by everyone that Polanski would receive credit for time served and probation, according to filings in his legal challenge.

While Polanski was in Europe, Wells said in the documentary, a photograph appeared of the director smoking a cigar, sipping a beer and accompanied by two young women.

A script from the documentary in the court file lays out what Wells said happened next:

cont'd:
2 October 2009
at 11:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“And so I took the picture into Judge Rittenband. I said, 'Judge,' I said, 'look here, he's flipping you off,' ” he said. “I took it to Rittenband because I figured it was something he ought to see. And what I told him was, I said, 'You know, judge, you've made so many mistakes, I think, in this case. Look. He's giving you the finger. He's flipping you off. And here's the way he's doing it.' And I said, 'Haven't you had enough of this?' And then, of course, he exploded and what happened, happened.”

Wells now says he lied about that, too. He said a newspaper reporter handed him the photo, which he passed on to the judge's court staff.

“I could call it building a bigger story, putting my part in the case bigger than it actually was,” he said. “But when you peel away all the feathers, it's just a lie. I shouldn't have done it. I wish I didn't.”
2 October 2009
at 11:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Sorry; forgot the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/p…

2 October 2009
at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ferrislives (Anonymous) says…

yada yada yada - he RAPED a 13 year old girl. I'm not sure if you have a daughter Marion, but if you do (or a close female relative), how would you feel if it happened to her? Would you be happy with someone who copies and pastes parts of the story, instead of sticking with the facts that have remained the same over the years?

What he did was not only illegal, it was morally wrong in so many ways. And he's not above the law, no matter what others say, or how others try to act as a distraction.
3 October 2009
at 12:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ferrislives (Anonymous) says…

yada yada yada - he RAPED a 13 year old girl. I'm not sure if you have a daughter Marion, but if you do (or a close female relative), how would you feel if it happened to her? Would you be happy with someone who copies and pastes parts of the story, instead of sticking with the facts that have remained the same over the years?

What he did was not only illegal, it was morally wrong in so many ways. And he's not above the law, no matter what others say, or how others try to act as a distraction.”

Marion writes:

I agree with you completely; all I am writing is that the case is not only no longer winnable but quite likely reversible as the result of the prosecutor coming out as a lying s***bag and therefore no longer worth spending any money on.
3 October 2009
at 12:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverdrifter (Anonymous) says…

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/200…

Roman,
Get to work and make another great movie.
What we're getting now is crap.
3 October 2009
at 4:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

Ferrislives: That's some transcript. He's done!
3 October 2009
at 4:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

The state of California or the Fed has a shock for him when he gets back here in the states. Since he ran and did not do his time. The state or fed can and add new charges of possession of child porn. The film he took is in evidence. The child porn laws can cover child porn that he possessed even when the law was not on the books.

Riverdrifter: you should read the fine print of the registration requirements for a sex offender. Public forms are within the laws ability to comprise promotion of illegal sex acts as a violation of the sex offender registration act. Lol.
3 October 2009
at 6:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

You just never know which side mario's gonna take in his crusade de jure…..

How

would

David

Irving

have

felt

about

this

?
3 October 2009
at 7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Most folks around here are all about victim's rights and rightly so.

In this case the victim wants it to go away.

Will none of you respect the wishes of the victim in the matter?

You can't have it both ways, you know.
3 October 2009
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fangorn (Anonymous) says…

In this nation, we have a justice system, not a “victims' system”. A victim cannot simply say, I want this to go away. Even if she sincerely means this and our justice system fails to prosecute Polansky's crime, this issue would still remain: a child rapist was allowed to go free with no real consequence or punishment. What message would that send to other rich and powerful people? Exactly this: Do whatever you want, flee if you're caught, then wait it out while the everyone forgets about justice. Is that the message you want sent? I sincerely hope not.

3 October 2009
at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Excellent and sensible reply there, Fangorn.

Now…….will you apply the same rule of law to Muslims, what with the Muslim penchant for the taking of child brides?

Just askin'.
3 October 2009
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Try

to

stay

on

track

,

gramps

.

This

thread

is

about

Polanski

.

You can read the transcript of the testimony at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/…
3 October 2009
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

@ marion
you are again attempting to derail the issues that:
1) Polanski RAPED a child
2) Rape is a violent crime
3) Polanski fled the country to avoid his punishment
4) the prosecutor lying does not mitigate the guilt of Polanski raping a child
5) 32 years of avoidance does not mitigate the crime of rape
6) Justice requires that Polanski face his punishment in order to send the message to all rapists that punishment cannot be avoided by running away
3 October 2009
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Never wrote that Polansky should not be punished.

Never wrote anything mitigating the crime of rape.

I did suggest the the history of the so-called “casting couch” in Hollywood is a two-way street and there is a lot of evidence to support that idea.

I did write that I think the case has gone to H*ll in a handbasket, which I think it has, especially since one of the original prosecutors has bollixed things up rather badly.

If Polansky was so badly wanted, why didn't they do a “Noriega” on him, as was done in Panama?

The fact is, no one realy cared in the last 32 years until the Swiss, for reasons that we don't yet know, decided to drop a dime on him.

Remember; Polansky is not yet out of Europe and someone at someone else's expence is going to have to fight the extradition battle in European courts and such a battle is going to happen.

I thinkthere are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars than on this case.

I also do not believe that asking about equal enforcement of law constitutes “derailing”.
3 October 2009
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says…

Some of you feel you have valid points for his defense…all of which should be brought up at his sentencing hearing, which you seem to think is unecessary. It's not surprising hearing what people have to say in his defense, and unfortunately, if something like this happened to a lot of their relatives (of those defending him) it probably wouldn't change their minds. What probably would happen is that their relative, the victim, wouldn't say anything to them about it- this comes from personal experience. They would hide it, or not report it at all. And that is the saddest thing.

@rbwaa
You forgot to mention one thing that a lot of people are confused about/forgetting- he was not Sentenced to stauatory rape, but Pled Guilty. He admitted guilt! (regardless of why or if he actually did it, I don't care, he is guilty under the law now). Then ran away, like a coward. A coward that makes fantastic movies and had a really, really hard life, sure, but a guilty coward nonetheless.

Oh, and marion, I'll tell you how it's different-
Those things didn't happen on US soil, and are not punishable by US law. So shut it down, and bring it back on topic. Maybe if I say please? I won't hold my breath…
3 October 2009
at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says…

Marion- the US has tried multiple times to arrest Polansky. They couldn't get him extradited from France, so they had to file papers to corespond with trips he took outside of France. Getting all the paperwork completed and having it correspond with him actually show up when they thought he would took 32 years (the paperwork had to be filed each time they attempted, it couldn't just sit on file for decades). It had nothing to do with the Swiss, and everthing to do with the US trying to follow the law, unlike Polansky, who broke the law.
3 October 2009
at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says…

One more thing- if his case was so screwed up, that gives him the right to a new trial, not the right to flee the country and avoid facing his charges for 3 decades.
3 October 2009
at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Sure the victim wants it to go away. Sadly it never will. Child sexual abuse scars are not forgotten over time. In 32 years the victim has made a life for herself in spite of that and with that many who know her may not be aware of the experience from 32 years ago. This coming back into focus will put her in the position of responding to questions from people and too the press will be there to get a response.

The problem here is that Roman Polanski is a child sexual abuser. That will never change. People who commit such acts cannot be cured.

No doubt Roman Polanski has had more than his share of heartache, but that does not excuse the crime he commited and he must pay his due.

So someone involved in the case lied. That often happens where situations involve a person of celebrity status. That does not alleviate the offender of his guilt. Laws are in place to protect the offender's rights in order to assure a fair trial. Roman Polanski has thumbed his nose at the justice system for far too long by avoiding this. These actions of avoidence by him cancel out any wrong doing on the part of another involved in the initial prosecution. Whatever lies have been told do not make him innocent. Bottom line he commited a crime against a young vulnerable child.

I don't care how many big names sign a petition on his behalf. If you look at the list you will see most( if not all) of them have benefited in some way by and through the work of Roman Polanski. I venture to guess most would support a person who can line their pockets.

Roman Polanski needs to pay the piper.

3 October 2009
at 10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says…

artichoke- I agree with you except for the whole bad actions cancelling eachother out thing. Definitely wrong. You could easily flip that statement around and say that the attorney and judges bad actions cancel out him fleeing. Luckily, that's not the way our system of laws works. I think what you intended to say was that his avoidance is the main issue and that the bad actions by others are a non-issue in regards to him fleeing? But you are so definitely correct in saying “whatever lies have been told do not make him innocent.”
3 October 2009
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fangorn (Anonymous) says…

Off-thread warning: This post is a response to a question posed by Marion. It is off-topic. Unless you are interested in this side thread, you may want to skip this post.

Marion: Sorry for the delay. Busy morning, but I do want to answer your question (asked a bit more delicately than earlier in the discussion). If Islam (or an odd Christian sect) practices marriage traditions that are outside US law on US soil, the practioners should be prosecuted. Muslims who emigrate from their homelands to the US know our laws. The sects that pop up here and there (like the one in Texas a number of months ago) also know the nation's laws. Living here - especially voluntarily, in the case of immigrants - means agreeing to abide by our laws.

Now if you are talking about Islamic practice in their home nations, this is a different matter. A sovereign nation has the right to its own laws and traditions, no matter how abhorrent they may be to us. Our only real choices in this matter are: 1) accept it while not liking it, 2) work with others to bring about internal reform in the offending nation or 3) invade that nation militarily and force our laws and traditions on them.

I hope this provides a clear answer to a relevant side question.
3 October 2009
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

No I ment that. Marion asserts that because someone lied Polanski should walk on this. Polanski commited a crime then someone lied in to strengthen the case. After that Polanski went into hiding to avoid the consquences. Polanski still commited the crime and if we are to consider the reaction of the offical to the initial crime by Polanski, then Polanski fleeing has supported the initial subsequent actions by the court/others to bring him to justice.

Prosecution of child sex offender is difficult often these offenders get away with such crimes because the victims are children. maybe they are too young to verbalize or feel shame. The victim might identify with the perp. Sometimes those who involved in the legal process must be creative in order to nail thse offenders. I support putting sex offenders behind bars no matter what those in the system have to do to achieve it.
3 October 2009
at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

One more thing: allowing Polanski to escape punishment sends the wrong message to victims of rape - that is, if you go through the emotional trauma of reporting the rape it makes no difference because he will just get away with it anyway. Victims need to know that everything possible will be done to punish the rapist.
3 October 2009
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

A very interesting article from the NYT:

:October 3, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The Polanski Case
By ronald sokol
The pursuit of Roman Polanski for a sex crime committed in California 31 years ago stirs strong emotions both among his sympathizers and among those who feel that he is a fugitive from justice who deserves to be sent back to California and imprisoned.

The facts are not in dispute. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978 in a Los Angeles court to the felony of having sex with a minor. Although the victim has forgiven him and said that she does not want him to go to prison, her view alone is not sufficient to end the inquiry.

A crime is an offense not just against a victim but against the state. It is a violation of the social order and disrupts the social harmony that a state strives to achieve. Following his guilty plea Mr. Polanski fled the country rather than face imprisonment. He has been a fugitive from justice for the past 31 years.

Despite the certainty of guilt and the crime’s gravity, the prosecutor’s belated pursuit is both legally and morally troubling. A prosecuting attorney in Los Angeles has sought his extradition from Switzerland based on a treaty between Switzerland and the United States.

An extradition treaty is simply a written agreement between two countries whereby each agrees to surrender to the other country persons sought for specified crimes. The crimes include most felonies. It is normal practice for a nation not to extradite one of its own citizens. For this reason France would not agree to extradite Mr. Polanski, if it had been asked to do so, because he is a French citizen, but as he does not have Swiss citizenship and was arrested in Zurich, this exception does not apply.

In the United States a prosecuting attorney has absolute discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute. Neither a court nor the victim nor anyone else can force a prosecution.

The stark reality is that more crimes are committed than it is possible to pursue. The prosecutor must exercise judgment as to the best use of his time, his staff’s time, the importance of the offense, the danger presented to the community, the sufficiency of the evidence, the likelihood of a conviction, the expense involved and other considerations. Those are factors that the Los Angeles prosecutor should have been thinking about when he prepared extradition documents.

cont'd:
3 October 2009
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

Two major flaws instill doubt about the legitimacy of the request to extradite Mr. Polanski. The first goes to the very aims of criminal law. Those are usually stated as revenge, deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. Revenge is widely recognized as illegitimate. In Mr. Polanski’s case none of the legitimate aims seem applicable.

As he has not, as far as we know, committed any crimes in the three decades he has been living in France and Switzerland, the objective of deterring him from committing a future crime carries no force.

Nor do punishment and rehabilitation seem applicable. Punishment, like rehabilitation, is meant to be salutary, not vindictive. The purpose of both is to enable the prisoner to return to society and to function in a social setting without committing more crimes. As Mr. Polanski has been living in Paris for three decades as an apparently law-abiding citizen, those objectives do not come into play. What seems left is revenge.

The second flaw is equally troubling. The extradition request appears to be the first request made since 1978, when Polanski became a fugitive. Although the Los Angeles district attorney’s office says that over the years it sought information and monitored his travels, it has not once sought his extradition.

cont'd:
3 October 2009
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

If Mr. Polanski had kept a low profile and his whereabouts unknown, there might be a semblance of sense to this explanation for the three-decade delay, but he is one of the most famous film directors in the world. He has not been in hiding. While it may have been impossible to extradite him from France, he could easily have been extradited from Switzerland long ago.

When there is a decades-long delay by the prosecuting authorities to arrest or extradite that cannot readily or coherently be explained, the prosecutor’s action appears arbitrary. The arbitrariness is magnified by the fact that the victim of the crime is not motivating the pursuit.

The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Markovic v. Italy noted that “the avoidance of arbitrary power” is the dominant principle that underlies much of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The same principle underlies the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Governmental action should not be arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, it raises a strong presumption that due process of law has not been respected. The L.A. prosecutor’s decision to extradite Mr. Polanski 30 years after the event must strike Mr. Polanski, and in the absence of some coherent explanation for the delay, neutral observers as well, as totally arbitrary.

Of course there is social value in discouraging criminals from fleeing the jurisdiction. There is value as well in seeing that justice is done and in showing that no one is above the law. But those values can erode over time if the circumstances which gave rise to the need for justice have vanished.

To some, belated enforcement will appear arbitrary, a ritual of form over substance. When the state threatens imprisonment, it must be seen to act in an even-handed manner. If not, it mocks the very rule of law by its arbitrary act to enforce the law.

Ronald Sokol is a lawyer in Aix-en-Provence, France. He taught at the University of Virginia Law School and is the author of “Justice after Darwin.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opi…
3 October 2009
at 3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Just one example of how money might be better spent than spent on this questionable case:

“Detroit: Too broke to bury their dead

Money to bury Detroit's poor has dried up, forcing struggling families to abandon their loved ones in the morgue freezer.

By Poppy Harlow, CNNMoney.com anchor

Last Updated: October 1, 2009: 10:19 AM ET

detroit (CNNMoney.com) — At 1300 E. Warren St., you can smell the plight of Detroit.

Inside the Wayne County morgue in midtown Detroit, 67 bodies are piled up, unclaimed, in the freezing temperatures. Neither the families nor the county can afford to bury the corpses. So they stack up inside the freezer.

Albert Samuels, chief investigator for the morgue, said he has never seen anything like it during his 13 years on the job. “Some people don't come forward even though they know the people are here,” said the former Detroit cop. “They don't have the money.”

Lifelong Detroit residents Darrell and Cheryl Vickers understand this firsthand. On a chilly September morning they had to visit the freezer to identify the body of Darrell's aunt, Nancy Graham — and say their goodbyes.

The couple, already financially strained, don't have the $695 needed to cremate her. Other family members, mostly in Florida, don't have the means to contribute, either. In fact, when Darrell's grandmother passed recently, his father paid for the cremation on a credit card — at 21% interest.

So the Vickers had to leave their aunt behind. Body number 67.

“It's devastating to a family not to be able to take care of their own,” said Darrell. “But there's really no way to come up with that kind of cash in today's society. There's just no way.”

The number of unclaimed corpses at the Wayne County morgue is at a record high, having tripled since 2000. The reason for the pile-up is twofold: One, unemployment in the area is approaching 28%, and many people, like the Vickers, can't afford last rites; two, the county's $21,000 annual budget to bury unclaimed bodies ran out in June.

“One way we look back at a culture is how they dispose of their dead,” said the county's chief medical examiner, Carl Schmidt, who has been in his position for 15 years. “We see people here that society was not taking care of before they died — and society is having difficulty taking care of them after they are dead.”

Detroit is not alone. The Los Angeles coroner's office said it, too, has seen an increase in the number of bodies abandoned. That's not surprising at a time when unemployment tops 10% in many cities and the median cost of a funeral in America hovers around $7,000. Cremation can cost $2,000.

contd:

3 October 2009
at 3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

Little help available

This is an issue of concern, said the Detroit mayor's office, but the city can't afford to offer any assistance. “The failure, through inability or choice, to bury the deceased is a reflection of the economic conditions that have arrested this region, where people are now forced to make emotionally compromised choices,” said a spokesman in a prepared statement.

The state, however, does have some funds available to assist with burial costs. For fiscal year 2009, Michigan allocated $4.9 million for assistance, and of that, approximately $135,500 remains. Those in need of assistance can find grant applications at Michigan Department of Human Services offices, most funeral homes, and at Michigan.gov/dhs.

The Vickers did not know about the funds until CNNMoney notified them. But, fortunately, they were eventually able to scrape together the $695 and will be able to cremate their aunt with help from Social Security, social services and their aunt's church.

The way Darrell sees it, the stimulus package should have helped people in situations like this, rather than to “spark the economy and sell cars. We can't take care of our own when it comes to laying them to rest and letting them rest in peace.”

'Reflection of the economy'
Believe it or not, the Vickers are among the fortunate.

Dozens of other bodies remain, some never identified. And they can't be disposed of until their families come forward or the county's burial fund is replenished when the 2010 budget is approved. There were 66 bodies before Aunt Nancy's, and they'll be interred on a first-arrived-first-buried basis.

“There are many people with sad lives,” said Schmidt. “But it is even sadder when even after you are dead, there is no one to pick you up.”

And in a town with so much need, Schmidt noted one more cause for concern: The increase in unclaimed bodies is not due to an increase in murders — though the rate remains high — but due to natural causes. Schmidt speculated that many of the deceased didn't have health insurance or could no longer afford medication for the chronic medical conditions.

“If anything is a reflection of the economy, that is a reflection of the economy,” he said.

But this messy reality is shielded behind the Wayne County morgue's perfectly trimmed hedges and pristine brick walls.

“I feel sadness because I can recall when it [Detroit] was really booming,” said investigator Samuels. “I don't think a lot of people are really aware that these types of things are happening in such a wide area.”

First Published: October 1, 2009: 9:58 AM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/01/news/…
3 October 2009
at 3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

girlfriend

,

you've

lost

the

plot

entirely

.

Couldn't

you

post

all

your

randomness

over

on

your

own

stinking

pit

of

a

'forum'

?

BTW

,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.
3 October 2009
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“Swiss ex-minister: Polanski should've been warned

By bradley s. klapper and ernst e. abegg – 1 day ago

zurich — Imprisoned director Roman Polanski should have been warned that he faced an international arrest warrant before he arrived in Switzerland, the country's former justice minister said Friday.

Christoph Blocher said a warning would have been fairer to the 76-year-old filmmaker who was arrested as he arrived for a government-backed festival that invited him to receive an award. He also said it would have been legal.

Polanski was apprehended on an American request for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. Authorities in Los Angeles consider Polanski a convicted felon and a fugitive, and Switzerland says there has been an international warrant out on him since 2005.

“You don't invite someone when you know he's going to be arrested,” said Blocher, a nationalist firebrand who was ousted from the government at the end of 2007 after helping the People's Party become Switzerland's strongest. “You simply don't do that.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a…
3 October 2009
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

This interview of John Malkovich to publicize his movie, “Disgrace,” illuminates the mindset of the Hollywood so-called creative talent:

“The book, which won the Booker Prize in 1999, is a bleak depiction of post-apartheid South Africa. In the movie, Malkovich stars as David Lurie, a professor who loses his position in disgrace after an affair with a student goes sour.

Well, in “disgrace,” anyway. As Malkovich tells Renee Montagne, “Clearly [Lurie] rejects not just the politically correct mores about [his offense]; he really rejects the notion, it seems to me, that he did anything wrong.” Malkovich says Coetzee offers one clue about why in his choice of a career for the professor: Until his downfall, Lurie teaches Romantic poetry.

“Probably if you spend your whole life reading Byron and Keats and Shelley, partaking of their worldview, then you might have a different moral compass than those who don't.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st…

Substitute Byron and Keats and Shelley with the screenplays depicting violence, sex, drug use, deceit, blood and gore that these Hollywood so-called creative genius vomit onto the world, and you have the answer.

In their minds, morals equal being, “politically correct.” That is why Whoopi believes, quite sincerely, that drugging a child, giving her alcohol, then forcibly raping her against her protestations is not “rape rape.”

Interesting blog topic. Don't forget about the Light the Night walk tonight.
3 October 2009
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rbwaa (Anonymous) says…

thanks, snap, i needed that chuckle….
:>)
4 October 2009
at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fangorn (Anonymous) says…

Marion: An interesting, if a bit long, article. The largest flaw in the logic of the assertion is that extradition was sought, on several occasions. But the issue of timing was always a factor. Paperwork had to be filed to coincide with Polansky's visit to a country with which we had an extradition treaty. On at least one occasion, Polansky became aware of such efforts and changed his travel plans, avoiding the possibility of arrest. Far from being “arbitrary”, this is a fine example of persistence in law enforcement.