PDA

View Full Version : Switzerland Won't Extradite Polanski to the US



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

uyeahu
07-13-2010, 02:49 AM
I'm sorry but it has already been stated that the US authorities did not follow the correct procedures to the satisfaction of the Swiss authorities to allow them to extradite - so don't blame or put down the Swiss just because this extrodition did not happen.

Laws are in place to ensure that certain procedures are followed to ensure people aren't unjustly targeted by over-zealous law-enforcement officers. As this is such a high profile case I'm sure the Swiss were doubly checking the steps being followed to try to get this extrodition done - don't blame them if the US screwed up. Rather say **** you US law enforcement for failing to follow the rules!!

Yes, I will just take the Swiss Authorities at their word and not dare to question it. They've always been so honest and completely above board in the past about their dealings with foreign governments. Thank you for setting me straight.

Lorac
07-13-2010, 02:58 AM
Yes, I will just take the Swiss Authorities at their word and not dare to question it. They've always been so honest and completely above board in the past about their dealings with foreign governments. Thank you for setting me straight.

It was my pleasure :)

Polymer Bob
07-13-2010, 03:39 AM
I'm sorry but it has already been stated that the US authorities did not follow the correct procedures to the satisfaction of the Swiss authorities to allow them to extradite - so don't blame or put down the Swiss just because this extrodition did not happen.


I remember SOME of the details. The prosecutors made a deal with Polanski. He pleaded guilty, and was to get time served or probation, but no more jail time. The judge rejected the plea bargain. ( Here is where I'm a little unsure. ) With no plea bargain, Polanski should have been able to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial.

But I THINK the judge tried to keep the guilty plea, even though he threw out the deal. This would mean he could impose whatever sentence he wanted without giving Polanski the option of an actual defense in court. Child rapists are the scum of the Earth, but that kind of legal trickery is totally bogus. This is most likely what the Swiss object to.

Squibble
07-13-2010, 04:14 AM
But I THINK the judge tried to keep the guilty plea, even though he threw out the deal. This would mean he could impose whatever sentence he wanted without giving Polanski the option of an actual defense in court. Child rapists are the scum of the Earth, but that kind of legal trickery is totally bogus. This is most likely what the Swiss object to.

I apologize in advance if this post results in this thread's being moved to P.I. :shuffle:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-0713-polanski-freedom-20100712,0,5300268.story

It appears that the Swiss requested sealed court transcripts that Polanski and his attorneys argued would show that the time Polanski had already spent in prison (42 days of a possible 90 for a psychiatric examination) was intended to constitute his complete sentence. There's no indication in the news article above that the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office attempted to get these transcripts unsealed. If it had, the motion would almost certainly have been granted, since both sides would have been in agreement on this point.

It's most likely that the prosecutors didn't really want to have the transcripts unsealed because either (1) they would have shown that Polanski was right or (2) it would have led to Polanski's extradition and either a dismissal or a trial. None of these would be a very palatable alternative to a District Attorney, Steve Cooley, who is running for Attorney General. But failing to take steps to obtain the transcripts makes Cooley and his office look like a bunch of do-nothing cowards.

heckles
07-13-2010, 05:18 AM
Yes. She's a grown woman now and doesn't have any ill-will towards Polanski.

She would be accused by Polanski's disgusting Hollywood apologists of "needing to get over it" if she made media appearances talking about continuing to be traumatized it. So she may feel pressured to claim she's forgiven even if she hasn't; victims of abuse are often pressured similarly to "forgive" their abusers long before they're ready to do so. If you read how messed up she was for years after the rape, it wouldn't be surprising if she privately still thinks he's an evil man but doesn't feel comfortable sharing that in the press.

Matryeshka
07-13-2010, 05:42 AM
Entire post.

Point well taken, however, there is a conflicting account of just who was there and who was not and when. (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-was-anjelica-huston-and-more.html) The cynical part of me wonders what else was she going to say? Sure, I noticed he was having sex with an underage girl, but hey, it's Hollywood? From her own testimony, Polanski was not in the habit of showing up unannouced and especially not with company, so wouldn't that have made her just the teensiest bit suspicious?

I think opinion piece by David Gibson sums up my feelings personally. Imagine Polanski as famous director. Now imagine what would have happened to him had he been a regular joe--would France have been that eager to defend him and blow off his crime had he been a plumber from Ohio? Now imagine what would happen had he been Father Polanski. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-what-if-he-were-father-roman/) I wonder if Jackie_Sparrow would still be linking articles to his side of the story if he had been.

Someone upthread also mentioned that his was a one-time incident, except it wasn't. Polanski is kind of famous for dating the underaged and prepubescent, most notably Nastaasja Kinski, who was 15 to his 43. Not a crime in the country where he was at the time, but not something I'd give him a standing ovation for.

I'm sorry, I know I'm harping on this case, but the hypocrisy of the reactions just kills me. Punishment is based on a crime committed, not on the fame of the perpetuator, and there is no doubt he committed a crime. I don't disagree with Switzerland not handing him over since the US dropped the ball, however, I cannot fathom the support he gets from certain corners, esepcially when you know if it had happened now or with someone less famous, those same corners would be screaming for blood.

heckles
07-13-2010, 06:04 AM
Nastaasja Kinski, who was 15 to his 43. Not a crime in the country where he was at the time, but not something I'd give him a standing ovation for.

I can't recall the publication, but years ago another model had an account of Polanski and Nicholson drugging and raping a teen model in Paris at a party. There was also a 16-year-old British model named Charlotte Lewis who says he raped her at his apartment in France. Never prosecuted, but it's pretty consistent with what he did in LA. If true, the guy didn't have respect even for French law if it got in the way of what he wanted at the moment.

*Jen*
07-13-2010, 08:24 AM
Yes, I will just take the Swiss Authorities at their word and not dare to question it. They've always been so honest and completely above board in the past about their dealings with foreign governments. Thank you for setting me straight.

And the US has never made any mistakes at all. Ever. Certainly no mistakes of law.

You'll note that they've kept suspiciously quiet following the Swiss authorities' refusal of the extradition request, which makes me wonder. Perhaps they have no defence because what the Swiss is saying is true.

The Swiss are notorious for not revealing information, true, yet they chose to comment on this when they didn't have to. IMO, they knew it would be an unpopular decision and wanted the world to kmow that legally, their hands are tied.

uyeahu
07-13-2010, 08:55 AM
They haven't been suspiciously quiet. Just as everything else about this case that the majority of people in this thread refuse to read, their response is readily available to anyone possessing the ability to do a simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=QLv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=prosecutors+on+polanski&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=).


The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition for Polanski was based in part on U.S. authorities failing to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony remains sealed, and can only be used if the former prosecutor was unavailable for an evidentiary hearing, a Los Angeles court spokesman said.

The testimony "should prove" that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.

"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said. They also noted that Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, has repeatedly asked that the case be dropped.

Cooley, who is the fifth district attorney to handle Polanski's case, accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free and the decision was a "rejection of the competency of the California courts.

"The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat," Cooley said in a statement.

In other words, Switzerland decided that they were better able to interpret California law than the California courts and US Attorney General's office. The original judge in the case rightly surmised that a 54 day psychiatric evaluation was not adequate punishment for the crime committed and wanted Polanski to serve a longer sentence, perhaps based on the report provided from the evaluation period. It was the judges discretion to do so regardless of what the Prosecutor may or may not have promised. If Polanski had stuck around he'd have had grounds for appeal. He chose to flee. Regardless of whatever prosecutorial conduct there may have been, justice was not served in this case and I can't believe there are people who would defend him. Have any of you read the testimony?

Jackie Sparrow
07-13-2010, 11:02 AM
I've always liked you so I will only :rolleyes: once at YOUR dumb post. Sorry for my stupidity and that it had to interfere with your day. I've always liked you, too ;) But it seemed to me you didn't read the article properly, therefore my reply. And you don't interfere with my day. It's my decision what posts I read and do not read, after all. Peace?



I think opinion piece by David Gibson sums up my feelings personally. Imagine Polanski as famous director. Now imagine what would have happened to him had he been a regular joe--would France have been that eager to defend him and blow off his crime had he been a plumber from Ohio? Now imagine what would happen had he been Father Polanski. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-what-if-he-were-father-roman/) I wonder if Jackie_Sparrow would still be linking articles to his side of the story if he had been. I found the article attached to one of the articles from yesterday. I thought it was interesting. I didn't comment on it, saying I believe or do not believe what he was saying. No need to criticize me.



In other words, Switzerland decided that they were better able to interpret California law than the California courts and US Attorney General's office. The original judge in the case rightly surmised that a 54 day psychiatric evaluation was not adequate punishment for the crime committed and wanted Polanski to serve a longer sentence, perhaps based on the report provided from the evaluation period. It was the judges discretion to do so regardless of what the Prosecutor may or may not have promised. If Polanski had stuck around he'd have had grounds for appeal. He chose to flee. Regardless of whatever prosecutorial conduct there may have been, justice was not served in this case and I can't believe there are people who would defend him. Have any of you read the testimony? They had 10 months to provide the Swiss authorities with all the necessary documents but they didn't. Why not?

MOIJTO
07-13-2010, 12:29 PM
Just read that the US is going to continue to pursue Polanski. He is scum no doubt but I can think of better things to do with our tax dollars. He will never enter the US again...let it go and move on!

Ziggy
07-13-2010, 02:06 PM
Ziggy - I may be wrong, but I don't think the statute of limitations applies to criminal cases where the criminal is on the run. Or to criminal cases at all, for that matter, although I'm not certain about that.

Depends what country you're talking about.

In many (the majority I think?) statute of limitations applies to pretty much all crimes.

In Poland, it's 25 years for the most serious crimes.


I am not and will not defend Polanski - but from a totally objective legal standpoint, procedural justice is important. Due process has to be followed, and if someone on the US side failed to do so then they killed their own case. Don't blame the Swiss - from what they are saying, the fault wasn't theirs.

Yes, that is whole point here, IMO.


Regardless of her feelings, he was tried and convicted and escaped jurisdiction before sentencing therefore there is no statute of limitations. He decided himself that he'd served enough time and fled the country. It wasn't his decision to make, nor is it the Swiss Governments. ****

He was never properly convicted and the whole legal process was highly questionable, as described above.

Jackie Sparrow
07-13-2010, 02:18 PM
Depends what country you're talking about.

In many (the majority I think?) statute of limitations applies to pretty much all crimes.


I was wondering about that too. Does this document (http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Statutes/09CaliforniaStatutes.pdf)help?

Garden Kitty
07-13-2010, 02:56 PM
I was wondering about that too. Does this document (http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Statutes/09CaliforniaStatutes.pdf)help?

No, because the charges were brought in the applicable time limit. Fleeing the jurisdiction before sentencing would toll any statute of limiitations.

I also wonder about this statement from the Swiss authorities (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/roman-polanski-arrest-meets-with-outrage-from-prosecutors-us-state-department.html):


Also, Swiss authorities said that until 2009, the U.S. had not filed any extradition request against Polanski "for years," even though it knew he had bought a house in Switzerland in 2006 and was a regular visitor there. That gave the director a reasonable expectation that he was not under threat of arrest and deportation from there.


Does anyone know how a person's expectation of getting caught is relevant under the extradition treaty?

Tesla
07-13-2010, 03:14 PM
I think it raises a red flag, and that's why Switzerland wanted the US to cross all its Ts and dot all its Is, which the US failed to do.

ETA If blame the US more than Switzerland. I don't care what CA says. If the US really wanted to get Polanski here, someone would've gotten those documents unsealed for the Swiss. They were more than willing to cooperate.