Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by soxxy, Jul 12, 2010.
No surprise there!
An article from the month of May where Polanski tells his side of the story. The original (which I don't know if it's online) was in French. I don't know if it is anywhere in English. Sorry.
This seems like a dumb move by Switzerland. This is such a highly publicized case and now many people are aware that Switzerland wont extradite. Will they see an influx of criminals running to their country? If they extradite everyone else then it looks like favoritism because of who Polanski is.
I don't know much about international law so can't comment on on the "reasonable right" but it sounds like the American justice bureaucracy is partially at fault here.
The Swiss will extradite. They have in the past and they will in the future. They're just not extraditing this particular man because there seem to be some serious questions over the actual procedure on the US side, not because he's famous.
It's not favouritism, they won't see an influx of criminals (having one of the strictest immigration policies in the world) but reading between the lines, the US has failed to follow the correct procedure and the failure to follow due process is one of the main reasons that decisions are overturned in any case.
The Swiss wouldn't have arrested him in the first place if they had no intention to extradite.
Didn't the girl in question not want anything to do with this case, anyway? Didn't she beg for the charges to be dropped?
It's rather ridiculous how he was able to freely travel all these years and then somebody decided they are going to further their career or reach some other political end by going tough on his case.
Yes. She's a grown woman now and doesn't have any ill-will towards Polanski.
I don't really care what the reasons are that someone decided to get tough on this case. I hate, hate, hate that he is a child rapist yet gets a whole lot of sympathy, including a standing ovation at the Oscas. And is excused because he's an arteeeeeste.
Seriously, is this a man who really deserves freedom:
I really don't care if the girl in question now wants it dropped to protect her privacy--that anonomity is gone anyway. It's a bigger issue than that. It really pisses me off. But then, I'd have arrested Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Houston too for aiding Polanski. They were present and offered the girl no help or assistance and were well aware of what was going on.
Really? I never heard that before. That's disgusting.
And this is a dumb post. Jen pretty much said everything I wanted to say, so please refer to her post
Also, in most countries, he would not be liable for prosecution any more because of the statute of limitations.
And no, that doesn't mean I have any sympathy for him. I just have no sympathy for the tabloidisation of the legal system either.
I believe he was already prosecuted, and found guilty. Wasn't he? I thought (and it was a while ago) he fled after sentencing.
Anjelica Huston was at the house. Jack Nicholson was not. In the police interviews, Huston said she thought the girl was older. (I know there is the one photo of Geimler from the time where she looks young, but even the police or probation report said that the girl looked like she could be 18.) Also, from what I've read, Huston only actually saw the girl after the sexual encounter. They spoke briefly, but Geimler never said anything about what had happened.
He pled guilty under an agreement with the prosecutor that he would serve no further jail time. When the judge indicated that he would not accept that agreement -- and told others that he would come down harshly on Polanski --Polanski fled. There was no trial and no actual sentence was actually imposed.
I imagine he'll be able to finish his latest movie project: "Close Encounters With The Third Grade". Understand his birthday is now a statutory holiday in Polnad. Oh, there's a million of them......
I got the impression that the US wanted to go forward with the case because he had made a mockery of the justice system?
Isn't POlanski the former husband of Sharon Tate who was murdered several years ago? That must have really adversely affected him.
In 1969 the 8 1/2 months pregnant Sharon Tate was one of the victims of Charles Manson and his followers. This was one of the most horrific murder spree cases in US history.
My wife was murdered so I'll go rape a 13 year old? Had he gone after Manson with an uzi, I'd understand his reaction. There's just no excuse for this.
I seriously doubt Anjelica Houston did not know the girl's actual age, and even if she didn't, and even if she was 18, how could she condone the drinking and the drugs? It would still be rape. What, she just invited Roman Polanski over and left him and the girl alone and had no idea what actually happened, or what was going to happen? I call BS big time on that one.
First, Huston did not see the girl until after the rape, so she could not have stopped anything. She was quoted as saying that she thought the girl could have been as old as 25 and that the girl did not act like a scared kid. And, as I said before, the investigating police officer said that the girl looked at like she was between 16 and 18.
Second, did Huston ever condone drugs? From what I've read, Huston's involvement was very tangential. She may have been at the house briefly when Polanski arrived (though the testimony is a but inclear as to whether it was Huston or the caretaker). It is clear that she was not there during the photo shoot, when Polanski gave the girl the quaalude, or they began having sex. Huston but came home when Polanski and the girl were in the bedroom. Huston knocked on the door to the bedroom, Polanski got up and opened it a crack and talked to Huston. That description makes it sound like Huston would not have seen the girl and would not have known if she was drunk or drugged. After the sex, the girl went into the kitchen where Huston was and said they spoke briefly before she left with Polanksi.
Third, as for drinking, Polanski gave the girl a glass of champagne while Huston was there. Even if Huston only thought the girl was 17 or 18, would that really be something outrageous? College students those ages drink all the time. It's not like Polanski was plying the girl with hard alcohol to get her drunk.
I am not condoning Polanski's actions, but it is easy to say with hindsight that people should have known something was wrong.
Definitely. Just think about how many people said they knew that Garido was a psycho before they found out Jaycee Duggard was hidden in his backyard...yet no one did anything or even voiced this until after his arrest. Hindsight is 20/20.
The only person who could have, or at the very least should have known beyond reasonable doubt what was happening and that it was wrong was Polanski.
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.
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.
There is no excuse for Polanski's behavior.
I don't believe I've heard anyone excusing his behaviour.
And although I believe the legal drinking age in California was 21, in a lot of states it was still 18. So even less outrageous at the time.
I just wanted to clarify my previous post about Sharon Tate's murder. I don't think whatever grief or horror that Polanski may have felt about his wife's death could mitigate his own criminal behavior.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Although she's said she'd prefer the matter not be pursued any further, Polanski has apparently never paid a cash settlement he promised. He did force himself on her after plying her with drugs and alchohol. (I read today the police speculated at the time that he probably used a date rape drug.) He kept going even though she repeatedly begged him to stop. She might not want to dredge this all up again having grown up and moved on, but I have a feeling she might just harbor a little bit of ill will, just a tad.
I thought he DID in fact pay her a cash settlement and it was speculated that might be one of the reasons she doesn't push for extradition. Also, as has already been stated, she is a grown woman who doesn't want to go through ANOTHER trial and feels as badly towards the California justice system as she does towards Polanski. It's not that she has a forgive and forget attitude at all from what I've read, she just doesn't see any point in exposing herself to yet another circus in which her family will likely be victimized yet again and Polanski will likely see no jail time yet again.
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. **** You Switzerland.
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!!
I've always liked you so I will only once at YOUR dumb post. Sorry for my stupidity and that it had to interfere with your day.
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
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.
I apologize in advance if this post results in this thread's being moved to P.I.
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.
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.
Point well taken, however, there is a conflicting account of just who was there and who was not and when. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
They had 10 months to provide the Swiss authorities with all the necessary documents but they didn't. Why not?
Separate names with a comma.