Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    I'm turning what????
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9,314
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1143
    Quote Originally Posted by Matryeshka View Post
    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.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,438
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4354
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless View Post
    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.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,155
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3886
    There is no excuse for Polanski's behavior.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    West of the 5th...
    Posts
    29,324
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    41928
    Quote Originally Posted by JJH View Post
    There is no excuse for Polanski's behavior.
    I don't believe I've heard anyone excusing his behaviour.
    Haunting the Princess of Pink since 20/07/11...

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Fat City, USA
    Posts
    1,864
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,155
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3886
    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.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    home is where the heart is
    Posts
    2,709
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orbitz View Post
    Yes. She's a grown woman now and doesn't have any ill-will towards Polanski.
    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.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    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.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Home in England!!
    Posts
    2,448
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    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!!

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Top Secret FSU Witness Protection Location
    Age
    31
    Posts
    20,719
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Sparrow View Post
    And this is a dumb post. Jen pretty much said everything I wanted to say, so please refer to her post
    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.
    -Brian
    "Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorac View Post
    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.

  12. #32

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Home in England!!
    Posts
    2,448
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    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

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,667
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorac View Post
    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.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,520
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Polymer Bob View Post
    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.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,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.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orbitz View Post
    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.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singleville aka 7th Circle of Hell
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,382
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    9520
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless View Post
    Entire post.
    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.
    "The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.
    Last edited by heckles; 07-13-2010 at 06:15 AM.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,438
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4354
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    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.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    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.

    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?

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Isla Tortuga, Thailand
    Age
    32
    Posts
    13,327
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matryeshka View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    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?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •