Roman Polanski

[Jeremy]

SMG, that's not how it works. You don't let someone off the hook because the victim no longer thinks that punishment is not necessary.

[SeanMacGabhann]

As Brendan already pointed out Jeremy and as I already knew...

[Ladygooner]

What I don't understand is why the Swiss authorities decided to arrest him now? Apparently he has a house in Gstaad and has obviously been in Switzerland many times before.

[HAL9000]

Ladygooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I don't understand is why the Swiss

> authorities decided to arrest him now? Apparently

> he has a house in Gstaad and has obviously been in

> Switzerland many times before.

He had originally fled to France where his status as a French citizen (he holds dual nationality) prevented his extradition. Presumably, the case went cold before formal arrest warrants were issued to any other countries such as Switzerland, until the case was reviewed recently and his scheduled presence there was noticed.

[silverfox]

Sky News has this tit-bit that seems to raise the question about the timing of his detention:

"During a visit to Paris, Swiss Economy Minister Doris Leuthard rejected suggestions that Polanski was arrested to help patch up ties strained by a high-profile US tax case against Swiss bank UBS, which agreed a settlement over charges it helped wealthy Americans stash assets in secret accounts..."

[Timster]

I know it doesn't excuse anything but wasn't it the case that Polanski's 8 months pregnant wife had just been gruesomely murdered by Charles Manson at the time? I'm just thinking that whilst I agree with the principles behind what everyone who thinks he should do the time are saying, you do have to bend a bit to the merits of each case. There is no reason to think he is a threat to anyone. The victim has described him as having made a 'mistake' and doesn't want him punished now after all these years. (someone may correct me here but my understanding is he gave the girl alcohol and drugs and then 'took advantage' of her - morally repugnant behaviour (and against the law and he should have gone to prison for it) but I don't think she regards herself as having been raped and that's not what he is going to be sentenced for). He accepts that he can't travel to the US and that has obviously meant he gave up what would have been quite a different life and career in the US.

I don't have any sympathy for him but I also don't see that extraditing him and locking him up achieves anything for anyone - victim or society or the US justice system.

[HAL9000]

Polanski's lawyer tried to get the case dismissed in May. The motion was rejected.

The original Judge died 15 years ago whereupon the case file went missing until 2004.

[SteveT]

Did you know

that when Polanski fled the US and finally arrived in Paris, he was mobbed by 5,000 teenage girls.

[SimonM]

The only crime Polanski was actually found guilty of was "unlawful sex with a minor". Wasn't this the same thing Paul Yarrow did 3 months for back in the 70's, later receiving a pardon from Jimmy Carter? So if it is now proposed Polanski should do additional time for the other, nastier stuff he was alleged to have done over 30 years ago then there would have to be a fresh trial, and a compliant victim and witnesses and valid evidence. This is not going to happen.

[????]

Timster - Sharon Tate, then 8 months pregnant, had been murdered 10 years before, horrific and awful but an excuse? . He filled a 13 year old with alcohol and qualudes and sodomized her...Charlie Manson would have been proud of him.

[sophiesofa]

I think he should be sentenced otherwise it's a sign to other criminals/potential criminals that sometimes you can get away with it.

How he has been accepted back into society baffles and angers me.

[candj]

That is the most sensible thing I've read on this thread, Sophiesofa.

Polanski committed a crime which he pled guilty to, but fled the US before he could be sentenced. Despite the fact that he is a brilliant director, has had some crappy hands dealt his way (wife and child being murdered, growing in the Krakow ghetto, mother dying in Auschwitz) it doesn't exonerate him from his crime. If you read the court deposition (available on google no doubt) of his victim it is utterly shocking. Polanski was very calculated in what he did, asking her to take her clothes off for a supposed 'photo shoot' and when she refused the first time he offered her champagne spiked with qualudes. I don't understand why people are trying to defend him... because it's been a long time so what's the point? If he gets away with it, it certainly doesn't send the right message to other criminals/paedeophiles.

[HAL9000]

sophiesofa Wrote:

--------------------------------------

> How he has been accepted back into society baffles and angers me.

It may have been motivated by a concept known as Chillul HaShem; desecrating the Holy Name, which is held to bring Judaism into disrepute. Judaism is founded upon the principle that Jews are only subject to Jewish Law and may not be tried by gentiles. The act of fleeing from gentile judgement, thus avoiding Chillul HaShem, undoubtedly made a hero of Polanski amongst religious Jews.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I doubt it's anything to do with that, Hal

Good article from Joan Smith in today's Guardian on the case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-arrest-whoopi-goldberg

[sophiesofa]

Well that's even more angering if they've accepted him purely to make a point!

How his new wife could ever enter into a relationship with him then presumably sleep with him knowing he is a paedophile is completely beyond me. I know people change but you can never forget the past completley.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not trying to be provocative or stand up for the guy - I'm broadly in agreement with quids, piers and everyone else on here but I am trying to try and figure out why this particular case doesn't quite anger me in the same way

For example - don't paedophiles consistently re-offend? Given how long ago this has happened (and I'm not saying "fuggedabboudit") has he done anything like it in all that time? Does that make a difference?

I don't think that him being in "entertainment" gets him off anything. But when other entertainers are exposed, they tend to be ostracised pretty quickly - but this isn't happening here (and I don't believe that has anything to do with Judaism, Hal!) That is saying something.. I just don't know what yet

[HAL9000]

?If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the

press, you see? But f*ck1ng, you see, and the young girls. Judges want

to f*ck young girls. Juries want to f*ck young girls. Everyone wants

to f*ck young girls!?

Polanski to Martin Amis in 1979.

[sophiesofa]

Good Lord what a vile/sick man

[silverfox]

It's obvious from a number of posts on this thread that there's a lot of myths surrounding this whole subject.

The more I look into it the more unclear the whole thing becomes. The Guardian article Sean has referred us to is indeed shocking if what is stated therein is actually true (which it may be).

Can anyone help me out here in establishing the facts?

1. Was there ever a trial?

There was an indictment, a plea bargain of guilt to the lesser offence which was accepted, a court decision ordering Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation (he was released after 42 days). I cannot find anywhere that a trial took place before a jury and many of these plea bargains can take place in a Judge's chamber.

2. If a trial never took place then he was never found guilty of the alleged acts.

Ie The rape and acts remain only allegations, not proven

3. Wikipedia quotes the source "Grand Jury Testimony" from 'thesmokinggun' website as the authority substantiating Samantha Gailey's (now Samantha Geimer), allegations.

See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html for a 'transcript' of her testimony. The Smoking Gun website doesn't look too professional to me though and doesn't qualify where the document came from (ie no official stamps etc)

4. I don't think Grand Jury testimony is the same as court testimony.

Further the questions asked to Samantha Gailey in the Grand jury testimony above don't appear to me to have been asked by a professional lawyer (again there's no reference to say who was speaking that I can see), and the alleged facts being elicited are all over the place. However, I realise she was only 13 at the time and her responses are understandable but the questioner didn't seem to be asking questions in a thoughtful way which suggests they weren't a lawyer.

5. Has Polanski ever admitted he carried out these acts?

So, unless someone can help me out here, it appears there was no trial by jury to find the alleged rape and sexual acts proven, only the testimony of a 13 year old girl (who may be telling the truth) to go on. If this is so the Guardian article is irresponsible journalism as reporting the alleged acts as fact and without qualification.

If there was a trial with testimony can someone please point me in the right direction.

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But when other entertainers

> are exposed, they tend to be ostracised pretty

> quickly - but this isn't happening here (and I

> don't believe that has anything to do with

> Judaism, Hal!) That is saying something.. I just

> don't know what yet

The girl was of German descent (i.e. not Jewish), therefore, under the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish Law, Polanski's only 'sins' were personal ritual defilement and risking Chillul HaShem by getting caught and tried before a gentile court.

Edited to add other factors relevant under Jewish Law: the girl was not a convert, married, a virgin or underage. Furthermore, Polanski had obtained her mother's permission to be alone with the girl and had paid a settlement to her after the fact - all of which mitigate in his favour.

In other words, Jewish Law does not recognise that a criminal rape took place - and this has been the consistent view of his (mainly) Jewish supporters.

[HAL9000]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can anyone help me out here in establishing the facts?

There was no trial because under a plea bargain agreement he pleaded guilty to one charge and all the others were dropped.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't think too many people, Polanski included, would go as far as to suggest he is innocent silverfox!

The discussion after all this time is how to proceed. Polanski is in the frame at the moment but if you are looking for celebs to jail for underage sex with boys or girls in the 70s, well, take your pick

Do we say that the 70s were different, we as a society have moved on and don't accept that now or do we say we don't accept it now and we shouldn't allow admissions of it then? Aren't there enough biogrophies (from Led Zepplin, to Bowie, to Jack Nicholson and everyone in between) where underage sex (with groupies, fans, whoever) is frequently alluded to or even described? Are we willing to retrospectively trawl the files until we have have gottem all?

[SeanMacGabhann]

HAL - that's all specious nonsense. The world at large doesn't care a jot about such minutiae when it comes to something like this. It's a total distraction from the debate at hand

[HAL9000]

You say above that you don't understand this case - I'm merely adding some background material that may or may not be significant as to how this particular case has been treated/reported.

[SeanMacGabhann]

What I meant to say was not that I don't understand the case, but I'm not 100% sure I understand all of the public reaction to it (on whatever side)

I don't understand the list and range of celebs standing up for him for example. On the one hand you could say it's the usual mob and dismiss them, but these are smart people in many cases. If nothing else there is risk to their reputations - why so quick to petition for him? Your answer doesn't do anything to help me on that score I'm afraid.