Is Thailand Value for money

[rooster59]

U.S. Judge rejects bid by Polanski's 1977 rape victim to end case

By Jill Serjeant

 

FILE PHOTO: Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski looks on as he attends a news conference in Krakow, Poland October 30, 2015. REUTERS/Agencja Gazeta/Mateusz Skwarczek

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Los Angeles judge on Friday rejected a request by the woman who was raped by director Roman Polanski 40 years ago to have the criminal case against him dismissed.

 

Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon ruled that Polanski remained a fugitive from justice and that the court could not dismiss a case "merely because it would be in the victim's best interest."

 

The ruling follows the first appearance in June in the case by Samantha Geimer, who was 13 years old when Polanski sexually assaulted her in Los Angeles in 1977.

 

The director, who admitted raping Geimer, spent 42 days in pre-trial custody. He then fled the United States, fearing a plea bargain with prosecutors would be overruled and that he would get a lengthy prison term.

 

The "Chinatown" director, who turned 84 on Friday, has never returned and numerous attempts by his lawyers to strike a deal without him spending more time in prison have failed.

 

"The defendant in this matter stands as a fugitive and refuses to comply with court orders," Gordon wrote.

 

Geimer went to Los Angeles Superior Court in June pleading for his case to be resolved, saying she had forgiven Polanski years ago and wanted the case put to rest "as an act of mercy to myself and my family."

 

Geimer, who has three sons and now lives in Hawaii, said in June that Polanski had apologised to her years ago, but that she continued to remain a victim because of media attention each time there was a new development in the case.

 

Gordon on Friday also rejected a request by Polanski's attorney, Harland Braun, to unseal testimony about the 1977 plea deal. Braun had hoped to use the testimony to persuade European authorities to rescind the international arrest warrant against Polanski.

 

Two recent bids by the United States to extradite Polanski, from Switzerland and Poland, have failed.

 

Braun says Polanski wants to be able to travel freely and to visit the grave in the United States of his wife, Sharon Tate, who was murdered in Los Angeles by followers of Charles Manson in 1969.

 

Polanski's career has flourished despite the notoriety of the rape case. In 2003, he won an Oscar for directing the Holocaust film "The Pianist" but did not travel to the United States to collect it.

 

Braun on Friday expressed frustration at the failure to resolve matters.

 

"This case is 40 years old, with an 84 year-old defendant and a 50 year-old victim requesting that the matter be resolved... It appears that a resolution of this case should be simple," he said.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-19

 

[phantomfiddler]

Some of these old farts who call themselves judges should have been thrown out of office years ago. Narrow minded little power mongers without a sensible thought in their little brains !

[Baerboxer]

17 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Some of these old farts who call themselves judges should have been thrown out of office years ago. Narrow minded little power mongers without a sensible thought in their little brains !

 

So you think it's fine to avoid punishment for a rape conviction, raping an underage girl, by fleeing and avoiding extradition for enough years?

 

The foreign governments that sheltered this self confessed child rapist are the ones who should be thrown out. Another case of celebrity status and wealth trumping justice.

[oldgent]

20 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Some of these old farts who call themselves judges should have been thrown out of office years ago. Narrow minded little power mongers without a sensible thought in their little brains !

so your suggesting he gets away with it. what about the victim 

[Yann55]

How not to make a link between this and the rich Thai heir who's living the good life abroad after killing a cop with his car and fleeing the scene  ?

 

Money and fame are a toxic combination, all over the planet, and for those who systematically go into Thai-bashing mode when the Red Bull heir case comes up, this serves as a reminder.

 

It's not enough to wonder what's wrong with the Thai justice system or the Thai police, because the problem is way deeper and it's everywhere.

 

The rich and famous get away with all kinds of crime first and foremost because the public (ie the rest of us) give them an inordinate amount of respect. If that were to change, the global situation would also change.

 

We have the Gods we deserve.

 

[coconuthead]

how has this pedo managed to avoid extradition?

[Scott]

2 hours ago, coconuthead said:

how has this pedo managed to avoid extradition?

I suspect that politics and fame have played a part in his not being extradited, as well as good legal representation.   

 

Although the victim would just as soon see this over, fleeing the actions of the justice system will most likely never see this resolved.  Justice is blind and she has a long memory.  

[tryasimight]

Thank god justice is blind.....how many Nazis would have been living the good life if not for Simon W hunting them down?

[Proboscis]

57 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Thank god justice is blind.....how many Nazis would have been living the good life if not for Simon W hunting them down?

You think that the actual practice of justice is blind? Then you must be.

 

The example of Simon Wiesenthal is just one. And thank goodness for him and the Jewish people and others for keeping the holocaust in our minds for all these decades.

 

But what about the folks who never had a voice, never had the organized supporters across the globe and yet were tortured and killed in their millions - for instance, the millions who died in Stallinist Russia. Or those many millions who perished as a result of the "great leap forward" and the so-called "cultural revolution" in China - no one ever spent a night in jail for that genocide and related crimes.

[chickenslegs]

5 hours ago, coconuthead said:

how has this pedo managed to avoid extradition?

$$$$

[Scott]

 

Quote

No doubt this subject will suddenly become off-topic now

Yup, nothing to do with Polanski or his situation.  

[Basil B]

 

This is not a civil prosecution where the victim is seeking damages,  he is being prosecuted under criminal law, if the allegations are true then he should go to jail, she is just a witness in the case, the only reason why the case should be dropped is if they do not have enough evidence without her giving testimony from the witness box, even is she was forced to give evidence, as a "hostile witness" he testimony will have lost all credibility.

[MyFriend You]

15 hours ago, oldgent said:

so your suggesting he gets away with it. what about the victim 

read the post, the victim made the petition to have the charges dropped this time, she wants it to end for her and him ................ she admits she was high on cocaine & roofies, and was not a virgin  -  as for him being a peadophile?? she and close to fourteen years old and it was quite common in the sixties/seventies for girls to get married at 14-16 years old in some states of the USA.  My brother married his wife of 45 years ,when she tuned 15 in Kentucky, my mother married at 17 in Massachusetes in the forties.

 

I am just wondering how much taxpayers money has been spent on this in forty years.........

[catman20]

15 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Some of these old farts who call themselves judges should have been thrown out of office years ago. Narrow minded little power mongers without a sensible thought in their little brains !

so you think he should be let off the rape charge?? good job your not a judge!! who knows, who you would be letting walk free after horrific crimes.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, TunnelRat69 said:

read the post, the victim made the petition to have the charges dropped this time, she wants it to end for her and him ................ she admits she was high on cocaine & roofies, and was not a virgin  -  as for him being a peadophile?? she and close to fourteen years old and it was quite common in the sixties/seventies for girls to get married at 14-16 years old in some states of the USA.  My brother married his wife of 45 years ,when she tuned 15 in Kentucky, my mother married at 17 in Massachusetes in the forties.

 

I am just wondering how much taxpayers money has been spent on this in forty years.........

Victims and their families are very bad judges and juries.

[tryasimight]

5 hours ago, catman20 said:

so you think he should be let off the rape charge?? good job your not a judge!! who knows, who you would be letting walk free after horrific crimes.

Consensual sex is hardly a horrific crime. The actual 'rape' charge was based on her age alone. There was no 'rape'   or forced unwilling sex as I understand the term.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, TunnelRat69 said:

read the post, the victim made the petition to have the charges dropped this time, she wants it to end for her and him ................ she admits she was high on cocaine & roofies, and was not a virgin  -  as for him being a peadophile?? she and close to fourteen years old and it was quite common in the sixties/seventies for girls to get married at 14-16 years old in some states of the USA.  My brother married his wife of 45 years ,when she tuned 15 in Kentucky, my mother married at 17 in Massachusetes in the forties.

 

I am just wondering how much taxpayers money has been spent on this in forty years.........

I read the post, no mention of the girl being on cocaine or "not a virgin", though that wouldn't change the key facts of the case.

 

Roman Polanski was 43 years old when he raped this child, and he was a famous, wealthy, successful movie producer who could have found many healthy young adult women willing to have sex with him.  Instead he plied this thirteen year old girl with alcohol and quaalude then raped her in every way possible.  That is not a "forgive and forget" kind of crime.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

 

11 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Consensual sex is hardly a horrific crime. The actual 'rape' charge was based on her age alone. There was no 'rape'   or forced unwilling sex as I understand the term.

A 43 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is legally defined as rape.  Also, Polanski claimed the sex was consensual, the girl stated otherwise.  You can check the above reference on that.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Polanski raped an underage girl. So did most every other Rock Performer and celebrity I'd reckon in the LA scene in the 1970s. Probably time to let one go.

Many "groupies" were underage. I can verify as a teenager in the 1980s you could go to bars and clubs in SanFrancisco there was no id checking going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heybruce]

50 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Polanski raped an underage girl. So did most every other Rock Performer and celebrity I'd reckon in the LA scene in the 1970s. Probably time to let one go.

Many "groupies" were underage. I can verify as a teenager in the 1980s you could go to bars and clubs in SanFrancisco there was no id checking going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're ok with a 43 year old man plying a 13 year old girl with drugs and alcohol then raping her, over her objections, in every way possible?

[Jim1000]

16 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Thank god justice is blind.....how many Nazis would have been living the good life if not for Simon W hunting them down?

Are you absolutely sure about this try?

 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

No.
Watch the Film "Polanski: Wanted and desired"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catman20]

4 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Consensual sex is hardly a horrific crime. The actual 'rape' charge was based on her age alone. There was no 'rape'   or forced unwilling sex as I understand the term.

ho well if that the case we should all be out shagging 14 year olds,  do you have a daughter ?

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/19/2017 at 4:03 PM, oldgent said:

so your suggesting he gets away with it. what about the victim 

What about the Victim? Let's talk about that. She has just gone to the Supreme Court, having to go through many lower courts first to even get there, claiming she wants this case dropped and closed. What can be cleared than that? She is not a Little Girl anymore and after 40 years she feels it is time to end this B.S. Who has more right to speak up about this than she does? You?

 

If you were anyone who knows anything about this case, you would not even suggest he had gotten away with this scott free. He has spent time in a US Prison, and also in Switzerland for this crime. He has been suited by this victim, and willing paid up. Although the exact amount of money was kept hidden, I am sure it was a very high figure and more than fare compensation. The Victim agrees!

 

He has also had his whole life turned upside down. His name and career tarnished, which I am sure he feels he deserved. A wanted fugitive in many countries, and where he can not go to for fear of landing in jail again. He has been able to maintain some success, because of his skills, but not near as many he would have gotten if he was allowed to stay in the USA.

 

Do I feel sorry for him for a case that has dragged on for 40 years? Yes I do! But not for any of these reasons! I feel sorry for him because of one thing only. You know he is guilty but how do you know this? That he admitted this? Now what fool in his right mind would admit to police he committed a crime like this. With many Lawyers Friends who would have loved to represent him? Even for free?

 

The Prosecution made a deal with him. In legal terms it is called a Plea Bargain. They did that not because he deserved better treatent because he was rich and famous. They did it because they did not have a strong case against him, and if it went to court they may have lost. Which they probably would have lost. Her word against his! Especially when she never agreed to go to court against him in the first place. No Witnesses! So who do you think would win? 

 

So to get a Conviction, and to close this case, the Prosecution made a deal with Polanski., That if he accepts a guilty plea, and does 90 days in jail, plus other small punishments, like Probation, Fines, and Community Service, it would be over for him. I am sure also that the minute Polanski admitted to this crime he knew he would be suited for countless dollars, plus have his name tarneished forever. 

 

So what does one do in a case like this? Forget it if you are innocent or guilty! What if it was anyone else. Like you or me? Do you try to fight this in court spending endless money, to prove your innocences, and perhaps end up in jail for 10 or 15 years if you lose? Or do you accept the Plea Bargian, and accept 90 days in jail, where you already served half of your time already, and have it all behind you? A tough decission by anyones standards. But Polanski took the deal and finished his 90 days in jail. 

 

But things changed after Polanski was out of jail 90 days later. The Prosecutor changed and so did the Judge. They made no deal with Polanski before hand so they decided to go for the maximum jail sentence. Is that Polanski's fault that things changed? Is that fare? Is that even justice?

 

What was worst now is that these two wouldn't even let Polanski retract his statement and deffend himself in court on a not guilt plea. His guilty plea stood but his Plea Bargain did not stand. How fare is that? They won't even unseal his testomoney (as it says here) and the Plea Bargain they made in 1977, for fear that he would be right. So better to contuinue to prosecute him then giving a chance to prove what he said is true. Is that justice? Really? These to me are the things we need to fight against, and not for. 

 

Yes I do feel a grave misjustice has been committed here and these judges should be stripped of there duties. That a Plea Bargain should be honoured, otherwise it has no effect, and many crimes would just go unsolved. As one must be assumed innocent, and be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which in many cases is very difficult to do. So a lighter sentence and a smaller sentence makes good sense on these type of crimes. 

 

A Man who recently had his beautiful wife murdered, and after a few wines with a Teenage Model, who was not a virgin by then and whos parents gave her permission to go with him alone, tries to have sex with her, in his house, without force. Bid Deal! But big enough for Interpol and a World Wide Man Hunt for him? Following all over the World and even locking him up in Switzerland? Do you think that is fare and right also? Only because he is a Big Fish who did not committ such a Big Crime. 

 

Get Real! And stop wasting Tax Dollars on such crap as trying to lock up some 84 year old man for a small crime committed 40 years ago. Who the Victim herself said exactly the same thing. Only the Mounties always get there Man. Not the FBI. So move on already!      

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

What about the Victim? Let's talk about that. She has just gone to the Supreme Court, having to go through many lower courts first to even get there, claiming she wants this case dropped and closed. What can be cleared than that? She is not a Little Girl anymore and after 40 years she feels it is time to end this B.S. Who has more right to speak up about this than she does? You?

 

If you were anyone who knows anything about this case, you would not even suggest he had gotten away with this scott free. He has spent time in a US Prison, and also in Switzerland for this crime. He has been suited by this victim, and willing paid up. Although the exact amount of money was kept hidden, I am sure it was a very high figure and more than fare compensation. The Victim agrees!

 

He has also had his whole life turned upside down. His name and career tarnished, which I am sure he feels he deserved. A wanted fugitive in many countries, and where he can not go to for fear of landing in jail again. He has been able to maintain some success, because of his skills, but not near as many he would have gotten if he was allowed to stay in the USA.

 

Do I feel sorry for him for a case that has dragged on for 40 years? Yes I do! But not for any of these reasons! I feel sorry for him because of one thing only. You know he is guilty but how do you know this? That he admitted this? Now what fool in his right mind would admit to police he committed a crime like this. With many Lawyers Friends who would have loved to represent him? Even for free?

 

The Prosecution made a deal with him. In legal terms it is called a Plea Bargain. They did that not because he deserved better treatent because he was rich and famous. They did it because they did not have a strong case against him, and if it went to court they may have lost. Which they probably would have lost. Her word against his! Especially when she never agreed to go to court against him in the first place. No Witnesses! So who do you think would win? 

 

So to get a Conviction, and to close this case, the Prosecution made a deal with Polanski., That if he accepts a guilty plea, and does 90 days in jail, plus other small punishments, like Probation, Fines, and Community Service, it would be over for him. I am sure also that the minute Polanski admitted to this crime he knew he would be suited for countless dollars, plus have his name tarneished forever. 

 

So what does one do in a case like this? Forget it if you are innocent or guilty! What if it was anyone else. Like you or me? Do you try to fight this in court spending endless money, to prove your innocences, and perhaps end up in jail for 10 or 15 years if you lose? Or do you accept the Plea Bargian, and accept 90 days in jail, where you already served half of your time already, and have it all behind you? A tough decission by anyones standards. But Polanski took the deal and finished his 90 days in jail. 

 

But things changed after Polanski was out of jail 90 days later. The Prosecutor changed and so did the Judge. They made no deal with Polanski before hand so they decided to go for the maximum jail sentence. Is that Polanski's fault that things changed? Is that fare? Is that even justice?

 

What was worst now is that these two wouldn't even let Polanski retract his statement and deffend himself in court on a not guilt plea. His guilty plea stood but his Plea Bargain did not stand. How fare is that? They won't even unseal his testomoney (as it says here) and the Plea Bargain they made in 1977, for fear that he would be right. So better to contuinue to prosecute him then giving a chance to prove what he said is true. Is that justice? Really? These to me are the things we need to fight against, and not for. 

 

Yes I do feel a grave misjustice has been committed here and these judges should be stripped of there duties. That a Plea Bargain should be honoured, otherwise it has no effect, and many crimes would just go unsolved. As one must be assumed innocent, and be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which in many cases is very difficult to do. So a lighter sentence and a smaller sentence makes good sense on these type of crimes. 

 

A Man who recently had his beautiful wife murdered, and after a few wines with a Teenage Model, who was not a virgin by then and whos parents gave her permission to go with him alone, tries to have sex with her, in his house, without force. Bid Deal! But big enough for Interpol and a World Wide Man Hunt for him? Following all over the World and even locking him up in Switzerland? Do you think that is fare and right also? Only because he is a Big Fish who did not committ such a Big Crime. 

 

Get Real! And stop wasting Tax Dollars on such crap as trying to lock up some 84 year old man for a small crime committed 40 years ago. Who the Victim herself said exactly the same thing. Only the Mounties always get there Man. Not the FBI. So move on already!      

" A Man who recently had his beautiful wife murdered, and after a few wines with a Teenage Model, who was not a virgin by then and whos parents gave her permission to go with him alone, tries to have sex with her, in his house, without force. "

 

Wow, you haven't checked your facts at all, and you are clearly desperate to minimize the crime.  I wonder why?

 

The Sharon Tate murder happened eight years earlier, the child, at 13, was barely a teen, the rape didn't happen at Polanski's house, you haven't provided any evidence the child wasn't a virgin or why that is important, she was plied with champagne and quaalude (which I assume works very effectively as a date rape drug, especially on a child), she protested and resisted, and he definitely raped the child in the mouth, vagina and anus.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

Edited August 21, 2017 by heybruce

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" A Man who recently had his beautiful wife murdered, and after a few wines with a Teenage Model, who was not a virgin by then and whos parents gave her permission to go with him alone, tries to have sex with her, in his house, without force. "

 

Wow, you haven't checked your facts at all, and you are clearly desperate to minimize the crime.  I wonder why?

 

The Sharon Tate murder happened eight years earlier, the child, at 13, was barely a teen, the rape didn't happen at Polanski's house, you haven't provided any evidence the child wasn't a virgin, she was plied with champagne and quaalude (which I assume works very effectively as a date rape drug, especially on a child), she protested and resisted, and he definitely raped the child in the mouth, vagina and anus.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

Yes! The Sharon Tate Murder did happen 8 years earlier. I didn't mean to sound like it happened yesterday, I am sure, like you are so sure, that 8 years is long enough to forget that your Beautiful (Pregnant Wife) was butchered with a knife and her now dead baby pulled out of her in her own blood,. Or his time as a young boy during the Hollocaust and being in a Concentration Camp! I am sure that is easily forgotten also by him. So sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think it is you who needs to read more. 

 

No! Roman Polanski's Rape didn't happen in his house as he had never been convicted of Rape yet. He has not been to trial. It is only his guilty Plea (Bargain) that has him convicted before his trial. It was suposed to have happened at Jack Nicholspn's House, when he was out of town during this time. Which means "No Witnesses"! Now that this is all clear, what does this do for you?

 

I know that Samantha Gailey wasn't a Virgin as she said so. Part of the Defense Case that never came to trail was to prove that, and so they did. But then we will never know for sure as it was never suppose to go to trial as they did not honour there Plea Bargin. Did she take drugs? It appears she did. Was she forced to take drugs? There is no indication of that.  Do you think all 13 years olds, who are not Vigins, never take drugs or have sex? Nice to believe that! Even when it is not true! 

 

You are only basing your facts where and how he raped her, strickly by the Victims Statement. The same person 40 years later wants to drop this. The same person 40 years earlier, from her parents advice, and who took him to court on a high money lawsuit, said he did this. You ask me for proof! So now let me ask you and where is your proof, besides the plaintiffs statement? 

 

What I don't understand is why people keep asking me the same question, and why I defend him. It is not a question if he was right or wrong. We don't even know that as he was never to trial. It is because the Prosecution renegged on a Plea Bargin, which to me was the greatest offence committed here. It spoils and takes away the whole purpose of the Plean Bargins. 

 

Sure they may get lucky to catch one, by backstabbing a Plea Bargain Deal to catch someone as important like Roman Polanski. Then have the next 20 or 30 unsolved rapes and rapists get away with that, only because they don't have enough proof to convict them,. but yet know they will not agree to a Plea Bargain, that this government won't keep. In My Book, far more damage this way!

 

That was wrong! Let them open the sealled deal they made with him. Let them let him plead "Not Guilty". and let him have his day in court.

 

But they won't, as they already know he would win, and they don't want that. That is True American Justice for you!     

   

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Yes! The Sharon Tate Murder did happen 8 years earlier. I didn't mean to sound like it happened yesterday, I am sure, like you are so sure, that 8 years is long enough to forget that your Beautiful (Pregnant Wife) was butchered with a knife and her now dead baby pulled out of her in her own blood,. Or his time as a young boy during the Hollocaust and being in a Concentration Camp! I am sure that is easily forgotten also by him. So sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think it is you who needs to read more. 

 

No! Roman Polanski's Rape didn't happen in his house as he had never been convicted of Rape yet. He has not been to trial. It is only his guilty Plea (Bargain) that has him convicted before his trial. It was suposed to have happened at Jack Nicholspn's House, when he was out of town during this time. Which means "No Witnesses"! Now that this is all clear, what does this do for you?

 

I know that Samantha Gailey wasn't a Virgin as she said so. Part of the Defense Case that never came to trail was to prove that, and so they did. But then we will never know for sure as it was never suppose to go to trial as they did not honour there Plea Bargin. Did she take drugs? It appears she did. Was she forced to take drugs? There is no indication of that.  Do you think all 13 years olds, who are not Vigins, never take drugs or have sex? Nice to believe that! Even when it is not true! 

 

You are only basing your facts where and how he raped her, strickly by the Victims Statement. The same person 40 years later wants to drop this. The same person 40 years earlier, from her parents advice, and who took him to court on a high money lawsuit, said he did this. You ask me for proof! So now let me ask you and where is your proof, besides the plaintiffs statement? 

 

What I don't understand is why people keep asking me the same question, and why I defend him. It is not a question if he was right or wrong. We don't even know that as he was never to trial. It is because the Prosecution renegged on a Plea Bargin, which to me was the greatest offence committed here. It spoils and takes away the whole purpose of the Plean Bargins. 

 

Sure they may get lucky to catch one, by backstabbing a Plea Bargain Deal to catch someone as important like Roman Polanski. Then have the next 20 or 30 unsolved rapes and rapists get away with that, only because they don't have enough proof to convict them,. but yet know they will not agree to a Plea Bargain, that this government won't keep. In My Book, far more damage this way!

 

That was wrong! Let them open the sealled deal they made with him. Let them let him plead "Not Guilty". and let him have his day in court.

 

But they won't, as they already know he would win, and they don't want that. That is True American Justice for you!     

   

One does not plea bargain to rape unless there is overwhelming evidence that rape has occurred.  Since the child was 13, any sex was rape. 

 

Your many claims, many of them clearly wrong, would have greater credibility if you referenced your sources.  You can start with you claim that "they" will not let Polanski have his day in court.

 

"Let them let him plead "Not Guilty". and let him have his day in court."

 

I'm all for that.  Let him come to the US and have his day in court. 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

57 minutes ago, heybruce said:

One does not plea bargain to rape unless there is overwhelming evidence that rape has occurred.  Since the child was 13, any sex was rape. 

 

Your many claims, many of them clearly wrong, would have greater credibility if you referenced your sources.  You can start with you claim that "they" will not let Polanski have his day in court.

 

"Let them let him plead "Not Guilty". and let him have his day in court."

 

I'm all for that.  Let him come to the US and have his day in court. 

 

You My Friend are totally wrong! 

 

Think about this for a moment and tryto use "Logic"! Why would th Prosecutor offer a "Plea Bargain" when as you said they have "have overwhelming evisences 

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

One does not plea bargain to rape unless there is overwhelming evidence that rape has occurred.  Since the child was 13, any sex was rape. 

 

Your many claims, many of them clearly wrong, would have greater credibility if you referenced your sources.  You can start with you claim that "they" will not let Polanski have his day in court.

 

"Let them let him plead "Not Guilty". and let him have his day in court."

 

I'm all for that.  Let him come to the US and have his day in court. 

 

You My Friend are totally wrong! 

 

Think about this for a moment and try to use "Logic"! Why would the Prosecutor offer a "Plea Bargain" when as you said they have "have overwhelming evidences? When it is a Slam Dunk, they don't need to offer any deal! They only do this when they haven't a case against them. 

 

Yes, I agree and let him have his day in court. But what you don't see is him in his many years in jail waiting for his case to come to trial, while the lawyers and judges argue about ir, .Do you think he would get Bail after being a Flight Risk, and escaping prison for so long bases on some stupid Judges Call? Do you think it s fare for him to spend 2 years in jail (More) when his original sentence was of days?   

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

You My Friend are totally wrong! 

 

Think about this for a moment and try to use "Logic"! Why would the Prosecutor offer a "Plea Bargain" when as you said they have "have overwhelming evidences? When it is a Slam Dunk, they don't need to offer any deal! They only do this when they haven't a case against them. 

 

Yes, I agree and let him have his day in court. But what you don't see is him in his many years in jail waiting for his case to come to trial, while the lawyers and judges argue about ir, .Do you think he would get Bail after being a Flight Risk, and escaping prison for so long bases on some stupid Judges Call? Do you think it s fare for him to spend 2 years in jail (More) when his original sentence was of days?   

Prosecutors offer plea bargains in order to save time and public money.  Even with overwhelming evidence a rich man with good lawyers can drag a case out for years.  No doubt Polanski's lawyers pointed that out in negotiating the plea bargain.

 

Your second paragraph is pure speculation.  Terms for his surrender and agreements on timing of the trial and if he will wait in jail, house arrest, or be free to move about with a GPS monitor and his passport confiscated, etc. can be negotiated before he returns to the US.  However he won't do that.  His exile is quite comfortable, and if he thought he would win in court he would have returned long ago.

[JAG]

He is 84, so is likely to die in exile!

Shouldn't have raped a child and done a runner then, should he?