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

[Dagnabbit]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:26 AM, 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.........

 

Well - what a charmer you are. This post is low by any standards. 

 

"nearly 14" is 13 years of age

The fact she was high on coke and roofies makes it worse, it is no excuse. Do you think it's OK to rape drunk girls? Of course not. The fact that she was on drugs means she was a victim of abuse. Who do you think was getting those drugs for her? 

As for her not being a virgin. The fact she's been raped before is hardly a good excuse for raping her again.

 

Now - you may point to her current supreme court case where she's been trying to get the criminal case dropped. You do realize she hasn't paid for all those lawyers herself right? The scumbag pedophile rapist is using her still to try to get off. Rightly, the courts are not listening.

 

[Dagnabbit]

7 hours 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!      

 

She did not take this case to supreme court. She doesn't have the money to do it. She is a proxy and took it to supreme court for him. He paid for the lawyers. 

 

As for small crime, he drugged and raped an abused child. As for 'without force' - well she was drugged, so of course he didn't have to force here. You heard of Bill Cosby?

 

Pedo's need to be in jail.

[Credo]

His problem is that he fled from the sentence -- that's a little like escaping from prison.   The legal system doesn't look kindly on that sort of thing and it has little to do if you are guilty or not.   Even if someone is proven to be wrongfully convicted, there is a legal process to undo what has been done.   That's not going to happen with him because he is guilty.

 

Oh, and by the way, if he thinks things like that were frowned on then, the attitude is MUCH stricter now.   

 

As distant as this is in time it won't go away for him (or the victim).   I am glad she has been able to forgive him, but he will be spending his time in exile or doing time.    

[GOLDBUGGY]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

Yes, part of the reason why Prosecutors "Plea Bargain" is in order to save time and public money. But again you can't see the Forrest through all those Trees.

 

Where do you think that these Prosecutors waste the greatest amount of time and public money? The answer is quite simple really. They waste the greatest amount of time and public money on charging someone, and then taking them to Court, and then losing the case by not getting a Conviction, and thus the Accussed walk away free.

 

So the keys to success here for the Prosecution is that if you charge someone, you need to also get a Conviction, or it becomes a waste of time and money,. Agree? I think you would also agree that not all criminal cases are a for sure Slam Dunk for the Prosecutors, and easy for them to win.  

 

Like in Polanski's Crimial Case in which there are no witnesses and all you have is the testimoney of a 13 year old girl, against a rich and famous Movie Director, (maybe as she never agreed to even go to court) who he has no criminal record (especially for sexual offenses) and has all the money and friends in the World he needs to get the best lawyers and help.

 

So when the Prosecution believe they have a guilty party, but are also faced with a high probability of losing that case, they try to "Plea Bargain", like they did with Polanski. In other words they offer the Accussed a lighter jail sentence, or even a suspended sentence, community service, or probation, in exchange for there guilty plea. In this way the Prosecution gets there Conviction, and thus don't waste there time or the peoples money. 

 

I have never heard of one case in my life where the Prosecution felt they had overwhelming evidence against somebody, including the rich and famous, but decide to "Plea Bargain" only because it was easier to do and won't take as long. Never! That is like you saying they don't want to send someone to jail because jail is expensive to keep a prisoner in. You just have to look at the O.J. Simpson Trail, and many others, to see that is true. They will never Plea Bargain on a Slam Dunk, but in the Simpsons Case, it now looks like they should have. I wonder which Prosecutor got firred over that case. 

 

You don't even have to look farther than the Polanski Case. That has been dragging on for 40 years and they are still going after him. I wonder how much of the Public Money they have wasted on this case so far? It almost seems unbelievable to keep a case open for over 40 years, and trying to jail some 84 year old man for more than they have already, for a sex crime he may have committed (has not been proven in Court yet) 40 years ago, that even his victim wants stopped and dropped already. I doubt that never spent near this amount of money hunting down Nazi War Criminals, who really did need hunting down.  

 

My second paragraph is not pure speculation at all! What do you think Polanski and his lawyers having been trying to do in the US Courts for the past 40 years? Could it be that they are trying to negotiate a safe return for Polanski, and for the Courts to honour there Plea Bargain with Polanski that they made in 1977, or drop his Guilty Plea Bargain Deal so he can go to court? Of course they are, because they know that if he returns to the USA, he will be captured right away at the airport, and locked up for an unknown period of time. Otherwise he would have just gone back ages ago. Don't you think?      

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

She did not take this case to supreme court. She doesn't have the money to do it. She is a proxy and took it to supreme court for him. He paid for the lawyers. 

 

As for small crime, he drugged and raped an abused child. As for 'without force' - well she was drugged, so of course he didn't have to force here. You heard of Bill Cosby?

 

Pedo's need to be in jail.

Not sure where you get your inside information from but neither Bill Crosby or Polanski have been convicted of any Sex Crime. Being Charged and being Convicted are two totally different things. Polanski is also wanted for jumping Bail. 

 

Also don't know how or where you got information that Polanski is paying the Victim to take this case to the Supreme Court. I am sure she got plenty of money from him when she sued him 40 years ago, and doesn't need his money to do that anymore. Some High Profile Lwyer would gladly take this case for free anyway. But none the less she is doing that and on her own accord, and I hightly doubt anyone is holding a gun to her head or bribing her. Specualation at its best!  

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 1:09 PM, heybruce said:

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

 

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.

I think everyone knows that a 43 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl, is a crime and punishable, regardless of the circumstances and even when she was not a Virgin, consented to having sex with him, and willingly took drugs.  Even Polanski and his Lawyers agree to that. 

 

So now that we know a crime has been committed we need to look at what a fare punishment should be. This is when you need to look into the Victims background history. Where her not being a Virgin has a significant role. Where her having a history of taking drugs in the past also comes in the picture. Were testimoney from her friends and her behavior at school and parties comes into play. Where she was not a runaway being taken advantage of, but in fact her parents knew who she was with, and allowed her to go with him alone. That she was not forced into sex or hurt in the process (Physically).

 

Geimer (Victim) was no Angel at this time. Court Documnets (a 28-page Probation Report) supported Polanski's claim that she was a willing partner and there was evidence to support this. That even though she was not physically mature to make this decission, she was a willing partner. The 2 Psychiatrists who exammend Polanski, stated that Polanski was not a "Pedophile".  Due to all these circumstances, the Report recommneded no jail time and only probation for Polanski.  

 

Polanski was originally charged with Rape and 4 other charges, but these were all later dropped on a "Plea Bargain" in which Polanski was charged with "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor:" Still a Criminal Offense, but not near as serious as Rape with a minor is. With the recommendation of Probation as his punishment. He also had to undergo a 90 day jail time for evaluation, where he went to Chino State Prison to complete. He finsish this and was released after 42 days, which is quite normal for good behavior.

 

He was arrested again on September 26, 2009 in Switzerland on a US Arrest Warrant from "Interpol Red Notice", and again wasn't released until July 12, 2010. That is about 10 months, He was released in Switzerland because Polanski was never conviced of a Crime. So when everyone is talking like he is getting away with this, he has already spent about 1 year in different prisons, and it is still not over for him.  

 

Does Polanski regret what he has done? For sure he has. Even the Victim says he is very sorry for that. He got mxed up in a bad situtation and made a big mistake. The Girl had posed for him topless in there first photo session and although she was only 13 years old, she was physically mature for her age. After drinks and drugs, he simply got carried away with the moment on the second photo seession, she agreed to go to. A Crime Yes! But also a Big Mistake and unlke him to commit again. . 

 

So yes! We all agree he made a mistake and broke the law. So what punishment will now fit this crime?

 

He already spent about a year in prison. He has been Blacklisted from many countries and can't travel freely. He has been Blacklisted from several projects and jobs to which I am sure cost him a fortune. He is a wanted fugitive. He hasn't even been able to visit his wifes grave, which for Polish People is very important to them.

 

He also compensated the Victim back in 1988, when she sued him, and settled out of court. The exact sum of money was never disclosed but 5 years later he still owed her $600,000, so you can only guess how high the first payments were and what the total sum of money he paid to her was. To settle this one night event and big mistake. So lets call it a Million Dollar Mistake then!  

 

Is that not enough, or do we all still need more blood from this 84 year old artist?

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 hours ago, Credo said:

His problem is that he fled from the sentence -- that's a little like escaping from prison.   The legal system doesn't look kindly on that sort of thing and it has little to do if you are guilty or not.   Even if someone is proven to be wrongfully convicted, there is a legal process to undo what has been done.   That's not going to happen with him because he is guilty.

 

Oh, and by the way, if he thinks things like that were frowned on then, the attitude is MUCH stricter now.   

 

As distant as this is in time it won't go away for him (or the victim).   I am glad she has been able to forgive him, but he will be spending his time in exile or doing time.    

I hear what you are saying and I tend to agree with you.

 

That him running away appears to have made matters worst for him, if he wants to return and settle this now. But had he ended up going to jail for 10 or 15 years (Many states carry Life in Prison for Rape of a Minor) then I can't say for sure it was a bad choice for him. 

 

But the fact remains that he did not run away from Prison. In fact he has never been convicted of anything. He only Jumped Bail when the Prosecution renegged on there "Plea Bargain". That is a crime but only carries something like a 90 day jail sentence, and the possible lose of any other Bail in the future.

 

In fact it is one reason by not having a Conviction, or wanted for breaking out of Prison, that Switzerland had to release him, and why France and Poland refuses to send him back to the USA, That and also they don't feel they have enough evidence to send him back.   

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:14 PM, heybruce said:

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?

You base you facts from what? The Girls Testimony? 

 

The same Girl who later sued Polanski for at least 1 Million Dollars, and won? To be honest I would lie to gain a Million Dollars. Also a whole bunch of other thngs for that kind of money.

 

Or the same Girl where a 28-page Probation Report sent to the Judge in Polanski's Case stated that this Girl was "a willing partner"? The same Girl at Polanski's Case stated she did not want him to go to jail for this? That this same Girl 40 years later had to go to the Supreme Court to hear her case, in which she wants all of his charges dropped?

 

Me thinks you need to find another source if you want to get to the whole truth and not all from heresay or newspapers. .  

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:56 AM, Basil B said:

 

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.

Yes Very True! Especially after 40 years have passed and saying I forget, is not an unreasonable answer. 

 

But they still have her written statement as evidence, and worst yet Polanski's Guilty Confession, after he made a Plea Bargain Deal, that never came into being.

 

This is one thing he is fighting for. No Plea Bargain... No Confession! Lets start fresh and go to court. But the Judge and the Prosecutor don't see it this way, and insist on keeping his confession. Which he never would have made without the Plea bargain. And why it is all unfare. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:34 AM, 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.

Horrific Crimes? 

 

My first wife got pregnant at age 14 and I was 15 an we got married a year later. Call that Stupid! Call that Careless! Also call that a time when you could not get a Condom from a Drug Store, or Birth Control Pills at age 14, as Doctors thought you were too young for that sort of stuff. But I have never heard this called a "Horrific Crime before. Thanks for the Enlightenment! 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Yes, part of the reason why Prosecutors "Plea Bargain" is in order to save time and public money. But again you can't see the Forrest through all those Trees.

 

Where do you think that these Prosecutors waste the greatest amount of time and public money? The answer is quite simple really. They waste the greatest amount of time and public money on charging someone, and then taking them to Court, and then losing the case by not getting a Conviction, and thus the Accussed walk away free.

 

So the keys to success here for the Prosecution is that if you charge someone, you need to also get a Conviction, or it becomes a waste of time and money,. Agree? I think you would also agree that not all criminal cases are a for sure Slam Dunk for the Prosecutors, and easy for them to win.  

 

Like in Polanski's Crimial Case in which there are no witnesses and all you have is the testimoney of a 13 year old girl, against a rich and famous Movie Director, (maybe as she never agreed to even go to court) who he has no criminal record (especially for sexual offenses) and has all the money and friends in the World he needs to get the best lawyers and help.

 

So when the Prosecution believe they have a guilty party, but are also faced with a high probability of losing that case, they try to "Plea Bargain", like they did with Polanski. In other words they offer the Accussed a lighter jail sentence, or even a suspended sentence, community service, or probation, in exchange for there guilty plea. In this way the Prosecution gets there Conviction, and thus don't waste there time or the peoples money. 

 

I have never heard of one case in my life where the Prosecution felt they had overwhelming evidence against somebody, including the rich and famous, but decide to "Plea Bargain" only because it was easier to do and won't take as long. Never! That is like you saying they don't want to send someone to jail because jail is expensive to keep a prisoner in. You just have to look at the O.J. Simpson Trail, and many others, to see that is true. They will never Plea Bargain on a Slam Dunk, but in the Simpsons Case, it now looks like they should have. I wonder which Prosecutor got firred over that case. 

 

You don't even have to look farther than the Polanski Case. That has been dragging on for 40 years and they are still going after him. I wonder how much of the Public Money they have wasted on this case so far? It almost seems unbelievable to keep a case open for over 40 years, and trying to jail some 84 year old man for more than they have already, for a sex crime he may have committed (has not been proven in Court yet) 40 years ago, that even his victim wants stopped and dropped already. I doubt that never spent near this amount of money hunting down Nazi War Criminals, who really did need hunting down.  

 

My second paragraph is not pure speculation at all! What do you think Polanski and his lawyers having been trying to do in the US Courts for the past 40 years? Could it be that they are trying to negotiate a safe return for Polanski, and for the Courts to honour there Plea Bargain with Polanski that they made in 1977, or drop his Guilty Plea Bargain Deal so he can go to court? Of course they are, because they know that if he returns to the USA, he will be captured right away at the airport, and locked up for an unknown period of time. Otherwise he would have just gone back ages ago. Don't you think?      

It's funny that your next post began with "Not sure where you get your inside information..." when you routinely post things that are either unsourced inside information or, more likely , pure speculation.

 

I'll only address " Like in Polanski's Crimial Case in which there are no witnesses and all you have is the testimoney of a 13 year old girl, against a rich and famous Movie Director..."   Nobody disputes that Roman Polanski was alone with the child at Jack Nickolson's house (not Polanski's house, as you earlier stated).  Anjelica Houston  is a witness to the fact that the girl and Polanski were alone in a locked bedroom.  Polanski was arrested at the scene of the crime the day after it was committed.  There was physical physical evidence of sex, which is by law defined as rape when it involves a 13 year old child.  Nobody has denied that sex (rape) occurred.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case

 

A serious crime was committed, evidence clearly showed Roman Polanski committed the crime, he plead guilty then fled the country.   Do you deny any of these facts?

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Horrific Crimes? 

 

My first wife got pregnant at age 14 and I was 15 an we got married a year later. Call that Stupid! Call that Careless! Also call that a time when you could not get a Condom from a Drug Store, or Birth Control Pills at age 14, as Doctors thought you were too young for that sort of stuff. But I have never heard this called a "Horrific Crime before. Thanks for the Enlightenment! 

14 and 15 year olds having sex is stupid, irresponsible, and possibly a crime.  A 43 year old plying a 13 year old with alcohol and drugs then having sex with her is a horrific crime.

[GOLDBUGGY]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It's funny that your next post began with "Not sure where you get your inside information..." when you routinely post things that are either unsourced inside information or, more likely , pure speculation.

 

I'll only address " Like in Polanski's Crimial Case in which there are no witnesses and all you have is the testimoney of a 13 year old girl, against a rich and famous Movie Director..."   Nobody disputes that Roman Polanski was alone with the child at Jack Nickolson's house (not Polanski's house, as you earlier stated).  Anjelica Houston  is a witness to the fact that the girl and Polanski were alone in a locked bedroom.  Polanski was arrested at the scene of the crime the day after it was committed.  There was physical physical evidence of sex, which is by law defined as rape when it involves a 13 year old child.  Nobody has denied that sex (rape) occurred.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case

 

A serious crime was committed, evidence clearly showed Roman Polanski committed the crime, he plead guilty then fled the country.   Do you deny any of these facts?

Did you actually read what you linked here? Did you see this?

 

"The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being "a pedophile" or "sexual deviate".^[27]

 

"Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.^[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.^[28]"

 

Did you actually read what you linked here? Did you see this? So if you read this please show me where it says that Roman Polanski was charged with Rape, and where he pleads guilty to your unfound Rape Charge?

 

So he was alone with his model in locked bedroom? Big Deal! He was alone with her several other times before that to and in several other different places, including the place she posed Topless for him as well. With the Girls Mother Blessing for them to be alone. Do you want to throw a person in jail and the key away just for that?

 

Do they have DNA or a Blood Test left from this case to prove he was even involved with this girl sexually? What actual proof do they have that he did anything at all to her, besides a locked bedroom door and her not screaming for help? The Girl herself said that when Houston came to the bedroom, perhaps to see who was there, she was doing a photo shoot wth Polanski, which is exactly what he told Houston. So what does any of that prove? His guilty plea to a leser offense for fear of being found guilty (even if innocent) and spending a great deal of time in Prison? When you don't have to spend any at all?

 

So Yes! I do denigh many things that you call now as "Facts". Mostly because they are wrong and not facts at all. They are just your version or interpetation of them.  

[GOLDBUGGY]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

14 and 15 year olds having sex is stupid, irresponsible, and possibly a crime.  A 43 year old plying a 13 year old with alcohol and drugs then having sex with her is a horrific crime.

When are you going to open your eyes to reality here? 

 

Many Girls as young as 12 or 13 years old are hooked on drugs and prostituting themselves on the streets of San Fransico right now to find this money. So why not stop wasting all this public money trying to chase down some 84 Year Old Fart around the World, for a supposed crime that happened 40 years ago, and catch some real criminals here, and perhaps save some of these Girls before it is too late to.  

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:34 AM, 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.

I know you like to call this a "Horrific Crime" but I wonder what the Victim (Samantha Greimer) actually thinks about this? 

 

In her own words and I quote: ""I don't like it when people try to sensationalize what happened for their TV shows and talk about it with words like 'gruesome' or 'horrific,'" Geimer said. "How can you make a living doing that to other people?"

 

Well she raises a good point but it is even more puzzling when people do that for free. 

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Did you actually read what you linked here? Did you see this?

 

"The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being "a pedophile" or "sexual deviate".^[27]

 

"Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.^[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.^[28]"

 

Did you actually read what you linked here? Did you see this? So if you read this please show me where it says that Roman Polanski was charged with Rape, and where he pleads guilty to your unfound Rape Charge?

 

So he was alone with his model in locked bedroom? Big Deal! He was alone with her several other times before that to and in several other different places, including the place she posed Topless for him as well. With the Girls Mother Blessing for them to be alone. Do you want to throw a person in jail and the key away just for that?

 

Do they have DNA or a Blood Test left from this case to prove he was even involved with this girl sexually? What actual proof do they have that he did anything at all to her, besides a locked bedroom door and her not screaming for help? The Girl herself said that when Houston came to the bedroom, perhaps to see who was there, she was doing a photo shoot wth Polanski, which is exactly what he told Houston. So what does any of that prove? His guilty plea to a leser offense for fear of being found guilty (even if innocent) and spending a great deal of time in Prison? When you don't have to spend any at all?

 

So Yes! I do denigh many things that you call now as "Facts". Mostly because they are wrong and not facts at all. They are just your version or interpetation of them.  

The man was 43, he gave a 13 year old child alcohol and drugs, then had sex with her.  That was rape.  It was negotiated to a plea of a lesser charge in part to spare the child the ordeal of going to court.  It is standard procedure for defense attorney's to make a rape trial as humiliating as possible for the victim in order to get her to agree to lesser charges.  I do not know what physical evidence was collected, I haven't spent as much time on this subject as you spend composing long, irrelevant, unsourced narratives on what you claim happened.

 

Are you denying that a 43 year old man had sex with a 13 year old girl?  If so, you are the only one.

[heybruce]

43 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

When are you going to open your eyes to reality here? 

 

Many Girls as young as 12 or 13 years old are hooked on drugs and prostituting themselves on the streets of San Fransico right now to find this money. So why not stop wasting all this public money trying to chase down some 84 Year Old Fart around the World, for a supposed crime that happened 40 years ago, and catch some real criminals here, and perhaps save some of these Girls before it is too late to.  

Do you have evidence that the state of California is diverting money from law enforcement in order to stand firm on the charges against Polanski?  How much time and money is involved in stating "No, we will not drop charges."?  Who is literally chasing this 84 year old fart?

[catman20]

3 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Horrific Crimes? 

 

My first wife got pregnant at age 14 and I was 15 an we got married a year later. Call that Stupid! Call that Careless! Also call that a time when you could not get a Condom from a Drug Store, or Birth Control Pills at age 14, as Doctors thought you were too young for that sort of stuff. But I have never heard this called a "Horrific Crime before. Thanks for the Enlightenment! 

you were 15 right ? we are talking about a girl who was 13 and he was 45 bit of a difference dont you think ?

[GOLDBUGGY]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

The man was 43, he gave a 13 year old child alcohol and drugs, then had sex with her.  That was rape.  It was negotiated to a plea of a lesser charge in part to spare the child the ordeal of going to court.  It is standard procedure for defense attorney's to make a rape trial as humiliating as possible for the victim in order to get her to agree to lesser charges.  I do not know what physical evidence was collected, I haven't spent as much time on this subject as you spend composing long, irrelevant, unsourced narratives on what you claim happened.

 

Are you denying that a 43 year old man had sex with a 13 year old girl?  If so, you are the only one.

No that is not rape! Again you refuse to read your own link! 

 

This than 43 year old man that was accussed of having sex with a 13 year old girl (almost 14) was charged with "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor". That is not Rape! That is what it says it is, which is unlawfully having sex with a person under the age of 18 Years Old, or otherwise known as a Minor.  

 

He was also just charged with that Crime and never convicted of that Crime. Again a Big Difference! So since I wasn't there and I am not a witness to this crime, or have all the facts like in a jury would, I personally don't know if he is guilty or not. In our legal system he has to go to court and be found guilty by his pears first. 

 

I also personally know somebody who after many years later claims even today he was innocent of a crime, but took the Plea Bargain in fears of a lengthy jail term, and lack of funds for a good lawyer. So that does happen and his guilty plea should not be taken as a sure thing on determining if a person is really guilty or not. 

[Naam]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

14 and 15 year olds having sex is stupid, irresponsible, and possibly a crime. 

this crime is committed daily a zillion times worldwide

[onthesoi]

17 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

No that is not rape! Again you refuse to read your own link! 

 

This than 43 year old man that was accussed of having sex with a 13 year old girl (almost 14) was charged with "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor". That is not Rape! That is what it says it is, which is unlawfully having sex with a person under the age of 18 Years Old, or otherwise known as a Minor.  

 

He was also just charged with that Crime and never convicted of that Crime. Again a Big Difference! So since I wasn't there and I am not a witness to this crime, or have all the facts like in a jury would, I personally don't know if he is guilty or not. In our legal system he has to go to court and be found guilty by his pears first. 

 

I also personally know somebody who after many years later claims even today he was innocent of a crime, but took the Plea Bargain in fears of a lengthy jail term, and lack of funds for a good lawyer. So that does happen and his guilty plea should not be taken as a sure thing on determining if a person is really guilty or not. 

 

In the civilised world, ass fukking a 14 year old after plying her with drugs is rape.... Regardless of what some corrupt judge says.

Edited August 22, 2017 by onthesoi

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

No that is not rape! Again you refuse to read your own link! 

 

This than 43 year old man that was accussed of having sex with a 13 year old girl (almost 14) was charged with "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor". That is not Rape! That is what it says it is, which is unlawfully having sex with a person under the age of 18 Years Old, or otherwise known as a Minor.  

 

He was also just charged with that Crime and never convicted of that Crime. Again a Big Difference! So since I wasn't there and I am not a witness to this crime, or have all the facts like in a jury would, I personally don't know if he is guilty or not. In our legal system he has to go to court and be found guilty by his pears first. 

 

I also personally know somebody who after many years later claims even today he was innocent of a crime, but took the Plea Bargain in fears of a lengthy jail term, and lack of funds for a good lawyer. So that does happen and his guilty plea should not be taken as a sure thing on determining if a person is really guilty or not. 

If he had sex with a 13 year old it was rape, regardless of what his expensive lawyers negotiated the charges down to.  He pleaded guilty then ran away.  That's guilty in my book.

 

I had a friend who was raped at gunpoint while two friends of the sick bastard forced her 16 year old son to watch.  In preparing for the trial the court appointed attorney of the rapist told my friend that if she didn't agree to a lesser charge he would dig up every mistake she had made in her life and make it part of the trial in front of her son, who would have to be there as a witness.

 

If that's what a cheap lawyer will do to frighten a middle aged woman into reduced charges, imagine what the expensive lawyers of Polanski did to frighten that child.

 

BTW, "almost fourteen", "with her parents permission", "not a virgin" (you've never offered proof of that last one).  If you think that makes a difference, you are pretty warped.

[GOLDBUGGY]

5 hours ago, catman20 said:

you were 15 right ? we are talking about a girl who was 13 and he was 45 bit of a difference dont you think ?

Yes it is a bit different as you say and why he was charged at all, and I wasn't. 

 

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this whole case, besides the Prosecutor and Judge renegging on there Plea Bargain with Polanski, and now Polanski possibily facing 50 years in prison instead of a Plea Bargain they agreed to, and why he left in the first place, is the complete ignorance and refusal to listen to the Victim (Samantha Gailey then and now Samantha Greimer today). 

 

They didn't listen to her then, and even now at age 50 they are still refusing to listen to her. Samatha wasn't kept behind locked doors at Nicholson's House. She met his X Girlfriend (Houston) at the house and got introduced by Polanski. They talked for a little while before her and Polanski left together, with no indication of anything wrong as far as Houston could tell.

 

Samantha never reported Polanski to the Police. In fact and using her own words, this was the last thing she wanted and was angry at her mother for years after because of that. Samantha"s Sister overheard her talking on the telephone to a friend about what happened, and she is the one who told her mother, who later called the Police. Also how and why the Police got inovled at all.

 

People who have little understanding about things like this like to talk about a life long trauma and mental problems she will face and have to deal with the rest of her life. Having had this happen to her at such a young age, but Samantha disagrees with this. She has opening admitted that the first year after this happened was the worst year of her life. But not for what Polanski did to her. It was from all the media attention this got where she could no longer have a normal teenage life anymore. They claim to shield her with a trial from a Plea Bargain, but who shielded her from all the Press and Attention she was forced to accept later. 

 

Samantha hates it when people refer to this day using words like a Horrific Crime. As in her own eyes she has never seen it this way. Being the one involved, I guess she should know best. She has never wanted Polanski to go to Prison for this since day one and continues to feel this way 40 years later. 

 

The truth is that Samantha was also compensated by Polanski to a sum of anywhere between $600,000 to a $1,000,000. Samatha herself says this money has helped her and her family out a lot in her life. She even wrote a book years later, which I am sure earned her more money as well.

 

She has no bitter feelings towards Polanski, or feels she has any lasting mental scars. She has never viewed this incident as Rape and she has long forgiven Polanski for anything that he has done to her. Although she has time and time again said it was not near as bad as what people make it out to be.

 

Maybe it is time people should start to listen to her for a change and instead of Prosecutors and Judges, and all the Media who keeps bringing this up, who are all just trying to make a name for themselves?      

[GOLDBUGGY]

34 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

In the civilised world, ass fukking a 14 year old after plying her with drugs is rape.... Regardless of what some corrupt judge says.

No! That is not Rape! It is called "Sodomy"!

 

Were do you guys come from and get your education at?

[GOLDBUGGY]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If he had sex with a 13 year old it was rape, regardless of what his expensive lawyers negotiated the charges down to.  He pleaded guilty then ran away.  That's guilty in my book.

 

I had a friend who was raped at gunpoint while two friends of the sick bastard forced her 16 year old son to watch.  In preparing for the trial the court appointed attorney of the rapist told my friend that if she didn't agree to a lesser charge he would dig up every mistake she had made in her life and make it part of the trial in front of her son, who would have to be there as a witness.

 

If that's what a cheap lawyer will do to frighten a middle aged woman into reduced charges, imagine what the expensive lawyers of Polanski did to frighten that child.

 

BTW, "almost fourteen", "with her parents permission", "not a virgin" (you've never offered proof of that last one).  If you think that makes a difference, you are pretty warped.

The problem I have is you assume things that just aren't true at all. 

 

You assume that Polanski frighten this Child to get a Plea Bargain, which as I said many times here aready they did not honour that anyway.

 

Where did you get this information that Polanski Frightened anyone? You surely didn't get this from the Victim (Samatha Geimer) as she would say the opposite as to what you are sayng now. She has never claimed to have been threatened either during or after this incident. At age 50 years old now, and still fighting to get this whole charge dropped, also says a lot. 

 

Nobody has threaten or forced Samantha to say anything or do anything, except the Police and Prosecutor, so get over that already. I hightly doubt she would have willingly gone to trial against Polanski. So if she was forced into anything, it was by the Legal System who was forcing her.  

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

The problem I have is you assume things that just aren't true at all. 

 

You assume that Polanski frighten this Child to get a Plea Bargain, which as I said many times here aready they did not honour that anyway.

 

Where did you get this information that Polanski Frightened anyone? You surely didn't get this from the Victim (Samatha Geimer) as she would say the opposite as to what you are sayng now. She has never claimed to have been threatened either during or after this incident. At age 50 years old now, and still fighting to get this whole charge dropped, also says a lot. 

 

Nobody has threaten or forced Samantha to say anything or do anything, except the Police and Prosecutor, so get over that already. I hightly doubt she would have willingly gone to trial against Polanski. So if she was forced into anything, it was by the Legal System who was forcing her.  

I assume things?  Review the many thousands of words of meandering speculation you posted about what you claim has been going on, without referencing anything.  How about justifying claims such as "she was not a virgin", "the plea bargain was not honored", serious crimes are being ignored in order to pursue Polanski, etc?

 

Any discussions involving lawyers will not be part of the public record, so of course I can't prove that Polanski's attorneys frightened her.  However telling the victim how difficult the defense attorney will make the trial is standard operating procedure.  And nobody pleads guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child unless its true.  Certainly not a rich person who can afford expensive lawyers.

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/20/2017 at 1:09 PM, heybruce said:

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

 

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.

Samantha did an Interview with Larry King where she herself said she was not a Virgin. Here is an exert from that Interview:

 

KING: You were a virgin? GEIMER: I just figured I wasn't -- no, I wasn't. KING: You were not a virgin? GEIMER: No, I had a boyfriend for quite some months before that.

[GOLDBUGGY]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I assume things?  Review the many thousands of words of meandering speculation you posted about what you claim has been going on, without referencing anything.  How about justifying claims such as "she was not a virgin", "the plea bargain was not honored", serious crimes are being ignored in order to pursue Polanski, etc?

 

Any discussions involving lawyers will not be part of the public record, so of course I can't prove that Polanski's attorneys frightened her.  However telling the victim how difficult the defense attorney will make the trial is standard operating procedure.  And nobody pleads guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child unless its true.  Certainly not a rich person who can afford expensive lawyers.

As I just Posted Samantha Geimer went on Larry King Live on February 24,  2003, and told him she was not a Virgin then. But I am not your Dog Fetching your Newspaper for you, so if you want to read this look it up yourself. Like I did! 

[GOLDBUGGY]

28 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I assume things?  Review the many thousands of words of meandering speculation you posted about what you claim has been going on, without referencing anything.  How about justifying claims such as "she was not a virgin", "the plea bargain was not honored", serious crimes are being ignored in order to pursue Polanski, etc?

 

Any discussions involving lawyers will not be part of the public record, so of course I can't prove that Polanski's attorneys frightened her.  However telling the victim how difficult the defense attorney will make the trial is standard operating procedure.  And nobody pleads guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child unless its true.  Certainly not a rich person who can afford expensive lawyers.

Ha!Ha!Ha! No lawyers involved in a high profile case with discuss it? Really? Since when?

 

You keep trying to convince people of what she went through and what she thought as you keep talking and asking the Monkey, when you really should be talking and asking the Orgin Grinder!

 

Why not read up about what the Vicitim (Samantha Geimer) has to say about it all so you can stop guessing an talking to Monkeys?  

 

 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Ha!Ha!Ha! No lawyers involved in a high profile case with discuss it? Really? Since when?

 

You keep trying to convince people of what she went through and what she thought as you keep talking and asking the Monkey, when you really should be talking and asking the Orgin Grinder!

 

Why not read up about what the Vicitim (Samantha Geimer) has to say about it all so you can stop guessing an talking to Monkeys?  

 

 

Yes, no lawyer will reveal confidential discussions with a client (no doubt the child had one or more lawyers representing her during these discussions).  Lawyers who do that are disbarred.

 

And you try to convince people that a rich man with lots of lawyers was frightened into confessing to a heinous crime he didn't commit.

 

I don't care what the victim says.  A man who rapes (yes it is rape when the victim is 13 and the man 43) a child, pleads guilty and runs away deserves to either be brought to justice or spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.