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

[GOLDBUGGY]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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.

No! I never once said that Polanski was frightened into a confession, or even that this was a Heinous Crime. It was You who said that!

 

What I said was Polanski agreed to a "Plea Bargian" in which he had to Confess to this crime first in order to get it. The options being that if he confessed to this crime on a Plea Bargain, he would spend a maximum of 90 days in Prison. But if he refused the Plea Bargain, and was found guilty, he could possible face 50 years in Prison. Which if that was me, this would be enough for me to think twice about it, even if I was innocent. 

 

Here is what the Victim had to say about this: Since you refuse or can't seem to read on your own:

 

KING: In retrospect, would you have been upset at the plea bargain to time served? In other words, Roman Polanski goes free after 45 days. GEIMER: We were -- every one was comfortable with that. That's what we wanted. KING: Your mother was happy about that? GEIMER: Yes. I never even asked for him to be put in jail. KING: Your father was with it? GEIMER: Well, I don't know about that, although I didn't talk to him about it. KING: You didn't think he deserved more time in jail? GEIMER: No and the publicity was so traumatic and so horrible that, I mean, his punishment was secondary to just getting this whole thing to stop. I mean, it was crazy. There was people outside my house and, you know, it was horrible. KING: And his life, of course, would never be -- he would always be -- and he will be if he wins these awards, it's always going to say when he passes on in the first paragraph of the obituary, Roman Polanski who... GEIMER: Right. So, I mean, that's his form of punishment in itself. I think everyone finding out about it when you're a celebrity that's a high price to pay in itself.

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

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?

Are you asking me how much money does it take to go to take this case to the Supreme Court, like this news article states and what they are doing right now?

 

A Lot!. 

 

And a whole Lot more if Polanski did stand trial and appealed every decission and hearing that he could easily do with his money and friends. 

 

I can't believe you could ask a question like this. 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

No! I never once said that Polanski was frightened into a confession, or even that this was a Heinous Crime. It was You who said that!

 

What I said was Polanski agreed to a "Plea Bargian" in which he had to Confess to this crime first in order to get it. The options being that if he confessed to this crime on a Plea Bargain, he would spend a maximum of 90 days in Prison. But if he refused the Plea Bargain, and was found guilty, he could possible face 50 years in Prison. Which if that was me, this would be enough for me to think twice about it, even if I was innocent. 

 

Here is what the Victim had to say about this: Since you refuse or can't seem to read on your own:

 

KING: In retrospect, would you have been upset at the plea bargain to time served? In other words, Roman Polanski goes free after 45 days. GEIMER: We were -- every one was comfortable with that. That's what we wanted. KING: Your mother was happy about that? GEIMER: Yes. I never even asked for him to be put in jail. KING: Your father was with it? GEIMER: Well, I don't know about that, although I didn't talk to him about it. KING: You didn't think he deserved more time in jail? GEIMER: No and the publicity was so traumatic and so horrible that, I mean, his punishment was secondary to just getting this whole thing to stop. I mean, it was crazy. There was people outside my house and, you know, it was horrible. KING: And his life, of course, would never be -- he would always be -- and he will be if he wins these awards, it's always going to say when he passes on in the first paragraph of the obituary, Roman Polanski who... GEIMER: Right. So, I mean, that's his form of punishment in itself. I think everyone finding out about it when you're a celebrity that's a high price to pay in itself.

"The options being that if he confessed to this crime on a Plea Bargain, he would spend a maximum of 90 days in Prison. But if he refused the Plea Bargain, and was found guilty, he could possible face 50 years in Prison."

 

Do you think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him?  He was offered a very generous out that the victim had agreed to.  Then he ran. 

 

It's worth noting that you seem to be the only person, on TV or any other media I'm aware of, who holds out the possibility that he is innocent.

[GOLDBUGGY]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"The options being that if he confessed to this crime on a Plea Bargain, he would spend a maximum of 90 days in Prison. But if he refused the Plea Bargain, and was found guilty, he could possible face 50 years in Prison."

 

Do you think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him?  He was offered a very generous out that the victim had agreed to.  Then he ran. 

 

It's worth noting that you seem to be the only person, on TV or any other media I'm aware of, who holds out the possibility that he is innocent.

Do I think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him? I don't think So! I know So! That he would never had been given this or any other Plea Bargain, if they had enough evidence to convict him! Why would they?

 

Why would they offer him 90 days when they can get him on 50 years if found guilty? A Big Feather in there cap if they could I would think. You have it all backwards Son! They only offer a Plea Bargains when they are unsure or don't think they will be getting any conviction at all. That is the whole point of "Plea Bargaining". 

 

Forget trying to read my mind and trying to figure out if I think he is guilty or not. That is not important because regardless of his guilt or innocences, I agree with the Victim in this case and in what she has to say. Which is to say I believe he has recieved enough punishment for his crime, regardless if he did it or not. That it is time to move on already.  

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Do I think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him? I don't think So! I know So! That he would never had been given this or any other Plea Bargain, if they had enough evidence to convict him! Why would they?

 

Why would they offer him 90 days when they can get him on 50 years if found guilty? A Big Feather in there cap if they could I would think. You have it all backwards Son! They only offer a Plea Bargains when they are unsure or don't think they will be getting any conviction at all. That is the whole point of "Plea Bargaining". 

 

Forget trying to read my mind and trying to figure out if I think he is guilty or not. That is not important because regardless of his guilt or innocences, I agree with the Victim in this case and in what she has to say. Which is to say I believe he has recieved enough punishment for his crime, regardless if he did it or not. That it is time to move on already.  

"Do I think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him?"

 

Yes, I do.  Yes, of course they would.  They would do so to save time and money.  Prosecuting a high visibility celebrity is expensive.  And they would do it to spare the child the ordeal of a trial. 

 

"I don't think So! I know So! That he would never had been given this or any other Plea Bargain, if they had enough evidence to convict him! Why would they? "

 

No, you don't know.  They would do so for the reasons stated above.

 

"They only offer a Plea Bargains when they are unsure or don't think they will be getting any conviction at all. That is the whole point of "Plea Bargaining". "

 

And you know this because....?

 

"Which is to say I believe he has recieved enough punishment for his crime, regardless if he did it or not. That it is time to move on already. "

 

Obviously I, and the state of California, disagree.  He raped a child and ran away.  He can either face justice or run for the rest of his life.

[Thorgal]

Polanski has been blackmailed through this old judicial affair in order accomplish directing his latest movie the Dreyfuss Affair.

 

Once he would start the making of this movie I knew he would be declared innocent as in OP...

[Scott]

A post in violation of Fair Use Policy has been removed.  

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Do I think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him?"

 

Yes, I do.  Yes, of course they would.  They would do so to save time and money.  Prosecuting a high visibility celebrity is expensive.  And they would do it to spare the child the ordeal of a trial. 

 

"I don't think So! I know So! That he would never had been given this or any other Plea Bargain, if they had enough evidence to convict him! Why would they? "

 

No, you don't know.  They would do so for the reasons stated above.

 

"They only offer a Plea Bargains when they are unsure or don't think they will be getting any conviction at all. That is the whole point of "Plea Bargaining". "

 

And you know this because....?

 

"Which is to say I believe he has recieved enough punishment for his crime, regardless if he did it or not. That it is time to move on already. "

 

Obviously I, and the state of California, disagree.  He raped a child and ran away.  He can either face justice or run for the rest of his life.

One can't debate Common Sense. You either have it, or you don't. 

 

Polanski ran away because instead of getting the "Plea Bargain" which was time served and everyone including this Judge agreed to, this Judge changed his mind at the last minute. So instead of Polanski showing up in court the next day and let go free, he was facing another 50 years in prison. 

 

A pretty good reason to run away I think.

 

Who wouldn't?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

One can't debate Common Sense. You either have it, or you don't. 

 

Polanski ran away because instead of getting the "Plea Bargain" which was time served and everyone including this Judge agreed to, this Judge changed his mind at the last minute. So instead of Polanski showing up in court the next day and let go free, he was facing another 50 years in prison. 

 

A pretty good reason to run away I think.

 

Who wouldn't?

Common sense?  Is that what you think your casual attitude to sex with children represents?

 

However perhaps we're making progress.  It seems you have abandoned your argument that the plea bargain offer was proof of a weak case, abandoned your insinuations that sex may not have happened, and abandoned your insinuations that the child was a bad girl so having sex with her wasn't such a bid deal.  Now you insist rumors that the judge planned to reject the plea bargain is justification for Polanski's run.  Of course even if the insinuations were true, it is not justification for refusal to return and face a trial.

 

If one side does not honor the plea bargain agreed to, the other side can withdraw from the agreement.  If the judge's plan to sentence Romanski to 50 years were true (evidence was second-hand at best) then Polanski's lawyers would have had many options to object and possibly have the entire case dismissed.  Polanski is still rich and no doubt is consulting with expensive lawyers.  I suspect the lawyers are telling him to hold out for dismissal of charges, because if it goes to trial he probably lose and go to jail.

Edited August 23, 2017 by heybruce

[onthesoi]

15 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

In the civilised world, ass fukking a 13 year old after plying her with drugs is rape.... Regardless of what some corrupt judge says.

 

14 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

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

 

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

 

Sodomony and rape are not mutually exclusive.

 

If you thinking ass raping a 13yo after plying her with drugs is not rape then you must be as morally corrupt as Polanski.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by onthesoi

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Common sense?  Is that what you think your casual attitude to sex with children represents?

 

However perhaps we're making progress.  It seems you have abandoned your argument that the plea bargain offer was proof of a weak case, abandoned your insinuations that sex may not have happened, and abandoned your insinuations that the child was a bad girl so having sex with her wasn't such a bid deal.  Now you insist rumors that the judge planned to reject the plea bargain is justification for Polanski's run.  Of course even if the insinuations were true, it is not justification for refusal to return and face a trial.

 

If one side does not honor the plea bargain agreed to, the other side can withdraw from the agreement.  If the judge's plan to sentence Romanski to 50 years were true (evidence was second-hand at best) then Polanski's lawyers would have had many options to object and possibly have the entire case dismissed.  Polanski is still rich and no doubt is consulting with expensive lawyers.  I suspect the lawyers are telling him to hold out for dismissal of charges, because if it goes to trial he probably lose and go to jail.

I did not abandon my argument that a Plea Bargain is offered on a week case, and not a strong case, because it is offered on week cases. I abandoned my argument with you because as I said you can't debate with someone who refuses to use Common Sense, or just doesn't have any.

 

But you finally did say something I totally agree with you on, so maybe there is still some hope with you. You said that Polanski is rich and no doubt had expensive (and my I add) experienced Lawyers to advice him. I am sure that is true. So now the Million Dollar Question for you.

 

With all these experienced and expensive Lawyers working for Polanski, and advising him, who do you think advised him to leave town in a hurry?

 

To give you a hint, the day before the Verdict was to take place, the Prosecutor, the Victim's Lawyer (Silver) and Polanski's Lawyer were called into the Judges Chambers. Polanski and the Victim were not present and not there. It was on that day this Judge told them all he had changed his mind and he no longer was going to agree to this Plea Bargain. That due to pressure (from the media) he had decided to give Polanski 50 Years in Prison instead of the agreed 45 days time served. 

 

So now knowing that only 4 people knew about this decission ahead of time, The Judge, The Prosecutor, The Victim's Lawyer, and Polanski's Lawyer, who do you think from these 4 people told Polanski's ahead of time to warn him. To give him time to get things in order, get his Passport, and flee ghe country to France? 

 

Sure! Polanski's Lawyers could appeal this case after the Verdict from this Judge. Which a Judge in the USA, as well as Canada, is not compelled or forced to accept any Plea Bargain, and even after they agreed to it, but can use there own judgment. But where do you think Polanski would be sitting and living while all these Appeals are going on for months, or even years?

 

With not even knowing then for sure if even the Higher Courts will still honour this Plea Bargain then either. They refuse to open this Plea Bargain even now and after 40 Years, so why would they back then? That is a long time for Polanski to spend in Prison waiting and wondering if it will be overturned or not. I know I wouldn't chance that if I had a choice.  

 

You can bet your Bottom Dollar that these High Profile Expensive and Experienced Lawyers warned Polanski ahead of time and adviced him to get out of Dodge in a hurry! That after he is gone they will try to straighten out this mess. So as near as I can tell from here, it sure looks like it was good advice to. Polanski is wanted fugitive for over 40 years, but that is still better than having to had spent all that time in a prison. 

 

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I did not abandon my argument that a Plea Bargain is offered on a week case, and not a strong case, because it is offered on week cases. I abandoned my argument with you because as I said you can't debate with someone who refuses to use Common Sense, or just doesn't have any.

 

But you finally did say something I totally agree with you on, so maybe there is still some hope with you. You said that Polanski is rich and no doubt had expensive (and my I add) experienced Lawyers to advice him. I am sure that is true. So now the Million Dollar Question for you.

 

With all these experienced and expensive Lawyers working for Polanski, and advising him, who do you think advised him to leave town in a hurry?

 

To give you a hint, the day before the Verdict was to take place, the Prosecutor, the Victim's Lawyer (Silver) and Polanski's Lawyer were called into the Judges Chambers. Polanski and the Victim were not present and not there. It was on that day this Judge told them all he had changed his mind and he no longer was going to agree to this Plea Bargain. That due to pressure (from the media) he had decided to give Polanski 50 Years in Prison instead of the agreed 45 days time served. 

 

So now knowing that only 4 people knew about this decission ahead of time, The Judge, The Prosecutor, The Victim's Lawyer, and Polanski's Lawyer, who do you think from these 4 people told Polanski's ahead of time to warn him. To give him time to get things in order, get his Passport, and flee ghe country to France? 

 

Sure! Polanski's Lawyers could appeal this case after the Verdict from this Judge. Which a Judge in the USA, as well as Canada, is not compelled or forced to accept any Plea Bargain, and even after they agreed to it, but can use there own judgment. But where do you think Polanski would be sitting and living while all these Appeals are going on for months, or even years?

 

With not even knowing then for sure if even the Higher Courts will still honour this Plea Bargain then either. They refuse to open this Plea Bargain even now and after 40 Years, so why would they back then? That is a long time for Polanski to spend in Prison waiting and wondering if it will be overturned or not. I know I wouldn't chance that if I had a choice.  

 

You can bet your Bottom Dollar that these High Profile Expensive and Experienced Lawyers warned Polanski ahead of time and adviced him to get out of Dodge in a hurry! That after he is gone they will try to straighten out this mess. So as near as I can tell from here, it sure looks like it was good advice to. Polanski is wanted fugitive for over 40 years, but that is still better than having to had spent all that time in a prison. 

 

 

" With all these experienced and expensive Lawyers working for Polanski, and advising him, who do you think advised him to leave town in a hurry? "

 

The expensive lawyers who knew the evidence against Polanski was overwhelming and a favorable trial outcome unlikely.  Duh!

 

Of course this doesn't fit in with your insistence that the case against Polanski was weak.

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

 

Sodomony and rape are not mutually exclusive.

 

If you thinking ass raping a 13yo after plying her with drugs is not rape then you must be as morally corrupt as Polanski.

 

 

No! I just think that every man is entitled to his day in Court before you and your Lynching Party show up with a rope and tar and feather him first. 

 

Try to understand this!

 

Polanski has not, nor never has, been convicted of any crime. None! Zero! Zippy Do Da!

 

Got it now?

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

No! I just think that every man is entitled to his day in Court before you and your Lynching Party show up with a rope and tar and feather him first. 

 

Try to understand this!

 

Polanski has not, nor never has, been convicted of any crime. None! Zero! Zippy Do Da!

 

Got it now?

No, he just plead guilty then ran away.  Nothing suspicious about that.

 

Edit:  I'll anticipate your reply and offer an alternative:

 

He was released on bail and ran away because he was confident he would lose his court case (even though you insist the case against him was weak).  Again, nothing  suspicious about that.

Edited August 23, 2017 by heybruce

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" With all these experienced and expensive Lawyers working for Polanski, and advising him, who do you think advised him to leave town in a hurry? "

 

The expensive lawyers who knew the evidence against Polanski was overwhelming and a favorable trial outcome unlikely.  Duh!

 

Of course this doesn't fit in with your insistence that the case against Polanski was weak.

Your jumping ahead of yourself again. 

 

When Polanski was charged and arrested and made his first appearance in Court, he pleaded "Not Guilty". There was no witness as only Samantha Geimer and Roman Polanski were present. Houston came to the house and met Geimer, but she did not notice any sign of trouble at all.

 

Geimer did not report Polanski to the Police and it only came to light after her sister heard her talking on the telephone to her old boyfriend. She made it known from the start she did not want to testify against Polanski, or him going to jail, so at best all they had wqas a forced and uncooperative witness.

 

A Medical Report did indicated the possibility of sexual activity, but not conclusive to Rape as there was no physically sexual injury. A later 28 page court report indicated that Geimer was sexual mature, with some evidence pointing to her being a willing partner. But none that points to Polanski being that partner. Geimer was not a Virgin at this time. 

 

So what strong evidence that you keep talking about them having, that they actually did have. Why not share that with us? What did they have beside her word agaist his, when she refuses to testify?

[GOLDBUGGY]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, he just plead guilty then ran away.  Nothing suspicious about that.

 

Edit:  I'll anticipate your reply and offer an alternative:

 

He was released on bail and ran away because he was confident he would lose his court case (even though you insist the case against him was weak).  Again, nothing  suspicious about that.

You just don't get it do you? What is so difficult to understand here. 

 

He pleaded "Not Guilty". When they relized they had no case against him they offered him a Plea Bargian" which included a Guilty Plea from him and 90 days maximum in jail. They offered him a Plea Bargain because they had a week case against him.

 

He only pleaded Guilty as this was part of the Plea Bargain. He ran because they did not stick to there agreement, and would not let him retract his guilty plea, which he was forced to give them as part of this Plea Bargain. I really don't see why you find this so difficult to understand. 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Your jumping ahead of yourself again. 

 

When Polanski was charged and arrested and made his first appearance in Court, he pleaded "Not Guilty". There was no witness as only Samantha Geimer and Roman Polanski were present. Houston came to the house and met Geimer, but she did not notice any sign of trouble at all.

 

Geimer did not report Polanski to the Police and it only came to light after her sister heard her talking on the telephone to her old boyfriend. She made it known from the start she did not want to testify against Polanski, or him going to jail, so at best all they had wqas a forced and uncooperative witness.

 

A Medical Report did indicated the possibility of sexual activity, but not conclusive to Rape as there was no physically sexual injury. A later 28 page court report indicated that Geimer was sexual mature, with some evidence pointing to her being a willing partner. But none that points to Polanski being that partner. Geimer was not a Virgin at this time. 

 

So what strong evidence that you keep talking about them having, that they actually did have. Why not share that with us? What did they have beside her word agaist his, when she refuses to testify?

Huston didn't notice any sign of trouble?

 

"Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.^[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."^[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".^[16]

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,^[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,^[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.^{[12][20][21][22]}

Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.^[23][24]Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.^{[25] "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case}

 

On top of this, he plead guilty and ran away!  A rich man with expensive lawyers doesn't do that when the case against him is weak. Are you once again suggesting he is innocent?  If so, why won't he and his expensive lawyers come to the US and have their day in court?

 

You also seem to be back to the "she wasn't a good girl so what's the big deal?" argument.  That is sick.

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

You just don't get it do you? What is so difficult to understand here. 

 

He pleaded "Not Guilty". When they relized they had no case against him they offered him a Plea Bargian" which included a Guilty Plea from him and 90 days maximum in jail. They offered him a Plea Bargain because they had a week case against him.

 

He only pleaded Guilty as this was part of the Plea Bargain. He ran because they did not stick to there agreement, and would not let him retract his guilty plea, which he was forced to give them as part of this Plea Bargain. I really don't see why you find this so difficult to understand.

So you think a rich man with expensive lawyers will agree to 90 days in jail and the permanent stigma of being a confessed child molester when the case against him is weak?  What planet are you from?

[Naam]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you think a rich man with expensive lawyers will agree to 90 days in jail and the permanent stigma of being a confessed child molester when the case against him is weak?  What planet are you from?

and you think anybody will not try to avoid 50 years in prison no matter whether he/she is guilty of a crime or not? what planet are you from?

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Huston didn't notice any sign of trouble?

 

"Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.^[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."^[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".^[16]

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,^[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,^[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.^{[12][20][21][22]}

Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.^[23][24]Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.^{[25] "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case}

 

On top of this, he plead guilty and ran away!  A rich man with expensive lawyers doesn't do that when the case against him is weak. Are you once again suggesting he is innocent?  If so, why won't he and his expensive lawyers come to the US and have their day in court?

 

You also seem to be back to the "she wasn't a good girl so what's the big deal?" argument.  That is sick.

 

Huston was never called as a witness even at the Preliminary Hearing. She was upset at Polanski for being at Jack's House anf bringing someone there without permission, as she was Jack's Girlfriend then and ivig there. But she also did meet Geimer for a few moments on the way out, who said Hi to her, and she reported later she did not notice anything wrong. 

 

So what you have here is just Geimer's word against Polanski, who says otherwise. But even the she was refusing to testify against him. I also wonder if this was written before Geimer's Civil Law Suet against Polanski and the +$600,000 she got from him later?

 

But you are right in which a rich man with pleanty of lawyers doesn't just plead guilty and then run away for no reason.  He also doesn't Plead Guilty if they have a strong case against him either. Why would he or anyone else do that? 

 

You seem to tie his running away as being a guilty man and them having a strong case against him. I tie his running away because he was headed to prison for a long time. But both of these possibilities happened after the Plea Bargain was offered and never would have come to light otherwise.

 

Of course after they got Polanski to agree to a Pea Bargain and to do that he needed to plead guilty first, which gave them a strong case. But what I am saying is that before this time they had nothing. Polanski's Lawyers would have tore her, and this case wide apart. In fact I beleive this whole case would have gotten dropped due to a lack of evidence. Polanski made a mistake by not fighting it and worrying to much about the bad publicity. I am sure he knows that now.  

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you think a rich man with expensive lawyers will agree to 90 days in jail and the permanent stigma of being a confessed child molester when the case against him is weak?  What planet are you from?

 

37 minutes ago, Naam said:

and you think anybody will not try to avoid 50 years in prison no matter whether he/she is guilty of a crime or not? what planet are you from?

Goldbuggy's argument (sometimes) is that the case against Polanski is weak.  Rich people with good lawyers don't run away from weak cases, and certainly don't agree to jail time and the lifetime stigma of being a child molester.  They go to court and make the weak case fall apart.

[GOLDBUGGY]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Goldbuggy's argument (sometimes) is that the case against Polanski is weak.  Rich people with good lawyers don't run away from weak cases, and certainly don't agree to jail time and the lifetime stigma of being a child molester.  They go to court and make the weak case fall apart.

Forget for a moment rich and famous people. They are the same as us in many ways except they have more money. Look at yourself for a moment. 

 

If you were faced with a maximum of 90 day prison sentence for a Psychaitic Assessment in some Prison Hospital, which turns out to be only 45 days,  and then be released to go free if you pleaded guilty, or not plead Guilty, go to court for countless years and countless amounts of money, and if found guilty face 50 years in prison, which one would you honestly choose?

 

Polanski was forced to make this decission. So which way would you go?  

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Huston was never called as a witness even at the Preliminary Hearing. She was upset at Polanski for being at Jack's House anf bringing someone there without permission, as she was Jack's Girlfriend then and ivig there. But she also did meet Geimer for a few moments on the way out, who said Hi to her, and she reported later she did not notice anything wrong. 

 

So what you have here is just Geimer's word against Polanski, who says otherwise. But even the she was refusing to testify against him. I also wonder if this was written before Geimer's Civil Law Suet against Polanski and the +$600,000 she got from him later?

 

But you are right in which a rich man with pleanty of lawyers doesn't just plead guilty and then run away for no reason.  He also doesn't Plead Guilty if they have a strong case against him either. Why would he or anyone else do that? 

 

You seem to tie his running away as being a guilty man and them having a strong case against him. I tie his running away because he was headed to prison for a long time. But both of these possibilities happened after the Plea Bargain was offered and never would have come to light otherwise.

 

Of course after they got Polanski to agree to a Pea Bargain and to do that he needed to plead guilty first, which gave them a strong case. But what I am saying is that before this time they had nothing. Polanski's Lawyers would have tore her, and this case wide apart. In fact I beleive this whole case would have gotten dropped due to a lack of evidence. Polanski made a mistake by not fighting it and worrying to much about the bad publicity. I am sure he knows that now.  

" He also doesn't Plead Guilty if they have a strong case against him either. Why would he or anyone else do that? "

 

Are you asking why he wouldn't accept an incredibly generous plea bargain offer when the case against him was strong?  Do I really need to explain?

 

Once again, I'll anticipate your reply.  The prosecution offered him a very generous plea bargain opportunity because they knew that a trial against a high visibility rich man would drag on for months, be very expensive, be disruptive to other work the courts had to do, and would be hard on the child.  These are the common sense reasons that you can't seem to accept.  It's also likely that Polanski had influential friends pressuring the prosecution to find a quick way to make the problem go away. 

 

However the judge, possibly under pressure not to let the rich man off easy after a repulsive crime, chose not to honor the plea bargain.  Judges have that right.  Polanski, faced with a trial that he was unlikely to win and the possibility of a long prison sentence, chose luxurious exile.  He wouldn't do that if the evidence against him wasn't strong.  You seem to be the only person who thinks maybe he didn't commit the crime.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Forget for a moment rich and famous people. They are the same as us in many ways except they have more money. Look at yourself for a moment. 

 

If you were faced with a maximum of 90 day prison sentence for a Psychaitic Assessment in some Prison Hospital, which turns out to be only 45 days,  and then be released to go free if you pleaded guilty, or not plead Guilty, go to court for countless years and countless amounts of money, and if found guilty face 50 years in prison, which one would you honestly choose?

 

Polanski was forced to make this decission. So which way would you go?  

If I was charged with a disgusting crime I didn't commit, I'd fight it in court.  Especially if I was like us, but with lots of money.

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

" He also doesn't Plead Guilty if they have a strong case against him either. Why would he or anyone else do that? "

 

Are you asking why he wouldn't accept an incredibly generous plea bargain offer when the case against him was strong?  Do I really need to explain?

 

Once again, I'll anticipate your reply.  The prosecution offered him a very generous plea bargain opportunity because they knew that a trial against a high visibility rich man would drag on for months, be very expensive, be disruptive to other work the courts had to do, and would be hard on the child.  These are the common sense reasons that you can't seem to accept.  It's also likely that Polanski had influential friends pressuring the prosecution to find a quick way to make the problem go away. 

 

However the judge, possibly under pressure not to let the rich man off easy after a repulsive crime, chose not to honor the plea bargain.  Judges have that right.  Polanski, faced with a trial that he was unlikely to win and the possibility of a long prison sentence, chose luxurious exile.  He wouldn't do that if the evidence against him wasn't strong.  You seem to be the only person who thinks maybe he didn't commit the crime.

Of course after they gave him a generous plea bargain to make him plea guilty, then retracted the plea bargain afterwards, but would not let him take back his Guilty Plea, how could he win? 

 

That has got to be as close to intrapment or something like that, that I have ever heard of in my life. It is one thing for a Judge not to agree to a Plea Bargain, but it is a totally different thing when he does agree, the guy does his jail time, signs a confession now to say he is guilty, and then the Judge changes his mind and won't let him retract his guilty plea.. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If I was charged with a disgusting crime I didn't commit, I'd fight it in court.  Especially if I was like us, but with lots of money.

 

What good would your money do while you are spending your time in prison for 50 years? Your wife and kids would get that after your first year there and she divorced you.

 

Did you ever stop to think for a moment that because you are rich and famous, you attract a lot of Prosecutors and Judges who by puting you behnd bars for a long time would just make them famous to?

 

Of course not! This is why they would have stopped looking for you or me ages ago, if it was us involved in this crime, but are still after Polanski after 40 years. You and I are just small fish. He is Big Game! He is there next promotion!

 

Quite frankly I would take the 90 days in prison instead of risking 50 years. With that money I could still go and hide and enjoy my life, and in 40 years they would have totally forgotten about me. While you in prison for 50 years in 40 years everyone you knew would have totally forgotten about you, your money is gone, and you are now just some other guys New Girlfriend for a month.  

 

I am still waiting to hear this strong evidence you kept saying they had against Polanski, if it were not for his guilty plea bargain deal.  

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

What good would your money do while you are spending your time in prison for 50 years? Your wife and kids would get that after your first year there and she divorced you.

 

Did you ever stop to think for a moment that because you are rich and famous, you attract a lot of Prosecutors and Judges who by puting you behnd bars for a long time would just make them famous to?

 

Of course not! This is why they would have stopped looking for you or me ages ago, if it was us involved in this crime, but are still after Polanski after 40 years. You and I are just small fish. He is Big Game! He is there next promotion!

 

Quite frankly I would take the 90 days in prison instead of risking 50 years. With that money I could still go and hide and enjoy my life, and in 40 years they would have totally forgotten about me. While you in prison for 50 years in 40 years everyone you knew would have totally forgotten about you, your money is gone, and you are now just some other guys New Girlfriend for a month.  

 

I am still waiting to hear this strong evidence you kept saying they had against Polanski, if it were not for his guilty plea bargain deal.  

How many rich people do you know doing long sentences?  Madoff is the only one I can think of, and he was guilty as hell. 

 

Somebody dirt poor with an incompetent public defender might accept a plea bargain when innocent.  Rich people don't do that.

 

Regarding strong evidence, I've explained it many times--he plead guilty, he fled, he won't come back for a trial that would be an easy victory for him if there wasn't strong evidence.  To my knowledge not even Polanski denies having sex with the child.

[heybruce]

56 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Of course after they gave him a generous plea bargain to make him plea guilty, then retracted the plea bargain afterwards, but would not let him take back his Guilty Plea, how could he win? 

 

That has got to be as close to intrapment or something like that, that I have ever heard of in my life. It is one thing for a Judge not to agree to a Plea Bargain, but it is a totally different thing when he does agree, the guy does his jail time, signs a confession now to say he is guilty, and then the Judge changes his mind and won't let him retract his guilty plea.. 

The girl's attorney arranged the plea bargain, both parties believed the judge would accept it, but I've found nothing that indicates the judge ever did.

His lawyers would have had no trouble getting the plea bargain confession thrown out of court.  He then would have been tried based on the evidence that motivated him to accept the plea bargain in the first place.

 

BTW, your "50 year" claim doesn't agree with the judge's statement on the matter; he would have accepted 90 days in jail then deportation:

 

" I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country.^[32]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

How many rich people do you know doing long sentences?  Madoff is the only one I can think of, and he was guilty as hell. 

 

Somebody dirt poor with an incompetent public defender might accept a plea bargain when innocent.  Rich people don't do that.

 

Regarding strong evidence, I've explained it many times--he plead guilty, he fled, he won't come back for a trial that would be an easy victory for him if there wasn't strong evidence.  To my knowledge not even Polanski denies having sex with the child.

Well first there is "Jim Baker" of the PTL Club who got sentence to 45 years in jail, and a $500,000 Fine. "OJ Simpson" on the Los Vegas Robbery was sentenced to 33 years but finally got on Parole after only 9 years in prison. "Michael Milkin" the "Junk Bond King" made a Plea Bargain which the Judge who accepted it and actually stuck to it. He agreed to pay back $1.1 Billion Dollars, and yet was still sentence to 10 years in jail. Which was later reduced.

 

This list goes on and on! So like somebody already asked you, which planet are you from? But for sure all of these people had plenty of money for a Very Good Defense. Milkin agreeing to paying back $1.1 Billion Dollars surely proves he had all the money in the world he needed to defend himself, yet was still sentenced to 10 Years. He also Plea Bargained to get even that. 

 

You keep hitting on the point if Polanski is guilty or not, but you ignore the main point, in which Polanski was tricked into admitting he was guilty. Even if he was on a Plea Bargain that never materialized. He was lied to and tricked into doing this, which makes the whole case unfair, even if he is guilty. 

 

Do I personally think he is guilty of ths crime. Yes I do! But I also know that I would never know one way or the other if Polanski wasn't tricked into Pleading Guilty. Had he stuck to his Not Guilty Plea, then nobody could be sure except them. That it would have been settled in court while the likely possibility of him winning.

 

Yes you did explain many times he did plea guilty and fled after that, and your whole basis for him being guilty. What you never explain is why would he plea guilty at all. What advantage did he get for peading guilty. The USA is not Thailand where his sentence is cut in half by pleading guilty.     

 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Well first there is "Jim Baker" of the PTL Club who got sentence to 45 years in jail, and a $500,000 Fine. "OJ Simpson" on the Los Vegas Robbery was sentenced to 33 years but finally got on Parole after only 9 years in prison. "Michael Milkin" the "Junk Bond King" made a Plea Bargain which the Judge who accepted it and actually stuck to it. He agreed to pay back $1.1 Billion Dollars, and yet was still sentence to 10 years in jail. Which was later reduced.

 

This list goes on and on! So like somebody already asked you, which planet are you from? But for sure all of these people had plenty of money for a Very Good Defense. Milkin agreeing to paying back $1.1 Billion Dollars surely proves he had all the money in the world he needed to defend himself, yet was still sentenced to 10 Years. He also Plea Bargained to get even that. 

 

You keep hitting on the point if Polanski is guilty or not, but you ignore the main point, in which Polanski was tricked into admitting he was guilty. Even if he was on a Plea Bargain that never materialized. He was lied to and tricked into doing this, which makes the whole case unfair, even if he is guilty. 

 

Do I personally think he is guilty of ths crime. Yes I do! But I also know that I would never know one way or the other if Polanski wasn't tricked into Pleading Guilty. Had he stuck to his Not Guilty Plea, then nobody could be sure except them. That it would have been settled in court while the likely possibility of him winning.

 

Yes you did explain many times he did plea guilty and fled after that, and your whole basis for him being guilty. What you never explain is why would he plea guilty at all. What advantage did he get for peading guilty. The USA is not Thailand where his sentence is cut in half by pleading guilty.     

 

Do you doubt the guilt of any of the examples you gave?  When there is overwhelming evidence even expensive lawyers (sometimes) can't get their guilty clients off the hook.

 

Now you say I've explained why he plead guilty (overwhelming evidence and a generous plea bargain offer) but I haven't explained why he would plead guilty.  That makes no sense.  The subjunctive tense ("why would he plead guilty") is used for hypothetical past events that did not occur.  This event occurred, he plead guilty.