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

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

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

 

 

You still don't get this, but I admit you are coming along. 

 

This statement was made from Judge "Rittenband". It was made after Polanski left the USA. It only proves what I have been saying all along. The Judge is a Liar! Plain and Simple! He has nothing to do with Immegration so why should he says this anyway? 

 

You also said nobody talks about High Profile Cases. How can you say that then produce this as evidence you were wrong? This Judge was only trying to make a name for himself to get re-elected. What he says after the fact does not change what he said before the fact. 

 

Here is a LINK which explains this more clearly. From the Victim herself and the Orgin Grinder, instead of a bunch on Monkeys. 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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.

You Overwelming Evidence ( a Guilty Plea) was obtained illegally! Can't you understand something as simple as that? 

 

It is no different then Police breaking into your house, finding a joint of Pot left by one of your firend at a party, then puting you in jail for 50 years. While the rest of us sit back and say good on you, as you disserve that as you are guilty. 

 

It is not about having sex with an underage girl even if she was a willing partner or not. If Polanski is guilty or not! It is all about the justice system obtaining information illegally, and using it against you. There are rules in place they need to follow regardless of the crime. OJ Simpson got off because they screwed up, but that time they got caught. Which any Level Headed  Fare Jury let him go because of that. 

 

Get the head out of the sand and look how they did this instead of trying to teach English language Lesson here. This was totally unfare and totally unjust. I am not a Roman Polanski Fan, and I surely don't approve of a 40 something year old man having sex with an almost 14 year old girl. But what happened to Polanski and how he got to the point he is in today, some 40 years later, is completly unfare. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

11 hours 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.

Well actually they don't do this, unless they are trying to sucker you in for more money, which as many of us know, they like to do. Which now makes them not so good lawyers. 

 

To me a good lawyer not only represents me in a Criminal Court, and tries to give me the best defense he can, he also offers me good legal advice. If that advice is to accept a Plea Bargain,  in which the maximum time I could spend in Prison was 90 days, but otherwise face 50 years in prsion, if I fight it, I consider this good advice. 

 

I also think it is good legal advie that if the Judge changes his mind for unknown reasons, and now my sentence will be this 50 years in Prsion, to skip the country. 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

You still don't get this, but I admit you are coming along. 

 

This statement was made from Judge "Rittenband". It was made after Polanski left the USA. It only proves what I have been saying all along. The Judge is a Liar! Plain and Simple! He has nothing to do with Immegration so why should he says this anyway? 

 

You also said nobody talks about High Profile Cases. How can you say that then produce this as evidence you were wrong? This Judge was only trying to make a name for himself to get re-elected. What he says after the fact does not change what he said before the fact. 

 

Here is a LINK which explains this more clearly. From the Victim herself and the Orgin Grinder, instead of a bunch on Monkeys. 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

The judge is a liar?  In his statement he clearly said the court doesn't have the authority to deport people.  It does have the power to agree to a plea bargain deal in which the accused agrees to deportation without return.

 

Transcripts 30 years after the fact from an infotainment program interested in ratings don't impress me.

 

Now you are libeling a judge, calling him a liar and a monkey.  You also suggested the child was some kind of drug using slut.  You are on again and off again as to whether Polanski raped her.  Now, perhaps, you are quibbling over due process, while insisting none of this should be settled in court, as it clearly should.

 

Could you take a position and stick with it?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

You Overwelming Evidence ( a Guilty Plea) was obtained illegally! Can't you understand something as simple as that? 

 

It is no different then Police breaking into your house, finding a joint of Pot left by one of your firend at a party, then puting you in jail for 50 years. While the rest of us sit back and say good on you, as you disserve that as you are guilty. 

 

It is not about having sex with an underage girl even if she was a willing partner or not. If Polanski is guilty or not! It is all about the justice system obtaining information illegally, and using it against you. There are rules in place they need to follow regardless of the crime. OJ Simpson got off because they screwed up, but that time they got caught. Which any Level Headed  Fare Jury let him go because of that. 

 

Get the head out of the sand and look how they did this instead of trying to teach English language Lesson here. This was totally unfare and totally unjust. I am not a Roman Polanski Fan, and I surely don't approve of a 40 something year old man having sex with an almost 14 year old girl. But what happened to Polanski and how he got to the point he is in today, some 40 years later, is completly unfare. 

The guilty plea was obtained illegally?  Funny that you are arguing this and not Polanski's lawyers. 

 

Now a crime against a child doesn't interest you, you are focusing on due process.  Are you a lawyer?  If not, don't you think Polanski's lawyers should be making this argument?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Well actually they don't do this, unless they are trying to sucker you in for more money, which as many of us know, they like to do. Which now makes them not so good lawyers. 

 

To me a good lawyer not only represents me in a Criminal Court, and tries to give me the best defense he can, he also offers me good legal advice. If that advice is to accept a Plea Bargain,  in which the maximum time I could spend in Prison was 90 days, but otherwise face 50 years in prsion, if I fight it, I consider this good advice. 

 

I also think it is good legal advie that if the Judge changes his mind for unknown reasons, and now my sentence will be this 50 years in Prsion, to skip the country. 

With no credible case against you, you would plead guilty to child rape if the sentence was short enough?  I wouldn't.

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The judge is a liar?  In his statement he clearly said the court doesn't have the authority to deport people.  It does have the power to agree to a plea bargain deal in which the accused agrees to deportation without return.

 

Transcripts 30 years after the fact from an infotainment program interested in ratings don't impress me.

 

Now you are libeling a judge, calling him a liar and a monkey.  You also suggested the child was some kind of drug using slut.  You are on again and off again as to whether Polanski raped her.  Now, perhaps, you are quibbling over due process, while insisting none of this should be settled in court, as it clearly should.

 

Could you take a position and stick with it?

My Positions has always been the same. You just refuse to even look at them! You refuse to even read what is given to you and put in front of your face, for your own fear you could be wrong. But then state you have no fear of being put in Prison for 50 Years to prove a point. How Sad! 

 

Transcripts 30 years after the fact places them closer to the day these events took place.  Yes these events took place and this Judge was a Liar. A Cheat! And everything else. Let him sue me! As he has been dead for many years, which again something you did not know,. 

 

But then you will run into people who when you show them Red, they say it is Blue. Or Blue they say is Red. You are one of those people who I don't want to waste anymore of my time with. 

 

Good Luck!

 

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

With no credible case against you, you would plead guilty to child rape if the sentence was short enough?  I wouldn't.

I Know You Wouldn't! I wonder how many other people agree with You?

 

As You already proved your ignorance many time here already!

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

My Positions has always been the same. You just refuse to even look at them! You refuse to even read what is given to you and put in front of your face, for your own fear you could be wrong. But then state you have no fear of being put in Prison for 50 Years to prove a point. How Sad! 

 

Transcripts 30 years after the fact places them closer to the day these events took place.  Yes these events took place and this Judge was a Liar. A Cheat! And everything else. Let him sue me! As he has been dead for many years, which again something you did not know,. 

 

But then you will run into people who when you show them Red, they say it is Blue. Or Blue they say is Red. You are one of those people who I don't want to waste anymore of my time with. 

 

Good Luck!

Let me see, how many positions have you taken?

 

I'll skip the trivial stuff, like you calling an event that took place eight years before the crime "recent" and saying the crime occurred in Polanski's house.

 

 

You said consenting sex and sodomy with a 13 year old isn't rape, which it clearly is.  Also, the victim claims the sex wasn't consenting.

 

You suggested that the crime wasn't that bad because you claim the girl wasn't a virgin and used drugs.  You ignored the fact that it was Polanski that plied her with the drug and alcohol.

 

You suggested California is neglecting serious crime (as if child rape isn't serious) in its pursuit of Polanski.  You offer no evidence to support this.

 

You repeatedly insisted the only reason for the prosecution to offer a plea bargain was because its case was weak.  That is a reason, but definitely not the only reason, and Polanski's actions indicate the case isn't weak.

 

You suggest that maybe Polanski didn't commit a crime, but also that since the victim is willing to forgive the crime that he should be forgiven the crime that he didn't commit.  You provided no evidence that Polanski denied having sex (raping) the child.

 

You accept a Larry King Live transcript as conclusive evidence, and reject the statement of a judge, calling him a liar and a monkey.

 

When I pointed out that a question you asked me was absurd and used the term "subjunctive" in explaining why, you objected to my English lesson but didn't deny that your question was absurd.

 

You called the plea bargain illegal, without evidence.

 

 

I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but I think this is enough.  Your credibility on this issue is nonexistent.

[GOLDBUGGY]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Let me see, how many positions have you taken?

 

I'll skip the trivial stuff, like you calling an event that took place eight years before the crime "recent" and saying the crime occurred in Polanski's house.

 

 

You said consenting sex and sodomy with a 13 year old isn't rape, which it clearly is.  Also, the victim claims the sex wasn't consenting.

 

You suggested that the crime wasn't that bad because you claim the girl wasn't a virgin and used drugs.  You ignored the fact that it was Polanski that plied her with the drug and alcohol.

 

You suggested California is neglecting serious crime (as if child rape isn't serious) in its pursuit of Polanski.  You offer no evidence to support this.

 

You repeatedly insisted the only reason for the prosecution to offer a plea bargain was because its case was weak.  That is a reason, but definitely not the only reason, and Polanski's actions indicate the case isn't weak.

 

You suggest that maybe Polanski didn't commit a crime, but also that since the victim is willing to forgive the crime that he should be forgiven the crime that he didn't commit.  You provided no evidence that Polanski denied having sex (raping) the child.

 

You accept a Larry King Live transcript as conclusive evidence, and reject the statement of a judge, calling him a liar and a monkey.

 

When I pointed out that a question you asked me was absurd and used the term "subjunctive" in explaining why, you objected to my English lesson but didn't deny that your question was absurd.

 

You called the plea bargain illegal, without evidence.

 

 

I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but I think this is enough.  Your credibility on this issue is nonexistent.

Ha!Ha!Ha! You are a funny guy. Putting words in my mouth that I never said. 

 

Polanski was finally charged with having unlawful sex with a minor, and not rape. There is a big difference in these charges although both are Criminal Offenses.  Unlawful sex with a minor suggests that the Minor was a willing partner, thus carries a lighter sentence. Rape is Rape! If you disagree with these charges then I suggest you contact the authorities there and try to have them changed. But as it stands now, it is what it is. 

 

I did say it first this happened at Polanski's house when it happened at Nicholson's House. A slip of the tongue, which I forgot about. I didn't realize this was so important to you, and always trying to use the English Language perfectly. As neither have much to do with this case.

 

So what difference does that make who's house it may or may not happened in? But then you also said they don't talk about High Profile Case outside the Court Room, then posted the Judge in this Case talking all about it. I think a far bigger mistake then me forgetting excatly who's house this took place in 40 years later. 

 

I have never said I approved of a 40 something year old man having sex with a Minor. Even when she is a willing partner. In fact I have said many time I do not approve of this. I have said many times a person should be punished for this.

 

But I did also say that the punishment should fit the crime . I just so happen to believe that 50 years in prison for this crime is far too much. Considering the Victim, who should have her voice heard in this case and the punishment, did not want him to go to jail at all. You may feel differently about this then I do, so Boo Who to You! 

 

Polanski has spent a year in jail now, or against his will at least, when you add up his time in prsion in the US, and his time in Switzerland, where he was held for a possible deportation to the US. He has also given this Victim at least +$600,000, which is a lot of Money, as part of his restitution to her. A good way to say he is sorry, I thnk, even if forced to. Especially when the Victim has stated many times that her greatest trama and ordeal did not come from Polanski that night, but rather all the media attention she got afterwards.

 

So when I consider everything, I beleive that Polanski has recieved enough punishment for his crime already. Not to mention the stigma attached to his name, being on the run as a Fugitive, and hell knows what other problems he has had to face over 40 years for this crime.

 

That is not the same as letting some Child Molester go free.  It is just not the same as giving him 50 years and taking away his life over this, or hanging him upside down by his Yitecees!  Since you disagree with his punishment and figure he deserves 50 years, then Boo Who to You! 

[GOLDBUGGY]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Let me see, how many positions have you taken?

 

I'll skip the trivial stuff, like you calling an event that took place eight years before the crime "recent" and saying the crime occurred in Polanski's house.

 

 

You said consenting sex and sodomy with a 13 year old isn't rape, which it clearly is.  Also, the victim claims the sex wasn't consenting.

 

You suggested that the crime wasn't that bad because you claim the girl wasn't a virgin and used drugs.  You ignored the fact that it was Polanski that plied her with the drug and alcohol.

 

You suggested California is neglecting serious crime (as if child rape isn't serious) in its pursuit of Polanski.  You offer no evidence to support this.

 

You repeatedly insisted the only reason for the prosecution to offer a plea bargain was because its case was weak.  That is a reason, but definitely not the only reason, and Polanski's actions indicate the case isn't weak.

 

You suggest that maybe Polanski didn't commit a crime, but also that since the victim is willing to forgive the crime that he should be forgiven the crime that he didn't commit.  You provided no evidence that Polanski denied having sex (raping) the child.

 

You accept a Larry King Live transcript as conclusive evidence, and reject the statement of a judge, calling him a liar and a monkey.

 

When I pointed out that a question you asked me was absurd and used the term "subjunctive" in explaining why, you objected to my English lesson but didn't deny that your question was absurd.

 

You called the plea bargain illegal, without evidence.

 

 

I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but I think this is enough.  Your credibility on this issue is nonexistent.

I except Larry King Live Transcript as better proof over a Judge who is trying to make a name for himself and get re-elected. The reason being as to who Larry was talking to to get to the bottom of this, which was the Victim, Samantha Geimer, ahd her Lawyer at this time, Lawrence Silver.

 

Silver was in this Judge's Chambers when he told them he changed his mind and now is going to give Polanski 50 years in prison. Using Silvers own words he said the Judge was "frankly outrageous". So these are his words and not mine. He also said that this judge did an "Astounding thing held  press conference," I never head of a Judge holding a press conference before". This is the one you quoted me on, whch is totally different then what he really said to them.

 

So yes, I tend to belive this transcript much more then what you presented here and what this judge said later. For one thing the Victim and her Lawyer had no reason to lie. The Victim surely has no reason to protect Polanski, or want him to come back to the US, except only because she feels it is the right thing to do. So Common Sense tells we they have no reason to lie so it must be true. But then I forgot you don't have much of that or know how to use it, 

 

She was also on Larry King Live to promote a new book she had co-written. So on top of the +$600,000 Compensation she has already gotten from Polanski, who knows how much more she will gain financially from this case? From Books and Talk Shows? No! I don't feel sorry for her anymore!  

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Ha!Ha!Ha! You are a funny guy. Putting words in my mouth that I never said. 

 

Polanski was finally charged with having unlawful sex with a minor, and not rape. There is a big difference in these charges although both are Criminal Offenses.  Unlawful sex with a minor suggests that the Minor was a willing partner, thus carries a lighter sentence. Rape is Rape! If you disagree with these charges then I suggest you contact the authorities there and try to have them changed. But as it stands now, it is what it is. 

 

I did say it first this happened at Polanski's house when it happened at Nicholson's House. A slip of the tongue, which I forgot about. I didn't realize this was so important to you, and always trying to use the English Language perfectly. As neither have much to do with this case.

 

So what difference does that make who's house it may or may not happened in? But then you also said they don't talk about High Profile Case outside the Court Room, then posted the Judge in this Case talking all about it. I think a far bigger mistake then me forgetting excatly who's house this took place in 40 years later. 

 

I have never said I approved of a 40 something year old man having sex with a Minor. Even when she is a willing partner. In fact I have said many time I do not approve of this. I have said many times a person should be punished for this.

 

But I did also say that the punishment should fit the crime . I just so happen to believe that 50 years in prison for this crime is far too much. Considering the Victim, who should have her voice heard in this case and the punishment, did not want him to go to jail at all. You may feel differently about this then I do, so Boo Who to You! 

 

Polanski has spent a year in jail now, or against his will at least, when you add up his time in prsion in the US, and his time in Switzerland, where he was held for a possible deportation to the US. He has also given this Victim at least +$600,000, which is a lot of Money, as part of his restitution to her. A good way to say he is sorry, I thnk, even if forced to. Especially when the Victim has stated many times that her greatest trama and ordeal did not come from Polanski that night, but rather all the media attention she got afterwards.

 

So when I consider everything, I beleive that Polanski has recieved enough punishment for his crime already. Not to mention the stigma attached to his name, being on the run as a Fugitive, and hell knows what other problems he has had to face over 40 years for this crime.

 

That is not the same as letting some Child Molester go free.  It is just not the same as giving him 50 years and taking away his life over this, or hanging him upside down by his Yitecees!  Since you disagree with his punishment and figure he deserves 50 years, then Boo Who to You! 

 

8 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I except Larry King Live Transcript as better proof over a Judge who is trying to make a name for himself and get re-elected. The reason being as to who Larry was talking to to get to the bottom of this, which was the Victim, Samantha Geimer, ahd her Lawyer at this time, Lawrence Silver.

 

Silver was in this Judge's Chambers when he told them he changed his mind and now is going to give Polanski 50 years in prison. Using Silvers own words he said the Judge was "frankly outrageous". So these are his words and not mine. He also said that this judge did an "Astounding thing held  press conference," I never head of a Judge holding a press conference before". This is the one you quoted me on, whch is totally different then what he really said to them.

 

So yes, I tend to belive this transcript much more then what you presented here and what this judge said later. For one thing the Victim and her Lawyer had no reason to lie. The Victim surely has no reason to protect Polanski, or want him to come back to the US, except only because she feels it is the right thing to do. So Common Sense tells we they have no reason to lie so it must be true. But then I forgot you don't have much of that or know how to use it, 

 

She was also on Larry King Live to promote a new book she had co-written. So on top of the +$600,000 Compensation she has already gotten from Polanski, who knows how much more she will gain financially from this case? From Books and Talk Shows? No! I don't feel sorry for her anymore!  

You go on and on, but this part is especially rich:

 

"I just so happen to believe that 50 years in prison for this crime is far too much. Considering the Victim, who should have her voice heard in this case and the punishment, did not want him to go to jail at all. You may feel differently about this then I do, so Boo Who to You! "

 

"Boo Who to You"?  Are you a twelve year old?

 

As I already posted, the judge didn't intend to sentence Polanski to 50 years.  However I and the state of California think that a maximum of 50 years for plying a child with drugs and alcohol then raping her is reasonable.  You don't, but who cares? 

 

Polanski was arrested and charged with rape.  To save time, money, and a traumatic court experience for the child the charges were lowered, but it was still sex with a 13 year old child, and that is still rape.

 

The judges comments were made after Polanski had fled the country and it was clear he wasn't returning any time soon; the case was suspended if not dead.  His statements also did not include any privileged communications, as negotiations for a plea bargain would.

 

You make a big deal about knowing that the judge is now dead (and presuming I didn't) but couldn't get straight the scene of the crime. 

 

You think the judge was trying to make a name for himself but not Larry King.  You think a statement released shortly after Polanski ran away is more reliable than the recollections of a woman decades after the fact and after she had received over half a million dollars from Polanski.  But you insist that the woman, after receiving all that money, had no reason to lie.

 

I could go on about your record of cherry picking and misrepresenting facts, but the inescapable conclusion is that you are more concerned with the inconveniences endured by Polanski than by the vile crime he committed.  He committed child rape.  Find evidence that Polanski ever denied that.

Edited August 25, 2017 by heybruce

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

You go on and on, but this part is especially rich:

 

"I just so happen to believe that 50 years in prison for this crime is far too much. Considering the Victim, who should have her voice heard in this case and the punishment, did not want him to go to jail at all. You may feel differently about this then I do, so Boo Who to You! "

 

"Boo Who to You"?  Are you a twelve year old?

 

As I already posted, the judge didn't intend to sentence Polanski to 50 years.  However I and the state of California think that a maximum of 50 years for plying a child with drugs and alcohol then raping her is reasonable.  You don't, but who cares? 

 

Polanski was arrested and charged with rape.  To save time, money, and a traumatic court experience for the child the charges were lowered, but it was still sex with a 13 year old child, and that is still rape.

 

The judges comments were made after Polanski had fled the country and it was clear he wasn't returning any time soon; the case was suspended if not dead.  His statements also did not include any privileged communications, as negotiations for a plea bargain would.

 

You make a big deal about knowing that the judge is now dead (and presuming I didn't) but couldn't get straight the scene of the crime. 

 

You think the judge was trying to make a name for himself but not Larry King.  You think a statement released shortly after Polanski ran away is more reliable than the recollections of a woman decades after the fact and after she had received over half a million dollars from Polanski.  But you insist that the woman, after receiving all that money, had no reason to lie.

 

I could go on about your record of cherry picking and misrepresenting facts, but the inescapable conclusion is that you are more concerned with the inconveniences endured by Polanski than by the vile crime he committed.  He committed child rape.  Find evidence that Polanski ever denied that.

Why are you so upset with me? I was never charged with having sex with a Minor in 1977 or any other time. Although I could have been, if I wasn't a fact I was a Minor myself. But back in 1977, most of the Girls I knew by age 13 or 14 weren't Vigins anyway, and for sure not by age 16. 

 

Come to think of it, when I was around 14 years old I had quite a few dates with a Divorce Woman who was in her 30's and we had sex together. I certainly never felt Raped! In fact I thought this was cool. She had a car and money and always a frig full off Beer. Saved me and my friends the trouble of having to look for a Puller for Beer on the weekend. The only thing that could have been cooler than that to me, is her giving me +$600,000 for my services. But then that is another story. 

 

Let's see if I have the story straight. First we have this 13 Year Old Sexually Mature Girl (almost 14) (Samantha Geimer) who desires to be a Movie Star and Model, like most 13 (almost 14) Year Old Girls do. She has a 17 Year Old Boyfriend then and she openly admitts of a FamousTalk Show that she was not a Virgin by this time.  

 

Her mother (who herself is Divorced and Separated from her husband and has a Boyfriend) meets a famous Unmarried Hollywood Director, (Polanski) at a party, and arranges for a Photo Shot with him and with her 13 Year Old Daughter. This Hollywood Director does show up at her house with his fancy car and camera's, and this mother allows her 13 Year Old Daughter to go with him for the Photo Shoot totally unchaperoned. Although this Photo Shoot took place in this area, the 13 Year Old Girl changes her clothes in front of him and also posed topless for the Hollywood Director, but she does tell her mother this later, nor does she ever ask. 

 

But regardless of the Topless Pictures taken already, this 13 Year Old Girl does agree to go with Polanski a couple of weeks late, for another Photo Shoot. Polanski again shows up at her house to pick her up. This time the 13 Year Old Girl wants to bring a friend along, but outside of the house before they leave they verbally agree it is not a good idea. The mother again does not confirm she is with her friend and again they leave together alone, headed for a famous movies stars house of Jack Nicholson. 

 

The only one in Jack Nicholson's House is the Housekeeper. They begin the Second Photo Shoot there in the early afternoon. Sometime towards late afternoon the Housekeeper leaves and goes home, leaving the two of them alone. Towards the end of the Photo Shoot the 13 year old girl is in an outdoor Hot Tub, Topless, and she in not wearing a bathing suit. The 13 Year Old Girl admits to have been Drinking Champagne by then, but does not mention anything about taking any drugs.

 

As the result of drinking wine, she begins to feel intoxicated and not too well. Polanski suggests she lie down on the bed until she feels better, and it is here were the alleged unlawful sexual intercourse with a Minor took place. It is during or shortly after this event the Anjelica Huston came home as she had been living with Nicholson then as his Girlfriend, and was upset to find Polanski there (without permission) and also bringing somebody else with him. The 13 Year Old Girl says hello to Huston, and goodbye, on the way out to the car. Polanski talks to her for a little while first and then goes to the car to drive her home. Huston did not notice anything unusual, or them even being together in the room. which she told the Police.

 

When they arrive at this Girl's House, she went to her bedroom while Polanski talkd to her mother, her boyfriend, and her sister. He shows them photos of there first Photo Shoot, including the 13 Year Old Girl Topless. They are shocked by these picture but nobody calls the police then. This 13 Year Old Girl does not tell her mother what had happened that day and admits later she never would have. 

 

It is only her sister, who overhears this 13 Year Old Girl talking to her 17 Year Old Boyfriend on the telephone of what happened in Nicholson's House, who ends up telling there mother. She ends up questioning her 13 Year Old Daughter, then calls the Police. After an investigation the Police charge Polanski with several charges, including Rape. Polanski Pleads "Not Guilty" to all the charges. 

 

However after further investigation, and a 28 Page Report to the Courts, indicating that there was evidence to suggest that the Victim was a "Willing Partner", all other charges were dropped and a new charge of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor" was filed.

 

For many reasons, Polanski was offer a "Plea Bargain"  which at that time was acceptable to the Judge, Prosecutor, and the Victims Lawyer. Polanski was never tortured into a confession but he was threaten that if he did not agree to the Plea Bargain he could and probably would face 50 years in prison. 

 

As part of the "Pea Bargain" and confessing to the crime of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor" Polanski had to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaliation at California Institute for Men at Chino. After the evaluation, which turned out be be 42 Days in Chino, Polanski was released to continue his Plea Bargain, which included time served and probation. 

 

It was only after that, and a day before sentencing that the Judge in this case changed his mind and decide to sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison, pre warning and giving him enough time to leave. They found Polanski's Car at the Airport the next day, when he did not appear in court to face this new sentence.

 

Several years later, when the Victim was of age, she sued Polanski in Court and it was settled out of Court for a sum of more than $600,000. She later also co-wrote a book, for an undisclosed amount of money and has made guess appearances on talk shows.  

 

I really don't understand how you can believe the Victims sometimes, and other times basically call her a liar? You don't believe what she said on Larry King Live, but belive every word she said aboutand against Polanski. So maybe you will believe this. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

 

Only a Fool would believe that a Man like Polanski, having serveral Lawyers by his side, and being adviced, would run away from Court only because he did not finish his 90 day sentence, when he already completed 42 days and the decision to let hm go was not hs to make. 

 

So where does this place you? 

 

 

 

       

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Why are you so upset with me? I was never charged with having sex with a Minor in 1977 or any other time. Although I could have been, if I wasn't a fact I was a Minor myself. But back in 1977, most of the Girls I knew by age 13 or 14 weren't Vigins anyway, and for sure not by age 16. 

 

Come to think of it, when I was around 14 years old I had quite a few dates with a Divorce Woman who was in her 30's and we had sex together. I certainly never felt Raped! In fact I thought this was cool. She had a car and money and always a frig full off Beer. Saved me and my friends the trouble of having to look for a Puller for Beer on the weekend. The only thing that could have been cooler than that to me, is her giving me +$600,000 for my services. But then that is another story. 

 

Let's see if I have the story straight. First we have this 13 Year Old Sexually Mature Girl (almost 14) (Samantha Geimer) who desires to be a Movie Star and Model, like most 13 (almost 14) Year Old Girls do. She has a 17 Year Old Boyfriend then and she openly admitts of a FamousTalk Show that she was not a Virgin by this time.  

 

Her mother (who herself is Divorced and Separated from her husband and has a Boyfriend) meets a famous Unmarried Hollywood Director, (Polanski) at a party, and arranges for a Photo Shot with him and with her 13 Year Old Daughter. This Hollywood Director does show up at her house with his fancy car and camera's, and this mother allows her 13 Year Old Daughter to go with him for the Photo Shoot totally unchaperoned. Although this Photo Shoot took place in this area, the 13 Year Old Girl changes her clothes in front of him and also posed topless for the Hollywood Director, but she does tell her mother this later, nor does she ever ask. 

 

But regardless of the Topless Pictures taken already, this 13 Year Old Girl does agree to go with Polanski a couple of weeks late, for another Photo Shoot. Polanski again shows up at her house to pick her up. This time the 13 Year Old Girl wants to bring a friend along, but outside of the house before they leave they verbally agree it is not a good idea. The mother again does not confirm she is with her friend and again they leave together alone, headed for a famous movies stars house of Jack Nicholson. 

 

The only one in Jack Nicholson's House is the Housekeeper. They begin the Second Photo Shoot there in the early afternoon. Sometime towards late afternoon the Housekeeper leaves and goes home, leaving the two of them alone. Towards the end of the Photo Shoot the 13 year old girl is in an outdoor Hot Tub, Topless, and she in not wearing a bathing suit. The 13 Year Old Girl admits to have been Drinking Champagne by then, but does not mention anything about taking any drugs.

 

As the result of drinking wine, she begins to feel intoxicated and not too well. Polanski suggests she lie down on the bed until she feels better, and it is here were the alleged unlawful sexual intercourse with a Minor took place. It is during or shortly after this event the Anjelica Huston came home as she had been living with Nicholson then as his Girlfriend, and was upset to find Polanski there (without permission) and also bringing somebody else with him. The 13 Year Old Girl says hello to Huston, and goodbye, on the way out to the car. Polanski talks to her for a little while first and then goes to the car to drive her home. Huston did not notice anything unusual, or them even being together in the room. which she told the Police.

 

When they arrive at this Girl's House, she went to her bedroom while Polanski talkd to her mother, her boyfriend, and her sister. He shows them photos of there first Photo Shoot, including the 13 Year Old Girl Topless. They are shocked by these picture but nobody calls the police then. This 13 Year Old Girl does not tell her mother what had happened that day and admits later she never would have. 

 

It is only her sister, who overhears this 13 Year Old Girl talking to her 17 Year Old Boyfriend on the telephone of what happened in Nicholson's House, who ends up telling there mother. She ends up questioning her 13 Year Old Daughter, then calls the Police. After an investigation the Police charge Polanski with several charges, including Rape. Polanski Pleads "Not Guilty" to all the charges. 

 

However after further investigation, and a 28 Page Report to the Courts, indicating that there was evidence to suggest that the Victim was a "Willing Partner", all other charges were dropped and a new charge of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor" was filed.

 

For many reasons, Polanski was offer a "Plea Bargain"  which at that time was acceptable to the Judge, Prosecutor, and the Victims Lawyer. Polanski was never tortured into a confession but he was threaten that if he did not agree to the Plea Bargain he could and probably would face 50 years in prison. 

 

As part of the "Pea Bargain" and confessing to the crime of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor" Polanski had to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaliation at California Institute for Men at Chino. After the evaluation, which turned out be be 42 Days in Chino, Polanski was released to continue his Plea Bargain, which included time served and probation. 

 

It was only after that, and a day before sentencing that the Judge in this case changed his mind and decide to sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison, pre warning and giving him enough time to leave. They found Polanski's Car at the Airport the next day, when he did not appear in court to face this new sentence.

 

Several years later, when the Victim was of age, she sued Polanski in Court and it was settled out of Court for a sum of more than $600,000. She later also co-wrote a book, for an undisclosed amount of money and has made guess appearances on talk shows.  

 

I really don't understand how you can believe the Victims sometimes, and other times basically call her a liar? You don't believe what she said on Larry King Live, but belive every word she said aboutand against Polanski. So maybe you will believe this. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

 

Only a Fool would believe that a Man like Polanski, having serveral Lawyers by his side, and being adviced, would run away from Court only because he did not finish his 90 day sentence, when he already completed 42 days and the decision to let hm go was not hs to make. 

 

So where does this place you? 

Where does this place me?  I assume you mean how does your long post affect my position.  It doesn't change my position.  Polanski gave a 13 year old girl alcohol and quaalude then had sex with her, which is defined as rape under California law.  He was offered a generous plea bargain and accepted.  When he heard second hand information that the judge would not accept the plea bargain he ran away.  I agree with California's decision to not drop charges; if Polanski wants to return to the US he can take his chances in court.

 

BTW, I believe the victims statements made shortly after the crime have greater credibility than her statements made after accepting a half million dollars from Polanski.  For some reason you seem to think statements made after the payment are more credible, though they don't clear Polanski.  Did she or Polanski ever say that he didn't have sex with her when she was 13 and he was 43?

 

Interesting that you preceded your rehash of Wikipedia (how much of that was a cut and paste?) by stating that a 13 year old girl is "sexually mature", describing how she is a bad girl from a bad family, and doing your best to minimize the crime of child sex.  You even confessed to having participated in these types of crimes.  We now know why you are so sympathetic to Polanski.

[JamJar]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Where does this place me?  I assume you mean how does your long post affect my position.  It doesn't change my position.  Polanski gave a 13 year old girl alcohol and quaalude then had sex with her, which is defined as rape under California law.  He was offered a generous plea bargain and accepted.  When he heard second hand information that the judge would not accept the plea bargain he ran away.  I agree with California's decision to not drop charges; if Polanski wants to return to the US he can take his chances in court.

 

BTW, I believe the victims statements made shortly after the crime have greater credibility than her statements made after accepting a half million dollars from Polanski.  For some reason you seem to think statements made after the payment are more credible, though they don't clear Polanski.  Did she or Polanski ever say that he didn't have sex with her when she was 13 and he was 43?

 

Interesting that you preceded your rehash of Wikipedia (how much of that was a cut and paste?) by stating that a 13 year old girl is "sexually mature", describing how she is a bad girl from a bad family, and doing your best to minimize the crime of child sex.  You even confessed to having participated in these types of crimes.  We now know why you are so sympathetic to Polanski.

 

Seriously...why are you still banging on about this?

Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that the age of consent has varied wildly worldwide and what was regarded acceptable not so long ago, is now regarded unacceptable.

 

In the Philippines, the age of consent is 12.

In Japan and South Korea, 13.

The age even varies between the states of the USA.

 

In some countries, sex outside marriage at any age is unacceptable. 

 

So your 'moral outrage' is just... your opinion. The 'victim' herself wants the matter dropped. So why are you still banging on about it?? 

This does not mean that I agree with his actions.  

 

Personally I feel you stepped over the line of ridiculousness, when you stated that GB had "confessed to have participated in those types of crimes".

 

What a ludicrous and disgusting statement. You really should stop.

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, JamJar said:

 

Seriously...why are you still banging on about this?

Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that the age of consent has varied wildly worldwide and what was regarded acceptable not so long ago, is now regarded unacceptable.

 

In the Philippines, the age of consent is 12.

In Japan and South Korea, 13.

The age even varies between the states of the USA.

 

In some countries, sex outside marriage at any age is unacceptable. 

 

So your 'moral outrage' is just... your opinion. The 'victim' herself wants the matter dropped. So why are you still banging on about it?? 

This does not mean that I agree with his actions.  

 

Personally I feel you stepped over the line of ridiculousness, when you stated that GB had "confessed to have participated in those types of crimes".

 

What a ludicrous and disgusting statement. You really should stop.

 

I don't agree with an age of consent of 13, and I'm aware of no state in the US with such a disgustingly low age.

 

GB stated that he had had sex with a 13 year old when he was 14.  Though it may not have qualified as rape under the laws of his state, I seriously doubt that the act was legal.  He also boasted of having sex with a woman in her thirties when he was 14.  While the law may have considered him the victim rather than the offender, he still participated in an illegal act.

 

All that aside, Polanski was 43 when he plied a 13 year old girl with alcohol and quaalude then had sex with her.  He can spend the rest of his life in comfortable exile or deal with the California legal system.  That has been my position throughout.  It's also the position of the state of California.

 

Laws against child sex exist for good reasons and need to be enforced, especially against men who think it is no big deal to have sex with a child decades younger than the pervert.

[GOLDBUGGY]

2 hours ago, JamJar said:

 

Seriously...why are you still banging on about this?

Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that the age of consent has varied wildly worldwide and what was regarded acceptable not so long ago, is now regarded unacceptable.

 

In the Philippines, the age of consent is 12.

In Japan and South Korea, 13.

The age even varies between the states of the USA.

 

In some countries, sex outside marriage at any age is unacceptable. 

 

So your 'moral outrage' is just... your opinion. The 'victim' herself wants the matter dropped. So why are you still banging on about it?? 

This does not mean that I agree with his actions.  

 

Personally I feel you stepped over the line of ridiculousness, when you stated that GB had "confessed to have participated in those types of crimes".

 

What a ludicrous and disgusting statement. You really should stop.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your Honest Opinion and Interveneing. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I don't agree with an age of consent of 13, and I'm aware of no state in the US with such a disgustingly low age.

 

GB stated that he had had sex with a 13 year old when he was 14.  Though it may not have qualified as rape under the laws of his state, I seriously doubt that the act was legal.  He also boasted of having sex with a woman in her thirties when he was 14.  While the law may have considered him the victim rather than the offender, he still participated in an illegal act.

 

All that aside, Polanski was 43 when he plied a 13 year old girl with alcohol and quaalude then had sex with her.  He can spend the rest of his life in comfortable exile or deal with the California legal system.  That has been my position throughout.  It's also the position of the state of California.

 

Laws against child sex exist for good reasons and need to be enforced, especially against men who think it is no big deal to have sex with a child decades younger than the pervert.

Where does it say anywhere that Polanski gave her drugs? (Quaaludes) You have been pumping that from your first post but I have yet to come across that written anywhere. The Girl only said she drank alcohol. 

 

Me Thinks you are mixed up with the Cosby Case. Or just mixed up. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:08 PM, heybruce said:

 

You go on and on, but this part is especially rich:

 

"I just so happen to believe that 50 years in prison for this crime is far too much. Considering the Victim, who should have her voice heard in this case and the punishment, did not want him to go to jail at all. You may feel differently about this then I do, so Boo Who to You! "

 

"Boo Who to You"?  Are you a twelve year old?

 

As I already posted, the judge didn't intend to sentence Polanski to 50 years.  However I and the state of California think that a maximum of 50 years for plying a child with drugs and alcohol then raping her is reasonable.  You don't, but who cares? 

 

Polanski was arrested and charged with rape.  To save time, money, and a traumatic court experience for the child the charges were lowered, but it was still sex with a 13 year old child, and that is still rape.

 

The judges comments were made after Polanski had fled the country and it was clear he wasn't returning any time soon; the case was suspended if not dead.  His statements also did not include any privileged communications, as negotiations for a plea bargain would.

 

You make a big deal about knowing that the judge is now dead (and presuming I didn't) but couldn't get straight the scene of the crime. 

 

You think the judge was trying to make a name for himself but not Larry King.  You think a statement released shortly after Polanski ran away is more reliable than the recollections of a woman decades after the fact and after she had received over half a million dollars from Polanski.  But you insist that the woman, after receiving all that money, had no reason to lie.

 

I could go on about your record of cherry picking and misrepresenting facts, but the inescapable conclusion is that you are more concerned with the inconveniences endured by Polanski than by the vile crime he committed.  He committed child rape.  Find evidence that Polanski ever denied that.

Polanski has never been convicted of any crime! Try to understand that! So there is no Conviction on him for Child Rape! Which blows a million holes in your accuasations. 

 

So as it stands now he is innocent until he is proven quilty in a court of law. The law also affords that the accussed does not have to prove his innocence and find evidence to that effect, as the onus is on the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a Resonable Doubt. This hasn't happened yet either. 

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Where does it say anywhere that Polanski gave her drugs? (Quaaludes) You have been pumping that from your first post but I have yet to come across that written anywhere. The Girl only said she drank alcohol. 

 

Me Thinks you are mixed up with the Cosby Case. Or just mixed up. 

" 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]} "    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

21 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

So are you saying that if a 7 year old boy is playing doctor with a 6 year old girl, and he takes her panties off to look and touch, he should got to jail for being a Pervert?

 

Gosh! Now we all are in trouble! 

I never said that, and I never played doctor at any age.  "we are all in trouble!"?  You are coming across as increasingly warped.

9 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Polanski has never been convicted of any crime! Try to understand that! So there is no Conviction on him for Child Rape! Which blows a million holes in your accuasations. 

 

So as it stands now he is innocent until he is proven quilty in a court of law. The law also affords that the accussed does not have to prove his innocence and find evidence to that effect, as the onus is on the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a Resonable Doubt. This hasn't happened yet either. 

Try to understand this:  He plead guilty.  He has never gone on record denying he had sex with the child.  He has not been formerly convicted because he fled the country.

 

Funny that you are getting legalistic now.  You keep trying to define "consensual" child sex as not rape, even though it is clearly rape as defined by law.  However you insist a man who pleaded guilty isn't guilty until the court case is over.

[heybruce]

For all those trying to minimize child rape because it is legal in some backwards places--that doesn't make it right.  Slavery, genital mutilation, stoning and many other barbaric practices are practiced in some places, that doesn't make any of these things acceptable.

 

For those who are trying to minimize the significance or raping a 13 year old child by claiming she was not a virgin, not a good girl, and didn't have good parents---it doesn't matter.  I don't care if she was willingly working in a brothel and had had sex with a thousand men, sex with a 13 year old girl is wrong!  I, the state of California, and all civilized people and places agree on that. 

 

I'm beginning to wonder about the character of some of the people I'm debating with.  I wonder what brings them to Thailand?

[GOLDBUGGY]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" 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]} "    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

I never said that, and I never played doctor at any age.  "we are all in trouble!"?  You are coming across as increasingly warped.

Try to understand this:  He plead guilty.  He has never gone on record denying he had sex with the child.  He has not been formerly convicted because he fled the country.

 

Funny that you are getting legalistic now.  You keep trying to define "consensual" child sex as not rape, even though it is clearly rape as defined by law.  However you insist a man who pleaded guilty isn't guilty until the court case is over.

Polanski Pleaded "Not Guilty" then later accepted a Plea Bargain. You seem to have trouble understanding this Plea Bargain. 

 

If this Plea Bargain is not accepted by the Courts, then all conditions and terms of this Plea Bargain will be thrown out as well. In other words this could end up going to trial where a Not Guilty Plea by Polanski is made again. Although with time served and probation, he is better off with the orignal Plea Bargain then taking his chances all over again in Court. 

 

So all that I am saying is that until he has his day in Court, or they elect to trial him in his absence, he is Innocent until proven guilty. 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Polanski Pleaded "Not Guilty" then later accepted a Plea Bargain. You seem to have trouble understanding this Plea Bargain. 

 

If this Plea Bargain is not accepted by the Courts, then all conditions and terms of this Plea Bargain will be thrown out as well. In other words this could end up going to trial where a Not Guilty Plea by Polanski is made again. Although with time served and probation, he is better off with the orignal Plea Bargain then taking his chances all over again in Court. 

 

So all that I am saying is that until he has his day in Court, or they elect to trial him in his absence, he is Innocent until proven guilty. 

Right; and in the "Friday the Thirteenth" movies Jason isn't guilty of anything because has hasn't been convicted in court.

 

I guess this makes Hitler innocent as well.

[Scott]

Several baiting, inflammatory posts and replies removed.  

 

The next person making any excuses for an adult having sex with a 13 year old will receive a suspension.   It was against the law in 1977 and it's against the law today.  

 

This is about a court case and someone that fled a sentence.  

 

 

[F4UCorsair]

Polanski has effectively been imprisoned for 40 years, not free to travel where he chooses, and anybody who has been in that situation, e.g., Assange, would agree.  He's more free than Julian Assange, but how much?

 

Imagine being restricted to your home country, one other 'civilized' country,  and a further few where nobody would ever want to travel, constantly looking over your shoulder in fear of being kidnapped, or worse, by some self appointed keeper of moral standards.

 

It would be an awful way to have to live.

Edited August 26, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Right; and in the "Friday the Thirteenth" movies Jason isn't guilty of anything because has hasn't been convicted in court.

 

I guess this makes Hitler innocent as well.

Technically, from a strictly legal position, yes!

[F4UCorsair]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

" Geimer testified that Pislanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,^[17] and despite her protissts, 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]} "    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

I never said that, and I never played doctor at any age.  "we are all in trouble!"?  You are coming across as increasingly warped.

Try to understand this:  He plead guilty.  He has never gone on record denying he had sex with the child.  He has not been formerly convicted because he fled the country.

 

Funny that you are getting legalistic now.  You keep trying to define "consensual" child sex as not rape, even though it is clearly rape as defined by law.  However you insist a man who pleaded guilty isn't guilty until the court case is over.

Research will reveal that even though he pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain, the court   had not handed down a verdict of guilty, so technically, he Is    Innocent.....technically!!

 

Incidentally, and you may know, but many don't, there Is a difference between 'not guilty' and 'Innocent'.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Polanski has effectively been imprisoned for 40 years, not free to travel where he chooses, and anybody who has been in that situation, e.g., Assange, would agree.  He's more free than Julian Assange, but how much?

 

Imagine being restricted to your home country, one other 'civilized' country,  and a further few where nobody would ever want to travel, constantly looking over your shoulder in fear of being kidnapped, or worse, by some self appointed keeper of moral standards.

 

It would be an awful way to have to live.

Polanski lives freely in Poland, a country of 38 million people with an area of 300,000 square kilometers, he's also free to travel in France.  Assange lives in an embassy that is the size of a large house.  Polanski is much freer than Assange.  A fugitive on the run should not have this much freedom and should constantly look over his shoulder.

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Technically, from a strictly legal position, yes!

Ok, I'll go along with Polanski is as innocent as Hitler.

[ELVIS123456]

I cannot believe this rubbish being expounded by moralistic know-alls who have set themselves up as the guardians of everyone's morals.  Polanski is a creep who liked young girls, and his claim that she was very mature and willing, is believable (if not fully acceptable).  Geimer claimed that the sex was non-consensual, but there was evidence to suggest that it was and this was provided to the Judge by a Police Officer. It was a hearing following a Grand Jury indictment - not a full Court hearing.

 

That is when Polanski plea bargained for all but the charge of sex with a minor - yes he admitted that charge.  The other charges of rape by drugs, sodomy and performing an act of perversion (oral sex) were agreed to be dropped.  That is correct - sodomy was an illegal act back then, as was oral sex. The times were very different, and using today's moral values as a yard stick to measure what occurred 40 years ago is absurd and moralistic crap and reeks of self-righteousness.

 

Polanksi left the country, to finish a film, and then returned (yes he did) and he spent about a month in a psychiatric facility being 'assessed'. He was deemed by the psychiatrists to be not a pervert or a paedophile - and the expectation was that the plea bargain would then be concluded.

 

But what happened is that the California DA met privately with the Judge, which by the way is illegal in this situation, and he presented photo evidence to the Judge that Polanski had previously had sex with minors (in Europe I believe).  Polanski found out and fearing the Judge was going to cancel the plea bargain and was instead going to send the matter to a full trial for all charges, he left the country.  He was right in that the (elected) Californian DA was going to use the trial as his 'career maker' for him to get into higher politics. 

 

This action was brought to the Court by the woman - she should be allowed to have the charges dropped and the case closed. That the Judge refused, clearly shows that the Court was going to cancel the plea bargain and send the matter for a full trial on all charges.  

 

Geimer now wants to get on with her life and has forgiven Polanski for taking advantage of her. Was she willing and saw the matter as a potential pay-day - or did he rape her - only they know. Polanski wants to visit his wife's grave in USA (Sharon Tate), but his name and reputation is forever damaged.

 

This has been going on for over 40 years and the last thing anyone needs, especially the woman, and her family is for the plea bargain to be over-ruled and a full court case to take place. We all know that all the dirty grubby details would be aired in a very public trial, and there is no way the lawyers wouldnt make this awful for both Polanksi and Geimer - but it would be mainly bad for the woman and her family.

 

The right thing (if not technically the legal thing) should be to grant her wish and close the case, so she and her family can get on with life, and she does not have to relive the mistakes of her past every time this issue gets media attention.  Anyone who disagrees with that, IMO, is being moralistic and is punishing the woman.  

 

Maybe Polanski would be prepared to accept the original plea bargain and serve some time for the charge of having (consentual) sex with a minor - perhaps this is the best approach to close this matter, as the woman wishes to do. But I am certain that a high profile court case would not do any good to anyone, except the lawyers and politicians.