Switzerland decides not to extradite the paedophile Roman Polanski to U.S.

sligopark

This paedophile drugs and rapes a 13 yr old and the French Foreign Affairs and Culture Ministers celebrate his continued evasion of justice...

Am I the only one thinking wtf?

Nodin

It's bit odd, all right.

The Swiss government declared Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting the US extradition request.
The Swiss said US authorities failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.
The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10601930.stm

Biggins

Frankly its a disgrace.

ballsymchugh

Biggins wrote: »

Frankly its a disgrace.

what was also a disgrace was the number of actors that came out in support of him, including pierce brosnan, who's defense was that he hadn't murdered anyone.

Biggins

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what was also a disgrace was the number of actors that came out in support of him, including pierce brosnan, who's defense was that he hadn't murdered anyone.

Agreed.
How is Mother Earths name can anyone support a person that anal raped a 13 year old! Thats just beyond mental for me!

super_furry

Holywood will forgive and forget all about this paedo, because he's going to make them money.

baldbear

What actors spoke up for him? He's a child rapist like Gary Glitter and should be locked up the dirty fecker.

sligopark

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what was also a disgrace was the number of actors that came out in support of him, including pierce brosnan, who's defense was that he hadn't murdered anyone.

I get the feeling he wouldn't have been so supportive if ole Roman had drugged, raped and sodomised his daughter ...:rolleyes:

Zombienosh

I think it all went to ****, when she forgave him publically and dropped all charges.

kraggy

Not sure of the facts, but a friend of mine told me that the girl in question doesn't remember anything bad happen her. I know, I know, you're thinking "of course not, she was drugged" but what I mean is, that she genuinely doesn't think anything bad happened her and is a perfectly happy person getting on with here life, in a marriage etc.

Edit: My friend is talking ****e obviously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_assault_case

Iwasfrozen

Biggins wrote: »

Agreed.
How is Mother Earths name can anyone support a person that anal raped a 13 year old! Thats just beyond mental for me!

Seems the anal raped 13 year old doesn't mind supporting him:

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1997, Geimer publicly forgave Polanski and filed a formal request with the Los Angeles Police Department to drop charges against him. In 2003 she wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times advocating for him to be allowed to return to the US to accept an Academy Award.

There's more to this case then meets the eye.

ballsymchugh

baldbear wrote: »

What actors spoke up for him? He's a child rapist like Gary Glitter and should be locked up the dirty fecker.

there was also the whoopi goldberg defense...

'well, it wasn't rape rape..'

AlcoholicA

AlcoholicA wrote: »

I think it all went to ****, when she forgave him publically and dropped all charges.

The criminal charges arent hers to drop. The US was seeking extradition so that he could serve the time in jail.

ballsymchugh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seems the anal raped 13 year old doesn't mind supporting him:

There's more to this case then meets the eye.

which is why there's statutory rape, where the case doesn't depend on the opinion of the victim.

Biggins

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...There's more to this case then meets the eye.

Yes, I'm very suspicious of that. I wonder did money cross hands?

Regardless, despite what might happen later, earlier the man took serious advantage of a very young teen and abused, drugged and anal raped her.

There is NO excuse for that - and no support up to any level or famous star, clears him of his disgusting actions.

reprazant

kraggy wrote: »

Not sure of the facts, but a friend of mine told me that the girl in question doesn't remember anything bad happen her. I know, I know, you're thinking "of course not, she was drugged" but what I mean is, that she genuinely doesn't think anything bad happened her and is a perfectly happy person getting on with here life, in a marriage etc.

She remembers

On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[46][56] The girl testified that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[57][58][59][60] A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[61] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.[62]

....


Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. In 1993 Polanski agreed to settle with Geimer, however in August 1996 Polanski still owed her $604,416. Geimer and her lawyers would later confirm the settlement was completed.[71][72] In 1997, Geimer publicly forgave Polanski and filed a formal request with the Los Angeles Police Department to drop charges against him. In 2003 she wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times advocating for him to be allowed to return to the US to accept an Academy Award.[73]

Iwasfrozen

ballsymchugh wrote: »

which is why there's statutory rape, where the case doesn't depend on the opinion of the victim.

Which is why I say there is more to this them meets the eye. Switzerland obviously decided not to extradite him for a reason. Although what that reason is I have no idea.

Biggins

The medical evidence alone helped to show what had happened to her if my memory serves me right.

walshb

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Which is why I say there is more to this them meets the eye. Switzerland obviously decided not to extradite him for a reason. Although what that reason is I have no idea.

They freed him because the U.S. did not release confidential documents concerning the case, specifically details surrounding the plea bargain that
the U.S. and Poalanski had. Either way, this man is a pervert and a fugitive, nothing more, and he will be until he is either caught or dies.

BTW, I think the U.S were damn right not to release the documents. Far
too many countries and people have been involved in this.

sligopark

walshb wrote: »

They freed him because the U.S. did not release confidential documents concerning the case, specifically details surrounding the plea bargain that the U.S. and Poalanski had. Either way, this man is a pervert and a fugitive, nothing more, and he will be until he is either caught or dies.

an excuse nothing more

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I think the U.S were damn right not to release the documents. Far too many countries and people have been involved in this.

How many countries exactly should we be limited to to hunting down child raping paedophiles?


Not sure whether a pay off should really matter nor the length of time. Today an 82 year old was extradited to Ireland for sexually abusing a 15year old 42 years ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0712/page1370674.html

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Which is why I say there is more to this them meets the eye. Switzerland obviously decided not to extradite him for a reason. Although what that reason is I have no idea.

I think given the french support for the same paedophile from paedophile french ministers may have had some effect...

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy saves sex tourist minister Frédéric Mitterrand
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6869470.ece

The reluctance of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, to sack a gay minister with a past as a “sex tourist” in Thailand will certainly please Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, his wife.

She had suggested appointing Frédéric Mitterrand, a friend, as culture minister and the government’s support for him, despite his confession to having paid boys for sex, is partly a sign of Sarkozy’s eagerness not to offend his first lady.

Sarko helped Polanski get bail
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Sarko-helped-Polanski-get-bail/articleshow/5277209.cms

French president Nicolas Sarkozy helped Roman Polanski get bail after the filmmaker spent two months in a Swiss prison on a child sex case, it has emerged.

Paedophiles move on into France...

The Floyd p

Absolutely ridiculous. Should be jailed.

Nodin

For those that want to judge for themselves, this is the testimony from the Grand Jury.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

I'm not sure if you have to register to read that, but its a good site and worth the trouble.

endakenny

sligopark wrote: »

Paedophiles move on into France...

France has a lax attitude towards sexual morality. It is infamous for producing sexually explicit movies and allows abortion.

sligopark

endakenny wrote: »

France has a lax attitude towards sexual morality. It is infamous for producing sexually explicit movies and allows abortion.

and whose ministers travel abroad to pay 15 year old same sex males for sex....

lovely...

Having read Anthony Keidis' and Danny Sugarman's biographies recently which deal with LA at the time, qualludes were everywhere and 13 years old was prime age for anything.
It's shocking to read now but it is what was done at the time.. Sugarman's book is especially honest in this regard. Him being 21 or so getting a blowjob of a 13 year old who snuck into his room in mental hospital.. A 13yr old in the back of a car with a band about to get gangbanged. Both authors going out with and doing heroin with 15 year olds.

I'm not excusing the behaviour but from what I've read, it was just normal. These girls were as much a part of the scene as the stars were and were as big a junkies.

RolandIRL

doesn't matter if it was common. there's no excuse for it, and anyone who molests should be locked away.

Morals are decided by the world you live in and these guys lived in a sordid degenerate world of instant gratification through drugs and sex.

wes

Its down right shameful that this man is walking free, and what was even worse, were all the people who defended t the guy. FFS, its ridiculous that being rich and good director will allow you get away with this crap.

Mike 1972

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I think the U.S were damn right not to release the documents.

Even if it meant the fu*ker couldnt legally be extradited ?

dvpower

kraggy wrote: »

Not sure of the facts, but a friend of mine told me that the girl in question doesn't remember anything bad happen her.

He pleaded guilty. His guilt or innocence is not in question.

AgileMyth

whiteman19 wrote: »

doesn't matter if it was common. there's no excuse for it, and anyone who molests should be locked away.

Inexcusable is easy to say when we have no experience of the world they were living in, its hard to get any sense of perspective really. If the offence indeed occured as a result of the world they were living in then there is no real danger of him reoffending. The girl has forgiven him. To lock him up seems an unneccessary expense to me.

dvpower

AgileMyth wrote: »

Inexcusable is easy to say when we have no experience of the world they were living in, its hard to get any sense of perspective really. If the offence indeed occured as a result of the world they were living in then there is no real danger of him reoffending. The girl has forgiven him. To lock him up seems an unneccessary expense to me.

I believe he was living in this world.

The girl is just a witness. Her forgivness of him might be a mitigating factor at the sentencing, but shouldn't ever save him from justice.

Perhaps he could pay a large fine in addition to a prison sentence. Say, all of his fortune.

Cool_CM

Ah Switzerland, every time that I think I am getting to like you, you turn around and do something stupid.

endakenny wrote: »

France has a lax attitude towards sexual morality. It is infamous for producing sexually explicit movies and allows abortion.

What has that got to do with anything?

Mike 1972

AgileMyth wrote: »

To lock him up seems an unneccessary expense to me.

Maybe it would be if prison was supposed to be solely about punishment.

But prison is also supposed to achieve other things like rehabilitation and protecting the public among others

AgileMyth

dvpower wrote: »

I believe he was living in this world.

The girl is just a witness. Her forgivness of him might be a mitigating factor at the sentencing, but shouldn't ever save him from justice.

Perhaps he could pay a large fine in addition to a prison sentence. Say, all of his fortune.

You know exactly what I meant.

I'm referring to culture, for example I'm pretty repulsed at the idea of shagging my cousin but some cultures consider this the norm. In ancient Greece it was common for men to have sexual realationships with young boys. In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners. This does not mean I condone that behaviour, just that maybe we should consider a few alternative angles before being so quick to shout Paedo.

AgileMyth

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Maybe it would be if prison was supposed to be solely about punishment.

But prison is also supposed to achieve other things like rehabilitation and protecting the public among others

But does the public need protecting from him? Thats more the point I was trying to make.

endakenny

Cool_CM wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?

My point is that Sarko's rush to defend Polanski is symptomatic of French immorality. Obviously, Sarko isn't bothered by the fact that Polanski had sex with a child. Any adult who has sex with a child is scum. Furthermore, it is ironic that Polanski is a Polish survivor of the Holocaust, given that rape is one of the crimes that was perpetrated by the Nazis in Warsaw in 1944.
Furthermore, Sarko allowed his wife to influence him into refusing Italy's request for the extradition of a Red Brigade terrorist.

RolandIRL

AgileMyth wrote: »

You know exactly what I meant.

I'm referring to culture, for example I'm pretty repulsed at the idea of shagging my cousin but some cultures consider this the norm. In ancient Greece it was common for men to have sexual realationships with young boys. In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners. This does not mean I condone that behaviour, just that maybe we should consider a few alternative angles before being so quick to shout Paedo.

ancient greece is very different to today's world. the world has progressed on. it doesn't matter if it's a cultural thing or not. he broke the law, he should pay the price for that. doesn't matter if there's other angles to consider.
i'd be shouting child molester btw

Mike 1972

AgileMyth wrote: »

In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners.

Presumably it was illegal then too

AgileMyth wrote: »

But does the public need protecting from him? Thats more the point I was trying to make.

Does the public need protecting from a guy with a history of drugging 13 year olds and raping them.......... Oh I dunno :rolleyes:

The Sparrow

AgileMyth wrote: »

You know exactly what I meant.

I'm referring to culture, for example I'm pretty repulsed at the idea of shagging my cousin but some cultures consider this the norm. In ancient Greece it was common for men to have sexual realationships with young boys. In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners. This does not mean I condone that behaviour, just that maybe we should consider a few alternative angles before being so quick to shout Paedo.

But it wasn't ancient greece. It was LA in the 70s. There were laws against having sex with a 13 year old and that is why he was arrested.

So how can anyone make the different cultures argument when Polanski was in a country that had laws banning sex with minors. Surely it couldn't have been the norm if there were and are laws against it?

dvpower

AgileMyth wrote: »

In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners.

It wasn't.
So much so that they had a law against it:(

AgileMyth

I'm not talking about a legal standpoint, nor am I talking about general populations. I am talking about the world of celebrities in 70s LA, where this kind of thing was without doubt socially acceptable.That doesn't make it acceptable but it probably means that hes no longer a danger to society

AgileMyth

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Does the public need protecting from a guy with a history of drugging 13 year olds and raping them.......... Oh I dunno :rolleyes:

Does the public need protecting from a pensioner, recognised world wide, who the world knows may be a paedophile?

RolandIRL

AgileMyth wrote: »

I'm not talking about a legal standpoint, nor am I talking about general populations. I am talking about the world of celebrities in 70s LA, where this kind of thing was without doubt socially acceptable.That doesn't make it acceptable but it probably means that hes no longer a danger to society

how do you know that he won't do it again? probably is a funny word. it doesn't matter if it was socially acceptable. a little girl was raped. rape is despicable, and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
celebrities shouldn't have free rein to do whatever they want. it doesn't grant them immunity from the law.

dvpower

AgileMyth wrote: »

I'm not talking about a legal standpoint, nor am I talking about general populations. I am talking about the world of celebrities in 70s LA, where this kind of thing was without doubt socially acceptable.That doesn't make it acceptable but it probably means that hes no longer a danger to society

It was socially acceptable to drug and rape children? Can you name some other high profile 70's celebs that did this?

Nodin

AgileMyth wrote: »

You know exactly what I meant.

I'm referring to culture, for example I'm pretty repulsed at the idea of shagging my cousin but some cultures consider this the norm. In ancient Greece it was common for men to have sexual realationships with young boys. In 1970s LA it may have been the norm for 13 year olds to be sexually involved with older partners. This does not mean I condone that behaviour, just that maybe we should consider a few alternative angles before being so quick to shout Paedo.

You really should read the court testimony she gave. I linked it on page 2.

RolandIRL

AgileMyth wrote: »

Does the public need protecting from a pensioner, recognised world wide, who the world knows may be a paedophile?

no maybe about it. he's a child molester. and yes the public need protecting because not every child will recognise him. and even if he's no danger, it doesn't mean he should get off scott-free.
should i let a murderer walk free, just because i think he probably won't do it again?

Mike 1972

AgileMyth wrote: »

recognised world wide, who the world knows may be a paedophile?

So everyone in Switzerland/France/wherever else he may happen to wander knows what he looks like ?

And why should a paedophile be treated more leniently just because he happens to be famous ?

Manic Moran

Morals are decided by the world you live in and these guys lived in a sordid degenerate world of instant gratification through drugs and sex.

Laws are also generally a reflection of the morals of the nation, and the act was illegal at the time, so it's hard to say that the morals allowed instant gratification through drugs and sex.

I think the DA screwed up by not privately allowing access to the testimony, but I have no problem with the extradition attempts.

NTM

endakenny

walshb wrote: »

They freed him because the U.S. did not release confidential documents concerning the case, specifically details surrounding the plea bargain that the U.S. and Poalanski had.

Can anyone think of a reason for the US refusing to release the documents? They should have been released if it would have helped to bring Polanski to justice.

HavingCrack

endakenny wrote: »

Can anyone think of a reason for the US refusing to release the documents? They should have been released if it would have helped to bring Polanski to justice.

IF he was ever brought to trial again in California the documents may not be admissible as trial evidence or some such legal mumbo jumbo I'd imagine.

By the way while I condemn the French government ministers for publicly supporting Polanski, France has a long history of refusing to extradite people to the United States to stand trail for any crime, it isn't something specific to Polanski.