Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 02:14PM

Abrasax wrote: »

The victim herself has said the whole thing should be tossed out and forgotten about.

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

Biggins · 20-05-2010 02:20PM

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

Its understandable why she wants it dropped.
The charge and the sentence however still sits unserved on the pervert. That means he's still wanted by law, still accountable by law and getting away with his crime.

The man has problems. It’s not like this was the only time he engaged with conduct unbecoming with minors.
In 1976, Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old.

prinz · 20-05-2010 02:21PM

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

What she wants is irrelevant tbh. That's why it's called statutory.

Banned Account · 20-05-2010 02:25PM

I don't get it, did Roman Polanski sell drugs to Katie French?

Hang the dog!!!!!

Rabble Rabble

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 02:27PM

Biggins wrote: »

In 1976, Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old.

She denied this. At least deal with the facts.

Biggins · 20-05-2010 02:29PM

Blobby George wrote: »

She denied this. At least deal with the facts.

Certainly.

He made Nastassja Kinski the star of Tess in 1980. But he had had an affair with her four years earlier when she was 15. But there again she was no ordinary 15-year-old, and they have remained lifelong friends. "We talk, mostly about his wife and children," she said recently. She doesn't have a bad word to say about him and said that "he educated me. He was wonderful to me and taught me many things that I should know". But she concedes he knew he did something wrong with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/polanski-story-of-the-convicted-child-rapist-who-sued-for-libel----and-won-470348.html

This affair is WELL recorded despite denials in later years and known amid the hollywood set of the time - for obvious reason!
(* Leaming, Barbera Polanski, A Biography: The Filmmaker as Voyeur, New York: Simon and Schuster (1981), p. 155.
* Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (directed by Marina Zenovich), HBO in 2008.)

"If found guilty Roman Polanski would face a 50-year prison sentence in 1977, and he eventually filmed the British novel in France to avoid being extradited for prosecution. It became one of Hollywood’s most famous controversies, darkly overshadowing the movie to this day. (Wikipedia claims Polanski had previously had an affair with the movie’s star, Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15, and IMDB quotes her as saying that “As a director, he was 10 times more wonderful than as a lover.”)"

http://www.moviecritic.com.au/roman-polanski-and-nastassja-kinski/

--Kaiser-- · 20-05-2010 02:36PM

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

He skipped out on his sentence so justice was not served in this case.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 02:41PM

Has anyone ever read the transcript's of Samantha Gailey's testimony? It's absolutely heartbreaking. Anyone unsure of whether this was "rape-rape" (fuck you for this, btw Whoopi, fuck you forever) or whether it was a Lolita-like encounter that might be unseemly but understandable should give this a read.

For anyone about to say, that's her word against his, this is what Polanski plead to. TBH, he was damn lucky to get away with the charge he did which makes his fleeing even more ghastly.

walshb · 20-05-2010 03:26PM

Biggins wrote: »

Basic facts of the case:

Roman Polanski took photos of a naked 13 year old before moving on to anal rape a drugged girl.
(Story here for example.)

After all these years, should he face justice and be extradited back to the country where he was found guilty?
I find this part of the above news link also sickening:

Absolutely this sick **** should face charges. But, yet again, people in powerful positions are aiding and helping and supporting the fiend.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 03:38PM

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely this sick **** should face charges. But, yet again, people in powerful positions are aiding and helping and supporting the fiend.

The Hollywood petition has, sadly, ruined a lot of good actors and directors for me who are out in support of him. This one broke my heart (sorry for the quality):

*sigh* I used to lurve him. Although the dodgy slightly French accent in that helps me hate him that bit more...

Morlar · 20-05-2010 03:40PM

That is dissappointing in my view also.

I am inclined to just not pay to see his (polanski's) movies.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 03:47PM

Morlar wrote: »

That is dissappointing in my view also.

I am inclined to just not pay to see his (polanski's) movies.

I just can't support the asshats who are blindly supporting him either though. And it's bloody hard- there's loads of them!

Emma Thompson took her name off the petition after it was explained to her just what he'd done and I have a lot of respect for her for that.

Just noticed while I was searching for a link there that the actress who starred with Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child and in Polanski's Pirates is alleging that Polanski abused her as a minor. Don't know how true it is but I hadn't heard of it til now- the news is about three days old.

PeterIanStaker · 20-05-2010 03:53PM

He should be locked up with Charles Manson as a cellmate.

"Hiya Roman, long time no see . . . . . ."

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:04PM

At first I was like WTF, of course this guy should be locked up, why the hell would anyone support him ffs!!!... but then I read an article that said he was already sentenced and served time in Chino prison for the crime and that it was only after he served his time and got out that the judge decided to arbitrarily change the sentence and ordered him rearrested, which is kind of an unheard of thing to do.

I'll try to find the link but it does cast a little light on why anyone would support him, I mean if you do the sentence you are given then that should really be that, so Im unsure really cos people try to paint as a black and white case where he's too famous to go to prison but its actually about a dodgy court ruling by a maverick judge (or something).

(Disclaimer: I admit I am uninformed about this case, so I await boards correction with an open heart)

EDIT: here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/03/roman-polanski-breaks-silence

Not saying I support the man or anything but it does appear the facts of the case have been lost in the media sensationalism, theres defintely another side to the story at least.

walshb · 20-05-2010 04:19PM

There is no other side. He committed a heinous act and fled before sentencing.
He is a legal fugitive, plain and simple.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 04:20PM

PK2008 wrote: »

At first I was like WTF, of course this guy should be locked up, why the hell would anyone support him ffs!!!... but then I read an article that said he was already sentenced and served time in Chino prison for the crime and that it was only after he served his time and got out that the judge decided to arbitrarily change the sentence and ordered him rearrested, which is kind of an unheard of thing to do.

I'll try to find the link but it does cast a little light on why anyone would support him, I mean if you do the sentence you are given then that should really be that, so Im unsure really cos people try to paint as a black and white case where he's too famous to go to prison but its actually about a dodgy court ruling by a maverick judge (or something).

(Disclaimer: I admit I am uninformed about this case, so I await boards correction with an open heart)

EDIT: here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/03/roman-polanski-breaks-silence

Not saying I suppoirt the man or anything but it does appear the facts of the case have been lost in the media sensationalism

No, the thing about this is Polanski thought that a deal had been struck and he would be sentenced to time served. The judge, who was probably fairly accused of wanting to make an example of him for his own motives, was going to refuse the deal (as he has a legal right in the States to do). Polanski got wind of it and did a legger.

That's the gist of it anyway. I might have it slightly wrong but that's what I got from everything I've read about it.

Just noticed the link in your edit now. Gonna have a read of it. Looks interesting.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:26PM

walshb wrote: »

There is no other side. He committed a heinous act and fled before sentencing.
He is a legal fugitive, plain and simple.

Hey man, I totally agree, but his argument is that he did indeed serve his sentence and that he only fled after the judge reneged on the that sentence.

Maybe he's BS'ing to save his own skin but it defintely shows that its not as clear cut as its made out. I originally though he just legged it before he could be sentenced but in fact he pled guilty and served time in Chino, which I beleive is a fairly hardcore prison (if my knowledge of rap music serves me right). Its a heinous crime but at the same time if you've already served your sentence then its a bit strange to be re-sentenced.

Anyway I dont care about the guy just thought Id throw that counter argument in the mix for balance.

walshb · 20-05-2010 04:29PM

The judge was well within his rights to do what he did, he acted legally and in doing so, Polanski had to obey. It is the law. Polanski fled and this is why we are having this discussion. In fleeing, he broke the law and became a fugitive.

Killer Pigeon · 20-05-2010 04:30PM

Why should he be above the law? He is a human being bound by the law like everyone else should be.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:31PM

walshb wrote: »

The judge was well within his rights to do what he did, he acted legally and in doing so, Polanski had to obey. It is the law. Polanski fled and this is why we are having this discussion. In fleeing, he broke the law and became a fugitive.

You're probably right and if I cared in the slightest Id probably end up agreeing with you but for the moment Im gonna go with "unsure", and let the courts decide (not the media)

Smokin_Aces · 20-05-2010 04:34PM

He should be locked up with Charles Manson as a cellmate.

"Hiya Roman, long time no see . . . . . .

That's a nice comment. Proud of yourself?

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:41PM

walshb wrote: »

The judge was well within his rights to do what he did, he acted legally and in doing so, Polanski had to obey. It is the law. Polanski fled and this is why we are having this discussion. In fleeing, he broke the law and became a fugitive.

Yeh I think thats the contenious thing, that the judge didnt have the right to go back on the plea bargain. Polanski says he copped a plea bargain, admitted guilt, and then served the bargained time. Which all sounds fairly standard but then the judge decided to change the time in the plea bargain after he had served his time, which is what people are arguing about. Whether or not a judge is within his rights to change a plea bargain after the deal is made, its beyond me cos Im not a lawyer, but it does sound a bit dodgy? I mean why would you have a plea bargain system if the courts could then renege on the deal

walshb · 20-05-2010 04:45PM

I see your point, and can agree with you on it, but if this judge really
did act illegally with this plea bargain issue, surely it would be highlighted by legal eagles, and not JUST the fugitive?

Millicent · 20-05-2010 04:47PM

PK2008 wrote: »

Yeh I think thats the contenious thing, that the judge didnt have the right to go back on the plea bargain. Polanski says he copped a plea bargain, admitted guilt, and then served the bargained time. Which all sounds fairly standard but then the judge decided to change the time in the plea bargain after he had served his time, which is what people are arguing about. Whether or judge is within his rights to change a plea bargain after the deal is made is beyond me, Im no lawyer, but it does sound a bit dodgy?

Did you even read my reply to you?

Polanski thought a deal had been struck but the judge thought otherwise. AFAIK, Polanski dealt with the prosecutor who tried to bring the deal to the judge who refused it. That was when he fled after being let out to film a movie.

As it was, he was already getting away lightly because he was only being charged with the equivalent of statutory rape (which is what throws most people who don't know the case) instead of sodomy or a drug-rape or child pornography or any more serious charge that could have been levelled against him.

That letter of his sounds like a "poor me" statement, tbh. He had to remortgage his apartment for bail? Seriously? On what he's earned in the last 30 years. Sounds like BS.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:51PM

walshb wrote: »

I see your point, and can agree with you on it, but if this judge really
did act illegally with this plea bargain issue, surely it would be highlighted by legal eagles, and not JUST the fugitive?

Apparantly attorneys on both sides were happy with the plea baragin. The prosecutors were happy with the outcome and wanted to leave it at that, but then against the prosecutors wishes the judge dramatically overturned the plea bargain?

I dont know but I reckon there is defintely more than meets the eye in the case.

The guy is a scumbag for what he done though, no doubt about it.

Meeja Ireland · 20-05-2010 04:51PM

mike65 wrote: »

Colm Toibin was happy to offer his public support to that poet Desmond Hogan who was found guilty of sexually assautling a 15 year old boy. It seems to be a blind spot in the world of luvvies.

As far as I know, Colm Toibin didn't offer any support for the behaviour Hogan was being charged with. He was asked to go to court to give a statement about the character of the accused, as he knew it. I don't see anything reprehensible in that, however grave the accusations.

If a friend of yours was on trial, and he asked you to be a character witness, would you refuse?

Carlos_Ray · 20-05-2010 04:52PM

I make a conscious effort to boycott his films. I know its a tiny gesture in the over all scheme of things, but the man sickens me. For me, buying a ticket to see his films is the equivalent of buying a newly released album by Gary Glitter. Although the comparison is not entirely correct when you consider that Gary Glitter WAS actually brought to justice. ( Even if the justice was lenient for his acts.)

Equally disturbing is the support he has received from within the celebrity community. How can actors work with this man?? To me it shows a total lack of morals and decency. They are facilitating a Pedo fugitive. But then again, they may all think like Whoopi Goldberg and believe that "it wasn't "rape" rape.":rolleyes:

If he was a normal everyday guy that decided to photograph and rape a child, would we be even asking IF he should be brought to justice??? If it was up to me, all pedo's (including him) would be castrated and locked away for good.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 04:53PM

Millicent wrote: »

Did you even read my reply to you? Polanski thought a deal had been struck but the judge thought otherwise. AFAIK, Polanski dealt with the prosecutor who tried to bring the deal to the judge who refused it. That was when he fled after being let out to film a movie.

As it was, he was already getting away lightly because he was only being charged with the equivalent of statutory rape (which is what throws most people who don't know the case) instead of sodomy or a drug-rape or child pornography or any more serious charge that could have been levelled against him.

That letter of his sounds like a "poor me" statement, tbh. He had to remortgage his apartment for bail? Seriously? On what he's earned in the last 30 years. Sounds like BS.

Hey fair enuf, Im not disputing what you say. Im just saying what I read.

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 05:01PM

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Gary Glitter..

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

General Zod · 20-05-2010 05:04PM

Blobby George wrote: »

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

obvious troll is obvious.

Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Comments