comment #1

Lisa says ...

Good I'm glad hope he goes to jail

shame on you for defending him

comment #2

Famous Mortimer says ...

Seeing how ugly this board is going to become rather quickly, I think one of the director's quotations from IMDB says it best:

"I would like to be judged for my work, and not for my life. If there is any possibility of changing your destiny, it may be only in your creative life, certainly not in your life, period."

The suffering is unending.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Lisa: No offense, but perhaps you might want to (a) read up on the case (I provided links), (b) see Zenovich's doc, (c) consider the statements by the victim (who is now a middle-aged mother of three and totally over it) and (d) use basic punctuation next time. You know -- dashes, commas, periods, etc.

comment #4

Lisa says ...

Jeff this is your blog and you are always going to have the last word

in saying that I read all those links the last time you printed this crap

yeah sure he got fucked by the judge but 42 days is not enough for drugging and raping a child

to put it in perspective - if someone did that to your 13 year old son you'd kill him

It's really disappointing that someone I admire so much expresses such uninformed views

comment #5

George Prager says ...

It's probably a good thing for him to come back to the country where his wife was brutally murdered and get this thing over with.

comment #6

George Prager says ...

I'm interested in Lisa's thoughts about Jerry Maguire, Glenn Beck, product placement in movies, Hispanic Party Elephants, etc.

comment #7

nemo says ...

Lisa, both the defense and the prosecutor had agreed to a plea deal back in 1978. Polanski had already served 6 weeks in prison, and the prosecution agreed that justice had already been served. The judge scuttled the deal in a fit of political grandstanding.

Another US judge who reviewed Polanski's case just this year agreed that the original judge in 1978 engaged in misconduct.

comment #8

Phatang! says ...

Yes, the judge was crazy and things got completely screwed up and this arrest is a joke. But let's not forget, the guy did get a 13 year old girl drunk and high and then had sex with her. It's just a horrible event that apparently won't go away in Polanski's lifetime, and maybe shouldn't.

comment #9

caslab says ...

I've seen "Wanted & Desired" and I think there's no question that there were plenty of shady legal shenanigans, the first of which was the ridiculous celebrity-treatment plea deal he was allowed.

If Polanski was a stand-up guy, he would face the consequences of his actions. Geimer's wish is for the ongoing nightmare to end and Polanki can make that happen. It's the very least he can do.

comment #10

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

A victim forgiving a perpetrator doesn't mean the crime didn't take place. I'm sure a lot of women forgive their abusive husbands, but it doesn't mean that man shouldn't face charges for his actions.

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Lisa: I'm obviously not uninformed about the case, and the facts are facts -- they're not "crap." Yes, I would feel enormous rage if something like this had happened to my 13 year-old son 31 years ago, but if my son had thereafter grown up healthily and said that he's fine and said repeatedly that the perpetrator has suffered enough and that the authorities should let it go already, I too would let let bygones be bygones. Life moves on, the river keeps flowing, etc.

comment #12

MickTravisMcGee says ...

"to put it in perspective - if someone did that to your 13 year old son you'd kill him."

Lisa, if you really are up on all the facts, you'd know that Geimer's mother DELIVERED her daughter to Polanski. She saw it as an opportunity.

What Polanski did was wrong and repulsive, but to say it's like he picked up some young teen off the playground betrays a lack of knowledge of the circumstances.

Regardless, I think it's good this is being resolved, hopefully by better officials than Rittenband.

comment #13

OminumGatherum says ...

Taking down anyone for their use or misuse of punctuation on an Internet chat board is so childish, Wells. You have no idea if Lisa was using a mobile device, or if she was tired, or whatever.

Clearly, you were able to comprehend what she said, so listing a grammatical error in a counter argument renders that particular comment irrelevant.

Your defense of Polanski based upon the "evidence" you have cited is exactly why you are a mere blogger with an opinion, as opposed to those of us who work in the legal profession, day in and day out.

Not only are there dozens of articles written by some of the sharpest legal minds in this country (most of whom are liberal, actually) have written at length about this case (as recently as July in the Harvard Law Review) and have universally agreed that despite some odd prosecutorial misconduct, Roman Polandki should still be tried for his crimes.

In fact, the misconduct in question (ridiculously oversimplified and quite purposefully overemphasized in Zenovich's documentary, in a clear attempt to demonoze as to render the case against Mr. Polanski null and void), that Judge Rittenbrand's behavior was illegal, has been largely discredtied.

And the legal scholars are not the only ones who have diantled the half-truths and out and out lies in Wanted & Desired, many respected journalists have written point-by point refutations of the same.

Before you start to try and insult those by claiming that they don't everything about a case, perhaps you should attempt to be a littlemore through in your, ahem, "research". Perhaps you should not be so cavalier in supporting the so-called evidence in what is clearly a one-sided, polemical documentary, and the articles that you strongly put your faith in, before shooting off at the mouth like you have all the answers.

comment #14

OminumGatherum says ...

And Lisa is right, Wells. If it was your 13 year old son, there would never be an attempt to justify the actions of his molestor.

@Phatang: He didn't just booze her up and rape her. He attempted to sodomize her as well.

It called the Rule of Law, Wells. Why don't you try typing that into your Google, and perform some sort of exegesis on your in-depth research.

comment #15

frank_delsa says ...

"Not only are there dozens of articles written by some of the sharpest legal minds in this country (most of whom are liberal, actually) ..."

Which means that you are not Liberal, which means that you probably have a vision of justice not unlike the one in the Old Testament...

comment #16

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Interesting timing - the woman who was the most vicious of the murderers of his wife and unborn child died in prison only 2 days before (she was California's longest serving inmate). Even on a hospital gurney wheeled into the parole board on July 15th, they wouldn't let her out.

That said...

Jeff has sons. If he had daughters as some of us do, I think he would sing a different tune.

Seeing that doc actually changed my mind against Polanski. His supporters for years had painted the whole affair as some teenage (read: 16, 17 year old) Jezebel at a party seduced a drugged out Polanski.

Sure, the judge engaged in some MINOR misconduct, but if you want to go down the relativism argument path, well then so did Polanski by fleeing. One pretty much negates the other.

So what you're left with is Roman Polanski lured a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL up to Jack Nicholson's house, DRUGGED HER UP and then SODOMIZED HER. This is what Jeff and the rest of you are defending by whining about how old the crime is, that the victim wants it dropped or Polanski's tragic life negates a harsh sentence.

comment #17

OminumGatherum says ...

Wow Frank! You're as smart as, Wells! Do you go to the Sarah Palin School of Deductive Reasoning?

I'm as liberal as they come, Frank. Though, I do prefer the term, "Progressive".

My point in saying that they are largely liberal was to explain away that which you just attempted to accuse me of, you dolt.

It goes beyond ones world view, Frank. That was my point in mentioning their political leanings.

The law is the law is the law. Period.

comment #18

Rodrigo says ...

A man who takes advantage of a minor doesn't deserve to be forgiven. Pedophilia is a terrible crime.

comment #19

George Prager says ...

Monocle Alert!

comment #20

MickTravisMcGee says ...

O.G., grammar was the last of four points Wells made, so it's not like he was taking her down or anything. But I take issue with anyone who defends poor grammar or rationalizes a complete lack of punctuation because it's not convenient, especially if the statement in question includes the words, "shame on you."

Although the internet is steadily weaning us away from proper communication, people who think seriously and want to be taken seriously should compose their thoughts accordingly. Perhaps, as you put it, she should be "a littlemore through."

comment #21

Phatang! says ...

The victim's forgiveness is pretty irrelevant. Plaxico Burress shot HIMSELF in the leg and is in jail for two years. My guess is he's forgiven his perpetrator too.

comment #22

OminumGatherum says ...

It's called being petty, Mick.

And my typo's are due to the fact that I am responding in an airport terminal, via my Iphone.

Was that grammatically correct enough for you, ASSHOLE?

comment #23

jasctt says ...

NO ONE gets over being molested. Trust me. I hope he kissed his kids goodbye cause he's not going back to France any time soon.

comment #24

frank_delsa says ...

Ominum, are you kiddin' me? People's view of justice is deeply influenced but their political leanings.
Believe me, my vision of justice differs oh so much from the one Jeb Bush has.
As a natural tendency, when I see howling mobs with torches and pitchforks hunting down a monster I have the natural instinctive reaction to side with the monster.
Which like all instinctive reactions can be misleading, and the monster can indeed be a monster. Still, I find the mob to be pretty creepy and scary, not unlike the monster.

comment #25

OminumGatherum says ...

And for the record, Mick, Wells repeatedly indulges in errors of syntax, grammar, and typo's. But he has the luxury of correcting his posts. So it's a pretty pussy move to criticize those who can't do the same.

comment #26

Phatang! says ...

@Rodrigo: Pedophilia IS a terrible crime. So is the crime Roman Polanski committed.

comment #27

OminumGatherum says ...

Your missing my point, Frank. Keep trying.

comment #28

MickTravisMcGee says ...

Gosh, Ominum Gatherum, you're so angry.

I hope it gets worse.

comment #29

Hallick says ...

"What Polanski did was wrong and repulsive, but to say it's like he picked up some young teen off the playground betrays a lack of knowledge of the circumstances."

I don't think "Hey c'mon, her own mom pimped her to me!" really mitigates a thing for the dude.

All the debating here aside, if this was some hack doofus like Uwe Boll the percentage of hearts bleeding for Polanski would be struggling to reach a complete percentage point. And very much would be unlikely to include Jeff's.

comment #30

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to OminumGatherum: You work in the legal profession, eh? I wonder in what capacity. You are, in any case, a real Judge Roy Bean hanging judge...an Old Testament prosecutorial hardass of the first order. Oh, and when I tap out e-mails on my iPhone, I ALWAYS use proper periods, commas, capitalizations, quote marks and whatnot.

comment #31

OminumGatherum says ...

Gosh, Mick. You're such an ignoramus. I enjoy watching you fall all over yourself.

I hope it gets worse.

comment #32

OminumGatherum says ...

Right, Wells. You're so perfect. Thats why you posted that comment twice in a row

Now that's laughable!

comment #33

OminumGatherum says ...

Here's the thng, Wells.

Did you actually address any of the substantive claims I made about you, and your so-called argument in your post? No. Of course not.

What did you do? Accuse. That's all. Accuse.

I am not some hardlined, Old Testament, tow-the-line-at-all-costs, puke. In fact, I was the L.A. DA, I wouldn't agree to prosecute.

However, Mr. Polanski should have come back to LA to face justice, regardless of the outcome, a long time ago.

Furthermore, my post was about you and your so-called evidence, and less about the tides of justice, as they apply to this case.

Iwas questioning YOUR reasoning as you tried to correct others saying that they should look further into the case, whilst your so-called knowledge about is severly lacking in its own right.

comment #34

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to OminumGatherum: It's "laughable" that I accidentally posted twice? That's an infantile thing to say. You're showing your troll colors now, and I think it's time for you to push on to other pastures. I don't like you, I don't like your manner, you're rude and you're boring. I hate Glenn Beck types and I won't tolerate obnoxious belligerence on this site.

comment #35

OminumGatherum says ...

I once saw a documentary made by a shark in order to gain sympathy as to why he ate so many fish.

I am now not only an expert on Marine Biology as a result of watching such an expertly rendered film, I have also decided that the shark is completely right, even though the film never expressed a dissenting opinion or point of view.

I was thinking about checking the references made in the documentary to see if the shark was telling me the complete truth, but I figured, "what's the point? The movie does all the thinking for me, why investigate? Surely, the shark is telling the whole truth"

comment #36

great scott says ...

I wonder what this will mean for Polanski's next movie, The Ghost. Might be hard to finish post-production from a jail cell.

comment #37

OminumGatherum says ...

[Ominum Gatherum -- a belligerent ranter who has posted here before and is always objectionable in one obnoxious way or another and is basically a snorting hog -- has been banned for life. He'll be back under another name before long, and he will be banned again when that happens.]

comment #38

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Polanski Zenovich (posted 10.15.06)

"I've never set out to diminish the seriousness of what Roman Polanski did, but it comes down to crime and punishment. How much do you have to pay for the crime? What I've always set out to prove is, despite what Polanski did, which was awful, he was treated unfairly by the judge. That's the bottom line." -- Filmmaker Marina Zenovich to Charles Lyons in today's N.Y. Times about Polanski's unlawful-sex-with-a-minor case, which she's been making a documentary about for eons.

Zenovich's film takes a closer look at the manner and tactics of the presiding judge in Polasnki's unlawful sex with a minor case -- the late Laurence J. Rittenband.

Zenovich, a very smart, extremely tenacious pro whom I've known since the late '90s, tells Lyons "it is impossible to reach conclusions about Mr. Polanski without drawing Judge Rittenband into the equation."

I've been hearing this for years (most lately from Polanski biographer F.X. Feeney), but judging from Lyons' carefully phrased article, Zenovich's conclusion in this reportedly exacting and meticulous doc is that Rittenbrand handled the Polanski case rashly. One could go so far as to describe his judicial behavior in this matter as that of an intemperate, Judge Roy Bean-ish, shoot-from-the-hip asshole.

Zenovich "describes the judge as having lived the kind of vibrant personal life easier to associate with Polanski," Lyons writes. "'He was never married, and he loved being kind of a swinging bachelor, juggling a couple of girlfriends at once,' Zenovich tells him. "What's most interesting about him is that he tried to come across as so moralistic, but eventually I found out that this was a man who had a 20-year-old girlfriend when he was 54."

comment #39

drgogol says ...

My Latin dictionary isn't handy.

"Omnium Gaterum" means 'suppurating twat,' doesn't it....?

comment #40

lonniechung says ...

I don't know Jeff, I don't think certain things flow with the river, but rape, abuse, murder - these things don't wash. The ripple effect is too great and too permanent to leave to time to correct. Ask any adult who was molested and they'll tell you that it never goes away. There are people who can get right with it and continue living their lives, but it is most likely always on the periphery as being one of the most significant events in their past (and never a neutral/positive one). Sure, Knife In The Water is a great movie, but he can't get off the hook just for being a great artist. The original case was a complete fuckery of the judicial system (where being an artist - foreign at that - probably hurt him more than anything else), but that's not the outrage that the people here are expressing. It's not a legal matter, it's a personal matter, and anyone with any kind of direct connection to abuse will tell you that the lives ruined can never be recovered by court proceedings. There is no suitable revenge, no justice to be sought out - but the price paid by the perpetrator is that you're never off the hook. It's the first line in your obituary if you like it or not, and you must share an equal portion of the shame that you've inflicted

comment #41

julieW says ...

Lisa--is having sex with a 13 year old wrong? you bet. The documentary is very clear that this girl's mother was (for lack of a better term) was pimping her out to help fuel her own dreams of stardom. What mother would drop her 13 year old off at Warren Beatty's or Jack Nicholson's house in the middle of the night? Samantha Geimer had had sex with three men prior to Polanski, as well as used cocaine and ludes several times prior to meeting Polanski.

comment #42

buck.swope says ...

i agree that Ominum has some good points. too bad he's an enormous twat.

comment #43

Kristopher Tapley says ...

At the end of the day, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the event, the circus that followed, the persecutorial air of the case, the fact remains: a grown man fucked a little girl.

How is there wiggle room there?

comment #44

QualityGibberish says ...

As long as the dragnet is out they should probably arrest Nicholson, too (for being a peripheral sleazebag and Lakers fan), and throw in Michael Bay for crimes against cinema.

comment #45

George Prager says ...

An airport is a bad place to lose your shit, OminumGatherum. Go get a drink at a Pizzeria Uno and calm down.

comment #46

Filmsnob says ...

So Wells calls Michael Jackson a monster. A man who was found not guilty, but gives sympathy to Polanski who admitted guilt! Doesn't make much sense. Oh wait Michael fucked little boys so that makes it 100x worst.

comment #47

KC says ...

Wells, I am pretty sure that you didn't consider writing Billie Jean and having rubba rubba friends delivered to him by shitty parents as serious mitigating factors when doing a post-mortem on Michael Jackson. What's the dif here, 13-year-old boys vs. 13-year-old girls?

There's a difference between "leaving things in the past" as in being as "over it," totally unaffected, what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, ha ha!!, and "leaving things in the past" as in just wanting the stress of dealing with the criminal justice system and the publicity surrounding the case to go away, and if I'd been raped by a public figure in seventh grade I think I know which one I'd probably be feeling at this point.

But I dunno, that's just the disgusting Old Testament bloodlust in me talking, I guess. After all, did you hear the judge had a 20-year-old girlfriend?!?!?

comment #48

DarienStyles says ...

He committed a crime and now, he needs to be tried for it. If the judge was corrupt, why not retry him?
I'd like to know what has Roman Polanski suffered, for those who say he's already paid for his crime. I doubt he went to live in a hut, in the middle of a forest, in France, and he did continue to work in Film.
The truth is, had it been John Doe, no one would be defending him. But because this happens to be a consumate filmmaker, we forgive him.
By the way, even if Samantha Geimer forgave him, it doesn't excuse his actions. I can't believe anyone would think abuse victims would get over it.

comment #49

Don Murphy says ...

God I love the general public sooo much. Lisa refuses to look at the facts because SHE KNOWS BEST goddamn it. Jeff points out her lack of English skills quite justifiably and people defend her? Lame.
And then Omnirum Assurum shows up and claims to be a lawyer. My guess is he is a disbarred lawyer in Torrance who works in a sandwich shop. Every thing he typed is wrong and retarded. Never even point to one article refuting the truth. Banning his lying fat ass was too good for him.

comment #50

shawn says ...

Bizarre sidelight: AP accidentally publishes its internal discussion of covering the arrest. One voice surmises that the Swiss are trying to curry favor in DC in the UBS scandal by nabbing Polanski: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SWITZERLAND_POLANSKI_MSG--?SITE=AZTUC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

comment #51

Joe G says ...

I guess I'll finally watch Wanted & Desired. Easy enough to do as its streaming on Netflix.

Judical misconduct carries a lot of weight with me and I'm fine with the idea that serious infractions equal a get out of jail free card, depending on what part of the process they came into play.

Having said that, there is no other crime like raping a child. Excluding murder and possibly torture its about the worst thing anyone can do. And pretty clearly, that's what happend here.

Also, there is never any legitimate excuse for claiming someone is above or beyond the rule of law. It doesn't matter if they were just following orders, or were the vice-president, or are artisically gifted or have sufferd horrific personal tragedys. Yes, weasels do get away with it all the time, but that doesn't suspend the rule of law.

It looks like this is going to be worked out in a US court again, with all kinds of daylight on it this time, and I don't really have a problem with that.

comment #52

bluefugue says ...

I think it's unfortunate this thread has been clouded by so many irrelevancies and smoke. iPhone typos? Who gives a shit?

The questions of prosecutorial misconduct, whether settled or not, seem to me to be the most interesting part of all this and the area where there is room for uncertainty about what should be done with Polanski. The other intangibles -- his victim having forgiven him, consideration for his own tragic life (tragic in the full-blown Shakespearean sense of the term, not the cheapened 24-hour-news-cycle sense) and undeniable stature as an artist -- I don't want to say they carry no weight at all, for to say so might be to embrace a sort of monochromatic procedural/bureaucratic view of things -- but I think there is serious danger that they muddy the waters. A crime was committed, and the legal machinery must work itself through. Which takes us back to the prosecutorial misconduct question. The victim forgives him? That's wonderful for her, and I'm sincerely glad that she hasn't let this tragedy define her life. But I'm not sure it has any bearing on the consequences of what after all was a heinous crime.

As a former film student who admires Polanski enormously as an artist, I'm pretty conflicted about this whole matter. But I also know one must often separate the art from the artist.

comment #53

bluefugue says ...

>i agree that Ominum has some good points. too bad he's an enormous twat.

I don't think he is; I think he's just responding to a pile-on speckled with irrelevancies. I wouldn't fare any better in his shoes.

comment #54

Jeffrey Wells says ...

"A little girl"? Kris, c'mon....don't simplify. Samantha Geimer wasn't Dorothy Gale in buckled shoes and pigtails and a blue-checked dress who was playing dolls and hopscotch with friends when a cackling schoolyard creep named Roman Polanski slipped a Mickey Finn into her Coca-Cola and thereby had his way. And doesn't her mother dropping her off at Nicholson's house mitigate things somewhat, at least to the extent you might not want to call her a "little girl"? Polanski did a fiendish and detestable thing, but it sounds to me like Geimer's mother was an enabler and provocateur in this episode. It seems as if she delivered her daughter on a silver plate to a pack of ravenous wolves (because guys at a Hollywood party are always ravenous)...like a goat tied to a pole in the middle of Jurassic Park. What did Geimer's mother think was going to happen when she dropped Samantha off at Nicholson's? Did she think that her daughter would...what, meet Daniel Ellbserg out on the patio and have a stirring discussion about the Pentagon Papers? Or meet a CBS casting director looking for a very special young teen who could fill a part in a new series? Unless mom was retarded she had to know that some guy might make a move, Hollywood being the bacchanalian place that it is or at least was, especially back in the coke-and-quaalude days of the '70s. I helped raise two boys and know something about the basics of parenting young teens and I would have never dreamt of dropping off a daughter of mine at a party filled with older men...c'mon.

comment #55

JCEFalconi says ...

I feel comfortable with a judge that cheats on his wife and dates 20 year olds passing judgement on Polanski.

Because he didn't rape a child.

The law is the law, if the Judge was being unfair, there are legal recourses a millionaire can take. Why must we trust the criminals judgement over the Judiciary System? That's not the way it works.

And why was he in such a situation?

Because he raped a girl.

A middle aged woman, tired of being taunted, and chased by the media about being a victim wanting to let it go is meaningless to me. As it should be meaningless to a society that rejects the notion of raping a 13 year old.

I do say, as a Mexican, that I feel an intermediate distaste to what it seems as a media-attention and US-favor grab by the Swiss Police. But then again, it doesn't matter much because he... you know what he did.

Being a victim of rape is never "over and done with". Ask any therapist.

comment #56

Jeffrey Wells says ...

AP internal discussion about Polanski story and coverage (9.27, 10:41 am)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SWITZERLAND_POLANSKI_MSG--?SITE=AZTUC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case

OK, can you do some more probing? New York will want to know

frank's out today.

i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he's been here many times in the past, we think.

thx brad. aptn is aware, but unfortunately won't make it in time, but is hoping to catch tail end.

i'm pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.

no surprise, new york is really hot on this.

they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that's because they're under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can you check with justice department sources there?

is frank around too, or are you alone?

u can tell aptn press conf 1700 (15 gmt) in bern at the parliament

i'll watch it live on internet

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125068571743342973.html

AUGUST 20, 2009
UBS to Give 4,450 Names to U.S. Tax-Evasion Pact May Disclose 10,000 Clients; Swiss Government Selling Stake

By CARRICK MOLLENKAMP, LAURA SAUNDERS and EVAN PEREZ

The U.S. could within months begin criminally prosecuting hundreds of wealthy Americans -- from the obscure to the "rich and famous" -- for using foreign bank accounts to evade income taxes.

In a settlement with the Swiss government detailed Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service said Swiss bank UBS AG will ultimately turn over the identities behind 4,450 secret accounts.

At least $10 billion had been stashed to avoid payment of U.S. taxes or the disclosure of foreign accounts, according to a person familiar with the matter. The U.S. government investigation and settlement ultimately could produce some 10,000 account identities.

comment #57

Hallick says ...

"And doesn't her mother dropping her off at Nicholson's house mitigate things somewhat, at least to the extent you might not want to call her a "little girl"?"

It doesn't really mitigate shit. Her mom was a brainless cunt of a parent, so...that's the daughter's bad somehow? I still don't see how the parent of a child virtually pimping her daughter to Polanski takes any heat off of him. I don't remember a loophole in the law back in the day saying that the implicit consent of one parent equals immunity for the offender: "But your honor, she was GIVEN to him!"

comment #58

Hallick says ...

And that bitch should've been jailed her own damn self for the parental neglect and child endangerment.

comment #59

mikeinseattle says ...

1) Lisa and those who feel anger towards Polanski, please understand the concept of projection. All this righteous indignation is coming from you, not the case, not him, not anything except you. Projection. This is not about what Polanski did or did not do, it's about you and your feelings toward some older person who did you wrong in your life. Please take responsibility for your feelings.

2) What is this obsession that people, especially Americans, have for punishment? Revenge? There is no magical accounting ledger that turns this into a zero sum, if we punish him, it will undo what was done to her.

How about when a prosecutor gets a conviction without regard for justice, just to pad his stats, or some judge trying to make a name, and is later determined to have wrongfully convicted, should that prosecutor not have to finish out the sentence of the wrongfully convicted? And if it's the death penalty, well, so be it. That's my projection, abuse of authority. Bullying.

3) Do these events all take place in a vacuum? Is there no consideration for what happened to this man only a few years before this incident? Not looking back 40 years at it like we are now, but just a handful of years. An 8.5 month pregnant wife and child, brutally murdered. It would seem as fresh and raw as yesterday. So to everyone who says, he did it he must pay, does this not get taken into account at all? When a soldier fresh home from some war goes PTSD nuts on his family, would we all say he needs to pay? Or would we say he needs help, he surely must have been temporarily insane? Why does Roman not get just a little of the same consideration? These events do not happen in a vacuum.

comment #60

George Prager says ...

September 25, 2009
New Jersey Businessman, a UBS Client, Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/business/26ubs.html

comment #61

gansibele says ...

What the mother did made the girl a double victim, victimized by the parent who was supposed to protect her and by Polanski.

The law doesn't take into account victim's forgiveness.

He hasn't paid for his crime, and whatever misconduct there was (yes, I've seen the doc) didn't change the facts. If anything, the plea deal was too lenient.

Nobody is above the law and answering for their crimes, no matter how brilliant.

comment #62

Glenn Kenny says ...

Ah, the puffing up of the hair, followed by the throwing of fecal matter. Like the man said, they'll do it everytime. It's practically Pavlovian at this point. The new wrinkle of bringing Michael Jackson in for comparison is interesting.

mikeinseattle's first point, albeit slightly overstated, is worth taking seriously: Why, oh, why, do so many people go so rabid over this, and not thousands of other outrages and injustices? mike's theory, that it has something to do with one's feelings towards an older person etc., could indeed be relevant. My own instinct is less charitable: this just gives people a chance to have a good long wallow in their own inflated sense of righteousness. You should enjoy, as they say.

comment #63

Hallick says ...

mikeinseattle: next time I need a useless, dimestore psychoanalyst, you've got my back.

Polanski was a 44 year old douchebag out to fuck a virtually motherless 13 year old girl whether she liked it or not. The sentence he got was light (90 day psych eval in Chino), he served less than half of it (42 days), the judge in the case was so horrendous that even the PROSECUTOR turned against him, and he's been used ever since for publicity brownie points.

The crime is fucked, the case is fucked, and I think that in light of the circumstances, the court needs to dismiss the case once and for all, and the segment of the world that treats him like a folk hero over this shit ought to grow up and move the hell on themselves.

comment #64

lipranzer says ...

I only heard about this today (one of the network shows called to rent Zenovich's documentary, as it happens). I'm with Jeff on this one. I don't have any daughters, and I can't imagine what anyone who was molested must feel, nor their families (assuming it wasn't anyone in their family who committed this heinous crime). But one of the things I was raised to believe is there's no crime, no matter how awful, that justifies violating the due process of law, and the judge in this case, in my opinion, violated due process.

comment #65

Hallick says ...

"Why, oh, why, do so many people go so rabid over this, and not thousands of other outrages and injustices?"

I don't remember prefacing any of my comments with, "This is the only fucking thing I've ever cared about goddamit! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!". Why would you assume that?

As for why people are getting rabid over this here, well, it's probably because it's here. Because it's the topic of the moment. Bring up another case and I'll go off on that one way or another. The rabidity in this thread appears to be due to the fact that two issues are getting entangled: one, the degree to which Polanski was or wasn't a scumbag, and how he SHOULD have been handled: and two, whether or not his case was fucked up by the judge in this instance.

My own personal feelings about Polanski's behavior on that fateful night have less to do with some older-adult-from-my-past issues than it does with current older adults who try to downplay or offset him moral guilt by playing up the mother's role in all of this because he's ROMAN POLANSKI, whereas you wouldn't be seeing people bending their opinions over backwards to find an out for a Uwe Boll-type hack if he were to do the same thing today.

comment #66

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Ah, the classic straw-man attack Don Murphy response: unless you are willing to submit a FBI background check verifying that you actually exist, then nothing you say can be judged on it's own merits.

Otherwise, I just love all this blame the victim, blame the mother, blame the judge, blame the imagined issues of those that condemn it, blame anyone else but Polanski who drugged and sodomized a 13 year old.

comment #67

Chicago48 says ...

It's stuff like that this that makes me ashamed to be an American. The man is 76 years old, the woman doesn't want to testify....what more needs to be done to free this man?

comment #68

Chicago48 says ...

I don't think he's going to be extradited after the French intervene. But after all this time -- why? If he had murdered Jews or blacks then I can see chasing the man around the world; but the woman doesn't want to testify, so how are they going to hold a trial?

comment #69

Jayne says ...

Here's the thing: the perpetrator of the crime doesn't get to be the decider of what the punishment should be. That's for the legal system to do, imperfect as it may be. Polanski took the coward's way out--he fled the country and thumbed his nose at the US legal system. It was always destined to get him eventually. Karma's a bitch, fella.

comment #70

Gogocrank says ...

This has all been complicated by Polanski's decision (rightly or wrongly) to flee rather than face trial, which is why it's not so simple anymore as "what's done is done." Because he did plead guilty, what kind of precedent would that set if he was let go? The most just course of action seems to be a retrial, and if a jury decides the mitigating evidence of the past three decades is enough reason to acquit him, then fine, let that decision stand. But if what Polanski did was wrong, and he's absolved sans trial, what of the next person who does what he did? It's a legal mess.

Personally, at this point, I can imagine him getting off pretty easy (so to speak). The victim has forgiven him, 30 years have passed, he's got a life's worth of character witnesses to defend him, celebrity and plebe alike. The only reason we're (and by "we" I mean every single news organization of note from the Times down to humble blogs) talking about this, Glenn, is because Polanski himself has drawn this process out. An auteur through and through, the guy sure does love suspense.

comment #71

Gogocrank says ...

Oh, and Glenn, I think the invocation of Michael Jackson is pretty apt in this instance. There's a guy accused of similar wrong doing, and acquitted, but still stigmatized and demonized because - why? Because unlike Polanski, he was artistically rudderless and off his peak? He surrounded himself with hacks and quacks rather than Oscar winners and A-listers? Alas, we don't get to pick and choose the morality of our drug-addled monsters.

Like I said, I think a retrial would be decided in Polanski's favor, but running from the law for three decades is a sure fire way to ensure the law will remain in dogged pursuit.

comment #72

Travis Crabtree says ...

I'm with Chicago48 100%! I've never been so ashamed to be an American, frankly.

Sometimes I just feel like packing up, getting the hell out of here and going to a country that isn't so backwards and puritan. A place where a man can drug up a hot 13 year old and give her what her daddy couldn't - a nice hard one up the keester. That's what I'm talking about.

Morocco?

comment #73

Glenn Kenny says ...

Gogocrank, you make some compelling arguments. Hallick does too, although I think he's being a little disingenuous in interpreting my general complaint about outrage as a personal slam on him. As it happens, Hallick, I don't know what else you get outraged about. The execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, maybe? If so, maybe we'd see each other's perspectives better.

Still, I hold to my larger point, that on this thread and many others, the self-righteous, self-satisfied perspective of Jayne ("Karma's a bitch fellas") and he ilk will hold the day. I don't know, I myself have never felt particularly compelled to pat myself on the back for never having committed rape.

comment #74

George Prager says ...

Crabtree's tone too often resembles that of one about to sing the praises of Bill Brasky

http://www.hulu.com/watch/69478/saturday-night-live-bill-brasky-holiday-inn

Anyway...I'm awaiting LexG's two cents, once he recovers from the brain aneurysm suffered during last night's Megan Fox hosted SNL.

comment #75

buster keaton says ...

Roman Polanski, who admittedly raped a 13 year old girl, is caught in Zurich and plans are made for him to be brought back to America to face "justice."

Meanwhile, in another part of Switzerland is happy-go-lucky Marc Rich, who made oil deals with Iran at the time they held American hostages, was closely involved with drug trafficking institution Bank of Credit & Commerce International, and took part in several other outrages with tyrants and dictators. He gets a full pardon from Bill Clinton after his ex-wife makes a large contribution to the Democratic Party and Clinton library.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, but justice is more perverted than Polanski's crime could ever be.

comment #76

Travis Crabtree says ...

I don't really get the correlation, George, but I loved the excuse, (however flimsy the premise), to watch the Brasky sketch. Ferrell + fake teeth = wiping spit off my monitor from laughing.

(jeez, Prag... you of all people realize my above post was a put-on, right?)

I'm probably the only person here that really digs that Flughafen Zurich pic above, too.

comment #77

alynch says ...

The man is 76 years old, the woman doesn't want to testify....what more needs to be done to free this man?

He's been free.

comment #78

Griff says ...

Here's an issue where DeathTongue and I completely agree.

An older man drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl.

Those are the facts.

42 days is not an appropriate punishment for that crime.

It's a crime to drug and sodomize 13 year old girls in the USA because a number of people think IT"S A BAD THING and we should discourage it.

As some of the other posters have mentioned, being molested messes with people -- I worked in a drug and alcohol rehab for a while, and many of those individuals had been molested as children.

By the way, forgiveness is about the one doing the forgiving. It's a way of setting yourself free from the prison of hatred and resentment.

But Polanski has not paid for what he did...not by a long shot.

comment #79

agrayesq says ...

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

The complete transcript can be found online.

Jeff... I'm so far left I'm accused of being a communist. This is not only about the victim, but society itself. As statistics have shown, this was probably not the first time he had done this, and he's probably done it since. That wasn't a "deal" he was promised, it was a gift from God. Any judge should have thrown it out. Just because the victim forgave him doesn't mean he should not be held accountable. The people retain that right no matter how the victim feels. Scumbags like him, no matter how old, or talented, or how many perceived hardships, should be punished. We don't have a right to choose our punishment.

comment #80

JeffreySmells says ...

[Deleted for hostility, vulgarity, ugliness, etc. The writer, "JeffreySmells," is banned for life.]

comment #81

MickTravisMcGee says ...

Nice. Nice manners.

comment #82

scooterzz says ...

if victor salva had made 'art films' instead of horror films, you think he might have gotten just 40 days?

comment #83

George Prager says ...

LexG says...

Polanski rules.

Not that I agree with trying to rape a 13 year old girl, but
For me, BEING ENTERTAINING trumps actual morality, of which I have ZERO.

I'm into MOVIES, COMEDY, AND ENTERTAINMENT far more than THE REAL WORLD. Like, if somebody made a movie where Charles Manson was some ass-kicking hero with soaring music and the American flag behind him at all time, I'D BE LIKE, GOOD MOVIE.

Polanski owns. That Sharon Tate chick was HOT AS FUCK, and I don't know why we don't all BOW to this guy. FUCK YEAH, the American dream, rising up and getting some hot tail. Even if he's been in mourning for 40 years, at least he got to bang that chick. That's all that counts. Then he fled to France and he got to bang that chick in FRANTIC who is even HOTTER THAN FUCK and got her to almost rub clam with Kirsten Scott Thomas in BITTER MOON.

BOW to Polanski, BOW!!!!!!

You're not bowing...

comment #84

kneelbeforezod says ...

That Wanted and Desired documentary absolutely fawned over Polanski. Endless, adoring black and white photos of him. Did people think that thing was balanced?

comment #85

jmevans says ...

before you continue to comment, i suggest you read this testimony from the victim. it's the first 36 pages where the girl says what happened.

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

polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. whether this girl's mom sucked is not the issue. whether the judge on the case sucked is not the issue. whether this victim now forgives polanski is not the issue.

the issue is that polanski raped a young girl. he served 42 days in jail, and then fled to france. those are the facts. his trial should have been deemed as corrupt, a new judge should have been appointed to the case, and justice should have been served.

but all these years, it has not. to point out that this case should not finally go forward because the victim forgives polanski or the mother put her daughter in said position is absurd. polanski needs to face serious jail time for the crimes he committed. even at age 76. to say anything to the contrary is just ridiculous and wrong.

comment #86

Famous Mortimer says ...

Isn't there still some ambiguity about who furnished the ludes?

comment #87

Don Murphy says ...

Deathtongue, I DO still feel sorry that no one in the real world loves or cares for you one bit, hence your need for internet vailidation, but Polanski gets a walk.

comment #88

frank_delsa says ...

Do these guys who keep on repeating "rape" realize that the charges against Polanski are "Unlawful sexual act with a minor" and not "rape"? I'm just wondering...

comment #89

Lisa says ...

i'm not reading the previous 80 or so posts cos I'm sure they're full of the calm reasoned debate that can usually be found in these pages but I wanted to clear something up.

Jeff by crap I meant your defence of a paedophile

Bu uninformed I meant that I think you have no understanding of what rape is and the damage and devastation that it causes but you're a guy and most men don't

I understand that your basic point is that he got fucked over and those are the facts he did get messed around by the judge I am not disagreeing with you there

bu you start with the whole aww it happened such a long time ago and the victim says she forgives and people should just get over themselves and he served nearly all his sentence...

and that makes you a defender of paedophiles and I'm pissed at you for that

nothing changes the fact that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl that's a consciously evil act and it's against the law if you were mugged and forgave the guy it would still be against the law

if a catholic priest was in the same position you'd be condemning him too

I mean this time next year Polanski's gonna be shooting his new movie in New York so it's no skin off my nose

it just never fails to amaze me the justifications men make for rapists

comment #90

IngridLives says ...

I think everyone here is MISSING THE POINT.

Here's how it shakes out:

Every day, millions of HELPLESS ANIMALS are drugged, raped and sodomized by Oscar winning film directors and NO ONE CARES. Why, when it happens to a human, do people suddenly care? It makes me SICK.

Pandas, cats, dogs, deer, elephants, rhinos, alligators, snakes, squirrels, mice, sheep, horses, mountain lions, regular lions, tigers, bears, wolves and more are drugged, raped and sodomized by Hollywood elite and others all across the globe, and you people DON'T SAY ANYTHING!

I am sick of this double standard that if some stupid human girl is drugged, raped and sodomized, it is somehow more horrible and outrageous than if it were to happen to a HELPLESS ANIMAL.

The truth is, Roman Polanski should condemn those who wear fur or leather, as well as those who eat meat, keep pets or even look at or think of animals. Only then, will he be forgiven for his crimes. And only then SHOULD he be forgiven for his crimes.

In the end, this story isn't about a fugitive from justice. It's not about a sex crime against a minor. It's not about a world class director. It's not about international political games fucking with the lives of real people. It is about one thing: ANIMALS.

-Ingrid Newkirk
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(But not people, because people are stupid)

comment #91

George Prager says ...

You forgot about the Emus, bitch.

comment #92

bmcintire says ...

Jeff, I am wondering if you'd be defending Polanski if he had the resume of someone like Bob Clark or John Hughes.

comment #93

EdHavens says ...

Here's the problem with this most people's view of this case...

Polanski fled from justice. Regardless of how badly the case may have been handled, Polanski is a fugitive. Even if the case had been resolved thirty years ago, he'd still be a wanted fugitive for fleeing the country. Even if the case was assigned to another judge and he had been fully exonerated of all charges in the rape case, he's still be a wanted fugitive for fleeing the country. That is what he has been arrested for, and rightfully so.

As much as I admire Polanski the filmmaker, Polanski the man never should have fled, and should have come back to America to deal with the consequences of his actions decades ago, long before he started a new family, who will likely never see their father in the light of freedom ever again.

comment #94

DeeZee says ...

Jeff: She seems like she's only forgiven out of the obligation to move on, not because she actually feels that he deserves forgiveness. Anyway, if a judge were to give one deviant leeway because he was rich and/or famous, what would it say about the severity of the crime? People were outraged enough when Paris and Lindsay got one-day stays in prison for a DUI. You think they'd tolerate pedophilia? Like Travis said a while back, karma's a bitch. But if it makes you feel better, you can read about Gaddafi's anti-Swiss rants at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html .

"but if my son had thereafter grown up healthily and said that he's fine and said repeatedly that the perpetrator has suffered enough and that the authorities should let it go already"

I doubt she grew up healthy. She probably can deal with society, now, but that shit's clearly scarred her for life.

"but eventually I found out that this was a man who had a 20-year-old girlfriend when he was 54."

That girl was legal and not raped, though.

"It seems as if she delivered her daughter on a silver plate to a pack of ravenous wolves (because guys at a Hollywood party are always ravenous)...like a goat tied to a pole in the middle of Jurassic Park."

They're ravenous for girls 18+.

"What did Geimer's mother think was going to happen when she dropped Samantha off at Nicholson's?"

I imagine the mother expected she'd be tucked into bed or allowed to stay up late watching tv and eating ice cream.

I will agree that giving the Swiss amnesty on rich tax cheats who raped us of revenue is just as sleazy as what Polanski did, but the only real way to deal with that former problem in the first place is to end the drug war, which is not going to happen anytime soon. But seriously, if Madoff has to do time, so does Roman.

George: "It's probably a good thing for him to come back to the country where his wife was brutally murdered and get this thing over with."

Yeah, and those nazis had it tough after WWI, too...

nemo: I don't know anyone who gets only six weeks in prison for child rape. If O.J. was only in prison for that short a time, people would be calling for Ito's head.

Phatang: Not just drunk. Drugged up. Guy's probably inspired a whole generation of date rapists with his depravity.

Mick: "Lisa, if you really are up on all the facts, you'd know that Geimer's mother DELIVERED her daughter to Polanski. She saw it as an opportunity."

Saw what as an opportunity? He was a celebrity, and she trusted him to baby-sit her child. Christ, MJ was more unstable than Polanski, and yet parents trusted their kids with him for the same reason.

scott: "Might be hard to finish post-production from a jail cell."

If rappers can do it...

julie: "What mother would drop her 13 year old off at Warren Beatty's or Jack Nicholson's house in the middle of the night? "

Someone who thought she could trust them, because they were famous and respectable?

"Samantha Geimer had had sex with three men prior to Polanski, as well as used cocaine and ludes several times prior to meeting Polanski."

But she did those things on her own. She was not sodomized against her will.

Kristopher: "How is there wiggle room there?"

Um, poor choice of words.

Hallick: "And that bitch should've been jailed her own damn self for the parental neglect and child endangerment."

Bullshit. If your kid can't be trusted with big-name celebrities, who can be trusted to take care of 'em?

mike: "This is not about what Polanski did or did not do, it's about you and your feelings toward some older person who did you wrong in your life. Please take responsibility for your feelings."

I love the irony of you asking someone else to take responsibility while letting Polanski off the hook.

"There is no magical accounting ledger that turns this into a zero sum, if we punish him, it will undo what was done to her."

We fucking know that. But by that logic, anyone who rapes a child should be allowed back on to the street for a month.

"How about when a prosecutor gets a conviction without regard for justice, just to pad his stats, or some judge trying to make a name, and is later determined to have wrongfully convicted, should that prosecutor not have to finish out the sentence of the wrongfully convicted?"

Um, no. Just because they fuck up the procedures does not mean that the defendant's rights were violated in the process, if they got their fair trial.

"Is there no consideration for what happened to this man only a few years before this incident?"

There was until he did what he did.

"When a soldier fresh home from some war goes PTSD nuts on his family, would we all say he needs to pay?"

By that logic, we should forgive McVeigh.

lip: "But one of the things I was raised to believe is there's no crime, no matter how awful, that justifies violating the due process of law, and the judge in this case, in my opinion, violated due process."

Did Polanski give a fuck about due process of the girl's rights when he fled the country?

Chicago: "what more needs to be done to free this man?"

The guy's been free for thirty years.

buster: First off, Reagan did business with Iran, drug-dealers, and dictators, too. And the only reason anyone has it in for him was because he was pardoned under the Clinton administration, since those same people didn't seem to mind when Ford and Bush pardoned everyone involved in Watergate and Iran/Contra. But even so, Rich's antics do not let Polanski off the hook. If the guy wants to buy his way out of prison, too, it's his prerogative, but no one's going to like him any more than they did O.J.

George: "For me, BEING ENTERTAINING trumps actual morality,"

Then why did you vote for Obama when you could have another four years of Republican wise-cracks?

comment #95

Flash Gordon says ...

Lisa, they're called "periods" for God's sake. And I don't mean the menstrual cycle you're apparently going through. It's what goes at the end of a sentence.

comment #96

ErrantElan says ...

If a crackwhore trailer park mother offered up her 13 year old daughter to a redneck in the neighboring trailer in return for money or drugs, no one on this board would have any sympathy whatsoever for said redneck.

These things are always about class. Polanski, as an artistic, cosmopolitan, wealthy celebrity is above the law to those that admire him. He can't be "that bad", surely, and why should things like this be punished?

There's no reasoning with despicable moral jackals. People who rationalize and justify child rape (regardless of how that child feels when she grows up - how legally, morally, and ethically preposterous!) have no sense of genuine inner empathy, or indeed intellect.

comment #97

Glenn Kenny says ...

"There's no reasoning with despicable moral jackals"= "Look at me, everybody! I'm NOT a despicable moral jackal!"

Yes, ErrantElan. We already knew that. But congratulations anyway.

comment #98

Kristopher Tapley says ...

Absolutely idiotic logic, Wells. Blame isn't to be shifted in a scenario like this. Perhaps shared. But if you think Polanski should be deemed an innocent beyond reproach because a steak was dangled in front of him, you have monstrous consideration for right and wrong.

C'mon, indeed.

comment #99

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

(apologies to those who'd rather go back and forth defending or attacking the child rapist Polanski)

"feel sorry that no one in the real world loves or cares for you one bit, hence your need for internet vailidation"

Don Murphy - seeing that most personal attacks of this nature usually revel far more about the attacker than he intended, yes it's sad indeed that even with your "success" you still feel the need to spend an alarming amount of time it seems online in pissing contests.

In a way, what you said is akin to the truth - I'm a married guy with 2 daughters, so I do spend time online discussing film because it's the easiest outlet.

Perhaps you need a dog...

comment #100

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Did I say Polanski was an innocent beyond reproach in this matter? I just said don't call Samantha Geimer of 1976 a "little girl" like she's Dorothy Gale from Kansas. And I said that the mom bears, I feel, the primary responsibility. She was the enabler of the situation. Polanski did the deed and there's no shillly-shallying around that. But...aaah, I could also do a whole song-and-dance about the '70s and the sexual atmosphere back then with quaaludes in the mix. Tell me, Kris...when and if they put the 76 year-old Polanski behind bars, would you like to be the jailer who turns the key and then slams the cell door shut? Would that give you some kind of primal satisfaction? To punish the evil dwarf who defiled pure-as-the-driven-snow Dorothy Gale by giving her quaaludes and then having her back-door style?

comment #101

flashman says ...

As Jeff reminds us, rape is only a misdemeanor if the victim's a slut. I believe the technical legal term for this doctrine is "blaming the victim."

comment #102

flashman says ...

BTW, for those who aren't sick of this tiresome debate, Patrick Goldstein's "Big Picture" column presents a particularly irritating false moral equivalence:

"[Polanski] was a fugitive as a boy and is now a fugitive as an old man. ... The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn't enough."

"Snubbed"? "Confronted"? Oh, the horror! First, the Nazis persecuted Polanski, and killed his family members, just because he was Jewish. And now, the California authorities are pursuing him, just because he raped a teenager and then fled the country.

comment #103

LFF says ...

I personally don't give a flying F whether Polanski is in jail, free, or whatever for rest of his life, but I am highly offended by this statement:

"Being a victim of rape is never "over and done with". Ask any therapist."

It is incredibly irresponsible and offensive to suggest that it is impossible to "get over" a sexual assualt. It is that very attitude: viewing a survivor as somehow "damaged goods" that is likely a greater contributing factor to establishing healthy relationships for people who've had that trauma. It is absolutely possible to be "over done with" a sexual assualt and to move on with your life.
I suspect if you are suggesting otherwise, you have a financial stake (probably in billable hours) that you are using to exploit - and dare I say- victimize further- a survivor.

comment #104

Hallick says ...

"But...aaah, I could also do a whole song-and-dance about the '70s and the sexual atmosphere back then with quaaludes in the mix."

What was it that all the 44-year-old filmmakers were fond of saying back then? "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to feed a 'lude and sodomize"? Or was it more like, "If there's grass on the field, fuck her ass, cop a feel"?

If you're a 44-year-old man who goes and fucks with apparent premeditation a 13-year-old girl under, at best, some deeply disturbing circumstances, you were, also at best, a ginormously STUPID horndog who shouldn't be trusted around his own penis.

comment #105

JCEFalconi says ...

Regarding "Little girl".

In what way is her being "little" or not, relevant?

to synthesize the argument andI use "little" and not "little girl" since we can all agree she was a girl.Or who knows, maybe we can switch it around, maybe we can already consider a 13 year old a woman, and argue if she was "little" or not, how tall was she? how much did she weight. Of course it's pointless, since she couldn't have been able to fight off the weakest, shortest rapist since she was high on pills.

Reading the comments, it seems like the strategy is to condemn people's supposed incontrollable anger at a stranger. It's probably the best one (better than arguing about the victim and family's moral background at least), since the only way you can argue for the man is to shift attention away from the fact we all agreed to live in a society with laws. Any clemency for Polanski should've come from the State not from within.

comment #106

Kristopher Tapley says ...

"would you like to be the jailer who turns the key and then slams the cell door shut?"

This is silly grand-standing on your part. Have a conversation. This has nothing to do with me and what would make ME feel better and everything to do with, frankly, your hypocritical stand on this.

Should I ask the same of you and your Michael Jackson persecution, as others have indicated?

Additionally, you clearly must be an "if there's grass on the field, play ball" kind of guy given your repetition of the mantra "she wasn't a little girl in the such-and-such sense of the word." And that's, I'm sorry, a little sick and unbecoming of you.

Man up and admit you have it in for Jackson due to issues with his place in pop culture and your own distaste, ick factor, whatever, concerning mere allegations, but because you have respect for Polanski as an artist, he gets a free pass for also being a (proven) predator -- in his own way.

comment #107

Noiresque says ...

So much for Swiss neutrality!

comment #108

hardlanding says ...

1. The "she was a slut, what did she expect" argument.

Hard to believe that Jeff is in the same camp as Dr. Laura, who also espouses that theory.

That's like saying that Matthew Shepard deserved it, because what did he expect, walking into a roughneck bar in Wyoming, while being gay?

2. The "but it was so long ago, we should put it behind us" argument.

The man fled from the law. The fact that he was successful in eluding capture for 30 years doesn't give him a special get-out-of-jail free prize.

It's like saying "we should stop looking for Osama bin Laden, because after all, that was 9 years ago, can't we just move past it?". Or those Nazi war criminals who fled to Brazil - hey, good job, guys, you sure outsmarted us!

3. The "judicial misconduct" argument.

Like it or not, the judge has every right to discard a plea deal up until the moment it's finalized. If it's true he illegally spoke with a prosecutor during this time (which is the basis of the misconduct claims), it might invalidate the plea deal, but that shouldn't protect Polanski from having a trial.

4. The "but the judge was a playboy with a 20-year old wife" argument.

So? Geez, talk about grasping at straws.

5. The "but look at how much tragedy he's had in his life" argument.

Did you use this same argument for Charles Manson? He had a terrible childhood, maybe we should have been easier on him?

6. The "but she forgives him" argument.

Yes, she's probably been through a hell of a lot of therapy to be able to say that. Jaycee Dugard doesn't hold ill will against Phillip Garrido, her captor, because after all, he's the father of her children. Should we be more lenient to him?

Or maybe if only Polanski would be as noble to Manson, and publicly forgive him, the way Samantha Gailey did for Polanski - maybe then, finally, poor Mr. Manson, who did that crime *so many years ago*, would finally be given parole. (I mean, can't we move past it?)

Boy, if you want to get away with something in America, just make sure you're a celebrity in Hollywood, make sure you're a white male, and make sure you look good in a tux on award night. I was glad someone else pointed out the hypocrisy of the "it's terrible what they're doing to poor Mr. Polanski, but that Michael Jackson was a monster" logic. You want equality of justice, except when it's someone you know/admire/worship.

comment #109

Krillian says ...

Roman Polanski is talented, rich and famous. He should therefore get away with it. But if a middle-management Joe Nobody drugged, raped and sodomized a 13-year-girl, he should get twenty years. Especially if he has a mustache.

comment #110

The Hoyk says ...

To paraphrase Dave Chappelle, how old is 13?

comment #111

K. Bowen says ...

Jeff, would you care to elucidate exactly under what circumstances you feel it is OK to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl?

Does she have to wear pigtails to be protected by the law? Does she have to wear pigtails all the time, or can she occasionally go outside with her hair down?

How high up is she allowed to wear a skirt? Her knee? Is it above the knee or below the knee? What if it's below the knee but when she sits down it goes slightly above the knee? What then? In said situation, should the law allow for drugging and anal rape when she's sitting but not standing?

Does the director have to be famous? If so, how famous? Does a TV director get an exemption? Even if it's The Sopranos?

What if her boyfriend wants to go see The Cove but she talks him out of it and they go see a dumb rom-com, instead?

comment #112

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

K. Bowen, last but

FOR. THE. WIN.

comment #113

va says ...

What bothers me most about Jeff's post is the "largely discredited" phrase. How is this rape "largely discredited?" As a man who's raised daughters, if that was my 13-year-old, and any man had done that to her, he would have been dealt with before the the "it" in "I did it" came out of his mouth.
Shame on you Jeff for having the same chauvinistic sensibilities as all of those red-state knuckle draggers you slam. There are no mitigiating circumstances here - he raped that child, case closed. Oh- and the mother should burn too....

comment #114

bluetide says ...

What Polanski did was reprehensible, even within the context of very different sexual mores at the time. That said, the only opinion on this issue that matters to me is the opinion of the victim. She does not believe Roman Polanski deserves to suffer any more than he already has. He has lived in exile for decades. Under normal circumstances, I would not consider that adequate punishment but I was not the one raped. Considering his life story, I imagine he has a fairly good case for not guilty by mental defect if it ever makes it to that point.

comment #115

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to va: I meant that the case has been largely discredited by proven prosecutorial misconduct, as well as relegated to the "over and done with" file by the victim herself having said she forgives Polanski, that he's been punished enough, and that it's been 31 years and time to let it go. There's also something fetishistic about this case for some people -- a weirdly lopsided and timeless vengeance that they feel about it. Something oddly primal. Some kind of metaphor they're reading into it.

Wells to K. Bowen: Would you care to elucidate exactly where in these various postings I have even hinted that it's okay to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl? I simply took objection to Kris Tapley's describing Samantha Geimer as a classically proportioned "little girl" at the time. And I've explained it to death by now and have to move on to other things.

comment #116

Gogocrank says ...

"Polanski did the deed and there's no shillly-shallying around that. But...aaah, I could also do a whole song-and-dance about the '70s and the sexual atmosphere back then with quaaludes in the mix."

Hint: Your "hint" that it's okay to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl begins somewhere around the word "but." I mean, I understand what you're getting at but it still doesn't make it right. There are any number of horrible things that were tacitly accepted in this country for years, from rampant drunk driving to spouse abuse, but the fact that we've wised up and moved on doesn't make it forgivable. Point being, what Polanski did was never acceptable, not even in the wild and wooly '70s.

comment #117

frank_delsa says ...

By the way, first reactions from the entertainment community. Harvey Weinstein, Monica Bellucci and Mike Medavoy all expressed their support to Polanski.

http://www.filmshaft.com/polanski-watch-day-one/

comment #118

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"The law doesn't take into account victim's forgiveness."

I think 99% of the time, this should be unabashedly true. But in this one particular case, given a) the legal shenanigans, b) the time that has since expired since the allegations, c) the time actually served by Polanski, d) his clean record before and since the event (i.e. this event has been, legally speaking, an anomaly in his life), and e) the forgiveness the victim has expressed toward her perpetrator, wouldn't it just be a legitimate legal decision for everyone involved to just move the hell on with their lives?

Exactly what are we even punishing anymore? I believe the law should be allowed to bend for extenuating circumstances, otherwise we will literally become slaves to the laws we've created.

"It's stuff like that this that makes me ashamed to be an American. The man is 76 years old, the woman doesn't want to testify....what more needs to be done to free this man?"

Precisely. Show me a person that has a very strong opinion opinion for his punishment, and I'll show you a person that has some sort of strong unresolved emotional vendetta of their own (not saying they shouldn't, just sayin').

comment #119

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Because he did plead guilty, what kind of precedent would that set if he was let go? The most just course of action seems to be a retrial, and if a jury decides the mitigating evidence of the past three decades is enough reason to acquit him, then fine, let that decision stand. But if what Polanski did was wrong, and he's absolved sans trial, what of the next person who does what he did? It's a legal mess."

So was his lack of due process. There aren't going to be any legal precedents set here. Not after that.

comment #120

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Jeff... I'm so far left I'm accused of being a communist. This is not only about the victim, but society itself."

Is it, though? To me, it seems like one of the crimes least about the rest of society, and almost entirely about the victim. And even if it was about society to any small degree, it was about society over 30 years ago.

"We don't have a right to choose our punishment. "

We certainly don't (thankfully!), but is a judge really qualified more qualified than Geimer to hand down an appropriate "punishment," having not actually been in the room at the time with the perpetrator? I'm not entirely certain myself, but I think in a case where so much time has passed, and the victim has forgiven and doesn't wish to testify in a re-trial, shouldn't the law at least be willing to grant these wishes?

comment #121

MovieBob says ...

Wells
"There's also something fetishistic about this case for some people -- a weirdly lopsided and timeless vengeance that they feel about it. Something oddly primal. Some kind of metaphor they're reading into it."

It's called "Class Warfare." NOBODY 'likes' a rapist, statuatory or otherwise, but the folks who're "fixated" on Polanski are so because of the symbolism; i.e. "the rich" or "the elite" being able to "get away" with anything they want.

comment #122

Katie says ...

RAPE IS RAPE.

PERIOD.

NO EXCUSES.

NO JUSTIFICATIONS.

YOU RAPE A CHILD.

YOU PAY FOR IT.

IN YEARS IN JAIL.

NOT DAYS.

WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS WIFE AND UNBORN CHILD IS DEVASTATING.

BUT IT DID NOT FORCE HIM TO DRUG AND SODOMIZE A LITTLE GIRL.

HE COULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO HARM HER.

HE CHOSE TO HARM HER.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW DEVASTATING RAPE IS.

REAL JUSTICE WOULD BE IF HE WERE DRUGGED AND RAPED IN RETURN.

BUT INSTEAD, HE JUST HAS TO SERVE TIME.

YES THERE IS CORRUPTION IN THE SYSTEM.

IT DOES NOT ABSOLVE HIM OF RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD.

THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ABSOLVE IT, IS TO NOT RAPE A 13 YEAR OLD.

HE CHOSE TO RAPE HER.

HE MUST PAY FOR IT.

THE SYSTEM'S CORRUPTION IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT

DOES

NOT

UNDO

THE

RAPE

OF

A

13

YEAR

OLD

GIRL.