comment #1

Alboone says ...

Its official. The Pro-Polanskis in this town look like straight up cliche laden liberal doofuses. After reading the Geimer interrogation transcripts I really hope that little polish prick gets a "welcoming" colonic in the showers over in San Quentin.

comment #2

Bilge says ...

Repeat after me, folks: "Just because I saw a documentary does not mean I know all the facts of this case."

comment #3

DarienStyles says ...

I'm not happy with the destruction of a man I consider to be a genius. No one is above the law. Not even those we consider to be art gods.

comment #4

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"It's obviously a mortar shell intended to make the pro-Polanski (or forgive-Polanski) side look bad."

No, I think downplaying or outright denying he drugged and raped a child pretty much does that, easily.

comment #5

George Prager says ...

Alboone (another HE commenter unknown to me until now) hopes a 76 year-old man (or, as he calls him "that little polish prick") gets raped in prison.

Well, Alboone, if that's what gets you hot, you're a consenting adult...take out the KY and go for it.

comment #6

stillwater says ...

Jesus Christ, I think I'm going to have stop reading this blog until the Polanski thing blows over. Enough already

comment #7

Alboone says ...

Did you read the transcript Prager? Read it and come back with another snarky remark you pompous douchebag. He raped a 13 year old girl. Do you know what that means? There's no level of punishment that would befit this troll of a man.

comment #8

Zach says ...

In a sensible world, this new development shouldn't matter. Yes, the law says that he should be tried. But if you look further than that, to why the concept of law exists in the first place, you will see that the law's basic purpose of achieving the greater good is, in this particular instance, doing just the opposite.

comment #9

caslab says ...

speaking of trolls.

comment #10

George Prager says ...

Alboone, we all have our fetishes. You have chosen to make yours public. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

comment #11

alynch says ...

I wrote Zenovich for a comment and she didn't reply. She really needs to put her notes and recollections on the line and set things straight.

How exactly can Zenovich refute this? If it's just a matter of the prosecutor saying one thing then and a different thing now, then there's probably not any objective way of knowing which one is true.

comment #12

adorian says ...

I can already imagine the movie that could be made out of this case...a Then-versus-Now story. It has to be done by Woody Allen. An older director lusts after a Lolita nymphette. Yes, I want Woody Allen to make this as his next film, not a comedy, but a Crimes and Misdemeanors drama.

It's a pity Altman isn't still around to do it... with an ensemble cast of dozens, all of them talking at once and not really communicating.

comment #13

Ponderer says ...

Is it just me that sees the irony of both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow strongly defending Polanski?

comment #14

George Prager says ...

Right now, Alboone is fantasizing about a Polanski/Pat Morita/Abe Vigoda three-way.

comment #15

jimtheindiefilmmaker says ...

Hithcock should be brought back from the dead to make this movie because he always used what he called a "macguffin," and in this case the "macguffin" is the rape. This isn't about rape anymore; it's about the absurdity of the American (esp. the California) Judicial system. They've had 30 years to "nab" Polanski and didn't vigorously pursue the matter; now, suddenly, with the state's economy crashing and other more pressing criminal cases pending, Polanski becomes the most important judicial issue. The only thing worse than this is the puritanical hysteria emoting from the people of America - my God, how embarrassing it is to realize what the rest of the world must think of us and our so-called "democracy."

comment #16

Alboone says ...

Right now Prager's wishing he had a point. Sorry but I hate to say it but you really are nothing more than a load that should've been swallowed. You're probably texing Polanski asking him for pointers on getting up. Get a life.

comment #17

sashastone says ...

I really don't buy the "I lied" thing. No way to prove it. But I do agree that just because the documentary says so doesn't make it true. Samantha Geimer is the only person anyone should be listening to - and she seems to be the last person anyone will listen to.

comment #18

b1ffbolt says ...

Zach: "you will see that the law's basic purpose of achieving the greater good is, in this particular instance, doing just the opposite."

Why? Because the concept that 'no man, however rich or famous, is beyond the law' is a bad thing? Or because it sets a bad precedent that getting away with a crime for long enough amounts to a Get Out Of Jail Free card?

I don't particularly care if Polanski serves a day in an American prison or not. All I ask is that due process be properly served. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice, however lax the LA judicial system has been about pursuing the matter the past few decades.

comment #19

great scott says ...

The man has had to live in France for 31 years. Hasn't he suffered enough?

comment #20

Gordon27 says ...

"wanted to compromise the integrity of Zenovich's doc"

Didn't the documentary compromise its own integrity? I mean, I don't even like the idea of setting out to make a "documentary" when you have already decided on the conclusion, as Zenovich clearly did, but, in this case, this is a documentary that had to be re-edited post-premiere to remove libellous content. Once that happens, and the bias is nakedly exposed, how can anybody take that documentary remotely seriously? I mean, I know people do, because pretty much 100% of the obfuscation and outright wrong information Polanski defenders are spewing comes either directly from it or second-hand. I just don't understand how people accept it without even thinking twice.

comment #21

Ponderer says ...

"Samantha Geimer is the only person anyone should be listening to - and she seems to be the last person anyone will listen to."

THANK YOU.

comment #22

Ponderer says ...

"I just don't understand how people accept it without even thinking twice."

Because the VICTIM says it's the truth:

"I didn't think somebody could make it that interesting. I'm glad [director Marina Zenovich] put the truth of the way it happened out there, because I don't want to have to tell people. It's nice that she went ahead and did it, so people can know the truth and I can just go, 'It's a great movie!'"

comment #23

Gordon27 says ...

With no disrespect towards Ms. Geimer intended, I question her legal expertise to make such a statement about incidents she was not party to.

comment #24

Ponderer says ...

Well, we don't know what she was party to. I would assume that she would be an expert in her own case by now, and at the very least, the prosecution would have kept the family very detailed about the intricacies and status of the case as it was going on.

She certainly couldn't speak to Polanski's motives or anything on the defense side, but I feel pretty sure she's an authority on the events and maneuverings that went on. She was young, admittedly, but even just prepping for the civil case, she must've been privy to a lot of information. A lot more than any of us have, I'm quite sure.

If someone was openly lying or deliberately slanting it towards Polanski, I think she would've been the first one to flag it down.

comment #25

Gordon27 says ...

"Well, we don't know what she was party to."

And yet you're willing to accept a layman's interpretation of the legal events over the word of actual lawyers involved. Man, the contortions you have to go through to defend Polanski must make your spine hurt.

"If someone was openly lying or deliberately slanting it towards Polanski, I think she would've been the first one to flag it down."

I'm going to ignore your assumption of her motives (even though she has stated her motives, and they have nothing to do with rigorously prosecuting Polanski) and just point out that you're arguing that 'Wanted and Desired' was not deliberately slanted towards Polanski, which goes against every statement the director herself ever made on the subject.

comment #26

Zach says ...

To b1ffbolt: Because this whole fiasco works against the wishes/general interests of the relevant parties involved. Mr. Polanski wants it to be done with. Mrs. Geimer wants it to be done with. So let's be done with it already. Forget legality, whatever happened to common sense?

comment #27

Gordon27 says ...

"Mr. Polanski wants it to be done with."

That's false. He wants to ignore it. He had 32 years to return to the country if he wanted to put it behind him.

"whatever happened to common sense?"

So you're saying that it's common sense that if a rich rapist decides that he'd rather spend the rest of his life in France rather than spend any time in jail, the legal system should accept that and not pursue punishing him for his crimes?

I don't think that sense is as common as you think it is.

comment #28

George Prager says ...

I don't think anyone should be raped.
So let's recap:

George Prager: Anti-Rape

Alboone: Pro-Rape

comment #29

Ponderer says ...

"And yet you're willing to accept a layman's interpretation of the legal events over the word of actual lawyers involved."

Okay. Then please point out to me where her interpretation and that of the lawyers differ. In the film, everyone appears largely on the same page - he raped her and he drugged her. So if you have information about where their interpretation of events differ, I am honestly open to hearing about discrepancies. Educate me.

I will clarify on the Polanski thing, because you've made a fair point. The film may very well be slanted towards Polanski. But if she says she believes her side was fairly represented, then I think we - who are at best casual observers of this thing, and not people who have lived it for thirty years - should give the benefit of the doubt. Is that such a crime?

If it is, then II feel sad, because this is what I'm talking about. The victim doesn't get an opinion. Or it's tainted. Or it's irrelevant. Every time that the victim's statements, wishes, insights and thoughts are expressed, someone finds a way to invalidate them.

comment #30

Ponderer says ...

"That's false. He wants to ignore it. He had 32 years to return to the country if he wanted to put it behind him."

Agreed. Or at least, he's ignored it since 1997, when the new judge said that he would drop the case if Polanski would just agree to return and have a televised hearing. If the threat of a crooked judge is what drove him away, there should've been no excuse at that point.

comment #31

nemo says ...

"How exactly can Zenovich refute this? If it's just a matter of the prosecutor saying one thing then and a different thing now, then there's probably not any objective way of knowing which one is true."

Give me a break. Former prosecutor David Wells now realizes that what he told director Marina Zenovich about himself and Judge Rittenband makes both him and Rittenband look bad. So now he claims he was lying.

Your mother wouldn't believe that kind of back-pedaling bullshit from you when you were a teenager. Why should we believe that kind of back-pedaling bullshit from that former prosecutor now?

comment #32

Zach says ...

"That's false. He wants to ignore it. He had 32 years to return to the country if he wanted to put it behind him."

I was talking about the incident as a whole, not his legal obligations.

"So you're saying that it's common sense that if a rich rapist decides that he'd rather spend the rest of his life in France rather than spend any time in jail, the legal system should accept that and not pursue punishing him for his crimes?"

First of all, what does Mr. Polanski's wealth have to do with anything? Second, the law is - rather, should be - merely a backbone for all courses of judicial action. The written law in this case, as it is unsusceptible to change, cannot perceive of the moral ambiguity involved in a situation like this, and therefore will triumph in all arguments.

What I'm saying is that we should look past this legal fait accompli, and consider instead the more pertinent issue: the greater good of all involved parties.

comment #33

nemo says ...

"Your mother wouldn't believe that kind of back-pedaling bullshit from you when you were a teenager. Why should we believe that kind of back-pedaling bullshit from that former prosecutor now?"

Even more to the point, why should the judge who will hear Polanski's case in the near future believe this former prosecutor's back-pedaling bullshit?

comment #34

va says ...

I would really like to see a post on Whoopi Goldberg's comments on "The View" ... you know, the it's not really "rape" stuff....

comment #35

Mowkeka says ...

[Mowkeka is a dead man as of this evening. -- Jeffrey Wells]

comment #36

George Prager says ...

If anyone can find a film-related comment by Mowkeka, I'd love to read it.

comment #37

DeeZee says ...

(George Prager) Oh, and Madoff should go free, too, 'cus he's also old.

jim: Actually, they did pursue the case. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/dogged_hunt_for_polanski_kk3CB5q1NwHVQkCLx87SlM And the fact that Arnie mismanaged the state doesn't mean cops shouldn't still be able to do their jobs. Should we forget about Klan members who may have gotten away with murder, too?

Zach: "the greater good of all involved parties."

How about the greater good of current and future victims like Geiner?

comment #38

DeeZee says ...

Anyway, http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/polanski-would-face-tougher-prosecution-today-ap

comment #39

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Nemo - you do understand that Wells wasn't connected to the case at the time, right?

You do further understand that a plea arrangement can be revoked by the presiding judge up until the sentencing, yes? Polanski's lawyers got wind that the judge was MAYBE going to revoke the deal and because of that Polanski decided to then commit an entirely new crime by fleeing. Polanski was free to demand a full trial in lieu of any plea arrangement that was revoked.

But he knew a full trail would end with him doing serious time for a crime he obviously committed and he decided to run instead of deal with the consequences of his actions.

In the end, I think all the protests and petitions are going to cause this to become even worse for Polanski. Had he simply agreed to quickly come back and face the music, it might have been dismissed. But the more attention it receives because of the celebrities defending him, the more the original case comes to light & the obscene nature of the plea deal in light of what was rape-rape of a child, there's a good chance Roman Polanski might never see freedom again.

So keep it up, defenders. You're just helping to stir up public sentiment against him.

comment #40

Zach says ...

How about the greater good of current and future victims like Geiner [sic]?

I think we can all agree that Mr. Polanski's circumstances are unique, to say the least, and that future cases of child molestation won't be affected by how this turns out. Plus, if Mrs. Geimer herself can forgive him, then so, I think, can victims unrelated.

comment #41

Ponderer says ...

"But the more attention it receives because of the celebrities defending him, the more the original case comes to light & the obscene nature of the plea deal in light of what was rape-rape of a child, there's a good chance Roman Polanski might never see freedom again."

I don't understand this line of thought at all. When Polanski pled, the family specifically asked that he serve no jail time. That's why the prosecution agreed to it. If you're upset with that, talk to the family.

Since the trial was avoided and the name of the victim was not going to be dragged through the mud, they could have certainly made it plain to the D.A. that they wanted incarceration. Polanski had no recourse after the prosecution uncovered the physical evidence. That's the whole reason he pled in the first place.

The point is, if you're going to scream at the system, scream at the system that acted on the wishes of the family first and foremost.

My feeling is this: Polanski served his agreed-upon time, agreed-upon by judge, prosecutor, defense and family. They signed off. They want it over. I agree.

I also believe that he needs to be tried in France for fleeing; what you said about this being an entirely new crime is absolutely correct. There was no need for a new trial as the D.A. was willing to expose the judge for his various actions (though it's unclear if Polanski's attorney communicated this).

(Also, for those defending the judge, please note that he made all sorts of dubious motions FOR Polanski until the media heat got hot. He was suggesting all sorts of ways that they could fool the public so they believed Polanski was getting more punishment than he was actually getting. There's a reason both sides came to completely mistrust this guy.)

comment #42

Bobby Cooper Superior says ...

I was once known as Famous Mortimer but was banned for comparing the pitchfork-types to the pigs who enjoy getting in the mud. Prager, Majorian, and others have a good attitude in the face of all this righteousness. Whether Polanski is an artist or not, I don't feel good about a criminal justice system that calls a man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a shaky 30 year old official statement, the only major documentary evidence in the case, that the witness herself has revised several times over the years.

comment #43

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I dunno. I mean, fuck, Wells. Like honestly, I am a fan of the site and everything. Yet I genuinely honestly believe that the past few days have seen the absolute worst of your elitist principles come to the forefront. And now watching you kind of bend over backwards in trying to forgive this motherfucker is pretty much dreadful stuff. But like a moron I will continue to read this site, because ultimately it is more clickable than your average movie blog. But fuck, man. Some day you're surely going to regret becoming Jeff Wells: Agent Provocateur rather than Jeff Wells: Film Journalist, no matter how many extra ad dollars it brings you.

I mean, whatever. It's your site, etc. Just so disappointing.

comment #44

mtgilchrist says ...

Zach, where's the "moral ambiguity" in this case? Is it where Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old? Or fled the country to avoid prosecution?

comment #45

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I'm getting a little sick of you too, Wonky Donkey. Why don't you just take off if you're so distressed? I've said over and over what I feel and believe about this matter, and I'm not going to repeat it again because it's coming out of my ears. But what I feel and believe is valid and legitimate and honorable. And I am obviously not alone. If my views disturb you, take a hike and have a nice life. You'll be fine. But I'm getting really sick of your lamentations.

comment #46

Geoff says ...

I heard some of David Wells on talk radio today. He just wanted to "puff up" the piece because he didn't think it was going to play in the states or anywhere besides France television.

He was first contacted by someone by the name of Lyla, which he says he remember because it's his mother's name. She apparently told him it's something that's being shot for television, but they're also looking to sell it.

When asked why he would do that, he let it slip that the whole documentary was a joke in his view - or something to that effect. He admits that it was a mistake and he's going to be paying a price, etc.

Even the radio guys weren't sure what to make of it. He could've easily been throwing himself under the bus - probably to discredit the film.

comment #47

Bobby Cooper Superior says ...

However David Wells wants to recharacterize his relationship with the judge to the benefit of the prosecution's case at present, it was far too chummy for the judge to be considered neutral and detached. David Wells' public recanting seems like more of a tactic to help his team in a matter he no doubt lives to see decided his way - "the right way."

comment #48

Wiggumx says ...

"If anyone can find a film-related comment by Mowkeka, I'd love to read it."

A-fucking-men, Prager. Has Mowkeka ever posted about movies on this movie site?

Wells comment: Mowkeka is a dead man as of this evening.

comment #49

Irving Thalberg says ...

Honorable, Jeff? Your point of view can be called many things, even by yourself, but-- Wow.

The rape, the flight from justice, the lack of resolution for thirty years, the arrest on Saturday, none of these things can be undone. Maybe a blatantly obvious point but one worth making because each and every one of those regrettable events stem from the actions of one man. A supremely gifted filmmaker, yes, but also, no matter how you slice it, a child-rapist, a criminal, a fugitive.

I'd find it a lot easier to swallow the cries for mercy from your crowd if the accused was showing any kind of contrition. The victim has forgiven him for his actions, yes, but the criminal continues to act like that petulant child who broke the rules and wants to evade his punishment on any technicality he can think of.

He fled justice for thirty years and when he finally got caught, instead of holding his head high and saying, "You know what? You got me. Have I been treated fairly throughout this case? No. But that's the risk one takes when one breaks the law. And if I want forgiveness, dispensation, if I want to prove my worth, why I deserve to be a free man, I should do it head held high, in person, in the place where I (and I alone) started this tragedy to begin with."

Polanski began this, Jeff. Polanski can end it. But instead, he's hiding behind walls of lawyers on two continents, jumping through semantic hoops to explain why, after fleeing the system for three decades, he shouldn't even be extradited.

If Roman returned to Los Angeles and swallowed his medicine like a man and your crowd gathers to hold up your FREE POLANSKI signs then? Fine.

But that's not what he's doing. As of this minute, the Polanski of 2009 is proving himself to the same sort of coward he was in 1978.

So yeah, until he changes his tune, calling your stance "honorable" is, at best, a joke.

Let's be clear. I'll admit for the millionth time here and now, Polanski has gone through unspeakable hardship in his life. He's not been treated fairly throughout this case. But that doesn't erase the fact that his actions of 1978 and his actions of this week are the actions of a coward.

Which means one of two things about those supporting him. Either you've lost your collective moral compass or you're a gathering of saps. P.T. Barnum would be lining his pockets with this crowd, my friend.

comment #50

wwlkd says ...

uh-oh, Roman:
"French drop Polanski release call"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
"French support softens for Polanski"
http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE58T7VA20090930
even the Polish Prime Minister is now hedging: "The case involves a great director but still, it is also a case of rape, of sex with a child."

comment #51

Gordon27 says ...

Zach - you're response was quite civil, so I'm chiming in though it's a bit after the fact.

"I was talking about the incident as a whole, not his legal obligations."

Oh, that does make more sense, but it's a pretty specious argument. Polanski wants the incident put to rest, but does not want to actually have to do anything in order to put the incident to rest. The whole reason that he became a fugitive from justice was because he was being denied a "right" which he had imagined that he had because he's famous, the right to dictate his own punishment. He continues to act as if he has the right to dictate his own punishment, or lack thereof. It's a pretty unsupportable position.

"First of all, what does Mr. Polanski's wealth have to do with anything?"

What does his wealth have to do with his ability to flee the country and defy punishment? His wealth is the reason for his ability to flee the country and defy punishment, as well as one reason that he got as cushy a plea bargain as he did, so it seems pretty tied to the whole thing.

"Second, the law is - rather, should be - merely a backbone for all courses of judicial action. The written law in this case, as it is unsusceptible to change, cannot perceive of the moral ambiguity involved in a situation like this, and therefore will triumph in all arguments."

But you're the person who is arguing that the law should be entirely ignored and that the correct judicial action is inaction.

And when you say "moral ambiguity", there is no moral ambiguity about the crimes Polanski has committed. There are questions which need to be brought up about things which Polanski's lawyers allege occurred, that's true. But, as you say, there is a path for that, and the path is "judicial action", not "fleeing the country out of fear of punishment for a crime I definitely committed".

"What I'm saying is that we should look past this legal fait accompli, and consider instead the more pertinent issue: the greater good of all involved parties."

The problem with your argument is that it exists in a moral vacuum, where nothing is related in any way to anything greater than itself. So, when you speak of the "greater good", you are speaking what two people want (well, really, you're spinning what the victim has professed to want, but that doesn't matter; I'll stipulate that for the purposes of this post). That's how you define the greater good.

I define the greater good a little broader; I think the greater good in this case includes thousands of unnamed rape victims who have to be counselled every year, who can't bring themselves to even testify against the man who raped them because they don't want to relive it, and because they've seen this society at large. They've seen that rape convictions float at something like 9%, and that defense attorneys in rape cases are basically required to try and sully the victim's reputation as much as is possible to show how she not only asked for it, but she goddamn well deserved it!

I'm not going to rant at length about the various statistics of rape; my point is, Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. The system, as it is set up, did a lot to ruin her life, and, as is all too common, the end result was that he was walking free anyway. But, now, after a long time, he isn't running free.

The "greater good" as I define it surely includes the fact that today, a lot of counselors can go into meetings with poor damaged women and say, "See? Even the most famous rapist in the entire world can be brought to justice for his crime. All his power did not buy him the right to rape and escape punishment-free."

comment #52

Gordon27 says ...

"But if she says she believes her side was fairly represented, then I think we - who are at best casual observers of this thing, and not people who have lived it for thirty years - should give the benefit of the doubt. Is that such a crime?"

If you're limiting her comments to merely the portions of the documentary which deal with her, I agree with you, and her, it accurately summarizes the incident itself. (Though it's worth pointing out, a plot summary of 'Chinatown' takes up at least as much screentime in the film as the entire description of Polanski's initial crime.)
But the film's bias is not anti-victim; it's just pro-Polanski. It spends 20-30 minutes going over just how brilliant his early movies were, then about 5 minutes or less on the crime, and then the remainder of its time trying to make the dead judge look as bad as possible, clinging to whatever tenuous facts they may have received, and not even bothering to check the facts themselves (as evidenced by the fact that the LA court system was not shown the film in advance, nor was a judge who was criticized in the film contacted to explain his position... and then, as it turned out, they were libelling him and forced to edit it at the last minute, because they either knew it wasn't true and didn't care or couldn't be bothered to fact-check something which conformed to their initial thesis).

"If it is, then II feel sad, because this is what I'm talking about. The victim doesn't get an opinion. Or it's tainted. Or it's irrelevant. Every time that the victim's statements, wishes, insights and thoughts are expressed, someone finds a way to invalidate them."

See, it's great to talk about it in this abstract way like you do, but it doesn't really apply to the real world. In the real world, Michael Jackson paid children not to testify against him in court. Despite the "victim's statements", everybody knows that he is a child molestor.

Let me ask you a question: if the victim in question wanted Roman Polanski castrated for his crime (which would have just as much legal merit as her suggesting that he be set free), would you be so anxious to listen to her? Or is it kind of maybe even just a little bit because you already agree with her that you're taking a stab at the moral high ground by claiming to just be interested in what the victim wants?

comment #53

Ponderer says ...

The "greater good" as I define it surely includes the fact that today, a lot of counselors can go into meetings with poor damaged women and say, "See? Even the most famous rapist in the entire world can be brought to justice for his crime. All his power did not buy him the right to rape and escape punishment-free."

Well, this is the gray area, isn't it? Let's stipulate that he did not get punished the way a rapist would be today. I believe he deserved a lot more than he got. A LOT more.

But he served time in a maximum security penitentiary - time which the judge made clear that was meant to serve as punishment and not the stated goal of a "psych evaluation." This happened even though the prosecution and family both wanted probation.

Let's not get into questions of inadequate punishment, or whether the judge changed the conditions of the plea, or whatever. We've all rehashed that enough.

All I'm saying is he served what he thought was going to be his required time. By definition, that's not punishment-free.

"They've seen that rape convictions float at something like 9%, and that defense attorneys in rape cases are basically required to try and sully the victim's reputation as much as is possible to show how she not only asked for it, but she goddamn well deserved it!"

You make a meaningful and moving point - but then, this takes every victim and makes them a symbol and strips away their personhood. I admire your point, but there must be a better balance for the needs of society and the respect for a victim's wishes than this.

I hadn't actually read her statement from earlier this year until tonight. It's interesting about how much of a nonentity Polanski is, and how much she blames the D.A.'s office for this. But more relevant to what I was saying above is this:

"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, my desires as a victim were never considered, or *even inquired into* by the District Attorney."

This is where I think the concept of the greater good - an honorable one - destroys lives as much as it serves society. Like I said, where is the point of balance?

Remember, rape is about power. If a district attorney's office doesn't even give the slightest consideration to the wishes of the victim, is that not the exact same thing? Making the victim powerless?

http://www.talkleft.com/legal/polanskivictim.pdf

comment #54

Gordon27 says ...

"Remember, rape is about power. If a district attorney's office doesn't even give the slightest consideration to the wishes of the victim, is that not the exact same thing? Making the victim powerless?"

Listen, this might come off as insulting, and I don't mean to be because you've been much less aggressive and more interesting in this thread as a whole than yesterday. But I don't know how to say this in a way that isn't insulted.

That's just fucking stupid.

Rape is about power, yes, but, no, not all things that make somebody feel powerless are rape. Despite what the Internet movie sites would have you believe, rape is not the same thing as making a bad sequel to a good movie. Rape is not the same thing as a D.A. not having the time or training to properly counsel a rape victim.

Since you're interested in the words of Samantha Geimer, you should go back and read her sworn testimony. Then re-read the sentence you quoted above. If you don't see the difference between rape and the situation you're quoting, then you occupy a bizarre moral universe for sociopaths.

More specifically, I have already pointed out that, if the victim were to request that Roman Polanski were to be castrated for his crime, the D.A. would ignore her feelings and wishes and prosecute him anyway. The only difference is, the Polanski supporters wouldn't be citing her as a person who should be listened to (but only when she says he should go free, not when she testifies about repeatedly telling him no and being afraid of him).

comment #55

alan says ...

If no other good comes out of this whole mess, we can at least be comforted in the knowledge that Mowkeka is gone for good and we don't have to scroll past his flame-baiting bullshit posts anymore.

(That is, until he returns with a different username, I suppose.)

comment #56

b1ffbolt says ...

I notice that the wishes of the victim apparently weren't quite as important to the pro-Polanski crowd when she expressed a desire back in 2003 for Polanski to return to the States to put an end to the legal wrangling. Or when it came to dragging the whole mess back into the public eye when Wanted & Desired was made last year. So don't cry crocodile tears now for how badly her wishes are being ignored by the failure to let Polanski's law-flaunting go unpunished.

As Gordon wrote, this focus on her desires to see the matter forgotten is merely one of convenience, and really has no part to play in the legal issues.

comment #57

Ponderer says ...

I'm not insulted. I just think you're wrong.

"Rape is not the same thing as a D.A. not having the time or training to properly counsel a rape victim."

Really? She says the one thing that prevents her from getting on with her life is the actions of the D.A.'s office, and they won't even TALK with her. This isn't counsel, this is about making decisions on her behalf.

However, you're wrong in this. Rape is NOT just a sexual abuse, thought that can be its most pernicious form. From the dictionary:

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
*4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. *

You tell me if she hasn't abused by the system. (Yes, I do consider child and spousal abuse, sexual or not, a form of rape by the above definition.)

Yes, I read the original testimony, it's horrible and gross. But you know what? Even if it's not a penis being shoved in her, she's still saying, NO. NO. NO.

"More specifically, I have already pointed out that, if the victim were to request that Roman Polanski were to be castrated for his crime, the D.A. would ignore her feelings and wishes and prosecute him anyway?"

First of all, it's a terrible example because they don't have the discretionary power to castrate anyone. No one is making any request that the D.A.'s office and the judge doesn't have the discretionary ability to accomplish.

Second, no, if the victim made plain that they were not only going to refuse to testify - but testify FOR the rapist, then the case may not go to trial. You talk, rightly, about victims not coming forward. They're scared. Afraid. You clearly know the score and you're a stand-up guy for that. But what makes this a freak show and inapplicable to pretty much anything else is that the victim has completely leapt the fence for the other side, at least in terms of legal prescriptions.

And the basic dishonesty here is that if she was out there sayiing, PLEASE, bring him back so he can be sentenced to the maximum California term for rape (which is eight years), you would be drumming the beat for her until the cows came home. And you know what? I'd be right there with you, because her wishes should be absolutely central and it's available within the law.

comment #58

Ponderer says ...

(It should also be pointed out, in all fairness, that the D.A. who originally prosecuted the case was unimpeachable in integrity, meticulously fair and scrupulously concerned with the wishes of the family. So all hats off to him.)

comment #59

qwiggles says ...

One of your infamous pitchfork and brimstone, witch-hunt Polanski readers here. I fail to see how kicking up this info now does anyone except Wells (the prosecutor) any good, in that he gets to deny misconduct on his part while accepting the lesser punishment of being branded a lying talking head subject in a doc. Clark et al would do better to stay away from the rumor mill and deal with the actual, bountiful content of the case, lest they become as conjectural -- and as bizarre -- as those members of the other side who slide so easily between arguments about how ineffective punishment 30 years later would be to claims that welllll it's not like she was so innocent annnnyway.

comment #60

Ponderer says ...

". Clark et al would do better to stay away from the rumor mill and deal with the actual, bountiful content of the case, lest they become as conjectural -- and as bizarre -- as those members of the other side who slide so easily between arguments about how ineffective punishment 30 years later would be to claims that welllll it's not like she was so innocent annnnyway."

Dude, have you not even been following this? The asinine, unprofessional conduct of the Los Angeles legal system is - with the exception of the very honorable straight-arrow Roger Gunson - a large part of the reason that any semblance of justice or closure failed to happen thirty years ago.

This bunch keeps proving that they're a bunch of lying, incompetent grandstanders, and this latest revelation just bolsters that impression. Of COURSE Marcia Clark is going to stick her failed-prosecutorial nose into this.

comment #61

Gordon27 says ...

""Rape is not the same thing as a D.A. not having the time or training to properly counsel a rape victim.""

"Really?"

The idea that you're trying to compare the way a D.A. handles a rape case to rape itself is a non-starter. You are making an argument which has no legitimacy, moral or legal. Period.

"She says the one thing that prevents her from getting on with her life is the actions of the D.A.'s office, and they won't even TALK with her. This isn't counsel, this is about making decisions on her behalf."

They are not making decisions on her behalf; you are trying to claim, entirely without any basis in reality, that the victim's wishes have something to do with the case against Roman Polanski. They don't. You pick and choose what of the victim's wishes should be followed, and that's part of the reason that the victim's wishes *don't* dictate the policy of the D.A.'s office. You can spin it all you want, but it's a perfectly sound policy.

"Rape is NOT just a sexual abuse, thought that can be its most pernicious form. From the dictionary:
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside."

You're just spinning wheels and trying to further your argument desperately. Yes, you can "rape" a countryside. Yes, that is the same *word* as the sexual crime "rape". However, since we are talking about "rape" as defined as a crime done unto a human being, as opposed to a hyperbolic use of the word by environmentalists who want to make it clear via language how much we are abusing the natural resources, the definition you're citing does not apply. In much the same way that "murder" has become slang in some circles for "have sex with" (ie: "I'm gonna murder that pussy"), just using a word does not make the thing being defined by that word the equal of another thing also defined by that word. Otherwise, your name would mean that you ponder things, and that clearly isn't true.

By the way, if you continue reading further down in the dictionary entry, it completely ruins your point; the noun definition is sloppily written, but the secondary verb definition is very clear and specific:
to plunder (a place); despoil

You're being intellectually dishonest, under the bizarre belief that even if you could somehow prove that the LA D.A. *did* rape her, it would somehow excuse or mitigate Polanski's self-confessed rape. It's all immaterial.

"First of all, it's a terrible example because they don't have the discretionary power to castrate anyone. No one is making any request that the D.A.'s office and the judge doesn't have the discretionary ability to accomplish."

Oh, excuse me, I thought you were able to understand deeper implications, I didn't realize I was going to have to spell out every single little point so that you could understand.

THE REASON THAT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CAN NOT LISTEN TO VICTIM'S WISHES IN CASES LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE VICTIM'S WISHES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW. Many victims wish their attacker physically assualted (which, as you say, the state does not have the power to do), or think the death penalty should be used (which, theoretically, they do have the power to do, at least depending on the state in question), and some victims want to recant their statements because they want it to go away or because they've been paid off. That last is relevant when compiling the case itself, but, otherwise, their wishes have nothing to do with it once the law is invoked. That's a vitally important part of the law. I don't see how you can't understand that, which is why you come off as just arguing for the sake of it.

"Second, no, if the victim made plain that they were not only going to refuse to testify - but testify FOR the rapist, then the case may not go to trial."

This is not only a ludicrous scenario in the specifics, but even in the abstract it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Try and find a case where a female teacher statutorily rapes a male student where the male student *doesn't* testify on her behalf that the relationship was actually based on love, and he really understands her, etc. The victim's wishes don't matter there, because statutory rape is statutory rape whether it was consensual or not [which is part of why, in this case, they settled for that in the plea; much easier to prove that they had sex, which both parties admit to, rather than having to prove whether it was consensual].

"But what makes this a freak show and inapplicable to pretty much anything else is that the victim has completely leapt the fence for the other side, at least in terms of legal prescriptions."

Does this mean that Patty Hearst wasn't kidnapped and brainwashed? That abortion should be overturned because Roe now feels she was wrong to want one? Or, because you don't seem to understand connections like that, let's stick to rape; if a husband rapes his wife, and then convinces her he's sorry and convinces her to drop the charges because he loves her... yep, that does seem like an all-too-typical scenario that is exactly like what you're describing. The difference being that, in this case, he has already confessed to the rape that he is being charged with, so they don't need her testimony to prove it.

"And the basic dishonesty here is that if she was out there sayiing, PLEASE, bring him back so he can be sentenced to the maximum California term for rape (which is eight years), you would be drumming the beat for her until the cows came home."

No, I wouldn't. The only reason the victim's wishes are being brought up at all is the pro-Polanski people. The people who think Polanski should be punished are merely sticking to the legal side of the argument, not engaging in emotional appeals that have no bearing on the case. Her wishes in the case would be just as immaterial, they just wouldn't be as convenient to you.

comment #62

George Prager says ...

"The people who think Polanski should be punished are merely sticking to the legal side of the argument, not engaging in emotional appeals that have no bearing on the case."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. Gordon27, I envy all of this free time you have to write this diarrhea.

comment #63

George Prager says ...

For the record. Here is my first comment on Sunday about the arrest:

George Prager Author Profile Page 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.

Posted by George Prager Author Profile Page at September 2

comment #64

Gordon27 says ...

"That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site."

You should scroll up this thread. It's not even the dumbest thing *I've* said.

comment #65

Ponderer says ...

"You're being intellectually dishonest, under the bizarre belief that even if you could somehow prove that the LA D.A. *did* rape her, it would somehow excuse or mitigate Polanski's self-confessed rape. It's all immaterial."

You're being dishonest as I've said multiple times that Polanski raped her and it's inherently this fault that all this happened. Don't put words in my mouth.

I would've preferred a stiff sentence in response to his plea. That's me in that place ad circumstance. BUT THE FAMILY REQUESTED PROBATION EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED PRISON TIME. Polanski pled because the last-minute physical evidence doomed him. If the family had wanted him to serve time, the PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION THEN.

"This is not only a ludicrous scenario in the specifics, but even in the abstract it shows that you don't know what you're talking about."

The whole thing you just cited is STUPID. Polanski didn't plead on statutory rape. (Technically, he didn't plead on rape, either, but yes, that's what it was.) Yes, you just described how statutory rape cases work BUT THIS WAS RAPE-RAPE. She didn't want this and there was not one reason for her to testify for Polanski.

"This is not only a ludicrous scenario in the specifics, but even in the abstract it shows that you don't know what you're talking about."

That's where you fail completely. She doesn't want to drop the charges because she thinks Polanski is sorry. She wants to drop the charges because she believes Polanski ALREADY SERVED THE TIME THAT THE FAMILY AND THE PROSECUTION AGREED TO.

I don't understand why this is unclear. This is not the victim feeling sympathy for Polanski. This is the victim feeling that she already got the justice she wanted out of the legal system.

"THE REASON THAT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CAN NOT LISTEN TO VICTIM'S WISHES IN CASES LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE VICTIM'S WISHES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW."

Really? The victim said that the original D.A. took her wishes and the family's wishes into very close account. Guess it only counts when you agree with them.

comment #66

Gordon27 says ...

"Polanski didn't plead on statutory rape."

Are you really going to take your argument to the map and argue that "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" is different in any way other than the actual words from "statutory rape"? Because it's almost as ridiculous as claiming that rape is the same thing as being subjected to the heartless faceless nature of bureaucracy.

"She wants to drop the charges because she believes Polanski ALREADY SERVED THE TIME THAT THE FAMILY AND THE PROSECUTION AGREED TO."

Can you point to any actual quotes from her? Because everybody defending Polanski cites things like this, but nobody actually shows any proof of it. Otherwise, at best, you're extrapolating her motive based on what you would prefer it to be.

Beyond which, you're again ignoring the entire forest to focus on one tree; the point of the things that you're deleting is not that these instances are exactly the same as this instance; the point is, these instances are very prevalent examples of the exact reason that the victim's wishes are not ultimately used to determine the pursuit of justice.

"The victim said that the original D.A. took her wishes and the family's wishes into very close account. Guess it only counts when you agree with them."

Can not / do not, whatever, you're splitting hairs to ignore the point. It's fine to take it under advisement, but you're putting forth the argument that it's the only advisement that matters, which is absurd, for all the reasons I've already mentioned.

comment #67

Gordon27 says ...

Because, just to point this out, her actual lawyer says that the reason that they "wanted" the settlement was that it was the only way she wouldn't have to testify in court. That's really not at all the same thing as saying that she wanted the settlement because he had served enough time in jail.

(That's: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

Quote:
"SILVER: We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover. "

But, of course, that's not what you said; you said Polanski wanted it, the prosecution wanted it, etc. ..

comment #68

Ponderer says ...

"Because, just to point this out, her actual lawyer says that the reason that they "wanted" the settlement was that it was the only way she wouldn't have to testify in court. That's really not at all the same thing as saying that she wanted the settlement because he had served enough time in jail."

You're all fucked up with the chronology. Jesus. The jail time happened AFTER the plea. I didn't say Polanski wanted the plea; I said he had no choice after the physical evidence turned up. I specifically said that the family wanted this and YOU JUST TOTALLY BACKED ME UP THANKS.

Here's the chronology:

Polanski is going to trial. There's a decent chance he may win at this point.

There's a bombshell where they turn up the physical evidence.

Polanski then agrees to a plea just before the trial since he is going to lose. The family is pleased since it will keep the name out of the public sphere.

Based entirely on the family's requests post-plea, the prosecution recommends probation though it would prefer jail time.

It gets weird and labyrinthine after that, but Polanski winds up serving 42 days in Chino. Based on the perceived agreed-upon plea, this is supposed to be the full extent of Polanski's punishment.

Polanski hears that the judge may send him back. His lawyer (stupidly, I think) tells him he can't trust the judge. Dino De Laurentiis slips Polanski a ticket and he flees the country.

"Can not / do not, whatever, you're splitting hairs to ignore the point. It's fine to take it under advisement, but you're putting forth the argument that it's the only advisement that matters, which is absurd, for all the reasons I've already mentioned."

I'm not saying, and I never have meant to say, that the victim's wants are the SOLE determiner of the legal process. But every trial is unique and the wishes of the family steered it all the way through to the point when Polanski made his cowardly escape. I don't see why that's different now.

Incidentally, since it keeps being brought up that the documentary had to be altered for libel reasons, here's the statement from Zenovich:

"We had to change the card - it's been changed twice - the changes are minimal tweaking. I didn't want to change it a second time, but we had to change it the first time so quickly that the second change, which is what's on there now and will be in theaters on Friday, is more true to the film. It's more ironic.

Basically what happened was that I was told that when the two lawyers - Polanski's lawyer and retired DA Roger Gunson - went to see Judge Larry Fidler, who is now presiding over the Phil Spector case, I was told that he told them that Polanski could come back if [the court appearance] was televised. Basically the lawyers are saying it's true and the LA Superior Court spokesperson is saying that it isn't. We'll never know, since there were three people in a room, but what's ironic about it is that it's the same thing that happened 30 years ago [during Polanksi's trial] - you have the judge and two lawyers in room, and the lawyers come out saying one thing happened and the judge comes out saying something else happened. It's a very interesting exercise in the legal system and our judicial system and truth and lies, and who's telling the truth and who isn't.

This film had been so well-received from the beginning that, being a paranoid catastrophist, I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it did. It was quite shocking because being a documentary filmmaker and having it put online that the LA Superior Court was calling something I worked on for five years a complete fabrication was grounds for a lawsuit, pretty much. But then Polanski's lawyer and Roger Gunson came together to write a joint statement disagreeing with what the LA Superior Court said, and it was a great moment."

"Can you point to any actual quotes from her? Because everybody defending Polanski cites things like this, but nobody actually shows any proof of it. Otherwise, at best, you're extrapolating her motive based on what you would prefer it to be."

How about this:

"People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since."

Or, from 2003:

GEIMER: There was a plea bargain reached.
KING: And then he was about to be sentenced off that plea bargain, right?
GEIMER: Right.
KING: And what had the prosecution recommended? I mean, there was a plea bargain...
GEIMER: I know that everyone agreed on the plea bargain.
KING: So he would have to do a certain amount of time.
GEIMER: It was going to be time served. He was to be supposed done, time served with the 42 days.
KING: And why did he flee?
GEIMER: Because the judge, the night before the hearing or the day before changed his mind and told everyone I'm getting a lot of pressure, I'm not going to do it, I'm going to put him back in jail and my attorney, when he comes on, he can explain to you the details of that.

It is very interesting but quite a shock to everybody what happened.

KING: We'll get the attorney to explain that.

Were you shocked that he fled?
GEIMER: Not when I understood what had happened. You know, it was like you go from you're not going to go to jail to I think maybe I'll give you, Maybe, 50 years. And I was actually relieved when he left because that kind of ended it for me.

Anyway, please feel free to rebut as you feel necessary, but I have to get on with actual productive things. Thanks for the back-and-forth, though. I know we disagree but I appreciate the chance to weigh in on this.

comment #69

Henna says ...

cannot say anything for sure as these things are always vague and one has to look every where in all directions before we can actually prove anything or what is actually the real and true!!

comment #70

ewet says ...

sex
porn
free porn
porn
free sex
free sex
porno
escort bayan