comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

I'm not a fan of this whole affair, but these decisions aren't made just in the interest of the victim, and there's often a good reason for that. See: domestic violence, rape, etc. Not to mention he's catching hell for his fugitive status, which she is not the victim of.

comment #2

Glenn Kenny says ...

Ooh, listen to Perry Mason: "these decisions aren't made just in the interest of the victim, and there's often a good reason for that. See: domestic violence, rape, etc."

Indeed. The victim IS a rape victim, is she not, one who is now complaining of "[being] besieged," "stalked," "pursu[ed[," and citing resultant "health-related issues." But hell, fuck her. These decisions aren't made just in the interest of the victim, after all.

Look, the warrant's legit. But seriously. Stay on point with that. Because when you try to extend beyond that fact, you kind of look silly.

comment #3

reverent and free says ...

Exactly BurmaShave, a case in point would be Vili Fualaau and his now wife Mary Kay Letourneau. Poor kid.

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

Because the victim doesn't want to is a horrible reason not to prosecute rape, and I've always found it a very strange argument. I'm glad she's forgiven him but that's not really pertinent. And yes, cases of molestation ending in marriage are definitely not aberrational, good example.

Glenn, I consider it a sincere honor to be yelled at by you.

comment #5

Ponderer says ...

That's NOT her argument, except in an emotional sense. Her legal argument is that the defense and prosecution agreed on a plea, Polanski served MORE time than they were requesting. She said this in 2003:

"He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind."

comment #6

Ponderer says ...

And she also said this:

"I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?"

comment #7

Glenn Kenny says ...

@ Burma: I'm flattered, but appearances and my own bad temper aside, I'm not yelling at you. My argument is, and has been for a while, that these issues aren't going to be decided by you, or me, or the victim, or Jeff, or John Nolte. They're going to be decided by some lawyers and some judges. That being the case, the protests and/or non-cooperation of this crime's victim are pertinent, in the event that the current L.A. DA has an interest in putting "everything on the table." So I felt that your saying the victim's interests weren't necessarily material in this scenario was a bit disingenuous when connected to the bigger picture.

comment #8

Phreaker says ...

This is disgusting. The thirst for blood in the Polanski case has ruined Samantha Geimer's life. I cannot believe anyone could look at it and say, "oh well. It's for the greater good." Ick.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

Correct me if I'm wrong - and I might be, as I haven't followed the case as closely as some of you - but didn't Geimer accept a cash settlement from Polanski? And wouldn't that at least partially nullify her request for the charges to be dropped?

comment #10

R. Hunt says ...

As I commented a few days ago, this is one of the reasons that the authorities are wasting their time (and money) on a case that they stand a good chance of losing. If the victim isn't willing to testify against Polanski - and that seems to be a given -, how do they make a case against him?

comment #11

Ponderer says ...

She did accept a cash settlement, but I don't see how that nullifies anything. The argument is that they want the same terms that they had asked for in the first place: that is, a guilty plea and time served. Their position has been the same since the day Polanski agreed to plea. (The cash settlement came much later.)

comment #12

R. Hunt says ...

Re: John Massey's comment. The victim won a civil suit against Polanski, though it's not entirely clear if she was paid all (or any) of the settlement. I suspect that she was, given the letter she wrote earlier asking for charges to be dropped. But I don't believe that has any effect one way or another on criminal charges.

comment #13

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I think it's really a damn shame that the rape victim's name was publicized and that the media is harrassing her.

She was 13 when she was raped, for god's sake.

comment #14

DeeZee says ...

Even if the charges do get dropped, it'll still make Polanski look bad, because the only reason he avoided a real sentence was he was hiding out all these years. Though I don't think that, if the case proceeds as planned, Polanski will get off lightly in a state which voted for special tracking devices for sex offenders who served their time. Not unless he has some good lawyers.

comment #15

sumo-pop says ...

If she doesn't want any part of it then I say fine, they can try the case without her. Nobody knows what it's like to be her, and since Polanski hasn't slipped it to any little girls since, she shouldn't feel obligated to do the "brave" thing and testify.

comment #16

Jack South P.I. says ...

He's already plead guilty. There will be no trial. Her participation is no longer legally necessary. Her new ordeal is a direct result of Polanski's fame and his notorious flight from justice. I feel terrible for her but you're really twisting yourself in a pretzel if you blame the authorities for her troubles more than the rapist himself.

comment #17

televisiontears says ...

The victim's situation is so sad. On top of being raped when she was only thirteen, she has to deal with her rape defining her entire existence. No wonder she wants it all to go away.

Still, Burma is one-hundred percent right when he says that it's not about the victim. Are you guys joking? When has our justice situation ever been about the victim? If the victim had a say in the judicial process (aside from testimony) it would be absolute chaos. We'd have auto theft victims demanding the death penalty for their perps, and guys who get the shit kicked out of them at a bar asking for a life sentence.

On the flip-side, we can't have the victim's forgiveness affect a prosecution. Then we'd have serial wife-beaters going free because after calling the cops and pressing charges, she misses her hubby and says "I deserved it". It's never been about the victim. It's about objective justice, and I'm not saying that our system isn't flawed. It is, in many ways. But we need certain lines drawn in the sand or the whole thing falls apart.

And "RoPo Haters"? Are you fucking kidding me? We're not the angry mob that you like to make us out to be by cherry-picking quotes from crazy people. I love most of his films. I study them, and I've obsessed over them. But he raped a child. When you rape kids, you go to jail. Thems the rules. Sorry if you think that's ridiculous, but I'm not sorry. At all.

comment #18

dogcatcher says ...

Jack South PI,

If they accept his plea then they have to accept the terms of the plea agreement, which was: that he was to serve a sentence of 90 days at a Chino facility and the judge would accept the evalution and its recommendations. The evaluation came back that Mr. Polanski was not a sex offender and just used poor judgement when he had consentual relations with an underage girl. Their recommendation was that he serve no more time.

Polanski held up his end of the plea agreement. It was only when the judge began to waffle on the terms of his own agreement when Polanski decided to flee.

Another thing, if the LA prosecutors argue that they will sentence Polanski according to this plea agreement then the Swiss government has no cause to even hold Polanski because the extradition agreement between the US and Switzerland ONLY involves cases involving sentences of more than six months.

In my opinion, the only way these Swiss judges allow for extradition of Polanski is if he is to be re-tried.

This is a major blow for the LA prosecutors.

I think both sides have good reason to negotiate some kind of compromise to end this situation.

comment #19

Phreaker says ...

"If she doesn't want any part of it then I say fine, they can try the case without her. Nobody knows what it's like to be her, and since Polanski hasn't slipped it to any little girls since, she shouldn't feel obligated to do the "brave" thing and testify."

EXACTLY. That is why the whole "He's a pedophile" hysteria doesn't wash. Pedophiles are a whole different kind of animal.

"When you rape kids, you go to jail. Thems the rules. Sorry if you think that's ridiculous, but I'm not sorry. At all."

No, actually you don't. Not if you're a celebrity. If you're a celebrity you plea bargain the thing, which is what Polanski was headed to do before he fled -- the judge was going to change up the rules on him, true, but everyone involved agreed to the plea bargain. You guys are all dead wrong if you think, if it had been any other judge in town, that Polanski would have done any jail time.

Does it make it right? No - he should have been sentenced as anyone else who did the same was sentenced (I think we all know the answer to that one) and been done with it. That is how it was supposed to go. But the case was corrupt from the get go -- and the mother should have been punished for child neglect.

comment #20

Josh Massey says ...

Why should her accepting cash not play a part? We always shout about the justice system favoring the rich over the poor - so why should a guy get to pay off an accuser because he has the cash?

Imagine a world where somebody says, "I'll give you $500,000 if you ask the court to drop the charges" - and it was done automatically. Nobody would have a problem with that?

Not saying that is what happened here, but it is why her accepting money is an important detail.

comment #21

Gordon27 says ...

"That is why the whole "He's a pedophile" hysteria doesn't wash."

That accusation doesn't really wash either way, as the 13 year old in question was post-pubescent. (Though I'm not sure what the specific California legal definition of "pedophile" is; some states open it up to anybody under the age of 18.)

comment #22

Gordon27 says ...

"Imagine a world where somebody says, "I'll give you $500,000 if you ask the court to drop the charges" - and it was done automatically. Nobody would have a problem with that?"

I know of one specific example of that happening where Jeff still considers the guy guilty of child molestation. What's his name, with the glove, the guy who died this year, but not Patrick Swayze.

comment #23

DarthCorleone says ...

dogcatcher >> This...

If they accept his plea then they have to accept the terms of the plea agreement, which was: that he was to serve a sentence of 90 days at a Chino facility and the judge would accept the evalution and its recommendations. The evaluation came back that Mr. Polanski was not a sex offender and just used poor judgement when he had consentual relations with an underage girl. Their recommendation was that he serve no more time.

Polanski held up his end of the plea agreement. It was only when the judge began to waffle on the terms of his own agreement when Polanski decided to flee.

...is a complete misrepresentation of the law.

Go read the transcript of the guilty plea. The judge was under no obligation whatsoever to keep the "terms of his own agreement," nor is any judge required to accept the terms of any plea bargain. It wasn't the judge's agreement, and Roman Polanski is on the legal record acknowledging that the judge reserved the right to reject the terms after the evaluation period.

And Mr. Wells, this pitchforker might want Polanski to face the legal music, but he does not want the victim to testify if she does not want to do so. If the guilty plea is somehow reversed in all the legal wrangling to come and the LA prosecutor can't build a case as a result, so be it. Otherwise, let a new judge who is not a crackpot settle this thing as it originally should have been settled: in a just manner.

comment #24

MovieBob says ...

People really need to keep in mind just what IS and isn't possible in this case.

The MAXIMUM he can get under current CA law is two years. So even with full "hammer of god" sentencing he'd probably be out on good behavior in a matter of months.

The DA would be CRAZY to actually go after him for the fleeing, because they'd be forced to answer why they waited 32 years to do it.

Most likely scenario, to my mind, remains that they'll probably hit him with time served and maybe probation, once the DA gets the "show" of bringing him back and standing him up in court.

comment #25

DeeZee says ...

Bob: "The DA would be CRAZY to actually go after him for the fleeing, because they'd be forced to answer why they waited 32 years to do it."

Um, you just answered that question.

Anyway.

R.I.P. Lou Jacobi. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i7a4f853fe57e4c0b61f23d8171717c35
More 2012 spots.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2009/0-9ABC/2012/trailer.php
Leo and Toby in a remake of The Third Man from the Eastern Promises sribe?
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/15505/news-shorts-october-26th-2009
Bruckheimer cashes in on teabagger paranoia.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010438.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Goats spot.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2009/IJKLM/Men-Who-Stare-At-Goats,The/trailer.php
Global cooling is bullshit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

comment #26

DeeZee says ...

Oh, and the controversy over exploiting dead celebs for ads continues. http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/directv-resurrects-the-dead-in-questionable-ads--729

comment #27

Gordon27 says ...

"nor is any judge required to accept the terms of any plea bargain."

Darth, I have read some lawyers -- including, I believe, Marcia Clark when she published the story about the ADA recanting his appearance in the film -- say that something about what the judge agreed to, in this specific case, did obligate him to either accept the conditions of the plea bargain or disregard the plea entirely. Possibly related to the fact (or alleged fact, anyway) that the judge indicated he would accept somebody else's suggested sentence and the plea itself was only offered because of that indication.

But I don't know whether that's right or wrong, I'm curious what the actual legal facts are, as there seem to be certain parts of this where they're nebulous.

comment #28

qwiggles says ...

As always, I fail to see why one is a "Polanski hater" for arguing that men who flee the country before sentencing for their rape crimes technically deserve some kind of legal repercussions for their criminal actions. Even if they're old and we like their work (he said, with Repulsion at his side).

Please note here that "legal repercussions" is typically not some secret Puritan code for "draw his blood," and that saying something is criminal and thus privy to the law is not the same as saying you believe the world will somehow be bettered if one rapist finally gets sentenced for something he did in his 40s in his 70s. I've yet to meet anyone who's made the argument that this is an OPTIMAL time for this to be happening.

And yet, of course, Polanski himself had no small part in determining that this should happen in his old age rather than in his 40s -- something we might also bear in mind when bringing up the victim who just wants everything to end. Why is it, then, that in light of this desire for the story to go away so she can get back to work, "haters" are asked to reconsider the value of wrangling Polanski now? Why is it not an equally fair takeoff to wonder if her health issues would be so great in 2009 if he had just taken his sentencing, unfair or not, in the first place?
Why, in other words, are we to care more about the fact that he would've faced a sharper punishment than he'd realized than the fact that by leaving, he effectively put her into the position of having to ask for the case to be dropped, if she wanted some peace. Or are we meant to forget that she'd probably have some of that much coveted peace if this had all been settled decades ago? As it stands, I feel like she's being carted out to make lazy points that don't hold.

comment #29

Joshua Mooney says ...

Sometimes it's necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

comment #30

DarthCorleone says ...

Gordon27 >> I'm not a legal expert. I'm just basing what I said on the extremely explicit testimony given during Polanski's plea. If we take those words at face value, then the judge's lack of obligation seems extremely clear-cut to me.

comment #31

Gordon27 says ...

As far as I'm concerned, morally and ethically, I agree with you, DC. But, with all the various things going back and forth, that's one point I've never seen entirely explained, the question of what exactly his legal obligation was.

comment #32

Terry McCarty says ...

Remembering Peter Bart's comment in a recent VARIETY column re Polanski about how the 70s may be put on trial--which I guess is a good distraction for the DA's office from dealing with here-and-now crimes.

comment #33

JCEFalconi says ...

Modern civilization's current inability to protect victims from harassment from the media, is an issue completely separate from the rightful trying of a fugitive.

Also dropping the charges and letting Polanski come back to the US would do nothing to change her situation, people would still ask her to make appearances and give her opinion about it, and they would again if he wins another award, or makes another movie or dies.

It was Roman Polanski who put the spotlight on her.

comment #34

TheGK says ...

Okay, for all the commenters who think that the law and courts act independently of the victim, this an overly simplisitc understanding.
It used to be that crime was prosecuted solely as a crime against the state - basically it comes from the very, very old English idea that crime is a breach of the King's peace.
However, as the courts and principles of law have developed over time there has been a movement towards actually trying to help the victim in the prosecution of criminals.
So before you all feel the need to comment on the how the law operates, I suggest you read up on the jurisprudence behind the law. The relevant idea here is restorative justice - look it up.
If we accept that approach, then what is happening to the victim now and what the victim has to say is entirely relevant to prosecution. And it's the DA driving what is happening here.

Also a note on plea bargains, a plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecution and the defence regarding the charges brought against the defendant. Basically, the court is the fiefdom of whichever judge is sitting and they can accept or reject the plea bargain as he/she sees fit. Hopefully, the judge will decide to whether to accept it or based on what will best serve the idea of justice, as opposed to, say, self-aggrandising.

comment #35

Phreaker says ...

"Sometimes it's necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

You're kidding, right? You think anything is going to save "our" village? We are doomed. We are a hypocritical, dysfunctional, ultimately doomed society. Remove Polanski and another obsession takes it place. This has nothing to do with justice.

comment #36

Phreaker says ...

"its".

Also, agree about the Seventies being put on trial.

comment #37

mccool says ...

...nearly 500 calls from news media

...nearly 500 calls from news media

RoPo haters? Yes, sounds like RoPo haters are making this woman's life hell. Sound reasoning, Jeff.

Once again, you've outdone yourself. Or maybe, just maybe, in their undying quest to be a "personality/celebrity/character of considerable acclaim," your media brethren just don't give a fuck about this woman?

comment #38

Gordon27 says ...

"Basically, the court is the fiefdom of whichever judge is sitting and they can accept or reject the plea bargain as he/she sees fit."

GK - again, I know that this is generally true. However, many people in writing about this, including people with significant legal backgrounds, have put forth the idea that certain things the judge did made it so that there were legal restrictions on what you're saying. So far as I understand it -- and I don't fully understand it, that's why I'm bringing it up, I'm hoping somebody somewhere can properly explain it -- the Judge is alleged to have (deliberately or not) coerced the plea itself by indicating on record that he would accept the psychiatrist's reccommended sentence, and further that, since he said this and it led to the plea being entered, the judge can not accept the plea but reject the sentence. If he wishes to not accept the sentence, he must also reject the plea.

Again, not sure if this is true, but my point is that there are supposedly specifics within this case that are important, whereas you're speaking of the general overall law.

comment #39

AZ says ...

dogcatcher...

"he was to serve a sentence of 90 days at a Chino facility and the judge would accept the evalution and its recommendations"

Yes, and Polanski just served 42 days. But he ran because he thought he was above serving the other 48 days. Somebody apparently convinced Geimer about the myth of Polanski serving "50 years."

Does anyone have a source on this supposed cash settlement? Isn't it unusual for a civil court to try a case before it is adjudicated by a criminal court? Wouldn't the former affect the latter?

Geimer wouldn't be suffering today if Polanski never fled. So if she says that she's gotten over it, she's wrong.

comment #40

AZ says ...

dogcatcher...

"The evaluation came back that Mr. Polanski was not a sex offender and just used poor judgement when he had consentual relations with an underage girl."

No evaluation ever said that the sex was consensual. How dare you even write that.