Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The French and Polanski

You know how you keep hearing "The French don't want Polanski extradited.."? Well, Mr Z's just told me "You should see Letters to the Editor in the French newspapers regarding Polanski!" I said ....
..."Oh, really...ALL the French just want him FREE, huh?" ...eyes rolling as I spoke.

"Absolutely NOT. 98% are on America's side; they say you can't just let him go because time's passed..he'd admitted to the crime!" The Germans are writing the same thing in their columns. We keep forgetting our media doesn't quite tell us all the truth, don't we.

And, guess what! Woody Allen's defending Polanski. SURPRISE! Mike Nichols, Penelope Cruz and others are defending Polanski. Think they would if this was a Catholic Priest? This question was asked tonight on FOX, but it's something we've all been thinking. Think celebs would be rushing to a Catholic Priest's defense? (ya, right)
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ

109 comments:

shoprat said...

Like here in America, the opinion of the unwashed masses does not matter, only that of the left wing elite matters.

Dr. Dave said...

I know...let Woody Allen serve Polanski's prison sentence. That way we'll be spared a few years of his depressingly crappy movies.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

They need to toss him in jail and forget where they put the key.

OK Ducky, explain to us simpletons why he should remain free for raping a 13 year old girl. Had that been my daughter who is 12, I'd be in jail in Europe for killing that worthless bastard after he skipped town.

He raped and sodomized an 8th grade girl, after he drugged her up but good.

FrogBurger said...

A German friend actress, fairly well known in Germany, wrote on her facebook page: "Mr Polanski, what goes around comes around."

So yes, not all Europeans want to give him a pass.

Anonymous said...

I think what we have to continue reminding ourselves is that there is no Hollywood in Europe. Besides, let’s look at this from a national pride perspective: our idiots are far more idiotic than anyone else’s.

'Stang

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Woody Allen's defending Polanski. SURPRISE! Mike Nichols, Penelope Cruz and others are defending Polanski.

What exactly is there to defend?!

FrogBurger said...

Transcript of the testimony.

Really creepy.

christian soldier said...

the guy has done it again and again ---put him away for good!!!!
PERVERT!!!!

Z said...

FrogBurger, thanks...that is really something, isn't it.

Dr Dave...good idea!

Wordsmith shows, again, his WORD SMITHERY: WHAT is there to DEFEND?

RightKlik said...

"Think they would if this was a Catholic Priest?"
Very good question!

...
Hollywood is defending Polanski because they are just as demented as he ever was.

Anonymous said...

You know, Whoopi Goldberg said, "it wasn't really rape-rape."

Nice huh? My God.

What's the matter with these people?

And Polanski has said he didn't hurt the girl, and if I'm not mistaken, he said he doesn't think it was wrong.

I say, throw him in jail and lose the key. Anything less is too good for him. The b-----d!

This creep hasn't spent one minute feeling any regret. If anything he felt entitled because of his celebrity status and because he was used to getting what he wanted.

Makes me wonder how many other children have been subjected to something like this from other depraved "stars" who think they're important enough to take what they want, and to hell with their victims.

How sickening.

Pris

DaBlade said...

This calls for an Obama beer summit. Obviously the 13-year-old girl acted stupidly.

Jess said...

One of my courses this term is "History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America" and one of the things we've learned is the three elements of punishment:

1) it must be certain
2) it must be proportional to the crime
3) it must be swift

It's hard to punish someone 32 years after the crime has been committed. That doesn't mean I don't think Polanski should be punished, do not think that! By my statement I mean that those who would have been harsh on him 32 years ago are looking at "what purpose does it serve now?"

He needs to face punishment for fleeing and evading authorities on top of completing his sentence from 1977. What more can you do?

Shame on the Hollywood types who are defending him.

Ducky's here said...

Think they would if this was a Catholic Priest?

-----------------------

You mean like Bernard Law who got shipped of to the Vatican and will never do any time for his role in the abuse cover up?

Ducky's here said...

I will ask again why a man who has had a residence in Switzerland for many years is picked up after 30+ years.

Is this a cynical use of the legal system by Switzerland whose banking laws have very recently come under extreme scrutiny?

The opinion of the unwashed masses in America doesn't count, shoprat, because they are apparently incapable of a complete thought.

Now answer the question. You were on your high horse along with Vegas Art Guy when the Libyan was released as a favor to grease the skids over oil and gas deals so why aren't you interested in the full story here?

I know that cases like this give the phonies a chance to look like great moralists and they give macho losers a chance to act tough and claim they'd break out of their pathetic little shells and do something violent but right wingers are always blinded by emotion. Any comment on the larger picture here?

Ducky's here said...

"Absolutely NOT. 98% are on America's side;
----------------------------
1. 98%? That's utter nonsense.

2. "America's side"? That is a very interesting pathology. America against the world once again?

FrogBurger said...

He fled. So just for that, he needs to be punished.

Z said...

Thanks, everybody, I had a feeling you'd agree.
Jess, it does seem difficult to do this now, so many years later, but to NOT do it demeans a nation of laws.
The punishment must affect him unfavorably, obviously; I wonder if anything less than jail could do that substantially enough.

Ducky, of course you completely misunderstand and grandstand so hard you're impossible to respect.

Yes, 98% are on America's side, from Mr. Z's reading.......sorry he can't quote chapter and verse from every Letter to the Editor for you but that was his assessment.

And nobody's talking about the heinous situation with Catholic priests getting away from it.
The obvious QUESTION WAS :: did the celebs go to bat for any Catholic priest accused of rape?
let me know which ones.
thanks.

StevensOpinions said...

Polanski is another leftist CREEP, that should be thrown in jail for the rest of his miserable life.
I'm sure the Hollywood leftist creeps will be coming out from under their rocks to protest.

Ducky's here said...

Steve, why do you say he's a leftist? Pardon me if I suggest you're confused.

His films are primarily concerned with identity similar to Chabrol's "Les Biches" ( note English translation: The Fawns) or Bergman's "Persona" or straight noir like "Chinatown" and "Knife in the Water".

I'd would enjoy reading your interpretation of "leftist" memes in his films.

Z said...

Steven, glad to have you here...the rocks have already been turned over and PLENTY are out there on the wrong side..again.

Ducky, I don't think Polanski's politics are conservative, do you?
keep dreaming.........as if Hollywood would have backed him up.

heidianne jackson said...

there must be a punishment. who cares WHY the swiss were "suddenly" willing to arrest mr. polanski? the fact is that they did and, hopefully, justice will be served.

can any of you imagine whoopi goldberg saying of her daughter or granddaughter "it wasn't rape rape"? how about being so willing to drop it because he fled after being convicted and before sentencing?

yeah, me neither. of course, that would be different - she is AFTERALL one of the 'to be protected' elite. the rest of us are unimportant.

FrogBurger said...

I love when Ducky tries to sound so knowledgeable. But it's been 2 times you're using French words to sound a lot smarter. Check the spelling of those in that case.

By the way, knowledge and IQ are two differen things.

Ducky's here said...

Also, z, there is a recent documentary that has been well reviewed "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired".

It doesn't go easy on Polanski at all and the district attorney of the case comes of very poorly also.

If you want an even handed (okay, but I'm always trying) look at the case you might want to look this up.

FrogBurger said...

heidianne, hollywood and the new left are just like Ducky. They think they know more and better than the folks.

When they actually sound a lot more stupid half of the time.

I'm surrounded by these people in LA and the idiotic comments I have to deal with on economics are killing me.

But they do think they have a high IQ, like Ducky.

Ducky's here said...

I apologize, froggy. I only gave the translation of the Chabrol title because it's easy to draw the conclusion that it means something a little vulgar in English.

Z-man said...

I'd say the Hollywood position of just release him is extreme but I don't go to the other pole of spending the rest of his life behind bars. It'd be nice if we could get to the bottom of was the original judge really willing to renege on that plea deal? I also don't lose sight of the fact that his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the followers of Charles Manson. Yeah he has to serve some time here but I'm not that hardcore about it.

Ducky's here said...

there must be a punishment. who cares WHY the swiss were "suddenly" willing to arrest mr. polanski? the fact is that they did and, hopefully, justice will be served.

----------------------

That's the kind of deep curiosity I expect from a right winger.

It really does damage when it's applied to more important issues like foreign policy.

FrogBurger said...

Ducky, no apologies needed. I just don't like snobs and elitist people such as you. And I could be one b/c I'm far from being stupid or ignorant.

That's why I really dislike the new left. I have a lot more understanding for a factory worker with communist ideas than snobs of your kind, who puke their knowledge and despise the masses, and tell us what to do.

So any opportunity to put you back in your place when you're being an elitist and snob, and I'll use it.

Anonymous said...

Never thought I'd agree with the French, but maybe they are getting a small infusion of conscience and/or common sense. Only time will tell.

And please don't cry to me about his persecution in WW II. Many others received far, far worse & were/are outstanding people---if they survived.

Ellen

Z said...

Ducky, you've stopped thinking, addressing the points, and your ego is getting the better of you.
CELEBS are the main point here...and European public opinion, which I happen to think are valid points.

We're VERY impressed with your books and films, and I hope that makes you feel good but the elitism is getting almost hilarious.

As for POlanski, if you feel he needs to be let go, FINE, NOBODY CARES! This is a different opinion than many, and our opinion is not less informed than yours, just more decent.

Ducky's here said...

As for POlanski, if you feel he needs to be let go, FINE, NOBODY CARES!

--------------------

Interesting. I absolutely never said that.

I simply said that we should look at the totality of the case.

heidianne jackson said...

That's the kind of deep curiosity I expect from a right winger.
_________________________________

ducky, i have plenty of curiosity about it, but it does not have any connection to seeing justice done. if there was some ulterior motive then that needs to be dealt with, but there must be some punishment.

just because someone is able to leave the country and evade arrest for 30+ years does not remove his obligation to serve is punishment. in any other country in the world, he a foreign citizen, would not have been allowed to walk around "free" while awaiting his sentencing or even for the trial.

had he been held without bail as a flight risk, which he clearly was, he would have served his time and been done with it. but the courts in this country - especially l.a. - have always seemed to be enamored with hollywood to the point of leniency in the handling of criminals.

just one question though, that i have to ask - what the hell was her mother thinking to let a 13-year old go with a man for him to photograph her without a chaperone? she's exactly my age and no way would my new england mother have let me get in a car with this guy by myself. celeb or not.

Ducky's here said...

It was a Hollywood party and that kind of crap happens. Always has, it goes back to the days of the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.

But all evidence says the sex in Polanski's case was consensual. He is not a pedophile or a child molester and he doesn't display the predilection for young girls of say someone like Woody Allen.

So should Polanski serve a jail term consistent with the original agreement? Yes, he should.

Should he be railroaded by a bunch of rabies radio talk clowns, right wingers out to make a name for themselves and an assorted group who are willing to pass summary judgment on a case they never heard of before a week ago? No. And that's why it's necessary to have some interest in the larger matter and not just float a few bromides about "justice must be served".

heidianne jackson said...

ducky: "But all evidence says the sex in Polanski's case was consensual."
___________________________________

even if her testimony before the grand jury didn't clearly indicate that she said NO, there no where in this country can a 13-year old have consensual sex. if that were the case then there would be no such thing as statutory rape. additionally, the cases where the teachers have had 'consensual' sex with students wouldn't be able to prosecuted - in a great many of those cases the students insisted it was consensual, but as a fact of law it cannot be because the students were minors.

ducky: "So should Polanski serve a jail term consistent with the original agreement? Yes, he should.

Should he be railroaded by a bunch of rabies radio talk clowns, right wingers out to make a name for themselves and an assorted group who are willing to pass summary judgment on a case they never heard of before a week ago? No. And that's why it's necessary to have some interest in the larger matter and not just float a few bromides about "justice must be served"."
_________________________________

first of all, there are plenty of people out there familiar with the case for longer than a week who have weighed in on this. just because someone doesn't agree with your sentiments does not make them less familiar and/or informed.

second of all, as a matter of law he must serve out his original sentence PLUS be sentenced for skipping out before sentencing - as any non-celebrity would.

and thirdly, please stop trying to twist statements into a representation of something idiotic. i have not called for him to be made into a eunuch. i have not called for him be killed; some here have expressed that they would have done these things if he had done what he did to their daughters, but are not calling for the courts to do this now.

if he doesn't receive the same punishment for skipping out as a non-celebrity, then justice will not be served. justice is supposed to be blind. alas, far too often, those who have fame and fortune get away with murder.

Elmers Brother said...

I will ask again why a man who has had a residence in Switzerland for many years is picked up after 30+ years.

France duhkkky, France. No extradition treaty.

Ducky's here said...

He has a residence in Switzerland and was arrested in Switzerland, elmo.

Come on, at least knock on the door.

Elmers Brother said...

It was a Hollywood party and that kind of crap happens. Always has, it goes back to the days of the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.

Duhkkky read the trasncript of the grand jury testimony. It wasn't a party. He took advantage of and sodomized this girl despite her attempts to repulse him.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky every article I've read said he was a resident of France.

Like this article in the Washington Post.

do try to keep up

Elmers Brother said...

again, duhkkky there were at least 8 previous attempts to arrest this guy

ironically it was his own attorneys thumbing their nose at the legal system that probably finally got him arrested

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky that HBO documentary is nothing more than an apologetic for Polanski.

I guess you're all for the rape of 13 year olds. Way to go.

from here

There was champagne and a Quaalude for refreshments before a trip to the bedroom. When Samantha's mother found out, she called the police. Polanski never denied he'd had sex with her but maintained it was consensual. Samantha said it was not. She also told detectives she'd been drunk before. And she'd had sex before.

Not surprisingly, the general language of the piece has a similar tone, describing the case as Polanksi being charged for "having sex with" a 13-year old. The article ends with:

This deft and subtle film is a fitting tribute to a man—like him or not—whose life deserves more than tabloid headlines.
It absolutely drives me insane how Polanski and other high profile sex offenders like accused Woody Allen are treated like martyrs for having to endure the tabloids for heinous crimes, and labeled as these brilliant, tragic and fascinating men. Is it just me or is there something really disturbing about this?


Just more idol worship from the Hollyweird crowd.

Elmers Brother said...

we've only had an extradition treaty with Switzerland since 1995

Elmers Brother said...

It was a Hollywood party and that kind of crap happens. Always has, it goes back to the days of the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.

This makes it right. Situational ethics is why you're way more dangerous than most terrorists duhkkky.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

duhkkky every article I've read said he was a resident of France.

------------------------

Well elmo, the nature of being an established director is that you can afford multiple residences.

beamish said...

Elbo,

Ducky's "just following orders."

Ducky's here said...

Situational ethics? Hardly, elmo.

More a reaction to the hard core fundamentalist belief that a very rigid application of law will sweep the gutters clean.

Got a beef with another nation, a group of people ... bomb them up.

Got a complicated legal case? Who cares, if the fundie rule is fifty years in the joint then so be it. Without harsh punishment justice is impossible, right? That's what I object to.

It has nothing to do with situational ethics.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky there's nothing complicated about the Polanski case.

It's called an appeal duhkkky.

If the judge reneged, let Polanski appeal.

The man drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl. She said numerous times in her grand jury testimony that she was afraid of him. They were alone with the exception of a knock on the door.

The man is a predator.

Now you might think forgiveness = lack of consequences. It's neither biblical nor legal.

If you don't believe in our legal system that's your issue.

Elmers Brother said...

Situational ethics? Hardly, elmo.

Has everything to do with it. Harsh punishment?

The man didn't stick around for his legal consequence. You find that harsh?

You've moved up in my estimation duhkkky. From a**hole to idiot.

Elmers Brother said...

Well elmo, the nature of being an established director is that you can afford multiple residences

So what.

you asked the question about why he hadn't been arrested prior.

I'm telling you the reason cited in the newspaper. His legal residence was in France and we had no extradition treaty with France.

I suggest you read the link:

Polanski had not been arrested earlier, they added, because only this time was it announced in advance that he would be coming for the Zurich film festival and thus the U.S. arrest mandate could contain specific information.

Read on from ABC.com

Swiss officials say it was the first time that they had received solid enough information from the United States so they could make an arrest.
"Last week, we received precise information when and where he would arrive, enabling us to make the arrest. That was the first time," Balmer said.
The Los Angeles County district attorney's office, however, said it had multiple contacts with several countries as it tried to arrest the Academy Award-winning filmmaker, including one with Israel as recently as 2007. It said those efforts included requesting arrest warrants in England, Thailand, France and Israel since 1978. The effort with France was futile because France does not extradite its citizens.

Faith said...

I just read the transcript. That was rape. He completely ignored the girl's attempts to get free of him and overpowered her. He should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.

Elmers Brother said...

More a reaction to the hard core fundamentalist belief that a very rigid application of law will sweep the gutters clean.

The law wasn't able to be applied.

So what you're saying is that this is payback to conservatives not an application of the legal system.

You're still an idiot.

Gramma 2 Many said...

Two comments I heard, one from the "great" Whoopie. "It wasn't rape rape. Just exactly what is rape if it is not rape Whoopie?
The other one was to the extent that it did not matter that much because she was no longer a virgin.
So WHAT!!! She did not want to have sex with him so it is rape!!
I commend the woman for her forgiveness of him and her desire to get on with her life. Jesus forgives also, but for the unrepentant, there is a special place for them. I in no way am saying that we should just let him answer to God, he is still responsible to pay for his trangression here, before God determines his eternal future.

Ducky's here said...

elmo, let's go to z's example of a priest. Now child molestation is a serial act. It's extremely rare that's it's limited to one occurrence.

There was, of course, a huge outrage over the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and a number of priests, although not the facilitators, were imprisoned.

Now several of these priests in Boston were tried on the basis of a single "repressed memory" accusation that occurred 20-30 years ago. I think repressed memory is one of the most insidious pieces of bull---- that has entered the legal system in some time but due to the outrage of righteous, outraged citizens priests were jailed.

It is now becoming apparent that this was a miscarriage but you know how it is. District Attorney's can't let the right wing peeps think they're soft on crime and the appeal process is pretty easily stifled.

So no, I don't see that extraditing an 80 year old man in an environment where the whack jobs are calling for his head, the victim doesn't want the publicity or the re-opening of the case and it's clear that the man was not a serial offender does accomplishes much.
But it does allow the right to mouth a lot of nonsense about "Hollywood liberals", whatever that means.

heidianne jackson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
heidianne jackson said...

ducky: "...re-opening of the case..."
______________________________

the case is not being re-opened, ducky, he is now going to have to serve the time he should have served when he was convicted. you have no idea if he had done this sort of thing before or since. and it has no pertinence in this case, regardless.

he was tried and convicted on the merits of the case. there should be no further publicity or intrusion into samantha's life, but because he is one of the elite, she must be badgered and harangued. if polanski was a nobody, this would barely have gotten a mention in the papers and justice would have been meted out with no one in the media, hollywood or the general public taking notice.

additionally, if the judge "reneged" there should be a record of it somewhere. well other than verbally from polanski or his friends or attorneys. if it's not written down, it doesn't exist - i believe in the law that's called hearsay.

and as for your comment of '..."Hollywood liberals", whatever that means." it means that the vast majority of actors, actresses, producers, directors, cameramen, make-up artists, set designers, etc., etc. - in other words 'hollywood' - are self-proclaimed liberals. if they are happy to call themselves liberals, why should we refrain?

Z said...

Ducky,

The point is celebrities standing up for Polanski...they feel so strongly that this is in the past, let's move on......I'm wondering why you can't understand that they would NEVER say that about any Catholic Priest.
This is not about principle, how could it be, if they don't stand up so vocally for the priest?\


Read the transcript and then remind us what a 'miscarriage' this was.

FrogBurger said...

"But all evidence says the sex in Polanski's case was consensual. He is not a pedophile or a child molester and he doesn't display the predilection for young girls of say someone like Woody Allen."

It's official, Ducky. Close your hears everyone. You're a bit of a perverted asshole.

Did you read the transcript?

The mere fact of a 44 year old taking pictures of a 13 alone on a hill was sleazy. But no he had to keep going.

I had girlfriends who were abused. They didn't have the strength to say no.

Asshole!

Sorry everyone but this makes me angry as I've seen the result of child abuse, especially in one girlfriend.

Ducky's here said...

I'm wondering why you can't understand that they would NEVER say that about any Catholic Priest.

--------------------------

SO WHAT! Are you capable of a discussion without a straw man argument?

They talk about what they talk about and the opinion is far from universal.

Locally, and I'm at ground zero for the sex abuse scandal in the Church there are A LOT of well known people who advocate for releasing several priests.

Z said...

OH, FrogBurger! COME ON, what is SLEAZY about a guy who tells a 13 yr old girl to take her top off? YOu actually think THAT's SLEAZY? :-) (me, too)

Ya, I know.....sleaze is in the eye of the beholder, sadly.
..America used to recognize sleazy, but not so much anymore, thanks to pedophiles like POlanski, come to think of it.
We're so used to leftist scum like Woody Allen and Polanski and TV shows and movies and indoctrination in schools, and "Vagina Dialogues" and everything else we're bombarded with constantly that we really can't tell the difference anymore..

Or SOME CAN'T. One needs to keep one's wits about one, but somehow the Right is better at that. Just more decent, I think.

Z said...

Ducky...That's a STRAW MAN but LOTS OF PEOPLE WANTING TO RELEASE PRIESTS isn't?

ARE YOU LISTENING?

Americans who WOULD run any priest into the ground, and HAVE, are SPEAKING UP FOR POLANSKI and you don't see a problem?

But, like I say...anybody can see it's beyond deviant to let a priest molest a child, but let one Hollywood REVERED FILM MAKER do it, and "LET HIM GO!"

how hypocritical CAN the Lefty celebs possibly get? Is there NO END?

FrogBurger said...

It's fascinating that the left is 99% of the time celebrating victims of some kind of system that are not really victims. But when they're a real victim, they take the other side. Unless the criminal is on the right or in the Church.

That's some screwed up brain wiring for you.

FrogBurger said...

There's no end because their mind may be as deviant as Polanski's. So they have to back him up to feel better about themselves.

It's like those judges who release child rapists. I always wonder if they don't have those same thoughts or even behavior, and therefore judge lightly.

There's a lot of child abuse in this world. More than you think. And it's not just the priests. Again in my personal life, I've seen it several times. None were Church related. It's the very dark side of mostly the male brain, unfortunately.

There's no space for debate and ifs, Ducky.

Elmers Brother said...

elmo, let's go to z's example of a priest. Now child molestation is a serial act. It's extremely rare that's it's limited to one occurrence.

Let's stick to the transcript of the grand jury testimony from the 13 year old.

He gave her alchohol and quaaludes...

she made up a story about having asthma so she wouldn't have to get in the pool with him and in hopes that he would take her home

she said no but was afraid of him

YET he still performed oral sex, had intercourse and sodomized her. Yep it's consensual when the victim is drugged up and afraid.

You're still an idiot.

Let the man appeal if the judge acted inappropriately.

duhkkky's little utopia...a world without consequences.

sounds like the beginning of a movie


"in a world without consequences..."

Elmers Brother said...

quit exaggerating he's 76

I guess it'd be more like the Twilight Zone than a movie

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Perhaps Ducky is arguing that Polanski only raped the child a "little bit."

Dipshit.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, you brainless twerp, read the transcript of the girl's testimony and tell us that this was consensual. It's provided on Frogburgers second comment. She was thirteen years old, he was in his 40's.

For God's sake why does this have to be spelled out for you?

Polanski was old enough to be the girl's father. Don't you see the position of power he would have over a young girl? Especially one who doesn't seem too bright.

Are you so dense that you can't see, just reading the transcript, how manipulative he was? He knew what he was doing, and has no regrets to this day.

I hope he's in prison long enough for his jailmates to teach him what it is to be helpless against someone more powerful than he. They have their own kind of justice for men like Polanski.

Pris

Z said...

beamish..and if she'd become pregnant, maybe it would have just been a 'little bit' pregnant.

pris...BRAVO about him in jail!
Little TWERP.
Imagine someone suggesting that wasn't rape? She invented ASTHMA because she was scared and somebody considers her a willing participant?

Didn't he ADMIT IT/ I'm sure he did.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Duckling, she was 13 no way in hell that she can consent to sex at that age. Hell I teach 14-16 year old kids and they have no business doing the two sheet two step either. They are not yet ready mentally or emotionally for the ramifications of sex.

That has to be your weakest defense yet.

Faith said...

AFter watching some video interviews of Polanski and his victim I have a slightly different take on it now, but only slightly.

1. It's rape because of her age for starters.
2. It's rape because it was not consensual, he overpowered her psychologically, ignoring the position she was in with a man so much older and a celebrity, and someone she'd hoped would help her, and he ignored her pathetic attempts to repulse him.
3. It was NOT "rape-rape" only in the sense that he was probably deluded as many self-centered and self-important men are into thinking it was consensual.

The interview with his victim over thirty years later that you can find online shows that she recognizes this latter fact about him, that he had no idea he was forcing himself on her and wouldn't have wanted to if he'd been aware of the reality of the situation. He did cooperate with the investigation, he did admit in retrospect that it was the wrong thing to do, though still not with an appreciation of the depth of it, but he doesn't come across as a mad rapist or pedophile in his interviews, just a silly confused man.

I do think all this needs to be taken into account after all. A delusional man is a different thing from a vicious rapist. He must be punished of course because he DID rape her, he must be punished because he took advantage of a helpless and trapped thirteen-year-old, and he must be punished because he ran to avoid punishment, but I don't think you punish a narcissistic jerk in quite the same way you punish a hostile rapist, do you?

Faith said...

Oh, and the mother's role in allowing her daughter to go off with him a second time even though the girl didn't want to and didn't have the courage to refuse, probably contributed to the weird psychological situation in which he thought everything was A-OK in his blind stupidity. What was the mother thinking of? "Oh he'll make my daughter a star" or something like that?

Not that this lets him off the hook but it does add to the elements that trapped the girl and gave him license. How does a man with such insensitivity to the position of a young girl, with such blindness to psychological reality, understand enough about human nature to make a decent movie? (Of course maybe they're not decent. The only one I saw was the creepy Rosemary's Baby).

beamish said...

Faith,

Roman Polanski is not entitled to a "I always get laid by drugging my dates with booze and ludes" defense.

There is no mitigating defense for what that scumbag did. It was premeditated. It was planned. It was pedophilia. It was rape.

He should be shot, not justified.

beamish said...

Rape is about power, same as pedophilia. Polanski's power trip is in the fact that he believed his money and fame placed him above the law. As in "laws against rape and pedophilia are for the proles."

So far, sadly, he's been right.

Leftism's hopped up "class warfare" lamentations are really just rape fantasies I guess.

Faith said...

Roman Polanski is not entitled to a "I always get laid by drugging my dates with booze and ludes" defense.

Wow, beamish, how did you get that out of what I wrote?

I think there are plenty of clues in the whole scene that he had himself convinced she was willing. I would guess he had the foggy idea that she was willing before he gave her the drugs. I think he probably had the stupid idea that it would take the edge of her reticence which he stupidly didn't take seriously. There are lots of men who really do believe that "no" doesn't REALLY mean No. He's this big deal movie guy, of COURSE she's willing. I can believe he believed that.

They need to be rudely awakened to reality and held accountable for their actions, and made to understand what they did IS rape, but again, delusion isn't the same as premeditated aggressive rape.

There is no mitigating defense for what that scumbag did. It was premeditated. It was planned. It was pedophilia. It was rape.

He should be shot, not justified.


You don't leave much room for punishing a REAL premeditated planned pedophilic rape. What do we do, shoot them twenty times?

How am I justifying him if I try to take his frame of mind into account? Isn't that the way the law is supposed to work? There are degrees of crimes recognized by the law aren't there?

I want him punished for what he did but I see no need to treat him as if he were a serial killer.

But I had a feeling my rethinking of this wouldn't go down well, so there's no point in getting into an argument about it except to say this much.

Faith said...

Rape is about power, same as pedophilia. Polanski's power trip is in the fact that he believed his money and fame placed him above the law. As in "laws against rape and pedophilia are for the proles."

Can you quote something to show he has such an attitude because I haven't found it anywhere myself.

So far, sadly, he's been right.

Leftism's hopped up "class warfare" lamentations are really just rape fantasies I guess.


I was molested by a right-wing uncle as a young girl myself, so I fail to see the leftism argument in this case.

Faith said...

From the Wikipedia article about Polanski:

Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[44]

Whatever the punishment is for either of these crimes ought to be sufficient, it seems to me and ought to be enforced.

Faith said...

In a 2003 interview,[47] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[48]

I think her assessment is correct and sane.

Z said...

Faith, when someone is just about to be sentenced and escapes custody for years in countries in which he's safe from extradition and he flounces around the world doing his life, being feted as a genius by movie types and the press as if he hadn't raped anybody, wouldn't that add to what seems to already have been a feeling he was above the law?

The girl was 13 and, in the transcript, admits to having had sex twice already and having a familiarity with drugs and booze that most little girls didn't have especially 30 years ago.....there's no doubt there was something wrong at home but I know none of us thinks her previous bad choices expunge guilt from Polanski! He just got luckier than he might have with a little girl who'd have screamed bloody murder the first sign that there was something bizarre in his requests.

Odd to me how little that pill seemed to have affected her...she seems to remember a lot and I believe only once, IF that, mentions feeling woozy at all.

One stumbles when reading a 13 yr old girl would rather blithely take her blouse off in front of a complete stranger BEFORE she had drugs or booze, too.

Faith said...

I don't know if running from the law, or fear of serving time, is necessarily the same thing as feeling you're above the law. If his victim thinks he's probably suffered enough it could be true. I think he should be punished in any case because nobody should get away with what he did, I just don't read him as the arrogant scumbag type some are calling him. I see him as stupidly self-centered, misreading the situation completely, not arrogant. If she HAD screamed he would probably have been startled into reality because he didn't know what he was doing. That's my take. I could be wrong.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

I agree, the girl was a sad case to begin with. It's too bad this adult male who could have been a protector and influence for something better exploited her instead.

Jen said...

There is no time limit on justice.

He's a child molester, a pervert, a sick man. I don't care if he's artsy, talented, or charming. He needs to serve his time.

No comparisons needed.

No sympathy here.

MK said...

Guy's a scumbag and he ought to pay for his crimes, but that's not how the media want it, that's the left for you, even raping a teen is ok with them.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

Just watched the documentary about Polanski at Netflix, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Just focusing on the case itself and ignoring all the other stuff about him that the film covers, it seems that the legal proceedings, as far as they were legal, arrived at a plea bargain that would have freed him on probation, which is far from the punishment everyone thinks he should have received.

In other words, this idea that he should be extradited "to pay for his crime" overlooks the fact that the legal payment arrived at for the crime would have been probation, not time in prison or any such thing that so many are clamoring for. LEGALLY he SHOULD be on probation.

This isn't a very satisfactory solution to most of us considering the crimes he committed, but that's how our justice system does things every day and that would have been the very typical conclusion in this case except for some illegal doings by the judge in the case.

It seems the case was corrupted by a publicity-seeking judge who wanted to come up with some kind of punishment to please the media, illegally had him sent for a psychological counseling as punishment, and later threatened to put Polanksi away "for life" although there were no legal grounds for it at that point.

THAT is what prompted Polanski to leave the country. The case had legally gone to plea bargain for probation only, and now this judge was threatening to ignore the legal conclusion and really punish the man. Even the prosecutor said he wasn't surprised under the circumstances that Polanski left. Eventually, he and the defense lawyer agreed that the judge was out of line and moved to remove him from the case.

I can't imagine what's going to happen if he is extradited. The actual facts of the legal situation are quite different from what many of us have been led to think. How do they untangle this weird mess? Is the case closed with the plea bargain? Can they only prosecute him for fleeing the country? What if he did it because of the illegal actions of the judge?

heidianne jackson said...

i have also watched the movie and um, faith, a plea bargain isn't a plea bargain until it has been blessed by a judge. there is no way to compel a judge to accept a plea bargain - whether or not the judge accepts the plea bargain negotiated between the da's office and the defense attorney is entirely up to him.

i have a very good friend who is an assistant d.a. in california. in speaking to him i learned that it is highly unlikely that a judge could be removed from a case just because the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney agreed that the judge was wrong not to bless their plea agreement. additionally, he says that at least one case a month, the judge shoots down the plea agreement. and in doing so the judge always admonishes the attorneys regardless of whom the judge is) to come up with a plan that actually satisfies the requirements of justice (in the view of the judge) or a punishment will be decided by the court.

also, in speaking to my ada friend, the plea bargain was extremely lenient and that was probably the judge's primary issue with it. apparently going back for several preceding years, no other rapist had been given a punishment of only probation. seems even the prosecutor was enamored of the fact that roman polanski was from hollywood.

personally, i'm glad the judge wasn't. if polanski and his attorneys felt that the punishment was excessive, then there is a method for fighting it. as elbro pointed out a few times, it's called appeal.

also, i don't believe that anyone here is puting forth the premise that rape - including of minors - is a leftwing crime. however, it is overwhelmingly the leftists in the arts and the media who believe he should not be punished "further". further would denote that he had already been punished and served.

Faith said...

THANK YOU, Heidianne, that puts it in perspective. I also thought the plea bargain was too lenient, but I did think it was a done deal and it's interesting that the sentencing could have been something other than lenient.

But at least as the film presented it, the judge too was agreeing to the lenient terms, only erratically, promising this and that only to change his mind. Do you think that was an unfair picture of the judge?

So the situation is that Polanski was expecting probation, as it had been recommended and his counselor was expecting it -- and the judge appeared to accept it too -- but when he got the idea the judge might throw the book at him instead he left the country.

Didn't you think this judge was acting illegally and erratically and couldn't be trusted to keep his promises, and that his being so out of control has to be partly blamed for Polanski's leaving? I thought that came through in the film pretty clearly. Even the prosecutor thought so. (I know you said he was enamored of the Hollywood aura too, but what's the proof?)

One thing I didn't get was that the judge supposedly sent P to psychiatric evaluation because he didn't want to sentence him BECAUSE they'd appeal. Does that make sense? It was emphasized in the film. If he DID send him there for punishment, however, THAT was an illegal act, THAT was clear wasn't it?

Also, it seemed to me the counselors didn't try to get the judge removed from the case because he didn't accept the plea agreement but because he'd acted illegally in so many situations, requiring a sham performance of them and promising things he'd then go back on.

heidianne jackson said...

my understanding is that the judge never actually agreed
with the plea. it is also my understanding that the judge wanted Polanski to have a psych eval before agreeing to anything. the reason would be to assess his mental state to be certain of the actual reasons for this man's ignoring her attempts to stop him.

unfortunately the movie was slanted to make the judge look unreasonable when there are no facts to support this. according to my ada friend it is not uncommon for judges to require a psych eval - especially in a high-profile case.

if there was an actual promise by the judge to accept the plea bargain - with no attached conditions - there will be a record of it. remember, all court conversations - in the court room or in judges chambers - are transcribed - and are generally available to lawyers, etc. the movies offered no such proof - just statements that these promises were made.

my guess is the judge promised to take it under advisement and them later requested a psych eval and in that process nixed the plea deal. we'll know more once he's extradited and faces a judge.

Faith said...

Thanks again. I did buy into the movie's version. I think I'll watch it again to check where they made unwarranted accusations of the judge.

Now I'm interested to see the outcome of this case.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Faith,

There is no mitigating defense for what that scumbag did. It was premeditated. It was planned. It was pedophilia. It was rape.

He should be shot, not justified.


You don't leave much room for punishing a REAL premeditated planned pedophilic rape. What do we do, shoot them twenty times?

How am I justifying him if I try to take his frame of mind into account? Isn't that the way the law is supposed to work? There are degrees of crimes recognized by the law aren't there?


You're making a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as a "fake" premeditated planned pedophilic rape.

You're dismissing the fact that he attempted to cop a plea to bargain out of being prosecuted for the full array of his crime.

Nobody "accidently" drugs and sodomizes a 13 year old girl. Nobody "deludes" themselves into believing a 13 year old girl wants to be drugged and sodomized.

Nobody rapes anyone "a little bit."

Polanski knew he was in the wrong before he drugged the girl to make her passive.

If you want to discuss law, Polanski's flight from justice negates any opportunity for a plea bargain. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of psychological states. Roman Polanski is a pedophilic rapist.

Rape is about power, same as pedophilia. Polanski's power trip is in the fact that he believed his money and fame placed him above the law. As in "laws against rape and pedophilia are for the proles."

Can you quote something to show he has such an attitude because I haven't found it anywhere myself.

Pardon my anger, but I don't have to quote a damned thing. He first tried plea bargaining for lesser charges then fled to another country rather than face a trial.

So far, sadly, he's been right.

Leftism's hopped up "class warfare" lamentations are really just rape fantasies I guess.


I was molested by a right-wing uncle as a young girl myself, so I fail to see the leftism argument in this case.

I'm sorry you have that scar. We have something in common. Like Polanski's target, I was drugged as well. But much, much younger than 13.

I haven't seen anyone from the right play this bullshit "he only raped he a little bit" game, as the gaggle of Hollywood leftists have, with their fantasies of what rape is and what rape is really like (or how they would like to be raped?)

We live in a sick, fallen world. I've know this, personally, experientially, since I was 5 years old.

Polanski is a scumbag. He should be shot, not justified.

Shot. Brains on the wall.

Z said...

Beamish, the director of a WOMAN'S GROUP whose name escapes me has even come out saying "this is 30 YEARS ago, "let it go".." 'Let it go', I remember as part of the exact quote.

I can't imagine this......only the Left, you're right.

Faith said...

I think I'm allergic to a certain moralistic tone that sounds like "I'm pure and righteous, he's a scumbag" which really bugs me in this fallen world. That doesn't mean I want to justify his crime, I've said all along he should be prosecuted, I just want to see it in perspective and I'd like to see it discussed dispassionately rather than like a lynch mob.

But I suppose my allergy can make me go too far in the direction of looking for anything that will humanize the man against the tide of denunciations.

After getting to know more about the story (I knew nothing when this was first posted), especially Heidianne's clarifications of what actually happened legally -- she did a great job of explaining the facts without the emotional rhetoric -- I think they should drop the plea bargain and sentence him based on the original charges.

I don't have any desire to see him thrown to the prison inmates, though.

Faith said...

Drat, I'm spending way too much time on this thing but here's an article I think sums up the situation perfectly.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/print.html

Everyone else may have read it already of course. Since I hadn't heard anything about this, oddly enough, I mean NOTHING, I hadn't heard any of the attempts to whitewash the crime or let him off the hook either, I got that only from the posts here, but then I did fall for the movie about him, believed what the attorneys said about the judge for instance, really thought the judge was doing something illegal in sentencing him harshly. Now I see I was wrong and the film is a whitewash.

Faith said...

And back to Z's original question, would they have defended the Catholic priests? No, of course not.

Z said...

Faith...what you explain in how you hadn't heard and drew conclusions about it from what you had heard is a pretty terrific example of how our media works these days, isn't it.

How CAN we know anything if the media's not telling all the truth?
Then FOX does tell the truth and they're smeared as RIGHTWING BIAS..

perhaps truth IS rightwing..sad, isn't it?

beamish said...

Faith,

I'm not taking a pure and righteous tone. If I never said a thing, heck even if I didn't exist, Roman Polanski would still be a pedophilic rapist scumbag. If Roman Polanski didn't exist, the girl would not have been drugged and raped by him.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

God has many sins on my rap sheet. Child rape isn't one of them.

There is nothing blocking my vision to see that Roman Polanski is a scumbag. Raping a child can not be justified BY ANYONE.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

You're right, Z, finding out the truth about anything is hard work these days. Exhausting. And I agree, most of the truth does end up coming from the Right. Not all, but most. Salon.com isn't rightwing and that article about Polanski I think covers all the facts thoroughly.

Faith said...

I guess I'm being too picky. Scumbag just makes me cringe and go looking for ways to humanize the guy.

BUT NOT THE CRIME. The crime is heinous no matter what you call him. I don't equate the two things.

Anonymous said...

Faith, I think you're over analyzing, trying to mediate something that doesn't call for it.

This young girl was vulnerable to an authority figure, namely, Polanski. Even then she said no, and gave every indication she was afraid.

The fact is, Polanski knew she was underage and took advantage of that, and her eventual compliance, which was out of fear of that authoritative figure, him.

Having said all that, it doesn't matter what her parents were like, it doesn't matter what Polanski believed about the girl, it only matters that he raped her. A minor, under the law can't consent. It's not an option.

Beamish is exactly right. There is no gray area in something like this. Polanski knew what he was doing. He is a scumbag, and for a thirteen year old girl, a monster of a man.

He deserves whatever he gets, and that probably won't be enough to satisfy me.

Pris

Faith said...

I give up, Pris, I've been won over. The analyzing and obsessionalizing is at an end. Sorry it takes me so long sometimes. I'll even accept "scumbag." Even if 90% of the males (males not men) I met in the 60s and 70s had a mentality quite similar to Polanski's -- they were all scumbags.

What you said about nothing mattering except the crime is exactly what the Salon.com article said, and I just found out that that article has attracted a lot of attention. Its author, liberal feminist Kate Harding said:

"Who knew being disgusted with Roman Polanski would turn out to be the ever-elusive common ground between rightwing dudes and liberal feminists?"

Backlash in Hollywood.

And here's the Salon article again.

Faith said...

This is the last paragraph of Harding's column:

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

beamish said...

Faith,

I don't dehumanize Roman Polanski. I think a bullet through his brainpan would snuff him out just like any other human, but with the added benefit that it would remove a scumbag from the Earth sooner rather than later.

Faith said...

A bullet would only confuse things further and probably reawaken sympathy for him that is finally starting to die down. I hope everybody reads that Salon piece by Kate Harding. She simply tells it like it is, keeps a laser focus on the crime, hacks her way through all the irrelevant stuff that's been obscuring the central fact of the crime, woke up a LOT of people -- she got tens of thousands of hits on her article -- and straightened out my own muddle too. Former defenders of Polanski are starting to cave in and she had a big part in that I think.

It will be wonderful to see Hollywood starting to backpedal on this as I think they're going to have to do.

Bring him to justice. THAT will be far more effective than a bullet. There are LOTS of Roman Polanskis out there, both in and out of Hollywood circles, he's not some special case of scumbaggery, and they ALL need to see this case brought to justice.

Smug morally deranged Europeans also need to see it.

I was wrong that my obsessing is over. I've continued to read up on all this, gone over many of the news stories and the articles defending him so I'm finally pretty much up to speed on it all.

Z said...

Faith, of course, as I'd said before, the Europeans are divided like we are; the PEOPLE want him brought to jusice, it's the celebs/media who think he should be let free...

While I'm on this subject, let me digress a bit; you learn a WHOLE lot when you have a spouse who reads European news in two European languages and he used to have a running email argument with Dennis Prager, the talk radio host; It's not EUROPE v AMERICA, like Prager used to say; it's Conservative Europeans v Lib Europeans just like it's Conserv. Americans v Lib Americans...the conservative Europeans think like Con. Americans do. Prager fought that, saying Europe's lost and we're correct here, no mattter how much proof Mr Z emailed him, at Prager's request.
Finally, it was irrefutable evidence and Prager never responded again...not once.
BUT, he has sung a different song on the radio the last few months because he sees Europeans going more conservative after all....a trend Mr Z had noticed (tho it wasn't like all Europeans were rabid libs like some think, anyway)

We have quite different information here....it's like Americans truly believe Germany has free healthcare when they DO NOT! They pay through the NOSe for it in income taxes...
BUT, we grow up hearing how GERMANY HAS FREE HEALTH CARE...

European Letters to the Editors were mostly on our side on this Polanski thing....but the celebrities there are as left as OUR celebrities.
It's that mindset that wins out because our media tends to politically walk in celeb's shoes.

Faith said...

I should have acknowledged that difference, Z, since you mentioned it in this blog and elsewhere. I'd just come from reading the list of supporters of Polanski in Europe -- you're right, celebs and some political leaders saying some pretty nasty things about the US.

I do think they may have to back down soon because of the groundswell of anti-Polanski opinion here which is including libs now, and probably in their own countries. I hope so. I'm really looking forward to it.

Faith said...

Article from Oct 1 about how the European public DON'T want Polanski to go free.