"Is Jewel the only sane celebrity?" Topic

link

Cute, too.

Yes

When did "Drew" become "Dru"?

Allen

No surprise that Woody would be standing up for Roman.

Wyatt

*snort* Good one Wyatt!

Its a perv-y thing he did, and why do they think he should be above the law? That laws don't apply to him?

There's more to it then Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old and then went on the lame. He has already been to court on the charge and spent time in jail. He ran because the Judge in the case was ignoring and violating the law in ragards to the case, and Polanksi felt he could not get a fair trial. This is not a opinion, this is fact, LA law enforcement readly admits that the Judge unfairly handled the case.

Polanski is not even wanted on the rape charge, he has already been tried on that charge, and recieved a rather unorthodox sentence for the crime, one that the Judge was planning to change after he had already served the time. He is wanted on a bench warrent for failure to appear.

The victim has repeatedly asked the courts to drop the charges against Polanski and been ignored. There is a lot more to this then Polanski raped a 13 year old.

I am NOT defending him against the rape charge, he has always admitted his guilt in this instance. There is just a lot more to this case then what get's printed in the papers, and you need to hear all the facts before passing judgement in this.

There is a lot more to this then Polanski raped a 13 year old.

Isn't that sufficient?

Well, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that Jewel isn't crazy based on only one datum.

There is a lot more to this then Polanski raped a 13 year old.

Isn't that sufficient?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't much give a damn either way, but the victim is uninterested in Polanski's prosecution. That seems like a good cause for dropping the charges, to me.
-Kle.

-John the OFM – EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial in this country, no matter what the crime is. Sure what he did is reprehensible, but to deny him a fair trial for it is even more so. Otherwise why wait for a trail? let's just lynch anyone that get's charged.

There is a lot more to this then Polanski raped a 13 year old.

Very true, he drugged, raped and sodomised a 13 year old girl.

"Isn't that sufficient?"

No. He served his sentence. He paid his debt. After Polanski took the plea, admitted guilt, effectively giving up any chance at a trial, the judge tried to impose a coup de grace penalty.

Going on the lamb was a bad choice, but I understand the feeling.

All of this goes back to the basic principles of crime and punishment. If the crime is so heinous that the debt can't be repaid then why don't we just shoot these people?

He did NOT serve his sentence. 45 days?
He skipped out bfore he was sentenced.
A judge can reject a plea agreement any time.

why don't we just shoot these people?

Not a bad idea.

I just think Woody Allen choosing to throw his "good" name behind Roman is too funny.

Was there misconduct at Polanski's trial? It appears that there was. However, he took a plea for a LESSER SENTENCE. He could have faced a harsher penalty had the case gone to trial. Nobody held a gun to his head. He took the plea. If he didn't like the judge's sentence, he would have the opportunity to appeal. That is part of the judicial process.

Instead, he took the plea, fled the country and the responsibility that he chose. He chose to commit statutory rape. He chose to take the plea. He chose to flee the country.

I think Luc Besson, the French director, said it best yesterday:
"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit. Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

Even Wagner made beautiful music, but his music does not erase his racist and destructive actions.

let's just lynch anyone that get's charged.

…why don't we just shoot these people?

Hell yeah!
git me a rope!
we don need no stinkin judjes

"He did NOT serve his sentence. 45 days?"

Check your facts.

Ugh! Dawghaus here I come.

He served his sentence. He paid his debt.

He never served a "sentence". He completed a 42 day psych eval in confinement and fled before sentencing took place.

There is judicial misconduct in the case, but none of it relating to guilt or innocence. All of it is related to sentencing agreements that the judge looked like he was not going to honor.

All of this has been brought to light and yet that coward still refuses to come back and make his case in accordance with the laws and procedures of CA.

He raped a 13 year old girl and remained free.

Explain to me how he is the victim in any way.

"Explain to me how he is the victim in any way."

---- No one is saying he sould not be punished for his crimes. The situation is a just LOT more complicated then just "chuck the child molester in jail". His original trial is going to ruled a miss-trial (don't see how it can't be ruled a miss trial at this point) and now prosecuters are going to have to decide if they go to trial 34 years after the crime, with a victim that wants the charges dropped, with witnesses that in some cases died.

My belief is that all that will happen is that Polanski is going to sit in jail for as long as the CA processcuters can get away with before having to go back to trial, at which point they will drop the charges and he will walk, if he hasn't died from old age before then. All at tax payer expense of course.

Is that justice? Can we even achive justice for anyone in this case at this point? If you want to argue that he must pay for his crimes, he escaped justice 34 years ago.

Hi

Lets see.
It is true that the suggestion was "time served" by some, but that wasn't actually the agreement or the judgement.

Pleading guilty and then being afraid of the judge doesn't justify running. This is a situation of suggesting that if you are rich enough, you can rape kids.

And it is disingenuous to suggest that, somehow, artsy festivals and movie stuff makes you special and above the law. How many times have we read about felons being captured when sent letters that they won something and show up for the prize and get arrested? We go "wow clever" even here and applaud the ploy.

Just non, apparently, if you are a rich movie director.

Elfago Baca, the gunfighter and sometime sherrif was asked in his old age how he lived so long where his contemporaries did not. He said "one must be willing to go to court and prove you were justified". Polanski went to court, didn't like the results and was rich enough to run and then argue he was not treated fairly.

The prisons are full of people who make the same claim. Rare is the felon who says "yup, you got me, I am scum".

Rocky

Let's see if I have the linked story right. Two old men (one with some young stuff issues of his own) want an admitted child molester to go free and a young girl is not so happy about this.

How many more children has he done the same thing to in the last 34 years?

Is that justice?

Not by a long shot, but it is the system and the best we can do.

Can we even achive justice for anyone in this case at this point?

Justice also serves society's :
1. Invisible and unknowable population of young females that will pass childhood unviolated because of the awareness this case has brought.
2. Parents who will sleep a little better knowing that someone (the current prosecutors) will never relent, compromise, or abstract away their morality and duty to the safety of our daughters. (I am one of these parents.)
3. Invisible and unknowable population of sick individuals who see this spectacle and seek treatment instead of indulging their disorder.

I'm sure there are others.

If he has served his time then, He would be out by now….

"If he has served his time then, He would be out by now…."

But, someone may well have done to him what he did to the child without the benefit of drugging him up first.

"But, someone may well have done to him what he did to the child without the benefit of drugging him up first."

I believe the artsy types call that kharma.

Justice does not serve the invisible and unknowable. Suggesting so is not a first step on a slippery slope, it's a swan dive into the abyss.

Justice took its proper course in the original trial--up to a point. A plea bargain was reached and agreed to: the 42 days spent in maximum security for "psychological observation"--which normally takes perhaps 48 hours--were to count as time served. The defendant was then *allowed* to leave the country between the trial and sentencing.

On returning, the defendant learned that justice was being perverted: that the judge had made public statements that indicated he would impose the maximum sentence--after a prosecutor had communicated with the judge ex parte. So after cooperating with the court, and after returning to the US in good faith to accept the terms of the agreement, the defendant left again to avoid the actions of a court that was poised to improperly break the agreement.

The US provides sanctuary for those who face similar injustice in other countries, but will hound an old man for evading the results of injustice here. How ironic. Guilt or innocence is not the issue; the defendant had pled guilty. But he was stripped of basic procedural protection by a rogue judge, who has now been called to his own judging in another place. The victim in that case has consistently maintained that justice has been done. Leave it, and her, alone.

From what I've heard he's been going to Switzerland every year for quite a while… and no one has tried to nab him until now? Why at this late date?
It's been pointed out that there was a recent documentary made about the man and that that is what brought the idea of trying to capture him… in some bureaucrat's mind. I'm sure it's got very little to do with 'justice' and everything to do with some little brown-noser looking to get a feather in his cap.
If the real concern was justice then it would be obvious that it's unjust to drag the victim through the experience again… particularly when she says she's already stated she isn't interested in seeing him punished further.

My theory on why now is that the Swiss wanted some payback for the IRS running all over Swiss banking laws. It is just a little steaming pile that US officials will have to sort out. Pretty petty but pretty Swiss at the same time.

Polanski should have followed Marc Rich's path and made a large "donation" in return for a Presidental pardon in early Jan 2001.

Both were wanted, both were living in France. One choose poorly, the other wisely.

Justice does not serve the invisible and unknowable. Suggesting so is not a first step on a slippery slope, it's a swan dive into the abyss.

So we should just leave the hidden victims of domestic abuse alone? We should never had tried to raise awareness and expose child abuse in the catholic church? The invisible and unknowable are the most defenseless. Your statement favors protecting a known pedophile.

On returning, the defendant learned that justice was being perverted:

He was shown in a Paris newspaper drinking and partying with young girls. The judge certainly reconsidered the issue of Polanski's remorse. Wouldn't you?

…but will hound an old man for evading the results of injustice here. How ironic. Guilt or innocence is not the issue; the defendant had pled guilty. But he was stripped of basic procedural protection by a rogue judge,

Funny, even after all of this has come to light and most experts have said that his case will probably be dismissed or reduced to time served, Polanski refuses to abide by the rules of the system. He could return to court, the old "rogue" judge is dead, Polanski is armed with a crack legal team, and all this "damning" information is open for everyone to see. …and yet he doesn't show up.

Due Process works both ways.

Fugitives do not get to re-write the process. If he wants to be exonerated, he has to follow the rules like every single other person.

Lastly,

Guilt or innocence is not the issue…

Just another abstraction in favor of the pedophile rapist over the victim. Guilt or Innocence is always the CORE issue.

There is a pretty sordid case unfolding in Luzerne Conty in Pennsylvania as we err speak. That is where I live, by the way.

Google "Connahan Chiaverella". Here is just one example:
link

Basically, two judges got together for a rather complicated conspiracy. They took kickbacks to get the County and state to fund juvenile detention centers.
One of the judges was the chief juvenile judge. He refused to allow counsel for defendants, and then sentenced the perps to maximum sentences in the prisons he essentially owned. The state paid the private facilities, and the facilities paid the judges. Rather Dickensian, what?
they were caught and took a plea. After the plea, but before sentencing, they showed no remorse, acted badly, etc.
The judge rejected the plea. They can do that you know. The case will now go to trial.
Maybe the judges will follow the esteemed Polanski's example and flee the country.
Then we can send Dog the Bounty Hunter after them.

Isn't Dog in the pokey? or on parole or something?

Quite an education reading the Grand Trial statement from the victims own words. link

It was the reluctance of the parents of the witness to have her restate the whole thing in a real trial that caused the original "plea agreement" with just one charge.

There WERE a whole laundry list of charges, but with the victim not testifying, Prosecutors did not feel confident they could get him on them all in an actual trial and offered the one charge even though Polanski himself admitted he done it (his main defense at the time was he did not know she was 13 – maybe that was a viable defense back then, I don't know.)

He actually was allowed a 3-month delay to doing the pyche eval "so he could finish a project." Alrteady that is a VERY lenient judge – sex with a minor, but wait, you can hold off for three months before we evaluate whether you are a mental sicko or not – and you can keep your passport to leave the country during that time if you want also.

Anyways, as others have mentioned, he was sent in for pyche eval, served 42 of the 90 he was sentenced (which Hollywierd likes to call, "time served"), at the end of which he did not like the way the sentencing was looking like it was going to go and split the scene.

I actually LIKE the fact that all these Hollyweird types are coming out defending him… it identifies them (or confirms their identities) alternately as outed perverts, ill-informed idiots and/or hard-core elitists.

Whoopi Goldberg admitted she did not know the facts of the case but was sure he was innocent because this was, "rape, not *RAPE* rape," and it was too long ago and he's suffered enough and the victim forgives him, and, and, and, and…

BS. The victim & family have moved on and do not want this circus (my unsubstantiated opinion.) The crime was not just against HER, it was against the laws of the State.

You DO NOT want to go there where a victim has undue influence over whether charges are held or dropped; this way lies rampant use of power, fear, and pay-offs deciding whether cases even go to trial (even more than it already does…)

Let's be real here. The ONLY reason he got a light deal in the first place, and the ONLY reason he is supported by the usual "artsy" suspects (or really, anyone) is because he is Roman Polanski, auteur.

If he was "Ronald Padowski, pipe-fitter," he'd have been sentenced to twenty years and not one touchy-feely celebrity type would give a rat's about him.

Where are all the cries about "one justice for the rich, one justice for the poor?"

This isn't about technicalities of law, or what some victim who just wants to forget about it wants. This is about justice— real justice, not a wrist slap with a knowing wink. Roman Polanski fled justice and hid behind his "creative" celebrity to avoid the punishment that is meted out to every other convicted child rapist who doesn't have a cadre of Hollywood sycophants crying on his behalf. Does anyone here think Polanski hasn't done the same thing to some poor European girl (probably more than one) during his "exile?" I seriously doubt this leopard ever changed his spots.

Try him and punish him as he deserves. Later he can make a film about it and accept an Oscar from weeping sympathetic fools.

The major plot maguffin of "Chinatown" is very ironic.

One of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I have read is that the Swiss did this deliberately, because they are ed at the USA for pressuring them to "modify" their banking laws. Sort of a "Here, take THAT, Mister Law and Order!"

We too could scroll up and down this thread…

Reminds me of the flashback clips thirty minutes into Gall Force about scenes from thirty minutes ago…

Whoopi Goldberg admitted she did not know the facts of the case but was sure he was innocent because this was, "rape, not *RAPE* rape," and it was too long ago …

So now there are degrees of rape-ness in rape? Interesting, and as a woman, very scary.

She's just an old black woman looking to reignite her career through controversy, since Star Trek TNG's off the air and there won't be a Jumpin' Jack Flash II.

And to think that there are people who come to this site asking for free legal advice!