22
   

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

 
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:30 pm
I took this snippet from PDiddie's blog:

Judge (Laurence J.) Rittenband, who'd presided over the Elvis and Priscilla divorce and a paternity suit against Cary Grant, badly wanted to try the case. He loved publicity and the media storm was already at gale force. ... Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse"; probation was the recommendation. But the judge began to maneuver behind the scenes: he wanted to look tough for the press, though not necessarily send Polanski to prison. He asked a reporter for advice on what sentence he should give; he gave regular interviews to a Hollywood gossip columnist. The day before the sentencing"despite an agreement with Dalton and Gunson"Rittenband was overheard bragging at his country club that he was going to lock up Polanski for the rest of his life.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 22 • Views: 18,206 • Replies: 427

 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:35 pm
@edgarblythe,
If there was ever a judge ripe for impeachment, this is it.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
Even the victim is asking for the case to disappear
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Take a look at the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) The way that it describes the whole scandal was that after all that was said and done, despite the promises of the judge that Polanski would serve only the time that he already spent in the institution he did time in for the evaluation, the judge did so many things contrary to what he promised that Polanski did not trust the alleged promises of the judge at all.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:41 pm
All that time and money spent to keep the case alive.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 03:04 pm
@edgarblythe,
why not Jerry Lee LEwis?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 03:11 pm
@farmerman,
Different state?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 09:20 pm
Some are saying he will probably be given time served, or the charges get dropped.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 09:30 pm
@edgarblythe,

Good thread, Ed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 09:50 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Take a look at the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) The way that it describes the whole scandal was that after all that was said and done, despite the promises of the judge that Polanski would serve only the time that he already spent in the institution he did time in for the evaluation, the judge did so many things contrary to what he promised that Polanski did not trust the alleged promises of the judge at all.
The late John Dillinger advised that we shoud:
"never trust an automatic pistol or the word of a district attorney."
That can be applied to holders of any public office, including judicial office.

During the 12 year career of a trial judge known to me,
there were 2 attempts to corrupt him: one was from
a captain in the NYC Police Dept. and the other was from a chief judge.
Both were rejected.




David
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:07 pm
The man is a child molesting sicko, who thumbed his nose at our laws, decency, and our justice system. We most certainly should not set the precedent that it's ok to **** kids as long as you have the means to leave the country to avoid prosecution.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:17 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
not a fan of the statutes of limitations I see...you remember that whole "justice delayed is justice denied" bit of legal theory.

I am all for not letting people run out of the country to avoid our legal system when they get caught, but at some point if we can't get them it is time to let the case go unfinished. That point is when justice is no longer possible to obtain.

You should be ashamed of the legal profession, on the handling of this case and for many other failures of the system.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:34 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

The man is a child molesting sicko, who thumbed his nose at our laws, decency, and our justice system.
We most certainly should not set the precedent that it's ok to **** kids as long as you have the means
to leave the country to avoid prosecution.
As long as the victim says to forget about it, as she does,
that 's good enuf for me. I see no problem.
Its a waste of our resources and no good can come of it.





David
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

not a fan of the statutes of limitations I see...you remember that whole "justice delayed is justice denied" bit of legal theory.
As usual, what you don't see is any point in learning what you're talking about before making ignorant comments. There is no statute of limitations argument to be made after a criminal has been convicted in a timely fashion. This scumbag drugged and raped a kid and the fact that he's had the means to evade justice this long in no way changes the crime. It's not okay for rich people to drug and rape kids either. No surprise you'd disagree.
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The man is a child molesting sicko, who thumbed his nose at our laws, decency, and our justice system.
We most certainly should not set the precedent that it's ok to **** kids as long as you have the means
to leave the country to avoid prosecution.
As long as the victim says to forget about it, as she does,
that 's good enuf for me. I see no problem.
Its a waste of our resources and no good can come of it.
You see no problem with drugging and ******* kids against their will? Then you're a sick bastard too.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:04 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The man is a child molesting sicko, who thumbed his nose at our laws, decency, and our justice system.
We most certainly should not set the precedent that it's ok to **** kids as long as you have the means
to leave the country to avoid prosecution.
As long as the victim says to forget about it, as she does,
that 's good enuf for me. I see no problem.
Its a waste of our resources and no good can come of it.
You see no problem with drugging and ******* kids against their will? Then you're a sick bastard too.
THAT 'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

U lack the ability to address the truth directly without twisting it ??
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I see no problem.
I do. Both with the original case (regardless of the child victim's opinion) and with the flee and allude that followed. He should be punished for both.

"Our resources" apart from being an irrelevant consideration, are likely recoverable at sentencing anyway.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:33 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I see no problem.
I do. Both with the original case
(regardless of the child victim's opinion) and with the flee and allude that followed.
He should be punished for both.

"Our resources" apart from being an irrelevant consideration,
are likely recoverable at sentencing anyway.

Until today, I had no information of any allegations
of anyone being drugged against her will.
If that is true, then the case is much, much more serious.

I dissent from the point of vu that the victim ' s opinion
shoud not be regarded. Her opinion shoud be given great weight.

Indeed, depending on how strongly she might feel about it,
she coud opt to absent herself from the jurisdiction at time of trial.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:43 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Rolling Eyes Her testimony has been heard, and the conviction on the original charge has already taken place. Her opinion on whether or not it's cool to use superior means to flee the country to avoid justice is utterly irrelevant.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:48 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Rolling Eyes Her testimony has been heard, and the conviction on the original charge has already taken place. Her opinion on whether or not it's cool to use superior means to flee the country to avoid justice is utterly irrelevant.
OK.
This is news to me.
I did not know that he had already been convicted after trial.
I must agree with u that:
"Her opinion on whether or not it's cool to use superior means
to flee the country to avoid justice is utterly irrelevant."
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 03:36:14