Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
No one but other kids and sickos like Shorteyes would find her sexually attractive. And only a Shorteyed sicko like Roman Polanski would drug her and rape her repeatedly, over her repeated objections. Seriously Spendy; do you see anything but a kid in that picture? If she was your sister or daughter and some 44 year old sicko did that to her; you'd blame her for wanting to be a model? That's pretty sick.

Look, I have myself said that what Polanski did was rape/rape, that he should have been rung up, but your protestations of a sicko Polanski violating an innocent 13 year old girl is just silly. This girl was 13 yes, and before she was violated by Polanski she had been strung out on Quaaludes, been drunk, and been penetrated sexually consensually. This is was no little innocent little girl like you are advertising.
http://geekslovesex.com/about/roman-polanski-underage-rape-trial-transcript-original-documents

Per your own link; the kid had had sex, one time, with her minor boyfriend, you demented piece of ****. And it wouldn't matter if she was a child prostitute; every 44 year old piece of **** that had sex with her, even with permission, would be a rapist. In this case the child was fed booze and drugs and still had the wherewithal to say no, repeatedly while being raped repeatedly. No means NO to every civilized being in the universe and only a demented piece of **** like yourself would blame the victim for being victimized.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

O 'Bill is on pretty solid ground
when he observes that:
"No means NO to every civilized being in the universe . . . "

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

that:
"No means NO to every civilized being in the universe .

Yes means yes to every civilized being in the unviverse also, so what?

She claims that she said no, we don't have Polanski agreeing to this set of facts, nor any third party to ask. We have both of them agreeing that the champagne was consensual, which makes sense case she was known to drink. He claims that he never gave her the lude, which considering that she admits that she had willingly taken them before might be right. You can not assume that she got it from him, she could have gotten it anywhere, a lot of people had them.

I tend to believe her, which is why I agree that this was rape/rape, but I am not willing to take her story as the factual account of what happened. We know that stat rape (rape) happened. I think that the public at the time was wrong, that she did not entice Polanski more than a little flirting, that the sex was mostly his Idea, and that she did not particularly want it so it was rape/rape.

I also believe her when she says that she would never have told her mother, that she is sorry that she told anyone, and that the case has been more traumatic and harmful to her than the rape/rape was, and that she wants the continued trauma to stop.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Per your own link; the kid had had sex, one time, with her minor boyfriend

She told the Grand Jury twice, she told Larry King once.....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
that:
"No means NO to every civilized being in the universe .

Yes means yes to every civilized being in the unviverse also, so what?

She claims that she said no,

From the fact that she forgives him n desires no vengeance, we can infer her veracity.

David

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Per your own link; the kid had had sex, one time, with her minor boyfriend

She told the Grand Jury twice, she told Larry King once.....

And therefore you blame the 13 year old victim for being raped by the 44 year old sicko? You are truly a disgusting piece of ****.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

From the fact that she forgives him n desires no vengeance, we can infer her veracity.

I dont think so. We know from scientific study that the mind plays tricks in this kind of situation. Often the subject is sure that they said no, when in fact they thought no but never said a thing. It is much like eye witness accounts, which as I am sure you know are highly unreliable. People are often after the event sure they saw what they think they saw, but many times it can be proven that they did not, that their memories are faulty.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

And therefore you blame the 13 year old victim for being raped by the 44 year old sicko

I do? Really? When did I say that?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I dont think so. We know from scientific study that the mind plays tricks in this kind of situation. Often the subject is sure that they said no, when in fact they thought no but never said a thing. It is much like eye witness accounts, which as I am sure you know are highly unreliable. People are often after the event sure they saw what they think they saw, but many times it can be proven that they did not, that their memories are faulty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that is was a 13 year old child who cares?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Victims do not press charges in these United States.
Quote:

That's sophistry. If the girl didn't "press charges" to the cops how can the cops proceed to press charges.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

And this was no ordinary child so knock off milking that udder. She was working, no doubt with a pushy Mum behind her, for a model agency in Hollywood.

Quote:

You're aparently as sick as Shorteyes. The victim was a 13 year old child, and your slandering of the victim is disgusting.
This is a child, Spendy:

Why was I slandering the girl? Isn't what I said about her a known fact.

She wasn't an ordinary child. And there is no rape proved yet and you continually equating this incident with a pervert grabbing a young girl and forcing her is another blatant sophistry. Your statements are prejudicing a fair trial as well.

And if you insult me again I'll give you a demonstration of how to really insult someone. You made a big pedantic fuss about another underage girl a while back.

3 Replies

@spendius,

I 'm under the impression
that he was tried n convicted before he fled.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Your obviously erroneous impression is not founded in reality, David..

2 Replies

@Francis,

Indeed, an impression disregarding well known and published facts.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Your obviously erroneous impression is not founded in reality, David..

Yes; I might be in error on that point.
I thought that he had not been tried,
and then someone sought to correct me,
alleging that only sentencing on the conviction remained when he fled.

I have not researched it.
He has not retained my defensive services yet.

0 Replies

It's obvious Bill is on some utopian fantasy relating to specific cases such as this when he writes--

Quote:

Were decisions to prosecute left up to victims, the rich would wantonly break the law and buy their way out of trouble when they were caught. The mean would intimidate victims into not pressing charges. The powerful would coerce their friends and family out of trouble. All would be repugnant to justice.

As if those sorts of things are not a nutural outcome of human nature. The very fact of being able to afford the best counsel is thus also repugnant to justice. It almost goes without saying that they are the best counsel for no other reason than that their courtroom skills are repugnant to justice.

Who would pay their fees if they weren't guilty?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Were decisions to prosecute left up to victims, the rich would wantonly break the law
and buy their way out of trouble when they were caught.
The mean would intimidate victims into not pressing charges.
The powerful would coerce their friends and family out of trouble.
All would be repugnant to justice.

Like when Kennedy made his peace with Mary Jo Kopechne 's family
(as to liability in tort)
and he was never prosecuted for DWI, nor for leaving the scene of an accident,
nor for criminally negligent homicide, nor for depraved mind murder
with reckless indifference to human life, by leaving her
to suffocate in her air pocket until the next day.

O' Bill is right in pointing out that brutally violent criminals,
woud routinely intimidate victims to avoid criminal prosecution.

Spendius wrote:

Who would pay their fees if they weren't guilty?

That notion shoud win the Nobel Prize for stupid arguments,
as if innocence assures acquittal. Do u believe in the Tooth Fairy, Spendius?

0 Replies

@spendius,

She wasn't an ordinary child. And there is no rape proved yet and you continually equating this incident with a pervert grabbing a young girl and forcing her is another blatant sophistry. Your statements are prejudicing a fair trial as well.

And if you insult me again I'll give you a demonstration of how to really insult someone. You made a big pedantic fuss about another underage girl a while back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that matter is that she was only 13 at the time and all the nonsense claims that she was not a normal 13 year old is completely beside the point.

Society had a duty and an obligation to protect normal and not normal children from a 40 plus years old pedophile.

So far in this case we had not done our duty yet hopefully at last we can punish this man even decades afterward.

All with his help in running away from a slap on the wrist.

This is a very black and white no matter how many others try to place colors into the picture of the act of raping a 13 year old child.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Spendius wrote:

She wasn't an ordinary child. And there is no rape proved yet and you continually equating this incident with a pervert grabbing a young girl and forcing her is another blatant sophistry. Your statements are prejudicing a fair trial as well.And if you insult me again I'll give you a demonstration of how to really insult someone. You made a big pedantic fuss about another underage girl a while back.

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

BillRM wrote:

---
The only thing that matter is that she was only 13 at the time
and all the nonsense claims that she was not a normal 13 year old
is completely beside the point.

What a stupid thing to say: rape only matters if the victim is 13.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Victims do not press charges in these United States.
Quote:

That's sophistry. If the girl didn't "press charges" to the cops how can the cops proceed to press charges.

This is pure fact… and in this case the girl had no intention of even telling her mom what happened, let alone going to the cops and certainly had ZERO to do with the D.A.’s decision to charge.

spendius wrote:

It's obvious Bill is on some utopian fantasy relating to specific cases such as this when he writes--

Quote:
Were decisions to prosecute left up to victims, the rich would wantonly break the law and buy their way out of trouble when they were caught. The mean would intimidate victims into not pressing charges. The powerful would coerce their friends and family out of trouble. All would be repugnant to justice.

As if those sorts of things are not a nutural outcome of human nature. The very fact of being able to afford the best counsel is thus also repugnant to justice. It almost goes without saying that they are the best counsel for no other reason than that their courtroom skills are repugnant to justice.
This is quite true, Spendy. In large part, the quality of justice is indeed for sale. That provides no basis to exasperate the problem by giving the rich and powerful further means to exploit their advantages. And again, it matters not at all whether you happen to agree; the law is what the law is.

spendius wrote:
Who would pay their fees if they weren't guilty?

Anyone who has the means and doesn’t' wish to be convicted, whether they be guilty or not.

0 Replies

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know