19
   

Roman Polanski free

 
 
JTT
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 12:38 pm
@Intrepid,
So you admit to being a hypocrite. That's a start.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 12:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

chai2 wrote:
The fact that this then 13, now 46? year old is STILL saying it was consenual, even after all these years, means a lot to me.


She said it was consensual? Where? I've only seen her say that is wasn't but that he shouldn't be punished for it after all this time.


That's what I recall, also.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:01 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

She said it was consensual? Where? I've only seen her say that is wasn't but that he shouldn't be punished for it after all this time.
She did not think it should have been punished at the time. She said later that had she known that the cops would be called she would have kept her mouth shut.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:41 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
flaunt the law


flout the law.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

She said it was consensual? Where? I've only seen her say that is wasn't but that he shouldn't be punished for it after all this time.
She did not think it should have been punished at the time. She said later that had she known that the cops would be called she would have kept her mouth shut.


Probably out of fear
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:48 pm
How can sex with a 13 year old be consensual?
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:53 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

How can sex with a 13 year old be consensual?


If the 13 year old agrees to it. An act is consensual if both people consent. Is English not your first language? Whether it is legal or moral or right is another matter.
firefly
 
  5  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's not quite what I read.
Quote:
"Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago," she said in an interview with The Times on Monday night.


The victim apparently did feel he should have been punished 33 years ago. At this point she seems to feel he is no longer a threat.

She also brought a civil lawsuit against Polanski, which does mean she claimed he injured her. And she received a monetary judgment against him.
Quote:
The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html


It is not clear whether the woman ever received any money from Polanski

Quote:

The New York Time
October 5, 2009
Polanski Civil Suit Outcome Unclear

By MICHAEL CIEPLY; Compiled by RACHEL LEE HARRIS
Roman Polanski was to pay at least $500,000 to Samantha Geimer, the victim in his 1977 child-sex case, under a settlement in a civil suit Ms. Geimer later filed against him, The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend. Mr. Polanski agreed to the settlement in 1993, but as of 1996 had not made the payment, according to court records provided to the news media in response to requests for access to the old case. It remained unclear whether the settlement was ever paid, though Ms. Geimer was still trying to collect as of 1996, by which time accrued interest had pushed the amount to more than $600,000, according to the court records.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/movies/05arts-POLANSKICIVI_BRF.html


Her opinion that Polanski should now be forgiven may indicate that he eventually paid her.

Quote:
She was forbidden from talking about the civil-suit settlement she and Polanski reached, but said that didn't influence her opinion that the case should have been ended years ago.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/roman-polanski-victim-director-is-not-a-threat-prosecution-should-end.html


This is from the Grand Jury testimony for the case...
Quote:

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html


You can read the 36 page Grand Jury transcript at the above link. The Grand Jury indicted Polanski on charges of giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy, all felonies.

Quote:
Five months later, in a deal requested by the girl’s mother, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The mother endorsed the plea arrangement in order to spare her daughter the ordeal of what would surely have been a highly publicized trial. The court accepted the plea bargain but also ordered Polanski to undergo examination by two court-appointed psychiatrists to determine if he should be institutionalized as a "mentally disordered sex offender." The other charges were dropped. Deportation of Polanski as an undesirable alien was also discussed.
http://home.netcom.com/~cowdery/polanski.htm


According to the woman...

Quote:

"What happened that night, it's hard to believe, but it paled in comparison to what happened to me in the next year of my life," she said last year, when she appeared in a documentary about problems with the case.

In the end, she was relieved when Polanski fled because reporters stopped calling.

"He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life," she told People in 1997.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_roman_polanskis_victim_now_45_got_over_it_long_ago.html#ixzz0tal3NnHS


Is it any wonder that other underage women, he might have sexually abused, might be reluctant to come forward? The media exposure alone can be like another violation for the victim. When the victim is a minor, this can be devastating.

If this was some anonymous Joe Blow, without money or influence, no one would feel the case should just be dropped. Equal justice under the law means Polanski's social status, influence, or talent should not matter. He did admit to sexually abusing this child and he fled the country before sentencing could be imposed. He needs to face the music now.

0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:58 pm
@contrex,
ok jerk off. I'll fill in the words you can't seem to imagine...

How can sex with a 13 year old be consensual under the eyes of the law?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:01 pm
@panzade,
Steve Lopez, an LA Times columnist I tend to read thuough not agree with all the time -

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/polanski-case-about-rape-not-legal-wrangling-lets-not-forget-that.html


I'm mixed on all this, what with heinous things happening every day since then, but still think

1) no matter what the thirteen year old thought, this counted as rape, and still does re the law;
2) I'd like justice to be blind, and one's resume shouldn't count more than any other person's (oh, the naive one)
3) Rittenband, the judge - I don't remember all the details but I remember people tended to roll their eyes about him (this not meant as slander, just memory, and I should double check about that) even before this case, so if there was some goofyness re Rittenband and what was agreed on, and what Rittenbrand notes the Swiss didn't get, I can see Switzerland's point.
4) I can see Cooley's point of view too.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:02 pm
@contrex,
Have you heard of informed consent?
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:09 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Have you heard of informed consent?


That applies only to consent for medical procedures.

13 year olds in California can not give legal permission to an adult to have sex with them. And consent was never an issue in this case.

Besides, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. He admitted it--he was just never sentenced because he fled the country.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:10 pm
@ossobuco,
On Rittenband, this is not particularly useful - I'll look around some more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Rittenband

An article getting to the mores of the time..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/movies/11polanski.html?scp=11&sq=laurence%20rittenband&st=cse
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:36 pm
JTT - Come on buddy. Give it a rest.

A
R
T
panzade
 
  5  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:43 pm
Chris Rock on Polanski's supporters citing his talents.

Quote:
"People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago?" "Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn't have the nerve to go, 'Well did you see OJ play against New England?'"
Below viewing threshold (view)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:49 pm
Quote:
"I was this sweet 13-year-old girl, and then all of a sudden I turned into this pissed-off 14-year-old,' Geimer said. I was mad at my attorney; I was mad at my mom. I never blamed her for what happened, but I was mad that she had called the police and that we had to go through this ordeal. Now I realize she went through hell trying to handle things as best she could."
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/6118865/
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:50 pm
Terrific! A bail-jumping child rapest has been set free. Justice at last.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Chris Rock on Polanski's supporters citing his talents.

Quote:
"People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago?" "Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn't have the nerve to go, 'Well did you see OJ play against New England?'"

He was a fine actor too. Prolly deserved a pass.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:53 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
"People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago?" "Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn't have the nerve to go, 'Well did you see OJ play against New England?'
the best artists tend to be a little bonkers, we have tended to give them a little more leeway than regular people so that we don't stifle their art, deprive ourselves of it. This seems reasonable to me...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 03:16:12