@gungasnake,
Quote:That has been in the news recently. The woman was basically a groupie at the time and nobody in those days checked ages for groupies. The fact that the woman herself doesn't give a rat's ass about the thing and the DA does strongly indicates that the problem is with the DA.
She
never said it was consensual. Don't forget, in 1993 she sued Polanski in civil court for sexual assault and won a judgment of at least $500,000+ against him. She feels that he raped her.
She wasn't a groupie. She was with Polanski because he was allegedly doing a photo shoot of her for a magazine cover. That required a contract. He knew exactly how old she was. He gave her alcohol and a drug, and he had sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, and oral sex with her, despite her having told him, repeatedly, she did not want to engage in these activities. And then he told her to keep it all a secret and not tell anyone what had occurred. These facts were never disputed.
I really think the problem with this case is that they had originally worked out a plea bargain agreement that would have given Polanski little or no jail time.
Originally, Polanski was incarcerated for a court ordered 90 day psychiatric evaluation. The deal was that he would receive time served and could go free after the evaluation if he did not appear to be seriously disturbed or dangerous. The evaluation was finished in only 45 days. Polanski's lawyers allegedly understood that he would then be given no further jail time, if he entered a plea of guilty for having had sex with a minor, and that the other, more serious, rape charges against him would also be dropped as part of the plea deal.
Just before the sentencing, the judge in the case, who had also agreed to the plea deal, appeared to be changing his mind about the sentence. Possibly he might have wanted Polanski to do the additional 45 days in jail (the balance of the original 90 days), or possibly he was considering a much longer sentence (I think Polanski could have gotten up to 50 years on the original charges against him), and the issue of deporting Polanski also came up. At that point, because he feared a stiff jail sentence, Polanski fled the country. So the legal criminal case against Polanski was never concluded. He still remains charged with the original 5 felony counts against him, including rape (not just statutory rape, but also assaultive, adult equivalent, rape).
What went on with that plea deal is the reason the Swiss gave for recently releasing Polanski and refusing to extradite him to the U.S.. They apparently don't have to extradite someone who faces a sentence of less than six months. They claim they requested transcripts and notes from the L.A. D.A.'s office that would have clarified the length of the sentence Polanski might have been given in 1977, and the terms of the plea deal, but that they never received this material. The D.A.'s office says they sent everything requested. So, the Swiss decided to release Polanski on a rather small technicality in the extradition laws, rather than return him to the U.S. where the whole mess could have been more properly straightened out in the California courts.
In the last 33 years, nothing has changed in the case against Polanski. The plea deal was never finalized with a sentence, so he is still charged with all the original felonies, and he has been a fugitive from justice for all that time. There is an investigation going on in California to try to sort out the facts of the original plea deal, including looking into the judge's behavior and thinking about the case. This should be done. They have to determine exactly what transpired with that plea deal. Was Polanski told he could go free after 45 days if he entered that guilty plea? Did he owe the state another 45 days? Was the judge going to renege on the deal and sentence him to years in prison? This stuff needs to be sorted out in order to insure that the D.A. and judge bargained with Polanski in good faith, and with fairness 33 years ago.
The legal case against Polanski can't be resolved or concluded unless, and until, he physically shows up in a California courtroom. The D.A. has no reason to drop the charges against Polanski, the original grand jury indictment still stands, and Polanski admitted he had sex with the 13 year old. They had a case against him 33 years ago, and they still have a case against him. They can insist on a trial, or they can offer him a new plea bargain. The decision about how they wish to handle this remains with the D.A.'s office. The victim has no input into any of it. This is an unfinished criminal case. He is still a fugitive, and there is still an Interpol warrant calling for Polanski's arrest.
33 years ago, no one seems to have wanted a high publicity celebrity trial of this sordid nature involving a 13 year old. Everyone seems to have wanted to resolve this quickly, partly to shield the 13 year old, and partly to avoid a media circus of a lurid trial. But the original plea deal offered to Polanski, a mere 45 days in jail (or at most 90 days), seems absolutely ridiculous given the serious nature of the felony charges against him. From the outset, Polanski deserved a longer sentence than that.
Polanski's celebrity, money, and influence was always a factor in this case. And it is still a factor in this case, including why the Swiss did not extradite him. And, let's not forget that the victim has also apparently received a hefty sum of money from him (at least $600,000, but possibly much more) that might bias her comments. But, just because Polanski has status, money, influence, and power, does not mean he is above the law. That's the real point of this now. He is still a fugitive. He is still evading a legal system that has a right, and an obligation, to pursue him and hold him responsible for his criminal actions.
Polanski has never wanted to take responsibilty for what he did, or accept any punishment for his crimes. That's been clear for 33 years.
