Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

None are conservative I'm sure. And not all liberals but.
There is a petition that signed by the Hollywood elite to free Roman.
Does anybody know all the Hollywood names that are on there?

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

:eek: It's like Candyman!

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

One thing I've noticed from the Hollywood liberals is they are always against something unless it happens to them. Like most recently the David Letterman scandal. Remember how he would make fun of people who did what he did through out the years?
I was watching this David Frost interview with John Lennon & Yoko on YOUTUBE. It was about John & Yoko sticking up for the prisoners of Attic prison that were killed by guards. Some in the studio didn't like that they weren't blaming the prisoners for the riot. Anyway Yoko goes on about forgiving and all that. Now just a couple of years ago Yoko sent the prorole board a letter not to let Mark David Chapman out. This after serving over 20 years already.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Name one conservative who is a celeb who is for Roman?
Brad & Anglina are adpoting kids so they must care for kids and they can't be for Roman. Megan Fox, Jessica Alba are talentless babes who better not say they are against Roman since they may not find work with the A-list directors that signed the petition.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Here's something else:

In California Penal Code 1191.1 it says "The court in imposing sentence shall consider the statements of victims, parents or guardians, and next of kin made pursuant to this section and shall state on the record its conclusion concerning whether the person would pose a threat to public safety if granted probation."

So the victim's views do matter in the California justice system regarding sentencing.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

shall consider does not mean sole factor to consider in sentencing. i've seen many victims want more punitive sanctions and the Court didn't oblige. :shrug:

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Earlier in this thread (before the self-righteous pontificators took it over with a bunch of ad hominem attacks for a while), there was some discussion of the victim's views on the case and it was claimed that those views did not matter to the judge.

But in the state of California, they really do matter as a part of the penal code. Sure, a judge can ignore the victim's views on sentencing, but doing so just gives the defendant some legitimate grounds for appealing the decision.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

You are right, the judge shall consider those things. But ultimately the discretion on sentencing is in the hands of the judge. If I were the judge, I think I would likely discount the opinion of the victim if: 1) they wanted no penal time for this penile crime; and 2) seriously discount the opinion of a victim who has reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the defendant (thus potentially creating a conflict of interest - ie. if the settlement is for 10K/yr for 20 years, the victim has a contradictory goal that would have her pushing for no jail time so the defendant could make money to pay the settlement).

Please note, I am not saying that the victim here was bought out... I simply cannot make any conclusion on the issue, since all I know is that her family did settle a civil suit in undisclosed terms....

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

How could you possibly prove that the judge didn't consider the victims wishes unless they explicitly state that? Again, while victim statments are usefull in determining sentencing, they are not the sole determining factor in what happens.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

But it's key to remember that the victim and her family have said that they do not want Polanski imprisoned since the beginning, while the civil case was a decade later in the late '80s. So the victim has been consistent from the beginning on this point and it does not seem to be influenced by the civil settlement.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Op-Ed article by a French lawyer

In in, he sees 2 main flaws in the extradition request.

Flaw 1:
Flaw 2:

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

:lol: Posts like this demand a spit-take emoticon.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

And that's different from people on internet message boards doing the same thing how?

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

european laws don't apply in a US courtroom. only British common law does

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

I would argue that flaw 1 in the quote is not a flaw, as there is a rationale basis that extradition would be in support of both punishment and deterence (of both the underlying crime and the crime of flight).

As for flaw 2, my understanding is that the US did file all necessary paperwork to put Mr. Polanski on the fugitive lists in the 1970s. Previously, the U.S. had no actual knowledge of his travel plans where they could direct a foreign state to intercept Mr. Polanski during travel. Remember, the Swiss government is not going to expend a significant amount of money or resources to stake out Mr. Polanski's Swiss Villa and grab him when they see him. They will, however, comply with a reasonable request from the U.S. that says, "Mr. Polanski will be arriving at the Geneva Airport on such a date, at approx. such a time, on a flight originating from such a place." Then the Swiss can send a few agents to intercept. This time Polanski's travel plans were clear and known....

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

No bully pulpit.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Polanski was on an Interpol wanted list. He has travelled extensively across Europe where he shot major pictures. He has owned a vacation home in Switzerland for nearly 15 years. He spent two months there this year alone. I have a very hard time believing that the US could not put in "a reasonable request for his extradition" before now.

That said, this is a lot more complicated than it seems. It involves international law, Swiss law, US law... For example, pertaining to the legality of the arrest, I have read that in Europe, outside of war times, it's illegal for a country to arrest a citizen of another country for purposes of extradition without having notified the authorities of the country of citizenship (in this case France and/or Poland) first. Not sure if this is true or not but is shows the complexity of the extradition process where (often conflicting) laws might apply.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

European laws apply in Switzerland, from which the U.S. is trying to extradite him.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

I see that the U.S. Marshals are claiming this now, but going to Interpol's website and searching for "Polanski" and he doesn't come up:

Interpol - Wanted Search

(I suppose it's possible he's been removed since his arrest in Switzerland, but I would at least expect a status update on that from Interpol)

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

I think the wall street journal said he avoided the UK because they most likely would have arrested him there. And that the Swiss claim that they do not have much control over their borders so they didn't know when he goes in or out, until they got a tip from the LA county office. It also mentioned that the Swiss denied that this has anything to do with calming tensions over UBS bank.
edit:WSJ article

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Too much wingnuttery and "he said - she said" going on in this case with Polanski downplaying it as nothing and the barely "victim" exaggerating the incident.

Polanski didn't spike her drink with knock out animal tranquilizer - she willingly ingested illegal illicit substances over a period of time to get impaired. Takes more than a sip or two under "non"peer pressure to get impaired.

What was she already doing in a hot tub unclothed to begin with to even enable vaginal intercourse and anal sodomy at the home of an actor legendary for relationships with women young enough to be his daughter or grandaughter? Hardly pedophilia, if contemporary photo are any indication of her appearance at the time - typical of a cute student entering her freshmen year of college - quite ample T&A..

He went farther during their make-out session than she would have wanted and verbally indicated and wingnuttery California's greatest weapon in the case was their Puritan 19th Century statute making all oral sex and all anal sex between husband and wife a felony punished by years of imprisonment (and everybody else beside husband and wife for that matter).

The truth of this case is unquestionably in the middle. Catholic priests & parishes settle financially and Civily (as Polansky already had with the said victim) for far greater offenses.

O.K. so the French and Europeans have a different view than 1970's California the first main historical State cultural victory of the Social Purity/Christian Women's Temperance Movement setting the cultural-political agenda in late 19th Century California.

Continental Europe (France & Poland included): Founded upon the religion of Christendom which is founded upon her eternal "Father" impregnating - "come upon you" (I am not making this up!) a Jewish 12 year old named Mary and giving her to a 30 something year old man named Joseph to sleep naked with and boink at least a Quicky on the wedding night to be fully legally married according to Judaism.

There's part of your explanation for lax historic attitudes.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Wow.

I would like a reputable source quoted for all these "claims" please.

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Actually, the Bible states that Joseph wasn't allowed to touch Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. You know, that whole "virgin birth" thing? Anyhoo...

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

can we get an IP check here so we can report this person to the authorities?

Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 

Exactly. And Polanski's version of things matches the evidence and testimony by other people better than the alleged victim's grand jury testimony.

I've taken the time to go through the defendant's version of the case ( http://www.talkleft.com/legal/polanskimotion.pdf ) and anyone wants real justice in this case should read it and not just the sensationalized grand jury testimony by the alleged victim that leads a person to a one-sided, vigilante justice view of this case. (Sites like the Smoking Gun never bother to put Polanski's version up even though it's out there - where's the fair play with that?) Having read both sides, I now think the gaps and inconsistencies in her grand jury testimony would've been taken apart if this had actually gone to trial and a jury would not have convicted Polanski beyond a reasonable doubt of any charge besides the one charge he plead guilty to.


Here's some things I gleaned from reading both sides of this case...

Did you know... that in her grand jury testimony the alleged victim admitted that "I can barely remember anything that happened."

Did you know... that the medical exam done on her that very night found no indication whatsoever of anal intercourse having occurring. It also found no evidence of semen inside her body whatsoever. Polanski's claim that he "withdrew before climax" without performing anal intercourse matches this evidence, the alleged victim's claim that he "climaxed in her anus" does not match it at all.

Did you know... that the medical exam also found no evidence of forced vaginal intercourse, which more closely matches Polanski's long-standing claim that it was consensual sex instead of the alleged victim's claim that sex was forced against her will. And perhaps her claims of repeating saying "No" found in the infamous grand jury testimony were all coached and not actually vocalized by her at the time. There's at least enough doubt that she said anything or resisted in any way that it's doubtful that it would have stood up in an actual jury trial, had one occurred.

Did you know... that Polanski drove her home alone afterwards. Given that she could have easily called her mother back to pick her up if she was really "afraid of him" as claimed in her grand jury testimony, why did she let this allegedly scary man drive her home alone? This casts serious doubt on her grand jury claim that she was "afraid of him."

Did you know... that Polanski stayed at her family's home for a little while after driving her home and showed her mother the pictures he had taken at their first photo session. Not at all the behavior of a predatory pedophile as he is being portrayed by a lot of people.

Did you know... that the alleged victim did not call the police when she got home and had absolutely no intentions of doing so. Instead, she told her boyfriend about it, her older sister overheard that conversation and told their mother. And that's when the police were called by her mother. And the alleged victim still to this day wishes her mother had never called the police.

Did you know... that Polanski has always said it was consensual and he blames the arrest and rape charge on the alleged victim's mother and has expressed nothing but sympathy for the alleged victim.

Did you know... that the alleged victim bragged to Polanski about liking champagne, about having taken Quaaludes before, and about having already had sex in the car ride over for the photo session. They also talked about birth control pills in this same car ride too.

Did you know... that everyone back then described the alleged victim as looking much older than her actual age, with most thinking she was around 18-years-old:
And the pictures from that time back up that she looked like she was at least 16-years-old or older. So given that she looked older, what if Polanski did not actually know she was 13-years-old? Besides not looking 13, she didn't act like she was "just 13" around him. And his question in the car about if she was on the pill seems odd if he thought she was 13, but not odd at all if he thought she was 16 or older. Aside from what he had to say as a part of his plea bargain, I have never seen anything where Polanski said he knew she was just 13-years-old.

Did you know... that Polanski found the bottle of champagne in the fridge (and even asked the caretaker if it was OK to open it) and that he also found the Quaalude in the bathroom, so neither were brought along by him in some sort of "predatory trap" as claimed by some. (He even asked the alleged victim if the pill in the box that he found was a Quaalude. Why did he ask her? Because in the car, she had told him that she had taken them before so he already knew that she knew what they looked like.)

Did you know... that Polanski was completely surprised when the police arrested him. (That sounds like the behavior of someone who thinks he has not done anything wrong or illegal, not some "evil pedophile" worried about the police catching him one day.)

Did you know... that this was the first time Polanski was ever arrested for anything in his life.

Did you know... Polanski's guilty plea specifically was that he "had sexual intercourse with a female person not [his] wife, under the age of 18." And that's the only thing he has ever claimed happened.

Did you know... that Polanski served 42 days in Chino prison for the above crime he plead guilt to, which is longer than most people typically serve in California for the exact same crime.