According to her testimony. Which was never challenged, because Polanski plea-bargained to save her further ordeal from the press.
A plea-bargain that the Judge then said he was going to renege upon, which is what prompted Polanski's flight.
It's not quite as one-sided as some people are making it out to be.
Did the judge actually say that or was Polanski just frightened that he would? Either way, he wasn't right to run away and I can't believe some people are defending him.
According to her testimony. Which was never challenged, because Polanski plea-bargained to save her further ordeal from the press.
A plea-bargain that the Judge then said he was going to renege upon, which is what prompted Polanski's flight.
It's not quite as one-sided as some people are making it out to be.
You're defending a mature adult having sex with a 13 year old. Christ, I've read it all now!
It shouldn't matter if she begged for it and attempted to mount him! He's the one who knows that sex with a minor is wrong, but he went ahead and did it anyway, throwing a bit of anal into the mix, whilst he was there.
Did the judge actually say that or was Polanski just frightened that he would? Either way, he wasn't right to run away and I can't believe some people are defending him.
If you watch the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (available on DVD) you'll find that the issue is not as black and white as some think.
If you watch the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (available on DVD) you'll find that the issue is not as black and white as some think.
The documentary has been written off by a lot of pundits as a biased whitewash.
According to her testimony. Which was never challenged, because Polanski plea-bargained to save her further ordeal from the press.
A plea-bargain that the Judge then said he was going to renege upon, which is what prompted Polanski's flight.
It's not quite as one-sided as some people are making it out to be.
:eek:
That may even be true. But I am totally stumped. I have never, ever heard of any knowing person, commit a crime, then plea-bargain to save the victim from grief.
If he was so concerned, he never would have committed the act in the first place. Which he admitted took place.
brangdon, please. You should know better. Even if that statement is fact. Unless I've misread, which then I apologise.
So what is the context that we are missing that would make f*cking 13 year old up the arse look more acceptable?
Bad childhood... award winner... famous person... take your pick! They seem to be the standard excuses (despite admitting to it and paying off the victim) bandied around by apologist fans. :rolleyes:
He plied her with drink and drugs and had sex with her when she said no. He was in his 40's, she was 13. He ran like the coward he is. He should be jailed. End of.
If he was some ordinary man who did this to a little girl he'd be jailed. Just because he's rich and famous does not mean he's not a criminal and rapist.
Roman Polanski has always been a weirdo, you only have to watch some of his films to realise that. But what he did to that girl was a crime and it should be treated as such, no matter who he is. All those calling for his release should be ashamed of themselves & they should all be blacklisted.
Those people should ask themselves if it is OK or even honour if their own child/grandchild were raped by an Academy Awards Winner. If the answer is yes, they can go on calling for his release.
Those people should ask themselves if it is OK or even honour if their own child/grandchild were raped by an Academy Awards Winner. If the answer is yes, they can go on calling for his release.
hideous.. all the adoration and Awards for this filthy scum.
I cannot seriously, understand how ANYONE, could defend his actions.. I have my head in my hands in complete disbelief. :eek:
I actually think it unlikely he'll do any jail in the USA.
Seperate to this, it is an interesting question as to how famous/talented you have to be before this doesn't matter. Sir Charles Chaplin and Elvis Presley both had an unhealthy interest in teenage girls, and no one cares.
I think Pee Wee Herman had a peado charge/incident around him too.
Yes there does seem to be a lot of this in Hollywood...
Did the judge actually say that or was Polanski just frightened that he would? Either way, he wasn't right to run away and I can't believe some people are defending him.
As I understand it, it's what the judge said. Polanski had good reason to believe it. It doesn't mean he was right to run away, of course. (It's also worth remembering he was in a foreign country. There are places who's justice I wouldn't trust.)
That may even be true. But I am totally stumped. I have never, ever heard of any knowing person, commit a crime, then plea-bargain to save the victim from grief.
He clearly regrets what he did and shows remorse. Why is it hard to believe he'd want to spare her further grief? He's not a monster. I won't say it's the only reason, but it was a consideration.
He plied her with drink and drugs and had sex with her when she said no. He was in his 40's, she was 13. He ran like the coward he is. He should be jailed.
If you accept her testimony uncritically. As I understand it, it was never subject to close scrutiny; she wasn't cross-examined. Remember she was no innocent child, but a sexually active young woman embarking on a career of modelling.
He never admitted rape, merely unlawful sex. If the original plea-bargain had been stuck to, then he almost certainly would not have gone to jail. If he deserves jail now it's as much because he ran as because of what he did to the child.
As I understand it, it's what the judge said. Polanski had good reason to believe it. It doesn't mean he was right to run away, of course. (It's also worth remembering he was in a foreign country. There are places who's justice I wouldn't trust.)
He clearly regrets what he did and shows remorse. Why is it hard to believe he'd want to spare her further grief? He's not a monster. I won't say it's the only reason, but it was a consideration.
If you accept her testimony uncritically. As I understand it, it was never subject to close scrutiny; she wasn't cross-examined. Remember she was no innocent child, but a sexually active young woman embarking on a career of modelling.
He never admitted rape, merely unlawful sex. If the original plea-bargain had been stuck to, then he almost certainly would not have gone to jail. If he deserves jail now it's as much because he ran as because of what he did to the child.
So do you actually believe its acceptable for a grown ass man to sleep with a 13yr old girl?
So do you actually believe its acceptable for a grown ass man to sleep with a 13yr old girl?
No.
And I think it's right that he go back to America. I'm not sure what should happen to him when he gets there. What he did with the girl was wrong, but it would not have meant jail if he hadn't run (and if the judge hadn't reneged). It's difficult to ignore his years of avoiding justice. However, I also don't feel he should be made an example of, or pilloried according to the current tabloid "think of the children" atmosphere. Which is really what I object to here.
And I think it's right that he go back to America. I'm not sure what should happen to him when he gets there. What he did with the girl was wrong, but it would not have meant jail if he hadn't run (and if the judge hadn't reneged). It's difficult to ignore his years of avoiding justice. However, I also don't feel he should be made an example of, or pilloried according to the current tabloid "think of the children" atmosphere. Which is really what I object to here.
Thanks for getting back to me and your response is fair.
Just to clarify how come he wouldn't have got jail time if he stayed in the US? Sorry I'm obviously missing something from the story and admittedly I dont know that much about the case. But I would have thought sex with a minor would be a jailable offense anyway?
If you accept her testimony uncritically. As I understand it, it was never subject to close scrutiny; she wasn't cross-examined. Remember she was no innocent child, but a sexually active young woman embarking on a career of modelling
Sorry but thats just plain wrong, offensive and dangerous. "she was no innocent child"? Yes she was in this regard when in a situation with a 44yr old man. We're not talking of a situation where she was having sex with her same age boyfriend, but where she has been fed alcohol and drugs, and anally raped. "a sexually active young woman" She may have been sexually active at 13, but that does not make her a young woman.
He was 44. 44 for gods sake, not a slightly older teenager, but technically old enough to be her grandfather. Even if he hadn't drugged her, plied her with drink, even if she'd thrown herself at him, he should have been man enough to say no.
But it wasn't even that. It as rape pure and simple. The rape of barely a teenager, a teeanger who, regardless of her lifestyle, as still just a teenager, who deserved too be protected by an adult, not intoxicated and raped.
Its shocking the defence this man has been given, shocking that his talent should excuse him. He's detestable, and a coward.
I think Pee Wee Herman had a peado charge/incident around him too.
Yes there does seem to be a lot of this in Hollywood...
Paul Reubens aka Pee Wee Herman was done for indecent exposure in a cinema (he was nabbed 'knocking one out' whilst watching an adult feature), not for paedo related activities.
I really can't understand how anyone can defend this guy after what he has done. Lock him up. Money, success mean nothing in a case like this :mad: It makes me sick.
If a non famous person did this, they would be in prison so quick. It makes me really mad to see someone like this get away with it.
And I think it's right that he go back to America. I'm not sure what should happen to him when he gets there. What he did with the girl was wrong, but it would not have meant jail if he hadn't run (and if the judge hadn't reneged). It's difficult to ignore his years of avoiding justice. However, I also don't feel he should be made an example of, or pilloried according to the current tabloid "think of the children" atmosphere. Which is really what I object to here.
This case isn't about a "think of the children" hysteria with no actual victim. He has admitted to a crime and should be punished for what he did. The chances are he has done this to many other children over the years; the questions he asked the girl in this case seemed well rehearsed, and I'm sure he had the drugs well prepared in advance.
Sorry but thats just plain wrong, offensive and dangerous. "she was no innocent child"? Yes she was in this regard when in a situation with a 44yr old man. We're not talking of a situation where she was having sex with her same age boyfriend, but where she has been fed alcohol and drugs, and anally raped. "a sexually active young woman" She may have been sexually active at 13, but that does not make her a young woman.
He was 44. 44 for gods sake, not a slightly older teenager, but technically old enough to be her grandfather. Even if he hadn't drugged her, plied her with drink, even if she'd thrown herself at him, he should have been man enough to say no.
But it wasn't even that. It as rape pure and simple. The rape of barely a teenager, a teeanger who, regardless of her lifestyle, as still just a teenager, who deserved too be protected by an adult, not intoxicated and raped.
Its shocking the defence this man has been given, shocking that his talent should excuse him. He's detestable, and a coward.
I'm so glad you posted this. The comment from Brangdon that you've quoted made me gasp out loud. There have been whole books written about those kinds of ideas; they often come from dinosaur judges who use it to excuse sex crimes against minors. And it reveals more about the judge's dark attitude to female sexuality than it does reality.
It's the classic Lolita defence and it's absolutely nuts. A 13-year old isn't a "young woman". There are some cultures in the world that may accept pederasty but the West isn't one of them, the reason being that we've evolved past such archaic notions of sexuality and maturity.
Brangdon, go read ANY book on child development or the transitional theory of human beings to understand how even the most precocious and worldy 13-year old isn't mature enough to have consented mind, body and soul to intercourse and sodomy with a middle-aged man. I'd even argue that a 13-year old who's already sexually active is potentially quite damaged, or at least very vulnerable to damaging her emotional development. Even more reason not to anally rape her, no?
And I find it naive to believe that his plea bargain was motivated by remorse or altruism. It's much more likely that the plea bargain was a matter of accepting one lesser count versus a whole bunch of ickier charges that would have seen him in the clink for a long time and with a reputation in tatters.
Given that he subsequently legged it, it's hard to accept that he was acting in anyone's best interests but his own.
Comments
Did the judge actually say that or was Polanski just frightened that he would? Either way, he wasn't right to run away and I can't believe some people are defending him.
It shouldn't matter if she begged for it and attempted to mount him! He's the one who knows that sex with a minor is wrong, but he went ahead and did it anyway, throwing a bit of anal into the mix, whilst he was there.
If you watch the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (available on DVD) you'll find that the issue is not as black and white as some think.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/polanski-misrable/
That may even be true. But I am totally stumped. I have never, ever heard of any knowing person, commit a crime, then plea-bargain to save the victim from grief.
If he was so concerned, he never would have committed the act in the first place. Which he admitted took place.
brangdon, please. You should know better. Even if that statement is fact. Unless I've misread, which then I apologise.
I also agree with the above poster.
If he was some ordinary man who did this to a little girl he'd be jailed. Just because he's rich and famous does not mean he's not a criminal and rapist.
hideous.. all the adoration and Awards for this filthy scum.
I cannot seriously, understand how ANYONE, could defend his actions.. I have my head in my hands in complete disbelief. :eek:
polite wording for beast
That's a question I would like answered too?
I think Pee Wee Herman had a peado charge/incident around him too.
Yes there does seem to be a lot of this in Hollywood...
He clearly regrets what he did and shows remorse. Why is it hard to believe he'd want to spare her further grief? He's not a monster. I won't say it's the only reason, but it was a consideration.
If you accept her testimony uncritically. As I understand it, it was never subject to close scrutiny; she wasn't cross-examined. Remember she was no innocent child, but a sexually active young woman embarking on a career of modelling.
He never admitted rape, merely unlawful sex. If the original plea-bargain had been stuck to, then he almost certainly would not have gone to jail. If he deserves jail now it's as much because he ran as because of what he did to the child.
So do you actually believe its acceptable for a grown ass man to sleep with a 13yr old girl?
slightly boring !
And I think it's right that he go back to America. I'm not sure what should happen to him when he gets there. What he did with the girl was wrong, but it would not have meant jail if he hadn't run (and if the judge hadn't reneged). It's difficult to ignore his years of avoiding justice. However, I also don't feel he should be made an example of, or pilloried according to the current tabloid "think of the children" atmosphere. Which is really what I object to here.
Thanks for getting back to me and your response is fair.
Just to clarify how come he wouldn't have got jail time if he stayed in the US? Sorry I'm obviously missing something from the story and admittedly I dont know that much about the case. But I would have thought sex with a minor would be a jailable offense anyway?
Sorry but thats just plain wrong, offensive and dangerous. "she was no innocent child"? Yes she was in this regard when in a situation with a 44yr old man. We're not talking of a situation where she was having sex with her same age boyfriend, but where she has been fed alcohol and drugs, and anally raped. "a sexually active young woman" She may have been sexually active at 13, but that does not make her a young woman.
He was 44. 44 for gods sake, not a slightly older teenager, but technically old enough to be her grandfather. Even if he hadn't drugged her, plied her with drink, even if she'd thrown herself at him, he should have been man enough to say no.
But it wasn't even that. It as rape pure and simple. The rape of barely a teenager, a teeanger who, regardless of her lifestyle, as still just a teenager, who deserved too be protected by an adult, not intoxicated and raped.
Its shocking the defence this man has been given, shocking that his talent should excuse him. He's detestable, and a coward.
Paul Reubens aka Pee Wee Herman was done for indecent exposure in a cinema (he was nabbed 'knocking one out' whilst watching an adult feature), not for paedo related activities.
If a non famous person did this, they would be in prison so quick. It makes me really mad to see someone like this get away with it.
This case isn't about a "think of the children" hysteria with no actual victim. He has admitted to a crime and should be punished for what he did. The chances are he has done this to many other children over the years; the questions he asked the girl in this case seemed well rehearsed, and I'm sure he had the drugs well prepared in advance.
I'm so glad you posted this. The comment from Brangdon that you've quoted made me gasp out loud. There have been whole books written about those kinds of ideas; they often come from dinosaur judges who use it to excuse sex crimes against minors. And it reveals more about the judge's dark attitude to female sexuality than it does reality.
It's the classic Lolita defence and it's absolutely nuts. A 13-year old isn't a "young woman". There are some cultures in the world that may accept pederasty but the West isn't one of them, the reason being that we've evolved past such archaic notions of sexuality and maturity.
Brangdon, go read ANY book on child development or the transitional theory of human beings to understand how even the most precocious and worldy 13-year old isn't mature enough to have consented mind, body and soul to intercourse and sodomy with a middle-aged man. I'd even argue that a 13-year old who's already sexually active is potentially quite damaged, or at least very vulnerable to damaging her emotional development. Even more reason not to anally rape her, no?
And I find it naive to believe that his plea bargain was motivated by remorse or altruism. It's much more likely that the plea bargain was a matter of accepting one lesser count versus a whole bunch of ickier charges that would have seen him in the clink for a long time and with a reputation in tatters.
Given that he subsequently legged it, it's hard to accept that he was acting in anyone's best interests but his own.