59LesPaul Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 One predator down.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Jackass got what was coming to him, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 I was reading an article where the victim stated that continued discussion about it is embarrassing for her, her husband and her kids and she wants the charges against him dropped. So who knows what'll happen if/when he gets here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Wow... umm... I like his movies (well, most of them), too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Is there a statute of limitations that might apply in this case? It seems as if the victim, now an adult, would prefer to have the case dismissed. If there is no relevant statute of limitations, perhaps the President would consider a pardon? Do they allow community service in these cases, or credit for time served? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppFanForever Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 One predator down.... What's happening "59LesPaul?" And how's the Official Keith Richards Defender doing? I'm a big Keith Richards fan as well as a big time STONES fan. Possibly like yourself, My hand has actually shook the hand of Keith Richards. Shaking his hand was like shaking hands with God. Ok, enough of that. Ha Ha! As for Roman Polanski's arrest, in my opinion, he had it coming sooner or later. You can only get away with something for so long. Have a great day and ROCK ON "59LesPaul!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted September 27, 2009 Author Share Posted September 27, 2009 Is there a statute of limitations that might apply in this case? No It seems as if the victim, now an adult, would prefer to have the case dismissed. Tough shit,it's not her call to make. If there is no relevant statute of limitations, perhaps the President would consider a pardon? Do they allow community service in these cases, or credit for time served? God I hope not..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 I would suggest that the least controversial manner of settling this case would be the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aen27 Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Interesting that this would happen the same day I begin watching Tess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted September 27, 2009 Author Share Posted September 27, 2009 I would suggest that the least controversial manner of settling this case would be the best one. I agree....lock his ass up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 He has a right to a fair trial. I would suggest that summary judgement from Canada via the internet falls short of that objective, seeing as Los Angeles, California has proper legal jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 I agree....lock his ass up. Doubt it'll happen. Not that I'm saying what he did wasn't wrong; he pled guilty, but tampering by the original judge in the case will likely mean it'll get thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I was reading an article where the victim stated that continued discussion about it is embarrassing for her, her husband and her kids and she wants the charges against him dropped. So who knows what'll happen if/when he gets here. Not unusual for the victim of a crime to feel this way. She may come around to the idea in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Hi all, Good thing Lori M didn't feel this way,...right Bebe??? KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out. Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception. "Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case." Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She long ago came forward and made her identity public -- mainly, she said, because she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled. Following Espinoza's ruling earlier this year, Geimer's lawyer, Larry Silver, said he was disappointed and that Espinoza "did not get to the merits and consider the clear proof of both judicial and prosecutorial corruption." He argued in court that had "Mr. Polanski been treated fairly" his client would not still be suffering because of publicity almost 32 years after the crime. cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Hi all, Good thing Lori M didn't feel this way,...right Bebe??? KB Yep, that one certainly tests the waters of tolerance. It's hard not to think of; a difference in degree, not in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Not unusual for the victim of a crime to feel this way. She may come around to the idea in time. I don't know. According to the articles I've been reading about this story, she's felt this way for quite a while so it doesn't sound like this was an initial reaction to the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I don't know. According to the articles I've been reading about this story, she's felt this way for quite a while so it doesn't sound like this was an initial reaction to the news. I'm not saying it's right but personally ,I can appreciate that she has moved on. Sometimes the victim not only learns to but also wishes to when matter's become public and they feel they are no longer in control of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Is there a statute of limitations that might apply in this case? It seems as if the victim, now an adult, would prefer to have the case dismissed. This case does not need a statute of limitations because Polanski already entered a guilty plea to the charges. However while out on bail and during the psycological testing phase before the judge ruled on Polanski's punishment; Polanski fled the jurisdiction and has been a fugative from justice for the past 30 years. A statute of limitations exemption would only apply to a case that had not been filed by the District Attorney's office subsequent to the actual date of the crime (except for murder as there is no statute of limitations for murder in the State of California). If I recall, a 'statutory rape' would have something like a one year statute of limitation if it is of the misdemeanor variety, and a three year limitation if the crime is being charged as a felony. I don't recall in Polanski's case if it was a three year or not because he had entered into a plea agreement with the District Attorney's office when he agreed to plead guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor." However the original charge was much more serious because it originally involved rape, sodomy and the use of drugs to commit the act of rape on an unconsenting minor. Gee, what a scumbag that guy was! If there is no relevant statute of limitations, perhaps the President would consider a pardon? Do they allow community service in these cases, or credit for time served? As I pointed out; statute of limitiations (SOL) does not apply in this case. And I don't think the President would have any interest whatsoever in issuing a pardon for Roman Polanski. First of all, he is a fugative from justice and that does not play into his favor one bit with most people. And secondly, HE HASN'T SERVED ANY TIME ON THIS OFFENSE! Why would you want to cut a man a break who had committed such a devious and disgusting crime against a child? Did you ever read any of the account of how Polanski lured this young girl into his friend's home under the false guise of taking fashion photos for a magazine and then druged her and raped her? What kind of a thoughtless human being would do such a thing to a child? I suspect that if this extradition takes place (granted that the Swiss government does not cave into pressure to release Polanski) Polanski may end up serving at the very minimum 14 months in a California prison at the very least. However, they may also slap addition charges on him for his unlawful flight to avoid prosecution too. And I would hope that the District Attorney's office does in fact make a big deal out of this and an example of Polanski if he is in fact returned. Polanski made this sitution much worse than he needed to by his own choice. He had already agreed to plead quilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. He should have just done his time and had the whole thing behind him years ago. I would suggest that the least controversial manner of settling this case would be the best one. On what logical basis do you "suggest" that a child rapist should be given any consideration other than that which he already had? Are you saying that child rape should be of no consequence? Are you suggesting that just because the man made some movies that you liked, that you are are willing to forgive him? I suggest that he be returned and he receive every once of punishment that the law permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It seems strange that for all these years he has avoided travelling to countries that have extradition treaties with the US, yet he flies into Switzerland. Maybe he is ready to face the consequences? While not condoning in any way what he has done, he has had a tragic life. I'm sure he has never gotten over Sharon Tate and his unborn baby's murders (committed by the Manson family in 1969), which in itself would be enough to send anyone off the edge. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out considering his age, the corrupt first trial and the victims feelings on the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It seems strange that for all these years he has avoided travelling to countries that have extradition treaties with the US, yet he flies into Switzerland. Maybe he is ready to face the consequences? While not condoning in any way what he has done, he has had a tragic life. I'm sure he has never gotten over Sharon Tate and his unborn baby's murders (committed by the Manson family in 1969), which in itself would be enough to send anyone off the edge. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out considering his age, the corrupt first trial and the victims feelings on the whole thing. How was the first trial corrupt? Polanski never went to trial on this case, he plead out for a deal to accept a lesser charge. And the reason he never went to trial was because the victim's graphic testimony about how he lured the young girl into the situation, gave her alcohol and drugs, and then raped and sodomized her, was not something he wanted to be heard in public (see My link). If you read the part about how the little girl sat in the car afterward and cried, I don't see how you could say that any part of the prosecution of this man was corrupt. And so what about his so called "tragic life". Lots of people have tragic lives but don't go around raping and sodomizing 13 year old girls. Charles Manson had a "tragic life" to by all accounts. An abusive mother and no loving father to raise him. Should Manson get a break because he had an unhappy childhood too? You say you don't condone what he did, but don't make excuses for him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It seems strange that for all these years he has avoided travelling to countries that have extradition treaties with the US, yet he flies into Switzerland. Maybe he is ready to face the consequences? While not condoning in any way what he has done, he has had a tragic life. I'm sure he has never gotten over Sharon Tate and his unborn baby's murders (committed by the Manson family in 1969), which in itself would be enough to send anyone off the edge. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out considering his age, the corrupt first trial and the victims feelings on the whole thing. Hi Reggie, Granted that he would have never gotten over what happened to his wife and unborn baby, well you would have thought that that might have stopped him behaving so badly towards a minor wouldnt you? And show her a bit of Compassion rather than Raping, Sodomizing and Drugging her wouldnt you? The "Man" deserves no less than what a "Child Rapist" would get now, Life Imprisonment Without Parole. Anything else would undermine the Justice System and the Girl it happend too. And how could the Justice System come to a Plea Bargain decision? he knew she was a 13 year old, he knew exactly what he was doing, why wasn't his Passport taken away? I mean, how do you go from, Plotting to Rape a 13 year old Minnor, Rape by use of Drugs, Committing a Lewd act upon a Person less than 14 years of age, Oral Copulation, Sodomy, Furnishing Drugs to a Minor, And bring those charges down to "unlawful intercourse with a minor "? talk about selling the Law Cheaply. Same goes for Mike Tyson, Gary Glitter and dont get me even started on Elton John, now theres a man who openly admits that he took Underaged Rent Boys from the Streets of London for his Homo Sex Parties at his house in Watford, and now he wants to adopt a Baby in the Ukraine, what is the World comming to when a Paedophile can openly Tout to Adopt a Baby and the World goes "Ahhh, what a nice guy"? I cant wait for Armageddon. Regards, Danny PS, Just My Honest Opinion's Folks. http://www.intellect...rticle4541.html Eddited to Add. I'm of the opinion that Judges are the Real problem here, they feel for People like Polanski because they either do what he did or sympathise with what he did and think that the Law on this Subject is an Ass, one exception, Judge Judy of course. Regards Again, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 How was the first trial corrupt? Polanski never went to trial on this case, he plead out for a deal to accept a lesser charge. And the reason he never went to trial was because the victim's graphic testimony about how he lured the young girl into the situation, gave her alcohol and drugs, and then raped and sodomized her, was not something he wanted to be heard in public (see My link). If you read the part about how the little girl sat in the car afterward and cried, I don't see how you could say that any part of the prosecution of this man was corrupt. And so what about his so called "tragic life". Lots of people have tragic lives but don't go around raping and sodomizing 13 year old girls. Charles Manson had a "tragic life" to by all accounts. An abusive mother and no loving father to raise him. Should Manson get a break because he had an unhappy childhood too? You say you don't condone what he did, but don't make excuses for him either. Don't twist my words, I was just making an observation. No excuses, just saying that he was never the same again psychologically and that's what his defence will go after. I do know that you or I would be devastated if that happened to someone close to us and yes it's no reason to violate young children, nor should it be used as a defence against the indefencible but is has in the past and will continue to be so. Our western justice system is notorious for passing incredulous judgements and sentences thanks to all the lawyers and psychologists et cetera so he'll probably receive a token sentence (he could die in prison though), because of his age. That's how the system works, right or wrong. Are you making excuses for Manson and co.? Of course not, you illustrated my point in that when bad things happen they invariably cause worse things to happen as a consequence of the emotional and psychological damage suffered by victims of violent acts, that, to "normal" people are totally abhorrent. Charles Manson was a drop kick and he was lucky the death penalty was repealed in California otherwise all of them would've been executed. I heard a report on the radio this morning that the judge or someone was involved in something dodgy in regards to his receiving bail and he skipped the US all those years ago. In hindsight, pre-trial may have been more appropriate as you pointed out it didn't go to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Lena_Zep Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well, it took only 30 years. However, I don't believe he'll go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 A few things: it wasn't the trial that was corrupt, rather the actions of the original judge presiding over the case, Laurence A. Rittenband (who has since died), 'revealed misconduct', according to a documentary about Polanski. The judge now presiding over the case, Peter Espinoza, agrees: "In February, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza agreed the new facts suggested misconduct took place, but said he could not throw out the conviction without Polanski's presence in his courtroom. After watching the pic, Espinoza said, "It is hard to contest that some of the conduct portrayed in film on that documentary was misconduct."" No one involved in the case denies that a crime was committed. Bu should this case go forward, Polanski's lawyer will likely argue that the crime, grave and serious though it was, was nevertheless an aberration, not part of a pattern of deviant behaviour. From all accounts, unless someone else steps forward (and no one to my knowledge has in the last thirty + years), Polanski has been a model citizen. Like it or not, Reggie is right. The things that happened in his past before the crime, and his behaviour after it, will have an impact in the outcome of the case, as will the victim statement, which has been consistent to drop the case. The support of his former sister-in-law, Debra Tate, will also carry some weight. It is a bit odd that he got arrested in Switzerland seeing as how he has a summer home there. Switzerland's 'neutrality' has often come into question as in the past it has been interpreted as tacit consent ie/ if you don't stand up to corrupt behaviour, you condone it. Variety - some more info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.