Roman Polanski FINALLY arrested....

[SteveAJones]

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.

If Del Zeppnile can put this incident in it's proper context why can't CNN? Otherwise, I was just about to post "innocent until proven guilty".

[SteveAJones]

Granted... (edited)

What your saying is everything you just said, what I'm hearing is the world need a Wham reunion - now!

[Patrycja]

oh and for the record, Polanski didn't flee because he refused to face the music. He fled because the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain that was agreed upon by both sides. Big difference.

[SteveAJones]

oh and for the record, Polanski didn't flee because he refused to face the music. He fled because the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain that was agreed upon by both sides. Big difference.

By: The Associated Press

Date: Tuesday Feb. 17, 2009 10:01 PM ET

LOS ANGELES A judge refused Tuesday to dismiss a 31-year-old sex case against Roman Polanski because he's a fugitive but signalled he would reconsider if the film director returns to the United States and appears in court.

Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said after watching a documentary on the case he agrees there was misconduct by the now-deceased judge who arranged a plea bargain but reneged on it.

Polanski, now 75, pleaded guilty in 1977 to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl but fled to France in February 1978 after the judge threatened him with more prison time than agreed upon. That judge also said Polanski would have to voluntarily deport himself.

"Having reviewed all the evidence in this case, there was substantial misconduct that occurred in the pendency of this case," said Espinoza.

But he said if Polanski wants a ruling on that underlying issue, "he just needs to submit to the jurisdiction of this court."

Espinoza stayed his own decision until May 7 and ordered lawyers to appear in court then.

"If you are anticipating Mr. Polanski's presence on that date, I would need notice to arrange for security," Espinoza told Polanski's lawyer, Chad Hummel.

He noted the large turnout of news media at Tuesday's hearing, even though it had been known Polanski would not be there.

Hummel asked the judge for "guidance on what would happen if he returns."

He did not get it.

The judge said he was relying on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which says fugitives are not entitled to the processes of the court. In addition, he cited the more than 30-year delay since Polanski fled.

Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, who attended the hearing as an observer, said the ruling was anticipated but the judge's willingness to reconsider was a surprise.

"Without committing himself, the judge said, if you show up it may not be as bad as you think...The ray of light for Polanski is that the judge says there was misconduct," Levenson said.

Deputy district attorney David Wolgren told Espinoza he disputes the misconduct allegations and said it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow Polanski to seek dismissal of his case "from the comforts of France."

Polanski lives in France, where his film career has continued to flourish. He received a directing Oscar in absentia for the 2002 movie "The Pianist." While still working in the United States, he directed such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby."

If he chose to return to the United States, he likely would be arrested on a fugitive warrant. He has said he has no plans to ever set foot in the United States again.

Espinoza said he reviewed not only legal documents filed by both sides but also watched the HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which uncovered new information about actions by the late judge Laurence Rittenband.

The documentary suggests behind-the-scenes manipulations by a now-retired prosecutor who was not assigned to the case prodded the judge to renege on his plea agreement. By then, Polanski had spent 42 days in prison in what his lawyers believed was his full sentence under a plea bargain. Rittenband's decision to add more prison time and require his voluntary deportation prompted him to leave the country.

Lawrence Silver, a lawyer representing the victim, now a 45-year-old woman, argued for dismissal.

"The time has come for this case to end, your honour," he said.

In another twist on the unusual case, Douglas Dalton, the lawyer who represented Polanski in the original case, gave an impassioned argument in which he claimed Polanski was the victim of "a fugitive Catch-22."

"Judge Rittenband wanted him out of the country and wanted him never to return. And that's what Polanski did," he said.

"And now he can't get any relief because he's out of the country. It's the classic Catch-22."

Marina Zenovich, the filmmaker whose documentary focused new attention on the case, was in court with a camera crew.

[Patrycja]

^ SAJ, I think the 'substantial misconduct that occurred in the pendency of this case" Espinoza is speaking of refers to the original judge's misconduct, not to Polanski fleeing. For the record, I am not defending Polanski's actions, just filling some facts, and I do think he should be reprimanded, but it seems it would have to be in a new case because clearly that old case had been tampered with.

[SteveAJones]

^ SAJ, I think the 'substantial misconduct that occurred in the pendency of this case" Espinoza is speaking of refers to the original judge's misconduct, not to Polanski fleeing.

That is correct. My crystal ball says he voluntarily comes back to the states to stand trial but will do no jail time.

[Patrycja]

Hi Patyrcja,

I was just stateing the difference between what the Charges would or could have been, i didnt say one was Lawful and one was not, both are unlawful, only one is far worse than the other. This is not just my opinion but a matter of Fact and Law.

The rest of what you say i'm in total agreement with.

Regards, Danny

Danny, yes it is a court's discretion to decide on appropriate punishment to fit the severity of the crime. And you rightly point out that extenuating circumstances affect a court's decision. I just don't know what specifically goes into that decision. To what extent is it the victim's plea? The victim's 'wanting it?' The accused person's character after the crime? I guess we've aired our sides. Nice that it was relatively civil.

[Del Zeppnile]

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.

It is not my intention to twist your words, however you are making excuses for Polanski. First of all he HAS NO DEFENSE for what he did to that girl. 1)a minor cannot consent to unlawful sex in California. 2)for Polanski to have claimed any pyscological reason for his actions, his lawyers would have had to have attempted an 'insanity defense' and they obviously did not consider that.

Any why? Because Polanski was perfectly sane and in control of his faculties when he elected to plan and carry out this terrible crime against a child.

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.

That does not matter to the law or to me in this situation or any other sitution. Like I said, Polanski is not insane even if he has had an unhappy life. And like I said before, lots of people have unhappy lives. I'm sure that most child molestors have had unhappy lives, but that does not in any way relieve them of culpability for their crimes.

Polanski has been an accomplished film director and to all accounts has never had a similar incident... (so they say). To me that suggests that he is and was perfectly sane when he did this crime; he should have known better. For some people to say that because of the grief he had from his mother dying in at Aushwitz and because of the murder of his wife; that Polanski just wasn't himself. I'm telling you that type of reasoning is an excuse! Many thousands of Holocaust survivors have NEVER considered raping children to deal with their greif. No, Polanski was just one of many in Hollywood who believed that this "anything goes" type of behavior was acceptable and normal. His actions were not unfamiliar to many of us who live in Los Angeles; and if I had to guess, he probably did stuff like this before. Child molestors rarely are one time offenders; they usually are multiple offenders.

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.

There was a time in California when rape did call for the death penatly, especially in the case of children. Polanski was lucky that he was getting a light sentence (or at least that is how it appeared). Polanski had only been in jail for 42 days, and that was part of the psychological testing which is required by California law prior to sentencing. Basically an accused has the right to a report submitted by the office of probations detailing the fitness and mental condition of the accused BEFORE the judge renders his final sentencing. A probationary report may in fact mitigate the sentencing to some extent; however, it should be noted that California judges also have sentencing guidlines that they must follow per state law. At sentencing the final decision may be one where a lesser sentence or a greater sentence is imposed, but all based on the sentencing guidelines. The judge may even elect to sentence the perrson to state prison, but "suspend the sentence" and then place him on probation along with other requirements that the convicted must then follow under the supervision of a probation officer. But all of this happens AFTER the probation deptartment report had concluded their psychological tests and other reports.

But Polanski never waited around for that to happen did he? He just took off and left all of this hanging over his head. If I had to guess, Polanski's lawyer as part of his plea bargain deal, probably agreed to a certain amount of 'jail time' while the probationary reports were being made, and would then be released with "time already served" as his sentence, plus mandatory probation... or something else. The sentence may have also required some additional jail time, which probably would have been less than a year. But still, that would have been a much lighter sentence than Polanski would have gotten had this case been a first degree rape as opposed to "unlawful sex".

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.

What I was saying was that BOTH Manson and Polanski are at least "normal" in that they are not criminaly insane. That is to say that they have full control over their actions and what they choose to do or not do. That despite unhappiness or anything else in their past, we as a society are not obliged to excuse any of their wrong behavior. And that as a society we also shall hold them responsible for their wrong behavior.

I am not twisting what you said to say that you think Polanski is not guilty. I just challenge you and others to not attempt to mitigate in your minds the reasons for his crime. He either did it or he didn't do it, and as long as he can't prove that he was insane while he did it, there is no reasonable explanation for it. Because this is not a case where Polanski was so depressed that he went into a store and shoplifted a gold watch to make himself feel better about all the bad things that happened to him in his life. Polanski lured a child into a home, drugged her and then raped and sodomized her. He did this to another HUMAN BEING. To a child. He used her to gratify himself without any regard for her or her happiness and well being. This was a serious crime, and he should be punished for it. PERIOD.

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.

In my opinion Roman Polanski should have spent the rest of his life in prison for this crime as well. We all see and read about the abduction and rape of children by men everyday. What makes him any less of a monster than they are. Because he made intersting movies? Because he has popular friends? We need to STOP and think about what this man did and put it into the proper perspective. This was not Bill Clinton getting BJ from an adult woman. This was a 43 year old man raping and sodomizing a little girl.

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.

The circumstances of the plea deal in this case have been in question for years. The original presiding judge has since died, and new judge will have to render the final decision if Polanski ever gets back to the jurisdiction. Indications are that it will not be a long prison term, but there may be other factors such as new charges for fleeing the jurisdiction. Typically actions like that will require further actions by the court. And in my opinion, all of that might have been resolved had Polanski just returned on his own. Most judges are very willing to accept the willful attempt by a defendant to right his actions and put himself on the mercy of the court.

We'll see what happens. But I think he will get at least a year to a year and a half in prison. But will probably only serve about six months of that time. And probably in a really comfortable cell, as most celebrities are often given.

[BIGDAN]

Danny, yes it is a court's discretion to decide on appropriate punishment to fit the severity of the crime. And you rightly point out that extenuating circumstances affect a court's decision. I just don't know what specifically goes into that decision. To what extent is it the victim's plea? The victim's 'wanting it?' The accused person's character after the crime? I guess we've aired our sides. Nice that it was relatively civil.

Thanks Patrycja,

When you're a Celebraty or Super Rich, the Law can be very different than for us Serf's dont you think?

Regards, Danny

[Del Zeppnile]

^ SAJ, I think the 'substantial misconduct that occurred in the pendency of this case" Espinoza is speaking of refers to the original judge's misconduct, not to Polanski fleeing. For the record, I am not defending Polanski's actions, just filling some facts, and I do think he should be reprimanded, but it seems it would have to be in a new case because clearly that old case had been tampered with.

Unless there is an appeal to the appeals court or higher, there would be no new case. And I don't think even Polanski would want a new case as that would be televised for all to see. Every detail of how he raped that little girl would be broadcast around the world.

Besides, there was nothing wrong with the case in terms of Polanski agreeing to a guilty charge for a lesser crime. Polanski benefitted from that deal. What will now have to occur is that another judge will finalize the sentencing of Polanski. The final disposition will just need to be carried out, pending any new motions or even other charges for fleeing filed by the District Attorney's office.

The stupid thing for Polanski was that he was already getting a good deal when he left. He doesn't think so, and I suppose he thinks that what he did was nothing. But trust me, he was getting a break right from the start.

[eternal light]

His wife was murdered. He probably just wanted to get away from the whole foreign environment and go home.

Also, had he not been a celebrity, this case would not have drawn so much attention.

[Patrycja]

Thanks Patrycja,

When you're a Celebraty or Super Rich, the Law can be very different than for us Serf's dont you think?

Regards, Danny

That has been shown to be true over and over again. I guess celebrities and the super rich are the new kings and queens, while the serfs are, well, still the serfs. Cheers, Danny

P

Unless there is an appeal to the appeals court or higher, there would be no new case. And I don't think even Polanski would want a new case as that would be televised for all to see. Every detail of how he raped that little girl would be broadcast around the world.

Besides, there was nothing wrong with the case in terms of Polanski agreeing to a guilty charge for a lesser crime. Polanski benefitted from that deal. What will now have to occur is that another judge will finalize the sentencing of Polanski. The final disposition will just need to be carried out, pending any new motions or even other charges for fleeing filed by the District Attorney's office.

The stupid thing for Polanski was that he was already getting a good deal when he left. He doesn't think so, and I suppose he thinks that what he did was nothing. But trust me, he was getting a break right from the start.

Yeah I'm not sure how the appeals process works, Del, I just thought that since there was tampering in the initial case, that it might not even be legal to proceed with it. Yes, he surely did benefit from that deal. There were, I think, five charges brought against him, and the plea deal meant he pled guilty for only one.

My only point was that he left not because he didn't want to face the plea deal that was agreed upon, but because the original judge was going to change it. I think that was part of the indiscretion of the judge bit that Espinoza referred to.

It looks like it'll get dragged out, though, because Polanski is fighting the extradition.

[BIGDAN]

His wife was murdered. He probably just wanted to get away from the whole foreign environment and go home.

Also, had he not been a celebrity, this case would not have drawn so much attention.

Hi ET,

And i hear him say,

"And before i go i'll just sodomize this lovely little girl after i drug and rape her"

If he had not been a Celebrity then maybe he would not have been able to Run back to his Homeland of the Cowardly French, where he came from, and maybe someone in Prison would have "Torn him a New Ass" as the saying goes, ya neva no do ya? Now that would have been true Justice wouldnt it?

Regards, Danny

[SteveAJones]

FWIW, most posts to this thread relating to sexual conduct with a minor not involving Roman Polansky are being vaporized.

[BIGDAN]

FWIW, most posts to this thread relating to sexual conduct with a minor not involving Roman Polansky are being vaporized.

I was just saying J

I see what you mean Steve.

Regards, Danny

[Hotplant]

^ Wha?

I for once agree with Del.

The LAW decides these cases whether the victim likes it or not. Like a lot of domestic violence cases now. THE STATE is who decides, not the victim.

Victims are paid off, coerced (sp?), and that in itself is further victimization.

Sure she doesn't want it brought up, she probably got a very decent pay off and doesn't want the public sniffing around to find out how much.

Not every rape victim gets a big pay off.

13 and 14 year olds in the eyes of the law can NOT consent. Period.

Perhaps he would like to see how it feels to be drugged and sodomized.

I could care less how "creative" the bastard is. Tough tittie asshole.

I think he should pay...not in cash, in TIME...with some bad ass cellies.

If he was so sure he should have fought and stayed, despite what he thought would happen.

One chickenshit coward.

And yes, were he not who he is, he would've paid his time by now. As he should.

[Patrycja]

FWIW, most posts to this thread relating to sexual conduct with a minor not involving Roman Polansky are being vaporized.

Thanks, Sherlock

[SteveAJones]

Thanks, Sherlock

No, your welcome, Sherlock (you were among those who kept posting).

Polanski was "thrown to the lions," said French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

In others words American intervention in French affairs is only welcome when blood needs to be shed.

[Patrycja]

No, your welcome, Sherlock (you were among those who kept posting).

Polanski was "thrown to the lions," said French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

In others words American intervention in French affairs is only welcome when blood needs to be shed.

Yes, of course I was, and I stand by all of them. Why would you even need to a-state that? and b-point out that posts were being deleted? Keeps you in the clear in your ivory tower? Stop acting like this is your site and you wield any decision power over what admins choose to do. Or hide behind them. Nice to see you continuing the hypocrisy. Thanks for proving the point of all the posts that got deleted.

[eternal light]

Hi ET,

And i hear him say,

"And before i go i'll just sodomize this lovely little girl after i drug and rape her"

If he had not been a Celebrity then maybe he would not have been able to Run back to his Homeland of the Cowardly French, where he came from, and maybe someone in Prison would have "Torn him a New Ass" as the saying goes, ya neva no do ya? Now that would have been true Justice wouldnt it?

Regards, Danny

She probably seemed to be old enough. If only he had checked her ID. But no, I would never advocate any mistreatment of him. Mainly I feel sorry for him because Susan Atkins so brutally murdered his wife, Sharon Tate. I would imagine he was in a quite stunned state of mind in those days as a result, and just wasn't thinking clearly, that is of course if the incident occurred after the murder. He may have been driven to seek solace with the nearest warm and willing, seemingly grown-up young lady. He probably did not consider it to be rape, rather a romantic interlude with an attractive young woman and champagne, shelter from the storm as it were. I wonder what the timeline was. I honestly doubt that he was trying to harm her, rather just wasn't thinking.

That's the problem with men, they just don't think sometimes.

[BIGDAN]

She probably seemed to be old enough. If only he had checked her ID. But no, I would never advocate any mistreatment of him. Mainly I feel sorry for him because Susan Atkins so brutally murdered his wife, Sharon Tate. I would imagine he was in a quite stunned state of mind in those days as a result, and just wasn't thinking clearly, that is of course if the incident occurred after the murder. He may have been driven to seek solace with the nearest warm and willing, seemingly grown-up young lady. He probably did not consider it to be rape, rather a romantic interlude with an attractive young woman and champagne, shelter from the storm as it were. I wonder what the timeline was. I honestly doubt that he was trying to harm her, rather just wasn't thinking.

That's the problem with men, they just don't think sometimes.

Hi ET,

You are awesome mate so i'll keep well away from saying something i'll regret in the next Topic.

As for your last point,

"That's the problem with men, they just don't think sometimes."

That would be appropriate, maybe, if we were talking about a "Teenage Boy" and not a 44 year old Man who knew exactly what he was doing. And we all know what he was doing by now dont we?

Yes, Teenage Boy have their Brains in their Dicks, but with Maturity the Brain Rises and Settles somwhere between their Ears, in most Case's that is, it doesn't stay down there forever, just incase you didnt know.

And before you ask, no my Ears arent attached to my Hips.

Regards, Danny

[SteveAJones]

Yes, of course I was, and I stand by all of them. Why would you even need to a-state that? and b-point out that posts were being deleted? Keeps you in the clear in your ivory tower? Stop acting like this is your site and you wield any decision power over what admins choose to do. Or hide behind them. Nice to see you continuing the hypocrisy. Thanks for proving the point of all the posts that got deleted.

As a forum member in good standing I pointed out the overly personal posts to this thread you among others continued making were being deleted. I chose to do so because you among others continued

posting them despite the initial round of deletions. Your welcome.

[SteveAJones]

She probably seemed to be old enough. If only he had checked her ID. That's the problem with men, they just don't think sometimes.

Let me get this right. Your saying a man alledgedly drugging a woman for the purpose of non-consensual sex is going to concern himself with checking the victim's id? Then, and let me get this right, since one particular man made this choice the problem is men in general. What a sweeping and stunningly asinine conclusion this is.

[Patrycja]

As a forum member in good standing I pointed out the overly personal posts to this thread you among others continued making were being deleted. I chose to do so because you among others continued

posting them despite the initial round of deletions. Your welcome.

It's 'you're'. And I wasn't thanking you. Get over yourself. The posts were all deleted in one fell swoop. Make no mistake, we all know it was the Admins' decision to make. The 'overly personal' references are public knowledge, but because this is a Zep forum, 'when in Rome' applies, so I respect their decision.

Your deafening silence has now reached the level of thundering silence.

[redrum]

They should also get him for cutting Jack Nicholson's nose.