Polanski out of jail for medical reasons
Lemmy @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:50 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Did Roman shag a 13 year old up every orifice?
Yup.
Lemmy @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:54 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Why would a prosecutor be a credible source?
I can be a credible source too, as long as I get paid enough. Really, I can be REALLY convincing...
I can be a credible source too, as long as I get paid enough. Really, I can be REALLY convincing...
So now you're presuming that the prosecutor took money and lied, on camera, about a case he handled. Okay then.
EyeBrock @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:57 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Did Roman shag a 13 year old up every orifice?
Yup.
So, who can defend that?
Brenda @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:59 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Brenda Brenda:
Why would a prosecutor be a credible source?
I can be a credible source too, as long as I get paid enough. Really, I can be REALLY convincing...
I can be a credible source too, as long as I get paid enough. Really, I can be REALLY convincing...
So now you're presuming that the prosecutor took money and lied, on camera, about a case he handled. Okay then.
you claim a documentary is proof. It is not.
He did not enter the US for 30 years, he had an arrest warrant against him. He fucked a 13 year old while he was 30 years older. There is NO way you can talk right whats wrong.
ridenrain @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:02 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
That fawning doccumentary you were touting as "proof" which has recently been debunked, probably isn' going to cut it with the US justice sytem. Buying off the victim also isn't proof of innocence or justice either.
Debunked by whom? I love how you just make shit up. The film is interviews with the victim, the defense attorney and the prosecutor. It's straight from the horses' mouths. And who would make a more credible source than the prosecutor?
I'm not the one who keeps saying some documentary and un-named book is more valid than most of the population and the the US & Swiss justice system.
What part of statutory rape did you miss? The later opinion of the older victim has nothing to do with the crime.
Lemmy @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:09 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
I'm not the one who keeps saying some documentary and un-named book is more valid than most of the population and the the US & Swiss justice system.
What part of statutory rape did you miss? The later opinion of the older victim has nothing to do with the crime.
What part of statutory rape did you miss? The later opinion of the older victim has nothing to do with the crime.
The statutory rape has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! The day the judge renegged on the plea agreement, Polanski became a victim. What Polanski did with that girl was wrong. Horrible. But the punishment for that was served. Was it lenient? Yes. Should have gotten more jailtime? Yes. But that's got NOTHING to do with how Polanski's been treated by the "justice" system in California.
Should we just round up Karla Homolka and toss her in the can 'cause we're still pissed at what she did and that we think she was under-sentenced?
Lemmy @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:13 pm
Brenda Brenda:
you claim a documentary is proof. It is not.
No, I claim the statements about the case made by the prosecutor and the defense attorney are proof. You can find SOME of what those two have had to say about the case by viewing the interviews with them contained in the documentary. They can be found in other places as well.
Brenda Brenda:
He did not enter the US for 30 years, he had an arrest warrant against him. He fucked a 13 year old while he was 30 years older. There is NO way you can talk right whats wrong.
Was his punishment lenient? By today's standards, yes, compared to similar cases in 1976, I don't know. Do I PERSONALLY believe he should have served more time? Yes. But this case in not about what Polanski did. It's about how he was persecuted by a corrupt justice system, so much so that he fled his home never to return.
ridenrain @ Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:32 pm
Show us a link or a media editorial that takes that position.
The only supporters I heard were the fishwives at "the view" and some perv's from France.
BionicBunny @ Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:30 am
Polanski isn't likely to curb his urges anytime soon. Anyone yet mention his "romance" with Nastassja Kinski when she was just fifteen and he was what..46?
BionicBunny @ Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:25 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
I'm not the one who keeps saying some documentary and un-named book is more valid than most of the population and the the US & Swiss justice system.
What part of statutory rape did you miss? The later opinion of the older victim has nothing to do with the crime.
What part of statutory rape did you miss? The later opinion of the older victim has nothing to do with the crime.
The statutory rape has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! The day the judge renegged on the plea agreement, Polanski became a victim. What Polanski did with that girl was wrong. Horrible. But the punishment for that was served. Was it lenient? Yes. Should have gotten more jailtime? Yes. But that's got NOTHING to do with how Polanski's been treated by the "justice" system in California.
Should we just round up Karla Homolka and toss her in the can 'cause we're still pissed at what she did and that we think she was under-sentenced?
*sigh* I typed up this beautiful argument and then lost the whole thing with the press of a wrong button. I'll just state the finer points:
1. Lemmy, you have thumped on about this documentary like it's the bible since the last thread, then when you mention another source and you are asked for it, you clam up.
2. Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall plea bargains can only be followed by the D.A.'s office and do not have to be adhered to by a judge.
3. statuatory rape has everything to do with this. It's why he is in this mess he is in now.
4. Karla Homolka has two things in common with Polanski. They have both raped. Karla used the weak, defenceless and dominated woman defence to explain why she murdered and raped. Meanwhile I am sure Polanski's friends (if not Polanski's lawyer himself) is using his holocaust survivor/talented artist to their defence.
5. So far I have read two articles of two from journalists who wrote after seeing the Doc you speak of and both still believe he skipped town before facing his sentence.
leewgrant @ Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:26 am
$1:
"I understand that people are shocked by the gravity of the accusations against Roman Polanski," Sarkozy told newspaper Le Figaro's website on Friday.
"But I add that it is not a good administration of justice to do this 32 years after the facts when the person concerned is today 76 years old."
"But I add that it is not a good administration of justice to do this 32 years after the facts when the person concerned is today 76 years old."
Nick, he hasn't just been "accused"; he has pleaded guilty - he is a fugitive from justice, just as if he escaped from prison. Is France's idea of justice that if you flee the jurisdiction, after so many years you are forgiven?
MacDonaill @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:55 pm
Thanos Thanos:
Nope. But Polanski made financial reparations to the vicitm and the vicitm is on record numerous times as saying that she wants the whole matter dropped and forgotten. A California prosecutor, who by definition are not limp-wristed liberal wimps, made a legitimate plea bargain with Polanski's defence that was unjustifiably reneged upon by an out-of-control publicity-seeking judge who, by the way, was later removed from the case by his own superiors for going beyond the scope of his powers and for committing a major miscarriage of justice. Polanski deserved whatever punishment he had coming his way by the terms of the agreement but there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the entire plea-agreement process that would have ended this case over thirty years ago had been compromised and railroaded by a judge who was operating according to his own self-serving agenda. These are the FACTS of the case that are not disputed by anyone, especially the prosecutor's office, as they happened.
No justice for the victim. No justice for Polanski. No justice for the citizens of California. And the only benefit so far has been to the hyperventilating members of the usual bloodthirsty "hang 'em high!" mob, to which real justice is, and always has been, the last priority in any situation like this.
No justice for the victim. No justice for Polanski. No justice for the citizens of California. And the only benefit so far has been to the hyperventilating members of the usual bloodthirsty "hang 'em high!" mob, to which real justice is, and always has been, the last priority in any situation like this.
A commendable commentary. Before reading further on this thread, I already sympathise with you for the onslaught of ridiculous responses that will come from people who will not have fully read this great post, choosing instead the knee-jerk route.
Kudos, and for the first time ever on this forum, I will be according points.
segno @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:52 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
The statutory rape has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! The day the judge renegged on the plea agreement, Polanski became a victim.
The problem is, the judge never actually renegged on the plea deal.
During Polanski's time in court, it was made totally clear to him that the final sentence had not been decided. Polanski may have assumed that he wasn't going to spend time in jail, but there was nothing in the plea agreement that would have prevented the judge from giving him jail time.
From: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... plea8.html
MR. GUNSON: Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?
THE DEFENDANT: (No response.)
MR. GUNSON: Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: Further, do you realize that this Court will not make any decision regarding probation and sentence until after it has read and considered the report and recommendation that will be prepared and submitted to it by the Probation Department? And after it has heard the argument of your attorney and the argument of the prosecutor; --
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: -- do you understand that?
Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.