Polanski arrested in Switzerland (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ted Todorov

France most certainly does extradite to the US -- they don't extradite for the crime Polanski pled guilty to -- "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor". The Swiss insist on a sentence longer than 6 months to extradite -- so it isn't clear how they will extradite him either. My wild guess -- they won't.

I don't believe it's because of the crime that France won't extradite; it's the fact that Polanski has French citizenship. AFAIK, France maintains an exception for French nationals in all of their extradition treaties.

So far as him being a "National Treasure" in France -- we made him one. Who was the previous French director to win Best Director/Best Picture Oscars?

Polanski is a Polish director with French citizenship. And unless you're a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, I don't see how "we" translates from the Oscars. America doesn't vote on them. And not everyone in France shares the cultural minister's position.

Originally Posted by Holadem

One could argue that as far as this latest arrest is concerned, his celebrity is a handicap. How many fugitives overseas would still get this sort of attention from a DA office after all this time and against the desires of the victim?

How many fugitives would receive the support Mr. Polanski has received from foreign governments, though? You're probably right about the Los Angeles D.A.'s continued pursuit of the case, but then again how many extradition requests for similar cases are regularly processeed that we just don't hear about because the fugitive in question isn't newsworthy? For that matter, how many fugitives flee to foreign shores after conviction?

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I saw a lot of sensational reporting on the news last night and this morning before reading this thread.
I wish everyone would calm down and also tone down the rhetoric.

Everyone should watch Marina Zenovich's documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired to get acquainted with the facts:
www.amazon.com/Roman-Polanski-Desired-Pedro-Almod%C3%B3var/dp/B001HB1K46/ref=sr_1_1
She did not get Polanski's co-operation, but she did receive co-operation from the lawyers and the victim herself.
While Ms. Zenovich's documentary doesn't ignore the facts of his crime, it would not be a stretch to stay that the finally product is heavily skewed toward the defense.

Roman Polanski is not an habitual sex offender and has never committed another crime in his life.
He is a married man raising children of his own under perfectly normal circumstances.
He was tricked into pleading guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor" when the reality was not that simple.

What is not simple? He drugged and engaged in intercourse with a child well below the age of consent, who actively and repeatedly told him no as he pursued his sexual conquest. Sodomy was among the acts perpetrated on the girl, which isn't a crime now but certainly was at the time. The fact that he drugged himself as well does not excuse the fact that he drugged his victim. The fact that he has not been accused of a subsequent sex crime since does not change the fact that he engaged in a sex crime then.

The judge and prosecutor withheld evidence and manipulated evidence in illegal ways to insure a conviction.
The judge was later removed from the bench.

Which would have left him on firm footing to pursue an appeal. Had he not skipped out before sentencing, his case probably would have been dismissed on appeal and he'd have spent the vast majority of the years since in the total free and clear. Instead, he chose to be a fugitive from justice.

Samantha Geimer, now a middle-aged mother, admitted she was sexually experienced at age 13 before she met Polanski.
The fact that she has forgiven Polanski for what happened is very telling, I think.
She accepted a settlement and has repeatedly asked that the charges be dismissed.

The fact that she'd been exploited sexually before does not excuse Polanski sexually exploiting her. Should adult rapists be let off the hook if they can prove their victims weren't virgins?

The fact that she accepted a settlement probably goes a long way toward explaining why she wants the charges dismissed.
So far, theirs' are the only rational voices I've heard in all this noise.
Let's not try the case in the media, or on Home Theater Forum for that matter.

Mr. Polanski gave up his right to have the matter settled in a courtroom when he fled from justice after pleading guilty.

Originally Posted by SilverWook

Can the victim be compelled to testify in this sort of case?

L.A. is really cash strapped right now, (like most of the state) and a long expensive "celebrity" trial going on while other city services are being cut left and right is going anger some citizens regardless of the charges involved. Even more so if Polanski is not convicted.

There is no trial, Bill. He was convicted. The only outstanding element in Mr. Polanski's case is sentencing. On one hand, the fact that the victim wants the case dropped (after receiving a sizable, albeit undisclosed settlment from Polanski) would argue toward a lenient sentence. On the other hand, the fact that he was a fugitive from justice for three decades would argue toward a stricter than average sentence. Either way, if he is extradicted and sentenced he's sure to appeal. Given some well-documented procedural anomolies with his case, he's on pretty solid grounds to pursue a dismissal. But that doesn't change the fact that he was found guilty and needs to face justice.

 

[Richard--W]

Chuck Mayer and Russell G, maybe Polanski committed the crime and maybe he didn't. The judge tricked Polanski into a plea bargain which Polanski made against his will on a deal the judge had no intention of keeping to insure the conviction and incarceration. That much has been proven, and later the judge was disbarred and removed from the bench for his other offenses. So the conviction was arrived at by a deceit, and the conclusions so many people are making are erroneous.

The conviction should be dismissed on the grounds that the prosecutor and the judge withheld evidence, tampered with evidence, mislead the jury and made deals under false pretenses. Other cases not involving celebrities are routinely thrown out under lesser circumstances. I never suggested that Polanski should not be brought to justice, but under the circumstances it is impossible for him to receive justice in the Los Angeles / USA courts. It was the mis-conduct of the judge that turned the proceedings into a circus, not Polanski, and it was the mis-conduct of the judge that alarmed Polanski and caused him to flee after he had co-operated fully and done everything that was asked him. It is beginning to look more and more like justice is the lat thing the authorities have in mind. Keeping all that in mind, I also think people should give more thought to the woman's comments and perhaps respect her wishes in the matter.

 

[SilverWook]

I stand corrected, it's been a long while since I've read anything on this, thanks Adam.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Keeping all that in mind, I also think people should give more thought to the woman's comments and perhaps respect her wishes in the matter.

According to the woman, it happened and she wants to forget about it and move on, no? I've never heard that the woman disputes that she had sex with Polanski, just that so much time has passed, she wishes it would go away. So regardless of the miss-handling of the case, Polanski should answer for it in some way.

 

[Richard--W]

Russell G, a convicted criminal should always answer for his crimes, even if he's a celebrity named Polanski, but this conviction was arrived at by a trick rather than by justice. And it does seem that lawyers and judges who engage in misconduct are not investigated, not charged, not arrested, and not brought to justice. They are merely disbarred or dismissed while the victim of the their misconduct is left hanging. The case was so badly bungled it can't be won by either side, but that won't stop the present authorities from ignoring the mis-conduct and pressing the conviction anyway. It is now a matter of saving face, not of justice. I don't think Polanski has a chance of receiving justice in the L.A. / USA courts.

 

[Bill Buklis]

Good points, Adam, all of them.

There are so many wrongs in this case that there is no way to make this completely right. After the judge was disbarred he should have turned himself in and got the matter resolved once and for all, perhaps even in his favor. But, I fully suspect he believes that he "got away with it" and would never be held accountable.
Now, I'm not presuming his guilt or otherwise, but given the few facts I've seen I'm guessing that at the very least he is guilty of unlawful sex with a minor (what he pleaded guilty to). It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Though, given the swift and speedy wheels of justice, Polanski may be dead before this is resolved. How old is he again?

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Russell G, a convicted criminal should always answer for his crimes, even if he's a celebrity named Polanski, but this conviction was arrived at by a trick rather than by justice. And it does seem that lawyers and judges who engage in misconduct are not investigated, not charged, not arrested, and not brought to justice. They are merely disbarred or dismissed while the victim of the their misconduct is left hanging. The case was so badly bungled it can't be won by either side, but that won't stop the present authorities from pressing the conviction. It is now a matter of saving face, not of justice. I don't think Polanski has a chance of receiving justice in the L.A. / USA courts.

I guess where we differ Richard, is that your posts portray the idea that because the courts fumbled the case, and because the girl wants to be left alone, Polanski should be left alone.

Polanski never would of been charged if he wasn't under suspicion. The only way these charges could be false was if it was found the girl had no sexual conduct that night, clearly law enforcement found that to be the case to back up the girls claims, and Polanskis name came up. The girl has said the sex happened, she still does, even though she now forgives him. Polanski has chosen to run instead of answer these charges. No amount of court bungling makes it ok for an adult to have sex with a minor. I'm sorry, I'll never accept it. His age shouldn't factor into it either.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Can someone explain why the arrest happened now? Was there an extradition deal done or something?

 

[Richard--W]

We don't differ at all, really, except on this point: Polanski didn't run. He answered the charges. He submitted to physical and psychological evaluation. He was tricked into admitting guilt when he may not have been guilty or been found guilty on the merits of the evaluation. That's where we differ. After he answered the charges and submitted to judicial process, he realized he had been tricked into admitting guilt, and he fled. That was my understanding when I read up on the case a couple of years ago. Maybe there's more to it than that, but it isn't a simplistic issue of a guilty man fleeing a crime, of that I'm certain.

 

[Pete-D]

What Polanski did was wrong and he should've pushed to come to some kind of settlement with the state of California earlier no doubt. This has gone on for way too long even if the original judge was out of line.

Even for Polanski himself, maybe in the long run if the judge is more reasonable this time around, this will be good for him as well. I don't think he's a violent danger to society. If he can finally get this over with, he should have the ability to again visit the grave of his wife and unborn child. And also he can apologize to Samantha Geimer face to face, which at this point is probably about all she wants.

Without casting it in a positive or negative light ... what a surreal life this guy has lived. Strange too after all these years that in the last year or so all these things seem to be converging all at once (the documentary, the death of one of his wife's killers, the 40th anniversary of those killings, now his arrest).

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't see it as a "maybe he did it" and "maybe he didn't", Richard. I believe he did it. And clearly, that is the accepted story, even by his defenders. As the laws are written (still), an adult having sex with a minor is statutory rape. Pretty simple. That she was drugged and said no makes it a much more unpleasant crime. That he ran before a legitimate appeal could be mounted does not serve the interest of justice.

What galls me the most is the artists' response. Few doubt his guilt. The general consensus seems to be that there should be a separate standard applied to this case. I've yet to hear a good reason why (I have heard excuses - what happened to his wife, his experiences in WWII, which hardly mitigate the crime). I have heard excellent reasons to investigate lawyers and judges, and would support such activity. But two wrongs don't make a right. The law should be the law. His purported crime was particularly ugly, in my opinion. Taking advantage of the powerless is a truly reprehensible act.

If he truly shouldn't be jailed or placed on sex offender lists, then he should be able to prove that with a decent appeal.

But I think Adam laid the facts out nicely. Going off those, he should be arrested and extradited, to finally close this chapter of justice deferred.

 

[Pete-D]

To be fair the drugs given to the girl where her own drugs. That her own mother apparently bought for her, no less.

Not that it makes it right, but I think it probably would support something Polanski's defense would argue -- that this was not some devious, pre-meditated scheme.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

What galls me the most is the artists' response. Few doubt his guilt. The general consensus seems to be that there should be a separate standard applied to this case.

I know there were a few people listed above (like Harvey Weinstein, Wes Anderson, Tilda Swinton) but are there that many people in Hollywood that support Polanski? Based on what I've read, I assume he has more support in Europe but it's not like the movie biz has taken the Holywood sign down and replaced it with "Free Roman Polanski".

 

[RobertAllen]

I don't think he exactly lived as a fugitive. If you think about it, he is lucky in that he may have to do his time only after he has already lived a long and rewarding life as an illustrous filmmaker. Now, in his 70's, he may as well let us take care of all his medical expenses he will incur in his old age and during the dying process. While I normally think people like him should pay, he is harmless to society and even the victim says let him go. And she must feel he has atoned for what he did so who are we to drudge the whole thing up and piss off half the world.

 

[WillG]

The petition, which is also supported by Wes Anderson and actress Tilda Swinton, states

Granted, this isn't all of Hollywood, but I still just can't fathom how anyone could defend this, and even refer to the arrest as "astonishing", or something like Rock Stars championing the release of convicted Cop killers. As horrible as it is to say, sometimes I almost would like to see something like this happen to one of their kids and see how they feel then (which ironically, I suppose did happen to Polanski.)

It doesn't matter how much time has gone by, or whether the woman wants it let go. He committed a crime which society had deemed extremely heinous. Now maybe all this stuff about the corrupt Judge is true, but Polanski still needs to face justice. And in light of what happened with the prosecution, perhaps he can get a new trial.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Just to make this whole thing even more freaky, Whoopi Goldberg has said the following: sourced from The Telegraph (UK), as I can't seem to copy and paste at the moment.

I know it wasn't rape rape. I think it was something else , but I don't belive it was rape rape

Pathetic, isn't it? Rape is rape. Is Rape Rape a special with extra fries?

 

[Ockeghem]

I know next to nothing about this, so when I tried to do some preliminary research, I checked out the Wiki -- but it's been locked. In any event, this thread is an interesting read.

http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/09/29/wikipedia-locks-polanski-page-over-child-sex-controversy-37360/

 

[Steve Christou]

James, here's that story from the Telegraph -

Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film director Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape" when he had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left." Polanski was arrested in Zurich, Switzerland on Sunday and faces extradition to the United States. He fled the US in 1978 before being sentenced for the crime and has been pursued around the globe by prosecutors ever since.

His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said.

The director originally faced charges including rape and sodomy but they were dismissed following plea bargaining and he admitted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

More than 100 film industry figures have now signed a petition calling for the release of Polanski, the acclaimed director of Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist.

They include leading Hollywood figures Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci.

One celebrity supporter, the actress Debra Winger, said it was a "three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece." Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein said Polanski was a "humanist" who had been the victim of a "miscarriage of justice".

One filmmaker disagreed -

The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.

He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.html

 

[Ruz-El]

Ahh, thanks to Whoopie explaining it, I guess I have to change my position. I didn't realize that Polanski committed the good rape that's consensual, I thought it was the bad rape that's supposed to be punished. My bad I guess. ;P

 

[Bill Buklis]

It is pathetic, but there are varying degrees of rape. There is a huge difference between statutory rape and violent rape. This case is somewhere in the middle depending on how culpable he is in drugging her first.