-
Sonny 05/02/2010 3:32:00 PM
The Swiss Officials and spokesperson should study the concept, Dont assume, otherwise youll make an ass out of you and me.
If Swiss Officials are going to be fair, and NOT ARBITRARY in Roman Polanskis extradition process then Swiss Justice would have to study whether the current Los Angeles Prosecutors statements regarding what Polanskis sentence was back in 1977 - is true or not, and should not just assume that what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is true.
If the sentence was originally less than 6 months then Roman Polanski cannot be extradited by Switzerland according to their treaty with U.S.A.
Currently it sounds as if Swiss Officials want to discount the original Los Angeles Prosecutor in Polanskis case, Roger Gunsons testimony regarding what the original sentence was, without even considering Gunsons sealed testimony.
If Swiss Justice wants to assume that current Los Angeles Prosecutors would be honest enough to make a true statement as to the length of Polanskis sentence back in 1977, when they requested extradition of Roman Polanski after 32 years in 2009, that assumption will make an ass out of them, as well as you and me.
Polanskis lawyers have asked the Los Angeles Court on April 29th 2010,for access to the sealed transcript of testimony by Los Angeles prosecutor, Roger Gunson, concerning the original Judges sentencing plan for Roman Polanski in 1977.
Polanskis California lawyers assert that LA prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony proves the extradition request by the current Los Angeles Prosecutors filed with Switzerlands Justice Department last year INCLUDED A FALSE DEPICTION OF THE SENTENCING PLAN made by the original Judge Rittenband 33 years ago.
The Los Angeles Prosecutors request to Switzerland in 2009, on the topic of sentencing, said that Judge Rittenband sent Polanski to prison in 1977 for a psychiatric study so -the Judge would be in a better position to reach a fair and just decision - before sentencing,
However what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is not true, since there was an immediate short psychiatric study of Polanski when he was first arrested in 1977. This first study which was positive for Polanski, occurred before the Judge allowed Roman Polanski to leave the country to make a movie, and before Polanski returned to US and underwent the second pyschiatric study at Chino prison. For more info see link below.
And even if the original Santa Monica Judge Rittenband did make a statement to the press
on 20th Sept 1977 see,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en
What he said in the staged hearing for the press, is entirely different to what he told the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson and the other lawyers involved in his chambers, in regards to his sentencing plan for Roman Polanski.
For more information on the Santa Monica Judge’s Judicial corruption, and evidence about the staged hearing, and that the 90 days at Chino was to be the entire sentence originally, see the documentary movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired.
The Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson in Roman Polanski’s 1977 case, has stated in testimony that has been sealed, that Roman Polanski’s prison stay at Chino was to constitute his entire sentence, and lawyers Douglas Dalton for Polanski, and Laurence Silver for Samantha Geimer the victim concur.
Also it is documented in the Los Angeles times in Feb 1978 that the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia so why could that not happen now?
Isnt all this torment just to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorneys lust for power, so he can become the next Attorney General, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless
However Polanski may not be harmless in that he is a master of depicting corruption, and the danger of hidden and ruthless power. But this was not the crime for which Polanski was formally charged in Los Angeles in 1977.
Let us also remember the vicious circle. Polanskis arrest and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused Polanski to be placed in a Catch-22 situation in 1978, & which in turn caused him to flee America.
See also http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/pola-a24.shtml
-
Wonka 04/01/2010 7:58:00 AM
It's Polanski's fault all over again according to the Los Angeles Prosecutors. who blame Polanski now, not only for the Judge's Misconduct against Polanski, but also for not being able to discipline the Judge - because the Judge is dead.
But what about the Prosecutor David Well's misconduct in 1977 along with other Los Angeles prosecutors, above Roger Gunson who were having private conversations with the Judge, Rittenband about Polanski's case without Polanski's lawyer Douglas Dalton being present?
In their Appeal brief Los Angeles Prosecutors make their argument to the California Appeal court and state that allowing Polanski to avoid extradition from Switzerland hurts the integrity of the judicial system more than revelations of alleged misconduct by Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband against Roman Polanski.
The Los Angeles Prosecutors wrote "If Judge Rittenband committed every act of misconduct alleged, Judge Rittenband was the individual most deserving of disciplinary action, but he is beyond any earthy disciplinary authority," they wrote.
"The fact that the Santa Monica Judge cannot be disciplined now is the fault of only one person,
Roman Polanski."
********
What can you say about the Los Angeles Prosecutor's brief apart from - it is utter nonsense?
What came first, the chicken or the egg -
The Santa Monica Judge & Los Angeles Prosecutorial misconduct against Roman Polanski or
Roman Polanski having to flee Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct directed against him and his life.
The integrity of the Judicial system got ruined 33 years ago – as soon as the original prosecutors and Judge were assigned to Polanski's case and committed the corruption, and the corruption is not Roman Polanski's fault.
In addition since Roman Polanski's case is not the only incident of Judicial corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse. with other instances of Judicial & police corruption occurring since the other Santa Monica Judge died, it would be very wrong to blame the dead Judge entirely for all the corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse.
But nice try by Los Angeles Prosecutors - since corruption permeates the entire California Justice system even today, and "crime or no crime" Polanski certainly should not have to suffer any further torture because of the sins and instability of the California “Justice” system.
-
Wonka 04/01/2010 7:57:00 AM
It's Polanski's fault all over again according to the Los Angeles Prosecutors. who blame Polanski now, not only for the Judge's Misconduct against Polanski, but also for not being able to discipline the Judge - because the Judge is dead.
But what about the Prosecutor David Well's misconduct in 1977 along with other Los Angeles prosecutors, above Roger Gunson who were having private conversations with the Judge, Rittenband about Polanski's case without Polanski's lawyer Douglas Dalton being present?
In their Appeal brief Los Angeles Prosecutors make their argument to the California Appeal court and state that allowing Polanski to avoid extradition from Switzerland hurts the integrity of the judicial system more than revelations of alleged misconduct by Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband against Roman Polanski.
The Los Angeles Prosecutors wrote "If Judge Rittenband committed every act of misconduct alleged, Judge Rittenband was the individual most deserving of disciplinary action, but he is beyond any earthy disciplinary authority," they wrote.
"The fact that the Santa Monica Judge cannot be disciplined now is the fault of only one person,
Roman Polanski."
********
What can you say about the Los Angeles Prosecutor's brief apart from - it is utter nonsense?
What came first, the chicken or the egg -
The Santa Monica Judge & Los Angeles Prosecutorial misconduct against Roman Polanski or
Roman Polanski having to flee Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct directed against him and his life.
The integrity of the Judicial system got ruined 33 years ago – as soon as the original prosecutors and Judge were assigned to Polanski's case and committed the corruption, and the corruption is not Roman Polanski's fault.
In addition since Roman Polanski's case is not the only incident of Judicial corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse. with other instances of Judicial & police corruption occurring since the other Santa Monica Judge died, it would be very wrong to blame the dead Judge entirely for all the corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse.
But nice try by Los Angeles Prosecutors - since corruption permeates the entire California Justice system even today, and "crime or no crime" Polanski certainly should not have to suffer any further torture because of the sins and instability of the California “Justice” system.
-
Crill 03/19/2010 7:24:00 AM
Jon is on to something here. But it wasn't the genie out of the bottle, instead she opened up Pandora's Box. A Los Angeles federal Judge said that to me once when he recused himself from a case which involved Judicial Misconduct, and may have included his own.
What's the answer - Keep the box shut - and keep the status quo of Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct against the people of California as well as Polanski.
Jon said I wonder how thankful RP is now to Ms. Zenovich for "defending" him? Sure, we get to sit around and debate the great questions of celebrity, sex, justice, fairness, and legal procedure... while a 77-year-old artist the world was content to leave alone is now a prisoner again... and with greatly reduced prospects for any future employment to support his young children. Zenovich took a lurid old story, uncovered a few dollops of "shocking" new information, and completed a perfectly average TV-quality documentary. She was determined to let the genie out of the bottle... and boy, she certainly succeeded.
-
W Silt 03/19/2010 5:27:00 AM
Polanski will be free soon. And everyone will want to work with him since he is desired in Europe and also people want to work with him because of his gut instinct as far as exposing Judicial Misconduct in Santa Monica Courthouse is absolutely correct. If he had not done a One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and flown the coup nobody in the world would have known of the corrupt judges and prosecution In California.
Update in New York Times Today since Polanski filed another appeal in the California appeal courts.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/polanski-lawyers-cite-new-allegations-of-judicial-misconduct/
-
chezjim 03/19/2010 12:43:00 AM
From this week's LA Weekly: "Fisher, 50, is serving a year in jail in Orange County for having felony sex with a drunk minor — a 15-year-old girl who prosecutors say was at a hotel for a wedding when Fisher, a stranger, took advantage of her in his hotel room."
Two years older than Polanski's victim. Anyone want to defend HIM? - How about Angel Luis Gonzales "given the maximum sentence of 30 years on each of three counts of sexual battery after the was found guilty of molesting a 12-year-old girl." ONE year less than Polanski's victim. Any Polanski defenders want to take HIS case on? -- And some of those caught by "How To Catch a Predator": "20 people actually showed up in Harris County to meet with a person they thought would be 15 or younger. Out of those 20, at this point, to date, we’ve had 14 go to court, and plead guilty in our supreme court of Georgia to criminal acts. The sentences range anywhere from ten years with 2 years to serve, with the remaining eight years being on probation, all the way up to six years to serve, with 25 years being put on probation. " For just showing up; no contact at all: 8 to 25 years. Anyone speaking up for them? - No? Not a peep? -- How can you claim that Polanski ever got anything but MILD treatment compared to most people who commit sexual crimes with much younger women?
-
chezjim 03/19/2010 12:34:00 AM
From this week's LA Weekly:
"Fisher, 50, is serving a year in jail in Orange County for having felony sex with a drunk minor — a 15-year-old girl who prosecutors say was at a hotel for a wedding when Fisher, a stranger, took advantage of her in his hotel room."
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-03-18/news/the-mad-men-of-los-angeles?src=newsletter
15. Two years older than Polanki's victim. - Anyone here want to rush to his defense? --- How about Angel Luis Gonzales? "Angel Luis Gonzales, whose wife ran a day care center out of their home, was given the maximum sentence of 30 years on each of three counts of sexual battery after the was found guilty of molesting a 12-year-old girl."
http://crime.about.com/b/2006/05/20/florida-child-molester-gets-90-years.htm -- Only ONE years younger than Polanski's victim. Any defenders? This guy got THIRTY years. No outrage on his behalf from those same folks? Nothing? -- What about all those men who showed up at the "To Catch a Predator" house and were arrested before they did anything at all? "20 people actually showed up in Harris County to meet with a person they thought would be 15 or younger. Out of those 20, at this point, to date, we’ve had 14 go to court, and plead guilty in our supreme court of Georgia to criminal acts. The sentences range anywhere from ten years with 2 years to serve, with the remaining eight years being on probation, all the way up to six years to serve, with 25 years being put on probation. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/ns/dateline_nbc/?page=4 --- Anyone defending Polanski ready to defend THEM? -- And if not, just why should Polanski be treated any differently? Because he makes brilliant films? Really?
-
chezjim 03/18/2010 10:58:00 PM
"A person who thinks if they post (and repost) long, windy, shrill diatribes, readers might not bother scrolling down to the other comments." - Ah. So that's why one person here keeps posting the same thing under different names. Or posting blocks of unreadable text. I guess when you're trying to defend the indefensible, filibuster is the only tactic left.
-
Jon Zelazny 03/18/2010 12:17:00 PM
I wonder how thankful RP is now to Ms. Zenovich for "defending" him? Sure, we get to sit around and debate the great questions of celebrity, sex, justice, fairness, and legal procedure... while a 77-year-old artist the world was content to leave alone is now a prisoner again... and with greatly reduced prospects for any future employment to support his young children. Zenovich took a lurid old story, uncovered a few dollops of "shocking" new information, and completed a perfectly average TV-quality documentary. She was determined to let the genie out of the bottle... and boy, she certainly succeeded.
-
Bud 03/18/2010 11:31:00 AM
Not only does FX Sweeney and others make the argument that Roman Polanski did the right thing to flee the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and America, but even the County of Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson in Polanski's case says he does not blame Roman Polanski for fleeing American which is captured on footage in the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired by Marina Zenovich.
Roman Polanski was sentenced by the Judge Rittenband to Chino. It was a non appealable sentence. Roman Polanski did not opt for this sentence at Chino prison. The sentence at Chino was not voluntary nor was it appealable and on account of that seems unconstitutional to me.
See http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/138382
Just before the trial was to start, Samantha Galley's attorney Laurence Silver helped broker a plea bargain, so she could avoid testifying.
Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse"; probation was the recommendation. But the judge began to maneuver behind the scenes: he wanted to look tough for the press, though not necessarily send Polanski to prison. He asked a reporter for advice on what sentence he should give; Judge Rittenband gave regular interviews to a Hollywood gossip columnist. The day before the sentencing—despite an agreement with Douglas Dalton, Polanski’s lawyer and Prosecutor Roger Gunson—Ritterband was overheard bragging at his country club the Hill Crest that he was going to lock up Polanski for the rest of his life. The next day Polanski was gone, his Mercedes abandoned at the Los Angeles airport.
Even the prosecutor Roger Gunson now says, "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances." And nor are many others including the young girl's own lawyer Laurence Silver, as well as F.X. Sweeney and many many others.
Bottom line is treat people fairly in California's Courts!
-
Grant Walliser 03/18/2010 8:27:00 AM
It is quite frightening that few people know much about the case at all. It seems that all that was required to work up the mob was the basic outline of the facts. Creepy old guy rapes beautiful young innocent maiden. End of story. Judge him and send him down for life.
I have a problem with this and I shall try to be as sensitive as possible here for rape is never to be trivialised. I feel that Polanski knew the girl was very young. I feel he should have shown both the responsibility and restraint that a man of his age should possess. I do, however, after reading the court transcripts, reading different versions of the story, trying to understand the motives of the girl for being in the situation, trying to understand the shaping of the life and outlook of Polanski, watching bits of the documentary made by Zenovich feel that there was more to this story. Too many things simply do not add up and I do not believe that the girl was as innocent as she is assumed to be simply by virtue of her age.
And while we are on age …
The age of consent varies quite dramatically depending on where you are in the world. The following map shows this variation.
In the US alone, the age of consent varies between 16 and 18. That means you can have consensual sex with someone on one side of a state border and it is called statutory rape on the other. Similarly, you can have consensual sex with girl in California who is 17 and 364 days old and you are a criminal whereas if you had waited a day you are perfectly entitled to have said sex on her 18th birthday. Venture just a bit south to Mexico and it gets as low as 12 in certain provinces. What this says about the age of consent is that it varies hugely depending on your cultural and religious views as a society. It also does not take into account the radical differences in maturity between different individuals at different ages. Spain, a member of the EU, sets their age of consent at 13, the age that Samantha Geimer was at the time of the incident. In the Spanish view, Samantha Geimer was old enough to know exactly what she was doing and what sex was all about. In California, where the incident took place, 18 is the age of consent which means she was a full five years away from understanding the implications of sex and being able to make the decision to engage in it or not.
That is hardly clarity on the issue.
The presumption by many is simply that Polanski lured a young, naive girl to a big deserted house, drugged her and raped her; a sexual predator of the worst kind. There are however some other facts not commonly cited or noted by the mob:
1. The girl was ambitious and trying to launch a modelling career. She had stripped and changed in front of Polanski without his request at a previous photo shoot as well as the shoot in question. She later maintained that she was scared of him and that is why she did not stop him having sex with her. Her actions prior to the sexual incident do not really bear that out.
2. The girl’s mother allowed her 13 year old daughter to go with him without supervision more than once. As an actress and Hollywood veteran trying to promote her daughter as a sex symbol on the cover of an international magazine with a man commonly known for his affair with the 15-year-old Kinski only one year earlier, her mother should surely have known the risks. Perhaps she did. Mine certainly would have.
3. The girl had had sex more than once prior to the incident with Polanski (she stated twice). It is not clear with whom and under what circumstances.
4. The girl had taken drugs prior to the incident with Polanski and from the transcripts appeared to have more than a theoretical knowledge of their effects. In fact I have to admit that from the transcripts she knew more about Mandrax at 13, including having taken it before, than I knew at 23.
5. Both the alcohol and the Quaaludes were accepted without argument and were not forced onto her by her own admission. From the transcripts it certainly does appear as if Polanski was the driving force behind the appearance of both the drinks and the drugs. I presume that he was certainly trying to promote a situation in which the relaxation brought on by the drinks and drugs would overcome the barriers that normally inhibit people from having casual sex. What is not clear is if the girl used the drink and drugs for the same Dutch courage.
6. Polanski maintains that the sex was consensual.
Now I don’t know what happened exactly that day between Geimer and Polanski but neither do you. Only they know and they may even have a different view of how it happened. Here are some possible scenarios:
1. Polanski may have lured her to the house under false pretences and forced himself on her. She may have been drugged enough not to be able to resist. Polanski guilty of rape and statutory rape, girl innocent, mother not involved but irresponsible.
2. Samantha may have seduced him, had sex with him willingly. He was a famous film director and she was a precocious, ambitious teenager. It could have been an error of judgement due to the drugs and alcohol followed by guilt and a sense of shock at the reality of what she had done. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible, girl highly irresponsible and dishonest after the fact, mother not involved but irresponsible.
3. She could have seduced him at the request of her mother to further her career. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible, girl manipulated and guilty, mother guilty.
4. She may have been told by her mother “do whatever he wants, he can make your career” and acted accordingly when the time came not knowing the limits her mother implied in the statement. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and irresponsible, girl manipulated, mother irresponsible, bad combination of behaviour and poor communication.
5. She could have seduced him knowingly at the request of her mother for the massive settlement she could and did earn. Polanski was an extremely wealthy man. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible but also a victim, girl guilty, mother most guilty.
Some of the above scenarios are admittedly more likely than others and no doubt other possibilities exist. None are impossible though.
That Polanski was irresponsible and behaved criminally in having sex with such a young girl is irrefutable. What are unknown are the girl and her mother’s motives and whether they had any influence on his behaviour. What is also unknown is his state of mind at that time. The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time:
“Rittenband responded by ordering the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day ‘diagnostic evaluation’ that he said would ‘enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision’. Prison officials released Polanski on January 28 1978, after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. In Rittenband’s chambers with the defence and prosecution present, the judge labelled the prison report ‘a whitewash’ and said he planned to send Polanski back to prison for an additional 48 days if Polanski would voluntarily agree to deportation. Informed of this by his attorney, on February 1 1978, Polanski responded by fleeing to France, just hours before he was to be formally sentenced.”
-
Jon Zelazny 03/18/2010 8:21:00 AM
Why do I get the feeling Val, Zavaloni, zavaloni, Moxy, and Dina are all the same person? A person who thinks if they post (and repost) long, windy, shrill diatribes, readers might not bother scrolling down to the other comments. At the very least, ladies, you are all painfully ignorant of how the justice system in our country functions. Take a class or something. Study some cases you're not so emotionally invested in.
-
Val 03/18/2010 7:34:00 AM
Justice in America should not be motivated on revenge and retaliation, against Polanski.
The 13 year old girl who Polanski was involved with, was having sex with another American who was not prosecuted so there seems to be unfairness and discrimination in the prosecution of Polanski alone. Either prosecute both males or don't prosecute any at all. See
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=enl
Also there is a problem with the 13 year old girl not attempting to run away. So she must have either been attracted to Polanski, or she wanted that acting opportunity too much, or both.
The underage girls grand jury transcript is not convincing, it may have been embellished, and most importantly now it is not evidence in Polanskis case .
In addition the minor concealed from her mother that she was topless at the first photo shoot with Polanski. This shows some culpability on the under age girls part in not telling her mother what was going on before it was too late, and of course her mother was not supervising her daughter. See
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html
Polanski should have been treated fairly as far as the plea bargain agreement and in sentencing by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and Prosecutor David Wells.
The Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct Polanski suffered in 1977 must be taken into consideration in his case NOW.
Polanski and the girl were attracted to each other - if this weren't so, the teenage girl would have run away. The mother was at fault for not supervising her daughter, and then blamed Polanski and forgot to include herself, and then bullies were brought in to crush Polanski
a) for having sex with an underage girl, and
b) for sitting next to beautiful smiling German Girls at the Oktoberfest in Munich,
by coecing Polanski into giving up his rights to fight deportation - which Judicial coercion in sentencing is not legal.
If the Justice system of Los Angeles cared so much about consensual sex with a minor, then why did Judge Rittenband let Polanski leave the country to make a movie in 1977 before any jail time? And why are they ignoring the minor's wishes now?
This case has been handled very poorly all along and the arrest has come far too late, it is not about the crime 32 years ago which is just a pretext, because if it were he would have been arrested far sooner -
it is more about a retaliation against Polanski for exposing Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct perpetrated against him at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 which is an embarrassment for Los Angeles Officials who would prefer to keep the corruption under wraps since this isn't the only case of it...
-
zavaloni 03/18/2010 7:25:00 AM
Justice in America should not be motivated on revenge and retaliation, against Polanski.
The 13 year old girl who Polanski was involved with, was having sex with another American who was not prosecuted so there seems to be unfairness and discrimination in the prosecution of Polanski alone. Either prosecute both males or don't prosecute any at all. See
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=enl
Also there is a problem with the 13 year old girl not attempting to run away. So she must have either been attracted to Polanski, or she wanted that acting opportunity too much, or both.
The underage girls grand jury transcript is not convincing, it may have been embellished, and most importantly now it is not evidence in Polanskis case .
In addition the minor concealed from her mother that she was topless at the first photo shoot with Polanski. This shows some culpability on the under age girls part in not telling her mother what was going on before it was too late, and of course her mother was not supervising her daughter. See
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html
Polanski should have been treated fairly as far as the plea bargain agreement and in sentencing by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and Prosecutor David Wells.
The Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct Polanski suffered in 1977 must be taken into consideration in his case NOW.
Polanski and the girl were attracted to each other - if this weren't so, the teenage girl would have run away. The mother was at fault for not supervising her daughter, and then blamed Polanski and forgot to include herself, and then bullies were brought in to crush Polanski
a) for having sex with an underage girl, and
b) for sitting next to beautiful smiling German Girls at the Oktoberfest in Munich,
by coecing Polanski into giving up his rights to fight deportation - which Judicial coercion in sentencing is not legal.
If the Justice system of Los Angeles cared so much about consensual sex with a minor, then why did Judge Rittenband let Polanski leave the country to make a movie in 1977 before any jail time? And why are they ignoring the minor's wishes now?
This case has been handled very poorly all along and the arrest has come far too late, it is not about the crime 32 years ago which is just a pretext, because if it were he would have been arrested far sooner -
it is more about a retaliation against Polanski for exposing Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct perpetrated against him at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 which is an embarrassment for Los Angeles Officials who would prefer to keep the corruption under wraps since this isn't the only case of it...
-
Zavaloni 03/18/2010 7:24:00 AM
Justice in America should not be motivated on revenge and retaliation, against Polanski.
The 13 year old girl who Polanski was involved with, was having sex with another American who was not prosecuted so there seems to be unfairness and discrimination in the prosecution of Polanski alone. Either prosecute both males or don't prosecute any at all. See
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=enl
Also there is a problem with the 13 year old girl not attempting to run away. So she must have either been attracted to Polanski, or she wanted that acting opportunity too much, or both.
The underage girls grand jury transcript is not convincing, it may have been embellished, and most importantly now it is not evidence in Polanskis case .
In addition the minor concealed from her mother that she was topless at the first photo shoot with Polanski. This shows some culpability on the under age girls part in not telling her mother what was going on before it was too late, and of course her mother was not supervising her daughter. See
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html
Polanski should have been treated fairly as far as the plea bargain agreement and in sentencing by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and Prosecutor David Wells.
The Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct Polanski suffered in 1977 must be taken into consideration in his case NOW.
Polanski and the girl were attracted to each other - if this weren't so, the teenage girl would have run away. The mother was at fault for not supervising her daughter, and then blamed Polanski and forgot to include herself, and then bullies were brought in to crush Polanski
a) for having sex with an underage girl, and
b) for sitting next to beautiful smiling German Girls at the Oktoberfest in Munich,
by coecing Polanski into giving up his rights to fight deportation - which Judicial coercion in sentencing is not legal.
If the Justice system of Los Angeles cared so much about consensual sex with a minor, then why did Judge Rittenband let Polanski leave the country to make a movie in 1977 before any jail time? And why are they ignoring the minor's wishes now?
This case has been handled very poorly all along and the arrest has come far too late, it is not about the crime 32 years ago which is just a pretext, because if it were he would have been arrested far sooner -
it is more about a retaliation against Polanski for exposing Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct perpetrated against him at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 which is an embarrassment for Los Angeles Officials who would prefer to keep the corruption under wraps since this isn't the only case of it...
-
chezjim 03/17/2010 11:00:00 PM
And lest we forget, how does Sweeney sum up this scenario of a 13 year old girl repeatedly telling a much older man "No"? "Polanski himself refused to condone his own behavior, once it was made plain to him that what he thought was a Gauguin-in-Polynesia scenario of an artist seducing his model turned out to be something far more terrifying to the young woman." How plain did it have to be? -- Remember, in the pre-Polanski years, when we all (I'm sure Sweeney was among them) agreed that "'No' means 'No'"? But now we have an established film critic summing up this hideous litany of sex acts, each refused by the victim, as "a Gauguin-in-Polynesia scenario of an artist seducing his model" - not to mention another poster using legalisms to try to deflect attention from the ugly reality of what Polanski actually DID.
-
Bella 03/17/2010 2:37:00 PM
A chez Jim Bon Jour
In a nutshell chez jim went off the subject - because the crime at large is consensual sex with a minor - the rest is history cause no trial only plea bargain, you get the picture.
-
chezjim 03/17/2010 11:10:00 AM
"the mother’s culpability in causing her daughter to be in situation where she had consensual sex with Roman Polanski" WHAT?
First of all, despite the repeated claims by different Polanski supporters, the mother's (very real) obliviousness does not one whit excuse Polanski's behavior, anymore than a mother's selling her daughter to a predator in a recent case got HIM off the hook. She was unwise enough to leave her daughter alone with a Hollywood predator - that doesn't make him any less a predator. But then "consensual?" Here's how Slate put it: "Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm." http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/ -- As for the absolutely vile statement by another poster here that the VICTIM is to blame for not having resisted more intensely.... are there any words? But then that's where so many of these defenses have been headed all along - Sweeney so much as mentioning a rape victim's sexual history, or writing as if paying her off was a GOOD thing; Harvey Weinstein calling a rape a "so-called crime"; Whoopi saying it wasn't "rape rape"; Costa-Gravas saying (despite photos which show a vulnerable teen) that "she was thirteen, but she looked twenty-five"; innumerable people saying, "It was thirty years ago" (victims of priestly abuse had something to say about THAT, since some have been trying for years to remove such time limits). Years of awareness about rape seem to have gone out the window the moment the accused is a man of talent. But then, I'm sure there are many who would love to free Phil Spector for similar reasons. - If Dickens wrote "A Tale of Two Cities" today, instead of having a marquis drive over a child and throw a coin out the window, he could have a filmmaker rape a child and then... pay her off, while other members of his privileged class rushed to his defense. And yes, that class includes film critics who are willing to defend such abject behavior, lest they be ejected from the outskirts of today's Royal Court.
-
Jon Zelazny 03/17/2010 7:46:00 AM
RP was not sentenced to Chino. Judge Rittenband implied he would get a more lenient sentence if he underwent a psych eval there, and RP opted to accept this measure. That was his decision, not the court's. RP clearly understood this distinction-- he describes it in his autobiography on page 408. All of the other circumstances surrounding the crime that you've cited-- and so many more--may indeed have been seen as mitigating factors at the time of his sentencing-- and may still be. I do not believe RP is a monster, but he is an American criminal fugitive, and when you and F.X. Feeney make the case that he did the right thing by absconding, I must heartily disagree. Had RP bit the bullet and did, say, even 1-3 years back in the seventies, the case would now be just a stinky footnote in biography, and his current wife, their young children, and his business associates would have been spared all the anguish of the past year. The damage to RP's career and legacy have been far, far worse because of his own poor decisions.
-
Moxy 03/17/2010 7:03:00 AM
Hi Jon no recognition that some of the things posted by you before are untrue. One of those things you said before is I quote, RP was sentenced to prison time is incorrect. He has never been sentenced for his crime
Once again this is untrue. The links to show that he had been sentenced and was in prison for his crime is below.
See – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-the-truth-about-his-notorious-sex-crime-949106.html
See – Polanski Wanted and Desired. http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/roman-polanski-wanted-and-desired/index.html
What you want to compare is not comparable in the Polanski case, since you have omitted the parent, the mother’s culpability in causing her daughter to be in situation where she had consensual sex with Roman Polanski, and you are still omitting that Polanski was already sentenced to and served prison time.
The mother did not accompany her underage child in a working activity with an older man, which put her child in harms way. The mother may have done this intentionally in which case she unfortunately sold her daughter for some of Polanski’s cash, or perhaps it was just negligence, but she should have known better as a Hollywood actress herself. Also the little 13 year old girl was having sex with another American male who for some reason was not prosecuted. This is in the newspaper.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en
So I see discrimination there in 1977 against Polanski as he was not treated the same as another American male, and I also see a lot of money to be made at Polanski’s expense now.
.
-
Jon Zelazny 03/17/2010 6:21:00 AM
Here's an experience you might want to consider, Moxy: suppose your 13-year-old child was the victim of a sexual predator. Suppose the perp confessed, but during the court process, it came out that the judge was treating the perp unfairly, and even-- gasp-- changing his mind a lot. Is this sufficient reason for the criminal to be set free, to have his crime expunged, and his name cleared? Would you still be bitterly complaining that the perp was being "tortured" by the system? Or is that a stand you only take for criminals who are brilliant filmmakers?
-
moxy 03/17/2010 4:16:00 AM
The common experience that Jon Zelazny does not mention is the most important. Has Jon Zelazny been victimized by discrimination based on race, birth, or faced execution, death, unfair Official treatment by a gang of official creeps on both sides of the pond with a noose that tightens its stranglehold and goes on forever.
Jon Zelazny should know to avoid at all costs being a victim like SG, or another female victim in being framed by police and Judges of Los Angeles County, because you will be surprised at how disgustingly badly you will be treated, although currently I am not sure how you can avoid this abuse of Official power in California.
If you are victimized you may also be sexually exploited and physically battered by the police employees of County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica College in the Santa Monica Courthouse which Polanski flew away from by the end of January 1978. In addtion to being tortured in this way a Los Angeles Federal District Court will torture and brand you just as the Santa Monica County of Los Angeles Judge falsely branded Polanski to the People press before Polanski’s trial on June 29th, 1977 which never took place since it was turned into a plea bargain agreement.
See: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20068014,00.html
Why are there so many misrespresenting creeps who think they know everything and point the finger without checking first. Its all ok so long as it doesn’t happen to you.
Zelaznys posting is also wrong because there was prosecutorial misconduct in Polanski’s case by a County of Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells who was not assigned to Polanski’s case, yet nevertheless David Wells colluded with the judge, or lied about colluding with the Santa Monica Judge in a movie. See links for information http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prosecutor-says-he-lied-about-polanskis-trial-1796399.html?action=Popup
&
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/02/local/me-polanski2?pg=2
Also Jon Zelazny is terribly wrong, a Santa Monica Judge is not permitted to illegally coerce Polanski to sign away his rights to fight deportation, or renege on the plea bargain agreement. What kind of example is the Judge setting a criminal defendant to renege on the plea bargain agreement. It is teaching criminal defendants that the Criminal Justice system is unstable. And that is probably why there is so much recidivism because people are not being treated fairly by the system. So why bother obeying a system that treats people like sheet.
I hope Jon is not resigned to the fact that the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judges tortured Polanski with bait and switch justice, and nauseating injustice. Also deportation was not Judge Laurence J. Rittenband’s call since he is not a Federal Judge, and regardless Rittenband was acting illegally in coercing Polanski to give up his rights to fight deportation, by threatening him with a harsher sentence.
Also Jon Zelazny is wrong Polanski was already was sentenced for his crime to an non - appealable sentence which he served at Chino, with the help of County of Los Angeles Prosecutor David Wells who was not even assigned to the case, who advised the Santa Monica County of Los Angeles Judge Rittenband to do this. County of LA Prosecutor Wells has since said he was lying – Oh Wells…
See – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-the-truth-about-his-notorious-sex-crime-949106.html
See – Polanski Wanted and Desired. http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/roman-polanski-wanted-and-desired/index.html
-
Jon Zelazny 03/17/2010 12:46:00 AM
Well, Dina and Moxy, my advice to you both is to avoid committing crimes in L.A. county, because you're going to mighty surprised at how poorly you'll be treated. Your impression that RP was a victim of prosecutorial misconduct is incorrect; no one has ever accused the prosecutor in this case of misconduct. Your impression that it is somehow "illegal" for judges to break plea bargain agreements is incorrect. It's not nice, but it's not illegal. Ditto your impression that judges are not allowed to coerce and threaten perps into accepting harsher consequences. Your impression that RP was sentenced to prison time is incorrect. He has never been sentenced for his crime-- that's why they want him to come back. Your impression that as an audience member, I must "have an experience similar to the artist to connect with his work" is simply ridiculous. Which RP life experience should someone share in order to connect with THE GHOST WRITER? Be an acclaimed artist? Or a playboy, a family man, a fugitive? My lack of common experiences with RP certainly never interfered with my admiration for THE PIANIST, REPULSION, or TWO MEN AND A WARDROBE.
-
Dina 03/16/2010 3:59:00 AM
Re: Jon Zelazny’s comment:
To agree that the Los Angeles judicial system is unfair for many and not just Roman Polanski does not make the lousy system right.
In addition it not just unfair for perpertrators it is torturous and unfair for the victims too.
Abuse of Judicial and Prosecutorial power doesn’t make the unfairness right whether it is to Polanski alone and others too.
And a Santa Monica Judge is not entitled to break plea bargain agreements, or illegally coerce & threaten foreign defendant Roman Polanski with deportation, or harsher sentencing if he refuses to agree.
Jon’s argument is – because this is the status quo for everybody that makes it right, since Polanski was being treated equally badly.
The second part of Jon’s comment is a misrepresentation since Polanski did stay and served the first sentence, the non – appealable sentence at Chino and was released early - with the prison official’s recommendation of no further prison time.
As far as Jon’s comment on Hollywood movies, Roman Polanski was an artist before Hollywood, and he has been an artist since. Roman Polanski never needed Hollywood, It is in reverse Hollywood needs Polanski.
As far as “The Ghost Writer” being a movie masterpiece, & just like a painting – you have to have had a similar experience to the artist to be able to connect to the artist”s work. Jon obviously does not connect.
However many do connect and say “The Ghost Writer” is a masterpiece. So F.X. Feeney is not over-estimating “The Ghost Writer”
-
Moxy 03/16/2010 3:36:00 AM
e: Jon Zelazny’s comment: To agree that the Los Angeles judicial system is unfair for many and not just Roman Polanski does not make the lousy system right. In addition it not just unfair for perpertrators it is torturous and unfair for the victims too. Abuse of Judicial and Prosecutorial power doesn’t make the unfairness right. And a Santa Monica Judge should not break plea bargain agreements, or illegally coerce & threaten foreign defendant Roman Polanski with deportation, or harsher sentencing if he refuses to agree. Jon’s argument is – this is the status quo for everybody so that makes it right, since Polanski was being treated equally badly.
The second of Jon’s comment is misrepresentation since Polanski did stay and accepted the first sentence, the non – appealable sentence at Chino which he served and was released with the prison official’s recommendation of no further prison time.
As far as Jon’s comment on Hollywood movies, Roman Polanski was an artist before Hollywood, and he has been an artist since. Roman Polanski never needed Hollywood, Hollywood needs Polanski.
As far as “The Ghost Writer” being a movie masterpiece, & just like a painting – you have to have had a similar experience to the artist to be able to connect to the artist”s work. Jon obviously does not connect.
However many do say “The Ghost Writer” is a masterpiece. So F.X. Feeney is not over-estimating “The Ghost Writer”
-
Jon Zelazny 03/14/2010 8:09:00 AM
It's hard to decide which is more embarrassing here: Feeney's moral gymnastics, or his giddy over-estimation of THE GHOST WRITER.
What grand conspiracy against an artist did Marina Zenovich uncover with her film? That a judge treated RP unfairly? Had MZ bothered talking to the millions of other perps who have gone through our system, she would have been flabbergasted to learn that ain't exactly a rarity. "Da Man" can and will mess with you. Why? Because he's judging you, and treating you as he sees fit. That's why he's called "a judge." RP did the crime-- admitting in court that he knew his victim's age-- he should have stayed and accepted the full range of consequences. Had he not been a coward then, he could have made a lot more Hollywood movies.
And really, F.X., THE GHOST WRITER; "a masterpiece?" It's as brittle and hollow as the cast of characters we're inexplicably supposed to become invested in. It's not even on par with FRANTIC.
-
crum 03/14/2010 3:57:00 AM
In a world where creeps abound - Marina Zenovich's "Polanski: Wanted and Desired" shows much evidence of creeping corruption by creepy County of Los Angeles judges and creepy prosecutors against Roman Polanski back in 1977 & 78, who was also a creep for not checking the girl's age. But the mother was also a huge creep for furnishing her daughter unattended to Polanski. And the little girl was a creep for not running away as she did not have a gun to her head.
Polanski's arrest is a pretext now after 32 years, the arrest has come too late, and the arrest is in retaliation for Zenovich exposing creepy Official corruption against Polanski at the Santa Monica Courthouse in her movie that occured 32 years ago.
Polanski's arrest could also be in retaliation for Polanski's movie "The Ghost Writer" since the movie illustrates what happens to individuals who want to expose Official corruption, when they are up against Creepy Officials also happen to be ruthless. killers who want to cover up there connection to war crimes. And remember Polanski and his family has run into a few of those ruthless officials on both sides of the pond
To conclude - the world is full of creeps, and some get away with being a creep. For instance Jay S. Bybee was nominated by G.W. Bush and is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 2003--some time before any of the "torture memos" that Jay S. Bybee signed for the Bush administration became public. The Torture Memos was "legal advice" outlining the boundaries for enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees in Bush’s war on terror.
I think Polanski out grew or gave up on being a creep some time ago. People should see his movie. It is excellent, a Polanski/Hitchcock fusion, lots of humor too.
-
anonymous 03/12/2010 10:02:00 PM
Didn't get him in 68, didn't get him in 77. So get to the point: he's not an impotent, defanged, safe, ineffectual voice after all these many many years and made a movie about the fascism of now as he had always made about the fascism of then. Whoops.
This time they gave him a bracelet. And what of "Polanski", a grade-Z character assassination bio-flick released last year right before the...ahem..."arrest"?
Suspicious much?
-
Matt Cornell 03/12/2010 10:26:00 AM
Another disappointing apologia, but one that is all-too-common in film circles. Jay Smooth got it right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqSkZKKPfk8
-
Jim Chevallier 03/12/2010 9:20:00 AM
With breathtaking irrelevance, Sweeney says of Polanski's victim (whom, yes, being rich, he was able to pay off) "That she was physically mature and sexually active have never let him off the hook." And why? "Thirteen is just too damn young." Really? So the the fact that of a woman of eighteen or over was either of these things would excuse raping her anally? Or raping her at all? At exactly what age would either of these factors have "let him off the hook"?
-
to 03/12/2010 1:54:00 AM
Great article. Thanks a lot for the courage to write it.
-
Alan Williams 03/12/2010 1:50:00 AM
Maybe FX Feeney has tendencies or has had opportunities similar to those of Mr. Polanski and that is why he is defending him. Polanski, a rich and famous 43 year old director, who knows how to get what he wants, wanted to have sex with a 13 year old girl and did so. Fake Vogue model shoot, drugs, hot tub and Nicholson house, et al.
If a second crime occurred in the courtroom (it didn't, and Polanski's high paid lawyers could have responded within the system) that in no way absolves Polanski of raping a child.
Because Polanksi jumped bail (no legal excuse for that) and did not address his concerns within the system, 5 counts are still open against him which were to be dropped at his sentencing. They include rape by drugging (qualuddes were found in his room) which could mean 15 years in prison.
FX Feeney is no doubt jaded by the happenings in Hollywood, but in much of the civilized world, children are loved, nurtured and protected by responsible adults. We give them our best because they are our future.
-
Matt Singer 03/12/2010 12:38:00 AM
Nice piece. One minor correction -- the character who looks himself in the mirror and says "Bad idea," isn't the Prime Minister. It's Ewan McGregor's ghost writer.
-
Mike Clark 03/12/2010 12:26:00 AM
A knockout piece on all levels
-
Mike Clark 03/12/2010 12:25:00 AM
A knockout piece on all levels
-
harry lime 03/11/2010 10:23:00 PM
This is a very perceptive review of The Ghost Writer, in spite of its defense of Polanski, the man. I am not sure that jumping bail would be dismissed as "a technicality" if the man were not such a gifted and famous director. I have no idea if Polanski has suffered enough, or "already been punished," but neither does this reviewer, unless he or she knows him personally. We can admire the work without conjuring apologies for the behavior.
-
David Ehrenstein 03/11/2010 5:52:00 PM
Nice review. But Samantha Guimar's status as a "defenseless child" is open to question. A question Gore Vidal has answered, rousing the wrath of everyone's favorite Moral Center, Christopher Hitchens.
Only when this culture frees itself of its lust for children -- accompanied by the full-press denial that kept Michael Jackson out of the slammer and the Jon-Benet Ramsey rape/murder :unsolves" -- can the Polanski affair properly be understood.
And that of course is to say never.
-
Mandy 03/11/2010 12:17:00 PM
Good Article -Spoilers follow
Roman Polanski's arrest in 2009 has everything to do with Polanski's movies and his politics, and Marina Zenovich's movie, "Polanski: Wanted and Desired"
and has nothing to do with his crime 32 years ago,
because if it had - he would have been arrested far sooner!!!!!!!
Polanski's arrest is in retaliation for his politics, & for Marina Zenovich's movie which blows the whistle on Judicial and Prosecutorial discrimination & corruption against Polanski that occured in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 & 78.
As far as Polanski's current accusers in the Los Angeles's DA's office, retaliation has already been found in a different case.
A Federal Court on 3/2/2010 found striking and rampant evidence of a retaliation where the LA DA & LA County officials discriminated against their own prosecutors, see the link below:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/judge-cooleys-retaliation-against-union-members-striking-and-rampant-.html
A Federal Court could find striking & rampant evidence that the DA retaliated against Roman Polanski and arrested him in 2009 using the original crime as a pretext
a) since Polanski had already served his prison sentence at Chino and was let out early, &
b) since Marina Zenovich's documentary movie, "Polanski: Wanted & Desired" exposed the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct against Roman Polanski that occured 32 years ago, which caused his flight from Los Angeles injustice in the first place.
A Federal Court may also find that Polanski's arrest is in retaliation for Polanski’s movie “The Ghost Writer” which uncovers what happens to people who expose war crimes or official crimes against them -
because rather than really having any 1st Amendment rights in America to free speech in exposing war crimes or official crimes against them-
the movie shows instead the hidden impact - that they will be either drowned, or run over like kittens.