Monday, September 28, 2009

The Polanski Case

Kate Harding nails it on the Roman Polanski arrest.
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, 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.

Can we do that?
Gee, let's hope so.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - "Can we do that? Gee, let's hope so." Can we do what?????

September 29, 2009 at 8:26 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the statute of limitations on this?

From the news reports, he cut a deal with the prosecutor but was afraid the judge wouldn't honor it.

Did you ever plead guilty to a traffic violation, even though you were innocent, if you were offered the deal of a fine with no points vs a trial and a charge carrying points?

The victim doesn't even want this. Aren't there better things to spend our tax dollars on than a 30 year old case?

BTW, how many thankful emails did you get from pedophiles that enjoyed the graphic description?

September 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,

In answer to your question: "Can we do what???"

Can we do the opposite of what Mr. Anonymous here does.

Can we not forget or downplay the crime that Polanski committed.

Can we not compare the drugging and anal rape of a 13-year-old girl to "a traffic violation."

Can we NOT suggest that bringing a fugitive child rapist back to this county to serve his rightfully deserved time behind bars is a waste of "our tax dollars."

And can we call the people who suggest such things fools and morally obtuse?

Can we do THAT?

Now, do you understand the question?

September 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob-
The "can we do that" in the article was apparently "can we remember it was a 13 year old child".

However, the issue of whether or not Polanski knew the girl was underage should be relevant. While she was too young to actually give consent, IF Polanski can show he genuinely had a good faith belief that she was of age then that part should be dropped. Did the girl ever testify whether she had lied about her age? If he didn't know her age, the charge should be stil be rape, but not child rape to sensationalize the case to a jury.


Years ago, Rob Lowe got sued by some underage girl that he thought was 21. She had fake ID, he met her in a bar, she lied about her age, she was dressed to look older, and she knew he was a celebrity.

The traffic example was just one that people may be familiar with. Sometimes INNOCENT people will plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid risk of death penalty for first degree murder. We've even released such people after evidence has shown they were innocent all along.

Polanski's guilty plea for a plea bargain does not mean he would have pleaded guilty for a full trial. It's like he pleaded "no contest".

What should be of greater concern is Gil reprinting lurid details and description of a rape. As a reader, I got the distinct impression that it was rather creepy to choose that particular selection.

September 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - The way your question was posed in the context of the post, was a bit, shall we say, misleading. Thanks for clearing that up for me. LOL.
I have no argument with you here. There's no defending this man. There is no excuse for what he did, and to let him off the hook sends a very dangerous message. That those with money and power are above the law.

September 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM 
Anonymous frank said...

worse than child rapists are corrupt judges and prosecutors that conspire to deny someone a fair trail. they undermine the entire system.

even if it means letting murders or terrorists go free, the legal system needs to play fair. society can survive a few extra criminals on the street, but not criminals behind the bench.

gil really showed that with his "A Child's Tale; An Adult's Nightmare"
so he should be taking a hard stand against the misconduct by the judge and prosecutor against mr. polanski.

September 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,
Glad to hear we have no disagreement on Polanski matter.

Frank,

Corrupt judges and prosecutors are NOT worse than child rapists. Raping a child is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine.

Also, there is no evidence the judge or the prosecutor was corrupt in the Polanski case, though the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" tried to make the case that the judge was the villian in the matter for being publicity conscience and concerned that going too easy on Polanski would not make him or L.A. justice look very good.

As for the morally obtuse fool that is Mr. Anonymous: Roman Polanski admitted his plea agreement that he KNEW the girl was 13 years old when he had sex with her. So so much for the argument that this was some sort of "Rob Lowe" situation.

While Polanski maintained that she was "not unresponsive" to his advances, the girl's story was quite different. She tesitified that, though drugged, she pleaded with Polanski to stop every step of the way.

Mr. Anonymous also stupidly thinks there might be a "statute of limitations" on being a fugitive from justice. There isn't.

As for the lurid details of the case, they are what they are. Polanski's defenders would have the world gloss over and forget them.
Such people are free to forget what they wish, to be ignorant of the law and the facts of this case. But we are free, actually obligated, to dismiss then as morally challenged kooks, faux sophisticates, and knaves.

September 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

I'll never quite figure out the French. They coddle Ira Einhorn, worship Mumia, and now they defend Polanski! Maybe we can take a page out of Castro's book and send them some of our "political prisoners".

September 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

And it isn't just the French. There are plenty of morons in this country, though some would prefer to remain "Anonymous."

September 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My statute of limitation question was based on the original charges.

A judicial review of the case, this year, did find that the original judge had engaged in misconduct. Therefore, the original charges and plea would likely be set aside once he stops being a fugitive and can act on the misconduct. If the finding of the judge's misconduct sticks, Polanski's flight becomes justified.

If the original charges are set aside, the statute of limitation might come in to play if he has to be charged again, and it probably has expired.
If it comes to trial, Polanski can recant his former guilty plea and it might not even be admissible.

The victim does not want a trial and her current testimony might not match her statements of 30 years ago. She may even refuse to testify. There is probably no physical evidence left.

If the courts are corrupt, EVERYONE has the right to flee if they can't get a fair trial.

This case is a waste of time, as Polanski will likely prevail.

We've got Blackwater and KBR mercenaries paid exorbitant fees while killing families and raping children in Iraq.
Why don't you worry about taxpayer funded rapists and murders with as much enthusiasm?
Maybe, that's okay with you because they are on a Holy Christian Crusade against Muslim heathens.

September 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

One thing is for sure: our Anonymous friend is no lawyer.

September 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

diano, cut it out, stick with your crappy voterweb software that no one wants!

September 29, 2009 at 11:59 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil is neither lawyer nor friend.

Gil turned a blind eye to the sexual misconduct of conservatives (which is pretty tough considering how much they commit).

The whole Polanski case is a waste of time and money at this point. 30 years have gone by. It's ancient history. Based on the misconduct by the original judge, you aren't going to get 12 jurors to convict.

If they pursue this, then what WILL happen is that Polanski will prevail, get all the charges dropped against him, become a free man, and attend the Oscars. Then, people like Gil will be still be crying about the injustice of it all.

September 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home