posted October 02, 2009 04:31 AM         

Of course, I've never been under the illusion that Polanski's a complete gentleman LOL

posted October 02, 2009 06:52 AM         

quote:

---

i don't care whether polanski does time or not. i think pire has a point that if he were NOT famous...would we be baying for his blood?

---

posted October 02, 2009 07:09 AM         

quote:

---

If he wasn't famous, he wouldn't have been able to escape in the first place.

---

posted October 02, 2009 07:22 AM         

quote:

---

it's the morally "superior" stance that is distasteful to me

---

posted October 02, 2009 07:23 AM         

quote:

---

he is a french citizen and france doesn't extradiate its citizens. no to do with fame.

---

posted October 02, 2009 07:31 AM         

well, now he's in switzerland, so a whole different matter.

posted October 02, 2009 10:04 AM         

the woman who was raped by fugitive director Roman Polanski when she was 13 years old has demanded the charges against him be dismissed.

Samantha Geimer, now 45, lashed out at prosecutors in LA, accusing them of victimising her again with their focus on the lurid details of her ordeal.
Yesterday she filed a legal declaration asking that the charge against Polanski be dismissed in the interest of saving her from further trauma as the case is publicised anew.
And when prosecutors and the court said Polanski must appear in person to seek the dismissal, she said their insistence was 'a joke, a cruel joke being played on me.'
Distress: Samantha Geimer, pictured last year, has accused LA prosecutors of victimising her over her account of her ordeal with Roman Polanski

If Polanski sets foot again in the U.S. he will be arrested immediately - meaning he is not likely to appear in court seeking the dismissal.

Ms Geimer said she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details of the case to distract from their office's own failure to handle the case properly 31 years ago.
The alleged wrongdoing was brought to light in the documentary 'Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,' which prompted the director's lawyer to file a motion for dismissal.
A hearing is set for January 21 on Polanski's motion for dismissal. But prosecutors have said he must appear in person - an act which would risk his arrest.

'If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do,' she said in the declaration signed at her home in Kilauea, Hawaii.

In a motion filed January 6, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren provided sexually explicit descriptions of the 1977 assault of Ms Geimer during a photo shoot by Polanski.

It included extensive testimony from grand jury transcripts at the time which included graphic details of the incident. The details of Polanski's sexual activity with the girl had never before been described in legal documents

Ms Geimer said she was disappointed that the district attorney 'has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again.
'True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother,' she said. 'I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney.'
Ms Geimer suggested that her feelings should have been considered and she should have been consulted before the prosecution document was filed.

'My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing,' she said.

'It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case.'
The 75-year-old Polanski, living in exile in France, wants to return to the United States.
While in exile, he won the 2002 Oscar for directing 'The Pianist,' a Holocaust drama.
Ms Geimer said that the decision for Polanski to plead guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse at the time was intended to save her from a trial which would have drawn worldwide attention.

He fled shortly before being sentenced.

'I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr Polanski may have caused me as a child,' she said.
She said her views have been well known since 1995 when she wrote a letter to then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti suggesting the case be dismissed. She said she raised it again in 1997 when the case was brought to Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1114222/Woman-raped-Polanski-wants-charges-dismissed-victimised-again.html#ixzz0SmoAzlQY

i indeed don't think crimes with victims should go unpunished. Just some things about it seem fuzzy if not downright questionable. thats what my gut tells me. whatever is meant to be will happen. her use of the word "may" is interesting. seems like she would be the one rallying for his punishment. the damage is done, it is already back in the news. she just wants it to go away.

in no way do i think crimes against children should go unpunished, there were bad decisions all aroud in this one. including her mother. if this had went to a jury trial, i don't think there would have been enough evidence to convict him beyond a reaonable doubt of rape. i think because i feel like that about it, i may be viewed as not caring about the victim, and that could not be further from the truth. my gut instinct tells me not everything jives here with this case.

posted October 02, 2009 10:06 AM         

quote:

---

and maybe not. it's the morally "superior" stance that is distasteful to me

---

Same here.

posted October 02, 2009 10:18 AM         

the fact that nicole brown simpson and her friend were bruataly murdered and there was no justice served, nor will there be justice served bothers me a lot more than this case.

posted October 02, 2009 11:03 AM         

so far every one who wasn't a part of the cover up has been fired. the ambulance driver, from the night the mayors wife came home to beat tamara up while stripping for her husband and attacked her, to her murder some months later.

a thug is a thug, whether he is a mayor, millionaire or rich and famous. I truly hope her family gets justice so they can find closure. they deserve it.

Nicole Brown Simpsons family will never see justice served.

these women lost thier lives.

tamara greene was a person.

whether she stripped or not, she was a person first.

posted October 02, 2009 12:55 PM         

what i object to is not moral superiority but the ASSUMPTION that because someone has done something you consider "inferior" you are in a position to JUDGE them. especially when you are NOT in a position to judge because you are armed with PARTIAL knowledge of the situation.

so i guess i'm saying that the REAL morally superior people don't feel the need to stand in judgement ABOVE others who may or may not be INFERIOR. because someone has done one dastardly deed in a thoughtless period of life does not mean they are NOW STILL that dastard who did the deed.

i'd wager there are plenty among us who have "got away" with nasty deeds and still managed to "do our time" - say a period of seriously bad luck or whatever - or JUST PLAIN REGRETTED the deeds and turned over a new leaf.

who is to say that the legal punishment is the only method of recompense?

posted October 02, 2009 02:06 PM         

quote:

---

what i object to is not moral superiority but the ASSUMPTION that because someone has done something you consider "inferior" you are in a position to JUDGE them. especially when you are NOT in a position to judge because you are armed with PARTIAL knowledge of the situation.

---

I understand and have to agree somewhat with you there. But by the same token, I am in a position to judge being human and armed with only partial knowledge. I do judge all kinds of things, and I'm okay with that. As a human I will never have full knowledge of anything. So I make judgements, evaluate and learn from these types of people and situations - think on them, come to understandings. I understand that I am not the final say or judge in any given situation and none of us ever really have the full story, which is part of being human, not knowing everything. If by expressing my judgements it was taken that I must think I know everything about a given situation and what should be done about it, then there's nothing I can do about that. I will express my thoughts and judgements at a given moment like most of us do. They could change or grow into better understandings. I'm a student here and comfortable knowing I am not perfect and still learning. I know that I dont know everything or understand the grand scheme of things.

quote:

---

because someone has done one dastardly deed in a thoughtless period of life does not mean they are NOW STILL that dastard who did the deed.

---

I agree! People change. And they may be forgiven by others, have forgiven themselves, been forgiven by a supreme being etc, and that is all well and good. Still here on planet earth life seems oftentimes unfair. Forgiven people can and do still go to jail. Why is that? There are many reasons I can think of.

I do think some people need to be locked up. They are in fact a danger to others because they are sick. Sick people can be healed. I think they system should be aimed at helping these people instead of letting them rot.

quote:

---

i'd wager there are plenty among us who have "got away" with nasty deeds and still managed to "do our time" - say a period of seriously bad luck or whatever - or JUST PLAIN REGRETTED the deeds and turned over a new leaf.

---

Yes, I agree that we never get away. That alone is enough of a revelation for some people. Then it seems that some people arent aware of that, or they simply dont believe that is the case or don't care.

quote:

---

who is to say that the legal punishment is the only method of recompense?

---

Not I. How do we know that in this case it is or isnt? We do not know everything, yet we still have to make decisions and try to keep some order and sense to this world of duality and craziness.

quote:

---

i just think it is important not to jump to conclusions that one knows absolutely what is right or wrong and who should be punished and how...

---

I hear what youre saying. And just to be clear, just because I say he should be locked up or whatever my stance or opinion may be at a certain moment, doesnt mean I think I am right or know that this is exactly how he should be punished and that's it. I do realize that I could be wrong, I realize this constantly. To reassure you, I'm well aware of the fact that I am not a supreme all knowing, non-judgemental being. Agreed that no one knows absolutely what is right or wrong and who should be punished and how, of course not. Unfortunately we live in a world where we have to take action and make decisions on these kinds of cases, however wrong or right those final decisions may seem to be. It's part of life on earth. If everyone sat around saying that since they just didnt know what was absolutely right or wrong or had the full knowledge of who should be punished and how, nothing would get done, and there would be chaos.

posted October 02, 2009 02:32 PM         

from a legal standpoint though unless we are in possession of the facts, INNOCENT TIL PROVEN GUILTY remains my position, and convicting someone without a trial is taking the law into your own hands.

of course no one here is going to drag polanski here themselves, or go spit in his face, but the "off with his head" urge frightens me. we have more than enough lynch-mentality in this country at the moment...

posted October 02, 2009 02:45 PM         

For those using the excuse that it "was the 70's so what". Give me a damn break.

What a sick cess pool of idiocracy. Let is be your little sister, daughter or friend that deals with something like this and have someone say "well, he is too old, he is a genius.. OMG it was in the 70's".

How freaking stupid. In fact, the brain trust of this site had sadly gone down the drain in the 7 years I have been here since some is "pretend evolved" persons have made their presence known. No wonder many of the older Knowflakes hardly post.

posted October 02, 2009 03:33 PM         

quote:

---

he is a french citizen and france doesn't extradiate its citizens. no to do with fame

---

Thats why he would've been remanded without bail, had he not been famous, because he would've been deemed a flight risk.

posted October 02, 2009 04:28 PM         

"Polanski was charged with rape and five other felonies in 1977 after being accused of having sex with Geimer at the home of Jack Nicholson while the actor was away. Polanski pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, for which he was to be sentenced to time served.

But, Silver said, the judge reneged on the deal, saying he was under a lot of pressure and was worried that Polanski might leave the country.

There is little chance that Roman Polanski, who remains a fugitive, will attend the Oscar ceremonies in Los Angeles in March.
Geimer said she was caught in a merciless legal machine and was forced to tell the details to police and then to a grand jury.

"I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to talk to anyone or tell anyone. I just felt forced to continually tell this story," she said. "I was so angry about it. It was like -- wasn't what happened bad enough, now we got to go through every single day of my life."

The trauma of the legal process persuaded Silver and the girl's family to seek the plea agreement, the attorney said.

"If I had to give up her pound of flesh to get his pound of flesh, that wouldn't have been a very good trade," said the lawyer.

The director, who became a French citizen before the charges, fled the United States before being sentenced, and then moved to Paris. He has lived as a fugitive since 1978.

"The case remains a matter between the court and Mr. Polanski," said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles district attorney's office. "Until he surrenders, he remains a fugitive."

Indeterminate California sentencing laws at the time mean Polanski, 69, could face anywhere from one to 50 years in prison, according to the Los Angeles district attorney's office.

Geimer said she'd like to see the matter resolved.

"I got over it a long time ago," she said. "I wasn't prepared to carry a lot of bad feelings with me and further damage my life and continue the trauma of it."

She said the publicity and resulting distaste for the business of show business ended her aspirations of becoming an actress. "
http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Samantha-Geimer-Roman-Polanski.aspx?cp-searchtext=Samantha%20Geimer&FORM=MSNSEA