posted October 02, 2009 04:39 PM         

do you also then agree that her mother should have been charged with:

1. child endangerment
2. neglect
3. contributing to the delinquncy of a minor

or do you think most 13 year old kids have already had sex, taken pills and drank alcohol on more than one occasion?
and is it ok to pose as a 18 yr old and take naked pictures?

and....do you think honestly, there was enough evidence to, in a jury trial, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he indeed raped her?

I think the reason they offered him a plea bargain in the first place is not enough evidence to support the case. other than what he agreed he did, which is have sex with a minor. which is a crime, yes, but he has been called rapist in this thread many many times, and as far as I know he was not convicted of rape.

being charged with rape does not make someone a rapist. being convicted of rape makes one a rapist.

you are assuming her story is 100 percent true.

he wrongly assumed she was 18 when she said that.

anyone who doesn't make rash judgements based on the stories available is defending a rapist? and becasue we don't make judgement by saying all the facts aren't adding up...that makes us not compassionate? not true., there aremore than one point of view,but you are judgemental on anyone that doesn't share yours 100 percent.hhhmmmm...whats it like to be right all the time?? just curious?..

and pid, i remember you saying that american people shouldn't even be able to vote on military stuff, even ag, because although he served, he was not in a war and therefore didn't know squat. so it doesn't surprise me that you would place yourself judge and jury and convict without trial. and how nobody with family members serving that have lost thier lives even understands because they don't have a REAL DOG in the fight like she does. real voice of reason pid.

and yes, those were quotes. pid, you don't even believe in democracy.

whatever.

posted October 02, 2009 05:13 PM         

for instance, there are numerous posts and threads in this forum by many people here about "he did this" and "she did this" including especially my husband or boyfriend is an a-hole,jerk threads.

and so there is a possibility that people that are posting those posts/threads are just making this all up or they did something to deserve what happen to them. That includes the people here that have been raped,molested,abused,harmed badly. I am no exception too (just in case, somebody throws in a smart-ass remark as a rebuttal).

many people do get raped,molested,abused,harmed badly in some way without having witnesses.

so it seems like that if "he said, she said and there were no witnesses" point was used as argument for the defendant in regards to crimes, then it would make it easy for people to commit crimes against people that are alone. After all, the defendant could accuse the victim of lying and making it up. Rape victims could be accused of asking for it and having consensual sex. Under age victims could be accused of lying about their age.

also, I am all for diversity of viewpoints. However,diversity of viewpoints doesn't mean attacking other people's characters,calling people's names,and throwing people's personal stuff in people's faces to argue a viewpoint. That tends to be a problem on this forum when it comes to arguing about something. This thread was supposed to be a purely astrological thread in the first place. That's why I posted in the astrological section. That's why I went over astrological configurations. There was only a few people that contributed astrologically to this thread.

Nobody is going to convince the other of his or her viewpoints. Sure,we can get each other to think about stuff, but in the end, we are the ones to make our own decisions about what to think about the matters being discussed.

I think people made some good points. That's referring to both sides of the arguments.

One of my points was the rich and famous people tend to get off easily. I believe that it even more so if they white. It's common knowledge, that racial minorities tend to be sentenced harshly for crimes compared to whites. Black men were punished far more severely than whites when it came crimes against white women. That's been throughout history. Many of them were put to death too. Blacks are disproportionaately in prisons and on death row compared to whites. There have always have been racial disparities in the justice system. That's one of the reasons, I think that the justice is screwed up. Rich people can get off easily too, especially paying money to the victims.

Just because a victim says it's ok for the perpetrator to not be arrested doesn't necessarily mean that it's ok. If the perpetrator is put in prison, then that's one less crime that is prevented.

many sex offenders are repeat sex offenders
the perfect example of sex offender being released and committing another horrific sex crime is that dude that kidnapped,raped,and father children with Jaycee Duggard.

the guy that shot my mom was an ex-convict. He was in prison and was released before he ended up shooting my mom. He got sentenced to 12 years in prison even though he almost killed my mother and he could have killed me. This happened when I was 3 days before I turned 3,and my mom was 20. If his ass stayed in prison,the shooting would have never happened.

so it's not for the victim of a crime to make a decision if the perpetrator should be in prison or not. That doesn't mean that perpetrator will not commit another crime. That person can commit a crime against another person. That does happen a lot.

any ways...I think that we should agree to disagree.

I wish this astrological thread gone to sh-t thread would be closed too.

maybe all us should stop with the "he said,she said stuff" like maybe we should talk about only ourselves and nobody else. After all, he or she is not here to give the other side of the story. Therefore,the person could be viewed as making the whole thing up even though may be telling the truth.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 02, 2009 05:58 PM         

But from what I can find, I can't tell which it was.

But interesting that

A. Polanski knew where she lived and picked her up there--also showing that he did not expect her to drive herself as well as knowing she lived with her mom (upping the chances he knew she was younger than 18, but also the chance that the mother was more aware of what was going on than the child--granted, it doesn't prove either beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think it does look bad on both Polanski and mom).

B. She wasn't wearing a bra. This suggests to me that she wasn't developed enough to need one. Which strongly suggests to me that Polanski knew damn well she wasn't 18.

Overall I did find her testimony believable. For example, she said she was scared, but she didn't say he threatened her. A child seeking to lie would almost certainly "add some color" to show why she was scared rather than just leaving it as the "adult factor" in how kids instinctively do pretty much as they're told, at least while in the adult's presence (even when they complain loudly about it). That's just one example of why I found her testimony believable (if leaving a lot of questions unanswered--because they weren't ever asked, not because she dodged them).

Btw, I grew up in Texas which has one of the highest teen pregnancy, STD, etc, rates in the nation (comes from that great "abstinence only" sex ed the fundies push into the schools), and also lived awhile in Venice, California (where the movie Thirteen was filmed--btw, I was living there when the girls who wrote that about themselves at 13 were actually 13), and see the view of 13-year-olds as sexy seductresses as vastly overrated. They exist, but they seem a minority to me, and as for those that do exist, I doubt they'd have given testimony like the child Polanski was with did. I could list plenty of other reasons why I don't buy into it. And btw, I actually ran with the "bad crowd" where girls were pretty sexually promiscuous, but even then adult males above 22 (especially a 40-something) were seen as pretty gross. (That said, most teens will be impregnated by an adult.)

But even if this girl was a wild child, she's 13. I'd expect better behavior from a 40-something, and I'm going to insist he be held to higher standards than a 13-year-old, too. I also find it unlikely he actually believed she was 18 given that he was used to coming to her home, he always picked her up to drive her, etc.

Btw, since the victim wants this to be let go and I don't see much of a point in it at this point (safety of society, etc), I'd rather he just be left in exile rather than prosecuted. I'm just saying I don't buy this Polanski was railroaded or framed.

posted October 02, 2009 06:32 PM         

Um, a number of women did not wear bras at that time. I remember a particular aunt of mine with huge, pendulous boobs who rarely wore a bra (it was the 70's). She was pushing 40. No one would've mistaken *her* for a 13 year-old, believe me.
I'm recalling several female relatives of mine who didn't wear bras either, ages ranging anywhere from 20-60. They just didn't like bras. I would hardly say this is evidence for anything besides a distaste for being harnessed.

posted October 02, 2009 06:37 PM         

mum

posted October 02, 2009 06:43 PM         

Anyway, I think its time for Mr. Rex Murphy to enlighten us all with his POV.

Take it away Mr. Murphy!

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/hollywoods_strange_morals.html

posted October 02, 2009 06:43 PM         

i'm speechless

posted October 02, 2009 06:52 PM         

How many LL knowflakes did it because a much older man drugged them with alcohol or other drugs?

Hmmm... I am thinking the chances are even slimer.

How many here were able to sneak out of their house without mommy or daddy knowing at 13? And how many did it as they dressed up to meet older men?

How many asked to be raped? My guess is NONE.

So.... this discussion has gone all over the spectrum but the fact remains. RP was arrested for dodging out of his sentence. Regardless of how people feel for their own guilt, either being permiscious early or playing with little boys and girls...

The case is about a man that raped a woman and was convicted but ran out. Karma... it always catches up to people.

posted October 02, 2009 06:55 PM         

That's interesting. I'll have to share that with plenty I know who won't go anywhere without a bra saying it would be impossible (and not just because of social mores), from all kinds of things (even cutting back on pain--from the things I've heard, you couldn't pay me to get implants!)

Still, this was only one reason I figure Polanski would be a complete idiot in thinking she was 18 (which I doubt he actually did).

posted October 02, 2009 06:55 PM         

very possible she was not a virgin. but that is no excuse for rape. the question is did she say no before he seduced her, or after she told her boyfriend?

of course he was stupid to have sex with a 13 year old whatever the circumstances, because this sort of thing tends to happen to men who indulge such urges.

in the end we may never know.

posted October 02, 2009 07:32 PM         

People that have said "well Angelica Hustin said .... ' Really? Do you think Angelica, as a young and not so pretty woman, would have spoken out and ruined her career? On her own, she is a very unattractive female and always has been. But she was endorsed, fervently after her testimony....

Oh.. and to RP's past?

Roman Polanski - the real story:

His mother was murdered in Auschwitz (and you can understand what went on there right? Or do you need a history lesson?)

He was born on 18 AUG 1933 and raped the woman in 1977.. she was 13 and he was 44.

Ok.. maybe I could see an 18 year old man and a very mature looking 13 year old female that lied about her age. But a 44 year old man should know it right off the bat.

From one source

"But in March 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, made the fateful mistake that hangs on him to this day. He had been commissioned by Vogue Hommes to take a series of photographs of adolescent girls: he wanted to show them, he says in Roman, as "sexy, pert, and thoroughly human". Polanski was introduced to a 13-year-old named Samantha Gailey, and they met to shoot some photos outdoors . They met again on 10 March for some indoor shots, and ended up at the Mulholland Drive house of Polanski's friend Jack Nicholson, who was away.

Champagne was drunk, though accounts vary as to how much; Gailey claimed that Polanski gave her a Quaalude, the modish prescription drug of the time; they both ended up undressed in the Jacuzzi. Sex followed, but exactly under what circumstances only the two of them know for sure. Polanski expressed it tersely in his book: "She wasn't unresponsive." Gailey's account differed: three decades later, she recalled, "It was not consensual sex by any means... It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." Polanski was subsequently arrested and indicted on six counts: among them, perversion, sodomy and rape by use of drugs."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-the-truth-about-his-notorious-sex-crime-949106.html

From the Liberal LA Times.. an even more damning article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-polanski-swiss30-2009sep30,0,4988989.story

posted October 02, 2009 07:55 PM         

The deal between Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, was reached in October 1993. The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay.

Court records do not indicate if Polanski, now 76, ever paid. The last court filing in August 1996 shows Polanski owed Geimer $604,416.22, including interest.

Polanski's attorney, David Finkle, said he couldn't remember details of the case and declined comment. A phone message left for Geimer's attorney, Lawrence Silver, wasn't immediately returned. Geimer and her family also have not returned calls this week seeking comment.

Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with Geimer, who was 13 years old in 1977. He fled in 1978 before he was sentenced and is being held in Switzerland after his arrest there last weekend on a fugitive warrant in the case.

Geimer, who long ago identified herself, sued Polanski in December 1988, alleging sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress and seduction." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091002/ap_on_re_us/us_polanski_settlement_3

posted October 02, 2009 07:58 PM         

polanski, on the other hand, was never attractive to me. maybe i just have an inbuilt creepmeter...and have a problem with men who go after girls young enough to be their daughters. don't like most of his movies either. but in the 70s let's remember (sorry i know most of you weren't there or too young to remember) KINKY and out there were very fashionable. all kinds of things we today would not stand for were considered cool.

but innocent till proven guilty is still part of our judicial system. the cornerstone, i would say. it's supposed to stop people being punished without a full airing of ALL the facts. or having their reputations ruined by the rumour mill.

posted October 02, 2009 10:33 PM         

Those of us who know astrology have a cheat sheet with this situation. We can see that transiting Saturn is exactly conjunct his natal Venus and his draconic Sun.

I have faith in Saturn. Saturn keeps things real. Saturn demands the truth from us. When you steer from what's true, Saturn will smack you down and let you know where you've been wrong.

Polanski has had 30 years to learn where he was wrong. Thirty years to see through the eyes of who he hurt. Thirty years to tell her story and give a voice to all those abused in such a heinous way. He never did.**

Maybe if he had, transiting Saturn would now be greeting him differently. Perhaps it would have brought with it a reality where the conviction was finally dismissed. Saturn would have seen that Polanski saw the truth and let himself be remolded by it, that Polanski had taken responsibility for his own growth. Instead, Saturn's seeing the progress Polanski has made and is saying, "You're not done yet."

We can discuss what in our view would be the most just punishment. And maybe through that discussion, we'll learn how we view punishment - its role and efficacy. But at the same time, we have to deal with how things are now. We have a certain frame to work with, and it is within that frame that Saturn is teaching Polanski.

posted October 03, 2009 05:14 PM         

Page 110-111

Do you regret having made love to this young girl?
P: I regret everything I had to go through afterwards.

G: She was thirteen years old.
P: She was about to turn fourteen. Three weeks later to be exact.

the victim at age 13
http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_trovacinema/2008/08/14/1218725588 177_13ok.jpg

BTW the age of consent in LA has never been 14.

G: That's no excuse.
P: If you had seen her, you would have thought she was at least eighteen years old.

Even if she was 18, she was drugged, boozed up and kept saying NO.

G: You pleaded guilty to statuatory rape?
P: So that the case could continue behind closed doors.

Statutory rape is when a girl agrees to have sex, though she is under the age of consent, by law. In that case, the victim was drugged, boozed up and still repeatedly said 'no.' This is called rape. Not statutory rape.

G: Do you feel like the victim of a judiciary error?
P: The young girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she'd already had intercourse with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn't concerned about these other men. When Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown sleeps with fourteen year-old adolescents who look eighteen, it doesn't interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one -- or nearly the only one -- to have found myself before a judge.

It's amusing how her having sex with someone before RP in no way mitigates that he "raped" her. There is a reason why a victim's sexual history is inadmissible.
If the average pervy Joe gets away with such a thing, why not a wold-famous director, right?