KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Roman Polanski - what do you think?

Lois · 6390

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,151
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
on: September 28, 2009, 04:04:53 PM
Someone interviewed on news radio was actually arguing for option 2 last night!  :emot_laughing:

As far as option 3 goes, it has been reported that he fled the U.S. after hearing the judge was going to invalidate his plea bargain/agreement and give him a long sentence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

From Wiki:

Sex crime conviction

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.

Charges and guilty plea

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Following the plea agreement, according to the aforementioned documentary, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens. An extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government can request that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.

Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home in absentia. The United States can still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski has avoided visits to countries that are likely to extradite him (such as the UK) and mostly travels and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.

In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney's office about prosecutor David Wells' role in coaching judge Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton are seeking review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.

In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing says that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski will not appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.

That same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.

Arrest in Zürich

On 26 September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski had hoped to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award. The arrest followed a request by the United States that Switzerland apprehend Polanski. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip several days earlier, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest. The United States had been seeking his arrest and extradition worldwide since 2005. While there had been a U.S. arrest warrant for him since 1978, an international arrest warrant was issued in 2005. The United States must make a formal extradition request within 40 days to have Polanski extradited and stand trial.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." An arrest warrant or extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Criminal Court (Bundesstrafgericht) and then the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht), according to a ministry spokesman.

Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski announced he might request clemency for Polanski from U.S. president Barack Obama. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said he had asked his Swiss counterpart to ensure that Polanski's rights are fully respected and that a "favourable solution" would be rapidly found.



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,947
    • Woos/Boos: +1699/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #1 on: September 28, 2009, 04:51:16 PM
Ms Geimer successfully sued Polanski and both reached an undisclosed agreement. I seriously doubt he will be extradited back to the United States, but if he did, he would serve no jail time.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Dudester

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 388
    • Woos/Boos: +80/-71
Reply #2 on: September 28, 2009, 05:24:22 PM
Ms Geimer successfully sued Polanski and both reached an undisclosed agreement. I seriously doubt he will be extradited back to the United States, but if he did, he would serve no jail time.

This is an old case. That being said, a number of states did away with a statute of limitations where child sex crimes are involved. A number of men have gone to prison for actions 10 to 20 years ago, with a few for 30 years ago. If Polanski is given a pass, it just opens the door for other guys to say "Hey, it was thirty years ago, they gave Polanski a pass...."



Offline ebilbob

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-27
    • Gender: Male
Reply #3 on: September 28, 2009, 07:43:46 PM
He broke the law knowingly. His victim was below the age of consent of any civilized nation. He then fled the country to avoid sentencing, which is a federal offense in and of itself.

I don't give a rats ass if he makes good movies any more than I would care if he were the President of the United States. The law applies equally to everyone. Even Roman Polanski. I hope he goes to jail for his original crime and the sentence is extended well beyond his remaining life expectancy for fleeing.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,151
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #4 on: September 28, 2009, 07:45:21 PM
A statute of limitations only occurs when no charges have been brought for a crime within a certain period of time.  However, in this case charges were brought against Polanski in a timely manner and prosecuted.  Therefore a statute of limitations would not apply.



Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #5 on: September 28, 2009, 11:52:00 PM
I don't like paedophiles, but in this case there seems little to be gained by dragging an eccentric, old film director back to Los Angeles in chains and put through a prurient trial by media. As his 'victim' describes, her family and herself would suffer all the indignity of of this type of publicity and harassment, to little end. From what I have read the about old and new Hollywood poor young girls have regularly been put through similar degrading experiences. So why not put the whole lot on trial?



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,151
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #6 on: September 29, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The guy used his money to escape justice.  Sure the judge should have honored the plea bargain -- or maybe that was just an excuse.   Perhaps he meant to flee all along.

I have to agree with GRM though, it makes no sense to drag the guy off and stick him in jail.  It won't change what happened.  He seems to have reached a settlement with the family, so that just leaves his debt to society.  How can we make sure this kind of abuse never happens again?

Mr. Polanski should pay a large fine.  The money should be used to help victims of sexual abuse.



Offline stefanwolf

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 858
    • Woos/Boos: +91/-20
    • Gender: Male
  • It's ok to howl at the moon
Reply #7 on: September 29, 2009, 06:00:54 AM
A victim that has forgiven him, some evidence of malfeasance exists, served a bit of time, paid the victim in a civil action, has only been under a warrant internationally since 2005, and on and on.  Do we remember that Sharon Tate was his wife when she and her baby were slaughtered in 1969 by followers of charles Manson- yet we just had one released? 
I agree it was a sick act, he pleaded guilty to one charge(we must not make a judgement on the other charges)- have him pay a huge fine(or whatever is allowed by state law for the crime he was convicted on) and move on- but dont let the guy back in the country- If he left let him stay away.

   "If I lick the Henna off the small of a back;   Will it dye my tongue? And if I swallow it down; Will it tattoo my heart?"


Offline Ric9009

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 206
    • Woos/Boos: +39/-18
    • Gender: Male
Reply #8 on: September 29, 2009, 08:32:17 AM
The whole case is very strange.  The mother allowed a man to photograph her daughter alone and that itself is strange.  The woman claiming to be assaulted says she worried about Polanski's motives yet agreed to a second photo shoot.

This is before DNA evidence and as such the case would have been completey Polanski's word against the girls at the time.  Californian law requires evidence other than the uncooberated evidence of a child and as such all Polanski had to do was deny the charge.  Just because the woman still says the sex was non consensual doesn't mean any such thing.  Strangely, attitudes often harden dramatically with time and a lie told initially often is defended strenuously all the way the grave.  A guilty plea in this case doesn't even suggest guilt.  The prosecution was vigorous and involved charges that would have locked Polanski up for a very long time.  And this is with a many extremely traumatised not only by his wife's death but by the legal process that then occurred.  Manson may have been convicted but managed to say an awful lot in this happening and others did not necessarily receive just punishment at all.  I'm not sure anyone could go through that process and keep a great deal of faith in the system.

The plea bargain avoided all but the 90 day confinement for assesment.  Polanski or his lawyers may have decided that Californian juries are so unpredictible especially where celebrities are involved that it was not worth the risk.

Then we have a judge that negates a plea bargain and while plea bargains may not be well liked, negating one is done only in the most extreme cases because otherwise no one would agree to a plea bargain and California could not even process the criminal charges laid each year.

There is a huge difference between justice and the law especially in case such as this.   Polanski made a deal and the State of California failed to honor that agreement.  I don't care that he is a director or anything else.  But the law was not well served in this case at all.  Only an idiot would actually wish to rehear this case since Polanski, unless he is very unlucky, just won't have the evidence to warrant a conviction.  An end run around a full trial would require that the guilty plea be accepted but that would then leave the State open to Malfeasance charges and a great deal of problems in trying to justify why the plea bargain wasn't honoured.  I'm still wondering what changed in 2005 for a warrant to suddenly be issued.  Something really doesn't add up.

Live as if you will die tomorrow.  Fight as if you will live forever.


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #9 on: September 30, 2009, 01:40:29 AM
I have a 13 year old daughter soon to be 14. 

I am a fairly direct action sort of person.  If some one got her drunk and plied her with drugs extradition would have been the least of his worries

While in Europe Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski  (spelling some one? ) she was 15 at the time.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-film-director-115875-21708989/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/27/roman.polanski.profile/index.html

On that note, if I ever meet Harrison Ford will some one post bail for me, I am going to kick in the junk so hard he coughs up his nuts
And the Academy for that matter 

I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it


Offline Gina Marie

  • So fucking done with it all.
  • Global Moderator
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 9,470
    • Woos/Boos: +1376/-70
    • Gender: Female
  • Rumors Of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Reply #10 on: September 30, 2009, 01:56:52 AM

...Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski (spelling someone? )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski



:sign_duh:



That said, I think Ebilbob, Grm, Emily, Wolf and Dom all have valid points. I say castrate his old ass and make it public!

XOXO
~Gia
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 02:01:44 AM by Gia1978 »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,151
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #11 on: September 30, 2009, 02:25:14 AM
I have a 13 year old daughter soon to be 14. 

I am a fairly direct action sort of person.  If some one got her drunk and plied her with drugs extradition would have been the least of his worries

I just bet that's true!

Quote
While in Europe Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski  (spelling some one? ) she was 15 at the time.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-film-director-115875-21708989/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/27/roman.polanski.profile/index.html

He seems like a lecherous old fart.  I didn't realize there was a history.

Quote
On that note, if I ever meet Harrison Ford will some one post bail for me, I am going to kick in the junk so hard he coughs up his nuts

Can you fill me in?  What did he do?



Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #12 on: September 30, 2009, 02:38:38 AM
While Roman Polanski was hiding in Europe His Oscar for The Pianist was collected by Harrison Ford.

by the way, not only did he rape her, he anally raped her, I just found that out. 
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-raped-a-child-a-primer.aspx
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired had several problems, not the least of which is its seriously creepy and insensitive title. But it also severely underplayed the severity of the crime by excluding much of the witness's Grand Jury testimony while playing up Polanski's personal pain. "It's a drag to include a scene of anal rape of a 13-year-old in your moody documentary about such a


I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it


Offline stefanwolf

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 858
    • Woos/Boos: +91/-20
    • Gender: Male
  • It's ok to howl at the moon
Reply #13 on: October 01, 2009, 07:03:41 AM
I read the blog - I tend to look farther when reading opinion pieces.  He was only convicted of statutory rape, therefor any other evidence isnt to be considered. And of course I believe he is guilty of flight to avoid sentencing.

However, I do recognize that he fled before sentencing and with his contacts and the best legal advice, I'm sure the plea bargain would have stood.  His lawyer should be looked at as well to see if he anything to do with the flight. He was convicted for unlawful sex with a minor- stautory rape. He should have served his time. He should be brought back to serve( I know -a change of mind)

 As far as what happened in Europe with Kinski- thats their problem.  They were the ones who let him into their countries

   "If I lick the Henna off the small of a back;   Will it dye my tongue? And if I swallow it down; Will it tattoo my heart?"


Offline Ric9009

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 206
    • Woos/Boos: +39/-18
    • Gender: Male
Reply #14 on: October 02, 2009, 10:20:37 AM
MediavalDon and others,

I'm going to provide a contrary view to pretty much everyone here because, well just because. 
This seems to be two entirely different issues.  One relates to Polanski and whether he should be send back to the US based on the law, the other is whether an underage girl can consent or an adult should be locked up for the rest of their lives for having sex with someone below a certain age.  It is interesting but 13 was the normal age of marriage not a very long time ago and there simply wasn't any age of consent at all.  If a woman was old enough to have a period then she could be married and even before that sex was not prohibited.  This is a rather new concept and rather strange since in everything else the world has become more liberal. 

I saw an article that labelled a man and a woman in two separate incidents paedophiles because they were both accused of having sex with people below a certain age, the man with a 14 year old, the woman with a 16 year old (she was a teacher and 17 is the age of consent in that jurisdiction for teachers, they are a "special" case).  Paedophilia is a liking for pre-pubescent children in a sexual way.  Somehow, the hysteria over protecting our children from everything now means that the label, an extremely negative one, can be used for someone who has sex with a sexually active 16 year old.  I find that very strange although if as a teacher she took advantage of a position of power she deserves to be condemned, just not as a paedophile. 

It seems in all of this, adults seem to forget that young teenagers actually have sex, voluntarily and like it.  I certainly did.  My wife had sexual contact at 12 and intercourse at 14.  We had a discussion with a number of people during a dinner party and sexual contact seemed to start at around 13 mostly although the youngest loss of virginity was 11 and the oldest 21.  Most admitted that they would have had sex if the opportunity arise at 13 or 14.  We then moved on to how old was their partners and several admitted to much older partners and two women admitted to actively seeking out adult partners because they found boys their own age fumbling and not knowing what to do immensely frustrating.  And these were people now in their late 30s through to early 50s.  Even Kinsey's report showed sexual contact started at remarkably young ages even in the 1950s in ultra conservative America, and studies since have borne out our little anecdotal evidence at our dinner party.  And somehow since these people grew up, sex has become less an issue for teenagers?  Yeah, right.

Therefore, it seems hypocritical in the extreme on a sex site of all places to want to string Polanski up because the girl was underage.  Let me put this scenario.  The girl was 19, voluntarily had the champagne and not all that much of it anyway and took drugs, then had sex with Polanski.  Is he still a fiend?  Or a slightly different scenario.  She went to a second photographic shoot knowing she turned on Polanski and wanting sex and then got caught by her mother with some sign that sex had occurred so made the whole thing up about being forced or that Polanski gave her drugs.  Actually, she already had the drugs and took them to enhance her experience but she couldn't tell her mother than now could she.  Or, far worse, she had sex with her boyfriend, tried to seduce Polanski and failed and in spite when confronted by her mother blamed Polanski.  In the absence of external evidence, all but the first scenario could be true.

As to the "evidence" it seems that you are quoting Wiki and other such "reliable" sources as opinion pieces in newspapers.  Who said Polanski had sex with Kinski at 15?  And the age of consent comes into this because in Europe it is generally 16 and prosecutions are pretty rare for 15 year olds where it wasn't a rape and a rape applies regardless of age.  This is a legal matter, not a gossip matter.  So you are deciding on the fate of a man based on gossip and what he might have done quite consensually afterwards is proof of what exactly?  Pattern evidence is only admissible before the crime generally and two incidents do not a pattern make, and pattern evidence requires real evidence not conjecture or gossip.

Grand jury testimony, as best as I understand this case, was confined to the uncorroborated testimony of the girl.  I could be wrong here but haven't read anything that suggests any other evidence was ever produced.  On the basis of that Polanski was charged with offences, some of which carried 50 year jail terms and Californian judges have been known to impose those incredible sentences.  There are people still alive in the US that were sentenced to 20 years for the "crime" of sodomy (voluntary anal intercourse of a woman in the cases I'm thinking of) and for adultery, both no longer illegal pretty much anywhere in the western world.  As a country prosecuting sex as a criminal act, the US has a particularly bad history of appalling convictions or convictions by juries and even upheld on appeal that even the greenest law student would say the evidence just wasn't there for even a prima facie case.  But juries in the US love to convict men on sex crimes and prosecutors have been known to simply present the lurid details to inflame the jury rather than any real evidence.

Polanski could be as guilty as all hell but we really don’t know that because he was faced with a potential 50-year sentence and his legal adviser’s knowledge of how sensational the allegations were including that he, gasp, had anal sex with the girl, a dirty repulsive act that many conservative juries would convict someone on if the crime presented to them was they did it with an adult willing partner. 

Juries in the US consist of those that either want some time away from work or were too stupid to avoid being called up or excused.  They do not represent a cross section of the community and in California, juries do not exactly represent the more liberal elements in that society.  This was during the very big backlash to the flower power era.  This was 1977, not 2007.  It was not long ago at that time that Morrison of the Doors had been charged with offenses in Florida.  The allegations were he may have flashed the crowd at a concert (he almost certainly didn't considering none of the over one hundred photographs taken at the time showed anything) and could have gone to jail for several years and rallies were held where more than 20,000 attended calling for his head, his deportation, castration, or for him to be locked up for years.  Morrison was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and really thought you would get his day in court to prove it, at least on the basis of all the evidence available yet in the end because of the hysteria he was forced to plead guilty to a lesser offence.  Sound familiar? 

This was not exactly an enlightened era or one where most Americans can be proud, especially considering the gay bashing, anti sex, anti anything that the bible said was wrong, stance taken by so many and violently too.  It was in this backlash against the 1969 and early 70's hippies, free love, communes and the like that so many Americans thought was a Communist plot of destabilisation that Polanski gets charged.  And a deal is worked out where he pleads to a lesser offence (guilty or not - one of the huge problems with plea bargains is they are the most appealing ironically to the innocent who have so much to lose), goes to jail for evaluation and gets probation.  He only fled when the Californian court Judge informed his lawyers he intended to repudiate the plea deal and send him to jail and deport him anyway.  And Californian prison's seem to think the rape of prisoners is part of their fair sentence.  Please someone tell me that they would have been willing to stick around in those circumstances.

While I’m on a roll with my rant, I wonder about the comment concerning direct action for a 14 year old.  Say she admitted afterwards that she made the whole thing up because she had had sex, drugs and drink with her boyfriend and needed to cover that up.  If you think that isn’t going to happen because your daughter would never lie to you, I must live in a strange world indeed.  So taking the direct action which I take to mean doing physical harm would have been something that was against an innocent person and could land you in jail for a very very long time.  It is easier to say by the way.  I was put in a similar situation involving a 13 year old who should have been under my care but was under the care of her mother at the time and a 21 year old boyfriend who the story went forced himself repeatedly on the 13 year old.  The trouble is the 13 lied, all the time.  I knew that.  She decided to have a 21 year old boyfriend.  He was an idiot but whether he had sex with her only two people know.  She certainly was having sex but whether it was with him, I don't think anyone can say.  And if she was having sex voluntarily with a 14 or 15 year old should they be flayed alive too.  Or is that just reserved for the older person because he should have known better and was obviously a pervert that deserved to rot in jail.  Oh and the 13 year old looked 20. 

I know there are 13 year olds that look like little girls.  Whether they act like little girls might be a little different.  So does the 21 year old get excused because the 13 year old was a walking sex bomb who looked much older?  The question here gets a whole lot more complicated than it first appears.  You have to actually live through such an allegation to realise:  1.  Girls make stories up to save their own arse.  2.  Young teens can be very sexually active.  3.  Biological age doesn’t seem to be as important as a great many other things.  4.  Consent is a very complicated issue even where everyone is over 18 and 5.  Teen girls can and do seduce older men (whether they are idiots or perverts because they fall for the seduction is yet another issue).

OK, end of rant.  I’ll go back to writing fantasies now which is what this site is about.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 03:13:50 AM by Ric9009 »

Live as if you will die tomorrow.  Fight as if you will live forever.


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #15 on: October 03, 2009, 12:51:31 AM
ok,
ill forget she was 13

he drugged a woman with booze and Quaalude and than raped her, anally I might add

your right, he should not spend the rest of his life in prison
he raped a woman
he should die the same way that Edward the Second died, you know a Red Hot Poker shoved up his ass so there was no evidence of murder, they used a hallow metal tube first of coarse.  It was quieter back then, supposedly you could hear him scream across the English channel

hypocritical my left nut, first I do not like child sex stories personalty, and secondly I dont care what you did WILLINGLY.

He plead guilty and than fled
end of story
fugitive
and damn lucky I did not catch him
I am not know as either mature nor forgiving




I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,151
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #16 on: October 03, 2009, 12:53:28 AM
This is not about consensual sex with an under-aged girl.  This is about a girl that was drugged and raped.  Big difference.



Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #17 on: October 03, 2009, 12:55:56 AM
I am sure I can hold him down Emily

Care do do the honors?

I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it


Offline Ric9009

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 206
    • Woos/Boos: +39/-18
    • Gender: Male
Reply #18 on: October 03, 2009, 03:03:56 AM
Actually Polanski did not plead guilty to drugging and rapinng anyone and you missed the whole point.  If you are using the guilty plea as your evidence well then at least get your facts right.  Polanski pled gulity to the crime of having sex with an under age girl, that meant it did not involve force, rape or anything else.  So if your are relying on the guilty plea then we come right back to voluntary sex not rape.  Since the guilty plea was accepted and all other charges dropped, the prosecution was agreeing that no rape occurred.  But I take issue that the guilty plea is sign of guilt anyway.  It was nothing of the sort.  It was a sign that Polanski or at least his lawyers were not idiots no matter how innocent the man was.  Morrison was found guilty of lewd and lavious behaviour which carried several years in jail as a maximum penalty.  It is extremely clear that he was guilty of no such thing.  But it was also clear that if her fought it there was a very good chance that he would end up in prison for years so he made a plea bargain. 

So I'm going to say it again, just how come you are so sure that Polanski anally raped the girl and deserved a red hot poker up his arse.  He DID NOT plead guilty to anything that suggested rape or non consent so just what are you basing your opinion on?

To repeat the main point, the problem is that the guilty plea isn't an indication of anything but a desire to avoid 50 years in jail.  There is no uncorroborated evidence that Polanski raped or drugged the girl.  He might have but you have written it as an undisputed fact.  There is a world of a difference between something being a possibility and a person being legally guilty.

And forgetting the girl's age is part of it but not all of it.  A rape remains a rape whether the girl is 13 or 23.  But if she had been an adult the charge wouldn't even have been laid.  The just wasn't good enough evidence of non consential sex or in fact that Polanski had sex with the girl except what she said.  That isn't enough.  If it was there would be an awful lot of men and women in prison that never raped anyone.  False reports are unfortunate but do occur for all sorts of reasons.  Younger woman often to cover up sex with someone else or to cover up willing and consential sex.  

So I'll repeat, exactly what evidence to do have aside from you "just know" Polanski raped the girl.  if it is convincing I'll agree with you without another word.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 03:29:16 AM by Ric9009 »

Live as if you will die tomorrow.  Fight as if you will live forever.


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #19 on: October 03, 2009, 03:26:05 AM
he plead guilty as part of bargain
sexual relations with a minor, I don't care  if you agree with me or not.
He then fled justice, what little of it there was. 

you can neither argue history or fact 
this sight is liberal
http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030311a_com.html
this sight is not
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
and just for kicks the transcript
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski29.html

I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it