KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Roman Polanski - what do you think?

Lois · 6391

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ric9009

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 206
    • Woos/Boos: +39/-18
    • Gender: Male
Reply #20 on: October 03, 2009, 05:15:40 AM
Medieval, did you read the testimony since you were kind enough to link it?  Thank you for that by the way.  The testimony appears to have been coached although that is rather hard to say.  But the testimony says very clearly that Polanski took a third of a tablet of a drug and offered it to the girl.  She said No and Polanski accepted that and then she took it anyway.  Polanski, even by this testimony, did not force the girl in any way to take the drug.  He certainly didn't force her to drink.  He offered an adult woman some champayne as well as the girl, a small glass, and she took it and not only drunk it but kept drinking, according to her, even taking Polanski's glass. 

The testimony about the qaaludes does not even ring true.  The girl isn't clear about some things and said she was somewhat drunk yet she could remember the name that was on the tablet "Rorer 174".  She knew it was a qaalude.  She had seen them before and had taken them before.  The trouble with this testimony is that she said the drug had been broken into three pieces at all times she saw it yet she could read the name on the tablet.  Come on?  How do you do that? 

You made such a big deal out of the fact that the girl was drugged yet she took qaaludes before, says she took this one quite voluntarily.  The trouble is this is grand jury testimony.  There is no cross examination allowed.  So even really grating inconsistenceis such as how come she could read the label on a pill that had been broken into three pieces is alowed to stand.

And even by the girl's testimony the drug wasn't the reason for pretty much anything.  She could remember what was going on and even said Hi to a woman after the alleged sex but said nothing about the sex to the woman.  So your comment that Polanski drugged and raped a girl, which implies he drugged her to commit the rape isn't even the testimony given.  The girl says she took the drug voluntarily, it had some effect but not enough to stop her from walking normally, talking or pretty much anything else.  "Drugged" implies being plyed with a substance such as the date rape drug that chemically restrains the victim and stops them from moving or fighting.  Walking normally, able to carry on a conversation, remember minor details, doesn't suggest anything of the sort.   

But the testimony could have been anything.  The fact is it was grand jury testimony.  That means no one has an opportunity to question it in any way.  And it not only was uncorroborated but if the girl was being forced there was a woman very close and she could have called out.  She didn't.  She could have said something to the woman when she said "Hi".  She didn't.  Of course people do stupid things in rapes and that is a danger in second guessing them but this is not a girl who indicated there was any threat used at any time, no weapon, no physical restraint or even the suggestion that any restrain would be used, yet inspite of a woman being only a few feet away when she said Polanski continued to have sex with her, she made no attempt to stop him or call out or even make a noise before Polanski continued.  It just isn't very credible evidence, not to sustain a conviction of rape.  Cross examined and the evidence would have been pulled to pieces but that never happened.

So the evidence given was that Polanski took photos of her and except for a fairly limited time he was not alone in the house with her.  He had no expectation of being alone.  A woman was there when they arrived, a woman was there when the alleged sex took place and when the girl left.  Does that really sound like a setup up for non consential sex to you?  Or any sex for that matter?  They are in Nicolson's house and are not alone most of the time.  Polanski, if he had raped or forced himself on a girl, would surely be worried about someone witnessing it or hearing it or the girl calling out.  You can paint all sorts of scenarios including that he was such an arrogant bastard that he thought he could get away with anything or that a woman in the house would not testify against him because he was Polanski, the great filmmaker but all that would be is conjecture.  To most people, when confronted with needing to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of potential witnesses, the lack of any evidence to suggest what really happened, and the problems with the girl being clearly able to call out if she wished to or make any noise to alert another person to something that she did want to occur, just wouldn't allow for a conviction.  Indeed the prosecuter very quickly offered a deal involving no jail time.  For a rape?  You've got to be kidding.  How about there just wasn't good enough evidence.

Oh, and as to the grand jury evidence, this is supposed to be sealed.  It is the testimony of a child in the eyes of the law and includes such uncomfortable information such as the girl had taken drugs before, had drunk previously, had had sex previously.  That is information that is private and the records get sealed for just such reasons.  So how did they become public?  They don't exactly help the argument that Polanski was guilty, not to anyone that has any understanding of the law.  They tend to support the argument that the plea bargain was presented as a face saving exercise for the prosecution who started a prosecution without good evidence and it was only the fact that it was so sensational such as a girl was drugged and anally raped allegedly that it even got past the grand jury.  From the evidence, the grand jury should have been instructed that to hand up an indictement there had to be sufficient prima facie evidence that Polanski was guilty of a crime and such instruction should have included that the testimony of an accuser without any corrorboration is not sufficient for a prima facie case, at least not under the laws as they stood then.

I'm sorry Medieval but you now seem to be quite willing to have Polanski have a red hot poker shoved up his arse, based on what exactly?  Your feeling that is a rapist.  He was charged so it must be true?  He pled guilty, even if it was not to rape or to anything even remotely like what you have previously said, so he must have been guilty?  That he fled the jurisdiction because he had been told that rather than the arrangement that the prosecutor approached the defence and offered to get the matter out of the way of no jail time which instead the judge was going to send him to jail for years for shows he is guilty?

Medieval, you get charged with an offence.  You are looking at 50 years in jail.  It is sensational and the press are playing it up as you being a pervert.  The press is already convicting you.  A trial is going to be long, incredibly draining and salicious.  You've already lived through such trials and you really think you would want to do it again.  Very quickly the prosecution gives a simple way out.  Plead guilty to a lesser offence, whether you did anything or not, and you'll get no jail time and the whole thing will be over.  Unpleasant maybe but the alternative is horrendous.  And suddenly the arrangement is used against you and you are told that you are going to go to jail for years.  Does any of this strike you as even remotely fair?  Does it strike you as the proper exercise of justice?  I feel sorry for the woman.  The release of the grand jury testimony does not show her in a good light.  You do know that she has filed a motion to have the charges dropped, don't you?

As a matter of justice, this case shows how unjust the legal system can be.  The alleged victim's privacy is violated, even though the law was supposed to protect her for ever.  But much more importantly, just guessing a person may have committed a crime is not good enough.  Medieval and others here and pretty much everyone else that has commented seem to be so sure that the bastard raped a young girl, but the law is supposed to protect people from mob mentality and actually require proof.  A 13 year old telling her version of events is just not enough proof by itself and the version isn't even one that was ever heard in a court or tested but far more importantly it was not corrobarated by any other evidence.

And you said this was not about underage per se but that the girl was drugged and raped.  Even you had to change that version because I questioned you because you used the guilty plea as proof of a rape when the guilty plea was not to any of the charges that related to force in any way or drugs for that matter.  The fact that the girl seemed to know more about the drug than Polanski according to her own testimony doesn't sit very well with your assertion of she being drugged and raped.

But this probably won't sway you at all.  Polanski is obviously a bastard and a rapist.  You formed that opinion and the fact that the facts don't really support that becomes immaterial.  It is why defence attornies ask that sensational matters be moved to another jurisdiction.  Pre-trial publicity really can ensure a conviction especially if the "facts" are sensational and salicious enough.  It is far easier to just say shove a hot poker up his arse than to actually consider the matter rationally.  I just hope you never find yourself in a situation where the publicity is in any way negative.  It doesn't matter at that point whether it is a pack of lies or distorted to sell papers.  I have seen the damage it does to people that there is absolutely no doubt are innocent of either a crime or some "moral wrong" the publicity is accusing them of, and it can destroy whole families and many many people.  But it does sell papers and then people such as yourself that probably are a decent human being can condemn someone from the comfort of their home, without any thought to maybe there is more to the matter than what was reported.

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


Offline larissa

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 697
    • Woos/Boos: +122/-13
    • Gender: Female
  • Pervert of the Month award - Nov 08
    • figuring it out
Reply #21 on: October 03, 2009, 12:33:04 PM
two stories reported on the BBC this morning:

Lawyer admits he lied in documentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8284452.stm and Arnie weighs in! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8286601.stm

for what its worth..

 :emot_kiss:

lari
xx

make "...no apologetic nature for one’s own sexuality..." (said by paper hearts).. truer words never spoken.


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #22 on: October 03, 2009, 11:42:14 PM
As this is room 1408 I am going to blow off your initial statement of ‘did you read it’ and attribute it to you trolling for a flame war.   
You write well, but your train of thought is unsound.  To me it smacks too much of “what you would have done in Polanski’s place”.  Not in the place of fleeing justice, but rather you seem to be justifying the act itself. 
Your defense of Polanski troubles me on two levels, the basic level that Polanski admitted guilt than took an opportunity and fled.  The other is that you seem to justify his actions with a minor based on that fact that she is a minor.   
There is a reason why minors are not allowed to drink, vote, deploy to a combat zone (one can join the military at 17 but not go to a war zone) or make many decisions of 'self determination'.   Children and minors it seems make bad decisions.
While I realize that plea-bargaining is how most cases are settled and save time and money, I hate the very idea of them.   Polanski admitted guilt and fled.  He should serve his time for; The original crime he was found guilty of, and fleeing from confinement.   
Any attempts to slowly cook him internally are my own and of course illegal, It does not mean that I don’t want to see him figuratively crucified, it means a convicted pedophile with a history of sexual relationships with young girls should be confined, not released.  Fair application of the law, you are familiar with that correct?  However having a 13 year old daughter, there would be no place on earth safe for some one that ill treated her, just my personal thought not professional action.  I hope that you are able to discern the difference 
As to what the cultural norms of other countries are, I am willing to bet I am at least as knowledgeable as you are in that, and willing to bet I have far more time seeing it with my own eyes.  The cultural norm of this country is against adults having sexy with children and against children drinking under age and using drugs for recreational purposes.  I have been to every continent except Antarctica and seen a lot of odd (to me) Ideas, those ideas do not apply inside the US Borders.   If you are the sort of person that approves of this sort of behavior, I suggest you move to country where it is the cultural norm.  Honduras is a good example; I have seen pairs of 13 and 14 year olds getting married and starting families.  You can move to Afghanistan, grow a beard and marry a nine year old for that matter.  You can just take a sex vacation if you want.  Remember this though If you are an American citizen ‘what happens outside the borders does not stay outside the borders’.     
Your other argument of ‘if she had not been 13’ the case would not have been brought to court has a valid point.  Sure, if she were 23 the defense attorney would have brought the case of, ‘she’s just a slut and asking for it, after all the woman has a history of mental illness and promiscuous behavior.  It’s all her fault’.  Funny, seems that a woman can’t get an even break in a rape case.  “She should not have dressed that way” or “it was too late for her to say no”.  Why in the name of justice would you argue that no does not mean no?   
So, what is your real motivation for arguing your points?  Are you arguing against what you feel should have been a mistrial and injustice or are you arguing in defense of a pedophile and rapist?

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 #23 on: October 04, 2009, 01:26:20 AM
Im curious, has Jon Walsh weighed in on the issue?  Has he ever done a show targeting this criminal in his usual thorough manner.  What does he said about the social norms at the time about the trend of young teens entering into modelng allowing themselves with parents permissions to be placed in provocative photoshoots and movies- PrettyBaby, TaxiDriver, and others.

I still feel he should have returned and faced the charge/verdict/misconduct.  I really feel he just left, He wasnt in hiding, he just didnt return. Apparently we knew where he was, Apparently all these big tuff on crime presidents, governors and attorney Generals thought it not neccesary to bring him to justice.

   "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 MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #24 on: October 04, 2009, 01:39:57 AM
Stefan many countries do not have extradition treaties with the US and will not cooperate with returning criminals.  France where Polanski spent most of its time is one, you can find a few accused of murder running around free there, a couple of others who are convicted of murder are also there living in freedom.  I do not have there names at the time but will see what I can dig up 

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 #25 on: October 04, 2009, 02:00:24 AM
yea i know that, This is not justifying him just a pondering on why now.  where was the outcry from those crime tsars and their bosses over the years.  I doubt seriously he would have had the life he had for the past 30 years if he had been pursued, monitored his whereabouts made public, and his lawyers pressed to have turn himself in.  Not that he would have,

Really we havent heard much about him- even his relationship with Kinsky was placed in a farly tame light.  - I think thats my beef about all this- If he was such a bad horrible person, Im sure we could have caught him or forced his hand just like we caught Osama-Oh wait that aint been done.

   "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 MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #26 on: October 04, 2009, 02:08:17 AM
I will save my theory about Osama for another day.

It burns me up inside too.  It really burns me that he received an Oscar after the fact and the award was excepted in his behalf. 

If I had been the host I would have had an anvil and a sledge brought out.
admittedly I am childish and petty but I think it would have sent my message fairly clearly to him and to Hollywood 

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 #27 on: October 04, 2009, 02:17:33 AM
My point ws not to make light of that pussboil on the ass of humanity, but rather show how little the outcry was.  My daughter when arrested had her passport taken - was his? just wondering  and thanks for the polite discussion- it helps to see others opinion in a respectful light.  stef

   "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 MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #28 on: October 04, 2009, 02:33:27 AM
I guess it was not,
Odd oversight and would make me question who did the investigation, further he was in custody and fled, or at least under house arrest one would think.

At this point I feel it important that he come back and serve both the original sentence but one for felony flight as well.  All to often those with fame and famous support get off when they should be punished, and those with no one to speak up for them are punished on little to no evidence.


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 #29 on: October 04, 2009, 06:26:20 AM
MediavalDom,

I'm not doing this or made any comment with the intent at all to start a flame war.  I'm voicing my opinion because this issue firstly interested me from a legal point of view then when I found out the dirth of actual evidence, annoyed me.  And the comment about reading the transcript was simply made because the transcript is not scintilating reading and is 36 pages.  But if you read it all fine.  You would have noticed the great deal of leading questions, not allowed in a court, and the total lack of follow up questions when something that even a judge would not have let stand without follow up question was just allowed to be said.  For instance what does having sex "one or two times" mean?  While the question should never have seen the light of day the fact is it did and the question that should have followed was whether the girl had sex on the day of the alleged event.  That one is staggeringly important.  There are a great deal of other matters that were glossed over by the prosecutor that, even before a grand jury should never have been allowed to stand without clarification but it really doesn't matter to the point of whether Polanski deserves to be impaled on a red hot poker or not.

To address the points raised, I've been to EVERY continent on this earth.  That includes Afghtanistan where I fought for the freedom of women and against their stoning or rape, and alongside Freedom Fighters that were ten and eleven.  Not everywhere on earth decides that children are protected until they are 18.  I have watched the Isrealis flattened innocent families in camps defending their borders against rockets from Jordan, was in Iraq, lived in Kuwait, Saudi, Singapore, Samoa and many other places.  Completely off the point but Samoa is playing on me because I knew a number of people that died.  I can afford to write on this site because my spine is stuffed due to combat.  I didn't fight because I like to kill things.  I did it so others could be free and that includes those accused of a crime that deserve the protection of the law just as much as the victim.  Without it you have mob rule, or live like the Saudis, a place that I found to be close to Hell on earth.

I have been in Thailand where nine year olds are sold as sex toys.  I'm well aware of the injustices of this world.

So if you want to argue about personal experiences, which is totally irrelevant to this discussion by the way, pick someone else because it is not going to mean much to me at all.

But you are right.  I do put myself in Polanski's shoes to see what he faced, or more correctly his legal adviser's shoes to see just what case was arrayed against him and whether, as a basis of law the case had validity or was an appalling micarriage of justice to all concerned.  The protection of those accused of crimes was so important to the founding fathers of the US that it was enshrined in the main body of the Constitution and is the thing the US Constitution guards so fervently and which so many Americans have died to defend.  They did it to defend the rights of defendants from bad prosecutions, not just to guard the innocent.  I hold a terminal degree in Law.  If you know what that is and you stike me as intelligent so I presume you do, you will know what that is, you will realise that I'm not just blowing smoke at all.  And I am a US Citizen although that is a quirk of my background not because I generally live there.  Since I also hold French citizenship, I can actually put myself farely well in Polanski's shoes.  Faced with the choice he had I would have did what he did and that is assuming I was completely innocent of any crime.  Had I been his legal adviser I could not have advised him to skip the country but would have had an obligation to tell him of the likelihood of his staying in prison for many years despite the deal with the prosecuter and based on what the judge said.  It pretty much amounts to the same thing, semantics aside.  I'd be telling him, stay in the US and you are going to jail for a long time but couched in careful legal wording that would not open me or anyone one else on his legal team up for a claim of professional misconduct or a breach of any law.  You mightn't like that this is possible and probably even happened but that is the state of the law and the duty of a lawyer.  To not advise him of his chances of serving time in jail would definitly have been professional misconduct.

As a principal of law, the case against Polanski should never been brought before a grand jury.  The evidence is not enough for a prima facie case in my professional opinion and is contrary to the law where he was charged.  That is something that stikes me as pathetic.  That a prosecutor or the DA decided to ignore their own very sensible laws in relation to the admission of evidence is not exactly making them look good in this matter, not to anyone that is interested in the law and not gossip.

Plea bargains are an enathema to justice, as is large discounts of sentencing for an early guilty plea.  In some jurisdictions both processes are now severely limited.  Just this week a man was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty to burglary.  The trouble is he didn't do the crime.  There was a mix up in the DNA lab and his DNA was switched with a sample from a 2002 burglary.  But faced with DNA evidence he pled guilty knowing he was anything but.  Would you like me to start to quote the capital cases all across the US and the rape cases where the convicted man has served long sentences only to be proved innocent by DNA?

I do not care if Polanski is a creep or even if he is guilty.  I'm sorry but sometimes the guilty cannot be prosecuted because their just isn't the evedence.  That beats the alternative of locking up people because you just "know" they are guilty.  Police hate rape cases.  You learn very quickly that justice is almost never served, no matter what laws there are to protect the victim, simply providing the most rudimentary protection to the defendant means it is going to be intensely traumatic.  And evidence is often just not there to know who is telling even the partial truth.  And Police start to disbelieve women who complain of rape simply because the first case they do where they do believe the woman or if not the first, the second or the third, and the evidence is found after they have put a man through hell and his wife has left and taken the kids with her and applied to the court to deny all visitation rights, that the woman was lying because she was a nut, he lied to the woman about leaving his wife, she had a crush on him that was not returned, he took her parking space (that one happened to me, as a case not personally) or he was a mark and civil actions for rape get you an awful lot of money in the US.  The particular woman in Polanski's matter benefited greatly by just such an action and the payment of that money also means nothing.  The US has this ridiculous principal that the loser of a civil suit can walk away without any penalty at all.  Most other countries have the loser pay the court costs of the winner.  That has is a rather large incentive not to take speculative action in a civil suit unless the evidence is pretty good.  In Polanski's case the cost of settling would probably have been less than his legal costs which can go into the millions quite quickly.

And you are very wrong about rape cases except in some states that don't care about victims or simply can't work out a good balance between the rights of an accused and an accuser.  I was very careful about what I said about the case saying such things as, at least based on the law at the time.  The law has changed.  Many jurisdictions do not allow the introduction of evidence about the victim's past, their dress, or anything else inflammatory and prejudiced against the victim except in the most exceptional circumstances.  A prostitute specialising in play acting of non consential sex would be just such an exception.

Polanski is NOT a peodophile.  That word has a very specific meaning.  It means basically "An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children" and as a matter of law the word child in that definition refers to below puberty, not a child being anyone under 18, which is a common definition throughout the western world for many laws.  He might be a pervert how likes young post-pubescent women or girls but that is a different thing entirely.  The word is also very strictly defined under various mental health laws or even in the Psychiatric bible of mental health diseases.  I prefer that if you are going to argue anything, don't do it with a deliberatly inflammatory word.  It is good enough to just say he is a creep and a pervert if you want.

I said that no matter what was written or what evidence was produced your opinion probably would not change.  However I didn't write these just as a response to your posts.  Others might actually be interested in a differing view and I hope it made some people at least pause to think whether in the end it changed their minds or not.

Bad justice is not acceptable because it is against an upopular person because for every Polanski that gets a huge amount of publicity there are thousands of cases that have been run because of the mind set of a prosecutor that he could get away with a blatant disregard to his first and only obligation and that is that justice is served.  Prosecuters very often play to win, not to see justice served.  The defence can afford to play to win and really should.  A system that rewards a prosecutor for doing the same sets a great many up to be railroaded regardless of the evidence or their innocence.  I repeat again, as a basis of law, this case should never have been brought to a grand jury and that urks me greatly.  Injustice is injustice and the time that it becomes the most important is when the victim of the injustice is not likeable.

I was making another point but I don't think you even accepted that it was a possibility.  Teens do make bad choices but that is their right to do.  There is good evolutionary reasons for this but that doesn't mean that a teenage is incapable of making any decision about themselves or is going to do so regardless of what laws there are.  Young teens are going to have sex, no matter what the law says.  Not all of them, sure.  But a lot of them are.  I was making the point that this issue is not black and white at all and where do you draw the line?  When the male is two years older, three?  Five?  When the girl is "asking for it", something that personally is abhoren to me as an excuse by the way.  What about an active seduction?  Or a girl that just doesn't want bad fumbling sex and chooses a mature partner?  So the man should be responsible and say no but to whom, a 16 year old?  An 18 year old?  Anyone that is more than ten years younger than them?  

I refused a 25 year old's advances because I thought she had the maturity of a 12 year old amongst other things.  She kept it up and even attempted blackmail to get her own way.  I'm wondering if you think me a pervert because she was many years younger than me anyway. Personally I would have thought of myself a pervert for accepting such an advance because I judged her emotional maturity to be 12 and she looks about 14 and in her case her looks match her emotional maturity.  Oh, and she is not suffering from any brain damage, low IQ or whatever and even if she did, isn't she entitled at 25 to have sex if she wants (just not by means of coercion or subtefuge).  

It steams me greatly that people stop Downs syndrome adults from having sex because they have the mental age of a child or very young teen and I'm not talking of protecting them against someone seeking to take advantage of them, rather I know of cases where parents have succeeded in stopping sex between two adult consenting Downs Syndrome people.  I really was trying to make the point that biological age is only one small part of the question.  Oh, and the blackmail was a pretty good reason to give in to avoid the threat, not because I had done anything wrong but because she could make it sound very plausable that I did.  I'm using this example because it does not confuse the issue about being underage because she definitely is not underage by anyone's definition.  But the issues remain similar.  The question of maturity, the easy use of blackmail or threats when someone who is immature doesn't get what they want, the right to decide for themselves to perform a basic fundamental human function.  I could go on about this aspect but I don't think it matters.  

You and many others are not going to see that it is not always black and white at all.  I wasn't actually condoning Polanski's actions if the girl had actually consented and then lied to cover up doing so.  My personal view is that in the circumstances outlined but with complete consent it still involved actively seeking out sex with a girl and I find that distasteful but not in the same scale or ballpark as a rapist.  Would it matter perhaps if she was the one that actively pursued the sex?  I still would think less of a man that agreed but I also wouldn't think he deserved to have a red hot poker shoved up his arse or to be locked up for years.  It still involves a physically mature girl who voluntarily was having sex anyway.  I'd actually like to know what you think would be the interests of the wider community in prosecuting someone in that case.  Exactly who would be harmed in the last scenario?  The girl?  If she is having sex and actively seeks out a partner for sex, exactly how would she be harmed because the partner's age was 18 rather than 14 or 21 or 25 or 43?  I'm just interested in why there would necessarily be any harm and why the age of the person either produces that harm or makes it worse.

This is my last post on this subject.  I've exhausted the issues that I thought worth discussing.  I'm not looking for answers of any of the questions I posed either.  But I'd like to think that either you or someone else that decided to read this thread just thinks about the questions, no matter what they decide.  Being confronted with opinions contrary to your comfortable view of the world is a good thing.  I'm grateful to you MediavalDom for your views because they got me to think about these issues and I did try to see your point of view.  In the end I chose to continue to disagree but still thinking about these matters and even finding the incentive to look more closely at the evidence of this case was a good thing in my view.  This case will actually make a good topic for discussion with law students, especially given the evidence that was released, whether that was just so Miramax had a better chance of having a film win an Oscar and despite my personal great distaste that the private and personal life of a young girl and now a woman was exposed.  I'm sure would rather not have had the whole world knowing she was sexually active, took drugs and got drunk at 13.

If I did nothing else for anyone than allowed them to think about the issues surrounding this case because it interested them enough to open up this thread, I'm happy.  I certainly don't assume the force of my argument will mean many or anyone will agree with me.  This is a part of the forum that specifically invites conflicting views and warns not to enter or post if you don't want such conflict.  This particular topic interested me from a legal perspective and no one else was offering an opposing view.  What's the point of everyone agreeing in such a topic?  And in this case I really do view the law as being very badly served and for it to stand without condemnation just invites further and worse injustices.  I can make that point in other places where it might have a real impact but this forced me to think and respond to posts and that wasn't a bad thing.

So I'll end with a few sayings of Voltaire included the best known and the one most would think most relevant to this discussion:  

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Others that I think relevant to this:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
[such as sticking a hot poker up someone's arse, sorry for the addition, couldn't resist]"

"Common sense is not so common"

Oh and one that goes to disagreeing with a legal decision that is strenously defended by the authorities:

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."



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 #30 on: October 04, 2009, 03:55:26 PM
It is truly a pleasure to argue a point with someone who has experience in argument, a logical thought process and the ability to frame those ideas in words and flesh them out in expression.
“As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another”
You have me at a disadvantage.  I am a paratrooper, I started my service as a combat engineer in the 82nd Airborne and now I do other things inside the military. 
I think we can agree on some points though
1.    A Prosecuting Attorneys’ job is to put people in jail.  Convictions and lots of them equal success, promotions and job security for them.
2.    Prosecuting Attorneys will use every tactic they can to win a case.
3.   A Defense Attorneys’ job is to keep his clients out of jail.
4.   Defense Attorneys use every tactic they can to win a case
I would like to add another point.
5.   People with large amounts of money can afford attorneys that are very good at their business.
The transcript was a bit of a slog through the mud to read, not that it itself was dirty, just a long drawn out process.  I do not post what I do not read...  As to its content, yes, they are leading questions but answers are there.   She does state fairly clearly that; there was sex involved (statuary rape), she said ‘no’ (non-consensual sex).  California at this time (2009) does not appear to be one of the states that defines statuary rape as removal of articles of clothing.  I grew up in Arizona; the laws there include removal of clothing as statuary rape.  I am not even sure if I could dig up the laws on the internet from that time to see.
Speaking as Mr. Polanski’s (current, not the attorney from the original case) attorney Rick, did your client at that time plead guilty and after the fact leave California and the United States to avoid the sentence placed on him by a judge?
Again, I will bring up that the girls past actions have nothing to do with the actions of Mr. Polanski on the day the actions that he plead guilty to took place. 
Referring to point five, assuming Mr. Polanski can afford good attorneys why did his attorney at the time not advice him that the trial was fallowing if not illegal procedures at least highly unusual procedures.  Why at the time did his original attorney advise Mr. Polanski to remain in country and file for miss trial, and finally why did Mr. Polanski plead guilty?
These are rhetorical questions and do not require an answer. 
You claim fast experience do to your world travels, so you have observed firsthand the sexual practices of Emperor Penguins and how they force Adelie Penguins in to sexual servitude using drugs and violence. (if the joke offends you professionally, please take it as a joke and not an insult it is not meant as an insult simply that you said ‘every contentment’) I am well aware of the social norms of other places and that is why I brought it up.   What happens in other countries and what other countries approve of is for the most part their business.  (For what it is worth and off the subject, my experience in Saudi Arabia reflects yours in some way.  While I was treated to extreme courtesy and welcomed as a guest, however I am male and American. I know how women and are treated there, I also know how Pilipino workers are treated in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.) 
You are right; I am a right and wrong, black and white person.  I do not like gray areas but I accept them as a fact.  Much the same way I except plea-bargains. 
You said ‘My personal view is that in the circumstances outlined but with complete consent it still involved actively seeking out sex with a girl and I find that distasteful but not in the same scale or ballpark as a rapist.’  I disagree, granted he did not beat into submission and than force himself on her, rather he got her drunk and then (and again my personal experience stands against me I do not know what effect a third of a Quaalude would have on a person I am assuming is under 140 LBS.. ) gave her a third of a Quaalude.  This amounts to the same thing as beating in to submission to me, IE he coerced her using alcohol and drugs instead of physical force.   

By the way, read my tag line, it has been there sense I joined KB. 

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


Offline Amigo De V

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 59
    • Woos/Boos: +9/-1
    • Gender: Male
Reply #31 on: October 04, 2009, 07:11:50 PM
Well, maybe I'll be unpopular but I agree with Ric9009.

If Polanski did drug and rape her he should be charged for that... but I'm not convinced he did. And anyway, sex with a 13 year old is not paedophilia and in many countries isn't against the law.


"The life of all beings, without exception, is ruled by a primordial Force deep inside them. The nature of this force is craving: an appetite that is never satisfied, an endless restlessness, an irresitible need, and a blind wild yearning." (Abraxas)


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #32 on: October 04, 2009, 10:42:17 PM
The crime happen in America where it is illegal so say what is not illegal in another country does not pertain to the argument.

In Afghanistan it is both legal to beat your wife or stone her for infidelity  so does that apply in the US now?

by the way, sights like KB are banned there too and can get you killed as well.

You also might want to go back and read the entire thread and the files from the court case, he is already convicted and fled the country to avoid punishment.   

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


Offline Amigo De V

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 59
    • Woos/Boos: +9/-1
    • Gender: Male
Reply #33 on: October 04, 2009, 11:18:03 PM
I realise he commited a crime by US law, I'm not stupid lol, possibly the law in his own country too though I don't know.

What I meant is that people are going over the top about this one; like saying he should get castrated etc! Some perspective is in order here?


"The life of all beings, without exception, is ruled by a primordial Force deep inside them. The nature of this force is craving: an appetite that is never satisfied, an endless restlessness, an irresitible need, and a blind wild yearning." (Abraxas)


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #34 on: October 05, 2009, 12:12:22 AM
Amigo, do you have a daughter?

And I did not say I said killed in the same manner as Edward the 2nd, the difference is subtle but there.  I said that if I had a daughter and some one did this (not that i would allow her to be unattended in this sort of situation and especially not at 13) that would be my first choice.

Some one did volunteer my services to castrate him, and well, it is an option, they still can do that in South Carolina by law.  So I suppose that if they moved the venue to South Carolina and dug out the old standbys we could legally castrate him

The truth is there would be no drawn out death or wacky painful revenge scheme , I would simply kill them, and bury them with 300 lbs of garden lye.  North Carolina is one of the places you can buy it in 50 lbs bags, buy it in 6 different stores for cash.  It would seem our soil is very acidic and lye counters that.  Its sandy and moist too, easy to dig in, there is no real soil here, just sand.  A couple of 5 gallon cans of water and you have a case of 'no body-no crime'

Of course I could always take a page from Polanski's book and move to France.

you get the picture 

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 #35 on: October 05, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
Thank you for your very considerate reply MediavalDom.  It was a pleasure to have had this discussion with you.  We can disagree but it is very greatly appreciated than rather than taking it personally you have kept to the strength of your arguments and we don't have any personal animosity.  Well it seems that way to me.  It did worry me that you might have been taking this personally when we started.  I'm happy to argue but not so much to either upset people or to create enemies and was in a chat when your last message was posted and part of it was quoted to me.  Not only was it very well written but it made my day.  It doesn't take much some times to make me happy. Grin.

I have been to Antarctica but only for a very short time for work.  I did mean every continent.

I had no idea what a third of a qualude would do either but from the testimony it seemed not much.

You see the big difference is you are willing to take the grand jury testimony on face value as a fact.  The fact is there is nothing to say that it is true and the testimony itself would concern me if I was a prosecutor. Especially the presence of the women.  That bit is a  little hard to get around.

There could be no argument for a mistrial because there was no trial. Grand juries simply decide if an indictement should be handed down. 

Our major differences seem to be in the interpretation of the guilty plea.  It went like this now I know enough of the facts to be confident in saying this.  The girl gives testimony to the grand jury.  No other evidence was offered.  The publicity surrounding the case was very much against Polanski without even knowing the facts.  Things had been apparently leaked but the grand jury testimony was sealed at the time.  Polanski was crucified in press and because of the sensational aspects of the allegations the prospects of a fair trial or that he wouldn't be tried on exactly what you are doing now, simply assuming the girl's testimony was the truth and Polanski drugged an innocent young girl and forced himself on her even though it was never tested or questioned.  The trouble is "casting couch" sex everyone believes and obviously because it is Hollywood most would believe that there are starlets and young girls available to celebrities to do with as they will and the assumption is that they do.  Had Polanski been something respectable the press coverage would have been dramatically different.

Polanski is charged with multiple offences including one carrying 50 years in jail.  The press gets worse.  The prosecutor approaches very shortly after the grand jury testimony and makes an offer.  This was not Polanski's or his lawyer's idea at all.  The prosecutor says plead guilty to the lessor charge of having sex with a minor and you'll have to have a mental assessment in a low security jail for a maximum of 90 days but that is it.  No jail time.  No restriction on travel.  No probabation.  No good behaviour bond.  Nothing else.  The matter will then be over.  No a terrific solution but it sure beats the possible alternatives and so Polanski accepts it.

To Polanski and his lawyer's what must have been horror, they get towards the matter being signed off by a judge and find that the judge has been influenced by another prosecutor who for some reason want's Polanski in jail and the judge then tells the lawyers that he is not going to accept the plea bargain but isn't going to allow the plea to be withdrawn either.  He tells them that he intends to send Polanski to jail for a considerable period.  The prosecutor that was involved admits this years later and there is other evidence to suggest that this was true.  He has now said he lied and he didn't influence the judge. 

If I was innocent and in Polanski's shoes I'd have left to.  I'm fairly sure there would not be many that wouldn't.  He's been charged with offences that even on the evidence that there is he certainly didn't do.  The state makes an offer and then uses it against him.  The trouble is Polanski was at that point stuffed.  He would have had to appeal to get the judge's refusal to vacate the guilty plea along with the plea bargain and the outcome of that would probably have needed the Supreme Court to decide and even that outcome could not have been predicted, would have taken years and the Supreme Court almost certainly would not have even decided to hear it. 

None of this is even remotely fair.  You do not get someone to plead guilty by offering them no jail time and then decide that the plea cannot be withdrawn but you are not going to honor the agreement and the plea at the same time can be used to send the person to jail for many years.  There is no justice in that at all.  Forget what the crime is about.  Had that particular matter got wide publicity it would have made the administration of the law in California hell for a very long time.  Lawyers would have been reluctant to agree to plea bargains.  A great many guilty people would have walked because they could point to that incident as the totally unfair administration of justice in California and any person in any case that had been related to Polanski, including the DA, the prosecutor and every case the Judge had ever heard would then have been subject to appeal and many of them would have been successful.

Would anyone in their right mind accept a plea bargain in California knowing that the guilty plea could be enforced the second they did but that the rest of the deal could be thrown out the window?  You'd have to be mad to take such a ridiculous chance, especially considering just how severe the maximum penalties were for many crimes that most would not even consider serious.  In the administration of the law, justice does not just have to be done it has to be seen to be done.

Even Arnie, who said that Polanski being famous or a great filmmaker should not enter the discussion of whether he should be extradited, also said that he also believed that the issues of misconduct etc had to be resolved as well.  Arnie was perfectly right.  It isn't that Polanski is a filmmaker that is important or relevant.  It is important that a misscariage of justice is not allowed to stand or be ignored.


My personal view is whoever is pushing for the extradition as a complete fool.  It raises so many questions as to the administration of the law in California that are valid and for what?  To make a name for someone perhaps.  That is likely to backfire big time.  The side issues are not even minor.  Things like how come the sealed grand jury testimony of a child was released for instance.  You're a victim of a sex crime in California right now.  Just how confident would you feel that the "guarantee" that your testimony would not be made public would you feel?  And the testimony doesn't even have to contain anything in it but the crime itself for the victim to wish it not to be made public. There are so many things that can be affected by such release.  The desire not to have your parents know the grissly details of what you went through, or your partner who already is having trouble dealing with it no matter how sympathetic, is often the reason that rapes don't even get reported and why so many of them have to be dropped because the victim decides against going through with the matter.

So spare a thought instead of whether Polansik is innocent or guilty for the fact that right now rapists are going to walk because a victim, who has already been completely traumatised not only by the crime but by the system needed to go forward with a prosecution, has read in the paper that sealed testimony doesn't stay sealed and has decided not to testify after all.  That damage has already been done. Now imagine how much more damage is going to occur if Polanski is extradited and that issue is argued in open court and gets a great deal of publicity.

I said I'd exhausted my arguments but thought it was worth a little bit more comment in the end but more importantly I wished to thank MedievalDom for his terrific comments and attitude although not his attidue about the disposal of a body which I'm sure was not exactly a serious rejoine.

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 #36 on: October 05, 2009, 10:40:33 AM
you have made some valid points that I will have to look in to.  However I have learned never to attempt research at 430 in the morning before work, and more importantly before Coffee.

As to body disposal, chemical cremation may be the new fad in disposal services.  It boils down to (pun there) economics and while I am not sure yet could be good for the environment.  Perhaps you are familiar with the Ft Bragg area? Bragg is located in the 'Sand Hills' region of North Carolina.  Pine trees kill the grass under them as their needles raise the acidity level.  Most people use lime after the trees are gone, I still have some whooping big trees in my front yard so have to take a more aggressive approach.

As to Antarctica, I am fairly happy that Al Quida and others have not hidden there, I hate the cold.   

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


Offline MedievalDom

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +49/-46
    • Gender: Male
Reply #37 on: October 06, 2009, 11:58:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100104203.html?nav=emailpage

"Was Polanski filled with remorse? Not when the British novelist Martin Amis interviewed him in 1979. "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?" Polanski told Amis. "But . . . [having sex], you see, and the young girls. Judges want to [have sex with] young girls. Juries want to [have sex with] young girls. Everyone wants to [have sex with] young girls!"

The relevant quote given by Polanski pertains to his actions with the young girl, to which he said:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m10d3-Roman-Polanski-proclaims-in-interview-that-everyone-wants-to-have-sex-with-young-girls
    If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f***ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f*** young girls. Juries want to f*** young girls. Everyone wants to f*** young girls!”

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 #38 on: October 07, 2009, 12:35:28 AM
Oh what a great quote.  Doesn't say anything but everyone wants to fuck young girls, not that he did that.  It is the context that is important and what the question was.  I'm sure there was a direct question in the ineterwiew asking whether Polanski had had sex with THE young girl.  If not the interviewer wasn't very good.

Insensitive?  Oh absolutely.  Proof of anything?  Nup.  Nada.

Actually Polanski makes a very valid point, aside from the comment that everyone wants to have sex with young girls which is certainly not true of everyone but taken a slightly different way, does everyone wish to read about someone having sex with young girls?  Now that one gets a yes.  Because that is why the press was so extensive.

The most reasonable interpretation of the quote was that Polanski was taking a swipe at the press and saying the press were interested because rather than kill someone, he was alleged to have had sex with a young girl.  It is the fucking of young girls that he is saying interested the press.

The only thing that Polanski says that is relavant to the case is "But fucking you see, and young girls."  That isn't anything remotely close to an admission.  To say it is is to misrepresent the quote.  But people don't necessary speak well in interviews and do say things they don't mean because they are expressed badly.  Or they say something without realising what they said could be taken to mean something they did not mean at all.  A good interviewer will clarify and make sure any such error or an ambiguity doesn't stand without clarification. 

To have value at all the whole interview needs to be produced.  This is a report of a report of an interview in 1979. 

Even with the whole interview that isn't conclusive.  The errors in transcriptions or deliberate misuse of sections of a wide ranging interview for newspapers happen enough that for a quote to be acceptable the source has to be available, the tape of the interview or the interviewer's notes (the second one subject to all the errors in notetaking that can be made).

I'll stick to the legal questions unless someone can produce a direct admission by Polanski, confirmed by the tape of the interview, that he had sex with the alleged victim.  If such an admission existed it would be quoted in every article about the extradition proceedings.  This one doesn't remotely cut it.  It does sound a bit like an admission until you read what Polanski actually said.

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


Offline byronsbeast

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 68
    • Woos/Boos: +12/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • soldier, sailor, adventurer
Reply #39 on: October 24, 2009, 07:34:02 PM
In the end...despite all the arguments....she was the kid, and he was the adult. Hes a pedo and should do his time.

The cure for boredom is curiosity....there is no cure for curiosity.