Posted on 09/30/2009 9:51:31 AM PDT by MaestroLC
PARIS The French government on Wednesday dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the Oscar-winning director held in Switzerland over a three-decade-old child sex case was not "above the law."
"Roman Polanski is neither above nor beneath the law," said government spokesman Luc Chatel.
"We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job," he told reporters.
He added: "One can understand the emotion that this belated arrest, more than 30 years after the incident, and the method of the arrest, have caused."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Beware the wrath of DEBRA WINGER!!!!!
Maybe Obama can grant him a pardon.
The DA was sticking with the deal, which was a plea down and lesser charge. His time in jail would not have been much. But then Polanski heard that the Judge was going to grandstand and make the sentance worse so he fled.
Why waste the cell space, put him in the sewer where he belongs, leave an opening large enough to pass food through and then weld the cover down.
I don’t think anyone was making comparisons between the crimes. The Polanski victim lived to talk about it.
What I THINK the thought was is that Polanski could end up as cell mates with some of CA’s more notorious criminals. Of course, that isn’t likely to happen.
Never mind.:-)
He should be behind bars - no question.
I question the timing of this whole thing. The guy is 76 years old. The whole world knows where he’s been living. He’s been prospering as well.
He raped that girl. He pled guilty. Why wasn’t he scoffed up 30+ years ago? We won’t last 2 minutes in jail now.
If you had raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl after plying her with Qualudes and alcohol (a very dangerous and lethal combination), I would not be surprised if you fled.
If it were my daughter, you'd be fleeing from me.
It’s about moral degenerate Hollywood freaks were forced to do the same thing or realize they are going to pay the price for supporting a child rapist.
Re: “Oh boy, now what will those Hollyweird sickos who supported this child-rapist do now? Hopefully kill themselves but thats just me..”
*************
I hope they continue to support Polanski, loudly and obnoxiously = keep on showing their true colors — not only are they practically communists, they are sympathetic to sexual predators and see their boy Roman as above the laws. And maybe some of them really don’t see anything wrong with what he did — who knows.
What I do know that the more the left props up criminals like Polanski and Marxists/Communists like Obama, the more the average American citizen, even some who voted for Zero, will realize how bad off we are with this ilk. In fact, I wish Zero would come to Polanski’s defense — wouldn’t that be something!
There was a story on here last night about his lawyers provoking the LA DA by sending a letter saying they weren’t serious about extraditing Polanski, so they ought to drop the whole thing.
All earlier attempts by LA had failed, with country after country refusing to cooperate. The lawyers’ letter prompted them to reconsider how/where they might nab him. Now even France won’t protect him.
RE: “Height: 5’ 5” (1.65 m)”
**********
5’5” ???? hahahaha — Napoleon complex for sure — and yeah yeah yeah, he had a bad life — but why rape a hapless 13 year old girl some EIGHT YEARS after the wife’s murder?
Had he simply been a single man instead of a widower due to unspeakable crimes, would so many people be giving him a ‘pass’ on his own crime?
Many in the celebrity community are talking about Polanski’s rough start in life and the Tate murder. Points taken, but none of that gave him license to assault a 13 year old girl and later flee the US. Sounds like some in France have finally shown some common sense in NOT supporting Polanski.
Re: “Maybe Obama can grant him a pardon.”
*****************
I WISH Obama would weigh in on this — in support of Polanski. Can you imagine the uproar?????????????????
I like to thank Ratman83 for correcting me - I assumed it was the DA that reneged on the deal but it was the judge that reneged. Maybe he pleaded guilty because of the sweetheart deal the DA gave him and he would have fought tooth and nail in front of a jury if he knew the judge was going to make him an example. That is what I meant by this being a complex case with a confession coming on the promise of deal with the DA.
And he also had sex with Nastassja Kinski when she was just 15.
Personal Quotes
"The years went by so fast and, even though I've had children, which makes me feel I've lived a long time, I feel I didn't really grow up. I want to fulfill the desire I have to do things that are beautiful and meaningful."On Roman Polanski, who directed her in Tess (1979): "As a director, he was 10 times more wonderful than as a lover."
[On Marcello Mastroianni] I could fall in love with Marcello even though he is older than my father.
[On Klaus Kinski] I have never met a man like my father. He is so mad, terrible and vehement at the same time. Because of him, I never knew anything other than passion. When I began to meet other people, I saw that it wasn't normal.
That is 100% false, the woman who made it was a good friend and protege of Polanski. Even Salon wrote a review describing how biased as it was.
but it was the judge that reneged
Again, you are factually incorrect. There was speculation that the judge might change the sentence. BUT IT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Does that register with you. If the judge had changed the terms, Polanski could have withdrawn his guilty plea and gone to trial, it happens all the time.
Judges don't agree to deals in advance. They may give hints, but don't stipulate to sentences in advance. The defendant may agree to a certain sentence in return for a guilty plea, but can insist on a provision to withdraw the plea if the judge goes over the sentence.
A judge has no obligation to follow the DA's recommendation.
This case was not complex at all. It was a slam dunk guilty verdict and the DA was giving him a deal because he was a celebrity and the judge wasn't going to have any part of it.
True enough but the circumstantial evidence points to that being what would have happened and Polanski was not found guilty by a jury but coped a plea on the promise of a reduced sentence. So, I stand by my assertion that it is not so cut and dried a case that warrants a pitch fork brigade.
To respond to your charge to me Does that register with you.? I post this article. I am not defending Polanski, just elaborating on my statements.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html
Also in the film are Polanski's defence attorney Douglas Dalton, and Roger Gunson, the assistant DA who was prosecuting him. Remarkably, both men agreed that justice had been undermined by the presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband. At one point in the film, Gunson describes the legal proceedings as "a sham".
"It isn't about whether Polanski is likeable or not," Zenovich told me. "It's about whether he was treated fairly under California state law. And clearly he was not."
Rittenband (who died in 1994) had a taste for celebrity cases, and wanted to make his name as the man who jailed Roman Polanski. He was egged on by an ugly-minded media, which dubbed Polanski "the poison dwarf", stressed his foreign origins, and described him in terms of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. And the judge, it turned out, belonged to an LA country club that barred Jews from membership.
Crucially, no one in California had served jail time for a comparable offence in the previous two years, and Dalton secured an agreement with Rittenband that Polanski's 42 days was sufficient time served. Polanski, it now appears, fled the US because it was clear that the judge had reneged on this agreement and planned to incarcerate him anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html
He was arrested and pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, after charges of rape and sodomy were dropped. Samantha's parents asked in court that he should not be imprisoned. Polanski spent 42 days in jail undergoing evaluation, but rather than face the judge, he headed for the airport and flew to France.
Also in the film are Polanski's defence attorney Douglas Dalton, and Roger Gunson, the assistant DA who was prosecuting him. Remarkably, both men agreed that justice had been undermined by the presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband. At one point in the film, Gunson describes the legal proceedings as "a sham".
"It isn't about whether Polanski is likeable or not," Zenovich told me. "It's about whether he was treated fairly under California state law. And clearly he was not."
Rittenband (who died in 1994) had a taste for celebrity cases, and wanted to make his name as the man who jailed Roman Polanski. He was egged on by an ugly-minded media, which dubbed Polanski "the poison dwarf", stressed his foreign origins, and described him in terms of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. And the judge, it turned out, belonged to an LA country club that barred Jews from membership.
Crucially, no one in California had served jail time for a comparable offence in the previous two years, and Dalton secured an agreement with Rittenband that Polanski's 42 days was sufficient time served. Polanski, it now appears, fled the US because it was clear that the judge had reneged on this agreement and planned to incarcerate him anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.