Posted on 09/30/2009 7:22:41 PM PDT by RDTF
13-Year-Old's Testimony Tells Story Behind Polanski's Guilty Plea to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
In the more than 30 years since director Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl and then fled the country before he was sentenced, he has continued to make movies and even won an Academy Award.
-snip-
ABC News obtained transcripts of Geimer's 1977 grand jury testimony, which resulted in six charges against Polanski.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I shoulda read your post first. You make the point I wanted to make.
He could have done some real bad things to her, like pulling a pair of men’s dirty jockey shorts over her head..that would be real torture and the libs would all agree.
Just like Susan Atkins.
He’s 76 and it’s hard telling just how many children he came into contact with through the years.......if he was a true pedophile.
Ultimate Irony? Throwing him in a cell with Charlie. He enjoys head games...besides the form of sex he’s used to, can you imagine how he would torment Polanski? Even if Manson wasn’t there, he would drive Polanski truly insane recounting the details of the murders, particular Sharon Tate’s, details that you know he must know, and he would do it just for fun. Kind of like a school project. Now that.......would be punishment.
THe guilty plea can be withdrawn if the plea bargain is not held to.
Not necessarily. Plea bargains are contracts, and most usually they are contracts between the prosecution and the defendant - solely. You may ask to be let out of your contract, but there's nothing binding the court to do so. And, there’s nothing that binds the court to the plea agreement, unless of course the court had a hand somehow in negotiating the plea in some way, which is highly unlikely, and clearly not the case here. In other words, unless the court agreed to some specific sentence before sentencing, and the defendant entered a guilty plea under such an agreement, the court is under no obligation to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea, nor will the sentence be overturned on appeal absent some prior arrangement with the trial court. Unless you can prove that the other party has broken the contract, the chances of you withdrawing your plea aren't high.
Let me give you a contemporary example – Larry Craig. Craig entered a plea and then fought like hell to withdraw his plea before sentencing. Did it work? Not a chance.
"The Judge was going to renege." "So the plea bargain can be withdrawn."
Nope. The judge wasn’t going to “renege” because the judge didn’t agree to anything in the first place. If you read the transcripts, Gunson( the prosecutor), asks the court if he can accept the plea. The court then informs Gunson and the defendant that the court ISN’T bound by the agreement, and now would be the time for Polanski to withdraw his plea. Polanski doesn’t. He entered into the agreement with FULL COGNIZANCE and acknowledgment on the record that the court wasn’t bound by the terms of the plea agreement and then entered his guilty plea to the lesser charge.
A new trial is necessary."
No. There were some allegations (by the prosecutor who has since recanted) about prosecutorial misconduct as well as judicial misconduct. But, since Polanski fled BEFORE sentence could be imposed, there isn’t much of an argument for judicial misconduct. And, the judge is now dead so it’s going to be impossible to prove judicial misconduct, in any event. The prosecutor has said that he was only embellishing his claims of prosecutorial misconduct because he thought it would make for a better documentary, and he was promised a the documentary wouldn’t air in America. Yep, it makes the prosecutor a creep today, but it isn’t compelling evidence that he acted inappropriately back then.
And let’s not forget that the defendant fled the jurisdiction of the tribunal– evidence of consciousness of guilt – making things increasingly problematic to withdraw a plea, not to mention creating a basis for additional criminal charges that may still be prosecuted, adjudicated and sentenced.
Things could backfire.
It is California. Anything, as we have seen far too frequently, is possible in California, including a complete lack of judicial competency. So, yes, things could backfire.
The way I heard it back in the day, the victim’s mom + dad were sex therapists or something of that nature, and the victim, despite her tender years, was already quite sexually experienced at the time of the event.
What the attached story doesn’t mention is that the victim’s mom tried to shake Polanski down to keep quiet - he wouldn’t pony up - and so the authorities got involved.
I met the victim some years later at a Hollywood party. She tried to make every guy at the table, including yours truly.
None of this exonerates Polanski, but it does provide a bit more dimensionality to the story.
i read her account of the events, and she did not want to have sex with him... in any case, she was 13! he should have known better... what a pig...
If it was my daughter, he’d have to hide a lot further away than Europe, and a jail in California would look like a great deal to him.
You are a pig, truly a pig. Crawl back under your rock, Roman Jr.
maybe the 13 year old was F’d up afterwards and that may explain her behavior? Just maybe? That’s precisely why its illegal fool.
There is no testifying to be done. The trial is over because he plead guilty. And, not only will he have to do time because of the crime, but he should be brought up on flight charges as well.
Even in CA, he will not go free.
So, the important question is: Did ya? Giggty Giggty
Add to that Newsweek running a cover story “So What’s So Bad About Statutory Rape?” (I just saw their “Is Your Baby Racist” and “The Case for Killing Grandma” covers; I’m done with Newsweek).
Yep. There is no hole deep enough to hide from a determined man.
>>I met the victim some years later at a Hollywood party. She tried to make every guy at the table, including yours truly<<
As a Psych worker, I can tell you that promiscuity is often a by-product of sexual abuse.
And according to the transcripts, she had sex twice before this. While not a virgin, I’m not sure that “twice” is “quite sexually experienced”.
I’d take bets on whether she had anal penetration before this, however.
Along with that, do you really think that consensual sex before a rape “explains” the rape? Seriously?
Promiscuity CAN be a consequence NOT A CAUSE of rape.
I met the victim some years later at a Hollywood party. She tried to make every guy at the table, including yours truly.
Don't you think that the psychological impact of the assault itself was amplified by the fact her identity was so well known at the time and let's face it - there are no secrets in Hollywood? Also, in 1977, the rape-shield laws weren't nearly robust as they are today.
How does a young woman deal with not only the assault, but also the fact so many people knew about the assault - in all it's detail - and knew it was her, as well as deal with the "normal" adolescent pressures most teenage girls have to endure?
Actually, I'm a little surprised that at the age of 40, she seems to now be leading a relatively "normal" life.
I am not defending Polanski, merely providing additional information. He was in his mid-40s at the time of this event. She was 13. It’s a crime in every civilized country. And should be.
A felonious pig.
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.