The Sexist

Roman Polanski Still Victimized By People Who Would Deny Him Fancy Awards

Roman Polanski picked up the Best Director award at the Berlin Film Festival yesterday evening. Well, he didn't literally pick it up—his written acceptance statement is quick to remind the world of that recent unpleasantness that has inhibited Polanski from the very important business of fancy prize collection. From the Guardian:

The 76-year old film-maker, who was unable to attend the awards ceremony because he is under house arrest in his Swiss chalet, sent a pithy acceptance statement via his producers, saying: "Even if I could be there I wouldn't, because the last time I went to a festival to get a prize, I ended up in jail."

Some critics will argue that Polanski won the festival's "Silver Bear" award for best director solely based on the artistic merit of his film, the Ghost Writer, and not at all in order to exonerate him in his 30-year-old sex case. Polanski, apparently, is not one of them, as he continues to dangerously conflate his duel roles as famous film director and famous accused rapist.

To Polanski, the international justice system that has forced him to remain under house arrest until his case is resolved has intentionally victimized him as an artist, thereby denying the world the honor of celebrating the cinematic genius of Roman Polanski. In reality, Polanski didn't "end up in jail"—oh, what a passive victim he's played in this whole charade—because he showed up to receive accolades for his achievements. He "ended up in jail" because he failed to show up to receive punishment for his failures. Polanski isn't allowed to travel to Berlin because it's likely he will slip authorities and never return, like he did last time, and not because a bunch of sore federal governments just don't want poor Polanski to have a nice time for being such a swell director.

The international justice system, actually, is unconcerned with Polanski's creative output—it is exclusively concerned with Polanski's criminal history. In Roman Polanski's world, this singular view of the law is a travesty against art. And so, Polanski attempts to turn winning an award for a movie into a defiant act, a statement against all the critics who would criticize him—not on the basis of his art, but on the basis of him having sex with forcing sex on a 13-year-old and skipping town.

Making great films and sexually assaulting minors are not mutually exclusive activities. This obvious truth has yet to sink in for Polanski, and it probably never will. In Polanski's sad, ski-chalet-confined world, his cinematic gifts should be enough to set him free. Under this strange karmic equation, the benefit a film like the Ghost Writer provides to Berlin Film Festival judges like Werner Herzog and Renée Zellweger somehow balances out the harm Polanski caused to a 13-year-old girl in California 30 years ago. It's unclear whether Herzog, Zellweger, and the festival's other judges chose Polanski as Best Director out of political solidarity or pure artistic appreciation. If it's the former, the decision to honor Polanski sends the bizarre message that making a great film is not as important as making an incoherent political statement regarding your personal problems.


  1. #1

    Polanski violated a minor are we losing sight of this, I don't care if the victim is eighty years old today. Wrong is Wrong and you have to pay for your actions, the rest of us do!, what makes him any better. The answer is NOTHING!

  2. #2

    “Even if I could be there I wouldn’t, because the last time I went to a festival to get a prize, I ended up in jail.” -- There is also an element of self-pity in this remark.

  3. #3

    Funny how the so called victim had later repeatedly said that he didn't 'violate', or 'harm' her, that it wasn't rape and long called for his release actively campaigning for him. But I guess the sanctimonious public knows better.

  4. #4

    Blah blah blah; I'm so tired of hearing about Polanski. Crystal Mangum -- the Duke liar -- was just arrested; let's talk about that instead.

  5. #5

    Ha, yeah, George, I'm actually fed up with the whole Polanski witch hunt debate too. There're many more current cases left untouched because they're not 'famous' enough or can be exploited.

  6. #6

    Marshall, Polanski paid his victim, Samantha Geimer, at least $500,000. That may explain her kind words for Mr. Polanski.

    There is also the issue of 30 years of flight to avoid sentencing. This has been a continuing crime against the State of California.

  7. #7

    I seriously doubt you would have the same flippant attitude if it was your 13 year old daughter that had been DRUGGED AND RAPED by a man 30 years her senior .

  8. #8

    and if it were actually a '' witch hunt '' then the illegal sex act and the illegal drugging would have never happened to begin with . taking the defense of a pedophile makes you just as sick as he is. he has admitted he did it

  9. #9

    and more to the point his movies suck !

  10. #10

    'tracey' you are 100% RIGHT! Of course the white wine and brie crowd think otherwise I say let this has bin fade to obscurity, after he's put in jail!

    An yes his movies SUCK!

  11. #11

    NO real rape victim lets herself be paid off to suddenly say it wasn’t rape. And Polanski never admitted to anything but sleeping with her. Maybe a look at this analysis of the case will readjust your incomplete knowledge of the facts.

    Oh, and don't come back to me - just bother the actual blogger instead with more of your ignorant comments, after you read the more intelligent comments there.

  12. #12

    "NO real rape victim lets herself be paid off to suddenly say it wasn’t rape." How do you know this? I would bet there are at least some cases of it. And half a million dollars in 1977 was a lot of money--$1,750,000 in today's dollars. A lot of people would do a lot of things for that kind of money.

    By the way, here is Samatha's deposition. I suggest you read it. She testifies that Polanski anally raped her.

    Have a great day!

  13. #13

    Aurello - if the medical findings say there was no sodomy, she can say whatever the hell she likes. Besides, she sued him only in 1987 and the settlement is from 1998, so no, $1.75 mill to entice her to 'lie' - all she got just $619.000 nothing more.

  14. #14

    Marshal, the article that u posted is rubbish. He forced her, drugged her and the only reason why she is saying these things is because she doesnt want media attention. F--k roman polanski, he should geta life sentence

  15. #15


  16. #16

    Given that the charge that he plea bargained to was Statutory Rape, her feelings about it being forced are irrelevant. Statutory rape means that the minor in question is too young to consent to sex.

  17. #17

    "....all she got just $619.000 nothing more."

    Well, okay. I guess no one would lie for $619,000. :)

  18. #18

    @Marshal, obviously, you have no knowledge of how justice is dispensed in the State of California. The victim's wishes at this point mean NOTHING. Polanski plead GUILTY to statutory rape, which had been reduced from far more serious charges. He fled the country when the judge said he wasn't going to accept the sentence proposed by the prosecutor (which is the judge's sole power to decide).

    Polanski is nothing more than a felon who plead guilty, then fled because, horrors, he might have had to do some serious jail time.

  19. #19

    If Roman Polanski was BIGGER than Steven Spielberg at
    the box office , would that make the rape case okay ?
    Some people above wrote that his movies SUCK.
    Point 2 The rape case would NOT GO AWAY if Polanski was
    the biggest champ in the movieworld.
    That's why the things you wrote make no sence.

  20. #20


    Point is, Polanski isn't above the law, but he thinks that because he's an "artiste" he is. The same bluebloods that are calling for his vindication would be calling for his lynching if he was a poor black man from a low-income family in Alabama...and probably with a hell of a lot less evidence against him. Plain and simple.

  21. #21

    Mike, 'DC BS' - believe in your own 'rubbish' till the end of time if you want, I know the law. All that counts for me is that it wasn't forcible rape and sodomy - regardless of her age - and to sleep with underage girls in the Seventies was nothing unheard of. She said so herself, and that it wasn't rape, end of story.

  22. #22

    Well, Marshall, it might count for you but it doesn't really count in the eyes of the law.

    Working in the courts, I've met young girls and boys who were victimized at young ages and often confused about situations b/c they were young. In a court of law, they wouldn't be found competent for real reasons that have to do with formal operations and other standards used to judge legal competence--I'm talking about kids who are 8,9 or 10 and kids who are 13.

    It worries me to hear that Marshall throws out ideas of an age of consent because it was applied to a celebrity in the 70s.

  23. #23

    Marshal--she was drugged AND said "No" repeatedly...both of those things by definition make the situation "forcible," and either of those things *by themselves* (never mind her young age) is legally rape.

  24. #24

    Marshal, you sure are emotional about this. Do you have a thing for 13 year old girls, or what?

  25. #25

    American people are not aware of difference is sexual
    behaviour between Europe and America.
    Common sex in Europe is really different.
    I can asure you that what Roman Polanski did in America
    would not be punished in The Netherlands.
    I know a man who used to live in my neighborhood who
    had a threesome - two minors at the same time.
    There was never any jailtime for that man.
    He only had to pay the costs of the trial , because he
    was guilty , and he had to pay money to his victims.
    And that's it.
    No sexual experience is ever worth any jailtime , that's
    why i will never go to bed with a minor.
    But in all honesty , i do understand the attraction.
    Some 13 year old girls look like 18 , 19 or 20 year olds
    and have a lot of experience.
    Nevertheless it remains illegal by the law.
    But Roman Polanski wasn't the only man who did this.
    There are probably millions who did the same thing and
    were NEVER arrested for it.
    That's why it's so UNFAIR to put all the blame on Roman

  26. #26

    Don Heckers,

    Is there something about the concept of HE DRUGGED HER and SHE SAID NO REPEATEDLY that you are not understanding?!

    It wouldn't matter if she were 13 or 31--that's rape.

    Why is it "unfair" to blame someone for RAPE??

  27. #27

    Don Heckers is the reason why I worry about young girls who get victimized by creepy older guys who can't tell the difference between physical and psychological/cognitive maturity. Also, the age of consent in the Netherlands is 16.

    And really, it does matter if she's 13 and he's 43. It's sad when people try to justify it.

  28. #28

    It's NOT UNFAIR to blame someone , it's unfair to put
    ALL THE BLAME on one single man , Roman Polanski.
    Before he was born (august 18 , 1933) minor girls were
    raped and after he dies minor girls will still be raped.
    Everybody makes it look like Polanski is responsible for
    all the rape victims.
    Yet everybody knows that that is not true.
    I also wrote that i will never have sex with minors ,
    because no sexual experience is worth any jailtime.
    I was right about that.
    That attitude is not wrong , because i'm not DOING IT
    with minors.
    First read my letter in full attention before you start
    to write your wrong opinions about me.
    I know that Roman Polanski was wrong but i also know
    that Michael Jackson did much worse.
    And everybody seems to ignore that , or at least they
    don't wanna hear about Michael's illegal actions.
    Michael Jackson could get away with anything , and that's why he didn't die a day too soon.
    Even today in 2010 there are still people in Hollywood
    who have sex with minors.
    I wonder if THEY will ever get arrested ?
    Probably not , BAD LUCK is an exclusive gift for Roman
    Everybody else can do anything they wanna do and walk
    away with it.
    FREE ROMAN POLANSKI - Today And Forever !

  29. #29

    "I know that Roman Polanski was wrong"

    Stop there. Just because other people commit rape, doesn't lessen Polanski guilt.

    "Everybody else can do anything they wanna do and walk
    away with it."

    You sound like you are 5. Seriously, he's responsible for his crime. He shouldn't get away with it b/c there have been other people who've gotten away wit hit.

    Also, it's creepy to say that the only reason you wouldn't sleep with a 13 year old is b/c of the fear of jailtime. I work in the court with kids. I see girls that age victimized by adult men all the time--men who like screwing little girls b/c it makes them feel powerful. These girls end up confused and hating themselves. It's a tragedy.

  30. #30

    Once again i've been MISUNDERSTOOD.

    I KNOW that Roman Polanski was guilty.
    I SAID that he's not guilty of every girl that was ever
    Yet everybody seems to be pointer their finger at him.
    While Roman Polanski has house-arrest right now , there
    is another adult having sex with a minor.
    And after Polanski dies , IT STILL GOES ON.
    And how does anybody know FOR A FACT that other famous
    directors , actors or even actresses are not doing the
    same bad thing ?
    You're not standing by their bedside while they're doing
    it , are you ?
    In the 1970's many celebrities have done the exact same
    thing as Roman Polanski.
    Some of them had threesomes or even worse.
    None of them has been arrested then and by now we know
    that they never will have to face any charges.
    Like i said in my previous letter , BAD LUCK is for
    Roman Polanski only.

  31. #31

    Don Heckers,

    It wasn't JUST that she was underage. He drugged her and she said no. This has nothing to do with whether a threesome is "worse"--it is about LACK OF CONSENT, and lack of consent is rape.

    Exploiting the power differential over a 13 year old is bad enough, but in Polanski's case this wasn't all that happened. What he did would be rape no matter what the age of the victim.

  32. #32

    So you think he's guilty of raping a 13 year old girl and you think it's a problem for adults to have sex with minors? I don't think it's bad luck for Roman. I think you suffer a logic problem. By your logic, no rapist should ever been in jail, which is ridiculous.

  33. #33


    You don't understand me.
    I SAID SEX ISN'T WORTH JAILTIME meaning that i would
    never want to have sex with a minor because that causes
    me too much trouble.
    I might go to jail for it , and even the best sexual
    experience isn't worth that high price , and that's why
    i will never do that.
    That's good , isn't ?
    Rapists should go to jail , but Roman Polanski has been
    in prison : 42 days in America 68 days in Swiss.
    And now he's under house-arrest.
    He's been punished MORE than anybody else.
    It's enough.

  34. #34

    Don, I notice you've studiously avoided answering my posts. Let's make this very, very clear: ROMAN POLANSKI RAPED A CHILD AGAINST HER WILL.

    Here's Kate Harding with the details:

    As for your other comments & opinions:

    If the only reason you wouldn't have sex with a minor is that it causes you too much trouble, you are a sick disgusting man and you desperately need intensive counseling.

  35. #35

    to LeftSidePositive

    Why don't you get it ?
    People may think whatever they want as long as they don't act on it.
    In the past i've always hated Michael Jackson and i had
    thoughts of killing him , but i never did it.
    So there's no reason for any discussion on that part.
    I never did and i never will have sex with minors.
    My principle reasons are not important , AS LONG AS I'M
    And Roman Polanski's victim is on HIS SIDE.
    She refuses to strand trial AGAINST the director.
    That's FANTASTIC.
    I hope Samantha Geimer has a leadrole in Polanski's
    next film "GOD OF CARNAGE".
    That would keep America talking for a long time about
    the rape case that was nothing more than a bad joke.
    Have a nice weekend.

  36. #36

    "Roman Polanski's victim is on his side."

    Have you really thought about that statement? The person who was raped likely is constantly reminded of said rape b/c Polanski, rather than dealing with it in the 70s, has stretched it out over 30 years, constantly reminding her of what happened.

    But you seem to forget one essential issue: She was the victim, not him.

    And if your are indicted of a crime and flee the country, you don't get out of it for living it up in Europe for 30 years, all while complaining how mean Americans are for having an issue with a child rapist.

  37. #37

    Don Heckers,

    Here's one thing you're doing wrong: you're advocating freeing a man who drugged and raped and sodomized a young girl who was terrified out of her mind and repeatedly said no. That's very, very wrong!

    I never said you had *done* anything in relation to minors. I said that your attitudes about them made you a sick and disgusting man, and I stand by that. Anyone (unless they're a minor themselves) who desires minors sexually and doesn't see anything wrong with it except the potential for jail time is totally disgusting. I don't favor any type of prosecution of you, of course, because you haven't done anything, but I am perfectly justified in condemning your opinions and statements, which act like RAPING CHILDREN is no big deal.

    Oh, and about "Polanski's victim is on his side"...that is NOT how the justice system works. He plead guilty to the crime, and hurt ALL OF SOCIETY by skipping out on his sentence. The debt he owes isn't just to her anymore, but to all of society.

    Furthermore, do you realize how dangerous a precedent that would set? It would be saying, "if the media and your influential friends browbeat and humiliate a victim enough to cause her to give up her hope of justice, you can do whatever you want as long as you're brazen enough about avoiding punishment." NOT OKAY.

  38. #38

    Do you know WHY the bloodpessure of American people
    reach the sky ?
    They are too busy with other people's bad behaviour.
    Don't American people have their own problems ?
    Samantha Geimer has her problems , Roman Polanski has
    his problems , but Samantha's and Roman's problems are
    NOT the problems of the American population.
    But all Americans act like vampires.
    They wanna see BLOOD , Roman Polanski's blood.
    By the way , i'm a member of Polanski's FANCLUB , and
    we are getting new members almost daily.
    Remarkable detail is that most of the new members come
    from the USA.

  39. #39

    Don Heckers,

    So, you think we should just led murderers roam free, because those are not our problems??? Are we just too busy with other people's bad behavior if we have any justice system at all??

    Someone who rapes a child DOES commit a crime against the whole society. This is why criminal trials are referred to with "The State Of [X] versus John Doe."

  40. #40

    LeftSidePositive: And let's not forget Polanski's other crime against society: flight to avoid sentencing, a continuing crime for over 30 years, when he thumbed his nose at the State of California and the American justice system. This is both a State and federal crime in the US, for which you or I or Don Heckers would be shown absolutely no mercy if we did it.

  41. #41


    The people have to mind their own business.
    Let the police , detectives and lawyers do their jobs.
    Everybody else : STAY OUT !
    And i strongly disagree with you about a rape being a
    crime against the whole society.
    There's a very big difference between one raped girl
    (Samantha Gailey , now Samantha Geimer) and one million
    raped girls.
    The other victims were not Polanski's victim.
    You see the things too much in Black and White.
    Everybody has the right to their own opinion.
    You have that right , but i've the same rights.
    And who is John Doe in this case ?
    It can't be Samantha Geimer or Roman Polanski.
    John Doe is always a person (victim or victimiser) not
    mentioned by name.
    Can you agree with that ?

  42. #42

    Don Heckers,

    You are a blithering idiot. John Doe is used here as a stand-in for a generic name, to show in general terms how court cases are named. In this case it would be Roman Polanski.

    And yes, rape (like murder, theft, arson, etc.) IS a crime against a whole society, because allowing it to go unpunished puts everyone at risk.

    It's still a crime to rape one girl, and Roman Polanski needs to serve his jail sentence for that crime AND for the crime of skipping town.

  43. #43

    Roman Polanski won't come (i hope and pray).
    He's in Europe where life is beautiful and people are
    nice to each other.
    If an American commits a crime somewhere in Europe ,
    we can't get that person to stand trial because the
    USA doesn't extradite their citizens to Europe.
    Did you know that ?
    That's why we don't extradite Roman Polanski to America.
    It's a good and very honest principle reason because
    We keep our Roman Polanski in Europe.
    Pretty soon he'll be FREE AS A BIRD.
    And that's the way i like it.

  44. #44

    As long as the case isn't tried in any court her allegations to this day are just that – allegations. Her old testimony was never impugned, hence, not fact but claims and means absolutely nothing to me. Bar the one count he pled to. But the fact that she herself often enough stated later that it wasn’t rape, you all seem to love to ignore, speaks more in his favour than you all want. She never wanted him incarcerated then, or now, and the juristic mess the case is in is the making of the courts. It’s much more complex than you all realise, and is being ruthlessly exploited by Cooley & Co. That’s why they ignore her just the same and the reason why the Swiss will not extradite him.

  45. #45

    Marshal, saying that she wouldn't personally want him to be sent to prison and saying that "it wasn't rape" are two very different things. She never said the latter. In fact, she has said quite the opposite. A lot.

  46. #46

    To Marshall: "Bar the one count he pled to..." Right, which is statutory rape. But that deal is voided, because your hero, Roman, fled the country. Now he needs to be tried on the original charges PLUS 30 years of flight to evade prosecution and/or sentencing. If you don't understand this, you have no concept of justice.

  47. #47

    To Melissa: right. Her deposition, which Marhal chooses to ignore, is a vivid description of rape. Complete depo here:

    Samanatha's subsequent forgiveness of Roman Polanski for his crime against her was probably influenced by the $500,000 he paid her. This is irrelevant to whether he actually did the crime he is accused of.

  48. #48

    Was the MONEY really the reason why Samantha decided
    that Roman Polanski must not be punished ?
    Just suppose that this girl has a hidden agenda ?
    Imagine that the reason why she wants him to stay free
    is because she has a certain guilt in the whole event ?
    That she was a Lolita who seduced him and he took her
    and went too far , and she couldn't make him stop ?
    YES , it still would be rape , that's true , but then
    she would've started it all.
    Now , in 2010 , she doesn't want people to know that
    it was more or less her own fault , and that's why she
    rather sees Roman Polanski walk free then that the ugly
    truth comes out.
    I'm not saying that i'm right about this , but imagine
    this scenario.
    Could i be right ?
    It's very hard to tell because everything you read about
    this case is half true or complete gossip.
    The real truth will never come out.
    That's why the case will never be closed to everybody's

  49. #49

    Don Heckers: In your latest post you invited us to suppose that "she was a Lolita who seduced him and he took her
    and went too far, and she couldn’t make him stop." Now there's a fantasy!

    Do you have a thing for underage girls? Are you really rationalizing your own pedophilia? Then why are you defending this predator?

    The next time you are busted for sex with an underage girl try telling your "she seduced me" story to the judge. You'll end up in the slammer with the rest of the pedophiles.

  50. #50

    Well, Melissa, Aurello – even ten years ago she said things like, and I quote: “He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that.” She also said in 1997 BEFORE the settlement came through a year later, ‘that she wouldn't call the episode rape’, and that "The word 'rape' always brings to mind for me a level of...violence that wasn't there." That doesn’t sound like it was ‘rape’ to me after all and to many others in fact.

    She also said time has given her perspective on the incident and doesn't feel like a victim, and judging from her original testimony to today’s interviews like this, there’s a huge difference between her allegations to what actually happened, people don’t realise. The only thing she maintains is that it wasn’t consensual – while he said it was – because the law didn’t permit her to he didn’t realise, which amounts to unlawful sex and is exactly what he pled to.

    As I said before, as long as the case wasn’t tried, her more serious claims of then mean nothing, the medical evidence means everything, especially after she flip-flopped the events in various ways over the years resembling more what Polanski had said people never noticed either, unless they read all her interviews to compare them.

    And Rosie – sorry to disappoint you too, but the plea stands as is, his flight has no bearing on it. Only a judge can withdraw his plea to retry the case on all counts, none ever has, or ever will, for all the judicial transgressions having corrupted it long ago they would also need to tackle I doubt they will want to. And in fact, the other five dropped counts are long off the table once he pled to one of the six and became subject to the statute of limitations which ran out twenty odd years ago – and all that according to her own lawyer, so I doubt that YOU know better.

    The US courts cannot even prove he was up for more than he sat out already after both parties were guaranteed probation only for Polanski, to justify his extradition. That’s why he wasn’t sentenced in absentia and that’s why the Swiss judges blocked extradition. And, because the case was a mess already then with a biased and racist judge who was removed by both attorneys, he won’t get a day more for fleeing either.

    And Don, don’t waste your time with them any further. I won’t.

  51. #51

    Ha, ha, Marshall. Nothing like denigrating the judge b/c Polanski refuses to follow the law.

  52. #52

    "I’m not saying that i’m right about this , but imagine
    this scenario.
    Could i be right ?"

    No. I can say with absolute certainty that you could not be right. Rape is never the victim's fault.

    Marshal, care to cite a source for your claims? Frankly, I don't believe you.

  53. #53


    "Rape is never the victim's fault"
    Really ?
    In Holland there was a teacher who was seduced by a
    minor girl who was one of his students.
    The judge said that she had a certain blame for the
    seduction of a married teacher.
    And he didn't have to go to prison.
    The whole case ended with money.
    So you see , it's not always a matter of being a rich
    celebrity to buy your way out of trouble.
    If you have the judge on your side you can win a case
    of "sex with a minor" too.
    I don't have any feelings for minors but i'm taking
    Roman Polanski's side for many reasons.
    ONE of my reasons is that Americans make me angry with
    their bullshit stories.

  54. #54

    I said that rape is never the victim's fault. I did not say that the victim is never blamed for his/her own rape.
    You're not going to shock me by mentioning ONE court case where the judge said the victim was to blame and the rapist got off. It happens all the freakin' time. That doesn't make it right, or true.

    Look, Americans make me angry with their bullshit stories too. That doesn't make Roman Polanski innocent.

  55. #55

    "In Holland there was a teacher who was seduced by a
    minor girl who was one of his students."

    Part of being an adult is being responsible for your behavior--more responsible than a child. That's why they don't have the right to vote or to move out to their own apartments or to sign contracts. This teacher showed an appalling lack of ethics and as the adult, he was responsible.

    Also, Roman is a child rapist and you are defending him.

  56. #56


    What would you say to Roman Polanski if he was your
    brother ?
    Probably that should be ashamed of himself.
    And then what ?
    Life goes on , rape-case or no rape-case.
    I never said that Roman Polanski is innocent.
    He's guilty , i know , but unlike you , i keep thinking
    about the year 1977 when the rape was commited and the
    thought "Suppose Roman's wife Sharon Tate was not
    murdered by the Manson family , he would've had a wife
    and a son of seven years old".
    His entire life would've been different.
    And different circumstances create another kind of life.
    And give this some thought too : America doesn't extra-
    dite people to Europe to stand trial , so why the hell
    should we extradite Roman Polanski to the USA ?
    I personally wouldn't even have arrested him in 2009
    on America's order.
    Never in a million years.

  57. #57

    Jill, Melissa - in contrast to you I'm an expert on the case and was in fact there. I’m only 16 yrs Polanski’s junior. What I cited are long known facts by now, but you seem to have missed them all, so maybe you should read some more unbiased articles and recent interviews to catch up. The original judge was removed by both attorneys for illegal misconduct for his biased handling of it to exploit it for who Polanski was. Polanski is not a 'child rapist' anyway, she was a teenager, and even the doctor examining her stated her as 'adult female' in his medical report, which in fact couldn't find any proof of forcible rape and/or sodomy she claimed. That’s why Polanski pled to unlawful sex with a minor on their agreement of no further jail time and probation, the mother in fact had pressed for after these findings and to avoid a trial. The judge however reneged on that plea against all counsel to save his public face and that's why Polanski fled. And that’s another reason why the Swiss won’t let him go, because the US courts are in dire straits with the legitimacy of the extradition in the first place. Otherwise they’d shipped him off long ago.

  58. #58

    While people are calling Roman Polanski names , his
    victim Samantha Geimer isn't really a victim.
    She wants him to live in freedom.
    I think i'm gonna ask Roman Polanski the question if
    Samantha Geimer can have a part in "GOD OF CARNAGE" ,
    his brand new filmproject (to be released in 2012).

  59. #59

    Neither Don Heckers or Marshall appear to know how the criminal justice system works. You also don't get to leave the country for 30 years and then say that since the victim of the crime gave up, he should just be let scott free. That sends a message to anyone that they should really try to flee the country if they want to get out of being prosecuted.

    Also, calling a 13 year old "not really a victim" after being sexually violated by a 43 year old man is creepy. You guys have issues.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.