[buffoon]

The Swiss, having finally honored the extradition agreement they've had with the US for years, arrested him in order to comply with same agreement. He had a house there for decades but now they decided to act. Poland and France are clamoring for his release. His one time victim says it all happened so long ago (that he raped her when she was 13) that she'd prefer charges to not be pursued. He's 76.

Well, far as I know there is no statute of limitation on rape in US. He confessed to it at the time so that he could be out on bail. Then he scarpered. The girl was a minor.

So I don't care about his status as an artist. He was brilliant (still is) in his field and I liked many of his works. Got nothing to do with it.

Opinions?

[iltos]

it's ancient news....even to his victim
much as we might not like it that he beat the system, that's exactly what seems to have happened.

maybe i'm jaded by living in the land of celebrity court cases, but "bringing him to justice" now just seems to serve one person....the prosecutor

[wacor]

way I read it there is a chance he will be let free. His lawyer found some problems with the original trial and is appealing the case. The court said Polanski would have to come back to face this.

My gut tells me this is all staged. Polanski has avoided being caught all these years. He has a home in Switzerland and has visited it many times. I find it hard to believe the US never knew when he was there before and that the Swiss would refuse to hold him for a day until the extradition request came.

I think this was all a means to make the authorities look good for finally getting him back here and that he agreed to get caught this time to finally put this to rest. He will agree to a time served in exchange for not reopening the trial. Which the court will agree to because without her testimony the case is weak. IMO

How is that for a conspiracy eh

[Stoner]

Probably correct.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Probably correct.

Can't be

I am still irrelevant

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by wacor

...........

I am still irrelevant

Some things never change.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Some things never change.

Neanderthal man proves that point daily

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by wacor

Neanderthal man proves that point daily

Good one....you finally made me laugh

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by wacor

way I read it there is a chance he will be let free. His lawyer found some problems with the original trial and is appealing the case. The court said Polanski would have to come back to face this.

My gut tells me this is all staged. Polanski has avoided being caught all these years. He has a home in Switzerland and has visited it many times. I find it hard to believe the US never knew when he was there before and that the Swiss would refuse to hold him for a day until the extradition request came.

I think this was all a means to make the authorities look good for finally getting him back here and that he agreed to get caught this time to finally put this to rest. He will agree to a time served in exchange for not reopening the trial. Which the court will agree to because without her testimony the case is weak. IMO

How is that for a conspiracy eh

If he confessed, why should her testimony be required? I don't care how old and talented he is, he does not deserve to be free.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by TooBad

If he confessed, why should her testimony be required? I don't care how old and talented he is, he does not deserve to be free.

I have not expressed an opinion as to whether he should be free. I really don't care at this point either way.

Has he confessed in public or just the admission with the plea agreement?

If he has specifically stated in public the details of his actions then I agree that could be used against him. Although I suppose one of the lawyers can come up with why it would be inadmissible.

If he had merely said he did some things wrong and not give specifics then it boils down to the fact there is a dispute about the legitimacy of the plea deal if I am not mistaken. You throw out the plea deal and that means a trial.

[poochee]

He committed a crime and should go on trial. And from what I recall about this case it will be a messy one.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

it's ancient news....even to his victim
much as we might not like it that he beat the system, that's exactly what seems to have happened.

maybe i'm jaded by living in the land of celebrity court cases, but "bringing him to justice" now just seems to serve one person....the prosecutor

I tend to agree with this post.

However, prosecuting him then setting him free is an even greater slap in the face of justice.
They should have left him in Switzerland to live out his days there knowing if he returned to the US that he would have faced prison.
Now, if he's set free by acquittal, he'll be back here in the US promoting his filth in Hollywood.

Would have been best to allow him to rot in Switzerland.

[thingamajig]

If he had done his time, he'd be out by now. As to why now, America is fascinated with any kind of sex related deviance. Since US laws have been condemned by Amnesty and WRO, I do feel that other nations have a valid reason to refuse to turn him over.

However, failure to extradite him may only send a message to others that they can flee and get by with it. There is no trail to be had if he already entered into a plea agreement - unless the court failed to honor the agreement in which it can be retracted. He should be brought back to do his time and honor his part of the agreement. If there are open issues, they should be heard by the court. If the plea is overturned, and the victim is reluctant, the prosecution won't have much of a case.

And, to clear up some confusion, a guilty plea is not the same as an admission of guilt or a confession. Many states don't have a no-contest plea wherein the defendant simply chooses not to fight the charges. It could be that he is innocent but thinks he'll still loose at trial or because he wants to protect a victim from the horrible process A no-contest plea will bring a guilty verdict from the court but actual guilt remains unknown. Yet, guilt will always be assumed by those with small minds.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

If he had done his time, he'd be out by now. As to why now, America is fascinated with any kind of sex related deviance. Since US laws have been condemned by Amnesty and WRO, I do feel that other nations have a valid reason to refuse to turn him over.

However, failure to extradite him may only send a message to others that they can flee and get by with it. There is no trail to be had if he already entered into a plea agreement - unless the court failed to honor the agreement in which it can be retracted. He should be brought back to do his time and honor his part of the agreement. If there are open issues, they should be heard by the court. If the plea is overturned, and the victim is reluctant, the prosecution won't have much of a case.

And, to clear up some confusion, a guilty plea is not the same as an admission of guilt or a confession. Many states don't have a no-contest plea wherein the defendant simply chooses not to fight the charges. It could be that he is innocent but thinks he'll still loose at trial or because he wants to protect a victim from the horrible process A no-contest plea will bring a guilty verdict from the court but actual guilt remains unknown. Yet, guilt will always be assumed by those with small minds.

from the news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/...nd_polanski_79

Polanski has asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges' refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.

His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.


Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles
dismissed Polanski's bid to throw out the case because the director failed to appear in court, but said there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case.

Espinoza said he reviewed not only legal documents, but also watched the HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which suggests there was behind-the-scenes manipulations by a now-retired prosecutor not assigned to the case.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

If he had done his time, he'd be out by now. As to why now, America is fascinated with any kind of sex related deviance. Since US laws have been condemned by Amnesty and WRO, I do feel that other nations have a valid reason to refuse to turn him over.

However, failure to extradite him may only send a message to others that they can flee and get by with it. There is no trail to be had if he already entered into a plea agreement - unless the court failed to honor the agreement in which it can be retracted. He should be brought back to do his time and honor his part of the agreement. If there are open issues, they should be heard by the court. If the plea is overturned, and the victim is reluctant, the prosecution won't have much of a case.

And, to clear up some confusion, a guilty plea is not the same as an admission of guilt or a confession. Many states don't have a no-contest plea wherein the defendant simply chooses not to fight the charges. It could be that he is innocent but thinks he'll still loose at trial or because he wants to protect a victim from the horrible process A no-contest plea will bring a guilty verdict from the court but actual guilt remains unknown. Yet, guilt will always be assumed by those with small minds.

I believe that he admitted the deed, did he not?