Roman Polanski detained in Zurich

[LetThemEatCake]

This is huge news here in Switzerland, such a big story.

 

[fashion tyger]

^^^ I'm curious to know what "the word around town" is in Switzerland

 

[shoesexy]

Lawyer in Polanski Documentary Now Says He Lied

New York Times
By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOK BARNES
Published: September 30, 2009


LOS ANGELES — In a bizarre twist to Roman Polanski's renewed legal fight over a 32-year-old sex case, a retired deputy district attorney who triggered claims of official corruption by telling a documentary filmmaker he had coached a judge in the case now says he made it all up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01wells.html

 

[m.j.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD_njXYgDR8

 

[--Vespertine--]

^^^ I'm curious to know what "the word around town" is in Switzerland

Well, members of government are saying Polanski's arrest is nothing strange or unfair, since there was an international arrest warrant, so that international treaties are just being applied... but, beside the "legal" justification, they are also pointing out for one "moral", and precisely that swiss people voted in 2008 the non-prescriptibility of pedophilia crimes...(even though the motivation of this was entirely in favor of the victimes, who couldn't or didn't want to denounce earlier, so this is clearly not the case here, since the victime herself asked for the case to be closed...)

other major point of discussion is why he's been arrested now?
he owned a chalet in Gstaad. ok, this can be bought under someone else name, but I think that Polanski actions reveal that he felt safe in Switzerland:
1. if you are looking for anonimity you don't spend your holiday in Gstaad which is very frequented place (there are plenty of mountains in ch where you can be sorrounded only by cows),
2. he accepted the invitation to the Zurich film festival... with the good lawyers he has, it's impossible he didn't know of treaties between Switzerland and Usa...

So there are many doubts still going on, about the timing of this, since Switzerland has been in quite a delicate position in his relations with Usa (UBS)...

 

[Fontenrose]

other major point of discussion is why he's been arrested now?

The American police don't stake out his house. Someone has to tell them when and where to request a foreign government to apprehend him.

However it seems his lawyers were raising a fuss in the U.S., someone told the FBI that he was going to show up for an award, and that brought a perfect storm. It's kind of like the scam where they phone people with a lot of traffic tickets and tell them they've won a car. Just show up and collect the "prize".

Sexual abuse, especially of children, is prosecuted much more vigorously now that we've seen bishops and teachers hauled away. People in a position of authority over children (not sure whether that includes directors) are considered to have committed a particularly serious crime.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I think you're right ... 32 years ago it was a lot easier to get away with a variety of crimes where children were the victims. That was definitely the time when you wanted to 'answer' for something like this ...

I used to work with someone my age whose stepfather sent him to the hospital with broken bones (also in California) a few years after this. Apparently there were no mandatory reporting laws then, and they were going to send him back home to the stepfather, no problem ... the mind boggles at what went on in the relatively recent past.

 

[ElleLesley]

I just feel that if the public outcry around the world had been heard for the last 30 years, this whole mess would have been resolved by now. However, now it's convenient to 'pick a side', so to speak, when justice should have been served long ago. Even now, the point of the arrest is not with good intentions. Switzerland is attempting to cover up years of questionable activity and dealings. It's disgusting to use a horrible offense like r*pe to do so when the matter should be treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity. It should not be used as a device to 'make nice' with the US. If Switzerland truly wanted to bring him to justice, they could have done so years ago, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed on all accounts. It's disappointing seeing how this case was and is handled but I suppose now we're seeing ware the line is drawn on r*pe ... not entirely sure if that's a good thing. Seeing all these supporters of him is just, well, nasty. Specially from an media point of view (AKA those celebs signing up on that Petition). You have to question some peoples morals.

 

[tigerrouge]

The Observer has run a selection of his quotes:

TEN YEARS BEFORE FLEEING AMERICA FOR FRANCE, AND 41 YEARS BEFORE HIS ARREST IN SWITZERLAND LAST WEEK
I have always felt that the significance given by people to borders is ridiculous (1968)

ON SURVIVING THE KRAKOW GHETTO
Believe it or not, I had quite a cool childhood (1983)

ASKED WHAT HE MOST MISSED ABOUT AMERICA
A pastrami sandwich at Nate 'N' Al's delicatessen (2003)

ASKED BY "CHINATOWN" ACTOR FAYE DUNAWAY WHAT HER CHARACTER'S MOTIVATION WAS
Motivation? Say the f***ing words. Your motivation is your salary (1973)

ON NOT SHOWING A BEHEADING ON SCREEN
It's like telling a dirty joke and leaving out the punchline (1984)

ON UNION MEMBERS
Most of them are useless. They climb up the scaffolding to go to sleep and afterwards climb back down to discuss their next strike (1979)

ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EROTICISM AND p*rn*gr*phy
In the first you use just the feather, in the second you use the whole chicken (1991)

ON CATHERINE DENEUVE AT AN AUDITION
Why do you bring me this Cyrano de Bergerac? (1964)

ON WHY HE WAS SLEEPING ONLY WITH PEOPLE OF UNMARRIAGEABLE AGE
For fear of betraying Sharon [Tate – his murdered wife]'s memory (1977)

TOLD BY "REPULSION" ACTOR JOHN FRASER THAT THE FILM WAS SICK
John, it's meant to be funny (1965)

ON BEING HIM
I'm a combination of an old man and a baby (1963)

DENYING CHRISTIAN IMAGERY IN HIS FILM "KNIFE IN THE WATER"
An accident. The rope [in the shape of a halo] was simply to cushion his head. And he spreads his arms because, you know, he wants a better suntan (1972)

ASKED BY MIA FARROW IF HE WAS OUT OF HIS MIND, WHEN DIRECTING HER TO WALK ACROSS SIX LANES OF TRAFFIC
I may be, but please do it (1967)

ON HIS FILM "FRANTIC", STARRING HARRISON FORD
It's a film about jet-lag (1988)

THE WHOLE OF HIS ESSAY FOR A FRENCH NEWSPAPER ON WHY HE MAKES FILMS
I wonder (1987)

 

[BonjourTristesse]

Ironic that WOODY ALLEN has signed the petition... that little hairy creep.

 

[RedAzalie]

althought for american this case could be one dimension i would never be more worried and confused about such a thing. I mean - ppl from US are tend to be more strict and harsh on this case ( even those who are very liberian ) coz of all the child abuse cases. I on the other hand feel liek it is to much , and too late. First the girl althought was 13 ( calling her child is not the most accurate, more like teenager - did you heard story of british 13yo dad? ) she was 1. not look 13 at all, 2. lied about her age, 3. wasn't the innocent one. Second her mum has very "intresting" part in this story, taking her here and there , promoting in not the most healthy ways. third - she agreed on drinking and all. you can say that 13yo is not in possition on making decission but well i was. I know what is sex, drugs and alcohol and i am not from sick family ( also not from very religious, not from artistic or high class, just a family ).

On the bad side for polansky - I am not sure about all those alcohol and drug use - those kind of things could totally change you perception and make you agree more or less on some things.

All in all very unclear case. Although i had moral uncomfortable situation here i don't agree about arresting him or sentence.

 

[The_Ida]

^There is nothing unclear about it. He raped her in every way - oral, vaginal, anal - and she said NO. No matter what her age was, what she told him her age was (she didn't tell him anything), how her mother behaved...NOTHING can EVER justify that. Again, there is nothing unclear about it.

I hope he goes to prison for a long time as I hope that all paedophiles and sexual offenders will.

 

[m.j.]

if there's nothing unclear, people would not be divided!

 

[*Bianca*]

^that's not true - emotions get in the way.

 

[t-rex]

if there's nothing unclear, people would not be divided!

Serious question - do you acknowledge that Polanski orally, vaginally, and anally raped the girl? Yes or no

 

[auxt]

The Observer has run a selection of his quotes:

here's another one --

[FONT=&quot]The interview took place in Paris in 1979. In 1978 Polanski fled America while awaiting trial on charges of r*ping a minor.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it. The newsmen were calling the police before I was arrested to see whether they can break the news. I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realise, if I have killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But. . . fu.cking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fu.ck young girls. Juries want to fu.ck young girls - everyone wants to fu.ck young girls! No, I knew then, this is going to be another big, big thing."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Looking sixteen, of course, does not entitle you to go to bed with adolescents. Despite what Polanski says — contra Polanski — not everyone wants to fu.ck young girls. One cannot hide behind a false universality: one cannot seek safety in numbers. Most people who do want to fu.ck young girls, moreover, don't fu.ck young girls. Not fu.cking apparently willing young girls is clearly more of a challenge. But even Humbert Humbert realised that young girls don't really know whether they are willing or not. The active paedophile is stealing childhoods. Polanski, you sense, has never even tried to understand this.[/FONT]

~ Martin Amis for Tatler, 1980 (published in Visiting Mrs. Nabokov and Other Excursions)

 

[Label Basher]

Here is some celebs being very careful about what they say -



and then here is Chris Rock on Leno telling it like it is (starts at 2.25) -

 

[The_Ida]

if there's nothing unclear, people would not be divided!

People are divided because they think being a celebrity excuses everything. What part do you not get - that she was raped in every imaginable way and that he pleaded guilty or is it just because he's your favourite director?

 

[iluvjeisa]

He is brilliant. But that does not excuse this fact. Nor that he is sinister at best, and evil in the worst case. That has always been part of his allure. Evil.

 

[m.j.]

and then here is Chris Rock on Leno telling it like it is (starts at 2.25) -

hes comparing polanski to bin laden???WTF??? and who the hell is chris rock? i know there was a show or there is a show everybody hates chris.... but that's all...

People are divided because they think being a celebrity excuses everything. What part do you not get - that she was raped in every imaginable way and that he pleaded guilty or is it just because he's your favourite director?

some people defend him because they belive he did not r*pe the girl. he first pleaded inocent, than quilty, who knows what happend behind closed doors???
can we agree to disagree???

plus, the case is over 30 yrs old, if roman wasn't famous the case would no longer exist.it would be old in legal terms.