Roman Polanski detained in Zurich

[*Bianca*]

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.

no it wouldn't be old in legal terms - he pled guilty so there is no statute of limitations

 

[tigerrouge]

There are plenty of non-famous people who get pursued for many decades - both for their crimes and for absconding from their sentences - the only difference being that they don't get featured in media stories because they're rather ordinary.

And these people aren't war criminals, sex offenders or mass murderers - frequently it's people who have been involved in major robberies, for example.

And thirty years is no time at all, in legal terms. There are innumerable investigations and inquiries ongoing around the world into crimes and events which happened a long time ago. In the UK, consider the £150-200 million poured into inquiries such as Bloody Sunday - which happened in 1972. The finished report is due in 2010.

Just because justice wasn't served on the day doesn't mean we should allow time to erode the need for clarity and closure.

 

[Fontenrose]

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...

Chris Rock (comedian) was reacting to someone else //who made the inevitable comment that the authorities should be out catching Bin Laden instead of annoying a famous director beloved by many morally-challenged actors who would like to work for him.

---
Also someone in the movie industry also said that Polanski should be forgiven because of his youth at the time (in his forties), then someone else said he should be forgiven because he's old now (in his seventies).

 

[The_Ida]

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???

Not really.

If they believe that he didn't r*pe the girl, then they are stupid. You should read her testimony, by the way.

He could afford the best lawyers - if he was innocent, which he is CLEARLY not, then he would have stayed the case through and defended himself. As for the legal system being corrupt or whatever...that turned out NOT to be true.

He raped a child and then he fled the country like a coward instead of owning up to it. I cannot understand how any sane person could defend him. There is NO doubt that he did it.

Btw...Chris Rock nailed it. I don't think you understood at all what he was saying. His point was that not even the no. 1 enemy of the entire Western civilization deserves to be raped. Get it? I got it, and I loved it.

 

[shoesexy]

ON WHY HE WAS SLEEPING ONLY WITH PEOPLE OF UNMARRIAGEABLE AGE
For fear of betraying Sharon's memory (1977)

...[FONT=&quot]Judges want to fu.ck young girls. Juries want to fu.ck young girls - everyone wants to fu.ck young girls![/FONT]

Just shows how warped this little child molestors mind is. Polanski escaped justice here and continued to molest underaged girls.

He needs to go to prison to learn how people/society treats child molestors.

 

[fashionista-ta]

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...

There seems to be a logical gap here ...

He did not compare Polanski to bin Laden.

What he said was, we want to capture bin Laden, and when we do, we'll kill him. We wouldn't r*pe him--that would be barbaric.

And indeed it is.

Chris Rock is a quite famous comedian, known for telling it like it is.

 

[Caroliiine]

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...



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.

What are you talking about? There's no question whether he is guilty or not. The trial has finished, he was convicted. He was found GUILTY. There is no speculation about his innocence. The only people who are upset with this recent arrest are 1) the victim, who doesn't want to drag this mess up again; and 2) the idiots who think that being an amazing filmmaker puts him above the law.

The case would still exist after 30 years. The law doesn't forget. That's why they're able to capture these r*pists and murders from 40 years ago, because DNA technology is now available to pinpoint the culprit. They re-open the case. Just because a case is not active doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[tigerrouge]

An article in The Observer:

Roman Polanski sex case arrest provokes backlash in Hollywood

US women have attacked film world's backing for director who again faces threat of trial for unlawful sex with 13-year-old girl in 1977.

4 October 2009

Hollywood stars flock to causes. An A-list name can boost the profile of a charity, highlight a far-off tragedy or reverse a grave injustice. So when Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on the way to a film festival, it is perhaps no wonder that the great and the good of the film world rushed to plead for his freedom.

The list of supporters giving Polanski their impassioned support read like a Who's Who of the cream of the movie-making world. It included, among many others, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodóvar and Ethan Coen.

But rather than rallying mass public support for the beleaguered film-maker – director of such undoubted classics as Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist – they have provoked an extraordinary backlash.

Led by a handful of outspoken female voices, a rising tide of opinion has instead applauded Polanski's arrest for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old back in 1977. They have turned the focus on the crime itself, calling the director an accused r*pist who abused a child.

That, they say, should be the focus of the story and of Hollywood's ire, not defending an old man who pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a young girl then went on the run for 32 years to avoid prison. The backlash – not only against Polanski, but also against the Hollywood clan that rallied round him – has begun in earnest.

"Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected," wrote feminist and author Kate Harding in an impassioned column in Salon. That article then went viral across the internet, gaining tens of thousands of page views and seeming to herald the reaction to come.

Harding, a liberal feminist, found herself being asked to appear on rightwing talk radio shows. Soon editorial after editorial, from the mighty New York Times to the smalltown Lowell Sun in Massachusetts, followed suit, welcoming Polanski's arrest as a case of long overdue justice for a serious crime.

It seems that the consequences of the dramatic development could now spread wider than just Polanski. Already some early supporters of the director, such as actress Whoopee Goldberg, have had to backtrack and clarify their positions. More are likely to follow suit in the weeks to come. Could it be that Hollywood – whose very existence rests on accurately predicting the public's taste – has made one of its gravest misjudgments? "The disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of the country seems enormous," said Anthony Mora, an author and founder of a leading Los Angeles-based public relations firm.

There is little doubt that the case is extremely complex. In many ways both sides are dealing in black and whites and not the shades of grey that too often more accurately describe reality.

For Polanski's defenders, that has meant ignoring the act that took place in 1977 and instead focusing on judicial wrongdoings that have plagued the case and Polanski's own tragedy-tinged life. They point out that the director pleaded guilty only as part of a deal, which he then feared was being reneged upon. That is why he fled, they say. They also refer to his past – as a Holocaust survivor and a man whose wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by followers of Charles Manson – as evidence that he has already borne much suffering in his life.

Finally, his sterling record as a film director is held up as evidence of why he should be celebrated as a leading artist, not arrested for a crime where even the victim has asked for him not to be pursued after such a long time. Perhaps it is no wonder that many in Hollywood have described his plight in terms that make Polanski himself the martyr. Weinstein said the arrest was a "terrible situation". Actress Debra Winger said the Swiss had been involved in "Philistine collusion" in allowing the arrest. Goldberg, in now notorious remarks, said: "I don't believe it was 'r*pe-r*pe'."

But, as the outrage has grown, especially in the wake of Goldberg's remarks, the sheer scale of Hollywood's misjudgment in rallying so enthusiastically to Polanski's cause has begun to be exposed. One of Goldberg's fellow presenters on the ABC TV show The View, Sherri Shepherd, condemned Polanksi outright. Details of the victim's testimony in 1977 have been published and widely circulated through the media and via the gossip website The Smoking Gun. It makes for grim and unpleasant reading.

The girl graphically described being given champagne and a quaalude, a popular recreational drug in the 1970s, by Polanski before he had sex with her. She testified that she repeatedly said no but that he did not stop, committing numerous sexual acts as she protested.

Not surprisingly, it is feminists and women who have led the charge against Hollywood's support of Polanski. The Feminist Majority Foundation is in favour of his extradition. Katie Buckland, chief executive of the California Women's Law Centre, has pointed out the difference between Hollywood's attitudes towards Polanski's long-ago crime and the unearthed pasts of elderly paedophile Catholic priests.

Writer Vicki Iovine has also been outspoken, making the same point. Even some women members of Hollywood have broken ranks as actress Kirstie Alley loudly condemned Polanski and those who defended him. Nearly all have accused him in no uncertain terms of being a child r*pist.

The ramifications of that will be difficult to measure. Polanski now faces a long legal battle that will span two continents. But in the arena of public opinion his image has been shattered. The words many people will now first associate with Polanski will be all to do with the sexual assault of a young child, not his film work. Even if he goes free, Polanski could now be hurt where it really matters to Hollywood: the box office. "Sex with children was, and always has been, anathema to Americans... the 'anything goes' cultural excesses of the time do not excuse Polanski from society's expectation that adults should protect kids, not exploit them," said author and sociologist BJ Gallagher.

The Polanski backlash has spread far and wide. He was never popular at all on the right wing of America's culture, but now middle America is firmly in favour of seeing him in a Californian courtroom. Talkshow hosts, radio commentators and newspaper editorials from coast to coast have all insisted that the arrest was long overdue and that Polanski needs to be brought to the US.

"Hollywood people really don't see the world in the same way as average people... that is why there is a backlash," said Mike Levine, a Hollywood PR expert.

But it is perhaps no surprise that the gap between Hollywood and the rest of America has grown so large on this particular case. Because of his long and illustrious career, Polanski is a friend and colleague of nearly all the main players in the film world. They are his confidantes and his peers. His movies have made them stars and helped them to earn millions. They live in the same rarefied world of global fame. "Elite Hollywood culture is protecting one of its own," said Alexander Riley, a professor of sociology at Bucknell University.

It is also speaks to a certain type of Hollywood culture which appears to insist that its top stars are in some ways elevated above the law and should be treated differently to ordinary members of the public.

If Polanski was just an ordinary man instead of a world-famous film director, the bare facts of his case would be likely to elicit little sympathy – especially from the world famous. Hollywood stars seem to be arguing, in some ways, that Polanski's talent should allow him some sort of free pass for his past behaviour. "Hollywood... looks at the Polanski case and says, 'You have to make allowances for genius'," said Gallagher.

Hollywood's elite also functions as a kind of club and Polanski, seen by the elite as a great European auteur director, is a firm member. That requires a certain degree of success but also a great deal of ideological conformity. It is a cliche that Hollywood is uniformly liberal in its politics, but one with more than a dash of truth in it. It is certainly interesting to see the reaction to Polanski's case and compare it with the reaction to Mel Gibson, when he was caught mouthing drunken anti-Semitic abuse.

Gibson, a rare conservative in Hollywood, was brutally condemned by his fellow stars and sent into virtual career exile. Polanski, whose crime is far more serious, has seen a vast outpouring of sympathy. Being a member of the Hollywood club certainly seems to have its privileges.

"The difference between the reaction to Gibson and the reaction to Polanski has been just huge. Huge!" said celebrity interviewer Gayl Murphy. "That says a lot about what Hollywood thinks is important to them."

But, more importantly, it has also exposed a huge fault line between what Hollywood thinks of itself and what Americans think of Hollywood. No longer is it just the right wing of America lambasting "Hollywood liberals" for their permissive and overly Democratic ways. It is Democrats too. And feminists. And conservatives. Polanski seems to have united the different strands of America in a way that few other things have.

As Harding blogged after her column exploded across the blogosphere and she was inundated with emails and requests for press interviews: "Who knew being disgusted with Roman Polanski would turn out to be the ever-elusive common ground between rightwing dudes and liberal feminists?"

 

[Fabulyss]

Does anyone really believe a bunch of celebrity's signatures will sway the legal system? Why are celebrities so f****** arrogant?!

 

[fashionista-ta]

^^ Love that last sentence

 

[Fabulyss]

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...



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.

You're g**-d*** right (there's a first time for everything). If Roman wasn't famous the case would no longer exist, it would be finished - he would be behind bars!

 

[tifa]

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...

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???

It's not a matter of agree to disagree as has been stated before he has been convincted and pleaded guilty to r*pe, not for any bargain plea but because he actually did the crime. He has spoken about it and shows very little remorse. I am not sure what your hidden agenda is here but I find it very offensive that you are so insensitive to the situation. Perhaps it is best not to say anything.

 

[Label Basher]

[SIZE=+1]Citing flight risk, Swiss officials refuse to grant bail for Roman Polanski[/SIZE]

Swiss justice officials have rejected a request by Roman Polanski to be released from a Zurich jail, where he has been detained for more than a week.

The move was expected and marks the beginning of what is expected to be a long effort by L.A. County prosecutors to have Polanski brought back to face sentencing for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl three decades ago.

Polanski's attorneys have vowed to fight extradition -- and the case is expected to go before a judge in the coming weeks. Polanski had asked government officials to release him from jail while he awaited the hearing.

But the justice ministry decided the famed director posed too great a flight risk. "We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight," said ministry spokesman Folco Galli told the Associated Press.

His supporters have questioned the timing of the arrest, noting Polanski has been to Switzerland many times and even has a chalet at a Swiss resort.

But Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf insisted authorities never knew Polanski traveled to Switzerland -- until L.A. prosecutors informed them Polanski planned to attend the festival.

"This time, we knew that he would be coming. After all, the organizers of the Zurich Film Festival had actively made it known," Widmer-Schlumpf told the Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung.

"Switzerland is a constitutional state, and Mr. Polanski should always have counted on being disturbed on his earlier stays as well," Widmer-Schlumpf said. "The arrest of Mr. Polanski has been sought worldwide by Interpol since 2005. If he comes to Switzerland, we are duty bound to fulfill the arrest as a treaty partner of the United States."

There has been much debate in Switzerland and beyond about whether the Swiss should have arrested Polanski as he exited a plane for the Zurich Film Festival. A former justice minister in Switzerland has said the director should have been warned he would be arrested if he came to Zurich.

latimesblogs.latimes.com

 

[NakedIfIWantTo]

What a heated debate!
I won't pretend to know the whole story so I will ask -
When he does get extradited to the US, will he be facing a new trial with charges both covering the act of fleeing and overturning the plea bargain, or will it just be a follow-up to the sentencing hearing he was supposed to go through after being released from the 42-day psychiatric evaluation in 1978(?) ?

Also I just read that Susan Atkins, part of the Manson 'family' responsible for Sharon Tate's murder, died of brain cancer on Sept.24.
Roman Polanski was arrested on Sept.26. Talk about coincidence!

 

[m.j.]

PARIS (Reuters) – French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand on Thursday rejected calls for his resignation for having written about paying boys for sex in Thailand, saying his partners had been consenting adults.
The revelations were made in a 2005 book by Mitterrand, "The Bad Life." They re-surfaced after Mitterrand strongly defended film-maker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland last month and faces extradition to the United States for having had sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Mitterrand described the book as "not totally autobiographical" in a television interview on Thursday and was evasive about the precise nature of his experiences in Thailand.
"A mistake, certainly, a crime, no ... because each time I was with people of my own age and who consented," Mitterrand said, adding that he had no intention to resign.
"In no way is it an apology of sex tourism ... even if one of the chapters is a journey through that hell, with the fascination that hell can provoke," said Mitterrand. Throughout the TF1 interview, he referred to his partners as "boys."
Politicians from all parties have criticized Mitterrand for his attack on the United States, which he said had shown a "frightening" face by pursuing Polanski after so long. The far-right National Front party has called for him to step down.
But in the interview, Mitterrand said French President Nicolas Sarkozy had expressed his support for him.
The affair appeared to have provoked a split in the government, with Labor Minister Xavier Darcos saying Mitterrand needed to explain his behavior, and Sarkozy adviser Henri Guaino defending the minister.
Guaino called the debate excessive and undignified. Asked whether Mitterrand should resign, Guaino said on France 2 television: "When there is a controversy as pathetic as this, with so much delay, I don't think there should be such drastic consequences."
Guaino said there were no facts to back up the accusations and Mitterrand had not been subject to any legal complaints.
But Darcos asked for an explanation.
"There is no judge after him, nobody is pressing charges, he is being criticized for his personal behavior, moral behavior," Darcos said on France Inter radio.
"STATE OF DESIRE"
The experiences in the book are presented as a mixture of straight autobiography and more dreamlike reflection.
"I got into the habit of paying for boys," Mitterrand wrote, adding that his attraction to young male prostitutes continued even though he knew "the sordid details of this traffic."
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Mitterrand is the nephew of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand and was drafted into Sarkozy's center-right cabinet in June.

Although he was not a Socialist, his surname still reverberates in France and carries a lot of clout. Sarkozy was delighted to have brought him on board, but now faces unease within his own UMP party over his choice of minister.
France considers itself to be at the forefront of the fight against sex tourism but Guaino said Mitterrand would not compromise this position.
"I have not heard Frederic Mitterrand say anything against France's position of fighting sex tourism," Guaino said.
Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said Mitterrand was respected for his competence in the role of culture minister. Although still openly siding with Polanski, Mitterrand has toned down his language, saying his emotions overtook him the day he heard that Switzerland had arrested the film director.

news.yahoo

this isn't related to the case directly, but i was shocked when i read it...

 

[m.j.]

What a heated debate!

it's not hate, just various emotions getting on the way... i think all of us spoke from our hearts.

 

[Danhat Ward]

it's not hate, just various emotions getting on the way... i think all of us spoke from our hearts.

Emotions should have nothing to do with the facts that clearly show that he raped the girl. You don't have to be a genius to understand that Polanski is guilty.
Their is only black and white in this case and only one bad guy.
How Hollywood takes sides with a r*pist is a slap in the face of all victims of sexual assault.

 

[m.j.]

Emotions should have nothing to do with the facts that clearly show that he raped the girl. You don't have to be a genius to understand that Polanski is guilty.
Their is only black and white in this case and only one bad guy.
How Hollywood takes sides with a r*pist is a slap in the face of all victims of sexual assault.

that's not true, nothing is black and white when it comes to this.... all my friends belive that he's either not quilty or that he's to old to do the time now, not cos he's famous but cos in serbia and in some other euro countries, this would legaly be an 'old' case.
i grew up watching his movies, reading about his life, watching movies about sharon tate's murder, and i consider him the only director that can make a movie that can be better than reading certain book (if u understand the comparation). i am torn. but that is no reason to hate me, or to quote anything i write here. i could easily not write a thing, not visit the thread, but as i said i am torn. don't judge me.

 

[Danhat Ward]

that's not true, nothing is black and white when it comes to this.... all my friends belive that he's either not quilty or that he's to old to do the time now, not cos he's famous but cos in serbia and in some other euro countries, this would legaly be an 'old' case.
i grew up watching his movies, reading about his life, watching movies about sharon tate's murder, and i consider him the only director that can make a movie that can be better than reading certain book (if u understand the comparation). i am torn. but that is no reason to hate me, or to quote anything i write here. i could easily not write a thing, not visit the thread, but as i said i am torn. don't judge me.

I'm not hating you or judge you (believe me, I have way more important stuff to do in my life), I'm just stating my thoughts. There's no need to be sensitive because when you defend a r*pist you have to expect people to react to that.

I couldn't care less if his films are brilliant because it has nothing to do with r*ping a 13 year old. His whole life before and after the r*pe has nothing to do with it. And I also couldn't care less about laws in other countries because we are talking about the US.

Even all the Hollywood people that defend him don't say that he is innocent and I think that says it all. They all accept the fact that he raped that girl.
He raped her and that's why it's black and white for me.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Just wanted to point out (from earlier this page) that the words heated and hate are unrelated